Translation of Indian blade inscription

Emanuel · 28th February 2012, 02:07 AM

Hello Alan,

A friend's father identified the script as indeed being Kannada. The translation is attached.

First picture (top)

Quote:

I think this is in Kannada. It says: “Choo Ra Sam. 47” (Here abbreviated ‘Sam’ stands for ‘Samvatsar’ or year. ‘Choo Ra’ could be name ‘Shoora’ ( or valiant person)

Second picture (bottom) writing is oriented upside down

Quote:

See this picture through a mirror. Now it looks as below. (I rotated the picture clockwise 360 degree)

In Kannada it reads as follows:
“Shri Krishna Sam. 1163” (Shri Krishna Samvatsar 1163) (or Sri Krishna. Year 1163)

PS: I am not 100% sure whether my interpretation is correct.

The "choo ra" mention is interesting. We use this name for the smaller variant of these pesh-kabz/karud type daggers, but we've heard that this word is not used locally used. Perhaps the name was derived by some early collector from a similar inscription.

Regards,
Emanuel

A. G. Maisey · 28th February 2012, 02:29 AM

I thank you most sincerely for the time and effort you have taken in providing this translation, Emanuel, and I offer my friend's thanks on his behalf.

Do we know what the year is in our calendar?

Emanuel · 28th February 2012, 02:46 AM

My pleasure Alan.

1163 in the Malayalam calendar seems to correspond to 1988 Gregorian

If correct, then either the inscription is a later addition to the blade, or the whole thing is of recent manufacture - not unlikely.

A. G. Maisey · 28th February 2012, 09:34 AM

Again I thank you Emanuel, however, I feel there may be some degree of error in the dating.

As I said, I know this dagger. In fact I know it very well, until a few years go it belonged to me, before me it belonged to my grandfather, and he purchased it before 1920, on the way home from WWI.

It is a genuinely old dagger, and has been in Australia since before 1920, so I rather think the dating may be just a little bit off the mark.

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2012, 06:33 PM

I must add my own perspective on the apparant source of contention here, as I was the one who initiated the thread 'requesting' that when asking for translation assistance, the entire weapon be shown along with the detail showing the inscription or characters to be assessed.
The reason for this is that, as Jens has well noted, the context in which the inscription appears indeed does very much often carry important clues which relate to translation of inscriptions.

In many cases this more comprehensive information offers those who are working at assisting with what sometimes, actually often, can be be extremely esoteric material. It is distinctly a courtesy to assist those one is calling upon to offer them all help possible as well. I was once scolded severely by a very well known academic figure in an extremely prestigious institution when I asked him for help identifying an unusual sword, and was ill advised by a colleague not to tell him about what research I had already completed so as not to set preconceived notions in his response. This was not only foolish advice but profoundly discourteous, and when I inadvertantly noted my previous research in subsequent communication he pretty much exploded, and noted my omission had cost him many extra hours of precious time.

We openly offer assistance here in our goal of sharing information and learning together, in order to advance the study of these weapons and preserve thier history. To omit the context of sometimes important detail in inscriptions found on these weapons denies the members and readers the opportunity to learn in many cases. This is particularly true with ethnographic weapons, as obviously the nature of the weapon carrying the inscription can often have distinct bearing.
For example, in this case the weapon is described as a 'pesh kabz' which is a dagger typically known to be indiginous to the northern regions in India. Here the inscription appears to be in a southern language, whether Kannada or associated dialect, and tells us that the diffusion of these was indeed that far south. Obviously we already know this is the case, as with many Indian weapon forms, but it not only bolsters the support for this case, but can sometimes even identify regional attribution and important date establishing the period for the weapons presence there.

I will say that I often find it disagreeable when someone posts a weapon, in a 'here it is' kind of post with simply photos and cursory note on its type, mostly a thread title. If one has a weapon to inquire on, it does seem reasonable that as weapons collectors, one usually has books or references and would as a matter of simple curiosity at least tried to discover what the weapon is. I have the utmost regard for the majority who do post here and follow that process, as well as including the information at hand thus far and actually composing a well founded query. Since these are discussion forums, I consider laconic and presumptive blurbs less than helpful and in degree discourteous, as if those to whom the query is directed are not worthy of the requestors 'valuable' time. I consider everyone who posts here, and follows these simple elements of courtesy more than worth the many and countless hours I spend researching in order to respond in any way I can.

Thats what its about guys, courtesy and respect, two words I try very much to live by. Having said that, I would like to say that, on a different subject, the apparant misunderstanding here between Jens and Alan is more a result of interpretation of the situation at hand, and as often the case, the unfortunate lack of qualifying demeanor which is often a factor in todays computer oriented interchange. These two gentlemen are among the most highly respected members here, and I commend them both for the impressive and gentlemanly discourse they have observed in handling this misunderstanding.

Also, Chris and Emanuel, thank you both for the outstanding assistance with this translation and excellent participation. Well done everybody!!!!

Very best regards,
Jim

A. G. Maisey · 28th February 2012, 09:18 PM

Jim, I understand exactly what you are saying, and I do agree that it is always desirable that a photo of a complete piece is provided, along with a detail of the piece. Most especially in a context where most of the people viewing this particular site have a dedicated interest in weapons, rather than scripts.

This is the reason I lodged my apology with the original question, and according to my own standards of acceptable behaviour, no more should have been said in this respect.

Gentlemen do not question one another's apologies.

I asked a very simple question, on behalf of another person.

That question involved text.

If the text could be read, an answer would have been appreciated.

It appears that it may be able to be understood to some degree, but not read. This is not a problem, and is something I myself encounter quite frequently in my own field of knowledge. The people who placed script on weapons were never likely to be scribes.

I know two people with the ability to read old scripts. One has the ability to read old Chinese scripts, the other has the ability to read old Cyrillic scripts. The gentleman who can read old Chinese scripts is a research fellow at a Chinese university. Neither of these people need any knowledge of the object upon which the script is placed, to be able read it. Either they can read it, or they cannot.

Again, using my own field of expertise as a reference, I will say this:- neither I, nor anybody else I know who has some ability to read old Indonesian scripts needs a complete weapon to assist them to read the script:- either they can read it, or they cannot, whether it be on a weapon, a mirror, a cup, or a piece of paper.

The query I lodged was strictly relevant to the script, it had nothing whatsoever to do the object upon which that script was placed.

As I have said:- this was a very simple question, however, the answer to this simple question has proven to be rather obscure.

As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. I thank all those who have attempted to assist in this matter, and I will advise my friend that notwithstanding the very best efforts of a number of knowledgeable people, the meaning of this script is still open to some degree of question.

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2012, 11:53 PM

Thanks Alan, all points well taken.

Jim

28th February 2012, 06:33 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	I must add my own perspective on the apparant source of contention here, as I was the one who initiated the thread 'requesting' that when asking for translation assistance, the entire weapon be shown along with the detail showing the inscription or characters to be assessed. The reason for this is that, as Jens has well noted, the context in which the inscription appears indeed does very much often carry important clues which relate to translation of inscriptions. In many cases this more comprehensive information offers those who are working at assisting with what sometimes, actually often, can be be extremely esoteric material. It is distinctly a courtesy to assist those one is calling upon to offer them all help possible as well. I was once scolded severely by a very well known academic figure in an extremely prestigious institution when I asked him for help identifying an unusual sword, and was ill advised by a colleague not to tell him about what research I had already completed so as not to set preconceived notions in his response. This was not only foolish advice but profoundly discourteous, and when I inadvertantly noted my previous research in subsequent communication he pretty much exploded, and noted my omission had cost him many extra hours of precious time. We openly offer assistance here in our goal of sharing information and learning together, in order to advance the study of these weapons and preserve thier history. To omit the context of sometimes important detail in inscriptions found on these weapons denies the members and readers the opportunity to learn in many cases. This is particularly true with ethnographic weapons, as obviously the nature of the weapon carrying the inscription can often have distinct bearing. For example, in this case the weapon is described as a 'pesh kabz' which is a dagger typically known to be indiginous to the northern regions in India. Here the inscription appears to be in a southern language, whether Kannada or associated dialect, and tells us that the diffusion of these was indeed that far south. Obviously we already know this is the case, as with many Indian weapon forms, but it not only bolsters the support for this case, but can sometimes even identify regional attribution and important date establishing the period for the weapons presence there. I will say that I often find it disagreeable when someone posts a weapon, in a 'here it is' kind of post with simply photos and cursory note on its type, mostly a thread title. If one has a weapon to inquire on, it does seem reasonable that as weapons collectors, one usually has books or references and would as a matter of simple curiosity at least tried to discover what the weapon is. I have the utmost regard for the majority who do post here and follow that process, as well as including the information at hand thus far and actually composing a well founded query. Since these are discussion forums, I consider laconic and presumptive blurbs less than helpful and in degree discourteous, as if those to whom the query is directed are not worthy of the requestors 'valuable' time. I consider everyone who posts here, and follows these simple elements of courtesy more than worth the many and countless hours I spend researching in order to respond in any way I can. Thats what its about guys, courtesy and respect, two words I try very much to live by. Having said that, I would like to say that, on a different subject, the apparant misunderstanding here between Jens and Alan is more a result of interpretation of the situation at hand, and as often the case, the unfortunate lack of qualifying demeanor which is often a factor in todays computer oriented interchange. These two gentlemen are among the most highly respected members here, and I commend them both for the impressive and gentlemanly discourse they have observed in handling this misunderstanding. Also, Chris and Emanuel, thank you both for the outstanding assistance with this translation and excellent participation. Well done everybody!!!! Very best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 28th February 2012 at 08:55 PM.

28th February 2012, 02:29 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I thank you most sincerely for the time and effort you have taken in providing this translation, Emanuel, and I offer my friend's thanks on his behalf. Do we know what the year is in our calendar?

28th February 2012, 02:46 AM	#3
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	My pleasure Alan. 1163 in the Malayalam calendar seems to correspond to 1988 Gregorian If correct, then either the inscription is a later addition to the blade, or the whole thing is of recent manufacture - not unlikely.

28th February 2012, 09:34 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Again I thank you Emanuel, however, I feel there may be some degree of error in the dating. As I said, I know this dagger. In fact I know it very well, until a few years go it belonged to me, before me it belonged to my grandfather, and he purchased it before 1920, on the way home from WWI. It is a genuinely old dagger, and has been in Australia since before 1920, so I rather think the dating may be just a little bit off the mark.

28th February 2012, 09:18 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Jim, I understand exactly what you are saying, and I do agree that it is always desirable that a photo of a complete piece is provided, along with a detail of the piece. Most especially in a context where most of the people viewing this particular site have a dedicated interest in weapons, rather than scripts. This is the reason I lodged my apology with the original question, and according to my own standards of acceptable behaviour, no more should have been said in this respect. Gentlemen do not question one another's apologies. I asked a very simple question, on behalf of another person. That question involved text. If the text could be read, an answer would have been appreciated. It appears that it may be able to be understood to some degree, but not read. This is not a problem, and is something I myself encounter quite frequently in my own field of knowledge. The people who placed script on weapons were never likely to be scribes. I know two people with the ability to read old scripts. One has the ability to read old Chinese scripts, the other has the ability to read old Cyrillic scripts. The gentleman who can read old Chinese scripts is a research fellow at a Chinese university. Neither of these people need any knowledge of the object upon which the script is placed, to be able read it. Either they can read it, or they cannot. Again, using my own field of expertise as a reference, I will say this:- neither I, nor anybody else I know who has some ability to read old Indonesian scripts needs a complete weapon to assist them to read the script:- either they can read it, or they cannot, whether it be on a weapon, a mirror, a cup, or a piece of paper. The query I lodged was strictly relevant to the script, it had nothing whatsoever to do the object upon which that script was placed. As I have said:- this was a very simple question, however, the answer to this simple question has proven to be rather obscure. As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. I thank all those who have attempted to assist in this matter, and I will advise my friend that notwithstanding the very best efforts of a number of knowledgeable people, the meaning of this script is still open to some degree of question.

28th February 2012, 11:53 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	Thanks Alan, all points well taken. Jim