how do we classify a weapon tourist,origin,time period ?

A. G. Maisey · 25th July 2015, 10:44 PM

Just a brief comment, and my opinion only, which means that I understand that it could be subject to much disagreement.

In respect of any item, and this does not mean only weaponry:-

1) identify culture of origin

2) identify society and sub-society of origin

3) identify origin in time

4) gain an understanding of the place of the item within the culture, society, sub-society at the time of origin of the specific item, and of its type.

ward · 25th July 2015, 11:09 PM

Those statements are a little harder to do than stated. Let us take Africa. You have a continent that was divided up into countries that had little to do with the local cultures or tribes of the area. So is it a better idea to say that a item is berber, turaq,arab, etc.etc.

Should we start identifying pieces as 50% 17th century,25% 19th century, the rest 20th century.

Should we start using words like ottoman influenced, Russian influenced.

Maybe we should also look at how late earlier technology was still being used.

Identifying a piece is more a educated guess than anything. How much education is the question.

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2015, 08:28 AM

Yes Ward, serious study in any field is never easy. I agree completely. We can just collect for the fun of it, and accumulate a nice lot vaguely identified objects --- nothing wrong with this, it can be good fun --- or we can dedicate a significant part of our life to the serious investigation of an object or objects.

They say that an expert is somebody who knows more and more about less and less, so you take your pick:- try to become an expert, or have fun and be an accumulator.

One is no better than the other, it is simply an expression of personality and level of interest as to what one chooses to become.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th July 2015, 10:34 AM

:-) The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know :-)

Good topic but not an easy one.

When it comes to Indian swords you can get them with many different kind of blades. Like a tulwar hilted sword with shamshir blade - is that a shamshir, is it a tulwar or is it maybe a tulwar with a shamshir blade?
The blade could be Indian made, or it could be from Persia - would that make a difference?
No one would dispute that a tulwar hilted sword with a relatively broad slightly curved blade with a ricasso is a tulwar. So is it the hilt that makes it a tulwar?

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2015, 01:32 PM

Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as?

The actual naming of objects is not something that interests me particularly, but if we do wish to affix names, then to my way of thinking, we need to try follow the lead of the owners of the object, which means what was the name at time and place of origin?

If this cannot be done, what is the current naming convention within the relevant culture and/or society?

ward · 26th July 2015, 03:11 PM

tulwar, talwar, I think should be identified by the hilt. The blades are so interchangeable that it would be difficult to identify otherwise. The same with pulwars ,palwars.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th July 2015, 04:11 PM

To use the names used in India could be a bit problematic - so I will say, yes and no.
The same weapon is called different names, depending from where in India they are used, and in order not to confuse too many collectors, I think we should used the same name for a weapon.

So I am with Ward, and find the best way to describe the difference is to write - a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or a tulwar with an Indian blade/tulwar blade, knowing that shamshir blades were also made in India.
Another example could be a jamdahar - or as we use to calle it a katar. It would no doubt be problematic if we changed the name now, although many are familiar with jamdahar.

RobertGuy · 17th September 2015, 02:59 PM

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as?

I agree in theory but sometimes this can lead to more confusion. Often the local name for a particular type of sword just translates as sword, katana is a long sword, claymore is a great sword or big sword. When you say claymore do you refer to a medieval two hander, a basket hilted broad sword, a basket hilted back sword, or a sword like object that Scotts lassies dance around?

This is what makes collecting and researching such fun. Of course you could stick to collecting European military swords of the 18th -20th centuries with their clear official pattern numbers ... unless you count variant blades

Tim Simmons · 17th September 2015, 05:24 PM

This is a very interesting thread. Tribal people might make a weapon from local and found foreign pieces. it is still an "ethnic weapon" also tools can be weapons. Many battles when the peasants where sent in they would most likely fight with tool like weapon {spades, forks so on}.

This is a difficult area especially when it comes to trade. It is so easy for a vendor or buyer to say this or that is not right. However knowledge {culture, history, technique and region influences} and searching for real examples should make it easier to spot the cobbled together fake pieces. Anything off standard is always open to blinkered questioning which is a shame. On the over hand it can mean good piece for those on more limited means.

25th July 2015, 10:44 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Just a brief comment, and my opinion only, which means that I understand that it could be subject to much disagreement. In respect of any item, and this does not mean only weaponry:- 1) identify culture of origin 2) identify society and sub-society of origin 3) identify origin in time 4) gain an understanding of the place of the item within the culture, society, sub-society at the time of origin of the specific item, and of its type.

25th July 2015, 11:09 PM	#2
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Those statements are a little harder to do than stated. Let us take Africa. You have a continent that was divided up into countries that had little to do with the local cultures or tribes of the area. So is it a better idea to say that a item is berber, turaq,arab, etc.etc. Should we start identifying pieces as 50% 17th century,25% 19th century, the rest 20th century. Should we start using words like ottoman influenced, Russian influenced. Maybe we should also look at how late earlier technology was still being used. Identifying a piece is more a educated guess than anything. How much education is the question.

26th July 2015, 08:28 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Yes Ward, serious study in any field is never easy. I agree completely. We can just collect for the fun of it, and accumulate a nice lot vaguely identified objects --- nothing wrong with this, it can be good fun --- or we can dedicate a significant part of our life to the serious investigation of an object or objects. They say that an expert is somebody who knows more and more about less and less, so you take your pick:- try to become an expert, or have fun and be an accumulator. One is no better than the other, it is simply an expression of personality and level of interest as to what one chooses to become.

26th July 2015, 10:34 AM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	:-) The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know :-) Good topic but not an easy one. When it comes to Indian swords you can get them with many different kind of blades. Like a tulwar hilted sword with shamshir blade - is that a shamshir, is it a tulwar or is it maybe a tulwar with a shamshir blade? The blade could be Indian made, or it could be from Persia - would that make a difference? No one would dispute that a tulwar hilted sword with a relatively broad slightly curved blade with a ricasso is a tulwar. So is it the hilt that makes it a tulwar?

26th July 2015, 01:32 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as? The actual naming of objects is not something that interests me particularly, but if we do wish to affix names, then to my way of thinking, we need to try follow the lead of the owners of the object, which means what was the name at time and place of origin? If this cannot be done, what is the current naming convention within the relevant culture and/or society?

26th July 2015, 03:11 PM	#6
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	tulwar, talwar, I think should be identified by the hilt. The blades are so interchangeable that it would be difficult to identify otherwise. The same with pulwars ,palwars.

26th July 2015, 04:11 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	To use the names used in India could be a bit problematic - so I will say, yes and no. The same weapon is called different names, depending from where in India they are used, and in order not to confuse too many collectors, I think we should used the same name for a weapon. So I am with Ward, and find the best way to describe the difference is to write - a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or a tulwar with an Indian blade/tulwar blade, knowing that shamshir blades were also made in India. Another example could be a jamdahar - or as we use to calle it a katar. It would no doubt be problematic if we changed the name now, although many are familiar with jamdahar.

17th September 2015, 02:59 PM	#8
RobertGuy Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 135	[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as? I agree in theory but sometimes this can lead to more confusion. Often the local name for a particular type of sword just translates as sword, katana is a long sword, claymore is a great sword or big sword. When you say claymore do you refer to a medieval two hander, a basket hilted broad sword, a basket hilted back sword, or a sword like object that Scotts lassies dance around? This is what makes collecting and researching such fun. Of course you could stick to collecting European military swords of the 18th -20th centuries with their clear official pattern numbers ... unless you count variant blades

17th September 2015, 05:24 PM	#9
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,842	This is a very interesting thread. Tribal people might make a weapon from local and found foreign pieces. it is still an "ethnic weapon" also tools can be weapons. Many battles when the peasants where sent in they would most likely fight with tool like weapon {spades, forks so on}. This is a difficult area especially when it comes to trade. It is so easy for a vendor or buyer to say this or that is not right. However knowledge {culture, history, technique and region influences} and searching for real examples should make it easier to spot the cobbled together fake pieces. Anything off standard is always open to blinkered questioning which is a shame. On the over hand it can mean good piece for those on more limited means.