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

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.

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2015, 11:47 PM

Jens, what you have written about variation in names in the cultures and societies from which objects originate is something that is very familiar to me, as it is precisely the situation that applies in my own field, the Javanese keris.

The name of what we now call a keris in normal, colloquial speech varies at the present time depending upon the level of language being used, and the use to which the keris is being put --- and that's only in Javanese. In the languages of other keris bearing societies the name changes yet again.

But the common name, world-wide, is keris, even though spellings can vary:- kris, creese, cris --- probably a few more variations that I cannot readily recall.

If we look at the archaic Javanese literature, we find that it is virtually impossible to know when the keris as we now know it, is being referred to. Yes, the word keris can be found, but we don't know if that word refers to the keris as we know it.

Also appearing in the old literature, in contexts that seem to indicate that a keris is being referred to are other words. Amongst these other words are two words that are perhaps the best candidates for our present understanding of what is meant by "keris". These words are "tewek" and "tuhuk".

But then we encounter a bump in the road, because "tewek" seems to be used in a way that indicates strong, downward stabs, and/or repeated stabs, whilst "tuhuk" seems to indicate a slower execution, or a single execution, of the blow. Possibly the two words could be used to refer to the same weapon, but used in two different ways.

The word "keris" can be understood to indicate a slicing motion.

Then we have the word "curiga" which is another word used to refer to a keris, and "curiga" implies something that is not particularly sharp.

So, with all these words to choose from that can be used to refer to essentially the same object, what is the correct word to use? Well, the owners of the society of origin of the object use the word "keris" in colloquial speech and only use other words when they are speaking formally, and using higher levels of speech.

In the world community outside the keris bearing societies of SE Asia, keris is the universally recognised word that is used. In fact, as "kris" and "creese" the word has even entered the English language (Oxford).

Since the purpose of language is transfer an idea from one person's mind, into the mind of another person, then the word that we use to transfer that idea should be a word that the other person will understand, so when I'm trying to communicate with another person who is unlikely to know all the words that can be used to refer to a keris, I use the word "keris". But if I am communicating with a Javanese person I may use an entirely different word, and if I am discussing something in the archaic literature of Jawa I may use another word again.

So the choice of a descriptor can, and perhaps should vary according to the context in which it is used --- but we cannot do that unless we apply the guidelines that I suggested in my earlier post.

I am only using my own particular field as an example here, but I would be surprised is similar problems with affixation of names did not also apply in other fields.

The above is one of the reasons why I am not particularly interested in what name is given to various objects, keris included.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th July 2015, 12:38 PM

I see what you mean, but the way the collectors are, old as new, I think it will be difficult to change.
The best to do when it comes to discussing weapons is, to provide good pictures, and a good description.

With the keris' like with the katars, there are so many variations that a classification will be more than difficult - unless it is a very rough one.

fernando · 27th July 2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...If we look at the archaic Javanese literature, we find that it is virtually impossible to know when the keris as we now know it, is being referred to. Yes, the word keris can be found, but we don't know if that word refers to the keris as we know it...

Portuguese chroniclers of the XVI century called them cris (single) or crises (pluriel); their form being apparently (?) the same as those of nowadays.
In one citation we can read 'cris of double edge'

..

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.

26th July 2015, 08:28 AM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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	#4
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	#5
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.

26th July 2015, 11:47 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Jens, what you have written about variation in names in the cultures and societies from which objects originate is something that is very familiar to me, as it is precisely the situation that applies in my own field, the Javanese keris. The name of what we now call a keris in normal, colloquial speech varies at the present time depending upon the level of language being used, and the use to which the keris is being put --- and that's only in Javanese. In the languages of other keris bearing societies the name changes yet again. But the common name, world-wide, is keris, even though spellings can vary:- kris, creese, cris --- probably a few more variations that I cannot readily recall. If we look at the archaic Javanese literature, we find that it is virtually impossible to know when the keris as we now know it, is being referred to. Yes, the word keris can be found, but we don't know if that word refers to the keris as we know it. Also appearing in the old literature, in contexts that seem to indicate that a keris is being referred to are other words. Amongst these other words are two words that are perhaps the best candidates for our present understanding of what is meant by "keris". These words are "tewek" and "tuhuk". But then we encounter a bump in the road, because "tewek" seems to be used in a way that indicates strong, downward stabs, and/or repeated stabs, whilst "tuhuk" seems to indicate a slower execution, or a single execution, of the blow. Possibly the two words could be used to refer to the same weapon, but used in two different ways. The word "keris" can be understood to indicate a slicing motion. Then we have the word "curiga" which is another word used to refer to a keris, and "curiga" implies something that is not particularly sharp. So, with all these words to choose from that can be used to refer to essentially the same object, what is the correct word to use? Well, the owners of the society of origin of the object use the word "keris" in colloquial speech and only use other words when they are speaking formally, and using higher levels of speech. In the world community outside the keris bearing societies of SE Asia, keris is the universally recognised word that is used. In fact, as "kris" and "creese" the word has even entered the English language (Oxford). Since the purpose of language is transfer an idea from one person's mind, into the mind of another person, then the word that we use to transfer that idea should be a word that the other person will understand, so when I'm trying to communicate with another person who is unlikely to know all the words that can be used to refer to a keris, I use the word "keris". But if I am communicating with a Javanese person I may use an entirely different word, and if I am discussing something in the archaic literature of Jawa I may use another word again. So the choice of a descriptor can, and perhaps should vary according to the context in which it is used --- but we cannot do that unless we apply the guidelines that I suggested in my earlier post. I am only using my own particular field as an example here, but I would be surprised is similar problems with affixation of names did not also apply in other fields. The above is one of the reasons why I am not particularly interested in what name is given to various objects, keris included.

27th July 2015, 12:38 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I see what you mean, but the way the collectors are, old as new, I think it will be difficult to change. The best to do when it comes to discussing weapons is, to provide good pictures, and a good description. With the keris' like with the katars, there are so many variations that a classification will be more than difficult - unless it is a very rough one.

17th September 2015, 02:59 PM	#9
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	#10
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.