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

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.

A. G. Maisey · 27th July 2015, 02:00 PM

Actually Jens, there is a very well established system of classification that is used with keris, but it is virtually useless unless one is able to adopt a Javanese frame of reference.

I do agree, that in discussion of weapons, or for that matter, any physical object, good photographs and relevant data are second only to the presence of the item under discussion.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th July 2015, 04:17 PM

Do you know the keris' Holstein shows in his book/s?
If not I can show them on the Keries forum.

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'

..

A. G. Maisey · 28th July 2015, 12:13 AM

Jens, no, I have not seen this book.

Fernando, yes, by the 16th century the form of the modern keris was well established. I have examined and photographed a lot of the very earliest keris to enter Europe, and most of these keris are indistinguishable in style from much later keris.

The problem with naming comes from references in old literature.

The Portugese visitors would have been using Malay, which was and still is, the trade lingua franca of SE Asia. Malay is basically the same as Bahasa Indonesia.

However, the indigenous people of Jawa communicated in Javanese, which at that time was still Old Javanese, not Modern Javanese.

Modern Javanese, beginning about the first half of the 17th century began its development to being a strongly hierarchically structured language with multiple levels, in some applications up to at least 11 levels, although in common usage only two or three levels are consistently used. This development seems to have begun under the Central Javanese rulers of Mataram.

In Old Javanese it seems that although the language used hierarchical levels, these were not nearly so developed as they became in Modern Javanese.

So, when we read something like the Nawanatya, composed to be read in the Majapahit court, we really do have problems in understanding exactly what weapons were being used in certain situations, according to our 20th-21st century understandings.

For instance, the text:"--- a gilded steel keris---" actually reads "--- twek melela hinemasan---", "twek" is "tewek", so tewek gets translated as "keris", because it seems logical to translate it as this, but we do not really know if this is correct.

I am not a linguist, but it seems that the problems of understanding that I have in this respect were also experienced by some of the greatest Javanologists and linguists of the 19th-20th centuries.

If we go back to Chinese sources there is well known passage from the Ying-yai Sheng-lan (1416), where the king carries a couple of short daggers called pu-lak. Invariably pu-lak gets translated as "keris", but again, the Chinese would have been communicating in Malay, and probably used a corrupted word picked up from an earlier Malay contact. But we're happy to believe they were talking about keris, because it seems logical that they were.

Believe me Fernando, the deeper you get into the investigation and analysis of keris history and development, the more complex and confusing it becomes.

I may be incorrect, but I believe that any deep research into the artifacts of other foreign cultures will provide similar problems.

fearn · 28th July 2015, 01:20 AM

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "grandfather's ax" paradox (aka the Ship of Theseus paradox). If grandfather's ax has had it's handle changed three times and its head twice, is it still the same ax? If you prefer the classical version, Theseus' ship had every plank, mast, and fitting replaced over the course of its voyage. Is it the same ship?

F

Ian · 28th July 2015, 05:53 AM

Fearn:

In the two examples you cite, I would submit that the paradox is only a paradox when the item is altered after the original (descriptive) owner has passed it on to someone else.

If grandfather loses his axe and buys a new one, the second axe is again grandfather's axe because it is owned by grandfather. If grandfather replaces the handle or axe head, the renovated axe is still grandfather's axe (just different from before). The same for Theseus' ship; no matter how many parts may have changed or been replaced, as long as Theseus was still the master of that ship it remained Theseus' ship.

The paradox arises when the axe that once was grandfather's is passed on to someone else. How much change can a new owner make to it before it is no longer grandfather's axe?

Consider the following situations:

Can the handle be shortened and it still remain grandfather's axe? I would say yes, because it can still be used as an axe and it retains almost all of the original item.

Can the handle be removed and it still remain grandfather's axe? I would say yes, because it can be restored with a new handle to function just as grandfather's axe did AND the business end of the axe (its head) is still from grandfather's axe.

Can the head be replaced on the handle of grandfather's axe and it still be grandfather's axe? I would say no, because the functional piece that defines an axe (its head) is no longer from grandfather's original axe.

The paradox resolves to the question of what are the essential elements that define the object in question once its descriptive ownership is terminated. In the case of grandfather's axe, I maintain it is his axe head.

Ian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "grandfather's ax" paradox (aka the Ship of Theseus paradox). If grandfather's ax has had it's handle changed three times and its head twice, is it still the same ax? If you prefer the classical version, Theseus' ship had every plank, mast, and fitting replaced over the course of its voyage. Is it the same ship?

F

26th July 2015, 03:11 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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	#4
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.

27th July 2015, 02:00 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Actually Jens, there is a very well established system of classification that is used with keris, but it is virtually useless unless one is able to adopt a Javanese frame of reference. I do agree, that in discussion of weapons, or for that matter, any physical object, good photographs and relevant data are second only to the presence of the item under discussion.

27th July 2015, 04:17 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Do you know the keris' Holstein shows in his book/s? If not I can show them on the Keries forum.

28th July 2015, 12:13 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Jens, no, I have not seen this book. Fernando, yes, by the 16th century the form of the modern keris was well established. I have examined and photographed a lot of the very earliest keris to enter Europe, and most of these keris are indistinguishable in style from much later keris. The problem with naming comes from references in old literature. The Portugese visitors would have been using Malay, which was and still is, the trade lingua franca of SE Asia. Malay is basically the same as Bahasa Indonesia. However, the indigenous people of Jawa communicated in Javanese, which at that time was still Old Javanese, not Modern Javanese. Modern Javanese, beginning about the first half of the 17th century began its development to being a strongly hierarchically structured language with multiple levels, in some applications up to at least 11 levels, although in common usage only two or three levels are consistently used. This development seems to have begun under the Central Javanese rulers of Mataram. In Old Javanese it seems that although the language used hierarchical levels, these were not nearly so developed as they became in Modern Javanese. So, when we read something like the Nawanatya, composed to be read in the Majapahit court, we really do have problems in understanding exactly what weapons were being used in certain situations, according to our 20th-21st century understandings. For instance, the text:"--- a gilded steel keris---" actually reads "--- twek melela hinemasan---", "twek" is "tewek", so tewek gets translated as "keris", because it seems logical to translate it as this, but we do not really know if this is correct. I am not a linguist, but it seems that the problems of understanding that I have in this respect were also experienced by some of the greatest Javanologists and linguists of the 19th-20th centuries. If we go back to Chinese sources there is well known passage from the Ying-yai Sheng-lan (1416), where the king carries a couple of short daggers called pu-lak. Invariably pu-lak gets translated as "keris", but again, the Chinese would have been communicating in Malay, and probably used a corrupted word picked up from an earlier Malay contact. But we're happy to believe they were talking about keris, because it seems logical that they were. Believe me Fernando, the deeper you get into the investigation and analysis of keris history and development, the more complex and confusing it becomes. I may be incorrect, but I believe that any deep research into the artifacts of other foreign cultures will provide similar problems.

28th July 2015, 01:20 AM	#9
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "grandfather's ax" paradox (aka the Ship of Theseus paradox). If grandfather's ax has had it's handle changed three times and its head twice, is it still the same ax? If you prefer the classical version, Theseus' ship had every plank, mast, and fitting replaced over the course of its voyage. Is it the same ship? F