|
|
|
30th March 2016, 02:13 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,906
|
Quote:
Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?! Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?! For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules. And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 30th March 2016 at 02:49 PM. |
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 04:54 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.
Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-) One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles). Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet. Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle. Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles. And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles. On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade. And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud" mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle. I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-))) |
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 05:19 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,906
|
Quote:
 PS: I interposed some comments to your examples, in your posting. |
|
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 05:58 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
Quote:
In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type. It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put. Your statement does however seem perplexing as I am wondering how the dilemma of 'absolute truth' can be arrived at in discussing an entirely subjective phenomenon which is inherently varied through so many variables and circumstances. I am in accord with your observation, 'discussing' does provide opportunities for learning , but would add as long as the participants are willing to keep open minds in evaluating exchanged data and views. Often only elements of one presentation might present acceptable alternative, while others might be more comprehensive with proper support. When dealing with opinions it becomes far more difficult, especially when regard for others engaged is less than pertinent. I would offer here the words of Mr. Philip Rawson, who you might find as of standing as an acceptable authority, "...with regard to the names here adopted for the different types of sword it must be said at once that they are to a large extent ARBITRARY. There prevails amongst ALL the authorities such an extraordinary confusion of nomenclature that I have been obliged to adopt a system based on a rough statistical estimate of the frequency of recorded applications. Some of the names could be said to mean 'sword' in general, if regard were paid to their every occurrence." Here Rawson further notes that due to the fact that hilts are "...classified on basis of local distribution", therefore he uses the blades primarily in his classification. "The Indian Sword", Philip Rawson, Copenhagen, 1967, p.vi. intro. G,N. Pant in his "Indian Arms and Armour", Lahore, 1980, differs entirely with Rawson and notes numerous conflicts in terms etc. most notably using hilts to determine his classifications and terminology . So it is throughout the corpus of literature on Indian arms as well as with similar confusion (as well noted by Rawson, op.cit) on many if not most ethnographic forms. Some weapons have many terms applied. I recall working on Indonesian weapon terminology, and was told by a well known author that in many cases the 'name of a weapon varied almost by villages. In my post (#13), I noted the key words, 'it depends'....... and it seems that most authorities and seasoned collectors and scholars would agree, to the point of consensus, that this is the case with terminology.....there are no 'rules' which may be considered definitive. Perhaps while holding to your own definitions, you might recognize that this dilemma is something most of us who have been studying these subjects many years well realize, and use qualifying measures rather than restrictive to refer to items in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 06:45 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,906
|
Quote:
However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way. Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt.  Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it...  After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation... But this doesn't mean we should stop trying! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 09:29 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,215
|
Quote:
the classic example is the spanish 'falcata', a made-up name from the mid 19c used by a historian to differentiate it from the classic greek kopis, which it was a variant used in greek colonies, of course. the name stuck and we are stuck with it now too. a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... |
|
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 09:31 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 1,340
|
Quote:
(PS: the locals are right... Until you find out they use modern terms) |
|
|
|
|
|
30th March 2016, 10:21 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
Quote:
Well that explains a lot, you are a mechanical engineer! and clearly your world does rely on pretty much rigid rules and axioms as deviations would produce I am sure often undesirable if not disastrous results. In the more literary subjectivity of terms used descriptively, there is a wide berth for the application of names for things which again, I noted as very much depending on the circumstances. I must admit feeling a bit of frustration at times over the many years of researching arms when I could not really put an item in one box or another in classification. Even Oakeshott, who was a foremost arms historian known for his classifications of medieval swords spoke anxiously on how often a type so and so though superceded by the next type was often clouded into its previous as well as following type as the forms were maintained longer in certain areas. Again, it comes down to describing an item as best as you can, with the most apparent designator accompanied by any mitigating or variant possibilities . It is not always neat or concise, but any responsible cataloguer or scholar will do so to avoid misperception or misrepresentation. As most here know, I am seldom shy about using extra words, and often I do so to avoid just those kinds of misunderstanding, as well as trying to be as accurate as possible in what I try to describe. Actually I rather like learning more on the various terms used in descriptions for certain items and collect that data as part of the history of each form. These instances are often intriguing stories in their own right. That however is the historian in me, while clearly maddening to those more analytical or involved in typology and classification. Knonckew, thank you for that bit of information on the falcata! I did not know this, and that is pretty interesting !!! These are the kinds of things I am talking about. You are right on the fact that we indeed should always endeavor to keep learning, as we always say, more research to follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
31st March 2016, 01:44 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Amusingly, an almost identical argument is conducted as we speak in the thread
"Default Kalis / Kris / Keris Sundang / Solot / Sulok / Suluk" The same ethnic variability of names, the same overlays of European terminology, the same confusions in spelling/ transliteration , the same firmly held beliefs... :-))) There are two major schools of Classical Latin in Russia, Moscow and St. Petersburg, and for a couple of centuries they are conducting vicious warfare about proper pronunciation of letter "c" in certain words: as "ts" or as "k". Since native speakers of Roman Latin have all joined the Choire Invisible two millennia ago, final resolution of that momentous clash of the titans is not in the cards in any foreseeable future. Come to think of it, our arguments are not that much different:-) However, if we stop being obstinate and open our eyes and ears to the arguments of our opponents, this game becomes a lot of fun and we can learn, - not a whole lot, - at least something new. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
