Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

ariel · 25th August 2017, 01:08 AM

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

A.alnakkas · 25th August 2017, 02:14 AM

The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.

fernando · 25th August 2017, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

... but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line?

A question of personal perspective, perhaps. Although semanthics may not oblige, in my whereabouts we don't take the risk of such confusion, as we make a practical safe distinction between the two. We call collector (colector) any person or device that joins things in general, taxes, pipes, you name it, and we call 'collectionner' (coleccionador) a person or entity that puts up collections of selective things for appreciation and study; resulting that we are not general stuff collectors but antique arms collectionners. No line of any thickness between both ... but an empty space.
On the other hand one can't help to think of the hoarder term without a pejorative connotation; something like (quoting a crude english speaking source, font sizes included):

Hoarder:
(Adj) A word that describes anyone that feels the need to find, collect, keep, pack ANY and EVERYTHING because they do not know how to throw things away. A nicely put word than Pack Rat.

Bob A · 25th August 2017, 05:15 PM

The difficulty in actually ascertaining the vocabulary, context and usage of "villagers" renders most discussion more or less moot, in the absence of records or actual persons who embody the reality of a past time.

Linguistic research is limited to either written records by early Europeans, who may or may not have actually encountered contemporary examples of then-current usage, or scouring "native" records, with attendant problems of transliteration and focus - those who had the skill and opportunity to write of the subject were likely viewing it from a socio-cultural position far from that of the originators of the objects in question.

Ultimately a problem may arise when the usage of scholars branches away from that used in commerce and informal collection.

I fully embrace the search for truth, while reaining aware that it may only be approached asymptotically. The past is perforce a closed book, which we may approach cautiously and carefully, or embrace with commercial vigor, with all the inaccuracy and hype that entails.

Jim McDougall · 25th August 2017, 07:22 PM

A few points,
ON THE TITLE OF THE THREAD:
The title of the thread is perhaps misaligned. Rather then 'karud' the knife that did not exist.........better .
"Karud, the term misapplied to variation of pesh kabz through phonetic misinterpretation by Europeans thus becoming a vernacular word used by collectors for this particular form"

The form DOES exist, its the term which is in question. .....what to call it.

ON THE TERM HOARDER:
The pejorative term 'hoarder' is entirely inappropriate to describe a collector, as they are typically systematic in their acquisition of the items they collect regardless of what forces drive their selections.

ON THE NATURE OF COLLECTORS:
Factors such as aesthetics, variations and forms, developmental sequences and many other individually favored features or reasons drive collectors. Hoarding is a resultant circumstance of either unconscious or unreasoned acquisition of things in volume, continued perpetually without relief or organization and often symptomatic of possible psychological issues.

I think the differences between collecting and hoarding, and the choice of use of these terms is fairly obvious.

ON THE APPLICATION OF TERMS IN CLASSIFICATION:
As we have seen through so many years of discussions here, there are so many instances of words in various cultures and languages which apply to 'edged weapons' rather indiscriminately. The analogies are many, but in so many cases, the terms for 'sword' for example often refer to 'any' sword regardless of particulars. In India, tulwar could mean the Indo-Persian we all know so well all the way to a British cavalry sabre.

The entire thesis here has to do with but one instance of a simple term for knife, kard, being misheard phonetically by non speakers of the language and misapplied to what is basically a straight bladed pesh kabz. The term kard is broadly applied, much in the same manner the term tulwar is.

Yet to us, as collectors or scholars in MANY if not MOST cases think of tulwar as the familiar disc hilt in what the west has labeled 'Indo-Persian' form.
While this appellation has existed since the 19th century (earlier perhaps in degree), the world of arms scholarship and collectors has somehow survived without dramatic reaction to the clear transcultural use of the term specific to that single form.

A similar schism as specious in nature has existed in not just ethnographic terminology on swords, but in European as well. When is a sword no longer a sword? when does a dagger become a dirk?
If a broadsword means double edged, and a single edged a backsword, why was the term broadsword used indiscriminately for both in the 18th c.

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?

Then the real beauty! Is a sword termed by the form of its blade?or like sosun patta, then classified further as Hindu or Muslim by the hilt form.
Yet swords are typically classified by hilt style, as many claim that since blades were widely traded, remounted etc. the character of the hilt is the determinate factor.
But as desperately as we have tried to regionalize the 'tulwar' hilts in India, we find that these forms were widely distributed through export from areas of production such as Rajasthan, not to mention the profound diffusion through conquest ethnically, colonially and constant flux with India's vast diversities bearing dramatic conflicts.

It seems the futility of trying to change or resolve the countless misnomers and conflicts in terminology which has become firmly emplaced in use, at this point should be powerfully apparent.

When we saw that the term 'katar' was misapplied inadvertently to the distinct dagger known linguistically in the regions of its use as 'jamadhar' (Pant, 1980) there was no strong reaction nor even the slightest effort to change the term. However, while use of the term katar remained in place to describe these daggers in common parlance, many responsible writers and scholars will FOOTNOTE the proper term originally used in India.

So it should be with KARUD, but it is to the benefit of all to be aware of the proper etymology of the term, so this valuable information is well worthy of footnote, but does not warrant an entire reapplication of classification.

ON OUR DISCUSSION HERE:
I think the most important thing we see in this remarkably dynamic discussion (or debate at points) is the impressive levels of knowledge and linguistic skills and reasoning displayed by all involved and participating here.
As always, I learn a great deal from these discussions, and wanted to say so, and thank everyone for their patience in carrying these out so constructively.

fernando · 25th August 2017, 07:56 PM

No need to thank, Jim. Patience is everyone's middle name ... and is provided on a Pro Bono basis

.

kronckew · 25th August 2017, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?
...

mine, like others i've seen, has a very slight yataghan-like recurve to the t-spine, if not the edge. they are made much like the karud knives, a.k.a. straight peshes, hence it's a knife, much like a german langemesser or grossemesser was a big knife, not a sword - because only officers and nobles could have swords, and only sword smiths could make swords for them, peasants had to make do with big knives made like knives by the lowly knife smiths. sumptuary laws, guilds, caste systems in action.

so, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows....

ariel · 26th August 2017, 02:15 PM

Jim,
Some of your questions seem to have answers. Mostly , it is a matter of ethnic origin.
Dirk ( or dork, or durk) is considered to relate to Germanic word Dolch, whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga.

Different sosun patas were all "lily leaves", i.e. sharing similar blades, not handles. The Deccani form is a Sailaba; quite likely that swords from the same group but from different localities also had specific local names, but we might have forgotten them.

Salavar ( in "Salavar yataghan") is clearly an English transcription of Selaava ( see earlier in this discussion) and "yataghan" was just added by the Brits from a very familiar to them Ottoman short sword with recurved blade ( see post by Kronkew). And BTW, are Selaava and Sailaba related?

In linguistics ethnicity is destiny: Bichwa is Baku or Vinchu, khandjar is Chhurri or Chaku in different regions (examples taken from Elgood's glossary).

And I am not talking already about Indonesian islands:-)

fernando · 26th August 2017, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

...whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga...

Maybe not so linear, if i may, Ariel.
Listen to what scholars think about this term:

- Some dictionaries say that the word "adaga" originates in hypothetical latin term "daca", which means "punhal". However this is once more an hypothetical word, which existence was never verified. Raphael Bluteau refers a possible Germanic origin (daguen) with contamintion to French (daque) towards the Italian (daga). Curiously the origin of the word may be similar to this proposal, only that the signification and the language of origin are other. Our word "adaga" must come from “ødi” [âdi], which means "adornament, embelishment", and “daku” [dake], which means killing, destroy, submit, ou de “dk” [dake], which is noble [8]. Therefore adaga comes from the expression “ødi dk” [âdidake] which will be noble's ornament, or from "addake", which will be killing adornamnent.

[8] - The form “dâku” is acadian, while the word "dk" is ugaritic. There also exist forms close from the old Hebraic. Possibly all were pronounced in a
close mode and would have similar signification.-

http://fernando-outroladodahistoria....fenicia-o.html

.

fernando · 25th August 2017, 09:42 AM

Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit.

When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system.

And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive

.

mariusgmioc · 25th August 2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

Hello Ariel,

My guess is that most of the collectors are somwhere inbetween. Well... at least I hope I am...

As with regards to your statement about using "European-invented monikers" because of our ignorance... I beg to differ.

While in some cases, it might be the truth, in some other it may be very far from it.

Take ifor example the KARUD. Is this an European-invented moniker?! I don't think so since even you in your original posting demonstrated that in fact it is a phonetical transliteration of the word KARD, which in turn is exactly how the natives used to call this type of knife (as Dmitry probably demonstrated in his paper).

Moreover, since the locals didn't have any specific name for this very specific blade, and they simply called it Kard (using "correct" transliteration)/Karud (using phonetic transliteration)/knife, I don't see how it can be disrespectful to them using exactly their name for their weapon. And in order to distinguish it from another one of their weapons, we use the phonetic transliterated term "Karud" for it as opposed to the literary transliterated term "Kard" for the other type of weapon.

This way, not only that we acknowledge and use the names given by the original makers/users of these knives, but we succeed in distinguishing between the two distinct variations of knife, where the original makers/users of the knives didn't distinguish (probably because they didn't feel the need to distinguish).

Last but not least, I beg to differ with the very idea of the title of this thread:

"Karud, the weapon that did not exist."

Not only that the "KARUD" exists and existed, but it was also CALLED exactly like this by its original makers/owners, exactly the same way the "KARD" exists and was WRITTEN like this by its original makers/owners!

Your whole argumet in the original posting is not about whether the "KARUD" existed or not, but about what is the "correct" way to transliterate a word: using the literal transliteration or the phonetic transliteration?!

You could rewrite your initial posting replacing "Karud" with "Kard" and attempting to make the point that the term "kard" does not exist and is merely a wrong ad-literam transliteration of the word "karud" as it is heard by our ears.

At least that's how I see things...

25th August 2017, 09:42 AM	#10
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Personally ... Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit. When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system. And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive .

25th August 2017, 01:08 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall. And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography. And there are others in between. Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-) For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive. Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth. Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

25th August 2017, 02:14 AM	#2
A.alnakkas Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,340	The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.

25th August 2017, 05:15 PM	#4
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	The difficulty in actually ascertaining the vocabulary, context and usage of "villagers" renders most discussion more or less moot, in the absence of records or actual persons who embody the reality of a past time. Linguistic research is limited to either written records by early Europeans, who may or may not have actually encountered contemporary examples of then-current usage, or scouring "native" records, with attendant problems of transliteration and focus - those who had the skill and opportunity to write of the subject were likely viewing it from a socio-cultural position far from that of the originators of the objects in question. Ultimately a problem may arise when the usage of scholars branches away from that used in commerce and informal collection. I fully embrace the search for truth, while reaining aware that it may only be approached asymptotically. The past is perforce a closed book, which we may approach cautiously and carefully, or embrace with commercial vigor, with all the inaccuracy and hype that entails.

25th August 2017, 07:22 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,188	A few points, ON THE TITLE OF THE THREAD: The title of the thread is perhaps misaligned. Rather then 'karud' the knife that did not exist.........better . "Karud, the term misapplied to variation of pesh kabz through phonetic misinterpretation by Europeans thus becoming a vernacular word used by collectors for this particular form" The form DOES exist, its the term which is in question. .....what to call it. ON THE TERM HOARDER: The pejorative term 'hoarder' is entirely inappropriate to describe a collector, as they are typically systematic in their acquisition of the items they collect regardless of what forces drive their selections. ON THE NATURE OF COLLECTORS: Factors such as aesthetics, variations and forms, developmental sequences and many other individually favored features or reasons drive collectors. Hoarding is a resultant circumstance of either unconscious or unreasoned acquisition of things in volume, continued perpetually without relief or organization and often symptomatic of possible psychological issues. I think the differences between collecting and hoarding, and the choice of use of these terms is fairly obvious. ON THE APPLICATION OF TERMS IN CLASSIFICATION: As we have seen through so many years of discussions here, there are so many instances of words in various cultures and languages which apply to 'edged weapons' rather indiscriminately. The analogies are many, but in so many cases, the terms for 'sword' for example often refer to 'any' sword regardless of particulars. In India, tulwar could mean the Indo-Persian we all know so well all the way to a British cavalry sabre. The entire thesis here has to do with but one instance of a simple term for knife, kard, being misheard phonetically by non speakers of the language and misapplied to what is basically a straight bladed pesh kabz. The term kard is broadly applied, much in the same manner the term tulwar is. Yet to us, as collectors or scholars in MANY if not MOST cases think of tulwar as the familiar disc hilt in what the west has labeled 'Indo-Persian' form. While this appellation has existed since the 19th century (earlier perhaps in degree), the world of arms scholarship and collectors has somehow survived without dramatic reaction to the clear transcultural use of the term specific to that single form. A similar schism as specious in nature has existed in not just ethnographic terminology on swords, but in European as well. When is a sword no longer a sword? when does a dagger become a dirk? If a broadsword means double edged, and a single edged a backsword, why was the term broadsword used indiscriminately for both in the 18th c. Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ? Then the real beauty! Is a sword termed by the form of its blade?or like sosun patta, then classified further as Hindu or Muslim by the hilt form. Yet swords are typically classified by hilt style, as many claim that since blades were widely traded, remounted etc. the character of the hilt is the determinate factor. But as desperately as we have tried to regionalize the 'tulwar' hilts in India, we find that these forms were widely distributed through export from areas of production such as Rajasthan, not to mention the profound diffusion through conquest ethnically, colonially and constant flux with India's vast diversities bearing dramatic conflicts. It seems the futility of trying to change or resolve the countless misnomers and conflicts in terminology which has become firmly emplaced in use, at this point should be powerfully apparent. When we saw that the term 'katar' was misapplied inadvertently to the distinct dagger known linguistically in the regions of its use as 'jamadhar' (Pant, 1980) there was no strong reaction nor even the slightest effort to change the term. However, while use of the term katar remained in place to describe these daggers in common parlance, many responsible writers and scholars will FOOTNOTE the proper term originally used in India. So it should be with KARUD, but it is to the benefit of all to be aware of the proper etymology of the term, so this valuable information is well worthy of footnote, but does not warrant an entire reapplication of classification. ON OUR DISCUSSION HERE: I think the most important thing we see in this remarkably dynamic discussion (or debate at points) is the impressive levels of knowledge and linguistic skills and reasoning displayed by all involved and participating here. As always, I learn a great deal from these discussions, and wanted to say so, and thank everyone for their patience in carrying these out so constructively.

25th August 2017, 07:56 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	No need to thank, Jim. Patience is everyone's middle name ... and is provided on a Pro Bono basis .

26th August 2017, 02:15 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, Some of your questions seem to have answers. Mostly , it is a matter of ethnic origin. Dirk ( or dork, or durk) is considered to relate to Germanic word Dolch, whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga. Different sosun patas were all "lily leaves", i.e. sharing similar blades, not handles. The Deccani form is a Sailaba; quite likely that swords from the same group but from different localities also had specific local names, but we might have forgotten them. Salavar ( in "Salavar yataghan") is clearly an English transcription of Selaava ( see earlier in this discussion) and "yataghan" was just added by the Brits from a very familiar to them Ottoman short sword with recurved blade ( see post by Kronkew). And BTW, are Selaava and Sailaba related? In linguistics ethnicity is destiny: Bichwa is Baku or Vinchu, khandjar is Chhurri or Chaku in different regions (examples taken from Elgood's glossary). And I am not talking already about Indonesian islands:-)