Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

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

.

Bob A · 26th August 2017, 06:20 PM

I was stimulated by this thread to wonder why "Laz Bichaq", which seems to be a sword, or at least a bladed weapon of sword length, would be named "bichaq', which itself means, as best as I can determine, "knife" or "dagger".

Does this appellation arise from ethnographic sources, that is, a name applied by the original users? It seems sloppy usage to me, as knives and daggers as a term of common usage are generally shorter in length, seemingly topping out at about 12" in blade length.

But then there's the Khyber "knife", one of which in my possession has a 23" blade.

I'm just easily confused, I guess. Else I'd suspect that the natives lacked sufficient education to determine proper nomenclature of their tools.

ariel · 26th August 2017, 06:25 PM

Correct. I just chose the most direct and believable connections.
Also, "dagger" was associated with "daca", presumably a name for Dacian dagger, although all known Dacian daggers were crooked, and rightfully belong to the same group as "sica" ( sicarii used them), which likely stems from the Hebrew " sakin", knife.

Words mutate: Persian khanjar becomes Georgian khanjali, and from there Russian kinzhal. In Russian usage, any fighting double-edged short bladed weapon is kinzhal: thus, in Russian books one can see " kinzhal bichwa", " kinzhal kris", " kinzhal katar", and even "kinzhal kinzhal":-) etc. Some less picky authors apply it to single-edged implements as well: " kinzhal kukri", " kinzhal karud" etc.

Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a short-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 26th August 2017, 06:36 PM

Apparently ~ Ugaritic had 28 consonantal phonemes (including two semivowels) and eight vowel phonemes (three short vowels and five long vowels): a ā i ī u ū ē ō. The phonemes ē and ō occur only as long vowels and are the result of monophthongization of the diphthongs ay and aw, respectively.

Jim McDougall · 26th August 2017, 07:56 PM

Thank you Ariel for these additional insights into these linguistic challenges in trying to describe these many weapon forms. Languages of course have often almost indeterminate degree of dialects as well as vernacular and colloquial terms.
It seems almost reasonable that westerners (Europeans) in these various spheres would misconstrue or mispronounce and transliterate this maelstrom of terminological idiosyncrasies. It is almost tempting to think they may have simply reappointed terms known to them regarding other weapons in more of a colloquial sense, i.e. yataghan for the salawar (though the recurve instance in many is noted).

The term karud, though resultant of phonetic interpretation, still serves as a now well emplaced term in our glossary to indicate this particular form of pesh kabz.

fernando · 26th August 2017, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

... Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a shot-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

Makes all sense; as short blades were more like basic utensiles rather than weapons, villagers had no name to call them but generally knives. It was the wealthy that spent time naming the different swords.
Trying to establish a paralelism, i have learnt that, when a nation is invaded, the successive conquerors keep on changing the spoken language in the cities, courts and palaces, while the villagers keep speaking their old language; resulting that even nowadays there are in the local language hundreds of common words that have such remote origin.
The Iberian Peninsula was invaded by Romans, Barbarians and Arabs but portuguese (for one) still has remnants of its original language, one similar to the old Hebraic, to the Ugaritic, to the Acadian.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th August 2017, 09:43 PM

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

ariel · 26th August 2017, 10:19 PM

Bob A:

As a rule, Ottoman " kilich" swords ( sabers) were relatively long, with blades > 70-80 cm. Anything shorter than that was conventionally called "bichaq", knife.

In the largest published collections from Askeri Muze and Zagreb the greatest majority of yataghan blades are between 45-55 cm, and this is likely true for most examples in our collections. Often, Turkish sources refer to "yatagan bicagi" ( Kubur, sorry for simplified spelling) both to standard yataghans as well as to the knives of Yataghan form.

There was a thing called Varsak, referring to a "short saber of Crimean origin", but we have no material examples clearly identified as such. Carrying both varsak and bichaq in peaceful times was forbidden, and this is vaguely reminiscent of a story how yataghans became popular ( I.e. they were not formally swords).

Quite some time ago I posted a pic of the so-called bauernwehr, a variant of grossmesser: its blade in form and dimensions was indistinguishable from the Afghani "Khyber knife". It looked like a big knife to Brits, so it became a "knife".

26th August 2017, 06:25 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Correct. I just chose the most direct and believable connections. Also, "dagger" was associated with "daca", presumably a name for Dacian dagger, although all known Dacian daggers were crooked, and rightfully belong to the same group as "sica" ( sicarii used them), which likely stems from the Hebrew " sakin", knife. Words mutate: Persian khanjar becomes Georgian khanjali, and from there Russian kinzhal. In Russian usage, any fighting double-edged short bladed weapon is kinzhal: thus, in Russian books one can see " kinzhal bichwa", " kinzhal kris", " kinzhal katar", and even "kinzhal kinzhal":-) etc. Some less picky authors apply it to single-edged implements as well: " kinzhal kukri", " kinzhal karud" etc. Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a short-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife". Last edited by ariel; 27th August 2017 at 03:11 AM.

25th August 2017, 07:22 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#4
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:-)

26th August 2017, 06:20 PM	#6
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	I was stimulated by this thread to wonder why "Laz Bichaq", which seems to be a sword, or at least a bladed weapon of sword length, would be named "bichaq', which itself means, as best as I can determine, "knife" or "dagger". Does this appellation arise from ethnographic sources, that is, a name applied by the original users? It seems sloppy usage to me, as knives and daggers as a term of common usage are generally shorter in length, seemingly topping out at about 12" in blade length. But then there's the Khyber "knife", one of which in my possession has a 23" blade. I'm just easily confused, I guess. Else I'd suspect that the natives lacked sufficient education to determine proper nomenclature of their tools.

26th August 2017, 06:36 PM	#8
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Apparently ~ Ugaritic had 28 consonantal phonemes (including two semivowels) and eight vowel phonemes (three short vowels and five long vowels): a ā i ī u ū ē ō. The phonemes ē and ō occur only as long vowels and are the result of monophthongization of the diphthongs ay and aw, respectively.

26th August 2017, 07:56 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,188	Thank you Ariel for these additional insights into these linguistic challenges in trying to describe these many weapon forms. Languages of course have often almost indeterminate degree of dialects as well as vernacular and colloquial terms. It seems almost reasonable that westerners (Europeans) in these various spheres would misconstrue or mispronounce and transliterate this maelstrom of terminological idiosyncrasies. It is almost tempting to think they may have simply reappointed terms known to them regarding other weapons in more of a colloquial sense, i.e. yataghan for the salawar (though the recurve instance in many is noted). The term karud, though resultant of phonetic interpretation, still serves as a now well emplaced term in our glossary to indicate this particular form of pesh kabz.

26th August 2017, 09:43 PM	#11
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well. I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it. Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

26th August 2017, 10:19 PM	#12
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Bob A: As a rule, Ottoman " kilich" swords ( sabers) were relatively long, with blades > 70-80 cm. Anything shorter than that was conventionally called "bichaq", knife. In the largest published collections from Askeri Muze and Zagreb the greatest majority of yataghan blades are between 45-55 cm, and this is likely true for most examples in our collections. Often, Turkish sources refer to "yatagan bicagi" ( Kubur, sorry for simplified spelling) both to standard yataghans as well as to the knives of Yataghan form. There was a thing called Varsak, referring to a "short saber of Crimean origin", but we have no material examples clearly identified as such. Carrying both varsak and bichaq in peaceful times was forbidden, and this is vaguely reminiscent of a story how yataghans became popular ( I.e. they were not formally swords). Quite some time ago I posted a pic of the so-called bauernwehr, a variant of grossmesser: its blade in form and dimensions was indistinguishable from the Afghani "Khyber knife". It looked like a big knife to Brits, so it became a "knife".