On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary,
I think you have got it all wrong.
You dont know what Robert showed me. It was a manuscript of about 500 pages, and it had nothing top do with his new book on the Jaipur collection.
Maybe I am not too bright, but wait to say so till you can prove it.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Jens
I am sorry I was thinking about pictures from Jaipur museum where depicted all of types of weapons that were in Jaipur armory. With their names.
It is a pity that we know nothing about a manuscript with over names of weapons. Science requires openness. I am sorry.

[Emanuel]

Hi Mercenary,

My comment was concerning the similarity between the sound of the words. You presented a dissection of phauladi (fulad, pulad) as originating from "phul"-flower. Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

On the phul-katara, Elgood includes a few lovely examples in his catalogue of the Jaipur Court. They all have floral hilts. This fits the definition of "phul"-flower.
So phul-katara just refers to a dagger with floral hilt.

Cheers!
Emanuel

[ariel]

AFAIK, pulad or pulad is just steel ( see al Kindi). Damascus steel ( wootz) is pulad-e johardar, or just Johar in Arabic ( see the Saudi Arabian book).
For some reasons, northern consumers of Indian/Persian wootz adopted an abbreviated version of the full definition and wootz became bulat etc.

Thus, IMHO, Indo-Persian terms Fulad/ pulad /phulad have nothing to do with wootz ( they may, in Russia or the Caucasus), and your Phul-katara is just a blade ( wootz or not), but with a flower for a pommel. As noted by Emanuel, see Elgood's book.
Phonetic and spelling similarities can play dirty games with non-specialists :
" a thief stole my wife's stole", " You might unleash your might" etc.

Anyone wants to correct me?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Hi Mercenary,
Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

There is a problem. Neither Jahangir nor Abdul Aziz nor present-day sekligarhs whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who worked in the court armories still) never read the articles of "other researchers" or some researchers else or any Internet forums )). They just say "fauladi". That is all.
You know what Indians added to the crucibles with the iron? What was considered as a secret? If you know, then you will understand why a crucible steel was called "flower steel", "fruit steel". It was magic for Indians then.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh?
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter.

Well said David my feelings entirely
Miguel

[Mercenary]

Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools:
[jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade].
It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade.
JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

[Ian]

Mercenary:

I'm having trouble following your comment here. Can you explain please.

Ian.

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools:
[jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade].
It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade.
JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

[Mercenary]

Dear Ian

I am sorry for confusion. I meant following idea. In context the term "phul-katara" itself was used only once or twice. The most part of cases when it was used are within a sentences as "jeweled dagger WITH phul-katara" or "with costly phul-katara". If you analize the text it becomes clear that "phul-katara" could not be an independent kind of daggers. It refers to the quality of the blade.

[Mercenary]

Let's continue

Originally Posted by ariel

Dear Mercenary:
book about Hindu weapons informs us that Bichwa is Bichwa in Mysore and Hyderabad , but Baku in Kannada and Vinchu in Marathi.
But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!

Very nice. But they are just various names of arachnids. The name of the dagger was written and sounded some different as "Bichū'ā" not as "Bichū" (for example in Panjabi) and ment the verb "to sting", "to damage". So "Bichū'ā" could be any dagger. For example:

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh?
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter.

This quote and these views are probably the most essential and pertinent words that have been posted in this thread, which as I have said, is on a most intriguing, if not vexing, topic.

In these kinds of discussions I think it is key to exchange ideas as well as supportive data in a very courteous and objective manner. It is good to see discourse like this which prompts contemplation and often better understanding of a very complex topic.
Keep it going and avoid taking anything personally......its actually a pretty phun and phascinating discussion!!!

[Jens Nordlunde]

David,
I find what you wrote very interesting, and very valid, but at the same time I find that the names, like the ones Robert Elgood has given of the same dagger types are important.
One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.

To the other participating members.
Some collectors are interested in the way the weapons look/where used, while others are interested in the names and the origin of the names, and to my oppinion everyone should be given free hand to follow his interest, and not from the start be met with mistrust - maybe some of us could learn a bit here and there along the road.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Dear Mercenary:
And, BTW, Portugese version of the origin of Indian Pata traces it to the ( surprise, surprise!) Portugese word for paw:-)
But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!

Again very interesting!
But pata without any surprises first of all meant "wooden rapier". And there are a lot of information about pata-khilana and so )))

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!

Ariel, thank you a lots! Good luck!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Again very interesting!
But pata without any surprises first of all meant "wooden rapier". And there are a lot of information about pata-khilana and so )))

May i ask which illustrated dictionary you took this picture from ?
Is this the entire image in the book, or did you cut the lower part of the fencer's body with his 'weapon' for posting. It would be interesting to date this drawing. There could be a connection between this so called Pút-a and the appearing of the pata as an actual weapon; minding that the first examples that are recorded and available, first quarter XVI century, had a turned and carved wooden guard (gauntlet).
It would be pertinent to consider such evolution, as we may see in such earliest examples the presence of European blades, those from navigators of the XV-XVI centuries transiction.
On the other hand, if the drawing in the illustration is posterior, we may then consider that had either device had its own course.
Below two pata examples: one considered by its owner as the oldest and most primitive example known, with its gauntlet in wood, reinforced with iron straps and a later one with a 'basket' guard, in which a leather reinforcement was applied, now disappeared. The first one with an early European blade and the second with a weak one, of local production.
(Collection Rainer Daehnhardt).

.

[Mercenary]

Dear fernando
These are unrelated things: dictionary of Urdu of 1838, and picture from book about Khonds of 1864. Both references and picture are in the article. I am sorry I can not put it all here. May be some later all of the articles in "Historical Weaponology" will be free.
In sources (not illustrated books about weapons) there are a lot messes about pata. Some times it is a wooden sword, some times a steel one, some times a rapier and some times a staff. I wrote about it and tried to explain but it is still not very clear. Very weak spot. This requires further research.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.

Well i'm not really sure why this would be particularly important since we all pretty much have the capacity to share images of our weapons from any place in the world in an instant. What we most likely discover in this exercise is that people from one area call that weapon a "sharp pointy piece of metal" in their own dialect while people in another area call it pretty much the same thing in their own dialect.
That said, i was clear that i do find this game of names interesting and their linguistic roots can indeed be fascinating and sometimes even enlightening. However, i am not a linguist and do not pretend be capable of tackling the intricacies of the field enough to be able to distinguish between true root word connections, sound alike only similarities and outright coincidences of arrangements of letters. My ears are always open, however, to those who have a better grasp on this study though i remain skeptical that anyone can make irrefutable connections to most of these word roots we encounter. Even the true experts tend to disagree on their theories. And even if they are absolutely correct, knowing the root words are meaningless if you don't understand the original intent of the culture that used that word when naming that weapon. Usually that can only be met with assumption or speculation. Names and categories seem to have become far too important to many collectors here at the sacrifice of what i personally feel are much more important aspects of the weapons we collect. But as is always the case, to each their own in their direction of study. I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by David

I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it.

But naming the thing incorrectly is nothing altogether. Without any hope for finding the keys for understanding at all.

[A. G. Maisey]

As Jens has pointed out:- different people have different interests, and the whole of these different interests contribute to a holistic understanding of the item in question, be it an edged weapon or be it a teddy bear.

A correct understanding of the name of a weapon can sometimes indicate, or suggest, the origin of the weapon, or its method of use, or its mode of wear. So even though I am most definitely in the camp of those who oppose the "name game" for its own sake, I do support research that will give us a better understanding of the how, where, and why of a name that is applied to a weapon, or anything else for that matter.

In this thread there seems to be some discussion surrounding the words beginning with "P", "PH" and "F".(Fulad/ pulad /phulad)

Mercenary, since we are reading words that have been romanised from other scripts, would it be possible for you to clarify the pronunciation of words using these spellings?

Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

[ariel]

Names are important. They are part of the object per se as well as the culture it came from. Remember Grimm Brothers? If you know the name of Rumpelstilskin, you have power over him.
Names were given to the weapons by masters and owners, they often have meanings and clues that the form and the function would miss.
David and Alan , both "krisologists" would undoubtedly bristle an the erroneous use of a name for a tiny hook at the base of a kris, and rightfully so! ( they are probably already seething by now, since I wrote kris, and not keris:-)))

Koummya and shibria are just curved knives, a variants of jambia ( or khanjar:-)
But just their names give us full info about the culture they came from and their appearance.

Stone ( of blessed memory) put Parang Nabur from Banjarmasin and Minasbad from Bicol in the same picture: one of his few obvious errors. Would he do it if he knew that they had different names? But they looked so much alike ! :-)

Names are integral parts of everything around us, they are what we use to orient ourselves in this confusing world. Semasiologists maintain that most of our problems stem from our imprecision in defining what exactly each and every word means.

Ignorance of a correct name, or just mis-spelling can land us in St. Paul, MN instead of San Paulo, Brazil :-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Ariel:- names are important.

In fact, I'll go further than this:- words are important.

Words are used to transfer ideas from one person's mind into the mind of another, if our use of words is imprecise all sorts of errors can occur.

Because of this, I can assure you that I will never bristle at an incorrect use, or knowledge of, keris terminology, in fact, I actively encourage the use of English words when we are using the English language as a medium of communication.

The truly important thing is that we understand one another, not that we all understand every minor usage of language.

But I must admit, I do find the pointless use of misunderstood words to be just slightly annoying, most especially so when a good English word will transfer an idea more effectively.

Perhaps the second paragraph of my post #49 may give some indication of my position in this matter of names.

[Jim McDougall]

This thread gets better and better!!!
Not only is it fascinating to see the perspectives on linguistics and terminology concerning references to these weapons. It is amazing to see these old references as shown by Mercenary...I had no idea of this early type of wooden weapon in India in this manner, and that certainly is interesting to see this explanation of the 'pata' term.

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ?
The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame.

As has been shown, the importance of broadening our understanding of the various terms and names used for these arms is essential as we look to early narratives and works describing them. Having some sort of cross reference to align these would be ideal, but a daunting undertaking. Still, once through the philosophy of all this, any advance toward compiling this material will be useful in my opinion.

Mercenary, you seem to have a considerable acumen toward the weapons of India as well as the linguistics and etymology of the languages. I hope you will keep us advised of the article you are working on and its progress. I always am delighted to see attention to the weapons of India, and encourage any work toward better understanding the inherent complexities surrounding them.

[Jens Nordlunde]

To my opinion the forum members interest in the subject is admirable, but I do find the criticism of Marcenary's idea a bit overdone.

Mercenary has come up with an idea. So let him work on it, and when it is done, and you still want to criticize it, you can do so – but I find it is a bit early to do so now.

Jens

[ariel]

Thanks, Alan!
I am glad we are on the same page.
And this is the reason why I strongly insist on any interpretation of any foreign name to be done by a native speaker or, at least, by a foreigner fluent in the native language and immersed in local culture.


The thread on "Tilang Kemarau" amusingly illustrates the point :-)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

Rather complex indeed Alan, this thing of the written language.
This "Ph" meaning "F" issue is long gone in other written universes.
... If i am allowed to widen this problematic to other languages to which romanized transcriptions are also practiced, should we also take into account that nations, ones more often than other, introduce reforms in their own orthography. In Portugal, like in other countries here around, the Greek digraphs were abandoned and replaced by simple graphemes; these odd names meaning that, for one, the "PH" was replaced by the "F". Thus we have that, we may (and do) have works in our libraries, namely chronicles from the discoveries period, where we either read the same terms with both "Ph" and "F", depending on the date of the publication.


.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ? ..

Yes Jim, from his collection, as mentioned, and also from his books. I don't recall having seen patas when i had the previlege to visit his collection; which is no surprise, due to the myriad ot items that my eyes had to look at, in so little time.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame...

Yes, things are not yet clear. But that would be another deal.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[Ian]

Alan, you are so correct.

I had the good fortune to have been born and educated in the same English-speaking environment as you. For the last 35 years I have lived in the US, and had to learn a number of different English dialects and idiom. While UK and US English are close in many respects, there are obvious and not so obvious spelling and grammatical differences that must confuse the heck out of people for whom English is a second language. And then there is Ebonics, or African-American English, that has some substantial differences from Standard American English. I remember too growing up in Australia and hearing "Pidgin English", a condescending colonial form that was taught to Australian indigenous people, and those in Papua New Guinea and neighboring islands.

And these are just some of the major dialects. Within the UK there are many dialects also--Hiberno-English, West Country English, Scottish English, etc.

Like you, I would hate to try to master English as a second language. Idiomatic use must be very challenging to the newcomer. It must confuse folks enormously when confronted with phrases such as: to "take two bites at the cherry" [and no, this is not a sexual reference]; to "be down in the dumps;" to "take a "butcher's [hook]" at something; to "cut the ground from under your feet;" to "take the bull by the horns;" something that "does the trick;" someone is "mutton dressed up as lamb;" someone is "no spring chicken;" "to argue the toss;" "to blow the whistle;" and so on...

Ian.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ian, very true, and then we have Cockney rhyming slang --- your 'butchers hook' is an example --- that was very much in use amongst people of two generations before my own. I can remember my grandfather and couple of his mates having running conversations in this art form, that nobody had a hope of understanding except the participants.

[ariel]

The vocabulary of old swordmakers all over the world was largely metaphoric. All those Sossun Pattas , Kirk Nardubans, Pesh Kabzes, Bichwas, Jamadhar Kataris etc., did not describe particular weapons in their dry engineering terms, but rather as esthetic/religious/poetic entities.

Without thorough immersion into their contemporary atmospheres ( further complicated by linguistic problems), one cannot fully understand the multilayered depth of meaning of the peculiar names given to old elongated and sharpened pieces of steel.

Even the names of such simple daggers as janbiya and shibriya do not signify "just a knife" :-)

The "name game" is not a useless exercise as some of us think: it is a window into the mind of old masters and warriors.

Through a glass, darkly.....