Kopis/khopsh etc. - Egyptian swords

[Kamil]

I have noticed that there are some misunderstanding concerning the abovementioned Egyptian sword:
1. The name: its correct form is khepesh (which means "arm" or "(bull's) foreleg"). The Egyptian language was written without vowels and today it is accepted among Egyptologists to insert "e" between consonants. There is no way to be sure how the word was actually pronounced in the antiquity.

2. The sword has been introduced to Egypt in the so-called 2nd Intermediate Period (Hyksos time), i.e. ca. 1782-1570 BC

3. There are few pieces preserved, but it is much more difficult to find any photos of them. I will try to get and to post references to photographs.

Regards

[tom hyle]

Copis (kopis) is a different sword; N Mediterranean and Central Asian. As I say, it seems based on a sickle (it always incurves; only sometimes does it recurve at the spine, and often enough only the very tip of the edge. Multinational, widespread. Sometimes called falcatta. Sometimes, oddly, with a knuckleguard.
The Afrasian sword (kopsh) seems based on Afrasian fighting broadaxes (rather closely modelled, in length, angle, edge curve). It does not seem related to sickles, but then again it does seem related (mainly in the tip though) to 'Zande etc. sickle-swords. AFAIK copis and kopsh may very well be the same word, but they properly refer to two quite different styles, with some overlap of features in some cases. Are you contending that kopsh descends of copis via invasion from the North?
kopsh or kopesh are spellings often seen; as you say there are sometimes (Hebrew, too, for instance; Arabic I don't know about) no consonants in written Afro-Asiatic/Afrasian languages, so there's really little point to nitpicking that matter.

[Conogre]

Thank you for the additional enlightenment Kamil and Tom.
The bad part about information picked up piecemeal is that when presented by one source there's often no way to really find much additional information without knowing where to begin to search.
Having no knowldege of the Egyptian languege, I just assumed that the author knew what he was talking about.
Now the trick is to follow each term and region and see if any illustrations and /or literature can be found to further ellucidate.
With the sword that I have that was listed as a "kopis", I suspect that in at least the general form that was similar to the Egyptian weapon?
I can see where the "bulls leg" might be used descriptively for that general shape.
As for the two forms Tom mentions, I've honestly never run across anything about either but would love to.
I was also under the illusion that the falcata and the machiera were both uniqely Greek weapons, which would explain the trains of thought suggesting that the blade form was taken into India by Alexander the Great, thus was a likely source for the evolution of the kukri, while the Egyptian "khepesh" would seem to pre-date Greek influence.
Mike

[tom hyle]

That's the Eurocentric/N Med-icentric/"great men" usual blah blah blah of it, and nationalistic Greeks claiming Macedon as their own (for myself, I see heavy steppes influence there to start with, which, geographically seems inevitable) are often happy to jump on that bandwagon, but the copis was used by many Indo-European peoples. Its origins are speculation, but I believe there is a certain amount of evidence to point for a Caucasian and/or steppes origin, and this is where the ancient Greeks imported a lot of their metal and a lot of their blades from. Remember that calling these people barbarians (babblers) only means they didn't speak Greek; it does not address their technical or social achievements; it does not imply that the flow of technology was one-way. I've gone into this in depth at least once on this or the old forum, and elucidated my arguments more eloquently and at greater length than I currently have the focus to do....I think the original subject of said thread was yatagan origins.
Not a fan of the "great men" theory of history; a careful study pretty always reveals them as little but credit-takers. Alexander did get his face half cut off though; gotta give him that, but the Macedonians, of course, not Alexander, did the conquering; he, like Hitler, Edison, Shaka Zulu, Thomas Jefferson, etc. etc. was more or less along for the ride, fulfilling a role demanded by his society; at least 9 times out of ten, if that demand is there, if the meme (new word to try to explain sociology.....) is in action, someone will fulfill it, and usually a close study of the situation will reveal multiple such candidates in place, vying to be the "great man" and take credit.
Social movements and change arise by and large out of sociological forces; not out of the usually selfish desires of the "great" men who take advantage of those forces to aggrandize themselves, however much that might be how histories are written; too many histories are written on this bogus idea, but what can you say in a culture of people who claim they think they're responsible for their own lives?....The idea of the "great man", and that one can become such a man, seems pretty central to EuroAmerican, and probably to European culture. To assault this idea is to assault the ego of every "successful" "self-made" American who doesn't want to acknowledge the role of his fellow man in his life, nor his responsibility to him, so it's very hard to penetrate.
Yeah, Conogre, the midribbed one is based on kopsh; the multifullered one on copis. I think falcatta is either a Latin or Iberian Celtic word, and I've read there's controversy/mystery about its origins/meaning. Note that the shaft aside, the actual curvature on the kopsh is back, while that on the copis is forward (with a recurve only in the cutting edge, and only at the tip, and only to the extent the brings it to a "dropped" point. Both have somewhat of a forward lean, but look at the actual curve, and look how it's achieved; the kopsh tends to have a pretty definite unsharp shaft that supports the blade; copis usually just has blade.

[Yannis]

Well, too many words to answer.

1. Except “nationalistic Greeks” there are hundreds of Anglo-Saxon scholars that say the same things. I am not the nationalist type, but I have seen lot of ancient greek warriors in original artwork holding kopis. I have not seen any Caucasian. I believe that this sword is coming from an older form, most possible from Egyptian khepesh. Through emporium and colonies it was spread in all “known” world, before Alexander, from Iberia (Spain) to Colchis (Caucasus).

2. Of course exchange of technology (or ideas) is not one way, but Greeks pushed the wagon little further, like Democracy (Athens), Philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle), Geometry (Pythagoras), Physics (Democritus), Medicine (Hippocrates) etc. As far as I know the schools around the globe still inform their students about it.

3. Alexander was on the tide of Macedonians and the demand of all Greeks for revenge against Persians. But if it was not him, greek army would not reach India. A lot of times he had stand against his soldiers will to return home. He was clever enough to try new strategies, fighting against bigger armies.

4. Talking about weapons, the Greeks, like any successful army, had studied a lot their weapons and developed new kinds of them for new strategies. For example, Spartans with sort swords and big shields developed the tight formation where each soldier was covering a partner. The Theban general Epaminondas 'invented' new battlefield tactics by concentrating his assault on one selected point of the enemy line. Macedonians developed the sarisa, a 17 feet long pike. In the phalanx the sarisas of the first five rows were pointing forwards, a forest of armor piercing iron. The other rows lifted their sarisas at an angle upwards, forming an effective protection against missiles.

A recent American fiction book about Alexander is Steven Pressfield’s “The virtues of war”. It is based on ancient writers.
Finally this is a Macedonian phalanx:

[Kamil]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Copis (kopis) is a different sword; N Mediterranean and Central Asian. As I say, it seems based on a sickle (it always incurves; only sometimes does it recurve at the spine, and often enough only the very tip of the edge. Multinational, widespread. Sometimes called falcatta. Sometimes, oddly, with a knuckleguard.
The Afrasian sword (kopsh) seems based on Afrasian fighting broadaxes (rather closely modelled, in length, angle, edge curve). It does not seem related to sickles, but then again it does seem related (mainly in the tip though) to 'Zande etc. sickle-swords. AFAIK copis and kopsh may very well be the same word, but they properly refer to two quite different styles, with some overlap of features in some cases. Are you contending that kopsh descends of copis via invasion from the North?
kopsh or kopesh are spellings often seen; as you say there are sometimes (Hebrew, too, for instance; Arabic I don't know about) no consonants in written Afro-Asiatic/Afrasian languages, so there's really little point to nitpicking that matter.

1. The Egyptian khepesh was most probably of Near Eastern origin; it has been introduced to Egypt by Hyksos. Then it seems possible that the N Mediterranean and Egyptian swords had a common ancestor.
2. khepesh is not an Arabic word, but Egyptian one (ancient Egyptian language was related to Hebrew or Arabic no closer that the modern English to ancient Greek). It seems to me important always to use a proper spelling. Eg. there is a difference between "push" and "bush", isn't it? Accordingly, the Egyptian "k" and "kh" were two completely different consonants.
3. There are only few books on Egyptian weapons. The best of them (despite of its age) is:
W. Wolf, Die Bewaffnung des aegyptischen Heeres, Leipzig 1926
Much more accessible should be
I. Shaw, Egyptian Warfare and Weapons, Buckinghamshire 1991
but this book is definitely worse than the first one
Greetings!

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Yannis

Well, too many words to answer.

1. Except “nationalistic Greeks”

There's one of 'em now!

there are hundreds of Anglo-Saxon scholars that say the same things.

Doesn't make 'em right; All Western Europe is drawn into the Graecocentrism from which it (not entirely accurately) claims its descent. If every one is wrong, everyone is wrong. Truth is not democratic.

I am not the nationalist type,

I gotta tell you; no questioning of the glowing ancient Greek reputation ever seems to pass you without challenge; I think you are a bit nationalistic.

but I have seen lot of ancient greek warriors in original artwork holding kopis. I have not seen any Caucasian.

I think I have; definitely in the steppes countries, and I'm pretty sure they've excavated the swords "up" there, too.

I believe that this sword is coming from an older form, most possible from Egyptian khepesh.

The resemblance is rather tenuous......and did the kopsh (so rebellious, I am!) come to Egypt with the (Northern Steppes) Hyksos? Still seeing if anyone will A/ defend/explain that concept, or B/ explain why these are thought to be closely related forms. Are you familiar with the Egypto-Palestinian broadaxe? You're really missing an important element if you're not. You (Yannis) are saying the copis came from Egypt? Do you hear Kamil saying the kopsh came from up north? (AFAIK it actually came at the same time as an invasion? which is hardly hard-and fast proof, though encountering relatively long swords could have inspired the Afrasians to turn their fighting axe into one.....)

Through emporium and colonies it was spread in all “known” world, before Alexander, from Iberia (Spain) to Colchis (Caucasus).

2. Of course exchange of technology (or ideas) is not one way, but Greeks pushed the wagon little further, like Democracy (Athens),

Democracy may be the natural human government. It is fairly common, but no one in Helenic (etc.) Greece practiced real democracy; they were a bunch of slave-holding elitists. They routinely claimed the profit from their slaves; what makes you think they wouldn't claim credit for their ideas etc? Modern Republican "democracy" coming out of the United States of America seems to have features derived as much or more from Iroquois government, BTW. And people are often taking credit for (for instance) my ideas, and those of other social outcasts who do so much of what serious thinking gets done (normal people go along, you see; it's contrary to thinking to accept the concepts that are handed to you, so by definition......)

Philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle), Geometry (Pythagoras), Physics (Democritus), Medicine (Hippocrates) etc. As far as I know the schools around the globe still inform their students about it.

Again, that does nothing to make it right or true, nothing to address the achievements OR lacks of any other culture, and does NOTHING to credit any of this to those particular individuals, and a study of history in general should show you that art, philosophy, etc. do not occur in a vacuum, but in a cultural context, which in works that "stand the test of time" is thereby indicated to be more cultural than personal, even where evidence of parrallel development doesn't exist, though it often does. For example, there was a whole school painting like Heironymous Bosch (sp?), but in US he's the only one you ever hear of or see his work. He was not the first, either. Pasteur learned vaccination from Africans. Many people were working on automobiles and airplanes contemporary with the famed ones who get credit, and who there is actually evidence (for both machines) "cheated" from ultimately "less successful" artisans/inventors. Much the same for electricity; a few quick top of the head examples of a very typical human behaviour, and I'm completely unconvinced that WHOEVER was leading the Macedonian army at the time would have done much different; it was bound to be an arrogant monomaniac, as A/ that's kings for ya, and (more importantly) B/ despite (not unusual) protests, grumblings, and troubles with the soldiers who actually did the deeds, that's what the Macedonian people were in the mood for. (the hated ruler is also largely a myth, though in these days the government armies can be so technologically superiour to the people to render it a real possibility. Take Hitler; the Germans loved Hitler.....) It is particularly in invention that the "Great men" theory is most obviously heavily flawed to say the very least, but IMHO this pertains as equally to politics, religion, etc. Often "great men" with some humility have creditted is as such (notably Thomas Jefferson, for instance). The farther back you go the less you'll find the tenuous and typically deliberately concealed/destroyed sort of evidence that shows this; that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As far as is really accurate to go is that we don't have good records concerning the more northern peoples' philosophy, etc, largely as they appear to have been illiterate. In modern times, the distortive effect of Eurocentrism on perceptions of other cultures has been exposed as rampant and blatantly insulting, sometimes going so far as to deliberately destroy the antiquities of conquered peoples (notably in Africa and Mexico), often ostensibly out of religious outrage, but the created absense then is used to point to "primitivism", justifying conquest and rulership in some eyes.

3. Alexander was on the tide of Macedonians and the demand of all Greeks for revenge against Persians. But if it was not him, greek army would not reach India. A lot of times he had stand against his soldiers will to return home. He was clever enough to try new strategies, fighting against bigger armies.

This may be true, but as I say; as with pretty much all the "great men" stuff it's a cultural idea/interpretive paradigm of near religious standing in the "Western" mind; there's no real evidence for it; it wasn't neccessarily just his will, but that of the home country.

4. Talking about weapons, the Greeks, like any successful army, had studied a lot their weapons and developed new kinds of them for new strategies. For example, Spartans with sort swords and big shields developed the tight formation where each soldier was covering a partner. The Theban general Epaminondas 'invented' new battlefield tactics by concentrating his assault on one selected point of the enemy line.

A/ I think this is a more universal tactic than that, and, again, there is, and CAN BE, no evidence that this particular individual arrived at the idea on his own, any more than there's any that Shaka Zulu actually invented the long-bladed iklwa (whose name, BTW, contrary to silly legend, seems to be the same Bantu word as the Kuba ikula.....)

Some writing outside the quotes so the computer will believe I wrote.....It told me to enter one characters or more......

[tom hyle]

Where's my Burton? I don't know; I've a semi-memory of a stone-bladed kopsh illustrated?

[Yannis]

Tom

I am not “nationalistic” enough to fight your ideas. Actually I agree with a lot of them. But I still believe that Alexander was an exceptional leader. Few points on it:
1. He was brave enough to fight in the first line of his army, leading cavalry charges deep in the enemy lines.
2. He never killed or torture captives and actually he gave all respect to Darius family and the Persians nobles.
3. He respected foreigner religions and he wanted to learn about them.
4. He encouraged his bachelor soldiers to marry Persian women to unite the nations. He was punishing hard rappers and robbers.
5. I have travel in some Asian countries and the name Ishkander or Shikander is still alive and kicking. I have heard from natives nice stories about him that are not known not even in Greece.

[tom hyle]

I don't know that I'm saying he wasn't an exceptional leader as much as I'm proposing that exceptional leaders and their exceptional movements are a product of (at least more than vice-versa) exceptional social circumstances. In other words, something made the Macedonians get up and conquer and I don't buy that it was only the (perhaps laudable, perhaps despicable; I suppose it's a cultural/spiritual question) ambition of Alexander and his father.

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Kamil

1. (ancient Egyptian language was related to Hebrew or Arabic no closer that the modern English to ancient Greek).

I don't know whether this is contrary to what I've heard; that they are all part of the Afrasian/Afro-Asiatic language group, and I heard this in a recent University of Houston African history class; specifically, in fact, as an assault on the conceptual validity of the "Middle East"; the proffessor was calling it either Northern (Steppes related) vs. southern/Western (Afrasian, which she stressed as essentially African). I don't know which is more correct, but I do know this is recent revisionist information; such can be driven by politics or by truth.......She had archaeological data that's new or formerly unavailable in N America, too, to back up various of her statements; she was far from "half cocked"; maybe wrong; I don't know; but far from slipshod or shrilly rhetorical.
In any event, of course, Greek and English are related though the seperation of protogreek from protogerman populations was for some time more perhaps more extreme than that of the various Afrasian groups; English contains a great many Greek words; modern Greek would not surprise me if it had some Germannic ones, though nationalism over this sort of thing in Europe is something I've heard much of (for example laws in various Germannic countries about what one can name a child, and how to spell it......).
One addition; the entire concept of "correct spelling" seems rather provincial to me, and it has no objective truth, of course, changing vastly with time and place.

[ariel]

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history, whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.
Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle....
There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek, that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...". There is already another internet place where such arguments are hotly debated, with Alexander being the villain and barbarian who destroyed a mighty, cultured, humanistic and generally idyllic Persian culture. Nothing good comes from these arguments, guys, except mutual accusations of cultural insensitivity.
Can we concentrate on the swords? Do Yataghan and Kora descend from the Greek Macedonian Kopis? Was there a reverse migration of the recurved blade back to Asia Minor? Sosun Pattah, anyone? Where does Falcatta fit here? Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

[Yannis]

I copied this photo from the old forum. Thanks to Artzi we had a graphical explanation of the evolution of kopis.

The full topic is here: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002313.html

Alexander was not my ancestor, I was born in south Greece

[Kamil]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

I don't know whether this is contrary to what I've heard; that they are all part of the Afrasian/Afro-Asiatic language group, and I heard this in a recent University of Houston African history class;
[...]
In any event, of course, Greek and English are related though the seperation of protogreek from protogerman populations was for some time more perhaps more extreme than that of the various Afrasian groups; English contains a great many Greek words; modern Greek would not surprise me if it had some Germannic ones, though nationalism over this sort of thing in Europe is something I've heard much of (for example laws in various Germannic countries about what one can name a child, and how to spell it......).
One addition; the entire concept of "correct spelling" seems rather provincial to me, and it has no objective truth, of course, changing vastly with time and place.

Tom,
I know that Greek and English are related to each other and I have chosen this example absolutely intentionally. Ancient Egyptian is related to Arabic and Hebrew in the same way, that means there is no close relationship between them.
The concept of "correct spelling" is maybe provincial. However this spelling is commonly accepted among Egyptologists, not only European, but also American ones. It is not an invention of this or that Egyptologist; the consonant root of a word was actually written in hieroglyphs.

[Tim Simmons]

The Romans clearly disliked this weapons leaving it to relatively modern Asia.Tim

[tom hyle]

Hmmm....actually, it was in what might be called Western Asia at the time (Scythia for sure.....), and the "Thracian" sword of the gladiators seems to me to likely be a version of the type, though I have seen it reproduced in a variety of very disparate shapes. I don't know of any originals.

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Kamil

Tom,
I know that Greek and English are related to each other and I have chosen this example absolutely intentionally. Ancient Egyptian is related to Arabic and Hebrew in the same way, that means there is no close relationship between them.
The concept of "correct spelling" is maybe provincial. However this spelling is commonly accepted among Egyptologists, not only European, but also American ones. It is not an invention of this or that Egyptologist; the consonant root of a word was actually written in hieroglyphs.

The spelling is provincial; from the province of Egypt; clear if not agreed with? The rest is imitation. I actually often spell kopsh with a "kh", as I've seen it spelled that way, but then I've seen it spelled a variety of ways; I hadn't realized it was the consonants you were on about; I thought you were complaining of my vowels. Perhaps most importantly, if I'm not talking to a computer or bureaucracy, I really have little (to no) interest in or respect for the divisive/elitist concept of "correct spelling", which, as I've said, is tied pretty tightly to time, place, culture, social standing, etc.; for example, in Greek copis seems to have been/to be a "correct spelling" of very likely the same word, though I encounter primarily "machaira"/"mahaira" from there these days; I remain unconfronted with any evidence that this is the item properly called a machaira in ancient days, BTW.......isn't machaira a word for what in US would be called a knife, rather than a sword or dagger, in modern Greek?

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by ariel

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history,


No, Tom is subscribing to his own view of history; Tom is fairly unfamiliar with Marx, actually. Tom finds other peoples' philosophy usually makes boring reading......


whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity



A meme/paradigm is not by any means neccessarily economic; individuals and peoples often do uneconomic things, because there are more reasons and drives in our lives than that. The simplest name for the concept of societies/social institutions behaving as wholes/organisms rather independantly of their individual members, much as "you" are independant from being ruled by each of your cells; even an important brain cell, is "sociology". It's all around us. It's very real. And when people are not conscious of it they tend very strongly to be ruled by it.


and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.


Yes, pretty much. He must, of course, possess the requisite qualities, which are not rare; primarily intelligence and ambition, and perhaps fit a social category of class or descent. Now we've had sociology. Anthropology has a teaching more similar to the great men thing; that the leaders always start wars for their own selfish reasons and lie to the people to justify it. Some anthro. texts will state this as an universal or near-universal truth.


Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle...


I consider the disaprobrium of the normal masses a badge of honor; hate to tell you. the great men theory of history is not, to my mind, very well supported by any meaningful evidence, while everything I've seen humans doing all my life supports the sociological view. I believe that "great men" are supreme goer-alongers; men who think and do for themselves often live short, outcast lives, and are rarely remembered by history. To me, these are the real great men. Christ, for instance, was an actually great man who is remembered; Julius Caesar, for instance, was a thug and a manipulator; not anything to look up to in my book. (Please, Itallian friends; do not be offended; there are thugs and manipulators in every country)

BTW, Russia is a poor country. It is an intrinsically poor country; cold and largely landlocked. It had a protracted struggle against a similarly large, but much richer country, and ended up with a collapsed economy. The idea that any of this has anything to do with communism, democracy, etc. is, well, standardized, to say the least (I've been asked to say the least; perhaps appropriately) .......



There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek,



Lots of doubt, actually; tell it to a Bulgarian; tell it to (the former) Yugoslavia; lots and lots of doubt that Alexander in particular or Macedonians in general should be considered Greek. Who's right? Not the point I'm trying to make; my point is there is doubt; there is controversy; very serious international controversy, actually, and a big land dispute. I personally consider it fairly clear that the Macedonians were and are part Greek, part North (and to the north is the border between Slavia and Tartarstan); I actually can't understand why anyone would even question this; it seems fairly obvious and inevitable.


that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated


This is exactly the big question. Exactly; the initiating; a social movement or one arrogant boss? What evidence is there, or indeed, can there be for so long ago? But looking around the modern world we can study examples much more closely, and a close study does much to crush the "great men" theory of history, much as few in power/"success" (as I've said before, and for obvious self-interest reasons) will admit it,often most of all to themselves.



a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...".


Was anyone saying those things? Such was not my intent, certainly. None of these people are perceptibly my ancestors, except in the aside/example about Iroquois government, in which I was pointing out that not all things commonly attributed to Ancient (primarily Attic) Greece are unique to it or directly traceable to it; that at least some of these beliefs are more mythic than historical; Ie. modern US government is fairly dis-similar to the oft-creditted Athenian democracy; more similar to Latin republican government, ruled by a council, which is not unusual for a tribe, but the multiple-"house", checks and balances tripartate structure seems closer to Iroquois, the native people of much of the region where American government arose, and who had extensive contact with the Americans in the formative stages of that nation.
It has been in the emotional, and also political interests of the American nation to deny this, and other (American) Indian contributions to technology, philosophy, law, roads, etc. etc. etc. (an interesting book? "Indian Givers" subtitle something like how the Indians of the Americas revolutionized the world), and that's just what's been done. It wasn't done, BTW, by any great man, but by a nation as a whole, and has been by no means entirely conscious. No incivility or insult is intended; this is pretty straightforward history, and no longer contradicted, even by experts.



Where does Falcatta fit here?


Do you view falcatta as seperate from copis?


Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

a good question, though one raised previously with no success. At least we found out a little more about these fascinating swords.

[Andrew]

This is a fascinating topic and an interesting thread. However, I have some requests.

First, let's everyone keep this discussion civil. Some posts have been close to the edge in my estimation.

Tom, it would make it much easier to understand your posts (and points) if you were to avoid writing within another's quoted post. Try parsing the quotes, or just post your response seperately. We'll get it.

Thanks,
Andrew

[tom hyle]

You're right, of course.
I'm not really capable of responding to multiple complex points if I'm not looking at them, so while the quotes serve as a guide to the readers of what I'm talking about, they moreso serve as a guide for me, without which I might be much less cogent. I'll try to cut 'em down to basics; don't want to take up all the memory space, if there is such a thing, of this website with repitition. I could probably edit them out entirely once I've written my replies.
I've intended no incivility; I just consider some things hard to swallow; hard to believe just because they've been passed down/stamped with official approval, and hard to accept the way others seem to swallow them whole. I've been around winners and losers. I've seen approval and felt disaproval of those who claim authority, and by no means have I found these things to be universally based on merit.
I'll say a general thing, if I may on the subject of merit and meritocracy, which I think bears some relevance in broad social terms. Every stratified Human society has been a meritocracy. No one ever said let's put the simple minded or unethical in charge. The only disagreement (and it's vast) is how to determine/identify/define merit.......and the methods are rarely salutary, IMHO.
Therefore, quoting an "expert" to me, or numbers of them, is rarely a very meaningful way to communicate with me: I've been around experts, too ( ).
I do seem to find it difficult to be civil in the face of mockery; please argue with me using reason, rather than sarcasm or societie's (to me) meaningless judgements, if possible.
And I'll try to find a more respectful word for what seems far out unlikely to me than silly..........

[Yannis]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

BTW.......isn't machaira a word for what in US would be called a knife, rather than a sword or dagger, in modern Greek?

In modern greek
machaira=big knife
machairi=knife
kopis={not used but is the etymological root of the following}
kopidi=chisel
kovo=chop down, cut out (verb)
kopsimo=cut
falcata={not used, maybe the root of the following}
faltseta=a curved folding knife (an older word, my father used)
faltsokovo=bevel

Originally Posted by ariel

Where does Falcatta fit here?

I have the idea (nothing official) that the difference between kopis and falchata is that falchata had a knuckleguard. Also I think that falchata was used in Italian and Iberian greek colonies than mainland and Ionia, but I cant find any reference. Maybe a Spanish or Italian friend here can check etymology or references.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

lots and lots of doubt that Alexander in particular or Macedonians in general should be considered Greek?

Fifty years ago there were no doubts at all. Now there are, mainly for political reasons, I can’t explain in this forum. But according to ancient sources Macedonians were speaking a greek dialect and they worship the same greek gods. If this is not enough, check their names: Phillip = “He loves horses” (a greek name), Alexander = “Men protector” (a greek name). Actually ancient Greeks like American Indians had names they were carrying a meaning.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

and to the north is the border between Slavia and Tartarstan

Slavia is a later name, Slavs arrived in Balkans in 6th century A.D.
What Tartastan has to do here???? It is thousand miles north east. Also Tartars is a very late population that never established in the area.

[Yannis]

Originally Posted by Andrew

First, let's everyone keep this discussion civil. Some posts have been close to the edge in my estimation.

Andrew, I think that I am in the lines. I really try to respect forum rules. If you think you must lock the topic, please, be sure that ALL offensive words will leave.

“You have the knife and you have the melon” says a greek proverb, meaning that you have the power to do what you like. I don’t question that. I just say that last time I had a bitter taste

[Kamil]

Hi,
if any of my words seemed crude, it was not my intention and I apologize for them.
Tom,
the spelling is not from the province of Egypt. First, it is not possible to discern dialects in ancient Egyptian language, apart from few words and the Coptic language which is relatively late (AD, not BC; and Copts did not use khepesh). The word khepesh is known from official inscriptions that were written in a literary style.
Concerning your earlier remark, I've never heard about stone-bladed khepesh. It seems rather impossible to me, as the Egyptians used copper and bronze tools since a long time when they learned khepesh; moreover, manufacturing of such relatively long, thin and curved blade of stone would be extremely difficult. Such stone blade does not seem to be useful in fight also... The Egyptians used stone knives, of course, but rather for ritual purposes (I mean in the dynastic period), eg. the flint knife used in the mummification process or purely symbolic, Y-shaped pesesh-kaf knife.

[tom hyle]

Slavia is a later name, Slavs arrived in Balkans in 6th century A.D.
What Tartastan has to do here???? It is thousand miles north east. Also Tartars is a very late population that never established in the area.[/QUOTE]

I am construing the term Tartar, as I always do, and have explained and justified exhaustively many times, much more broadly than that. Scythians (which I also tend to construe more widely than the kingdom of that name, much as with Sudan) were for instance a proto-Tartar related people (yeah, I get tired of writing the proto, OK?). Tartar is not a racial term. It is cultural and arguably linguistic (there is a Tartar or "Turkic" language group, but not speaking it doesn't make someone who has a lot of other Tartar traits a nonTartar, neccessarily). The Eurasian steppes, and arguably their frontiers, are Tartarstan. in my book, and in a lot of old maps and writings, too.
Thanks for the Greek words; they might be helpful.
Fifty years ago there were no doubts at all about a lot of things; some of them have even been PROVEN wrong. The older belief can as easily be political or otherwise wrong as the new one. The language is a meaningful point, but does not address other factors of Norhern/plains influence. Just as I was saying about Americans; they speak English, but they are not English, and much in their culture (largely unacknowledgedly) is American Indian......Everyone all around was worshipping the same gods, BTW, with minor variations, mostly in name. Actually, I find animism (which broadly construed includes both the structured ancient Mediterranean religions, and for instance, "Hinduism") to be pretty universal and startlingly homogenous in many ways. The idea that each animist culture has/had its own religion is not entirely valid; to me they all have/had the same religion. This is not even a very controversial idea when applied to IndoEuropeans; though spreading it worldwide typically raises eyebrows.
I don't think you're right about the knucklebow; I think the name falcatta is a regional/tribal thing, and the knucklebow an occasional (and very oddly not passed down; humans rarely let go of an invention that way.) variation, seen perhaps only on falcatta, but not always.

BTW, I was reading the forum guidelines, and I think they are unrealistic. It is impossible to have a meaningful or useful discussion of the evolution and travel of weapon forms without discussing the politics, philosophy, religion, etc. of the peoples involved; quite impossible; this whole thread could not exist if we tightly constued those guidelines. The important thing, I would say, is to try extra hard to not be offensive about these sensitive matters.....I try, perhaps not always successfully to be unemotionally historical/logical about these things, but it often seems that is not enough to prevent offense.

[tom hyle]

Stone edged swords are typically made of wood, antler, etc. Thus with the one in my shady memory (the main problem is that it is a memory of a drawing, with possibly multiple interpretations). They are a widespread artifact of the past.
I'm not sure, Kamil, what you're trying to say; I don't think I'm following you. You tell me the spellings are from Egypt, then that they're not, then that they are? Perhaps you are objecting to me calling Egypt a province? Or perhaps you didn't understand that that's what I was doing? Province, country; I wasn't being technical enough, I suppose, but I didn't want to raise the idea of nationalisma again. Provincialism per se is only nationalism writ small though.....and it is exactly the attitude that breeds the ignorance whereby one small area can claim to have the "correct spelling" (for instance) of a widespread word that is spelled variously in various regions, an idea which, quite understandably, can be offensive and disrespectful to the people of those regions, as well as being factually/logically false. (because what makes one tribe's spelling more correct than anothers? Usually the determining factor is which tribe the speaker comes from or has made a special study of....)

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

BTW, I was reading the forum guidelines, and I think they are unrealistic. It is impossible to have a meaningful or useful discussion of the evolution and travel of weapon forms without discussing the politics, philosophy, religion, etc. of the peoples involved; quite impossible; this whole thread could not exist if we tightly constued those guidelines.

It really isn't that hard.

The important thing, I would say, is to try extra hard to not be offensive about these sensitive matters.....I try, perhaps not always successfully to be unemotionally historical/logical about these things, but it often seems that is not enough to prevent offense.

Precisely. Thanks.

[Kamil]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

I'm not sure, Kamil, what you're trying to say; I don't think I'm following you. You tell me the spellings are from Egypt, then that they're not, then that they are? Perhaps you are objecting to me calling Egypt a province? Or perhaps you didn't understand that that's what I was doing? Province, country;

Tom,
this time I'm not following you... I tried to say that the word khepesh is Egyptian one and that only the spelling "khepesh" is correct - not "khopsh" etc.
Perhaps I haven't understood you properly. In terms of Egyptology "provincial" means "relating to/coming from province, ie. area situated far away from the capital city". In this sense the word cannot be named "provincial". BTW Nationalism has nothing to do here, I suppose. I'm not Egyptian so your remarks are not offensive for me. However I'm Egyptologist and my point of view is Egyptological one.

[tom hyle]

[QUOTE=tom hyle: Usually the determining factor is which tribe the speaker comes from or has made a special study of....)[/QUOTE]


I think I explained my misuse of "provincialism" quite thoroughly, though I left out that in the N American English language it has slightly different connotations than nationalism, other than just the size of the defining body (nation/province), and people seem so prickly around here concerning the word nationalism....

To say a spelling is nationalistic implies that it is defended out of pride in nation. To say it is provincial carries more of the idea that its sense of sole validity is based on ignorance of matters in far places; the assumption that whatever is around you is "it".......all there is; all that matters; all that's proper.....This is at the heart of "proper spelling" "proper dress" "decent haircut" and other such concepts. Further, it is not exclusively used in a political/geogrphic literal sense, but can refer to conceptual provinces, such as sociology, Egyptology, etc.
I'm not sure why you keep talking about Arabic as if you were contradicting me? All I said about Arabic is it is Afrasian and I don't know if it has vowels. All I said about Hebrew is it is Afrasian and doesn't have vowels (though I think there may now be a new version that does have; how accepted/widespread it is I don't know.

[tom hyle]

One little thing I'm not sure everyone gets; I think it's relevant not to the topic of swords but to the topic of how to talk to each other; of course, someone is holding the knife and the melon (great expression; very clear) so I guess that person will decide relevance for the rest of you: the things I say about tribalism and elitism that some people find so offensive and odd are, if you check back, mostly in response to statements assuming the "normal" human attitudes on these matters (that they are either fine and dandy or not really occuring); those attitudes are at least as equally offensive to me; they are the ones under which I have been crushed all my life.

[Andrew]

Quite a frolic and detour this thread has taken. If anyone still cares to discuss Kopis/khopsh etc., please start a new thread.

Tom, you have a PM.

Thread locked.