how do we classify a weapon tourist,origin,time period ?

[ward]

I classify tourist pieces as items that are specifically made for display, not functional, and generally poor quality, or straight fakes.

Origin of a piece is often a problem because so many pieces have parts made in various locations. So I use the form of the weapon as a general rule. Even using terms like ottoman empire or Chinese are pretty vague. Both of the cultures expanded and contracted there holdings over time. They also sent artist, craftsman, and weapons out to other areas.

Age of a item is another issue. I have a family shotgun that was used in the American revolution, then years later changed over to percussion by a local black smith and used in the war of northern aggression, then the stock was falling apart so my grandfather carved a new one out of apple wood and used it during the depression. So how do I date it ? Except for the barrel that has been modified over the years and a few pieces of the furniture I would be hard pressed to call this piece 18th century or the original English origin.

What are your thoughts on these subjects?

[Ian]

Ward:

Great topic. Thanks for starting this off. I think it has more than Ethnographic interest so I'm going to send it over to the Miscellania Forum where our colleagues from the European and Keris Warang Kopi forums are likely to pick it up as well.

Ian.

Originally Posted by ward

I classify tourist pieces as items that are specifically made for display, not functional, and generally poor quality, or straight fakes.

Origin of a piece is often a problem because so many pieces have parts made in various locations. So I use the form of the weapon as a general rule. Even using terms like ottoman empire or Chinese are pretty vague. Both of the cultures expanded and contracted there holdings over time. They also sent artist, craftsman, and weapons out to other areas.

Age of a item is another issue. I have a family shotgun that was used in the American revolution, then years later changed over to percussion by a local black smith and used in the war of northern aggression, then the stock was falling apart so my grandfather carved a new one out of apple wood and used it during the depression. So how do I date it ? Except for the barrel that has been modified over the years and a few pieces of the furniture I would be hard pressed to call this piece 18th century or the original English origin.

What are your thoughts on these subjects?

[Ian]

Ward:

The example of your family shotgun sounds very familiar. My family had an old Winchester Coach Gun that my great grandfather carried when he was delivering mail in rural Victoria (Australia) during the late 19th C. According to my family's legend about him, one day he came across the notorious Kelly Gang's camp while delivering mail on horseback. He didn't try to use the gun that day but just rode on by with a friendly wave. That gun went through many alterations over the years--new stock, replaced hammer and trigger assembly--and was lost when my cousin fell in the Murray River with it while hunting ducks in 2005.

I would say your gun is as "American" as they come--a great story and a great piece of folk history. It is an emblem

As far as terms such as "Ottoman Empire," "Chinese," "Islamic" or the ever popular "Indo-Persian," they do indeed lack specificity and are virtually meaningless when communicating among collectors and other parties serious about these weapons.

Ian

[Jim McDougall]

This is an intriguing, and most pertinent topic Ward, and thank you for bringing it to these pages for discussion.

It seems often that descriptions even in catalogs of weapons, as well as captions and labels in museums are often vague, misplaced, or optimistically cavalier in their accuracy, or lack thereof. I cannot even comment on the often bizarre cases seen on one of the major online venues!

In my opinion, often a degree of qualification is almost always needed, and laconic captions are almost always subject to misinterpretation in some degree . Listings such as 'Ottoman sabre' are virtually useless as the obvious complexities of this empire, particularly the vast area and ethnicities and cultured within it render such classification completely inert.

It is of course the same with 'Chinese' or worse, 'Oriental'. The term Oriental has been construed to include wide cultural and ethnic scope, with even Central Asia and India, and others factored in.

Many arms have had long working lives, and through trade, capture, or other manners of diffusion, have transcended many generations. In these cases, of course it would be hard if not impossible, to classify within a single denominator.
In the case of the fascinating shotgun, I would specify the original character and period of the gun, noting its continued use and modifications into other later times and conflicts.

For example:
A mod 18th c flintlock shotgun of the American Revolution, later converted to Percussion.
That would do for the heading, but subsequent detail,
'Used later in the War of Northern Aggression (also known as the Civil War) and held within a family for use through the Great Depression.

Naturally I would say, ....it depends on the purpose intended for the description'.
For a label on a display: 'Shotgun used during American Revolution'.
The continued history of the weapon is not required.
However, if for a display of WNA weapons, 'A Confederate Shotgun of American Revolution vintage'.

Ethnographic weapons are a particular challenge, and many forms considered indigenous to certain cultures or regions often carry obvious external influences. This especially the case with hybrids, such as 'an India tulwar with British M1788 blade'


The lists go on, but in my opinion, it is best to maintain clarity even at the expense of brevity. If it takes a few more words to be accurate, DO IT!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

Ward:

The example of your family shotgun sounds very familiar. My family had an old Winchester Coach Gun that my great grandfather carried when he was delivering mail in rural Victoria (Australia) during the late 19th C. According to my family's legend about him, one day he came across the notorious Kelly Gang's camp while delivering mail on horseback. He didn't try to use the gun that day but just rode on by with a friendly wave. That gun went through many alterations over the years--new stock, replaced hammer and trigger assembly--and was lost when my cousin fell in the Murray River with it while hunting ducks in 2005.

I would say your gun is as "American" as they come--a great story and a great piece of folk history. It is an emblem

As far as terms such as "Ottoman Empire," "Chinese," "Islamic" or the ever popular "Indo-Persian," they do indeed lack specificity and are virtually meaningless when communicating among collectors and other parties serious about these weapons.

Ian

Ian,
We crossed posts, and I just read this! Fantastic!!!
The story of Ward's shotgun and what incredible family history with yours and his!!! I truly hope others will add such fascinating entries.
As I mentioned, it would be terribly remiss to deny these weapons their colorful and exciting history in their descriptions for the sake of brevity.

[ward]

Yes family history is interesting. My daughter usually shutters when she hears a lot of it. My family was represented in the confederacy in Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas. One of the favorite stories I liked is one part of the family owned a sugar plantation on the Isle of good hope in Savannah, Georgia. The Yankees took over the house and demanded to be feed. They cooked the meal and added red ants to the sugar. The soldiers thinking they were poisoned burned the house down. This story was actually written in a journal that my aunt inherited.

[A. G. Maisey]

Just a brief comment, and my opinion only, which means that I understand that it could be subject to much disagreement.

In respect of any item, and this does not mean only weaponry:-

1) identify culture of origin

2) identify society and sub-society of origin

3) identify origin in time

4) gain an understanding of the place of the item within the culture, society, sub-society at the time of origin of the specific item, and of its type.

[ward]

Those statements are a little harder to do than stated. Let us take Africa. You have a continent that was divided up into countries that had little to do with the local cultures or tribes of the area. So is it a better idea to say that a item is berber, turaq,arab, etc.etc.

Should we start identifying pieces as 50% 17th century,25% 19th century, the rest 20th century.

Should we start using words like ottoman influenced, Russian influenced.

Maybe we should also look at how late earlier technology was still being used.

Identifying a piece is more a educated guess than anything. How much education is the question.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ward, serious study in any field is never easy. I agree completely. We can just collect for the fun of it, and accumulate a nice lot vaguely identified objects --- nothing wrong with this, it can be good fun --- or we can dedicate a significant part of our life to the serious investigation of an object or objects.

They say that an expert is somebody who knows more and more about less and less, so you take your pick:- try to become an expert, or have fun and be an accumulator.

One is no better than the other, it is simply an expression of personality and level of interest as to what one chooses to become.

[Jens Nordlunde]

:-) The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know :-)

Good topic but not an easy one.

When it comes to Indian swords you can get them with many different kind of blades. Like a tulwar hilted sword with shamshir blade - is that a shamshir, is it a tulwar or is it maybe a tulwar with a shamshir blade?
The blade could be Indian made, or it could be from Persia - would that make a difference?
No one would dispute that a tulwar hilted sword with a relatively broad slightly curved blade with a ricasso is a tulwar. So is it the hilt that makes it a tulwar?

[A. G. Maisey]

Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as?

The actual naming of objects is not something that interests me particularly, but if we do wish to affix names, then to my way of thinking, we need to try follow the lead of the owners of the object, which means what was the name at time and place of origin?

If this cannot be done, what is the current naming convention within the relevant culture and/or society?

[ward]

tulwar, talwar, I think should be identified by the hilt. The blades are so interchangeable that it would be difficult to identify otherwise. The same with pulwars ,palwars.

[Jens Nordlunde]

To use the names used in India could be a bit problematic - so I will say, yes and no.
The same weapon is called different names, depending from where in India they are used, and in order not to confuse too many collectors, I think we should used the same name for a weapon.

So I am with Ward, and find the best way to describe the difference is to write - a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or a tulwar with an Indian blade/tulwar blade, knowing that shamshir blades were also made in India.
Another example could be a jamdahar - or as we use to calle it a katar. It would no doubt be problematic if we changed the name now, although many are familiar with jamdahar.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jens, what you have written about variation in names in the cultures and societies from which objects originate is something that is very familiar to me, as it is precisely the situation that applies in my own field, the Javanese keris.

The name of what we now call a keris in normal, colloquial speech varies at the present time depending upon the level of language being used, and the use to which the keris is being put --- and that's only in Javanese. In the languages of other keris bearing societies the name changes yet again.

But the common name, world-wide, is keris, even though spellings can vary:- kris, creese, cris --- probably a few more variations that I cannot readily recall.

If we look at the archaic Javanese literature, we find that it is virtually impossible to know when the keris as we now know it, is being referred to. Yes, the word keris can be found, but we don't know if that word refers to the keris as we know it.

Also appearing in the old literature, in contexts that seem to indicate that a keris is being referred to are other words. Amongst these other words are two words that are perhaps the best candidates for our present understanding of what is meant by "keris". These words are "tewek" and "tuhuk".

But then we encounter a bump in the road, because "tewek" seems to be used in a way that indicates strong, downward stabs, and/or repeated stabs, whilst "tuhuk" seems to indicate a slower execution, or a single execution, of the blow. Possibly the two words could be used to refer to the same weapon, but used in two different ways.

The word "keris" can be understood to indicate a slicing motion.

Then we have the word "curiga" which is another word used to refer to a keris, and "curiga" implies something that is not particularly sharp.

So, with all these words to choose from that can be used to refer to essentially the same object, what is the correct word to use? Well, the owners of the society of origin of the object use the word "keris" in colloquial speech and only use other words when they are speaking formally, and using higher levels of speech.

In the world community outside the keris bearing societies of SE Asia, keris is the universally recognised word that is used. In fact, as "kris" and "creese" the word has even entered the English language (Oxford).

Since the purpose of language is transfer an idea from one person's mind, into the mind of another person, then the word that we use to transfer that idea should be a word that the other person will understand, so when I'm trying to communicate with another person who is unlikely to know all the words that can be used to refer to a keris, I use the word "keris". But if I am communicating with a Javanese person I may use an entirely different word, and if I am discussing something in the archaic literature of Jawa I may use another word again.

So the choice of a descriptor can, and perhaps should vary according to the context in which it is used --- but we cannot do that unless we apply the guidelines that I suggested in my earlier post.

I am only using my own particular field as an example here, but I would be surprised is similar problems with affixation of names did not also apply in other fields.

The above is one of the reasons why I am not particularly interested in what name is given to various objects, keris included.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I see what you mean, but the way the collectors are, old as new, I think it will be difficult to change.
The best to do when it comes to discussing weapons is, to provide good pictures, and a good description.

With the keris' like with the katars, there are so many variations that a classification will be more than difficult - unless it is a very rough one.

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually Jens, there is a very well established system of classification that is used with keris, but it is virtually useless unless one is able to adopt a Javanese frame of reference.

I do agree, that in discussion of weapons, or for that matter, any physical object, good photographs and relevant data are second only to the presence of the item under discussion.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Do you know the keris' Holstein shows in his book/s?
If not I can show them on the Keries forum.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...If we look at the archaic Javanese literature, we find that it is virtually impossible to know when the keris as we now know it, is being referred to. Yes, the word keris can be found, but we don't know if that word refers to the keris as we know it...

Portuguese chroniclers of the XVI century called them cris (single) or crises (pluriel); their form being apparently (?) the same as those of nowadays.
In one citation we can read 'cris of double edge'

..

[A. G. Maisey]

Jens, no, I have not seen this book.

Fernando, yes, by the 16th century the form of the modern keris was well established. I have examined and photographed a lot of the very earliest keris to enter Europe, and most of these keris are indistinguishable in style from much later keris.

The problem with naming comes from references in old literature.

The Portugese visitors would have been using Malay, which was and still is, the trade lingua franca of SE Asia. Malay is basically the same as Bahasa Indonesia.

However, the indigenous people of Jawa communicated in Javanese, which at that time was still Old Javanese, not Modern Javanese.

Modern Javanese, beginning about the first half of the 17th century began its development to being a strongly hierarchically structured language with multiple levels, in some applications up to at least 11 levels, although in common usage only two or three levels are consistently used. This development seems to have begun under the Central Javanese rulers of Mataram.

In Old Javanese it seems that although the language used hierarchical levels, these were not nearly so developed as they became in Modern Javanese.

So, when we read something like the Nawanatya, composed to be read in the Majapahit court, we really do have problems in understanding exactly what weapons were being used in certain situations, according to our 20th-21st century understandings.

For instance, the text:"--- a gilded steel keris---" actually reads "--- twek melela hinemasan---", "twek" is "tewek", so tewek gets translated as "keris", because it seems logical to translate it as this, but we do not really know if this is correct.

I am not a linguist, but it seems that the problems of understanding that I have in this respect were also experienced by some of the greatest Javanologists and linguists of the 19th-20th centuries.

If we go back to Chinese sources there is well known passage from the Ying-yai Sheng-lan (1416), where the king carries a couple of short daggers called pu-lak. Invariably pu-lak gets translated as "keris", but again, the Chinese would have been communicating in Malay, and probably used a corrupted word picked up from an earlier Malay contact. But we're happy to believe they were talking about keris, because it seems logical that they were.

Believe me Fernando, the deeper you get into the investigation and analysis of keris history and development, the more complex and confusing it becomes.

I may be incorrect, but I believe that any deep research into the artifacts of other foreign cultures will provide similar problems.

[fearn]

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "grandfather's ax" paradox (aka the Ship of Theseus paradox). If grandfather's ax has had it's handle changed three times and its head twice, is it still the same ax? If you prefer the classical version, Theseus' ship had every plank, mast, and fitting replaced over the course of its voyage. Is it the same ship?

F

[Ian]

Fearn:

In the two examples you cite, I would submit that the paradox is only a paradox when the item is altered after the original (descriptive) owner has passed it on to someone else.

If grandfather loses his axe and buys a new one, the second axe is again grandfather's axe because it is owned by grandfather. If grandfather replaces the handle or axe head, the renovated axe is still grandfather's axe (just different from before). The same for Theseus' ship; no matter how many parts may have changed or been replaced, as long as Theseus was still the master of that ship it remained Theseus' ship.

The paradox arises when the axe that once was grandfather's is passed on to someone else. How much change can a new owner make to it before it is no longer grandfather's axe?

Consider the following situations:

Can the handle be shortened and it still remain grandfather's axe? I would say yes, because it can still be used as an axe and it retains almost all of the original item.

Can the handle be removed and it still remain grandfather's axe? I would say yes, because it can be restored with a new handle to function just as grandfather's axe did AND the business end of the axe (its head) is still from grandfather's axe.

Can the head be replaced on the handle of grandfather's axe and it still be grandfather's axe? I would say no, because the functional piece that defines an axe (its head) is no longer from grandfather's original axe.

The paradox resolves to the question of what are the essential elements that define the object in question once its descriptive ownership is terminated. In the case of grandfather's axe, I maintain it is his axe head.

Ian.

Originally Posted by fearn

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the "grandfather's ax" paradox (aka the Ship of Theseus paradox). If grandfather's ax has had it's handle changed three times and its head twice, is it still the same ax? If you prefer the classical version, Theseus' ship had every plank, mast, and fitting replaced over the course of its voyage. Is it the same ship?

F

[harrywagner]

This is a subject near and dear to me since my day job is library-centric and is heavily involved in various classification schemes. Libraries are way ahead of the curve on this one. They have a large number of established classification schemes that work for just about every subject one can think of. Dewey, LCC and NLM are common examples. These schemes are good at describing books, video and music, but do not lend themselves well to physical objects. As far as I know the scheme.org folks are only group that has attempted this. And it's messy, to say the least! The approach I am using is not standard, but includes enough meta-data about the object to serve for insurance purposes. This includes the following:

- a unique identification number. For example VI-131
- basic object type (dagger, sword, jambiya, etc.)
- origin
- date and place of manufacture
- a detailed description
- the object dimensions
- valuations

I hope this helps. Good luck!

Harry

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

"The pen is mightier than the sword...and a lot easier to write with" !!

[Jens Nordlunde]

Quote.
- a unique identification number. For example VI-131
- basic object type (dagger, sword, jambiya, etc.)
- origin
- date and place of manufacture
- a detailed description
- the object dimensions
- valuations
End of quote.

I doubt that an indification number couls be used here.
Basic object type. Good idea, but some of the weapons are called different names in the different parts of India.
A detailed discription. Good idea, but impossible to many new collectors.
The object demensions. Yes this should be possible.
Valuations. Out of the question if you have read the forum rules.

Thank you for trying, but this is very complex, and I doubt that the different collectors can/will agree to a certain standard - butwe can always hope.

Jens

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Quote.
- a unique identification number. For example VI-131
- basic object type (dagger, sword, jambiya, etc.)
- origin
- date and place of manufacture
- a detailed description
- the object dimensions
- valuations
End of quote.

I doubt that an indification number couls be used here.
Basic object type. Good idea, but some of the weapons are called different names in the different parts of India.
A detailed discription. Good idea, but impossible to many new collectors.
The object demensions. Yes this should be possible.
Valuations. Out of the question if you have read the forum rules.

Thank you for trying, but this is very complex, and I doubt that the different collectors can/will agree to a certain standard - butwe can always hope.

Jens

Jens,
Absolutely right. You could not do this with a group of collectors, and I wouldn't suggest such a thing. Successful classification schemes have formal bodies that govern them. What I am suggesting is that there is no reason collectors cannot adopt a scheme of their own, for their own collection. Those are really basic metadata elements. I have no doubt it could be improved upon.

Regards, Harry

[fernando]

Originally Posted by harrywagner

... What I am suggesting is that there is no reason collectors cannot adopt a scheme of their own, for their own collection. Those are really basic metadata elements. I have no doubt it could be improved upon ...

Maybe i am missing something Harry but, if i understand you correctly, this is a vital basic for keeping a collection; either for your own guidance or for insurance purposes ... or even for your successors if and when you kick the bucket, so they know what they have and to deal with.
I also think nmany collectors already practice such habit.

I keep a record of all items, split by (1) firearms, (2) white arms and (3) diverse.

Organized by:

- Item number ... although i don't stick a label to the pieces, which is an option.
- Type ... sword, pistol, etc.
- Origin ... Country, area.
- Model ... basket hilt, box lock, etc.
- Serial number ... when existing.
- Marks/inscriptions.
- Seller/trader.
- Age.
- Description details ... full as possible, incl. dimensions, weight, etc
- Price acquired.
- Date acquired.
- Hiperlink to photos ... of my own archives.

When i update my little collection to the Insurance company, i copy all the above, except the Seller/trader column. No need to transmit such info.
Basicaly when you buy a piece, very often some of the particulars to be recorded are not available; then you have to browse the net, consult the forum and all that ... like you would give your kingdom to reach the info to fill all those columns. But that's what makes all the fun.


-

[RobertGuy]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]Jens, may I suggest that the people who own the cultural artifact are the ones who decide what it is known as?

I agree in theory but sometimes this can lead to more confusion. Often the local name for a particular type of sword just translates as sword, katana is a long sword, claymore is a great sword or big sword. When you say claymore do you refer to a medieval two hander, a basket hilted broad sword, a basket hilted back sword, or a sword like object that Scotts lassies dance around?
This is what makes collecting and researching such fun. Of course you could stick to collecting European military swords of the 18th -20th centuries with their clear official pattern numbers ... unless you count variant blades

[Tim Simmons]

This is a very interesting thread. Tribal people might make a weapon from local and found foreign pieces. it is still an "ethnic weapon" also tools can be weapons. Many battles when the peasants where sent in they would most likely fight with tool like weapon {spades, forks so on}.

This is a difficult area especially when it comes to trade. It is so easy for a vendor or buyer to say this or that is not right. However knowledge {culture, history, technique and region influences} and searching for real examples should make it easier to spot the cobbled together fake pieces. Anything off standard is always open to blinkered questioning which is a shame. On the over hand it can mean good piece for those on more limited means.