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:

[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......

[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 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.

[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]

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?