Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So when I see your "kard", or your "karud" I do not ask what collectors in New York, London or Patagonia call this dagger, I ask what the people who own the culture that generated this weapon call it.

It appears that these people had only one name for both varieties of the dagger.

But this discussion is ALL about what WESTERN collectors, dealers etc call these weapons due to the fact that Ariel is saying that the terms now being use should not be used.

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote, and since you admit you have no interest in these weapons I do not understand your point. For example, I have absolutely no interest in keris and would not even try to tell the people interested in these weapons what to call the different types.

I am inclined to believe tht this is a discussion that has taken place in Russian forums and is now being played out on this forum for some unknown reason.

[A. G. Maisey]

ESTCRH I do understand that it can be difficult to follow everything that is written in a posted comment, and I also understand that the way in which I choose to write my comments can be quite difficult for some people to follow.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion I may have caused you.

To clarify:- please be aware that I have absolutely no intention of attempting to tell anybody with an interest in kards or karuds or anything else for that matter, what they should call these things. In my post #54 you will see that I actually endorse the current situation, where the word "karud" has achieved recognition as collector jargon.

I believe that far from saying that the word "karud" should not be used, Ariel has actually suggested that since it has become a part of collector jargon he can see no reason why it should not continue thus, however, in serious publications that try take account of the cultural context, a slightly more accurate approach that considers word origin should be employed.

In this current discussion, my interest is purely in the way in which language is used.

Ariel's post that opened the discussion was centered on a matter that has concerned me for most of my life, and that is the way in which language develops and is used.

As I also have a + 60 year involvement with edged weaponry, and specifically with the keris, that interest in language has not surprisingly extended into the use of language, both spoken and written, in the field of edged weaponry.

In respect of the two words "kard", and "karud", it is very clear that in the culture of origin only one word was used to refer to both styles of this dagger, however, through a variation in transliteration, when that single word entered other languages, and the original script was Romanised, that single word became two different words.

It appears that one of those two words has now entered the jargon of one group of people:- collectors who are based outside the culture of origin of the dagger in question.

I do understand that many collectors of many different types of things, including weaponry, have no interest in, nor understanding of, the cultures of origin of the things they collect, these collectors focus on the physical object they collect and create their own terms of reference. I have no problem with this: it is what these people do, and it is no business of mine how they pursue their interest.

But other collectors take a different approach to their collecting:- they attempt to obtain a deeper understanding of the thing that they choose to collect and this very often leads to a study of the culture, society, history, language, technology and so forth of the thing that they collect.

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.

Actually most of the collectors I know and dealers as well are quite interested in the historical accuracy of descriptions but they know enough to separate the historical description that was used by the original owners / users...(who were not collectors) from the currently used and accepted description of weapons types that are different enough to be called by a distinct name.

I can name many such examples and since the pesh-kabz and the karud are very idenifiable by their differences SERIOUS collectors decided (way in the past) to give these distinct types names...a very simple way to categorize weapons and armor, this is what western collectors do as opposed to the people who originally owned and used these items. This does not make the people who use this method less scholarly, if fact in my mind it makes these people even more knowledgable since they have to ability to travel both worlds instead of being stuck in one or the other.

Having a "deeper understanding" does not mean you have to ignore the currently used terms just because some villager in the past, who did not collect weapons at all but simply owned and used them, and called all daggers, swords etc by the same name.

Ariel suggests they we ignore history and pretend it does not exist by stating that it is somehow unprofessional to mention the word "karud" in any so called scholarly publications, I think the exact opposite, I think it is unprofessional not to mention the decades old currently used descriptions....trying to erase the past is not very scholarly.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes ESTCRH, we all have our own opinions, and of course we are permitted to express those opinions, most people in this Forum seem to have a tendency to respect the opinions of others, just as I respect your opinions and I also respect Ariel's opinions.

However, my respect does not extend to blind agreement with any opinion.

[Battara]

Folks the point of debate and sharing of knowledge is to express and then reflect on what the other has said.

Let us all keep our emotional reactions out of this please. This is not pointed at any one person, but everyone.

[RobertGuy]

Just to lighten things up:

What is needed is for everybody to use the agreed standard nomenclature for these blades.
The Peshkabz should always be referred to by its proper designation, a Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 10, the Kard must be identified as the Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 11 and the Karud correctly identified as the Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 11A ( the model 11B designation should be avoided unless there is an R in the month)

Looks like a duck
Walks like a duck
Quacks like a duck

ITS A DUCK

[mariusgmioc]

Very interesting discussion but I must stress that in Persian the word "KARD/KARUD" simply means knife... OF ANY TYPE.

The same way the word "SHAMSHIR" means sword... of any type.

Or the same way the word "KILIJ" in Turkish means sword ... of any type.

Or the same way the word "BICHAK" in Turkish means knife... of any type.

Yet, it were the European researchers/collectors/scholars who associated all these generic local names to very specific types of weapons.

Whether this happened because of a missunderstanding of the local language or because of a deliberate decission is relevant mainly for the scholar and scientific accuracy. For us, as collectors, is more important to have clear and precise terms to accurately describe each type of weapon.

Since there is NO ethnographically and linguistically correct term to describe precisely the straight-bladed Pesh-kabz, I believe we are perfectly justified to use the term "KARUD" to describe it, even if it may be ethnographically and linguistically incorrect.

[Oriental-Arms]

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Oriental-Arms

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....

[Jim McDougall]

Robert Guy I like your style! great humor is a relief in these situations where frustration needs a relief valve.

Actually, I too am always fascinated by language and etymology, but I am far from a linguist, and do not speak any language but English. From this standpoint, I include these angles in my often deep research historically into these weapons and their forms.
While I do not agree that the term 'karud' be lifted from our 'jargon' (well put Alan!) I do highly applaud the research work and articles by both Ariel and Dmitry.
In all of this there should not be conflict or debate, but constructive examining of all of this research to comprehensively establish the data to emplace in the historical footnotes concerning these weapons.

I think of so many examples of these kinds of situations in ethnographic forms where terms have been often applied arbitrarily in western attempts to classify and categorize them. The koummya; janwii; khanjhar; janbiyya; of course 'katar'; and many, many others beyond the karud, pesh kabz, kard, bichaq group.
Virtually all of these have extenuating circumstances in their names linguistically and etymologically, but these are part of the fascination and intrigue of ethnographic arms as far as I can see.

It would be completely misplaced and counterproductive to remove any of these terms from our glossaries, as they are the semantic fiber of our countless years of research on them. To revise and update our future literature to include these valuable findings and new evidence on etymology adds profoundly to the history of these weapons, and that should be our focus.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jim, spot on.

Maybe its time for a 21st century Stone to appear.

[ariel]

If one would want it to be not only a "picture" book for a quick attribution, but a more academic one, with references, controversies, ethnic and time variations, that will require at least doubling the size of Stone's Glossary and several years of dedicated effort by a multi-member team of narrow-field specialists.

A Herculean task....

[A. G. Maisey]

Agreed Ariel.

Nothing of value comes easy.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Oriental-Arms

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

I would name this one "MINE"!!! A beauty, nicely made, an excellent example of a gigantic karud...certainly not a kard or pesh-kabz. There are from time to time certain weapons that just bend the rules a bit, not quite one thing or another, not everything is a perfect fit. A kyber-karud..humm

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

If one would want it to be not only a "picture" book for a quick attribution, but a more academic one, with references, controversies, ethnic and time variations, that will require at least doubling the size of Stone's Glossary and several years of dedicated effort by a multi-member team of narrow-field specialists.

A Herculean task....

Ariel, that would be the only way to have a complete history of an item, it is a Herculean task, which is why I am amazed that anyone attempts it, even on a small scale. Take for instance Trevor Absolon, author of several books on Japanese armor. He has been working on a new book, basically The History of Japanese Armor...years of painstaking research, collecting obscure references, images etc. Finally he is in the process getting ready to publish...but he has to keep putting the date back due to some new information suddenly being available, its hard to put the finishing touches on something that will be discussed and argued with for the rest of your life.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....

I think khyber-karud is a good description, it is nothing like what collectors call a "kard".

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Very interesting discussion but I must stress that in Persian the word "KARD/KARUD" simply means knife... OF ANY TYPE.

The same way the word "SHAMSHIR" means sword... of any type.

Or the same way the word "KILIJ" in Turkish means sword ... of any type.

Or the same way the word "BICHAK" in Turkish means knife... of any type.

Yet, it were the European researchers/collectors/scholars who associated all these generic local names to very specific types of weapons.

Whether this happened because of a missunderstanding of the local language or because of a deliberate decission is relevant mainly for the scholar and scientific accuracy. For us, as collectors, is more important to have clear and precise terms to accurately describe each type of weapon.

Since there is NO ethnographically and linguistically correct term to describe precisely the straight-bladed Pesh-kabz, I believe we are perfectly justified to use the term "KARUD" to describe it, even if it may be ethnographically and linguistically incorrect.

I think this is a good, precise description of the discussion here. I would think that using an accepted and known name for this type of dagger, whether you think it is a variation of the pesh-kabz or a similar but completely separate type is a good thing, people who accept and use "karud" are on the same page when discussing these weapons. As for a any publications, why not explain the controversy about the name, then people will have a well rounded knowledge of the items history.

[ariel]

Eric,

It seems to me that finally you have actually read my posts. This is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning.

Good job.

[Ian]

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects.

As collectors, it is important to see that we are preservers of human heritage (that of people in some villages too!) and as such, must strive to preserve it in the way it was, not as typos and mishearing. That said, as someone currently engaging in a research, the effort of western collectors and researchers is most valuable, but so does the remaining heritage of some person living in a village somewhere. The idea that somehow the locals have forgotten their heritage and the truth is only found in old oriental works is quite misleading and sadly too prevalent amongst collectors.

What Ariel did is quite helpful, it helps dispel a myth. A small step and a highly appreciated one.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ian

... I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary....

Absolutely, Ian.

Originally Posted by Ian

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated...

And even various spellings among different groups , as one may find in his own people ... and dictionary.

Originally Posted by Ian

... Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided...

What an excelent approach; not only for this specific case but for all of similar nature.

Originally Posted by Ian

...What's in a name?...

Or how you decide to deal with it .

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects...

Hi A. alnakas,
I know your words have a benign intention but, for a moment, they could look like a simplistic manner to reduce the quality range of collecting people to two categories; the lowest being the hoarder class. But don't pay any notice; it could be my misperception

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

Absolutely perfectly reasoned and eloquently written Ian, and well describing what most of us are trying to establish, the parameters that surround properly describing ethnographic and historical arms and armor forms.

As has been noted, the monumental work by George Cameron Stone in 1934 has stood ever since as the cornerstone (with its heft almost literally) in the world of arms study for both scholars and collectors. I think it has long been wished that an updated version could be accomplished, and there have been numbers of attempts in degree. Even Herculean falls short of illustrating the huge challenge in achieving such a task.

As Eric has noted, the problem in researching, compiling and writing a book even on a single often limited field or form is difficult as there are constantly new examples, material and more accurate perspectives arising. This is because of, thankfully, our cadre of enthusiasts in the study of arms and armor, constantly probing, investigating, evaluating, discovering...and this is part of the fiber of the passion of collectors in our chosen fields.

I think Lofty has well expressed the circumstances involved in the study and the struggle to more accurately describe and understand the many conflicts and nuances which arise in the progression of research.
There is indeed a considerable spectrum in the character of collectors, who well augment the necessary examples and evidence required by scholars who are deeply involved in such research. I think Fernando has astutely observed (coincidentally in the theme of this discussion) the misfortune of a word or term inadvertently placed in an otherwise beautifully explained text.

I think the term 'hoarder' is probably a bit strong, however it does apply to the character in some cases of some who strive to collect impressively, focusing less on the history, details and background of items they amass. What they seek is an impressive and concisely worded description which will be resounding in the volume of examples proudly exhibited in carefully organized categorization.
While this type of collector is quite different than most, it should be recognized that they are characteristically with somewhat different ajenda and goals than others in many ways.
To our benefit, these individuals by sheer volume often turn up key examples which provide valuable evidence as they are proudly displayed.

To be fair, a 'hoarder' is one who amasses things in huge volume but usually secretively and without specific purpose. A collector who amasses often huge volumes of arms and does not exhibit specific interest in their history in depth, is simply a collector, rather than a historian.

Conversely, I personally do not collect any longer, and am a historian, who deeply appreciates the opportunities to view, study and discuss the amazing spectrum of arms here, and shared by those who DO collect, regardless of WHY.

[fernando]

A gentle approach to the hoarder term, both with and without a connotation tone; gentle as you usually are, Jim. But allow me to add a humble note to the collector categorization, as an apendix to the implicit subject.
Collectors, to be collectors, do not have to follow any specific tendency. There are those who enjoy learning how the weapon was used, in what context, their origin, what would be their date, that is, the quantity of juice they chose to squeeze out of available data, easily or intensively (re)searched, depending on each one's disposition; however not necessarily interested, as an allien example, in what is the composition of metal each weapon is composed with, to the extent of studying the temperature at which its material melts ... if i make myself understood. Nonetheless collectors still they are. Let us make sure that collectors out there who are not interested in ultimate academic details are not as vulgar as hoarders; they simply might not take it so flattery .

[Ian]

Fernando, I agree. Those who collect large numbers of weapons are not to be condemned for their passion and resources. I have no problem with people who collect in such a way, as long as they are not driving up the prices to where I cannot afford good quality items any more.

Eventually large collections are broken up, and that benefits us too. As long as the items have been well preserved, large old collections become a valuable source for the rest of us.

[fernando]

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes . In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders .

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Fernando for clarifying and well explaining what I had been trying to say but apparently missed the mark. I was hoping to explain that 'hoarder' was not a good term to use for collectors who do not necessarily share scholastic or academic endeavors toward them. I thought that by describing their perspective as though often unique and apart from others who seek detailed learning from the weapons, they are still syncretically important in our community as they often acquire important examples amidst their volume which we students can learn from.

As Ian has pointed out, the only concern is the driving up of prices by unabashed competition whose only purpose might be acquisition to satisfy an empty hole in the grouping with a key example which has inherent qualities or evidence in a scholastic matter. To deny recognizing that such circumstances or individuals exist whether with'collectors', 'dealers', investors or opportunists would be naive.

As I explained, we all have different approaches to collecting or studying, and for me personally, I have never understood metallurgy and scientific analysis on weapons, nor have I interest in martial aspects. Despite not being interested in these aspects, I very much admire those who excel in these areas and try (key word) to follow their entries.

The good thing is that here we have deviated a little from linguistics into philosophy here!!! Who says that the study of arms (hoplology for the wordsmiths) does not fit into the academic curriculum in humanities!!!??
As always, I learn a lot here and hope others do as well.

[Royston]

Originally Posted by fernando

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes . In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders .

A few years ago I was allowed into the basement of a museum with the curator. I could not believe the amount of items that were stored there. Items which any collector would be dribbling over. There was no room to display these things and they could not be sold or even swapped as almost all of them had been gifted and had to remain the property of the museum. This was a small county museum in England, god knows what is hidden away in the large museums of the world, never to see the light of day.

Roy

[ariel]

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

[A.alnakkas]

The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.