Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[kronckew]

the vikings, like the japanese named individual swords of note. the tachi and katana are both curved swords, genus 'samurai swords' subclasses tachi and katana. simlar taxonomy for knives?

i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c.

arroz by any other name would small as sweet.

'karud' may not have started off as a proper unique word, but it has gained a life of it's own. english especially is famous for loan words and made-up words, ambiguous words, etc.. unlike france, or quebec, where you may get fined for using the english word for an item that has a french equivalent in french conversation, we do not have that restriction here. i hope.

[Lee]

I think that we collectors of ethnographic artifacts have found it very convenient (and fitting) to adopt what may have been a generic term (i.e. sword, knife, dagger) in the language or dialect of the producing culture as a specific term for an artifact of that culture. On many occasions what was recorded and became accepted has been 'in error' and a brief visit to your dusty copy of Stone's Glossary... should prove that. So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Lee

So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.

But we need to know all the nuances, mentioned by D.Miloserdov and Ariel....

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent discussion, and as Lee has noted, many terms and long held 'chestnuts' concerning the spectrum of arms have been firmly in place or 'written in Stone' . However, as with most aspects of history and all its ancillary studies, it is well to learn all we can on origins and development of not just the forms, but their descriptive terms' etymology. Stone himself knew the frailty of his chosen subject matter, and that his work would serve as the benchmark it has become, and encouraged research to continue,

The very nature of these aspects are often of course nuanced, subtle and many have clearly gone unnoticed or unattended at large, which is exactly why these perspectives by Ariel and Dmitry are so well placed.

[ariel]

OK, I am back. Snoopy passed the test with flying colors. She came home and immediately fell asleep. Good girl.

Again, thank you all for your feedback.

The goal of my little research was to trace the origin of the word Karud and to tell a cautionary tale how important it is to read primary sources with attention.

To my great relief and satisfaction nobody questioned the veracity of my analysis. This is already good:-)

All the dissenting opinions were centered around a different question: given that right now we all know that Karud is not a real word, but a mistranscription of Kard, should we still use it in our communications and publications? Several Forumites said that the word Karud is so deeply ingrained in our vocabulary and so convenient to use, that abandoning it will make communications difficult if not impossible.

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz ( with straight blade).

Such is the case with the Polish book "Persian arms and armour" ( Ed. by A.R. Chodynski): see ## 177,179-181, 182. In that book, L. Kobylinski states that some examples of Peshkabz had recurved blades, while other had straight blades (p.65).
"Oriental weapons" by J. Caravana ( #59)
" Splendeur des armes orientales" (#209)
" Arms of the Paladins" by O. Pinchot (#3-107)
"Catalogue de la collection d'armes anciennes" by C Buttin ( ##699, 700)
"Contribution a l'etude...." By P. Holstein, (#141)
"Islamic and Oriental Arms and Armor" by R. Hales ( ## 19-21,24,27,32, 33, 36,79,140,167)
" Mortal Beauty" ( published under the aegis of Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow) #91
" The arts of the Muslim Knight" by B. Mohamed #183
" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)

As we can see, it is quite easy to communicate without involving the word "Karud".
And, for those who want a short and precise definition that is in complete agreement with the local usage, why not use
" shotorkosh"? :-)

On a serious note, nobody can ban a certain word from conversational practice. How about a compromise: using "Karud" in unofficial discussions ( yielding to the ardent devotees of this word), but avoiding it in any serious academic publication
( accepting the fact that it has nothing to do with local usage and became popular only due to phonetic mishap by the Europeans) ?

Although Shotorkosh still sounds grand! :-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz.

But they are not pesh-kabz, why didnt the makers of these daggers just create more pesh-kabz if they were making peshkabz???? Just because they are similar in some aspects does not make then the same and just because SOME authors made the mistake of thinking that the karud and pesh-kabz are the same why should we?

Why stop here, lets not call a "choora" a choora, or a "kyber knife" a kyber knife...the original makers of these weapons did not call them by these names.

Take the Indian tegha sword, similar to a tulwar but different enough to have its own name, the list goes on, I could show many such examples.

And while we are at it, since you brought up the "kard" dagger many times, just because the karud and the dagger we now call a "kard" both have only one cutting edge does not make them the same either, examples below.

I trust what my eyes see, not what some authors decides is right, they have been wrong before, on many occasions, same with museums, and auction houses etc. We now have online an abundance of images and can see for ourselves which weapons are basically the same and which are different enough to have a separate name.

Look at the examples of karud and kard daggers below...would anyone mistake them for being the same?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)

Ariel, karud daggers come from India, Afghanistan as well as Persia (I do not remember ever seeing an ottoman karud), what is the Indian name and what is the Afghan name, and why should we in the west be confined to what some native many years ago supposedly called a certain weapon if it now has a currently used and accepted name. On the other hand, if a particular weapons proved to be different enough to have an individual name and it ws not already named this would be a different matter entirely.

[ariel]

Eric,
You are missing the point again.
Kard, just like choora is just a " knife" in Persian and "Hindoostanee" respectively. Here Gilchrist was 100% correct.
Nobody with a minimal knowledge of weapons from that area would confuse kard with peshkabz ( or even karud, if you want it). Two immediate differences just jump out at you: peshkabz has a sudden narrowing of the blade next to the handle and also has a T-spine.
But all of them are just knives.
Perhaps, you should look at the references I cited and let all of us know why they are NOT peshkabz ( es?).

Overall, I take my hat off to you, if you think that all the abovementioned authors ( including Mohamed, Pinchot, Kobylinski, Hales, Buttin, Holstein etc.) were mistaken, and you alone are correct.


In one thing you are unquestionably correct: Persian peshkabz with recurved blade , Central Asian and Indian "Karud" ( you see how accomodating I am?) with straight blade and Afghani Mahsud choora all belong to the same family, with just ethnic variations.

As to Khyber knife, this is yet another example of the European domination of printed word in general and weapon literature in particular. Over here somebody mentioned long ago the work of a Latvian knife aficionado Denis Cherevichnik: he found an old Pashto-English dictionary in which this weapon was locally called " selawah". This is the origin of the pre-"Khyber knife" European moniker Salawar Yataghan: Selawah mutated to British transcription Salawar, and yataghan possibly was added because of a similarity of the recurved profile of some "khybers" to a more familiar Ottoman weapon.

Here is the reference ( took me some time to find it in old archives):

Raverty, H. G. (Henry George). A dictionary of the Pukhto, Pushto, or language of the Afghans: with remarks on the originality of the language, and its affinity to other oriental tongues. Second edition, with considerable additions. London: Williams and Norgate, 1867



________________________________________
سیلاوه selā-waʿh, s.f. (3rd) A large and long knife, a formidable weapon about two feet long or more, used by the Afg̠ẖāns. Pl. يْ ey
(Raverty, 1867.P. 1143)

[estcrh]

Here is a mention of a "karud" knife, 1825.


Hindoostanee Philology: Comprising a Dictionary, English and Hindoostanee; with a Grammatical Introduction, Volume 1, John Borthwick Gilchrist, Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen, 1825.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Overall, I take my hat off to you, if you think that all the abovementioned authors were mistaken, and you are correct.

I go with what my eyes tell me, how many times have I heard people say the "Stone was wrong". Just because a certain writer has some credibility does not always mean that they are right.

[estcrh]

(double post)

[estcrh]

The use of the term 'karud" goes way back, is it any wonder that people have accepted and use the term now, George Stone used in it 1934. That is over 70yrs I believe, and you suddenly want to eliminate the term because....can you explain again, I still cant quite figure out why we should stop using it.

A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: in All Countries and in All Times, by George Cameron Stone, 1934.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps, you should look at the references I cited and let all of us know why they are NOT peshkabz ( es?).

I have already SHOWN why, the images I posted show a straight bladed karud dagger, a pesh-kabz is curved bladed, unless you really believe there is absolutely no difference and they are exactly the same dagger and that the makers of these daggers believed that they were making the same dagger, but then if that were true why bother to make a straight bladed dagger and a curved bladed dagger?

Not to long ago you were the one arguing that certain swords that appeared to be shashka were in fact not actually shashka but just happened to look like shashka.

Now you are arguing that two daggers that look completely different are actually the same...humm....

[ariel]

Perhaps, you should re-read my original post and look at Fig.2. Everything you just said in your multiple posts was already there.
I do not think there is any reason for me to continue arguing with you: you either not reading or not comprehending.
Please feel free to use any word you wish.
I am going to bed.
Best wishes and good night.

[estcrh]

Here is a reference to "karud", 1843



Cabool: A Personal Narrative of a Journey To, and Residence in that City, in the Years 1836, 7, and 8, Sir Alexander Burnes J. Murray, 1843

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps, you should re-read my original post and look at Fig.2. Everything you just said in your multiple posts was already there.
I do not think there is any reason for me to continue arguing with you: you either not reading or not comprehending.
Please feel free to use any word you wish.
I am going to bed.
Best wishes and good night.

Ok, run off, but as for your post #2, it is blurry and you did not say were it can from or the date. Sorry you are unable to handle any type of disagreement with your theory but that is what people do on forums, disagree, argue and put their best research forward for others to judge.

I was just giving any interested people some visual proof that the word karud has fairly widely used for a long period of time. You are the one who out of the blue suddenly decided that we should completely stop using the word.

[estcrh]

Mughal weapons in the Bābur-nāmā, Gayatri Nath Pant
Agam Kala Prakashan, 1989

[A. G. Maisey]

I do believe that it has now been established that the romanised spellings "kard", and "karud" both represent the same object name when that name is written in the original script.

In fact, in language of origin, both these spellings refer to the same object.

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?

My field is not kards, karuds, khards or anything similar, but those of us who play with keris have exactly this same situation, there are innumerable ways of spelling "keris":- kris, cris, creese, are the most common, then there are the terms used in keris bearing cultures, words which bear no visible relationship to "keris".

But when Players with Keris talk amongst themselves, it doesn't seem to matter what word is used to refer to the object, we still understand one another.

In this Forum, and nowhere else to my knowledge, an artificial distinction has been drawn between the spelling "keris" and "kris". Keris refers to the dagger form, "kris" refers to the sword form, mostly from the Southern Philippines. Both these forms are by any academic definition keris --- or if we prefer "kris" --- but for purposes of discussion here we have this artificial, but useful, distinction, useful, because it has been decided that the sword version really belongs in the Forum that discusses swords. Let's call it an administrative decision.

When we look at the English language, we find one major spelling variation, that is between American English and British English, some words have two, or sometimes more, different spellings, but they are still the same word and still carry the same broad meaning, although, admittedly, meanings can vary according to specific societal usage, especially implied meanings.

There is a great deal of flexibility in the way language is used. Does it really matter if I spell a word using the UK spelling, and somebody else spells it using the American spelling?

It is general practice in English, and in many other languages, that where there are variations within a category of object, that variation is identified by use of an adjective. Kards and karuds are the same object but can possess a variation, thus in accord with general usage of the English language we would normally add an adjective to identify this variation.

Why is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.

[estcrh]

Here is what Ariel had to say on the subject of karud, 2013

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?........................................Wh y is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.

Because now the two words describe completely different daggers, did you see the comparison photos I posted showing the difference between the karud dagger and the kard dagger, do you really think that are the same??

Here are two google searches, on for kard and one for karud, see for yourself.

Kard https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=k...w=1278&bih=678

Karud https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=k...w=1278&bih=678

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.

However, I must admit, my weapons study is based in anthropology, sociology and language study, I can no longer regard myself as a true collector of weapons, rather I collect information on one particular type of weapon.

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.

This brings us back to common English usage. The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object, and starting from the same root. As a general rule, the way the English language--- and many other languages --- handles this matter, when a variation in the object occurs, is to use a descriptor, an adjective, to differentiate one from the other.

So my question then is whether this is an English Language Forum, or whether we have our own jargon?

Perhaps we really do have our own jargon, as demonstrated by previous reference to the "kris/keris" matter. Now that was handled by the taking of an administrative decision. Possibly if it can be demonstrated that the bulk of people who are members of this Forum want two different words to describe two varieties of the same dagger, then a punitive system could be put in place to ensure that the correct jargon was used at all times.

Or maybe the matter is of such vital importance that a couple of new sub-forums could be set up, one for discussion of kards, one for discussion of karuds.

But on second thought, maybe that would not be such a good idea, because then all those troublesome Keris People might want all manner of sub-forums to discuss the vast variety to be found in keris forms.Straight blades in one forum, 3 wave blades in another, 5 wave blades in another, a separate forum for keris sajen, another for keris budo. The possibilities are endless.

A workable alternative for the kards and karuds would be to simply stick with the practices that govern common English usage.

Language is a tool that is used to vocalise thought.

Script is a tool that is used to present the vocalisation of thought in a graphic form.

Where two objects are thought of in the same way by the culture that owns those objects, the transliteration of the name shared by those objects should ideally remain true to the graphic representation of the original thought.

Where transliteration of one graphic representation to a different graphic representation results in more than one graphic representation of the original script, then it can be recognised that those additional graphic representations are equally true to the original for the new users of that word.

Thus, kard = karud, and if there is a variation in form of the object that is the owner of the name, it should be identified by use of an adjective together with the noun.

I apologise for the long winded comment. I find this subject fascinating, and it appears that for English Language professionals it is no less fascinating. What I have given above is a precis of a couple of hours discussion with an English Language academic

[Roland_M]

Kard/Karud is a Persian term and simply means "knife".

It is probably the same like with Indonesian weapons, "piso gading" also simply means "knife ivory". "Piso gading" seems to be a modern term. Maybe Kard/karud is also not the original designation.


Roland

[ariel]

Alan,

The point is that there are no two different spellings of Kard and Karud. In Persian it is spelled Kard and nothing else. As you have previously noted, the soft rolling of "r" gives an aural impression of yet another vowel after it ( "u" for Gilchrist and Moser, "e" for Holstein): an epenthesis. Karud is a word that did not exist in written form: it is just a result of a phonetical mishap.

That was the salient point of my inquiry into the origin of the word Karud in the contemporary Western literature, no more.

I find it amusing that there still are attempts to use a phonetical error to officially create a separate class of realia. Some phonetical peculiarities acquire a life of their own: in Arabic there is no phoneme "p"; thus the language of Pars became Farsi and Greco-Roman Neapolis became Nablus. Still, they refer to the same things.

As to the usage of Karud in unofficial discussions, I have no beef with it.

My point referred to "professional literature", and I clearly indicated it in the last sentence of my original post.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ariel, correct, as I wrote in my previous post:-

"--- The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object---"

The people who owned the object and its name clearly thought of this object as the same thing, whether it had a straight blade or a waved blade, but through the process of transliteration that one word became two words when it passed into other languages and other script.

We're on the same page here, perhaps I was insufficiently clear in what I wrote.

As I understand it, for some collectors this "karud" word has become an addition to their lexicon of weapon names. In other words it has entered collector jargon. We know it is not legit. We know it is a construct, but if it helps some people express themselves clearly and save all that effort of using an adjective, it probably doesn't matter. The academics will continue to try their best to be precise, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, so the serious literature will remain correct, and the friendly social chatter can use whatever words everybody agrees to.

I'm not into kards, nor karuds, but if I was, I think I'd probably spell the word "khard", that seems to me to have a much more regal touch to it than the plebian old "kard". A little bit of aspiration never did do anything but put a slightly gilded edge to a word.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.

Alan, i believe this is correct when we are looking at the differences between what Estcrh insists should be called "karud" and the "pesh-kabz", however, there is quite a substantial difference in the blade forms between what collectors generally consider to be a "kard" and a "karud" as Estcrh clearly illustrates in his post #36. I don't believe anyone would confuse one of these knives with the other and they do probably need distinctly different names to avoid confusion in discussion. However, when we are looking at the "karud" (as recognized by Estcrh and others) and the pesh-kabz, to my eye we are indeed looking at a variation on the same blade design, one straight and one recurved. I see no trouble in calling a "karud" in this case a "straight pesh-kabz". But what people generally refer to as a "kard" could never be seen as a straight pesh-kabz. it is a completely different blade form.

[David]

Originally Posted by estcrh

David, the keris you show have straight blades not curved, now if a keris had a curved blade instead of straight (is there such a thing?) would it not have a specific name, probably so.

Estcrh, you seriously see the wavy bladed keris on the left side of my post #27 as "straight blades"? You cannot see how what i posted applies to this topic of discussion? I am afraid that you have left me confused in this matter.

[David]

Originally Posted by estcrh

David, try Japanese swords, everything has a name and I mean everything!! And then there are the smiths and the schools etc etc.

LOL! There are probably at least twice as many named parts to a keris blade as there is for a katana. That doesn't even begin to get into the variant dhapurs (blade profiles) and pamor patterns. And then the concepts of tangguh that categorize blades by era geography. Believe me the Japanese sword has nothing on keris when it comes to names and categories. Please, don't get me started.

[ariel]

David,
You are correct: we can compose an endless list of Oriental weapons with the same name and different blades or handles ( Ottoman yataghan is just one example), or with different names and identical construction ( see Van Zonneveld's book of Indonesian weapons).

Most, if not all of it, is due to ethnic or even village traditions.

Early Oriental societies had no regulation patterns. The same blade with different handles could have been a Peshkabz with straight blade ( once again, an example of my magnanimity: a Karud) or an Afridi Choora. Asking why did the knifemakers manufacture Peshkabz with straight blade instead of a recurved one is pointless, akin to asking why some Kris are wavy and some are straight or why Zeibek yataghans have T-like pommel instead of an eared one and integral bolster instead of flimsy hollow brass one.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

... i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c...

As an empirical i am fond of neologisms but, when Fernando Fulgosio decided to put a name to this thing in 1872, he was hardly building one. Remember there was no record of how this sword was called by its ancestor users, so he got hold of some latin (Roman) script quoting this sword they greatly appreciated, ensis falcâtus and, aware of the curved (sickle) attribution, off he went. Only in the current case he made it simple, only opting for connoting the form of the blade and declining the substantive 'sword', after ensis.
Certainly more complicated is when authors have to refer, in their own (english) phonetic manner, to swords named in all languages, attending to the sound pronounced by their nationals; and eventually omitting the term ethimology, something which would give the reader a more accurate perception. I see how Portuguese established contact with weapons (and all) they encountered during their XVI century travels and chroniclers had to put them in writing; the deal was to turn into portuguese as per the sound they heard. Then once it is written, is perpetuated.
You don't see many (any) weapons in Stone with a Portuguese name; he entitles his work as 'in all countries in all times' but i suspect he didn't contemplate this little corner. The only time so far i found a familiar term (page 3) is result of a gaffe; he joins the term Adaga with Adarga, whereas the first is a dagger and the second is a shield... terms with completely different origins.

Originally Posted by kronckew

... arroz by any other name would small as sweet. ...

You mean arroz doce, sweet rice; your portuguese is improving .

[Oliver Pinchot]

Interesting topic, Ariel. I applaud and support your work here.
And you are correct, I didn't use that term in Arms of the Paladins because it did not exist as a distinct word in its period of use. Like a number of other inaccurate names applied to weapons, it was recorded by early European and American students of arms and armor who were seeking to establish a viable taxonomy, as they heard it in situ.

Fernando and Alan, please forgive me for reiterating what you have already stated with modesty, simplicity, and complete accuracy in this thread... Karud is nothing more than the precise transliteration into Latin letters of the way the Persian word kard (which just means "knife") was and is pronounced in Persian and Dari: with a distinct alveolar trill. Another example would be the word for “leather,” charm, which comes out sounding like charrr-um.)

The problem lies, not with Persian, but with the pronunciation of the letter R in American and British English, French and German; it is virtually impossible to transliterate even an approximately similar sound in these languages without inserting a U between the R and D, simply because none of them roll the R in common speech. Italian, Spanish, Russian (and many others,) however, would likely not have the same problem. Conversely, I could not for a moment imagine how an Iranian scholar would go about transliterating the American pronunciation of the word squirrel into Persian.