WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD?

[A. G. Maisey]

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material


It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material


It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

The above is noted, but the subject of importation laws was discussed at some length in a previous post. The subject here relates to Jambiya and their length> I am pleased that the post has generated discussion as there seems to have been, (APART FROM IN A FEW CASES), a lack of response to posts lately. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has contact with the Middle East, and who can give us some insight regarding the names used for these in that area. Is there a different name used for regular size jambiya and those which are verging on sword size.

Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The above is noted, but the subject of importation laws was discussed at some length in a previous post. The subject here relates to Jambiya and their length> I am pleased that the post has generated discussion as there seems to have been, (APART FROM IN A FEW CASES), a lack of response to posts lately. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has contact with the Middle East, and who can give us some insight regarding the names used for these in that area. Is there a different name used for regular size jambiya and those which are verging on sword size.

Stu

Interesting thoughts Stu, and in recent discussion it seems as I understand, the Australian laws prohibit importation of katars as they are classified as 'push daggers'. Interestingly many of these, particularly from the south in India, are slashing daggers, not push daggers as typically perceived. Much as with the pata, these were used in slashing cuts by the Mahrattas, who detested the thrust.

In Arabia, the familiar janbiyya types are actually termed khanjar in Oman, al Hasa, the Emirates, Muscat and parts of Hadhramaut while the term janbiyya begins in southern Arabia temporally at about Dhufar. Here the very large Wahhabi janbiyyas of short sword type become 'subak' in the Hejaz; 'sabik' in Asir; and 'sabiki' in the Yeman borders in the south.

In Rwala the long broad blade type is 'gdaimi' while the shorter broad blade khanjar is still called that.

In the Nejd, the terms 'giddamiyyah' and 'sibriyyah' are used by the Badu, but it is unclear on the meaning exactly, probably the terms are used along with khanjar to qualify size perhaps.

In the Middle East, it seems the khanjar term is used for some of the dagger forms, but as far as larger dagger type swords I think of the Qama for one, which can reach remarkable proportions. In India there are khanjar hilt swords whose blades are long and recurved like pesh kabz, but the term applied I am not sure of.

While I am sure others out there have far more information, I just added these for starters, and look forward to any corrections applicable.

All the best,
Jim

[kahnjar1]

Hi Jim and thanks for those comments. What I am trying to establish, is if there is a DIFFERENT term used for the shorter and longer versions of what are variously described as SABIKI, SABAK, DHARIA etc, depending on who's book you are reading. The term WAHABITE is purely (as far as I am aware) a term of "convenience" used to loosely describe these long Jambiya, which (I assume) were used by the Wahabite amongst others.
The name of the "normal" daggers of Arabia such as Khanjar etc are not at issue here.
Regards Stu

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once.

My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law.

We have already defined it.

In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies.

I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests.

For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once.

My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law.

We have already defined it.

In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies.

I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests.

For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

No appology needed Alan. I do realise that laws of countries define what is regarded as a sword and what is regarded as a dagger, and this of course does vary between countries.
What I am trying to establish is 1: What in collecting circles these long Jambiya are regarded as i.e when does a dagger become a sword. and 2 (and probably more importantly):Is there a specific name attached to these in Arabia, to differenciate between the dagger and the sword or are they NOT differenciated between in term of their name.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Stu,
Actually the information you are seeking is very much in line with the constant bane of ethnographic weapons study, which is terminology, semantics and nomenclature. It is important to note of course that western transliteration has often played a hand in the adoptive terms for many weapons forms, the instance with 'shamshir' for example.

You have posed the question well, and I look forward to forthcoming information, while I added the variations for the Arabian dagger terms as a kind of benchmark for addition. As I pointed out with the reference to the Badu in the northern Nejd, they use the terms 'giddamiyyah' or 'sibriyyah' in describing the blade size, and I would presume the term is applied in conjuction with 'khanjar' to qualify the description. I also noted that in Rwala the longer weapon is termed 'gdaimi' while the short is still a 'khanjar'.
Here it seems, a separate term is used, just as you had noted your hopes in discovering.

I believe the first notes of the term Wahabbite were likely from Sir Richard Burton's amazing incursion (in disguise) into the Hejaz and other parts of Arabia in the mid 19th century. It seems that his notes defined the terms sabiki in these references as well, though the other classifications noted are from Elgood and his "Arms and Armour of Arabia". It seems that in the case of sabak (i) and sabik for these extremely large knife/daggers which reach sword proportions, the term is used in lieu of janbiyya.
To further illustrate the complexity here, the exhibition catalog from Riyadh (1991) describes these large daggers as 'Dharia' with the qualification of 'malsa' and 'shbeyl' sub terms, noting the blade types such as beyd and nafihi, with what must be terms of many subdivisions according to both tribes and regions.

It is important to remember that varying references will indeed use a number of different terms in describing these weapons, much in the same manner as individuals in different areas will lean toward the terms used in thier native language in some cases. For example, someone from Oman although in the Hejaz and describing a dagger will likely call it a khanjar.

I understand you are trying to determine if there are specific terms for larger swordlike daggers in certain areas, and discovering that will likely need to be addressed by individuals fluent in the dialects and lexicons of defined regions.
The notes I have presented are simply a few examples of what seemed to be pertinant, and I hope others come in here...this really is a quite valid topic worth pursuing.

While it seems that much of this would be irrelevant and frustratingly elusive data, it does play an important role in better understanding more specifically what weapons are being referred to in narrative descriptions, especially those contemporary from earlier times.

In the legal sense, which Alan has well addressed, the unfortunate results of misnomers in legal text pertaining to weapons seems excruciatingly apparant.

Excellent topic Stu!

All best regards,
Jim

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

No appology needed Alan. I do realise that laws of countries define what is regarded as a sword and what is regarded as a dagger, and this of course does vary between countries.
What I am trying to establish is 1: What in collecting circles these long Jambiya are regarded as i.e when does a dagger become a sword. and 2 (and probably more importantly):Is there a specific name attached to these in Arabia, to differenciate between the dagger and the sword or are they NOT differenciated between in term of their name.
Stu

I think things are getting a bit complicated here so I will reiterate the two questions which I would REALLY like answered.
1:What in collecting circles are these very long Jambiya regarded as.....Dagger or Sword?
2:Is there a specific name (which may vary by area) used in Arabia to differenciate between the dagger length and the much longer ones of sword/small sword length?
WE COLLECTORS DO NOT (MOSTLY) LIVE IN THE AREA, AND AS HAS BEEN STATED, TEND TO CALL ITEMS BY THEIR WESTERN NAME.
Stu

[ALEX]

I also think the length/size of the sword or dagger does not change the classification/type, considering the same proportions!!! As an example, here's a Khyber, very large one, almost of a sword length. It is similar in shape with smaller Khybers, so I'd call it a Khyber sword, opposite to Khyber dagger/knife. However, as already pointed out - there are different local names for variations of similar type, but they're not determined only by size, but by design and proportions.

[fearn]

I'm tempted to label these types of discussions "machete arguments," as in: "Is a machete a sword or a knife?"

The basic problem with any of these discussions is that swords and knives are defined within one culture, primarily by inferring general traits from known examples. Then we try to fit other people's inventions into these categories, based on whatever rules we created.

As Mr. Maisey pointed out with those Australian rules, in Australian customs, any weapon that is two-edged and 39 cm long is not a dagger, nor is anything that can't be readily concealed on a normal person. My apologies, but it is very hard not to become sarcastic about that definition. I keep wondering whether I'd get arrested for trying to hide a swordfish bill down my pants, if some cop decided to call it a dagger.

The Australian rules are derived from whatever examples the rule-makers found objectionable, and I laid out another rule "the chop test" that depended on function rather than shape and size. But all of these are rules we make up from the blades we handle or read about. They don't really answer the question, they just change the argument to one about rules rather than one about blades.

So what's the answer? There is none. A machete is a sword, and a machete is a knife. Depends on who is arguing which side.

Best,

F