WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD?

fearn · 15th June 2010, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

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

Speaking as an expert only on the website, I would say the answers are:

1. It's a jambiya, regardless of length. All else turns on the question of what your rules for sword and dagger are, and these very subjective and highly contingent rules vary between people and jurisdictions.
2. Jim has suggested sabaki for the longer blades in Wahhabi dominant areas. I'm not enough of an expert to know whether this is a term unique to Wahhabist areas, or a word used throughout the jambiya's "native range."

Best,

F

ward · 15th June 2010, 08:56 PM

I might be missing something here but shouldnt these weapons be consdered sword or daggers or whatever based on how they are used? Pesh Qabz means foregrip in Persian. It tells you how the knife was held. Extrapolating that you figure out the name exists because it's held differently than other daggers. As for swords in Middle East and most Asia, they are for cutting in various ways not thrusting. I am NOT saying they were never used to thrust just that their main use is cutting. Daggers are usually used for thrusting in that area. Not always like I said, but usually. Some cultures ahd rules about whether a dagger could be used for thrusting too, but that is pretty unusual and I didn't want to muddy the waters with that.

fearn · 15th June 2010, 10:38 PM

Ward,

A sword can be used to thrust (rapier) or cut (broadsword), or slice (saber), or chop (cutlass).

Neat thing? These are all ENGLISH words. Dagger is similarly an ENGLISH word.

The problem here is translation. Even among people who speak English, sword and dagger are defined differently, often subjectively, and often for different and contradictory purposes. The Australian law that Alan quoted above isn't THE definition, it's a rule for a policeman. Collectors will see things differently.

Who's right? No one is. The issue is translation. Sword and dagger are as much culture-bound concepts as jambiya. An English dagger isn't quite the same thing as a Philippine daga, although they have similar cultural and linguistic roots.

We get stuck, because English is the common language for the collectors who post here, and without thinking, we tend to assume that concepts in English are the standard to which everything must be translated. That doesn't work so well in practice. A jambiya isn't just an ornamented hunk of steel, it is a tool and an identity symbol. If you want to understand it, you need to know something about the Muslim culture it's embedded in.

As for uses, I'll admit that the only uses I've ever seen for a jambiya (on TV) are: a) dancing (as Khanjar showed above) and b) clearing debris out of a qanat (link) so that the water would flow freely (and I admire the men who waded through kilometers of muddy water to do the clearing). If I was to stupidly assume that that was all you could do with a jambiya, I'd suggest both that length was irrelevant and that calling it a sword was silly. Similarly, it's also myopic to assume that fighting is the only real function for a jambiya, and that is how it should be categorized in English: sword or dagger. It's a jambiya. Traduttore traditore.

Best,

F

A. G. Maisey · 16th June 2010, 12:30 AM

Very nicely put Fearn.

I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what you have written.

However, now that you have so clearly defined the situation, I believe that you have opened the door for a look at this situation from a different perspective.

If we take, let us say, the jambiya as an example, we have an object that in its society of origin has a certain nature, however, once it moves outside that society and becomes an object for collection by people in a different society, the nature of the object changes.

In the new society where that jambiya finds itself, that is, the society of collectors of jambiyas living in places far removed from its point of origin, it is no longer looked at, nor thought about in the same way that it was in its society of origin. The collectors have made it their own, and have given it a nature that they can understand, which is based upon their own cultural frame of reference.

In the context of the society in which the jambiya now finds itself, it may be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for the members of that society to categorise it in accordance with their understanding of it, based upon their own frame of reference.

Accordingly, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a collector of jambiyas living in, say, New York, to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, because that is the way in which he understands it.

If some of those jambiya are a little too long to fit comfortably within the collector's cultural perception of a dagger, then the collector may certainly categorise these longer jambiyas as swords.

Why should he not do so?

He has removed the object from the cultural frame of reference within which it is understood in a certain way, and placed it within a different frame of reference.

Why should he not observe the rules which apply within that new frame of reference?

To summarise:-

if a collector wishes to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, then let that collector decide at what point his dagger becomes a sword, his decision will be as relevant for a jambiya as it will be for any weapon from his own culture, as he is using a frame of reference based in a culture that differs from the culture in which the jambiya originated.

kronckew · 16th June 2010, 06:16 AM

ah, yes as i mentioned 'that which we call a rose ...'. even that had hidden meaning. shakespeare's rival theatre in london was 'the rose', and had notoriously stinky sanitary facilities...

in order to have meaning, two people need to be in on the secret. words are for communicating, so we need at least two people to agree on the definition. preferably more. i could call a gladius a quibble, but no one else would know what i meant, the sound of one hand clapping, i add the second hand by calling it a 'short sword' for those who never heard of the roman gladii. saves ambiguity. with most people, i could call it a 'long knife' with about the same meaning, but 'short sword' carries more meaning to more knowledgeable people as well as those less interested than we are.

as a westerner, i also like to think of them as knives, daggers, short swords, swords etc. in addition to their name from their locale of origin. it also has more meaning to those outside the fraternity when trying to convey the meaning to them.

and so the argument continues, we are all right, and simultaneously all wrong.

the wurme eating it's own tail.

fearn · 16th June 2010, 05:21 PM

And it also depends on a few other things, such as what you're trying to communicate.

Alan's got a great point: a jambiya, in the collection of an English-speaking collector, can be a knife, dagger, or sword. Functionally? For most of us, the proper function of daggers and swords is to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp, and very few of us even practice martial arts with our blades, let alone hurt people with them. So functionally, call it what you want. It's going to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp regardless of what you call it.

As for communication, the other point here is that most people here are quite sure that they know what the following terms mean: knife, dagger, short sword, sword. Anyone disagree, besides me?

If we did an exhaustive poll, I think we'd find that we would agree on perhaps 80 percent of cases. If I deliberately chose machetes, long knives, dhas, and similar things that defy easy categorization, I suspect the number of agreements would plummet.

This is not a plea for standardization of terms. Rather it simply points out that we can get into endless arguments, not about the weapons, but about differences in personal definitions and mis-communication based on biases we're not even aware that we have. I'd suggest the best solution to these problems is to recognize when we're in such arguments, laugh, and move on. I'm also quite sure that others will disagree with me on this too, and that's one reason why I keep reading this board.

Best,

F

16th June 2010, 06:16 AM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	ah, yes as i mentioned 'that which we call a rose ...'. even that had hidden meaning. shakespeare's rival theatre in london was 'the rose', and had notoriously stinky sanitary facilities... in order to have meaning, two people need to be in on the secret. words are for communicating, so we need at least two people to agree on the definition. preferably more. i could call a gladius a quibble, but no one else would know what i meant, the sound of one hand clapping, i add the second hand by calling it a 'short sword' for those who never heard of the roman gladii. saves ambiguity. with most people, i could call it a 'long knife' with about the same meaning, but 'short sword' carries more meaning to more knowledgeable people as well as those less interested than we are. as a westerner, i also like to think of them as knives, daggers, short swords, swords etc. in addition to their name from their locale of origin. it also has more meaning to those outside the fraternity when trying to convey the meaning to them. and so the argument continues, we are all right, and simultaneously all wrong. the wurme eating it's own tail. Last edited by kronckew; 16th June 2010 at 06:33 AM.

15th June 2010, 08:56 PM	#2
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	I might be missing something here but shouldnt these weapons be consdered sword or daggers or whatever based on how they are used? Pesh Qabz means foregrip in Persian. It tells you how the knife was held. Extrapolating that you figure out the name exists because it's held differently than other daggers. As for swords in Middle East and most Asia, they are for cutting in various ways not thrusting. I am NOT saying they were never used to thrust just that their main use is cutting. Daggers are usually used for thrusting in that area. Not always like I said, but usually. Some cultures ahd rules about whether a dagger could be used for thrusting too, but that is pretty unusual and I didn't want to muddy the waters with that.

15th June 2010, 10:38 PM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Ward, A sword can be used to thrust (rapier) or cut (broadsword), or slice (saber), or chop (cutlass). Neat thing? These are all ENGLISH words. Dagger is similarly an ENGLISH word. The problem here is translation. Even among people who speak English, sword and dagger are defined differently, often subjectively, and often for different and contradictory purposes. The Australian law that Alan quoted above isn't THE definition, it's a rule for a policeman. Collectors will see things differently. Who's right? No one is. The issue is translation. Sword and dagger are as much culture-bound concepts as jambiya. An English dagger isn't quite the same thing as a Philippine daga, although they have similar cultural and linguistic roots. We get stuck, because English is the common language for the collectors who post here, and without thinking, we tend to assume that concepts in English are the standard to which everything must be translated. That doesn't work so well in practice. A jambiya isn't just an ornamented hunk of steel, it is a tool and an identity symbol. If you want to understand it, you need to know something about the Muslim culture it's embedded in. As for uses, I'll admit that the only uses I've ever seen for a jambiya (on TV) are: a) dancing (as Khanjar showed above) and b) clearing debris out of a qanat (link) so that the water would flow freely (and I admire the men who waded through kilometers of muddy water to do the clearing). If I was to stupidly assume that that was all you could do with a jambiya, I'd suggest both that length was irrelevant and that calling it a sword was silly. Similarly, it's also myopic to assume that fighting is the only real function for a jambiya, and that is how it should be categorized in English: sword or dagger. It's a jambiya. Traduttore traditore. Best, F

16th June 2010, 12:30 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Very nicely put Fearn. I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what you have written. However, now that you have so clearly defined the situation, I believe that you have opened the door for a look at this situation from a different perspective. If we take, let us say, the jambiya as an example, we have an object that in its society of origin has a certain nature, however, once it moves outside that society and becomes an object for collection by people in a different society, the nature of the object changes. In the new society where that jambiya finds itself, that is, the society of collectors of jambiyas living in places far removed from its point of origin, it is no longer looked at, nor thought about in the same way that it was in its society of origin. The collectors have made it their own, and have given it a nature that they can understand, which is based upon their own cultural frame of reference. In the context of the society in which the jambiya now finds itself, it may be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for the members of that society to categorise it in accordance with their understanding of it, based upon their own frame of reference. Accordingly, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a collector of jambiyas living in, say, New York, to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, because that is the way in which he understands it. If some of those jambiya are a little too long to fit comfortably within the collector's cultural perception of a dagger, then the collector may certainly categorise these longer jambiyas as swords. Why should he not do so? He has removed the object from the cultural frame of reference within which it is understood in a certain way, and placed it within a different frame of reference. Why should he not observe the rules which apply within that new frame of reference? To summarise:- if a collector wishes to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, then let that collector decide at what point his dagger becomes a sword, his decision will be as relevant for a jambiya as it will be for any weapon from his own culture, as he is using a frame of reference based in a culture that differs from the culture in which the jambiya originated.

16th June 2010, 05:21 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	And it also depends on a few other things, such as what you're trying to communicate. Alan's got a great point: a jambiya, in the collection of an English-speaking collector, can be a knife, dagger, or sword. Functionally? For most of us, the proper function of daggers and swords is to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp, and very few of us even practice martial arts with our blades, let alone hurt people with them. So functionally, call it what you want. It's going to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp regardless of what you call it. As for communication, the other point here is that most people here are quite sure that they know what the following terms mean: knife, dagger, short sword, sword. Anyone disagree, besides me? If we did an exhaustive poll, I think we'd find that we would agree on perhaps 80 percent of cases. If I deliberately chose machetes, long knives, dhas, and similar things that defy easy categorization, I suspect the number of agreements would plummet. This is not a plea for standardization of terms. Rather it simply points out that we can get into endless arguments, not about the weapons, but about differences in personal definitions and mis-communication based on biases we're not even aware that we have. I'd suggest the best solution to these problems is to recognize when we're in such arguments, laugh, and move on. I'm also quite sure that others will disagree with me on this too, and that's one reason why I keep reading this board. Best, F