Is There a Specific Term For This Style Of Moroccan Dagger???

[Jim McDougall]

What an interesting topic. I'm glad there has been recent attention to the disparity in terminology with many of the ethnographic weapons most collect and some study. There may be a few here who recall my 'kaskara' conundrum with posts from about ten years ago, which brought almost no discussion and even less from a number of authors mentioned, nor academics involved in museum capacities. Briggs used the term 'kaskara' and Reed later used in in his article on 'Darfur kaskaras' but also specified the term 'saif Kasallawi' for them. Last year we were fortunate to have Ed join us, and his outstanding work on Kasalla (written contemporary to Reed) revealed the reasons behind the 'Kasallawi' designation.
I was actually quite surprised by the disinterest in most scholars and authors I queried on the term 'kaskara' and its origins, it was simply 'the term used for these swords, with no questions asked. In talking with individuals from Sudan, Darfur and Eritrea ( I used to work with many ethnic groups) not a single one had ever heard the term..only sa'if was used, however one man from Sudan noted they were sometimes called 'cross'. Recent research has revealed some further data which has more fortunately.

The term nim'cha and its misuse has been brought up repeatedly in its reference to the Moroccan sa'if, and the term itself is, as noted, discussed somewhat in Elgood ("Arms and Armour of Arabia"). I was glad that Louis-Pierre (LPCA) joined us on the other thread thouroughly examining the use, and misuse as well as likely etymology of the term. Through the years he has shared considerable research he has done on these weapons, including the 'flyssa', another curious sword whose origins remain obscure and the term a French application from 19th century tranliteration if I recall.

On another concurrent thread, in another twist to the nimcha conundrum I brought up the obvious collectors term 'Zanzibar' nimcha, a compounded misnomer, also largely met with resounding thud. The only 'author' I have seen using this term has been Tirri, whose book is an outstanding handbook for collectors, thus the term serves well.

There are so many terms used by collectors which derive from the venerable works of the profoundly respected works of the earlier writers of the 19th into the 20th century that indeed it is counterproductive to try to reassert or correct proper terms. It must be remembered that in many, if not most cases, the populus at large in most cultural spheres does not know colloquial terms for certain weapons, though there are likely many instances where in familiar circumstances they may have been called by nicknames or the like.
For example, in todays military the heavy machine gun carried rather selectively by certain soldiers in a group is nicknamed 'the saw', while it is of course recognized as a machine gun, but with specific official designation.

The importance of finding the origins and proper use of terms used for these ethnographic weapons, whether in regional or former parlance, cannot be underestimated. For those researching and trying to discover the development chronologically of a particular weapon, it is key when investigating earlier contemporary narratives and accounts to know these things so that descriptions can be evaluated accordingly. One of the earliest accounts known of the 'kampilan' in the Philippines is described in the the 16th century death of Magellan. However, does this refer to the sword we know in todays collections, or another form?

It is important to have a working glossary where the weapons we discuss have a common parlance, but it remains an important element of research to make known these important addendums to these terms used. It is also important to make every effort to avoid 'pidgeonholing' in describing the many hybrids and variations which as we know exist profoundly with the weapons endemic to most cultures. In these cases I think that descriptions should be carefully qualified beyond the more generic terms to characterize the specifics also considered.

[KuKulzA28]

Naming?

Most folk don't know all the names for everything anyways..

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It must be remembered that in many, if not most cases, the populus at large in most cultural spheres does not know colloquial terms for certain weapons, though there are likely many instances where in familiar circumstances they may have been called by nicknames or the like.

That is very true. And some cultures have had much less interest in cataloging their own weaponry. In fact, it seems the Europeans and Japanese have been much more studious with that. Also, terminology varies as does language.

So in Chinese, a dao is a single edged blade. Depending on your adjective or context is can be a kitchen knife, a scalpel, a saber, a chopper, or even a polearm! But instead of systematic cataloging, they are named based on traits or a family or whatever. Often names come from natural things... Goose quill, willow leaf, ox-tail saber, meteor hammer, etc.... or a trait/purpose like 3 section staff or zhan-ma-dao (killing/slashing horse saber), or a warrior such as the yan-yue-dao being called a guan-dao. There were Imperial regulations sure.... but non-military dao will obviously fall outside of official regulating. Thus since the weapons aren't standardized or all created in a factory, nor held in high esteem and used often by the scholarly circles generally - it won't receive that scholarly attention and systematic classification. Also, what is dao in Mandarin is do in Cantonese and Taiwanese... hence baat jam do <-- ba zhan dao in mandarin.

A Japanese-inspired Chinese long two-handed saber is called a wo-dao (wo in refernece to the wokou pirates who were often Japanese). But are katanas wo-dao? And are katana blades that were exported to China and fitted with CHinese style fittings wo-dao or katana? Are British sword blades in takoubas, firangis, and piso Podangs really just "Pattern # whatever Sabers" with local hilts?!?!?!

For the Atayal Taiwanese they call their headhunting knives laraw, boojing or bucing depending on the dialect. A laraw topuw (radish) or a laraw behuw (bar) which explains the shape (radish) or the length (bar). Boojing and bucing come from the root word meaning to hammer... which perhaps is a way to explain chopping. To make another similar point, different shapes resemble different things, so in Taiwanese different handle bars on bicycles are called different things such as "goat head" or "cockroach antennae". You can only imagine this will apply to other terminology too.

Also to make matters "worse", some regions call something by a name and others call it something else. I asked one Nepali friend what to call the blade he said kukuri, and then when I asked them was a Kora, Khunda, or Khuda was he didn't recognize any of those terms, to him, they are all kukuri. Another Nepali guy said (kukris) are siruapti.

What is in Luzon a talibong is often called a pinute in Cebu. And the talibongs from Samar don't look like the talibongs from Luzon and the northern islands. Dinahong playas vary depending on who you ask. Are sundangs local swords or are they a style of kris? Kris are kalis depending who you ask.

What I thought was a Klewang (according to a Malaysian and a Sumatran guy) is a Pedang to a Javanese guy and a Gobang to a Sundanese... and actually a Malaysian guy told me it's not a klewang it's a pedang! What the hell! hahahaha

Perhaps it's really just Westerners obsession with classifying EVERYTHING into its neat little category. People need to be different races (and then race, culture, and ethnicity cause problems in classification), crops are systematically split into different strains and types, the cladograms of animal taxonomy constantly revised, and weapons always being classified and attempted to be named according to local terms or the European's impression of it. There's nothing wrong with that, just different.

And the quest to call it what locals call it is a bit odd sometimes too. For example the Gobi desert is just weird... since Gobi means desert. Westerners get all messed up sometimes when they find out something is simply called what it is. A desert is a desert, a sword is a sword, etc. Hehe, but obviously there's exceptions all over the place and it's not fair to over-generalize.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

For example, in todays military the heavy machine gun carried rather selectively by certain soldiers in a group is nicknamed 'the saw', while it is of course recognized as a machine gun, but with specific official designation.

The SAW means Squad Automatic Weapon. It's sometimes a nickname sure, but its derived from the official name of the role the machine gun plays. It has a few nicknames I think that soldiers endearing call it, but it is an M249 SAW. Like I said, the Western World likes to systematically classify everything (I'm generalizing here) and this has rubbed off not only on how students of weaponry in the West see things, but also how militaries operate today. It's the modern way I guess.