Marking on Nepalese Kukri, correction for collectors

[Silver John]

Originally Posted by sirupate

I have often wondered why some people have always thought they know more than renowned experts, especially in this case

I think you wonder this more often than most because the cornerstone of many of your arguments is an appeal to authority. Other posters rightly question or reject such logical fallacies and you are left wondering: ‘Why won’t these people just believe me? I spoke to a very important man, a man who knows a great deal about a great many things. Do these people really think they know more than this expert?’

You must remind yourself, JP Cross and Bhudiman Gurung have not come to this forum and posted a “correction” for the benefit of collectors (a number of whom are fluent in Nepali themselves). You, Sirupate, have posted this correction. To contextualise this for readers who are unfamiliar, I’d like to quote Berkley (Adimn and Mod extraordinaire) rather than try to say the same thing less eloquently:

“For some time our friend Sirupate has been in the habit of making statements attributed to living individuals who have internet access. When he relates that he made an inquiry of these individuals regarding some topic, and they made reply, we are left in a scholarly quandary. When someone attributes a statement of fact to a published work, anyone can check the work to see if they are accurately quoting what the author said. When someone attributes a statement of fact to an unpublished private communication, no such verification is possible… To quote the late Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".”

It is fair to say that this new hypothesis warrants close scrutiny. Even if the interpretation came to us direct from JP Cross himself it would still be open to scrutiny. Yes it would have a great deal more credibility, but experts make errors too. If the proclamations of “experts” were never challenged we would still believe that the earth is flat and located at the centre of the universe. Evidence is king.

The claim has now been clarified from “an old local Nepali dialect” to Newari script which may well have been “degraded”. Well now, that’s something we can all look into at our leisure.

At first glance the Newari Dh(a) symbols look even less like the mark on these kukri than the Devanagari version. So problem number one with this new hypothesis is that there is currently no obvious similarity between the symbol on these kukri and the word “Dhu”. The onus is on you to provide an image of the script for “Dhu” that you believe matches with the mark on these kukri.

Problem number two is that it the mark is on issued and inspected Nepalese Army kukri. Would such kukri simultaneously bear the stamp of Chandra Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana and a Newari stamp? Can anyone suggest why the Rana’s suppression of Newari writing might not apply to the weapons issued to their own soldiers?

Just to be clear, I am open to any and all interpretations; provided they are supported with something more than “So and So said it was so”

[sirupate]

I personally don't mind if you believe me or not, that is upto you. I have merely passed on information from the World's foremost expert on Nepal and the Gurkhas;

From JPX;

'Dear Simon,

Please use any information I give you unreservedly.'

[Berkley]

I do not own a "Papu" or "Dhu" marked kukri, do not read any Indo-Aran language, do not have any knowledge or opinion regarding the subject of this thread. I abhor, as I am sure the moderators and administrators here do also, inter-forum controversies. However, I have been quoted in a thread in which I had no intention of taking part. That being the case, I feel obligated to post my entire remarks, so that the context and tenor of my words are fairly represented. (Note, the person referred to in my remarks as "Goorkhali" is known as "Sirupate" in this forum.)

Before this thread degenerates (as history indicates that it will) into an exchange of personal jibes between individuals, I will make a suggestion/request.
For some time our friend Goorkhali has been in the habit of making statements attributed to living individuals who have internet access. When he relates that he made an inquiry of these individuals regarding some topic, and they made reply, we are left in a scholarly quandary. When someone attributes a statement of fact to a published work, anyone can check the work to see if they are accurately quoting what the author said. When someone attributes a statement of fact to an unpublished private communication, no such verification is possible.
This forum has long suffered from the accusation that we favor one expert over another. If we do so, it is not by choice. There are many collectors and others - scholars, ex-Gurkhas, serving members of the military - who have much to contribute to our knowledge. They have, for whatever reason, not joined this group in the eight years we have been online. Nonetheless, they appear to be capable of doing so, since they routinely communicate with Goorkhali - presumably over the internet.
So today, I am going to extend to these individuals a sincere invitation to join this forum and become contributors to our knowledge. We welcome their knowledge and experience, and look forward to their communication. I personally entreat Goorkhali, who is on such close personal terms with them, to communicate this invitation. I truly hope they will come into the public forum to share their knowledge.
However, if they choose not to do so, I am not going to permit them to use Goorkahli as a medium for the communication of ideas which are not subject to verification or scholarly debate. In future, when ANY member of this forum begins to support any proposition by reference to private communications which cannot be verified, I am going to delete such references as soon as I see them. I believe this is the only way to fairly deal with this recurring problem.
Goorkhali has his own forum, where he is free to quote whatever sources he chooses. In this forum, I am going to insist that he, and every other member, adhere to the rule I have just announced. To quote the late Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".
....

I would prefer that they become members of the forum. If they are not willing to do so, you can ask them to communicate directly to me via email their consent to have you quote their private correspondence on a public forum. I believe you have my email address to share with them. If they confirm to me that they have no objection, then you can quote their emails to you....

If their culture does not permit them to participate in open and honest debate, mine does not permit them to hide behind a veil of anonymity or appear through an intermediary who refuses to even allow them the opportunity of claiming that privilege directly. Whatever Eastern or martial culture they may be part of, as a practicing attorney for almost forty years, I am proud to be part of a culture which prizes public discourse subject to inquiry by those of opposing views.
If you, or they, do not understand this basic principle of Western civilization, so be it.
Berkley
IKRHS Forum Administrator

[Robert]

Gentlemen, I believe that this thread has now come to a point where any further discussion will be pointless. Thread closed.

Robert