19th Century Omani Khanjar?

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Well noted Ariel, and it does seem to be sort of an inherent circumstance with the human syndrome, perception, ideas and all manner of subjective situations.
Clearly both Ibrahiim and Lofty are extremely knowledgeable in these areas, and of course there are going to be discrepancies in terminology and predominance of forms regionally etc.

It seems to me that all of this gets very confusing with the matter of terminology and other aspects, and maybe a more categorized analysis of the various types could be set down, noting characteristics, the terms they are called by, and diffusional or development notes.

I would imagine that various forms crossed into other regions and might have been duplicated, especially if craftsmen were also relocated into other areas.

A 57 Chevy in Paris is still an American car.......only if Renault had somehow produced a number of them for whatever reason, would those individual cars become 'French'.

It would be a French made copy of an American car. Just like this style of Khanjar made in the south is a copy of a design originating in AlHasa.

Its interesting to note that people of Asir (and other parts of the south) to a certain point in the early 20th century DID NOT wear this style. Rather, they wore a style locally called Mhaliya, Yemeni styles and dharias. It was adopted later on and became a fashion.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

It would be a French made copy of an American car. Just like this style of Khanjar made in the south is a copy of a design originating in AlHasa.

Its interesting to note that people of Asir (and other parts of the south) to a certain point in the early 20th century DID NOT wear this style. Rather, they wore a style locally called Mhaliya, Yemeni styles and dharias. It was adopted later on and became a fashion.

That's what I thought, and Im at a disadvantage here as I know next to nothing on khanjhars, though I consider them fascinating ethnographically.
So if a certain style is well known as indigenous or predominant in an area, and becomes known to be produced in another area.......would it then be called to the original term of style...but noted as a product of such and such area?

In my view, it seems too many collectors and others describing weapons are somehow afraid of qualifying or adding pertinent details in their descriptions.
For example.....a such and such style of khanjhar but produced and provenance from /location/.

It does take more effort, and in discussion the same, to properly qualify the variations and mitigating circumstances surrounding examples or forms.

We have long known for example that the so called katar dagger of India is actually known in Indian parlance as jamadhar. Yet through transcribing or other error, the term became displaced. Often, though we know the proper term as jamadhar, we parenthesize 'katar' with it.

In actuality, it is surprising just how much grey area there is within the study of arms and armor, especially ethnographic. It just takes a bit more work to properly describe and classify things.