Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

fernando · 24th August 2017, 06:16 PM

A gentle approach to the hoarder term, both with and without a connotation tone; gentle as you usually are, Jim. But allow me to add a humble note to the collector categorization, as an apendix to the implicit subject.
Collectors, to be collectors, do not have to follow any specific tendency. There are those who enjoy learning how the weapon was used, in what context, their origin, what would be their date, that is, the quantity of juice they chose to squeeze out of available data, easily or intensively (re)searched, depending on each one's disposition; however not necessarily interested, as an allien example, in what is the composition of metal each weapon is composed with, to the extent of studying the temperature at which its material melts ... if i make myself understood. Nonetheless collectors still they are. Let us make sure that collectors out there who are not interested in ultimate academic details are not as vulgar as hoarders; they simply might not take it so flattery

.

Ian · 24th August 2017, 06:42 PM

Fernando, I agree. Those who collect large numbers of weapons are not to be condemned for their passion and resources. I have no problem with people who collect in such a way, as long as they are not driving up the prices to where I cannot afford good quality items any more.

Eventually large collections are broken up, and that benefits us too. As long as the items have been well preserved, large old collections become a valuable source for the rest of us.

fernando · 24th August 2017, 07:09 PM

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes

. In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders

.

Jim McDougall · 24th August 2017, 08:18 PM

Thanks very much Fernando for clarifying and well explaining what I had been trying to say but apparently missed the mark. I was hoping to explain that 'hoarder' was not a good term to use for collectors who do not necessarily share scholastic or academic endeavors toward them. I thought that by describing their perspective as though often unique and apart from others who seek detailed learning from the weapons, they are still syncretically important in our community as they often acquire important examples amidst their volume which we students can learn from.

As Ian has pointed out, the only concern is the driving up of prices by unabashed competition whose only purpose might be acquisition to satisfy an empty hole in the grouping with a key example which has inherent qualities or evidence in a scholastic matter. To deny recognizing that such circumstances or individuals exist whether with'collectors', 'dealers', investors or opportunists would be naive.

As I explained, we all have different approaches to collecting or studying, and for me personally, I have never understood metallurgy and scientific analysis on weapons, nor have I interest in martial aspects. Despite not being interested in these aspects, I very much admire those who excel in these areas and try (key word) to follow their entries.

The good thing is that here we have deviated a little from linguistics into philosophy here!!!

Who says that the study of arms (hoplology for the wordsmiths) does not fit into the academic curriculum in humanities!!!??
As always, I learn a lot here and hope others do as well.

Royston · 24th August 2017, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes

. In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders

.

A few years ago I was allowed into the basement of a museum with the curator. I could not believe the amount of items that were stored there. Items which any collector would be dribbling over. There was no room to display these things and they could not be sold or even swapped as almost all of them had been gifted and had to remain the property of the museum. This was a small county museum in England, god knows what is hidden away in the large museums of the world, never to see the light of day.

Roy

ariel · 25th August 2017, 01:08 AM

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

A.alnakkas · 25th August 2017, 02:14 AM

The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.

fernando · 25th August 2017, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

... but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line?

A question of personal perspective, perhaps. Although semanthics may not oblige, in my whereabouts we don't take the risk of such confusion, as we make a practical safe distinction between the two. We call collector (colector) any person or device that joins things in general, taxes, pipes, you name it, and we call 'collectionner' (coleccionador) a person or entity that puts up collections of selective things for appreciation and study; resulting that we are not general stuff collectors but antique arms collectionners. No line of any thickness between both ... but an empty space.
On the other hand one can't help to think of the hoarder term without a pejorative connotation; something like (quoting a crude english speaking source, font sizes included):

Hoarder:
(Adj) A word that describes anyone that feels the need to find, collect, keep, pack ANY and EVERYTHING because they do not know how to throw things away. A nicely put word than Pack Rat.

fernando · 25th August 2017, 09:42 AM

Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit.

When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system.

And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive

.

mariusgmioc · 25th August 2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

Hello Ariel,

My guess is that most of the collectors are somwhere inbetween. Well... at least I hope I am...

As with regards to your statement about using "European-invented monikers" because of our ignorance... I beg to differ.

While in some cases, it might be the truth, in some other it may be very far from it.

Take ifor example the KARUD. Is this an European-invented moniker?! I don't think so since even you in your original posting demonstrated that in fact it is a phonetical transliteration of the word KARD, which in turn is exactly how the natives used to call this type of knife (as Dmitry probably demonstrated in his paper).

Moreover, since the locals didn't have any specific name for this very specific blade, and they simply called it Kard (using "correct" transliteration)/Karud (using phonetic transliteration)/knife, I don't see how it can be disrespectful to them using exactly their name for their weapon. And in order to distinguish it from another one of their weapons, we use the phonetic transliterated term "Karud" for it as opposed to the literary transliterated term "Kard" for the other type of weapon.

This way, not only that we acknowledge and use the names given by the original makers/users of these knives, but we succeed in distinguishing between the two distinct variations of knife, where the original makers/users of the knives didn't distinguish (probably because they didn't feel the need to distinguish).

Last but not least, I beg to differ with the very idea of the title of this thread:

"Karud, the weapon that did not exist."

Not only that the "KARUD" exists and existed, but it was also CALLED exactly like this by its original makers/owners, exactly the same way the "KARD" exists and was WRITTEN like this by its original makers/owners!

Your whole argumet in the original posting is not about whether the "KARUD" existed or not, but about what is the "correct" way to transliterate a word: using the literal transliteration or the phonetic transliteration?!

You could rewrite your initial posting replacing "Karud" with "Kard" and attempting to make the point that the term "kard" does not exist and is merely a wrong ad-literam transliteration of the word "karud" as it is heard by our ears.

At least that's how I see things...

25th August 2017, 09:42 AM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Personally ... Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit. When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system. And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive .

24th August 2017, 06:16 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	A gentle approach to the hoarder term, both with and without a connotation tone; gentle as you usually are, Jim. But allow me to add a humble note to the collector categorization, as an apendix to the implicit subject. Collectors, to be collectors, do not have to follow any specific tendency. There are those who enjoy learning how the weapon was used, in what context, their origin, what would be their date, that is, the quantity of juice they chose to squeeze out of available data, easily or intensively (re)searched, depending on each one's disposition; however not necessarily interested, as an allien example, in what is the composition of metal each weapon is composed with, to the extent of studying the temperature at which its material melts ... if i make myself understood. Nonetheless collectors still they are. Let us make sure that collectors out there who are not interested in ultimate academic details are not as vulgar as hoarders; they simply might not take it so flattery .

24th August 2017, 06:42 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Fernando, I agree. Those who collect large numbers of weapons are not to be condemned for their passion and resources. I have no problem with people who collect in such a way, as long as they are not driving up the prices to where I cannot afford good quality items any more. Eventually large collections are broken up, and that benefits us too. As long as the items have been well preserved, large old collections become a valuable source for the rest of us.

24th August 2017, 07:09 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes . In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders .

24th August 2017, 08:18 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Thanks very much Fernando for clarifying and well explaining what I had been trying to say but apparently missed the mark. I was hoping to explain that 'hoarder' was not a good term to use for collectors who do not necessarily share scholastic or academic endeavors toward them. I thought that by describing their perspective as though often unique and apart from others who seek detailed learning from the weapons, they are still syncretically important in our community as they often acquire important examples amidst their volume which we students can learn from. As Ian has pointed out, the only concern is the driving up of prices by unabashed competition whose only purpose might be acquisition to satisfy an empty hole in the grouping with a key example which has inherent qualities or evidence in a scholastic matter. To deny recognizing that such circumstances or individuals exist whether with'collectors', 'dealers', investors or opportunists would be naive. As I explained, we all have different approaches to collecting or studying, and for me personally, I have never understood metallurgy and scientific analysis on weapons, nor have I interest in martial aspects. Despite not being interested in these aspects, I very much admire those who excel in these areas and try (key word) to follow their entries. The good thing is that here we have deviated a little from linguistics into philosophy here!!! Who says that the study of arms (hoplology for the wordsmiths) does not fit into the academic curriculum in humanities!!!?? As always, I learn a lot here and hope others do as well.

25th August 2017, 01:08 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall. And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography. And there are others in between. Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-) For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive. Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth. Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

25th August 2017, 02:14 AM	#7
A.alnakkas Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,340	The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.