Firangi, khanda what do I call it?

ariel · 3rd January 2018, 05:03 AM

Marius,
You obviously do not belong to the Polish school of classification of swords:-) They consider a handle as the crucial element because it determines the manner of fencing.
Indeed, we have a Karabela that is defined as such by a semi- abstract “eagle head” handle but may have very different blades.

As per Elgood’s Glossary for the Jodhpur catalogue ( p. 953) ” The khanda is the ancient form of straight heavy sword , the blade swelling toward the point, often with a strengthening strip on the blade”. I am confused by the discrepancy between his own definition and the actual examples.

It is possible that different ethnic groups in India might have used the word “khanda” for different swords, each in their own language. Would be interesting to know whether this hypothesis is true.

mariusgmioc · 3rd January 2018, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Marius,
You obviously do not belong to the Polish school of classification of swords:-) They consider a handle as the crucial element because it determines the manner of fencing.
Indeed, we have a Karabela that is defined as such by a semi- abstract “eagle head” handle but may have very different blades.

As per Elgood’s Glossary for the Jodhpur catalogue ( p. 953) ” The khanda is the ancient form of straight heavy sword , the blade swelling toward the point, often with a strengthening strip on the blade”. I am confused by the discrepancy between his own definition and the actual examples.

It is possible that different ethnic groups in India might have used the word “khanda” for different swords, each in their own language. Would be interesting to know whether this hypothesis is true.

Hello Ariel,

Indeed I do not belong "Polish school," neither do I belong any other school, as schools tend to be rigid and dogmatic. Like for example according to the "Polish School" all swords from my previous posting would be Tulwars.

Maybe at the other end is another "school" that refrains from using specific terms for swords and instead calls them all "swords" or "sabres" followed by a long and detailed description of the shape. So you end up reading half page of description and still not being certain whar type of sword it is.

Therefore, I prefer very much the rule of logic, simplicity and clarity over any school.

Ultimately, naming swords would serve absolutely no practical purpose if by naming it, we wouldn't know exactly what it is.

We call a sword "Tulwar" in order to know what type of sword it is, otherwise we might simply call it "sword." However, if we start calling "Tulwar" all the swords (like the original meaning of the word "Tulwar" is), then this specific term will loose completely its purpose becoming nothing more than a synonim to "sword." We call a knife "Karud" in order to know exactly what type of knife it is, otherwise we may simply call it "knife" (or if you prefer "Kard").

Regarding the contradiction in Elgood's books, it is called "inconsistency" and I see it as a proof that nobody, not even Elgood, is infailible.

Regards,

Marius

Mercenary · 3rd January 2018, 10:51 AM

Actually words "khanda" and "tulwar" (as well "kirch" and a few more) are just synonyms. The reason is in what time the word was using. "Khanda" is a word from old sanscrit and meant "sword" in that time when all swords were stright. "Tulwar" is a word from new Indian languages and was using in the time when sabers begun spread in India.
We can use in the purposes of classification any of these words, but we have to take into account historical and linguistic circumstances without pay a lot of attention how Indians, Egerton or someone else in modern time prefer to use it.

NavdeepBal · 5th June 2018, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Actually words "khanda" and "tulwar" (as well "kirch" and a few more) are just synonyms. The reason is in what time the word was using. "Khanda" is a word from old sanscrit and meant "sword" in that time when all swords were stright. "Tulwar" is a word from new Indian languages and was using in the time when sabers begun spread in India.
We can use in the purposes of classification any of these words, but we have to take into account historical and linguistic circumstances without pay a lot of attention how Indians, Egerton or someone else in modern time prefer to use it.

Yes, but it is believed Khanda is a very ancient weapon, and during those times, before the muslim invasions, in India swords were mostly straight and broad. Khanda is considered a holy weapon and in mythology is used by many deities. Just lik a Salwar meant trousers, but now is a type of trouser of south Asia, Khanda jus meant a holy sword but after many other sword types came into being it became a weapon of its own.

Jens Nordlunde · 5th June 2018, 04:51 PM

To discuss this subject, is the closest you can come to putting your hand in the fire.
If the hilts are the most important, what about the Teghas - they also have a tulwar hilt, but they get their name after the blade.
So why dont we say it is a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or it is a tulwar with a traditional tulwar blade, or a tulwar with a straight European blade?

ariel · 6th June 2018, 10:10 PM

In a multiethnic ( foreign and domestic) and multilingual society like India it is inavoidable that same objects would carry different names and different objects would carry same name.
Ideally, to be academically precise, we have to use name given by their original owners. Thus, Mysorean or Hyderabadi Bichhwa should be properly called Baku if it was made in Karnataka and Vinchu if it hails from Maharashtra.
Since precise identification of origin is largely impossible, we have a problem.

Alternatively, we can use names and specific features reported to us by Egerton and Rawson. That's fine in some cases, but fallacious in others. Pant, despite spending all his professional life in India, just lifted all their entries without thoughtful criticism. Elgood is likely the most reliable, but even he is inconsistent occasionally and his authority may enshrine his errors for generations to come ( like in the case of Stone).

So, what are we to do?

My personal inclination would be to stick to local terminology whenever possible and avoid obviously Europe- imposed ones like in cases of Khyber knife, Karud and such. The exception to this suggestion would be the case when the original terminology is totally unavailable and we are forced to invent one for communication purposes ( examples: Bukharan saber, Afghani pseudo-shashka). As soon as we know the true name ( example: Yataghan Karadeniz aka Laz Bichaq) we should use it instead. Transcription variability may be ignored ( churra, choora, ch'hura), because no transcription can precisely convey native sounding of a foreign word. Broken English is an international language of science.

I realize that some ( many?) would disagree, but this is still a free country, isn't it?

Jens Nordlunde · 9th June 2018, 09:37 PM

Ok, I am with Ariel.
Think of the books Stone and Egerton wrote, they are 'Bibles' to the collectors to day. They did make some mistakes, I agree, but they have helped a lot of collectors over a very long period.
I would like to see the collector, who could write a book like these two did, and do it without mistakes.

3rd January 2018, 10:51 AM	#3
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 426	Actually words "khanda" and "tulwar" (as well "kirch" and a few more) are just synonyms. The reason is in what time the word was using. "Khanda" is a word from old sanscrit and meant "sword" in that time when all swords were stright. "Tulwar" is a word from new Indian languages and was using in the time when sabers begun spread in India. We can use in the purposes of classification any of these words, but we have to take into account historical and linguistic circumstances without pay a lot of attention how Indians, Egerton or someone else in modern time prefer to use it. Last edited by Mercenary; 3rd January 2018 at 11:11 AM.

3rd January 2018, 05:03 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Marius, You obviously do not belong to the Polish school of classification of swords:-) They consider a handle as the crucial element because it determines the manner of fencing. Indeed, we have a Karabela that is defined as such by a semi- abstract “eagle head” handle but may have very different blades. As per Elgood’s Glossary for the Jodhpur catalogue ( p. 953) ” The khanda is the ancient form of straight heavy sword , the blade swelling toward the point, often with a strengthening strip on the blade”. I am confused by the discrepancy between his own definition and the actual examples. It is possible that different ethnic groups in India might have used the word “khanda” for different swords, each in their own language. Would be interesting to know whether this hypothesis is true.

5th June 2018, 04:51 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	To discuss this subject, is the closest you can come to putting your hand in the fire. If the hilts are the most important, what about the Teghas - they also have a tulwar hilt, but they get their name after the blade. So why dont we say it is a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or it is a tulwar with a traditional tulwar blade, or a tulwar with a straight European blade?

6th June 2018, 10:10 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	In a multiethnic ( foreign and domestic) and multilingual society like India it is inavoidable that same objects would carry different names and different objects would carry same name. Ideally, to be academically precise, we have to use name given by their original owners. Thus, Mysorean or Hyderabadi Bichhwa should be properly called Baku if it was made in Karnataka and Vinchu if it hails from Maharashtra. Since precise identification of origin is largely impossible, we have a problem. Alternatively, we can use names and specific features reported to us by Egerton and Rawson. That's fine in some cases, but fallacious in others. Pant, despite spending all his professional life in India, just lifted all their entries without thoughtful criticism. Elgood is likely the most reliable, but even he is inconsistent occasionally and his authority may enshrine his errors for generations to come ( like in the case of Stone). So, what are we to do? My personal inclination would be to stick to local terminology whenever possible and avoid obviously Europe- imposed ones like in cases of Khyber knife, Karud and such. The exception to this suggestion would be the case when the original terminology is totally unavailable and we are forced to invent one for communication purposes ( examples: Bukharan saber, Afghani pseudo-shashka). As soon as we know the true name ( example: Yataghan Karadeniz aka Laz Bichaq) we should use it instead. Transcription variability may be ignored ( churra, choora, ch'hura), because no transcription can precisely convey native sounding of a foreign word. Broken English is an international language of science. I realize that some ( many?) would disagree, but this is still a free country, isn't it?

9th June 2018, 09:37 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ok, I am with Ariel. Think of the books Stone and Egerton wrote, they are 'Bibles' to the collectors to day. They did make some mistakes, I agree, but they have helped a lot of collectors over a very long period. I would like to see the collector, who could write a book like these two did, and do it without mistakes.