Is this a Firangi ?

[drac2k]

Generally when I think about a Firangi, what comes to my mind is a straight foreign European-made blade, however, this one has a sweeping curve and almost seems to resemble a Chinese Dao. The blade is 31" long.

[mahratt]

I think it is correct to call such a saber not firangi (a firanga has a straight blade), but "alemani", on behalf of the German mercenaries.

[werecow]

IIRC firangi just means foreign, so a Chinese blade would qualify.

[Jim McDougall]

Indian sword terminology is challenging, at best.
If I have understood correctly, a sword with Hindu basket hilt and with a curved blade is termed 'kirach'. If it is with straight blade it is termed 'sukhela', in the Maratha counterpart of the straight blade but gauntlet hilt 'pata'.

If the Hindu basket hilt has a straight foreign blade, it call be deemed a firangi (=foreign blade, as noted), but it does not seem the firangi term is generally applied to curved bladed swords or patas.

In the north of course, the curved saber is termed tulwar, regardless of Indo-Persian hilt or Persian style (shamshir) hilt. In the native army in British service sabers are called tulwars even with three bar hilts.

As Mahratt notes, the alemani term was used in Deccan and southern regions where German mercenaries were active with of course curved sabers.

Three tulwars:
First, the familiar Indo-Persian hilt, Rajasthan
second, Persian type grip, Deccan, M1788 British Lt. Cav. blade
third, Native cavalry, 21st cavalry Frontier Force, by Mole.

In Indian parlance all termed tulwar, as far as I have known the firangi term is not applied with tulwars.

These are my interpretations, and I would be glad for any corrections or additions.

[werecow]

FWIW, according to a Bengali friend of mine, pata just means sword - like many of these collector's terms I suppose.

And I was under the impression that the term kirach referred more specifically to a slightly forward curved (but not recurved) sword, like this one:

[Rick]

Originally Posted by werecow

FWIW, according to a Bengali friend of mine, pata just means sword - like many of these collector's terms I suppose.

And I was under the impression that the term kirach referred more specifically to a slightly forward curved (but not recurved) sword, like this one:

Yes and some more than slightly forward curved.

[Jim McDougall]

Again, the terminologies in Indian swords are probably even more complex and convoluted than even most other ethnographic weapon forms, where in some cases it has been suggested that with many archipelago types a term can vary from village to village (obviously a bit exaggerated).

In Rawson, "The Indian Sword" (1969, p.90, n.89, p.46) "..."Kirach" is a common Hindustani term for a sword, but here it is taken to refer only to one with a blade which, being mainly straight, is slightly curved forward at the tip like a scythe blade. It is a Deccan weapon".
Elgood ("Hindu Arms & Ritual", 2004. p.252) notes that a Kirach in the Deccan the kirach "may have a slight forward inclination at the tip of the blade". It is defined as a heavy, straight thrusting sword.

On the same page, referring to the 'sukhela' (or dhup, or Hindu basket hilt or whatever), "...if, as often is the case, the blade is of foreign, that is European, origin, the sword is often referred to as 'phirangi' which means 'stranger'". However this apparent variation of the Hindu basket hilt seems to have a blade longer than usual so not exactly the same as the khanda or firangi. The sukhela/dhup is not clearly illustrated nor explained in either of these, but makes the point of the terminology dilemma.

From the examples of kirach I have seen, as Rick has noted, the blade seems 'forward' , that is, edge on the inside. But these kinds of blades, as recurved forms (and scythes as noted in description) are hacking type blades, not for thrusting.

To say study of Indian arms is challenging is an understatement.

[werecow]

That looks like a fun sword, Rick. Is that a T-section at the forte?

It looks mean. Almost like it's meant to slice bite-sized bits off of and maybe, uhm, "peel" the opponent. *shiver*

[Rick]

It's a great thrusting sword.
No T spine, but it is sharpened about 2/3 of that length, and the point is thickened.
Would this blade be considered a firangi?

[ausjulius]

Originally Posted by werecow

IIRC firangi just means foreign, so a Chinese blade would qualify.

no firangi are white men.. blonde haired blue eyed northern europeans.. as the original arabic and persian meaning denotes.
in thailand for example farang is not a nationality but a race. many italians would not be farangs but all swedish would be.
indians use of farangi means northern europeans as in its orignal arabic influenced context or "europeans" in general for the most part. in indian farangi is a white european person. a farangi blade is a blade from white european people.
farangi are "francs" i.e blonde, blue eyed tall people with white skin from europe- exotic barbarians.. the term predates arrival of european ships in india by a good while and arabs used it already in the 8th century.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by ausjulius

no firangi are white men.. blonde haired blue eyed northern europeans.. as the original arabic and persian meaning denotes.
in thailand for example farang is not a nationality but a race. many italians would not be farangs but all swedish would be.
indians use of farangi means northern europeans as in its orignal arabic influenced context or "europeans" in general for the most part. in indian farangi is a white european person. a farangi blade is a blade from white european people.
farangi are "francs" i.e blonde, blue eyed tall people with white skin from europe- exotic barbarians.. the term predates arrival of european ships in india by a good while and arabs used it already in the 8th century.

Ah, yeah, now that you've mentioned it, the "francs" connection rings a bell (and makes a lot of sense). Thanks for the correction! }|:o)

[Nihl]

I’m a bit late to this thread, so maybe this will work as a “soft revive” and get discussion going again. The main info I want to contribute here I’ve actually already spoken about in a previous thread, but I’ll quote it here for convenience:

In my opinion, while "firangi" is a legitimate term, it's a bit too vague to use these days when talking about indian swords. Sure, there are plenty of swords with "firangi blades" out there, but since we now know that copies of European blades were paired with hilts just as often as authentic ones, it makes no sense to rely on "firangi" as a sword type when the swords described, from a glance, have a 50/50 chance of actually being accurate to the term. Meanwhile, the term "dhop" makes no such distinction, and instead is defined (from what I can tell) as just a basket-hilted sword with some kind of long and often - but not always - fullered blade. The term "asa shamshir" indeed is more northern in origin, but I would say it's an accurate term to describe any straight-bladed, basket-hilted "firangi". In my mind, firangi is a good way of marking an indian sword as having a trade blade (i.e. saying "this is a firangi-bladed pata, tulwar, etc"), when used as a descriptor/shorthand that would indeed signify that that sword has a blade of european origin, but I think it is too vague of a term to use as a standalone type of sword.

The term “dhop” that I reference was discussed in the thread linked above as well, but in short Dhop is basically the marathi term for a basket-hilted cavalry sword. I regard it to be the most authentic and accurate term for describing these swords (including the one posted at the beginning of this thread by drac), as, like I stated in my quote, it does not make any prescriptive judgements about the actual origin of the blade, which experts (or “experts”) can argue over for days without coming to an actual conclusion.

In regards to using “Firangi” as the standalone term for a sword - It’s worth noting that, historically, most Indian people cared more about the blade of their swords than the hilt. This makes sense from a utilitarian perspective as of course having a good, strong blade, will always be more useful than a super fancy hilt in a life-or-death scenario on the battlefield. As such, it would make sense historically that, when asked, Indian people would pretty much exclusively describe their swords by the blade - that the blade is firangi, sukhela, sirohi, etc.. I could be mistaken, but I believe most of these accounts never mention any natives taking time to describe the hilts of their weapons, and I think this is the reason why.

The reason why I’d consider this “hilt blindness” to be problematic for collecting is because it only tells half the story. Contrary to what was the norm in the 19th century, hilts in precolonial India often had explicit regional variations and styles. Artisans in one state/empire would largely only make a single type of hilt, and there were no real "generic" styles of tulwar or basket hilts being made. Of course, commoners most often only had access to undecorated, utilitarian versions of these hilts, but even then most styles have enough physical changes from one another that it's still possible to tell them apart (namely in terms of the styles of pommel, langet, and quillon terminals). As such, while it’s hard work, discerning what type of hilt a pre-19th century indian sword has can greatly reduce the geographical range it can be attributed to.

Of course there is always the issue of trade, but imo this is a whataboutism, and is neither helpful nor meaningfully contributes much to the research of these matters. Is it possible a sikh nihang at one point in time wielded a 17th century, thanjavur-style pata in battle? Sure! In fact, I know I’ve even seen them in pictures of Sikh arms collections on sites like Instagram, but this is all due to trade and is NOT related to where an item was made or “came from” (which matters when trying to figure out what its original name was).

So, back to hilt blindness and the term firangi. What is a firangi sword? A sword with a foreign blade, sure, but with what type of hilt? The term does not specify. What about a dhop? The term Dhop specifies a few things: that the blade is long, fullered, can be straight or curved, and is mounted to a basket hilt. IMO “firangi” is just a descriptor, something to be added on to a name to help further describe an item. Dhop, for reasons that are hopefully clear by now, is imo a proper name and a superior standalone term than firangi when used to describe a style of sword.

Put perhaps more concisely: Firangi only describes the form that a sword's blade might have, meanwhile Dhop is both more generic and more encompassing. It specifies the style of blade and hilt that the sword should have, without constricting either to an exact point of origin.

[Jim McDougall]

As noted, it makes sense that the emphasis on blades would be taken.
The type of blade is of course of great consequence with a sword, and the hilt is simply designed to carry out the function of the blade. The reason hilts are often referred to in describing certain ethnographic sword types is that they are commonly regarded as of local preference.

Clearly with Indian swords, in many cases the blade character determines the term used for the sword, such as kirach, tegha for example. G.N.Pant (1980) placed his focus on hilts and tried to establish regional classification for tulwars which of course had only marginal success. Tulwar hilts of a traditional form over several hundred years were often produced in one location and went to others where they were decorated in motif favored there in many cases. In many cases, as noted, the same basic traditional hilt form was produced but with variation on its elements such as most notably the pommel dish, quillons and the langet/chowk combination. The grip can also have certain variation.


Many of the terms for swords such as 'sirohi' refer to blades made in that city in Rajasthan. Many tulwar hilts are considered from Rajasthan, but many called by the name of a city in Rajasthan they are somehow associated with (as per Pant, 1980) such as Marawari; Udaipuri;

The 'khanda' which of course is initially regarded as Marathi from Deccan, and west India origins was diffused northward into Rajput regions where these were used by them as well as Sikhs. Post contact these were altered into what became known as the 'Hindu basket hilt', and as well known, often fitted with European blades, which seems the prime case with the use of the firangi term.

I once asked a Sikh if there was a way to distinguish a Sikh weapon...he wryly smiled and said, 'if a Sikh used it, then its a Sikh weapon".

We often see various weapon forms classified as Sikh, Rajput, Mughal, Hindu so here we have the cultural/religious denominator.

The bottom line is that usually, the native population seldom, if ever, refers to a weapon specifying any such classification by blade, hilt, religion, regional or otherwise.
They simply use the dialectic term for 'sword' at hand locally, or within the context of the group they are in.
In India, in northern regions the tulwar means sword, any type.
In Persia, shamshir has similar use, but typically means curved.

In "Armies of the Caliphs" (Kennedy), it is noted swords were often called by the place they were made by Muslims.

In studying the 'kaskara' of Sudan, I spent years trying to discover where the term came from. Apparently there, not a single native person had any idea of the term, let alone where it might have come from. When shown photos of a kaskara, people I spoke with immediately called it sa'if. One man, said they called it a 'cross'. Eventually, as usual, it turned out this was a loan word used by writers, later collectors to describe these broadswords.
Natives interviewed by Reed (1987) found that these broadswords were called 'Kasallawi' due to this was now where they were made (post 1950s).

I really dont think there is a universal way to classify ethnographic swords, and for the sake of discussion feasibility it makes most sense to use the term most commonly held rather than any attempt to correct or debate terms.
Surely a footnote or cross reference is most helpful.

[Nihl]

Jim, I hope my writing here doesn’t come off as overly aggressive, however to be quite honest your reply has made me rather irate.

I once asked a Sikh if there was a way to distinguish a Sikh weapon...he wryly smiled and said, 'if a Sikh used it, then its a Sikh weapon".

This is exactly why I wrote the following in my previous post:

Is it possible a sikh nihang at one point in time wielded a 17th century, thanjavur-style pata in battle? Sure! …but this is all due to trade and is NOT related to where an item was made or “came from”

The idea that the person who wields an item somehow contributes to how it should be classified is patently ridiculous. Are any of the swords in my collection, new or modern, “american swords” just because I, an american, own and wield them from time to time? Of course not! Of course ownership can contribute to the provenance of an item, but provenance alone should not be mistaken with place of creation, which IMO is a more valuable descriptor.

They simply use the dialectic term for 'sword' at hand locally, or within the context of the group they are in.
In India, in northern regions the tulwar means sword, any type.
In Persia, shamshir has similar use, but typically means curved.

This is a fundamentally unhelpful, ineffectual notion that I can’t help but notice is only ever brought up, without exception, when someone on this forum is unwilling to change the terminology that they use regarding weapons. It has not and will never be a valid argument, nor will it ever contribute anything to the study of arms. Saying “who cares, words are silly, let's just get drunk!” is a statement that is equally meaningless and silly yet functionally interchangeable with the previous one. Yes, basic “sword words” exist, but believe it or not there are not only more specific words that exist to differentiate items, but also things such as adjectives, prefixes, and suffixes that can be attached to words to additionally specify their meanings.

No progress will ever be made in our field if people keep holding on to this idea, and I really wish people would stop saying it. Even linguistically it’s rather daft, as plenty of languages have numerous words distinguishing knives from daggers, different types of swords and other arms from one another, etc. etc. (including both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages as relevant to this thread here). Words have meaning, and that meaning can change or even be outright replaced over time. It is only natural that in a field that at least attempts to be scientific some of our words will change over time too. Again, I only ever see this hand-waving of semantics whenever someone brings up the “revolutionary” concept of definitions changing, and as far as I can see it comes from fear and ignorance, and the complete opposite of willingness to learn.

Looking at a sword with a stereotypical tulwar-style hilt but a long, straight, fullered blade? Either describe it in full like I just did, or say it’s a tulwar with a firangi-style blade! However just calling it a “firangi” not only exclusively describes the blade, but also might be describing the blade wrongly if it turns out the blade isn’t from europe. Theoretically, in the future, if hilt origins are ever finally discerned, you could make the naming even more accurate by, for example, saying the sword has a “udaipuri-style hilt and a firangi-style blade”! Sure, it’s easier to just use the generic “sword word” and call it a tulwar, but I’d like to think that the longer, previously given description functions as the “scientific name” of sorts for the item.

At the end of the day, sure, to the average collector or dealer that just wants to put a name on their items, there will always be generic terms that exist to describe them. However for anyone that is actually curious and interested in the study of these things, I think more mileage will be had trying to be as descriptive as possible.

Once again, this isn’t intended as a direct attack at Jim, despite what it may or may not seem like, but rather an open letter of sorts that happened to be spurred by Jim’s response.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow Nihl! I'm glad your rancorous attack was not directed AT me (still tender from the gut punch though)....but glad I provided you a platform for your rant, which ironically is very much the same convention I have tried to advance for most of the 25 years I have written here.

What I wrote, I thought was being supportive of your interesting and well thought out perspective, including my Sikh anecdote mindful of exactly what you had said.
I will say that after over fifty years of studying arms and armor, I cannot say how many examples of mostly Victorian 'collectors terms' I have sought to place in proper detail, and working with many of the venerable authors now mostly gone, who also sought to 'correct' misnomers and curious colloquial terms for certain weapon forms.

On the European forum, we have been engaged in finding the origins of the 17th century campaign swords called 'walloon'; there have been debates on 'basket hilt' vs. 'claymore' and a book full of such 'classifications' .

In a current project, I found that the Spanish colonial hanger known popularly as the espada ancha, was actually termed in Alta California in that period, 'machete', and that the espada ancha (=Sp.broadsword) term actually referred to the full size swords used by the military at the time.
As most of the literature published to date on these hangers calls them espada anchas, it is hopeless to try to change this to 'machete' which in discussions brings forth an entirely different connotation.

Pant (1980) went through a number of notices of errors in previous works by Rawson and in the most notable case, Egerton (1885) who somehow transposed the term 'katar' to the transverse grip dagger actually termed 'jamadhar' ...and from then on, these familiar daggers became KATARS.
The was carried forth in virtually every published work including Indian arms since......and NOBODY has been able to change it. In most cases, this is noted in various writings, but mostly it is a matter of semantics in knowing which weapon was being discussed.

In many years of research with various authorities on Indian arms, we had great difficulty in tracing the chronological development of the katar, as when reading early period accounts, if the term katar was used, was it the earlier known version with regular hilt, or the jamadhar etc.

We have the curious 'Khyber knife' which somehow became termed the Salawar Yataghan in some sort of Hobson-Jobson .....it is not a knife, but a heavy short sword, and CERTAINLY not a yataghan.....yet in every circle today, these remain a Khyber knife. (actually 'sillawar' appears to be the local Afghan term, but who knows if universal in all tribal dialects there).

I could take the anecdotes and examples of all these, and probably compile them into a book, encyclopedia, perhaps even a movie (which would parallel Ben-Hur or such epic)...but the point is....
This particular dilemma/debate/conundrum has been an ongoing casus belli here for over the decades I have been here, and the contentious warfare has been brutal (just look at our situation here from what I intended as a helpful entry).
We have called this 'the name game' admittedly with spite, as it seems seldom to have achieved much.

As long as I can recall, I have advocated, do not be afraid to use as many words as it takes to describe a weapon, and its components. Collectors often want simple general terms for labels on displays, students of arms prefer qualified and detailed descriptions (in my opinion of course).

As I believe I have told you, I personally applaud your passion and serious approach to the study of arms, but as someone who has also followed your course for most of a lifetime, I can tell you, it is not an easy road. I can assure you the attitude you depict in your post of 'who cares' is hardly a description of my work, but despite your tone, I can appreciate what you are saying as a condition I have encountered for more years than you can imagine.

My best hope is that those of us who wish to seriously learn on and from the weapons we collect work together on reasonable solutions to better describing them, and a way to collectively cross reference terms as required.
In many cases the etymology and linguistic aspects provide colorful history to be added to these, and all the better in understanding them.

Best regards
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

In rereading your response Nihl, I think you deserve a bit more detail. I must say that fear, ignorance and unwillingness to learn are terms I have never in my life had directed at me, regardless that you claim they are meant openly you obviously include me in your 'comments'. I have written here for 25 years in order to learn, and to study WITH others. The idea behind research is to NOT be ignorant, always open to ideas, willing to listen, and to advance the core of knowledge on topics by comparing and evaluating evidence. I have always believed that we learn together, and insults are what is not helpful.

In view of your editorial, I thought perhaps you might like to look in on the concurrent thread, "back to Laz Bicagi' which you might find compelling.
Here, if you are not familiar, is a weapon which first appeared in the collecting community back in the 90s, when I first acquired one. These were pretty much unknown and a few sundry catalogs called them SE Asian; North African and other completely wrong identifications.

I first began to find information on these in a quite obscure paper on "the Origins of the Shashka" (Jacobsen & Triikman, Copenhagen, 1941). It took some time to get this translated but when I did (through the Danish Arms Society) these curious 'yataghans' were included. I found that the 1941 article (1897 article by J. Vichy Budapest) was Hungarian and these were called kardok, among other similar examples.

I then found one in a German reference "Schwert Degen Sabel" (Gerhard Seifert, 1962) which he termed a Kurdish-Armenian yataghan.When asked he said this was what his mentor, Mr. Jacobsen told him in 1941.

I found other references calling these transcaucasian yataghans. As I researched the examples in various museums, I found they had been collected in various locations such as Trebizond, Erzerum. I also found a contact in Tblisi who indicated these were well known in Georgia, but that they were indeed from transcaucasian areas.

There were discussions here over years where they became known as
Black Sea yataghans. Over the past 15-20 years that is what they have been called. Then we found that these were primarily a weapon of the Laz and the term bichag =knife.

Now it seems it is suggested to call them by another term.



When it comes to trying to learn on a weapon form, research and investigation constantly to find facts is hardly unwillingness to learn, and the number of guys here who were also busily seeking facts also sought to learn.
If you look at the archived material here, I would tread carefully using the word ignorance. I will not even dignify the vapid use of 'fear'.

When I noted, people in certain regions do not use consistent or specific terms for weapons in use when conversing. That was the purpose of the anecdote on the 'kaskara' broadsword of the Sudan. Nobody in Sudan or Ethiopia for that matter has any idea what a 'kaskara' is. I spent several years researching that. I had added these anecdotes and analogies in hopes that you would be willing to consider them. Perhaps many of these are in areas of study you are not familiar with, but I hoped they were explained well enough to illustrate the connection.

[Nihl]

Jim, thank you so much for your response. I am well aware that you are indeed very passionate and experienced with these things, and again I must state that my previous post wasn’t intended to be a direct personal attack, but an open letter inspired by much of what you had said. Some of your remarks are things I’ve heard not only numerous times on this forum (said by many more people than just you), but also innumerable times elsewhere on the internet, in other forums, in the comments of youtube videos, etc. Your reply just tipped the iceberg for me, so to speak, so it only felt appropriate for me to finally say something, especially in a thread that has specifically become name-game related.

I’ll be honest with you that most of what you’ve written in your replies to me are things I either agree with or think work as examples of what I’ve been talking about, and as such I don’t have much to say about them here. I think they illustrate well how humans will sometimes completely change or damage things (depending on your viewpoint) without realizing what they’re doing, for better or worse. Ignorance is bliss, as the platitude goes. This goes both ways too, as I can’t comment on the linguistics disputes for sword types I am unfamiliar with (i.e. ignorant of ).

In regards to the katar/jamdhar example though, so far as I’m aware katar actually is the appropriate endonym to use. To the best of my knowledge, Jamdhar is of persian origin, or derived from persian root words, while katar comes from the Tamil kattari, which was then carried into sanskrit, before ending up as katar in modern day hindi. I am of course just parroting what I’ve read online though, without having done my own research, so I would be totally open to anything that proves the opposite.

I would contend with your khyber knife point, as indeed I think the colloquial term is quite silly, and would prefer using salawar/siliwar yatagan (a lot of the larger examples actually do have a forward-and-back curving tip fyi - it’s hard to see but it’s definitely there), however I am unfamiliar with the nuances of that discussion so I’ll stay out of it.

Like I said in my last reply, I consider all of these (generally) long winded terms to function as the “scientific names” for these items. I have nothing against anyone that uses the collector-held colloquialisms for them in casual conversation, however I only think it’s appropriate to use the scientific names when we are discussing these things seriously, which I’d like to think is at least part of what this forum allows us to do - seriously analyze and discuss arms and armor without having to exclusively use layman's terms.

I believe the “true” names for any sword type should be a mixture of those used natively and originally (i.e. as close to the days when they were actually used as possible), mixed with a healthy amount of brevity so as to not make any particular term too jargon-centric and alienate those less invested in the field.

Firangi is a perfectly fine term, however its definition I find to be too imprecise, and as such the native Marathi term, dhop, seems like a perfectly adequate and necessary replacement.

While I’m aware Laz bichaq was perhaps the closest, most precise term to use for this previously enigmatic sword type, it (the term) is of a turkish origin, and does not respect the native users of these swords, who were predominantly laz (although I’m aware these swords indeed spread across transcaucasia and were allegedly used by kurds and armenians). As such, in accordance with my own research, I prefer the native term Lazuri Didi Xami, which I think when shortened to just Didi Xami (keeping in mind the principle of brevity), is a completely acceptable name that does justice to the ethnic minority group(s) that wielded it.

Anyways back to directly responding: the “fear and ignorance, and the complete opposite of willingness to learn”-part was, I assure you, not at all intended at you, Jim. Again, like I wrote at the beginning of my reply here, I am well aware of your credentials. My intent was never to insult you with this statement, rather it was my attempt to psychoanalyze (perhaps poorly) the exact reason as to why it would seem to me so many people stubbornly hold on to terms that are otherwise antiquated or outdated.

I repeat myself - I do not believe you to be fearful, ignorant, or unwilling to learn about new terms Jim. My comment was intended at those stubborn forum members that insist on never updating their vocabulary because they’ve grown fond of some poorly transliterated terms written nearly a century ago by one orientalist or another. I feel as though, if and when we can do so, discerning the native, non-loan-word terms for sword, knife, or "edged implement" in general should always be prioritized over the "traditional" terms we use in the ethnographic A&A field. My issue here is with those that insist on clinging to the latter, rather than engaging in the adventure that is finding the former.

[Jim McDougall]

Nihl, in kind, I thank you for this well written explanation which I think we can agree has clearly come from a misunderstanding. As noted, I think we are actually in accord on most of the points discussed.
I will say that I do understand your frustration, as I cannot tell you how many times over these many years I have felt the same when my efforts in possible situations involving certain aspects involving particular weapons or elements were met with that 'what difference does it make' attitude.
I suppose that eventually I simply 'put that to work' and pushed harder to find the answers.

With the 'name game' (as we have come to call it over the years) in looking back at old threads, and ironically some which are again concurrent, despite the carnage, some surprisingly useful facts and material have come up and added a great deal to understanding these terms.

I feel that much in the manner of a dictionary, showing alternate terms and definitions, it is important to associate the number of terms to describe the weapon in discussion. Quite honestly these collective terms can often add intriguing dimension to the history of the weapon form. Again, the list of examples and analogies would be remarkably lengthy.

While many of us continue using long established terms in discussion for the sake of semantics and understanding, we often acknowledge the proper term alongside. For example the Maghrebi saber known commonly as nim'cha, which is a misnomer in itself, is locally known in Morocco as the sa'if, thus often we term it Moroccan sa'if.

Again, this becomes a long and complex discussion. However, I think that if we can continue the use of long established terms (though technically incorrect) in colloquial discussions, while making note of proper or alternate terms we can safely maintain the integrity of same to achieve good result.

Again, thank you for putting all this in perspective. This topic has come a long, hard way, and we have a long way to go. Not necessarily to change the existing history and terminology, but to enhance it with necessary revisions without disrupting the flow of the collective material extant.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by drac2k

Generally when I think about a Firangi, what comes to my mind is a straight foreign European-made blade, however, this one has a sweeping curve and almost seems to resemble a Chinese Dao. The blade is 31" long.

Well, it depends on how you interpret " firangi". I you translate it as " foreigner", it will include the entire panoply of European blades imported to India over several centuries. If you, however, limit your translation to " Frank", it will relate mainly to the earliest Portuguese rapiers and later French, Spanish and Italian imports. In India these import blades were called "jahaji", from Persian " jahazi" , a " ship", since they were delivered by sea.

But what is almost certain, it is not an " Alemani", i.e. French word for "German". German blades were exported to India en masse starting in the ~17 century. Their characteristic feature was the presence of three narrow fullers close to the spine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y31Cocl3lOs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnCHNChUobo). Same 3-fullered structure is seen on German exports to Aravia, North Africa, Eastern Europe etc.

Yours has only one fuller, and it is difiicult to claim its German origin: it is either non-German European or, quite likely, native Indian imitation of a European sword. And the latter were abundant. European blades often had original markings, whereas their locally-produced imitations had either no markings whatsoever, the crude " jaws" or illiterate inscriptions. Any on yours?

European sword blades enjoyed excellent reputation in India: even Aurangzeb, among his 27 personal swords, had 2 with European blades:
" Diamond" and " Conqueror of the World" ( "Alamgir"). The reason for their high reputation and desirability was their uniform reliability: Indian swords were produced in multiple workshops, and very ofther were made of wootz. There was no quality control and the blades varied between excellent and dismal. European exports were manufactured by professional guilds that carefully preserved their reputation. On top of that, their mass production resulted in lower prices. Thus, the buyers had a choice: a gorgeous and expensive wootz blade of uncertain quality or a cheaper and highly reliable one. And if they " kept it sharp and hit hard", the outcome was predictably highly satisfactory:-))

[ariel]

I agree with virtually every Nihl's and Jim's positions, especially with Nihl's insistence to call bladed weapons whenever possible by their original names used by their original owners . By the same token, we need to clean our vocabularies of all European-invented names at least in the academic discussions /publications. Again, some " invented " names have contaminated the field so widely, that many, if not most, poorly-informed collectors and dealers are simply unaware of their mistakes. Let them use those in private conversations, but let us, the informed, try to adhere to historical academic standards. Perhaps, their true original names will re-acquire their correct places and the " invented" ones will painlessly disappear to everybody's satisfaction.

The " salavar yataghan" is an example: it consists of a mistranliteration of the native " selaavah" and a totally artificial addition of " yataghan". The latter, as Nihl correctly noted is an addition of an unrelated term simply because of theit common recurved blade.
Interesting to note the Deccani Sailaba, a short recurved sword with T-structure, Kazakh Selebe, a straight short sword, a South Siberian Suleba ( morphed into Russian Selebka). This suggests a common Turkic origin of the name and the weapon itself and deserves academic attention. That is the value of the despised " name game": the word-name points out to the origin of the object, and this is an important goal of the historical research.

[drac2k]

There aren't any markings on the sword, however, based on how it is affixed to the hilt, they would probably be covered if there were.

[Jim McDougall]

Well said Ariel, and while often difficult, there is value in the discussion of proper terms (aka , name game) as participants bring in research in rebuttal and elucidation, thus expanding the information at hand.

It is often interesting looking at our own language, and how many words have either dropped away, or often gained entirely different meanings through generations. While certainly in scholarly work, it is preferred to use proper terminology presuming that the readers are well informed enough to know what is being referred to specifically.It seems there is typically no shyness in using footnotes just the same for further reference and certainty in semantics.

In more casual discussions, as here and other, typically the well known terms that have been firmly become accepted in generations of writers help readers unaware of discrepancies fully understand the items referenced in the dialogue. For example if I were describing the transverse grip dagger of India as JAMADHAR, many readers would not realize I am referring to the KATAR.

In reading earlier accounts and narratives referring to the Scottish claymore, it is typically regarded by the initiated as the large two-hander used by Highlanders, however often the Scottish basket hilt is described in many references as a 'claymore'. Clearly there is a world of difference in the swords meant, and the reader is given a complete misconception.

The term broadsword is often used rather collectively prior to the 19th century in many period accounts describing a sword (most Scottish swords were termed broadsword whether double edged as meant or single edged).
There are so many dated terms in the English descriptions of swords as well as nomenclature it is virtually impossible to describe them all here.

With ethnographic weapons, transliteration, colloquial or vernacular terms take these issues to another dimension, and though exaggerated (in frustration) one authority on weapons of certain native regions exclaimed, the name for these changes almost village to village.

It is a tall order, but I do agree, every effort to bring these arms terms up to date and correctly applied must continue. As these efforts advance, I think it is incumbent on the writer to ensure the alternate or previously held terms are adequately noted as we move forward. In time these terms will become properly known and placed, with the former terms noted as historical footnotes as items of associated interest.

[Jerseyman]

Frustrating though the "name game" can be, one thing this forum does extremely well is to keep asking the questions, pushing the research, adding layer upon layer of information and incrementally pulling the picture of each weapon context into clearer focus. It can be a contentious process sometimes but no less valuable for the occasional verbal tussle.

However, this is a large forum encompassing a broad body of knowledge, and the search function is sometimes, through no fault of its own, not as forensic a tool as one might wish; sometimes purely through not knowing what term to search for.

Is there any merit in creating and perhaps pinning a thread, the sole purpose of which would be to create a snapshot of the current state of thought regarding the terminology of weapon nomenclature?

It could be divided geographically, list the common misnomer and then the currently held terminology with a link to the most relevant recent thread, and perhaps even a thumbnail reference image.

For those who care it would be an easy quick reference guide to stay au fait with the current thinking. I often struggle to stay up to date as my collection is eclectic and I can't keep all the threads in my memory. But I agree with Jim, Ariel and Nihl that it is an important element of our study and purpose.

Just a thought.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Jerseyman

Frustrating though the "name game" can be, one thing this forum does extremely well is to keep asking the questions, pushing the research, adding layer upon layer of information and incrementally pulling the picture of each weapon context into clearer focus. It can be a contentious process sometimes but no less valuable for the occasional verbal tussle.

However, this is a large forum encompassing a broad body of knowledge, and the search function is sometimes, through no fault of its own, not as forensic a tool as one might wish; sometimes purely through not knowing what term to search for.

Is there any merit in creating and perhaps pinning a thread, the sole purpose of which would be to create a snapshot of the current state of thought regarding the terminology of weapon nomenclature?

It could be divided geographically, list the common misnomer and then the currently held terminology with a link to the most relevant recent thread, and perhaps even a thumbnail reference image.

For those who care it would be an easy quick reference guide to stay au fait with the current thinking. I often struggle to stay up to date as my collection is eclectic and I can't keep all the threads in my memory. But I agree with Jim, Ariel and Nihl that it is an important element of our study and purpose.

Just a thought.

I think this is a wonderful idea, I'd even happily write the section on Indian terminology myself! I do feel it will definitely be quite the task though - perhaps it would be better to make a "master thread" that has links to separate posts for each region of the world. Otherwise if they were all in one post it might take so long to navigate that you would feel as though you were literally scrolling from one side of the world to another . That way too you could more easily incorporate images into each entry. Separate region-posts could have multiple replies in them, where each reply has a select amount of entries, followed by corresponding visual examples for each one. That way things could be much more organized, and you wouldn't have to be constantly clicking links or scrolling up-and-down to match an image with its entry.

Of course this wouldn't stop people from disagreeing with certain definitions, terms, or images being used as the "correct" representation of a certain kind of weapon, but maybe they could be diverted into a separate discussion thread for our dictionary

Even when dealing with items that have multiple different proposed names, or names that are somewhat vague in their actual meaning, as long as they are defined in writing and with an accompanying picture, I don't see a problem with including them all in such an otherwise linear or "objective" dictionary (or encyclopedia? wiki? what would be the best name for this?).

Some examples:

The Afghan khyber knife could be written as something to the affect of:

"Khyber Knife" Selaavah (Pashtun(?)). Transliterated as: "salavar" or "siliwar". Misnomers include: "charay" or "choora", "salavar/siliwar yataghan".
A 19th century native Afghani sword with an often T-backed, "kitchen knife"-shaped blade. Predominantly encountered in the khyber pass, but used by tribes throughout Afghanistan(?). Lengths and styles of decoration vary.
(If it isn't clear, given that I'm not an expert on the khyber knife, the bits with an "(?)" next to them are things I'm not sure about.)

Another one with the katar:

"Katar" Jamdhar (north indian?), Kattari (Tamil), Kattara (Sanskrit) Katar (Hindi). Misnomers include: "bundi knife/dagger".
A transverse-gripped "punch dagger", where the blade is oriented collinear with the forearm. Thought to have developed around the 10th century in eastern India, though it could be older. Used as a weapon into the 19th century; also used as a status symbol and was lavishly decorated for wealthy owners. Decoration styles varied regionally, and lengths were as variable.

And a more simple example with the pata:

"Pata" Dandpatta (Marathi). Transliterated as "puttah/pattah".
A "gauntlet sword" with the blade oriented collinear with the forearm. Thought to have developed from the hooded katar in the 16th century. In use until colonial times, where it was used purely in martial arts performances with a shortened gauntlet and flexible blade.

Edit: It probably would be good to specify the range of lengths that most of these items can be found in, but i got lazy . Same thing goes with adding images to them - I didn't feel like going through the trouble of attaching images for my "prototype" here.

[ariel]

There is a problem.
We got our education from Egerton, Stone, Pant, and more recently from Pail and Reddy’s books.
However, they all stem from Egerton and repeat each other. Khanda always has spoon-like tip, streghtening plates along the sides and a basket handle. But look at Elgood’s Jodhpur book : there are several “khandas” that have nothing in common with the traditional description. I asked him about it, and his response was convincing ( at least for me): that term was used locally for different swords, over millennia, in different localities, religions, languages etc. On the other hand, Bich’hwa stemmed from Mysore and Hyderabad, but it was called Baku in Kannada and Vinchu in Marathi.
Some years ago we had a topic on Phul-Kattara and the author changed his definition of it every couple of days.
The same Firangi from the South became Dhup in Maharashtra and Asa Shamshir up north.
I bet that some swords transported from Adoni to Bikaner changed their names several times along the way:-)

Elgood told me that he had a collection of cards with info on ~30,000 weapon terms mentioned in Indian archives.

India is a huge multiethnic country with millennia of history, innumerable wars, hundreds of ethnicities, and languages. And I am not even talking about religions, influxes of Arabs,Turks, Afghans, White Huns, Mongols and who can remember the rest….
Our books are just scratching the surface and some known names do not even have physical examples: how about Kalachurri? We think that curved swords were brought by Babur, but there were Indian sabers centuries and centuries before that. What were their names?

[Nihl]

Eh, I'm not convinced it's much of an issue.

Khanda always has spoon-like tip, streghtening plates along the sides and a basket handle.

Ok, so does the definition have to remain that way? The point of the proposed dictionary is to help keep everyone up to date with the most recent terms and definitions, so:

that term was used locally for different swords, over millennia, in different localities, religions, languages etc.

We can include this in our definition for khanda then! We can say that colloquially (in modern collector parlance that is) "khanda" usually refers to a basket-hilted sword with a double edged blade blah blah blah BUT that there are exceptions! And if we all agree it to be necessary, then we can list out those exceptions!

Bich’hwa stemmed from Mysore and Hyderabad, but it was called Baku in Kannada and Vinchu in Marathi.

Again, I fail to see how this is an issue. In my proposed format we could simply just write this as:
"Bichwa" Baku (Kannada) Vinchu (Marathi) etc etc...

Some years ago we had a topic on Phul-Kattara and the author changed his definition of it every couple of days.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't it determined that the phul-kattara was literally just a katar that happened to have a floral decoration on its scabbard? I might be wrong, but if that is the case then it's simply a super specific subtype, not something to really be concerned about.

The same Firangi from the South became Dhup in Maharashtra and Asa Shamshir up north.

Again, I don't see this as being an issue:
"Firangi" Dhop (Marathi) Asa Shamshir (North Indian Persian/Urdu)
We simply define an item with its most well known term, native or not, and list all subsequent terms after that.

I bet that some swords transported from Adoni to Bikaner changed their names several times along the way:-)

Yes, this is how language works. They didn't "change names" though, they were simply referred to by different terms that meant more or less the same thing. If I am a man and I go to India and someone calls me an आदमी (aadmi), does that mean what I am fundamentally changed in that moment and I ceased to be a man, and am instead an आदमी? No, of course not. These words all operate concurrently with eachother, not in any sort of hierarchy.
The reason why we as collectors and researchers can choose which term to use is because we are at the liberty to do so. We are on the outside, and so we can choose which term to use at our convenience. I, at least, would find it impolite and insensitive to ignore all other concurrent terms and "pick favorites", however, which is why I advocate for including multiple native terms in our definitions; so that readers are aware of this concurrent terminology.

Our books are just scratching the surface and some known names do not even have physical examples: how about Kalachurri?

Then we still give it an entry but state that we do not know its physical form? I again fail to see how this is an issue. You could tell me there was a 12th century central Indian sword known as a "Banana", and that that's all we know about it, and I would still happily include it as:
"Banana" (Native language unknown).
A type of central Indian sword said to have existed in the 12th century. No further information is known about this sword type.

We think that curved swords were brought by Babur, but there were Indian sabers centuries and centuries before that. What were their names?

Then we simply identify these items with descriptions instead of snappy names! Reality is what we make of it, we can always write things as:
Medieval Indian Saber (Native name unknown).
Thought to have existed across India before the arrival of the Mughals, though no examples currently survive and not much further research has been done into these swords.

I, personally, have not heard much about these pre-mughal sabers you speak of Ariel, so that would be an entry you'll have to help me with . I'm aware of several types of medieval swords that existed at least in southern India, but I haven't seen any sabers among them, so really I would encourage you to post some images of paintings or temple carvings if you're able. Either way, just because we don't know the exact autochthonous name for something, doesn't mean we can't define or include it in our proposed dictionary.

[ariel]

With pleasure.
Go to:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...d+swords+india

[ariel]

You may have a valid point here: mention the best known name and add known variants of names and construction.
Still, I think it will be a monumental effort that is best suited to a full-time professional.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

You may have a valid point here: mention the best known name and add known variants of names and construction.
Still, I think it will be a monumental effort that is best suited to a full-time professional.

If we were actually writing a professional book, then sure. As far as I see it all we are doing here is gathering names, though. There is no deadline or word limit.

[ariel]

See:

https://mandarinmansion.com/glossary

Peter Dekker posted it on the Swap Forum

You may find it useful.