Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

Absolutely perfectly reasoned and eloquently written Ian, and well describing what most of us are trying to establish, the parameters that surround properly describing ethnographic and historical arms and armor forms.

As has been noted, the monumental work by George Cameron Stone in 1934 has stood ever since as the cornerstone (with its heft almost literally) in the world of arms study for both scholars and collectors. I think it has long been wished that an updated version could be accomplished, and there have been numbers of attempts in degree. Even Herculean falls short of illustrating the huge challenge in achieving such a task.

As Eric has noted, the problem in researching, compiling and writing a book even on a single often limited field or form is difficult as there are constantly new examples, material and more accurate perspectives arising. This is because of, thankfully, our cadre of enthusiasts in the study of arms and armor, constantly probing, investigating, evaluating, discovering...and this is part of the fiber of the passion of collectors in our chosen fields.

I think Lofty has well expressed the circumstances involved in the study and the struggle to more accurately describe and understand the many conflicts and nuances which arise in the progression of research.
There is indeed a considerable spectrum in the character of collectors, who well augment the necessary examples and evidence required by scholars who are deeply involved in such research. I think Fernando has astutely observed (coincidentally in the theme of this discussion) the misfortune of a word or term inadvertently placed in an otherwise beautifully explained text.

I think the term 'hoarder' is probably a bit strong, however it does apply to the character in some cases of some who strive to collect impressively, focusing less on the history, details and background of items they amass. What they seek is an impressive and concisely worded description which will be resounding in the volume of examples proudly exhibited in carefully organized categorization.
While this type of collector is quite different than most, it should be recognized that they are characteristically with somewhat different ajenda and goals than others in many ways.
To our benefit, these individuals by sheer volume often turn up key examples which provide valuable evidence as they are proudly displayed.

To be fair, a 'hoarder' is one who amasses things in huge volume but usually secretively and without specific purpose. A collector who amasses often huge volumes of arms and does not exhibit specific interest in their history in depth, is simply a collector, rather than a historian.

Conversely, I personally do not collect any longer, and am a historian, who deeply appreciates the opportunities to view, study and discuss the amazing spectrum of arms here, and shared by those who DO collect, regardless of WHY.

[fernando]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...