Khyber, pesh, choora, or kard?

[shayde78]

Originally Posted by ariel

One does not have even to postulate the deliberate "hybrid" nature.
There were many ethic groups and semi-isolated tribes in that area, and each had its own tradition of embellishment ( scabbards, handles). Add to it different language groups and we will get a large variety of the same blade with different names and handles. Chhura is an Indian word, Kard is Persian, Kord is Tajik, Bichaq ( and its multiple pronounciations) Turkic. All mean just "knife".

Blades of Uzbeki P'chak and Tajiki Kord are virtually indistinguishable, as are blades of Mahsud Chhura and the so-called Karud. Mahsud Chhura and Indian Chhura bear the same name, but the former has a very distinct handle. Going heretical, one can wonder whether what we call Mahsud Chhura was indeed called Chhura by the Afghani Mahsuds: most of our knowledge about that region comes from the "Indian" part east of the Khyber Pass, travels to the Afghani parts being quite risky.

A very similar situation can be seen in the Caucasus: what we call kindjal, might have been called Kama of Khanzhali by their original owners depending on their proximity to and affiliation with Persian or Turkic cultures. The forms varied enormously: Meghrelia and Guria are tiny areas in Georgia located next to each other, but their " kindjals" were absolutely different in size, form and decorations.

From our Eurocentric perch we can just ignore this bewildering variety of names and forms. But I would argue that deeper knowledge of them is a legitimate subject of the study of arms. Elgood has more than 40,000 special names and terms for Islamic/ Indian weapons in his archives: forms, languages, origins, linguistic roots. I would buy this glossary in a flash.

From the mechanical point of view, any bladed weapon is a flattened and sharpened plate of steel, no more. Its form, decoration, construction of a handle, ethnic origins, names, sacral elements are avatars of its human connection. They carry information about its owners.

Well said, Ariel. It is precisely the window into the cultures represented by these objects that motivates my collecting. Trying to synchronize linguistics across cultures is never exact, yet the nuances in language is also fascinating. The desire to have a common language to guide classification is fair. It is for this reason that medicine relies upon Latin, so that anatomy and physiological functions can be understood by practitioners with many native tongues.
However, the desire for a common language need not be exclusive to recognizing the local dialects and variance in terms. Indeed, if I tell the person stocking the shelves at the local Walmart, "I'm experiencing radiating pain from my occipital bone to my ifra-orbital foramen", that is not useful language at all. If I say, "I have a headache", they will show me where the aspirin is. Both vocabularies have their place, have value, and one does not exclude the validity of the other.
Can't we simply say, "Western collectors tend to call this ____. The local culture to which this is indigenous had this name for it. These are the features that make it fit into this category"? I love the scholarly debate, but it can be framed on the premise that multiple terms are equally valid, rather than binary 'right and wrong' reckoning.
Regardless, I learn much from the debate either way, and am grateful to those who contribute in civil and respectful ways. I have much basic knowledge to acquire, and this forum helps immensely in that regard.

[Miguel]

Also well said, Shayde78, I could not agree more.
Miguel

[ariel]

Shayde78:

But of course!
We find ourselves surrounded by colloquial terms that became part and parcel of our lingo as well as of many other human endeavors. Nothing can be done about it: the adherents of Eurocentric terminology will just ignore our protestations. But I would argue that giving up on our attempts to find the original terminology would impoverish our understanding of the history and meaning of the objects we are dealing with.

Sorry for bringing the example of "karud" that is accepted by some as an appropriate term ( and, for Pete's sake, let them use it!). In my opinion, this phonetical error created a name and a specific weapon that never existed originally. Should we correct this error or, in other words, just let the people truly interested in Central Asian weapons that there is a problem with this term? I think yes, some other people disagree and prefer to use it for stenographic purposes and because Moser and Stone introduced it in their books.

Purists among us go even further: Elgood took me to task for spelling " chhura" as "choora" :-) I am grateful.

If you say "headache", it is a complaint of nebulous description and significance. To help your doctor you may use "unilateral with the aura of flashing lights" or " thunderclap forehead with loss of temporal vision". That will be useful in distinguishing migraine from pituitary apoplexy :-)


With best wishes.