Is this a Firangi ?

ariel · 29th October 2022, 07:38 PM

Quote:

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 · 29th October 2022, 08:18 PM

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 · 29th October 2022, 09:12 PM

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 · 29th October 2022, 10:29 PM

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 · 30th October 2022, 01:08 AM

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 · 30th October 2022, 05:56 PM

Quote:

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 · 30th October 2022, 10:06 PM

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?

29th October 2022, 08:18 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

29th October 2022, 09:12 PM	#3
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,281	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.

29th October 2022, 10:29 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,585	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.

30th October 2022, 01:08 AM	#5
Jerseyman Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 97	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.

30th October 2022, 10:06 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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?