Is this a Firangi ?

[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