Another Puukko (I think ?)

Jussi M. · 23rd April 2008, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobT

Hi VVV,
Leuku isn't acceptable internationally because it is a Finnish word for a Lap knife. Puukko won't do either because it fails to distinguish between two stylistically different knives (and it has the same drawback as leuku). What could be more natural then to name the knife after the people it is closely associated with?

Good morning,

it should be remembered that Sami people are Finnish (those who live in Finland). There is no such things as a Lappland-country or Sami-country. Also, they do not live in isolation from the rest of the people who live in Lappland. A leuku is as a traditional knife for the average Northern Fin as it is for a Sami. The origin of the design may be very well Sami. During the centuries it has become broadly accepted as the best overall tool for the conditions of North, never mind your ethnic background.

A leuku, lapinleuku or stuorra niibi is still a puukko even though it has a flare of its own. If someone wants to see it as it´s own thing thats ok, as in a way it is. Here it aint so and why would also the Sami call it the big (stuorra) knife (niib, puukko) if they wouldnt see it as just a knife (puukko)? Cultures and languages evolve. Maybe the only name used for this type of knife centuries ago when no other ethnic groups lived in the North of Finland was a stuorra niib, but why indeed use the suffix big? At this age the common name for this knife here in Finland is the leuku. Odds are that most people with Sami background called it as a leuku too. Why? - because the Sami language aint common no more. Most people outside Finland who recognize this type of knife do recognize it by other names than those of the Sami-language. - For the majority it´s just a Scandinavian knife, a Finnish knife, a puukko or a leuku. The few that have ever heard of anything resembling niib or stuorra niib are few and between and odds are most of these people can be found on this an other similar forums

Best

Jussi

VVV · 23rd April 2008, 07:07 AM

I agree of course with Jussi that the Sami are part of the country they live in and also use the local language.
Nowadays most of the Sami people live in Norway, followed by North America, Sweden, Finland and Russia (in that order).
A Puukko in Swedish or Norwegian is a kniv (= knife).
The names by Cook for Sweden are in Swedish, not any Sami language.
Trubnos should be spelled trubbnos and is implying that it doesn't have any sharp point (= dull muzzle).
Brukskniv translates to utility knife and storkniv means big knife.

Michael

RobT · 24th April 2008, 04:12 AM

Hi All,
I'll take the points in order of appearance.
Louieblades,
I didn't suggest getting into what each group calls it and I agree that approach could become confusing, that's why I suggested using Saami as a way of distinguishing this type of knife from the conventionally dressed puukko. As for Bowie knives (which is btw what I call them), they might have started out as a southern gentleman's side arm but they wound up being produced and carried by a wide range of socio-economic groups in the American west.
Ariel,
The preface of Tiv, Ngombe, etc is certainly a convention borne of ignorance but I don't see anything condescending or imperialistic about using the name of a group associated with an artifact to define that artifact. I have nothing against calling a leuku a leuku as long as it refers to the Finnish interpretation of the Saami knife but I don't think a knife in traditional Saami dress should be called by a Finnish name. To me that doesn't give proper due to the culture that originated the style. As for the examples navaja and claymore, navaja is a Spanish word for a Spanish knife and claymore is a corruption of the Scottish claidheamh mor or great sword so these names give proper credit to the groups they are associated with.
Jussi M,
I have noted that on ebay, all other things being equal, a blade in traditional Saami dress will fetch a considerably higher price than one in traditional puukko dress. The fact that buyers are making a distinction and are willing to pay a premium based on that distinction argues against your a puukko is a puukko is a puukko allegation. Using the name of the culture that produced the blade has nothing to do with national borders it is simply about attributing the object to the culture that originally made it. Since we have a rather broadly based precedent for using this convention, I don't see why this case should be any different.
Sincerely,
RobT

Jussi M. · 24th April 2008, 09:30 AM

Well Rob,

a leuku is a puukko from where I look at it and where I grew up - as most Finnish men of my age circa 40 years - being surrounded by them and was taught how to use it as a little kid by my now deceased grandfather. - A common story here.

In my opinion you cant really draw a specific line on what´s a Saami knife or what is a Northern Finnish knife as the styles and indeed the whole cultures between the ethnic groups have been mixing for a long time. So, somebody who argues that a knife is a 100% Sami knife may have a different perception from someone other of what actually makes a knife a Sami knife and what doesnt

It is difficult to discuss what something should be named before there is a joint understanding of what the discussion is all about in the first place. So please Rob, could you describe what is a Saami knife and what makes it so different from a Northern Finnish Leuku?

I just have a feeling that we might just have a slightly different perception here, thats all. Maybe David got it best:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I say we just call it a sundang and be done with it!

Thanks,

Jussi

RobT · 28th April 2008, 02:46 AM

Hi Jussi M,
Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. Page 24 of the Knives of Finland by Lester C Ristinen shows a set of three knives captioned, "Knives of Lappland by Lauri Tuoteet". These, although of recent manufacture, illustrate features I consider to be Saami rather than Finnish. The lower portion of the sheath is reindeer and has a pronounced bend to it. The hilt is also reindeer and is without a ferrule. In cross section the hilt is oval and it tapers slightly from the flat pommel to the blade. Both the hilt and the lower portion of the sheath are decorated with incised designs. The upper portion of the sheath is leather, tapered slightly to accept the hilt. I haven't provided the picture because I don't have permission to use it.
Sincerely,
RobT

A. G. Maisey · 28th April 2008, 03:19 AM

I have heard and seen this discussion many, many times.

But usually the subject matter is some cutting implement from South East Asia.

Over the years I have come to think of this obsession with classification as "The Name Game".

In my own field of keris and SE Asian weaponry I have long opted for the use of English names for things where an English name can be used, and where I am using English. Most especially do I endorse this approach for those things which are foreign to the person I am in discussion with. If I am in discussion with somebody in Indonesia I will use the Indonesian terms, and if I am in discussion with somebody in Jawa, a part of Indonesia, I will use the Javanese terms. If I am in discussion with somebody in Australia I will use the English terms.

I really do not understand why it should be necessary to use a foreign word to describe something when there is a perfectly good English word that will do the same job.

However, if we do wish to classify a knife, or any other object, from a foreign source, I believe that some care should be taken in so doing. Thus, a classificatory approach could be, for example :- a knife, probably from the Kauhava region of Finland and commonly referred to in that place as a puukko. In the case of a written record, this classification should be dated, and if available, a reference for the classification given.

In normal English language discussion such a knife could be referred to as a "Finnish knife".

I have often heard the counter argument put that we should use the correct name from point of origin, even though we are speaking, or writing, in English, but what legitimacy is there to using the "correct" native name, when as English speakers we can neither pronounce the word correctly, nor understand the cultural connotations that are attached to the word? To us, it is a knife. Just that.

24th April 2008, 04:12 AM	#3
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 563	A good debate Hi All, I'll take the points in order of appearance. Louieblades, I didn't suggest getting into what each group calls it and I agree that approach could become confusing, that's why I suggested using Saami as a way of distinguishing this type of knife from the conventionally dressed puukko. As for Bowie knives (which is btw what I call them), they might have started out as a southern gentleman's side arm but they wound up being produced and carried by a wide range of socio-economic groups in the American west. Ariel, The preface of Tiv, Ngombe, etc is certainly a convention borne of ignorance but I don't see anything condescending or imperialistic about using the name of a group associated with an artifact to define that artifact. I have nothing against calling a leuku a leuku as long as it refers to the Finnish interpretation of the Saami knife but I don't think a knife in traditional Saami dress should be called by a Finnish name. To me that doesn't give proper due to the culture that originated the style. As for the examples navaja and claymore, navaja is a Spanish word for a Spanish knife and claymore is a corruption of the Scottish claidheamh mor or great sword so these names give proper credit to the groups they are associated with. Jussi M, I have noted that on ebay, all other things being equal, a blade in traditional Saami dress will fetch a considerably higher price than one in traditional puukko dress. The fact that buyers are making a distinction and are willing to pay a premium based on that distinction argues against your a puukko is a puukko is a puukko allegation. Using the name of the culture that produced the blade has nothing to do with national borders it is simply about attributing the object to the culture that originally made it. Since we have a rather broadly based precedent for using this convention, I don't see why this case should be any different. Sincerely, RobT

28th April 2008, 02:46 AM	#5
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 563	Knives of Finland pg 24 Hi Jussi M, Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. Page 24 of the Knives of Finland by Lester C Ristinen shows a set of three knives captioned, "Knives of Lappland by Lauri Tuoteet". These, although of recent manufacture, illustrate features I consider to be Saami rather than Finnish. The lower portion of the sheath is reindeer and has a pronounced bend to it. The hilt is also reindeer and is without a ferrule. In cross section the hilt is oval and it tapers slightly from the flat pommel to the blade. Both the hilt and the lower portion of the sheath are decorated with incised designs. The upper portion of the sheath is leather, tapered slightly to accept the hilt. I haven't provided the picture because I don't have permission to use it. Sincerely, RobT

23rd April 2008, 07:07 AM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	I agree of course with Jussi that the Sami are part of the country they live in and also use the local language. Nowadays most of the Sami people live in Norway, followed by North America, Sweden, Finland and Russia (in that order). A Puukko in Swedish or Norwegian is a kniv (= knife). The names by Cook for Sweden are in Swedish, not any Sami language. Trubnos should be spelled trubbnos and is implying that it doesn't have any sharp point (= dull muzzle). Brukskniv translates to utility knife and storkniv means big knife. Michael

28th April 2008, 03:19 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I have heard and seen this discussion many, many times. But usually the subject matter is some cutting implement from South East Asia. Over the years I have come to think of this obsession with classification as "The Name Game". In my own field of keris and SE Asian weaponry I have long opted for the use of English names for things where an English name can be used, and where I am using English. Most especially do I endorse this approach for those things which are foreign to the person I am in discussion with. If I am in discussion with somebody in Indonesia I will use the Indonesian terms, and if I am in discussion with somebody in Jawa, a part of Indonesia, I will use the Javanese terms. If I am in discussion with somebody in Australia I will use the English terms. I really do not understand why it should be necessary to use a foreign word to describe something when there is a perfectly good English word that will do the same job. However, if we do wish to classify a knife, or any other object, from a foreign source, I believe that some care should be taken in so doing. Thus, a classificatory approach could be, for example :- a knife, probably from the Kauhava region of Finland and commonly referred to in that place as a puukko. In the case of a written record, this classification should be dated, and if available, a reference for the classification given. In normal English language discussion such a knife could be referred to as a "Finnish knife". I have often heard the counter argument put that we should use the correct name from point of origin, even though we are speaking, or writing, in English, but what legitimacy is there to using the "correct" native name, when as English speakers we can neither pronounce the word correctly, nor understand the cultural connotations that are attached to the word? To us, it is a knife. Just that.