Musashi 28-08-2011 23:45
As I announced earlier, I want to clearly demonstrate the differences between the Yemeni jambia and the Omani* khanjar**. The main reason is that for a long time on forums, as well as in literature, Khanjar has been called jambia, which personally hurts my eyes. The goal is to prove that the Omani khanjar, although similar to jamia, is a completely independent and independent type of Arab short-bladed weapon, and there is no need to confuse it with jambia. So, here we go:
________________________________________________________________________
* Omani - simplified. In fact, a similar dagger is found throughout eastern Arabia - Oman itself, the UAE (which is historically part of Oman), some territories of Saudi Arabia, as well as various micro-states like Qatar and Bahrain - in a word, the countries of the Persian Gulf
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:46
So, let's take jambia. Purchased in 2009 in Sanaa, Yemen - the most standard, the most common, thousands of the same ones are worn there to this day:
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:49
Let's take khanjar. Bought through the intronets just now (I was bragging), the former owner bought it in 1991 in Saudi Arabia:
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:52
Already at first glance, the differences are obvious: if the jambia has a horn hilt, decorated with an ornament of small studs and two pseudo-coins, as well as a scabbard covered with leather and braided with a leather cord, then all the mentioned details of the khanjar are bound with thin sheet metal with artistic work on top of it .
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:53
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:57
The blades, accordingly, also differ in size, although they are similar - bending, a stiffening rib are present in both:
Musashi 28-08-2011 23:59
At the bottom of the handle of both daggers there is a border-like border into which resin is poured to fix the blade. In the Khanjar this frame is noticeably wider than in the Dzhambia:
Musashi 29-08-2011 12:08
Further, according to the method of wearing: the jambia (this particular variety, since there are also others, but we are not talking about them now) is worn, tucked into a wide belt, strictly vertically. The khanjar is worn on a narrow belt, on the outside, being suspended by special straps by rings on the sides of the sheath, with a noticeable inclination under the left hand. You can even see the strip between the rings on the outside of the scabbard - if you give it a strictly horizontal position, the dagger itself will be tilted.
Thus, the sharp bend of the scabbard in the jambia performs the practical function of an “anchor” that prevents the sheath from falling out when removing the blade, while in the khanjar it is purely decorative. The nature of the bend itself also differs: in the jambiya it looks at 10 o’clock (more raised up), while in the case of the khanjar it is a straight angle, at 9 o’clock.
Musashi 29-08-2011 12:08
Something like that
Musashi 29-08-2011 12:13
Moreover, I forgot to mention, often on the back of the khanjar’s sheath there may be a nest with an auxiliary knife, the handle of which is usually dressed in a style common to the khanjar itself. If they carry such a knife with a jambia, they simply tuck it behind the jambia itself, much like this guy here:
Volpertinger 29-08-2011 12:59
Couldn’t the territorial factor, but the ethnic factor, and migration play a role? I lived for several years in the “Persian Gulf countries” - for example, the ethnic composition of the UAE is mainly from Yemen and partly from Iran. Almost the entire aristocracy (tribal), including the ruling family, are also Yemenis. They brought with them Yemeni traditions, customs and family weapons - I saw jambiyas in many families.
Musashi 29-08-2011 01:16
Well, as far as I know the ancient history of Oman, it was also inhabited by Yemenite tribes, therefore, I do not argue that there could be one root - simply, on the eastern coast of Arabia over the centuries, the dagger acquired its own, very specific features, and there it is called khanjar. And that is, a book something like “the most beautiful and famous...”, there are three purely Omani khanjars and the signature - Yemeni jambias...
Sexton 29-08-2011 01:20
Dmitry, thank you.
It’s interesting, of course, but they are still very similar.
And is the material of manufacture really such an important attribution feature to classify weapons as different types?
A saber - a wooden handle, a metal one, a bone one, a horn handle - it's all a saber.
Bebut - the same.
A sword is the same as a sword.
Even the katana (not taking into account the different names of the Japanese periods) is still the same katana.
It seems that the most important thing for a weapon is the handle - but here they are the same.
And the blades are very similar.
The difference in wearing methods... Well, I won’t say anything here.
Musashi 29-08-2011 01:25
Well why?
Shashka 1881/1909 is, in almost all respects, a saber (well, what kind of saber is this in its pure form, hand on heart?)
The differences from the saber itself are just the name and the way it is worn.
And voila - a separate (from saber) type of weapon
Volpertinger 29-08-2011 01:30
But the ruling dynasty of the UAE, the Nahyans, moved there not in antiquity, but two hundred and two hundred kopecks years ago. In Yemen, the family is still known and influential. That is, these are not distant and mixed descendants, but the closest ones are Yemenis))
It’s just that in all the old photos the ruling family has Yemeni jambias under their belts... I was at the Sheikh Zayed Museum in Al Ain a couple of times, and there were also daggers hanging there that were more reminiscent of jambias... As a local traditional weapon
Musashi 29-08-2011 01:36
Maybe, maybe - I, alas, have not been to this museum, but I will probably visit it in the coming year, God willing. However, I can demonstrate the UAE ten dirham banknote, where we see mmm...
Musashi 29-08-2011 01:39
Oh, I see the photo - thanks. It shows two typical jambiya-ghuzbis, from southern coastal Yemen (Hadramaut). Also, the long sabiki, on the contrary, from the northern regions adjacent to Saudi Arabia (which collectors call the “Wahhabi jambiya”), is found in both Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Well, one purely Yemeni ( I'm lying! according to the method of suspension, it is just akin to the Omani ones - such hybrids are found in adjacent regions, because the purely Yemeni ones are tucked into the belt, and here specifically - the ends of the strap cling to the rings on the sides of the sheath). Interesting things.
Musashi 29-08-2011 02:02
No, of course, dividing strictly according to the political boundaries of states is obviously a disastrous business, because these borders were marked on the map basically all in the 20th century, and to this day are ignored by individual tribes. But I tried to simplify the task and took as an example just two classic daggers from different sides of the Arabian Peninsula, in order to clearly show the difference that they are really different.
Musashi 29-08-2011 02:12
I'll go to bed for now, now Ariel should come to such and such a blessed topic, I'll read it in the morning
Volpertinger 29-08-2011 02:20
I’m no stranger to this myself, it’s just that there are a lot of friends left there, and everyone proudly told me about their grandfather’s jambiyas from Yemen..
And there’s nothing to do in the museum - just a couple more rifles, a bandoleer, a jeep, a couple of jugs and these daggers... It’s better to go to Bakhlya in Oman
Volpertinger 29-08-2011 02:35
The exposition is from there - Bedouin weapons
Harryflashman 29-08-2011 06:07
Let me quote excerpts from the new book by Stephen Gracey, the most authoritative expert on jambias/hanjars.
In Yemen, for example, there are at least 3 classes (not subspecies!) of zambias, each strictly related to the clan/status of the owner.
1. Tuma: local aristocracy, Sayyid and Cadiz clans. Richly decorated, worn on the right side, at an angle to the belt
2. Assib: all other, lower, clans, minimally decorated, often with leather ribbons on the scabbard, worn vertically in the center of the belt.
3. Jehaz: the simplest, for the lower classes, worn at an angle in the center.
The lower class Sayyidi (teachers, small leaders) could wear Tuma, but they tempered their ambitions by wearing it in the center or on the left.
The only difference between the Omani and Yemenite jambiyas is their scabbard: the straight angle of the scabbard on the Omani khanjar. Also, usually they have 5 rings, the version with seven was invented by the wife of the Persian ruler Sayyid Said bin Sultan (1806-1856), and therefore is called Sayyidi Khanjar. At first only rulers wore 7 rings, but now many people wear them. Yes, Omani khanjars were often paired with a small knife.
Musashi 29-08-2011 08:40
Usually Assib is associated with the term jambia itself, i.e. as in the photo I presented. Jehaz is worn in the south, often without a belt, but tucked into the hem of a man's futa skirt.
“Omani jambia”, such a term has no right to life.
I didn’t see five rings - I saw two, four and seven. The Sayidi is distinguished mainly by the handle rather than the rings.
Harryflashman 29-08-2011 23:40
Of course, the Omani jambia is like a Japanese checker. Just to type faster. Then he clarified.
But Sayidi, according to Gracie, has exactly seven rings. So you fight him with Omani jambias...Oh! Hanjars, that is! - and I’m just a reader and quoter..:-)
Sinrin 30-08-2011 10:45
Well then we need to figure out what khanjar, jambiya, bebut are and what are their structural differences. This is also called a khanjar, and what does it have in common besides a crooked blade?
Harryflashman 30-08-2011 14:12
In principle, there is no difference: they are all crooked combat knives from the Islamic area.
The handles, decoration and sheath, as well as the geometry of the blades, differ ethnically. I can’t remember right off the bat a single one with a guard. That's all.
Just the names are different.
Musashi 30-08-2011 19:01
And this (above) the Arab seller also called khanjar when I bought from him in Damascus, but in this topic we are talking about exactly what is called khanjar in Oman and around.
Serge_M 31-08-2011 02:34
And what are the last two daggers and where are they from?
Please write a little more than “bought in Damascus”.
Harryflashman 31-08-2011 04:26
Traditionally, such jambiyas belonged to one village in the Golan Heights, the Druze settlement of Majal Shams, i.e. Tower of the Sun.
Later (I suspect that mainly after 1967, when the Golan came under Israeli control) they actually began to be produced in Damascus, in large quantities. There is an opinion that they are different: the Druze handle is supposedly flattened, and without any frills, while the Damascus handle is round, with more decorated mosaic pieces, and/or with a ring-shaped rim in the middle (like here). But I saw both types in Majal Shams. So, perhaps, we just need to give some relief to the tourist audience in Damascus.
I have a saber with such a handle and a European blade, very simple work; probably Druze.
Here there is a discussion on this topic on Vikingsword, with many photographs, and with an opinion about the difference between the two species. Look, it's interesting.
Musashi 31-08-2011 10:37
Yeah, I posted mine there too
Hunt11 31-08-2011 16:54
IMHO, but the jambia has one blade curve (like the bebut), and the khanjar has 2
I can post a bunch of lines for illustration, but everyone understands the idea
At least my IChO was formed after communicating with Eastern comrades and reading English books.
Sinrin 31-08-2011 19:30
So did the Omanis initially call their daggers khanjars, or have they become more recent under some influence?
Harryflashman 01-09-2011 13:20
So did the Omanis initially call their daggers khanjars, or have they become more recent under some influence?
The word Khanjar as a definition of a combat knife has been used in the Persian language almost since the 10th century. Iran has owned what is now Oman, Bahrain and the emirates for several centuries and even now makes territorial claims. The population there is largely Shiite. So draw your own conclusions.
iv2006 01-09-2011 19:32
discussion on the topic "what is the difference between a knife and a knife and a dirk from a dirk"
Musashi 01-09-2011 19:56
quote: Originally posted by iv2006:
discussion on the topic "what is the difference between a knife and a knife and a dirk from a dirk"
Just the dirk, as the national dagger of the Scottish highlanders, is very, very different from the dagger. I don’t understand, they don’t read the topic, or what? I showed examples of both, described the difference, indicated that THIS occurs only in relation to THIS term, and THAT - to THAT. But no, it's useless...
Volpertinger 01-09-2011 19:56
Rather, from interpretations and interpretations... The same mess as with the Spanish word "daga" - a very capacious term... This is a dagger, a dirk, a broadsword and a machete... Plus, the interpretation changes depending on eras and regions. .In one part of Spain, these are all daggers, in another, a specific type of broadsword
Israguest 01-09-2011 23:03
But no, it's useless...
And it’s not at all useless, I learned something new for myself, for example, that there are seven rings on my ja..., sorry, on my khanjar from Oman for a reason, but a sign of the “coolness” of the owner.
The problem here is different. When everyone makes a mistake in the name, then it doesn’t seem to be a mistake. I’ll give an example.
On another forum, one Italian connoisseur corrected me that I called Parmesan cheese “Parmesan”, but the cheese is Italian and you should say “Parmigiano” in the Italian manner, and not in French.
Then I asked him what he was asking the Moscow saleswoman for - Parmesan or Parmigiano? He admitted that he was asking for Parmesan.
By the way, I bought my khanjar on eBay from a seller from London. According to the seller, the item was brought by his father in the fifties of the last century from Oman. Neither in the advertisement for the sale, nor in correspondence, he did not mention the word “khanjar”, but only “ jambia"
Harryflashman 01-09-2011 23:31
Musashi,
.
Do you have Gracie's book? Artsi Yarom sold it, contact him. Amazingly rich. Every time I pick it up, I find something new. I am sure that after reading it carefully, you will find many explanations for your “differences.”
Musashi 01-09-2011 23:38
If, like Tirri’s, it says Jambiya from Oman, then I won’t discover anything new for myself...
Musashi 01-09-2011 23:41
It is interesting that the kummya is often called the “Moroccan jambiya”, although these two daggers are only similar in that they both have a curved blade, and so they belonged to two different peoples, even different races
Harryflashman 02-09-2011 12:16
No, there is no such thing there, don’t worry :-).
You shouldn’t be throwing a barrel at Gracie: He is without a doubt the most significant collector of South Arabian “daggers” (if you notice, the term toahe you used here is absolutely incorrect :-), but it’s more convenient this way). Personally, I don’t know him, but I have several mutual acquaintances, and they told me that he has walked the length and breadth of Arabia, and many times, that he personally knows a lot of masters and sheikhs-collectors from there, that he has been deeply involved in this for about 20 years, if no more, and that his collection (only part of it is shown in the book) has no equal in the world. A serious man and a collector of aerobatics.
So, if you find a book, take it without haggling.
And as for Kummya, Shibriya is no worse, and Indonesian Beladau. All are in a general sense the same, and come from the same roots, but the names are different, and there are differences.
Musashi 02-09-2011 12:22
How can kummya come from the same roots when its blade structure itself is completely different? The way of wearing it is radically different - over the shoulder, and in general all the elements are different?
CyberHunter 02-09-2011 02:59
I wonder why this jambia has a different bend angle and length from yours? Another master?
Musashi 02-09-2011 08:12
Musashi 02-09-2011 08:13
How can kummiya have a common root with jambia when it is completely different? She has a different blade structure, a (drastically) different way of wearing, etc.
CyberHunter 02-09-2011 09:00
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:
Because this jambia is a crap souvenir
It may well be so, this “Yemen” is a Moscow spill, and even the conclusion of an expert from the Ministry of Culture should be accurate. They write that it is the beginning of the 20th century. In principle, the idea was to buy THIS as a souvenir, but since there are only two of them at this auction, the second one seems more preferable. Maybe at least the second one is real?
Just don’t say that this is also a souvenir, firstly, the quality of the workmanship is very high, and secondly, two shells do not fall into one crater. Since they cost the same, I'm looking at the second one
Musashi 02-09-2011 09:20
Musashi 02-09-2011 09:25
In general, to be completely frank, this jambia is a souvenir stylization of a guzbi, i.e. daggers of South Yemen, Hadhramaut - they had steeply curved, very long scabbard tips, which could be bent so that they ran parallel to the dagger itself and often ended even above the hilt. But, I repeat, this particular one is a purely decorative souvenir.
Musashi 02-09-2011 09:45
By the way, I bought a dagger from the Mahdi himself from Sudan, I’ll post pictures in the evening))
About the Mahdi, of course it’s a joke, but I’ve long wanted a Sudanese dagger of this type, not a hadendowa, but a completely different one, I’ll show you later.
Musashi 02-09-2011 10:02
quote: Originally posted by Sinrin:
Well then we need to figure out what khanjar, jambiya, and bebut are.
Oops didn't notice in time. The bebut is a completely different weapon; if you put it with the front side facing you, then the bebut’s blade has a bend in the other direction altogether and is carried accordingly with the handle under the right hand. It’s difficult to explain in words, but I’ll show you comparative photos again in the evening.
Hunt11 02-09-2011 10:02
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:
Where are they sold, can I see the links?The first has a machine-made blade, pressed from two sheets (as the square stiffening rib tells us; on hand-forged ones like mine they should be round), and an unwearable, purely souvenir sheath. There should be a loop on the back side for hanging on a nail, because... This is the only reason why this jambia was made, i.e. don't wear. Yemen should not be put in quotation marks - it was indeed made in Yemen, but in our days and for purely decorative purposes. The second khanjar is good, but not very old, I would say not old at all. But, unlike the first one, it is quite wearable.
Damn, how can I get a job as an expert in the Ministry of Culture?.. I also want to churn out all sorts of conclusions from the idiot and get paid for it.
My forged ones also have an edge closer to square, but this is not pressed from sheets. I think this might be a form of shackles. Forging can be determined by unevenness (small pits and protrusions) on the blade, and this is not so simple. Souvenirs are not sharpened, the edge is blunt to 1 mm - this is a distinctive feature.
Some decorative items are without a ring, some look old in such a way that not every expert will understand
Yes, it’s not difficult to get a job - you need to pass certification and pay. But the work is not very profitable.
Musashi 02-09-2011 10:05
quote: Originally posted by Hunt11:My forged ones also have an edge closer to square, but this is not pressed from sheets.
It would be interesting to see.
As for sharpening, I guarantee that most modern Yemenis also wear non-sharpened jambiyas on a daily basis, I myself have seen and touched them, i.e. not the ones in shops, but the ones that people actually had on their belts, not in costume ensembles, but in everyday life. The cool old-fashioned ones are kept at home and worn a couple of times a year.
Israguest 02-09-2011 10:55
I took a closer look at mine, it seems to be forged. “The pits” are visible.
Musashi, a question for you as a specialist. “The rattle” marked in the photo is on... why? Maybe it means something? Additional “coolness” to the seven rings?
Musashi 02-09-2011 20:09
I've met people like that, I won't lie - I don't know. I suspect it's a decorative piece. Here’s another thing: I was reading Western forums on the subject today, and came across the opinion that the number of rings simply depended on the wealth of the owner, because 7 it was still more expensive to rivet...
And here is my new Sudanese dagger. Typically, blades of this type are found in a white bone hilt and a leather sheath, often made of crocodile. And here the handle is wooden, and the scabbard is trimmed with beads and with terry cloth.
CyberHunter 02-09-2011 20:11
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:
Where are they sold, can I see the links?
in Gelos
http://www.gelos.ru/month/august2011month/oruzh.html
Today they were bought at the auction of the month - lot 135, 136. At the minimum bid I thought about taking one, but did not join the auction, not my topic
Musashi 02-09-2011 20:13
Musashi 02-09-2011 20:14
Damn...at the malls in Sana these are sold for like 20 dollars. This is if everyone here pushes 9500... and even 5000... wow
Musashi 02-09-2011 20:14
BY THE WAY, the second khanjar was really better and more valuable in every way, and was cheaper. Circus and damn clowns. Ugh, I read Gelos’s attributions, I already wanted to swear... I’ll go and get drunk
Harryflashman 02-09-2011 21:13
A few comments on early opinions.
Jambias were made for right-handers and left-handers, so there can be no categorical difference with bebuts on this basis.
Gusbi is not a jambia style with a highly curved scabbard. Gusby is a type of so-called BLADE. Bedouin jambiya from Hadhramaut. This blade is distinguished by its somewhat diamond-shaped shape (thickened in the center) and an unusually massive stiffening rib. These jumbiyas actually have a very curved scabbard with a massive knob at the end, with red stones in the upper part and with the top very often of a simple rounded shape.
I quote all this from Gracie, who says that using the term Goosby to the whole jambia is a semantic error, unfortunately, firmly stuck among collectors.
Jambias with the same or even greater curvature are found in other places that have nothing in common with the Gusbi blade: jambias from Taiz, Daushan (Daushan is an intermediary, toastmaster, clan of servants, but everyone is afraid of them), Abdi (Abidi), Saada, Asir/Jizan and some from Mecca.
Musashi 02-09-2011 23:50
I won’t argue about right-handers and left-handers, BUT
1) Of course, I’m not Gracie, but I’ve seen a lot of jambies both in real life and on intronets, I’ve never seen a left-handed person (but this, of course, doesn’t mean anything)
2) In Islam, the left hand is considered unclean, for this reason the jambiya is taken only with the right hand
3) In any case, I'm not talking about exceptions, but about standard instances. Those. standard jambia and standard bebut. Otherwise, a left-handed bebut would also have a mirror opposite structure from the usual one and, accordingly, would also differ from the “left-handed” jambia - do you agree with this?
4) The bebut is held in the hand with the tip towards you, bending outwards. Jambia - with the tip AWAY from you, the concave side outward, like a claw approximately
Therefore - there is a difference
As for the guzbi and so on... yes, Meccan daggers also have a similar curved scabbard, but the design itself is completely different, and it is difficult to confuse the guzbi scabbard with the Meccan scabbard even if you want to, so when you say guzbi, you can mean similar sheaths a priori. In addition (stolen from a Viking) - this is the thickest guzbi, and its blade, as we see, is no different from the northern ones
Musashi 02-09-2011 23:56
Examples of different ribs on jambias (all northern, Assib type) from my collection
CyberHunter 03-09-2011 02:19
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:
Ah, Gelos are prominent specialists, yes
There is some personal experience of communication, mhhh, well, it serves the thief right and the torment
"Oriental dagger "Plisa"" yobanistid, sorry, ladies...Circus and damn clowns. Ugh, I read Gelos’s attributions, I already wanted to swear... I’ll go and get drunk
ce la via
They sell what they bring to them, but they have no time and no one to sort it out. Sales volumes speak for themselves. It's better not to read the annotations. Lot 94 for example - a blade from Birmingham, clear marks of an English gunsmith - and in the annotation "French saber". The thought flashed through my mind to tell them, but then disappeared.
Good things sometimes come across, but what’s interesting is that for some reason they don’t show them on the Internet. In general, let them develop; there should be a regional auction in any form, even this.
Harryflashman 03-09-2011 04:04
This is the most classic Bedouin jambiya!
But whether the blade is Gusby or not is not visible; you need to feel the thickness at the edge and in the center. They could be with Goosby blades or regular ones.
I don’t doubt for a second that on the Viking, Vash was characterized as Gusby: the whole thing, due to the bend of the scabbard.
That is why Gracie writes that it is a semantic error. His book, with its clear distinction between the jambiya (Bedouin) itself and the blade (Ghusbi), was a revelation for collectors. He spent a lot of time in Yemen and spoke with local craftsmen and collectors - something no one had done before. So I believe him.
Honestly, buy the book, a lot of nuances will become clear. There are 20+ years of hard work and thorough research behind it; this cannot be ignored.
Musashi 03-09-2011 10:39
What is a “Bedouin jambiya”, does it mean that Bedouin should only wear this kind of jambiya? So this is not true at all, because the Bedouins carry different daggers. In addition, in my extreme photo, the one on the right (in silver) was also called Bedouin by the master, and with his light hand I wanted to describe it that way in my “Yemeni jambia,” but I decided not to get excited, apparently for good reason. I’ll buy the book, of course, but I’m in no hurry to believe literally every word, because... I have my own opinion on a number of issues and it’s not just made up, i.e. which has some basis, but masters also have mistakes. Again, on Viking they posted old photos of carriers of such jambias (like “guzbi”), and so they don’t look very much like Bedouins with their bare torsos and foot-skirts.
Harryflashman 03-09-2011 14:02
What Gracie calls a Bedouin jambiya does not mean that only Bedouins wear these, or that only Bedouins wear these :-) A conventional type, nothing more.
Glad you decided to buy the book, you will have a lot of fun.
They did the right thing in not blindly following the words of the sellers in their book: the horrors from Gelos mentioned here are an example of this. The seller is a seller, he needs to get money quickly and present his item in the most exotic way.
And in general, all new products around the world are narrowing down to some single model, and historical categories are no longer followed: mass production requires standardization and ease of manufacture. All new Caucasian daggers look the same; no one will make Gurian or Mingrelian ones. Hindus rivet koftgari with absolutely the same design on everything they touch. The Chinese push the same saber as a Russian, French or German one (this is pure bullshit). The new Yemeni ones are at least trying to somehow differentiate (judging by the decorations and the design of the scabbard) due to the fact that jambias are still worn, but I’m sure that the nuances have disappeared and the general appearance has become simpler. Real old examples are rare, wildly expensive, accessible only to a small inner circle, and end up firmly in a few collections. They charge from tens of thousands to millions of dollars. I don’t know about you, but this would be inaccessible to me. This is why Gracie’s book is important: many old and unique items, access to a very closed circle of local fanatic collectors and personal connections with masters of the Nth generation.
In general, order the book!
Sincerely.
Sinrin 03-09-2011 22:31
zak 04-09-2011 04:04
quote: Originally posted by Sinrin:
Harryflashman, tell me, does this book say anything about the differences between Khanjars and Jambis?
Great question. The topic has been sucked out of thin air. Best case scenario.
Musashi 04-09-2011 11:35
The topic was created for those who are interested - who “have not read, but condemn”, can, ummm, pass by. Anyone who has eyes and is able to analyze at least a little will see obvious differences between the Western and Eastern daggers and will understand that these are, in general, different things. By the way, if my memory serves me right, it was Zack who at one time stubbornly called any curved dagger a jambia, incl. and here is this one from the link, what is it anyway? It can’t possibly be anymore. Therefore, I ask Zak to refrain from comments in my topic http://forum-antikvariat.ru/index.php?showtopic=57559&hl=jambiya
Volpertinger 04-09-2011 13:29
And I would not particularly rely on the conclusions, attribution and terminology of collectors, even the most eminent ones - by definition, they cannot be objective due to the very fact of having a collection, and therefore the author’s engagement..
I often, I would even say too often, have to deal with eminent collectors, authors of works referred to by all authors writing, say, about Navajas, or Mediterranean knives, who are “indisputable authorities” in their field.. And I know too well how they interpret and attribute.
And now two extremely eminent authors of academic monographs and major collectors, an Italian and a Frenchman, are blowing into my ears from both sides, proving the French (Italian) origin of one knife, and its regional Italian (French) name. Moreover, both with a bunch of brilliant arguments and links. Because for both of them it is extremely important HOW I attribute this in my book... For obvious reasons))
Musashi 04-09-2011 18:12
Just search for “jambiya” and go ahead. There are Yemeni, Syrian, Kurdish, Persian, Moroccan (one and a half sharpening by the way) and a dozen more (c)
Wonderful, fucking wonderful!(jokes about Vovochka). It turns out there is such a country as Morroco and there is jambia there, amazing.
And what’s most important is what publications such nonsense is written in (take, for example, the same “The Most Beautiful and Famous...”) - there, as a rule, there are lists of a whole galaxy of honored, gray-haired consultants who received their high-profile degrees a long-long time ago time ago...
sov.soyuz 04-09-2011 23:56
quote: jambia... There are Yemeni, Syrian, Kurdish, Persian, Moroccan (one and a half sharpening by the way) and a dozen more
genuinely amused))))))))))))))))))))
based on such statements - then “Russian rural jambia”))))))))))))))
and here is the Indonesian jambia)))))))))))))
and these are Nepalese jambias)))))))))))))
well, Chinese, for assortment))))))))))))))
CyberHunter 05-09-2011 12:51
you forgot about police jambias - they too, the more rings, the higher the status.
Hunt11 05-09-2011 20:05
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:It would be interesting to see.
Musashi 05-09-2011 20:29
“Kwaku”, of course, has no idea that in India the term jambia is also used, because It was there that large Arab (in particular, Yemeni) settlements existed, and the same term also exists in Indonesia, where today the largest Yemeni community exists abroad.
Be that as it may, the posts of the “quack” will be deleted, even if he ruins himself in those topics where he is still tolerated with his arrogant and arrogant tone.
Musashi 05-09-2011 21:13
And to say, where else would I have learned that there are “Syrian, Kurdish, Persian, Moroccan (with one and a half sharpening, by the way!)” jambia, except from Zak - the greatest specialist in ethnicity, studying it from the comfort of his own sofa ...
Musashi 05-09-2011 21:33
With delusions of grandeur, go to Kashchenko, they are tired of waiting. He cited a recent post as an example of militant illiteracy - he read a “classic” in a mossy book from the same “classic”, and went to the Internet barricades to wave a flag. And I repeat exactly what I picked up on the ground from people. So, in Syria the word “jambiya” is not used at all in relation to local daggers, just so you know.
Musashi 05-09-2011 21:58
The “classics” obviously don’t read the posts - the main thing for them is to croak loudly right away, but more brazenly, and more impudently... because I wrote the following in the first post of this topic:
- I want to clearly demonstrate the differences between the Yemeni jambia and Omani* khanjar**.
It’s a well-known fact that you can’t get up from the couch. This is just the level of sofa reading (also, apparently, some classic was written, I even admit that it was very well-deserved - it’s not for nothing that Zach stood up so much for this masterpiece in his time, and how could it have been otherwise in those days? - all of them - there are All-Russian Scientific Research Institutes, KhUIIs, departments, degrees, regalia - classics in a word... and after all, people were taught from such books, someone probably took tests and exams on this, kgm...)
Hunt11 06-09-2011 14:08
quote: Originally posted by Musashi:
It’s not Arabic, it’s Indian, it seems to me - an imitation of Arabic ones or made in India for an Arab, and is the edge square - it seems to me more rhombic...
Well, the country of origin is no secret, it was made like a replica.
An edge, yes, a diamond (the point of a diamond along the edge of the blade), but you can clearly see how it was knocked out - I think that’s why the shape is not so important, you need to feel it and then determine how it was done.
Harryflashman 11-09-2011 18:53
Artzi is now selling on his website.
For anyone interested in reading about South Arabian weapons, I advise you to buy it.
Harryflashman 11-09-2011 19:47
As for the names: for example, I am offended when jambia, kris, and katar are all indiscriminately called daggers in Russian literature.
The name Dagger as such can only refer to Transcaucasian straight combat knives. It started with the Persian word khanjar (straight or crooked), and only then mutated and in the end firmly stuck to the Caucasus.
Jambia and Khanjar are extremely similar, and from the point of view of their application, they are almost identical. Moreover, early Yemeni fighting knives were straight (see Gracie), and modern Yemeni jambiyas could have originated precisely from the crooked Iranian khanjars. It's like that. But from the point of view of the final ethnographic results, here they must be distinguished very precisely
Arabat 11-09-2011 20:48
quote: The name Dagger as such can only refer to Transcaucasian straight combat knives. It started with the Persian word khanjar (straight or crooked), and only then mutated and in the end firmly stuck to the Caucasus.Therefore, Volence Nolens, this shelf is already occupied: there is no other dagger.
I strongly disagree! There is no basis either for the assertion that the source was the word khanjar (except for the purely external similarity of the words), or for the assertion that for some fairly long period only Caucasian types were called daggers in Rus'.
Marathi 11-09-2011 21:50
All cultures had short combat bladed weapons. But they were called differently, and technology, function, use, etc. were also different. In English it is simpler: there is a word dagger, very general, like a sword or a knife. This is classified as a large closet. And once you open it, you begin to lay it out on smaller shelves.
There is no such thing in Russian, unfortunately. The shelf was given the name of the entire closet.
Maratha will probably understand me best; he is a zoologist. There, too, you start with a common family, and then you refine and refine until you come to the definition of exactly this one living being.
I really agree with Garrifleshman in terms of the fact that you start with a general family, for example, and then refine it to a specific representative - in biology - species and subspecies.
But, I do not agree that dagger is a term that only applies to the Caucasus. Just as in English there is the word “dagger”, so in Russian there is “dagger”. And their meanings are the same.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E8%ED%E6%E0%EB
Harryflashman 11-09-2011 21:55
Marathi 11-09-2011 22:20
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
I won’t argue, because it doesn’t change things: “Indian dagger Qatar” or “Arab dagger jambiya”... doesn’t it sound idiotic to you, a la Trubnikov, as in the illustrations above?
Sounds pretty stupid. And, of course, it would be more correct, in my opinion, not to write the word “dagger” in this case. But the fact remains that when trying to systematize, I will classify both Qatar and Jambia as daggers. Although, you can bypass this point and write - short-bladed edged weapon.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 12:03
By the way, the fact that the word dagger entered the Russian language from the East and, probably, after numerous permutations at intermediate stages is an indisputable fact. No fantasies associating this word with the word sting can be seriously discussed. What kind of objects in Rus' were initially called daggers does not matter: in its origin (old Iranian, where this word was easily used back in Shah Nameh around 1000 AD, long before the earliest uses of this word in the Russian language) khanjar also meant direct and crooked weapons. So the old Russian language was free to use it without restrictions.
Probably, the critical feature of this weapon relates not so much to the word short-bladed as to its definition as a combat weapon. Not a single dagger, khanjar, or khanjali has ever been a household item, regardless of the length of the blade. Therefore, it is quite imaginable that even a primitive boot knife could be proudly called a dagger by its owner if he went to war with it. This is probably the key to the use of the word dagger in Rus'.
Arabat 12-09-2011 12:27
quote: Therefore, it is quite imaginable that even a primitive boot knife could proudly be called a dagger by its owner if he went to war with it. This is probably the key to the use of the word dagger in Rus'.
Sinrin 12-09-2011 12:50
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
Maybe I am behind the developments in the Russian language, where it was decided to apply the word dagger to all short-bladed military weapons. So be it. But in my opinion, the choice was made poorly. Using the same word in relation to a whole type of weapon and at the same time to a particular example of the same type gives rise to confusion and clumsiness of language.
Like, for example, all Islamic short-bladed weapons with a curved blade are called jambias. Jambia type of hanjar? Jambia type of jambia?
.
This is true not for all short-bladed ones, but mainly for double-edged ones. Knives - in relation to single-edged ones. In my opinion it is quite logical. If we are guided only by local names, then we can completely abandon any attempt at classification and recognize weapons as an object accessible only to ethnography.
zak 12-09-2011 12:52
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
So the old Russian language
There is no old Russian language. There is Old Russian and Straslavic, which came with Cyril and Methodius. Old Slavonic or Church Slavonic is a South Macedonian (Thessalonica) dialect. Which became literary. It is not known how “dagger” was designated in Old Russian. And there were “daggers”. You can figure out the rest yourself. Unless, of course, you write “By the way, the fact that the word dagger entered the Russian language from the East and, probably, after numerous permutations at intermediate stages is an indisputable fact.”
The dagger is from the Khanjar, the konchar is from the Khanjar, and the ass is from the Khanjar, why be ashamed. The issue needs to be discussed with Slavists.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 12:54
The situation is just the opposite. All Iranian khanjars so beloved by you were proudly called knives. But the toy is absolutely not like them with a dagger.
Didn't understand. What toy? Where and who called khanjar a knife?
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 12:57
There is no old Russian language.
You're right. I meant in Russian in the 15th-17th centuries.
zak 12-09-2011 12:58
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
Where and who called khanjar a knife?
Yes, in the descriptions “Tours knife with saber”. From the inventory of Boris Godunov's belongings. No bigots.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 01:05
quote: Originally posted by zak:
Yes, in the descriptions “Tours knife with saber”. No bigots.
The sexton was not strong in weapons science, as well as in foreign languages, except for swearing :-) Who knows what this knife looked like?
By the way, respecting you as a Slavist, please present your version of the origin of the word dagger in Russian.
Volpertinger 12-09-2011 01:09
In 1863, Vladimir Ivanovich Dal, in his “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language,” gave the following formulation:
"dagger - a short sword, a saber of various types; a dirk, a pointed double-edged knife, for stabbing; old daggers or daggers")))
Volpertinger 12-09-2011 01:11
By the way, Dahl knew Turkic languages well and was a Turkologist))
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 01:22
zak 12-09-2011 01:28
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
The sexton was not strong in weapons science, as well as in foreign languages, except for swearing :-) Who knows what this knife looked like? By the way, respecting you as a Slavist, please present your version of the origin of the word dagger in Russian.
Yes, what a Slavist I am, my wife is a former Slavist, I picked up a bit of knowledge. But I haven’t pressed her on the dagger yet. I don't have the slim version. It may be a borrowing, it may be the same root from the proto-language, if khanjar is an Iranian word, it may have come with Old Church Slavonic.
There is only one example with the word dagger on it and no connection with the east, a Toledo blade. According to the description, Staritsky's knife is a dagger. In the Trans-Don region "Fryazh daggers". And a short curved blade (normal khanjar) goes like a Tour knife. I still need to rummage through the inventories, I didn’t do this on purpose.
zak 12-09-2011 01:33
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
If so, shouldn't it be defined exactly as its last owners called it? Otherwise, a couple of words will remain in our everyday life: sword, saber, broadsword, knife. And the whole atmosphere around them, religious symbols, tribal affiliation, data about origins, etc. will be lost.
Where is the contradiction? Jambia is wide, called khanjar in Oman. And everything is clear to everyone.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 04:54
quote: Originally posted by zak:
Where is the contradiction? Jambia is wide, called khanjar in Oman. And everything is clear to everyone.
The blades on Yemeni jambias and Omani khanjars are the same. The difference is in the scabbard: the Omani scabbard is bent at a right angle and has rings on it. But not a single Yemeni will wear an Omani khanjar: there is no symbolism of Yemeni status or tribal affiliation in it.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 05:01
quote: Originally posted by zak:
There is only one example with the word dagger on it and no connection with the east, a Toledo blade. According to the description, Staritsky's knife is a dagger. In the Trans-Don region "Fryazh daggers".
And it's all?
By the way, all this after numerous contacts with the East.
Musashi 12-09-2011 08:58
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:The blades on Yemeni jambias and Omani khanjars are the same.
Except that the latter are half the size
Arabat 12-09-2011 10:32
quote: And it's all?
All data on the use of the word dagger in Old Rus'? A little for the theory about the independent Russian source of the word :-)
By the way, all this after numerous contacts with the East.
A little. But still there is. But for your Persian version there are none at all. No one. By the way, after numerous contacts with the East.
Sinrin 12-09-2011 11:30
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
Sinrin:There is an interesting branch of the discussion here: are weapons a purely ethnographic object?
Undoubtedly, in the old days, no. It was used for its intended purpose, passed from hand to hand, belonged to the mass of people, and people called it whatever they wanted.
Over time, XO fell out of use and lost its significance as a combat item for every day. Now it sits in a petrified state in museums and collections, does not change, does not develop, and is not used. Therefore, it is quite right to define it as an object not of combat, but of historical, ethnographic. If so, shouldn't it be defined exactly as its last owners called it? Otherwise, a couple of words will remain in our everyday life: sword, saber, broadsword, knife. And the whole atmosphere around them, religious symbols, tribal affiliation, data about origins, etc. will be lost.An interesting remark you made.
So weapons can be considered from the point of view of different sciences: history, ethnography, materials science, weapons science, finally (and such things exist). And if you call them only by their local name, there may be some misunderstanding, for example, by people who are not particularly knowledgeable. It is written, for example, khanjar or shibria. And the devil knows what it is? And if, for example, a dagger is of the khanjar type, it is immediately clear to everyone what we are talking about. At the same time, if you simply call it a Middle Eastern dagger, without specifying it, then again it is not clear what exactly we are talking about.
Volpertinger 12-09-2011 11:59
If we are not talking only about collecting weapons, then it is not possible but necessary, and not only having knowledge in the above areas, but also at least in cultural studies, social history, the history of criminology, cultural anthropology, semiotics, the history of religion and folkloristics. Otherwise, as is clearly seen in the example of most discussions that go beyond the scope of materials science, any discussion that interprets only one or two aspects of the problem illuminates only one of the aspects, without considering the issue comprehensively, and is one-sided. And the ancient Greeks, like Kozma Prutkov, considered narrow specialists inferior and equated them with disabled people.
Science can do a lot of gitics, and this is just not the case where Occam’s razor can be applied.
The shape of one weapon can be brought to life by fashion, another, by certain rituals or beliefs common in a certain period among this ethnic group or social group. There were little-known cultural and social phenomena that lasted a short period, but managed to leave a mark on the appearance or development of certain types weapons..
Weapons are as much a part of culture as, say, language, and the factors that influenced its genesis are not very different..
So, in order to understand the origin of, say, “pshekanya” among the Poles, it is necessary to know about epidemics in Europe of the Middle Ages and Modern times, including epidemics of scurvy.. An integrated approach is needed, like Braudel and other masters "Annals" schools Even weather changes played a significant role.
Otherwise, any discussion turns into an exchange of speculations and fantasies on the topic
And speaking of names, it’s a completely ungrateful topic.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 18:50
at least in cultural studies, social history, history of criminology, cultural anthropology, semiotics, history of religion and folklore studies.
......And about names, it’s a completely ungrateful topic
Absolutely correct. This is exactly what I meant when talking about historical/ethnographic aspects. And exact names are necessary here: otherwise how can we understand where the Indians got the broadsword Firangi, the Indonesians got the Piso Podang, the Moroccans got the knife (dagger :-)) Janvi, the Cossacks got the Shashka, and the Poles got the Karabela.
Harryflashman 12-09-2011 18:55
quote: Originally posted by Arabat:
But for your Persian version there are none at all.
Recently, Kirill Rivkin in his book unconditionally attributed the origin of the Russian word Dagger to the Iranian Khanjar.
Maybe we can ask him?
Arabat 12-09-2011 19:11
If he has any facts confirming this, we will be glad to get acquainted with them.
Volpertinger 12-09-2011 20:27
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
Recently Kirill Rivkin in his book
Well, more than a hundred years earlier, Ozhegov came to the same conclusion in his dictionary))
Unfortunately, I am sorely lacking in philological and linguistic education, but considering that I lived in the Czech Republic for 10 years, I speak (and think) Czech fluently (which makes it much easier for me to read Russian medieval sources in the original) and am quite familiar with Bulgarian , Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, I can say that I have never encountered a word consonant with “dagger” and with the same meaning, except in Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.
In several Slavic languages, such as Czech, it is "dyka". In others, derivatives from the root "bod" (butt)
But what causes this, I have no idea
Arabat 12-09-2011 21:02
Ariel! In fact, this question is of course interesting and even, one might say, mysterious, but it has nothing special to do with this topic. I am more surprised by your statement that the word dagger should only refer to daggers of the Caucasian type. Can you somehow confirm that there was a time when only they were called that? Dahl, as you saw, does not agree with you, but he lived in the era of their widest distribution.
Harryflashman 13-09-2011 03:15
I probably explained it poorly, my fault.
My problem is that we call Caucasian daggers daggers, and in general any short combat blade. An awkward confusion results: a Caucasian dagger type dagger.
I would be quite happy if, for example, the word dagger meant the whole family of such weapons, and we called Caucasian things as the locals call them: khanjali in Georgia, kama among the Circassians, and something else among others. I would immediately clarify what is meant.
And as for Dahl, this is a sensitive question.... He, of course, compiled a monumental dictionary, but here he made a mistake. Only a person who has never been involved in weapons science could define a dagger as “a short sword, a saber of various types, a dagger, a sharp-pointed double-edged knife, for stabbing,” right?
Harryflashman 13-09-2011 03:20
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
I am quite familiar with Bulgarian, Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, I can say that I have never encountered a word consonant with “dagger” and with the same meaning, except in Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.
In some areas of the Balkans, in Croatia, for example, the scimitar is called a khanjar. I didn’t know this until one smart person from another forum advised me, and then I read the same thing from Elgud.
Arabat 13-09-2011 10:42
quote: And about Dahl, this is a sensitive question.... He, of course, compiled a monumental dictionary, but here he made a mistake. Only a person who has never been involved in weapons science could define a dagger as “a short sword, a saber of various types, a dagger, a sharp-pointed double-edged knife, for stabbing,” right?
Dahl, of course, is not a weapons expert. He is more of an ethnographer with a philological bent (or vice versa?), and he is also a Russian officer and has dealt with daggers. If in his time this word referred only to the Caucasian type, he would certainly have written it that way. Although a little clumsy, he expressed the main idea quite clearly: dagger is a generalized term, including many different types, in general, very close to the English dagger.
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 10:48
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
The scimitar is called a khanjar.
I talked about:
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
that a word consonant with “dagger” and with the same meaning,
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 11:01
"Tsarskoye Selo Museum with a collection of weapons belonging to the Emperor."
St. Petersburg, 1860
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 11:03
I’m telling you, this is a tedious and pointless activity, fortune telling on coffee grounds))
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 11:14
By the way, in the same collection of the Tsarskoye Selo Museum, “Spanish daggers for the left hand” and many others are also mentioned)). There are earlier similar descriptions of Russian collections, dating from the first quarter of the 19th century, which mention Italian, Spanish, Scottish, etc. daggers
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 11:32
And all the discussions about Hubers, Fliess, etc., etc. look approximately the same - most of the authors writing about them did not even take into their hands the hundreds of existing ethnographic reports, did not study ethnic folklore, and certainly did not sit in the archives of trading companies
Compilation and rewriting of convenient sources that correspond to the concepts of the authors.
It seems like such nonsense - an interpretation of the term “dagger”, and not somewhere in Africa, but in Russia... And how many misconceptions there are. What then can we say about distant exotic countries?)))
zak 13-09-2011 13:29
2 Volpertinger
What does this have to do with the 19th century????
I quote from the inventory (lifetime, by the way) of Boris Godunov’s weapons from 1589. Or from the Zadonshchina, this is the 15th century, or the attribution of a dagger of 1513 according to the inventory of 1687.
And in response - nothing earlier than the 19th century. In the 19th century, a dagger is already a dagger in the modern sense, no one argues, except that Dahl has a retro perspective.
Or that.
quote: Originally posted by Harryflashman:
The sexton was not strong in weapons science
The clerk of the armory was not strong in modern weapons. And the poet Ferdowsi became strong.
Yes, I’m sure that if these items were now posted for attribution without description, there would be three mistakes in the word “world”.
Some kind of clownery.
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 13:43
quote: Originally posted by zak:
What does this have to do with the 19th century????
Why are you “campaigning for Soviet power”?!))) I’m writing about the same thing - the argument is meaningless and pointless
And I read the analysis and detailed line-by-line analysis of the sources you cite at the university 24 years ago - we had a good library with the complete collection of “Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences”. There were 150-page articles devoted to the interpretation of one single word from the “Tale of the Regiment..” “Zadonshchina”, various editions of early legal codes.. Hundreds of people defended dissertations on this
zak 13-09-2011 14:02
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
I’m writing about the same thing - the debate is meaningless and pointless
The task does not seem pointless to me. I remember that in the inventory of the arsenal of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery there were also some daggers, also from the 17th century.
The task is simple, answer 2 questions. What was called a dagger in Rus' in pre-Petrine times and what were the Khanzhars called in Rus', respectively. I already have an almost ready answer: the Russian dagger is not an eastern khanjar in a substantive, not philological, sense. We still need to look for sources to be more convincing. And if philologists wrote anything about the dagger on 150 pages, I would read it.
Volpertinger 13-09-2011 14:11
I wasn’t too lazy, I checked my favorite Russian-Old Church Slavonic dictionaries, published by the Slavic Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
I think this is the most complete dictionary today.
In any case, in the 10th-11th centuries there was nothing similar or consonant.
There was a knife.. a sword..
zak 13-09-2011 14:28
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
In any case, in the 10th-11th centuries there was nothing similar or consonant. There was a knife... a sword, there was...
Thank you. Meanwhile, the objects, as Dahl writes, “for a prick” are known. These are narrow skramasaks from burial mounds and a bayonet “dagger” from Novgorod. I wonder, does anyone know what the Varangians authentically called the Skama-Saxons?
Arabat 13-09-2011 23:58
It seems that the word dagger was originally clearly associated with a specific type of Russian dagger of the 16th and 17th centuries. And they both appeared (both the word and the object) somewhere during the Mongol conquest. Dahl, by the way, is not for nothing that he puts the shortened sword in first place in the description. It is her that these daggers most closely resemble. It turns out that, according to Dahl, it is the shortened sword and saber that are the main meaning of the word dagger, and the remaining “objects for pricking” are an additional and broad interpretation of it.
In France there was a name consonant with the Russian “dagger”?)))) Or somewhere else in European languages?))
There were enough curved short-bladed ones across Europe, this is obvious - hundreds of species... Full museums))) And with eastern roots, and descendants of Thracian and Iberian sik This is a no brainer
Arabat 14-09-2011 22:46
So we’re not talking about curves, but specifically about number 328. It is this that looks like Russian daggers. It is quite suitable for the role of a prototype.
Volpertinger 14-09-2011 22:49
quote: Originally posted by Arabat:
So we’re not talking about curves, but specifically about number 328. It is this that looks like Russian daggers.
You asked whether in late Middle Ages Italy there was a word consonant with the Russian word “kizhal”. And how do you interpret the term “dagger” - like colleague Fleishman? Like Dahl's dictionary? What do you personally mean by this term?
Volpertinger 14-09-2011 22:53
There were plenty of daggers of this type - for example, the Burgundy type. Just France, and single-blade And many others
Arabat 14-09-2011 23:00
I assumed you knew. In the 16th-17th centuries, the word dagger in Rus' was known only in relation to a specific type of weapon and not to any other. Long, piercing, without a guard. Very similar to N328. As an example, the dagger of Prince Staritsky from the collection of the State Historical Museum. For some reason in the State Historical Museum it is called a saadash knife, but according to the inventory it is listed as a dagger.
Volpertinger 14-09-2011 23:11
quote: Originally posted by Arabat:
I assumed you knew. In the 16th and 17th centuries the word dagger
And what does it have to do with what I know about the 16-17, if you clearly asked the question about the 13-14 centuries. And then they would ask not about the Middle Ages, but about the New Age. I assumed you were familiar with the chronology
13th and 17th centuries are not exactly the same thing
Arabat 14-09-2011 23:18
Don't you understand? We know what a dagger was in the 16th and 17th centuries. A very specific weapon. The word itself appears no earlier than the 13th century. In the 14th century, mention was made of Fryazhian daggers, which were included in the Russian weapons set. Isn’t it logical to assume that just as the object itself, or more precisely its prototype, perhaps the name came from Europe in the 13th-14th centuries?
Volpertinger 14-09-2011 23:49
Here's your question. I quote:
“Wasn’t there anything similar to a shortened sword without a guard in Italy in the 13th-14th centuries and with a name consonant with the word dagger?”
I replied that I had never seen anything consonant with the word dagger in Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries. What didn't I understand?
Most short-bladed weapons used by the army and aristocracy of Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries resembled the first third of the sword in one way or another. This included a lot of single-edged short-bladed ones, which again resembled a shortened sword. And what did I not understand again?
zak 15-09-2011 12:03
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
And what did I not understand again?
Arabat 15-09-2011 12:06
quote: And what did I not understand again?
Volpertinger 15-09-2011 12:13
quote: Originally posted by zak:
It seems like everything. Sorry.
Are you Arabat?
Volpertinger 15-09-2011 12:19
quote: Originally posted by Arabat:
You did not understand the purpose of the question being asked. I was looking for the prototype of the Russian dagger of the 16th-17th centuries and the source of its name. The logical chain (see previous post) led me to Europe of the 13th-14th centuries. More precisely, even Italy. Fryazhsky, if I'm not mistaken, and that means Italian?
Formulate your questions more precisely. You write that you were “looking for the source of the name.” I answered you that in Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries, there was nothing even close to anything similar and consonant with the Russian word dagger.
And what the hell are logical chains?! Based on what - a vague illustration from the terrible translation of Bekaheim posted by Zach?! What brought you to Italy?! What the hell was Italy like in the 13th-17th centuries?! Until the mid-18th century there was no Italy with unified weapons! There were a bunch of states inhabited by different ethnic groups, with different cultures and languages! What is typical for whom?!
What does all this crap have to do with it?!
zak 15-09-2011 12:45
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
And what the hell are logical chains?
You are like a schoolboy. You answer only the questions asked. And what we are talking about in the context, you either pretend or really don’t understand.
Volpertinger 15-09-2011 12:54
quote: Originally posted by zak:You're like a schoolboy
Are you Arabat's PR guy? Again you are unceremonious and without invitation... Well, what is it - the same thing... Some kind of trend, God forgive me
Okay, I will respect you as a noble Slavic philologist, I will open my eyes to the sacred secret of the origin of the term “dagger” hidden from you, I will break the chain of your suffering... Otherwise you wander aimlessly and blindly in search of truth in the circles of hell, just like Dante))
zak 15-09-2011 01:05
quote: Originally posted by Volpertinger:
I will open my eyes to the sacred secret of the origin of the term “dagger” hidden from you, I will break the chain of your suffering
I will be glad. At least there will be some benefit.
Musashi 15-09-2011 01:07
What a good topic it turned out to be
Volpertinger 15-09-2011 01:32 30-10-2011 23:40
Oh thanks! Of course it's interesting! Then there should be some kind of loop on the belt? I don't have the original belt.
I think I saw the last photo on EBAY recently and didn’t pay attention.
Musashi 30-10-2011 23:50
Logically, a hole was made in the belt, where the “whiskers” from the disk were inserted and moved from the inside in different directions, much like stars are attached to shoulder straps
The Khanjar (Arabic: خنجر, Persian: خنجر, Turkish: Hançer) is a traditional dagger of Omani origin. This type of weapon is intended to be worn by men during special events. The blade of the khanjar is short and curved, essentially shaped like an English letter "J" (resembling a fishhook). This dagger is made using many different materials, depending on the skill of the blacksmith. This is a very popular souvenir among tourists and is sold in bazaars throughout the region. The khanjar is essentially the national symbol of the sultanate and is depicted on the country's national emblem and on the Omani rial. Similar images are also used in logos and commercial images of companies based in Oman.
History of Khanjar
There is no exact data on when exactly the Omani Khanjar appeared. Rock carvings of the dagger were found on tombstones located in the central region of Ruus al Jibal. As expected, they preceded the Wahhabi revival, which occurred at the end of 1700. These images were also mentioned in the report of the Dutchman Robert Padbrugg, who traveled to Muscat in June 1672.
Historically, only men from the royal family could wear the khanjar. However, after 1970, all civilian men were allowed to wear the khanjar. It was a watershed year in which Qaboos bin Said al Said – the current Sultan of Oman – overthrew his father, Said bin Taimur, and began instituting reforms to modernize the country.
Usage and symbolism
Materials and production of khanjars
Depending on the skill of the maker, the Omani khanjar can be made using a variety of different metals and materials. Gold or silver is used to make khanjars of the highest quality (such as those worthy of royalty), while brass and copper are used for daggers made for the general population. For example, scabbards decorated with gold were historically limited to the Omani upper class. Traditionally, the dagger is designed by its future owner together with the master, taking into account the "technical requirements" and "preferences" provided by the customer. Depending on the complexity of the product, the time required to produce a khanjar can range from three weeks to several months.
The largest elements of the khanjar are its handle and blade. The material used in their manufacture plays a significant role in influencing the final price of the dagger. Until recently, bone (mainly rhinoceros horn and elephant tusks) was the standard choice of the craftsman, since it was “considered the best material” for the production of handles. However, due to the international ban on the ivory trade, the use of other materials such as wood, plastic and camel bone has become more common. Typically, the top of the handle is flat. The samples designed for the royal family have the shape of a cross.
Wearing customs
The Omani khanjar is tucked under the waist belt and is located on the front, in the center of the user’s body. Previously, wearing this dagger was part of everyday attire, but now the khanjar is worn as a “ceremonial dagger” and taken with them only for official events, such as weddings, parades, meetings, diplomatic meetings, as well as in some other cases. Called "the ubiquitous sign of masculinity" by John M. Willis, in the Journal of Arabic Studies, the khanjar is a symbol of "masculinity, strength and power" and also serves as an identification of social status for the person wearing it. This dagger sometimes serves as a family gift to sons when they reach a certain age. In addition, it is usually a wedding gift to the groom.
Although the khanjar was originally created as a weapon to be used for attack and defense, it is now used exclusively for ceremonial and practical purposes. Recently, the khanjar has been used as a weapon only in the desert, where it is used to hunt and skin animals, as well as to cut ropes. Because of this attitude, it is now considered a "social taboo" in Oman to unsheath one's khanjar. Since this only applies when people decide to commit an act of revenge or are desperately defending themselves.
Spreading
While the khanjar is most common in Oman, given its symbolic status, similar daggers are also worn by men in Yemen and the United Arab Emirates as part of "traditional attire" in those countries. Similar weapons may also be available for sale in other Gulf countries, at the Waqif bazaar in Doha, Qatar. Khanjar is a popular keepsake among tourists and is probably the best-selling souvenir of the Sultanate.
Other Applications
Official government
Since the khanjar is the national symbol of Oman, it is featured on the national emblem of the sultanate. It has been a symbol on the coat of arms of the royal Al Said dynasty since the 18th century, and subsequently became the national emblem. A similar dagger is also depicted on the Omani rial, the country's currency. In particular, on the one rial banknote, as well as on postage stamps issued by the Sultanate. Additionally, there are statues of the Khanjar on housing buildings, government ministries and at various roundabouts across the country.
Commerce
Khanjar, as previously stated, is featured in the country's emblem. His image was also placed on the planes of Oman Air, the country’s main carrier, until this symbol was removed after rebranding in 2008. The logo of mobile operator Omantel also illustrates the stylized khanjar, which was retained in the logo motif after the telecommunications company merged with Oman Mobile in 2010. Additionally, perfume company Amouage, which is owned by the Sultan of Oman and his royal family, uses khanjar in its design bottles The cap on a bottle of perfume for men resembles the handle of a khanjar.
Indo-Persian traditional dagger "khanjar" made of Damascus steel in a sheath. Reconstruction (stylization). India, Persia. XVI - XVIII centuries.The word "khanjar" comes from Persia. It was adopted by various surrounding peoples. From it comes the Georgian “khanjali” and the Russian “dagger”. Among different peoples, this word denotes different types of weapons (from a very short dagger to a long sword that can be held with two hands). In India and Persia, a khanjar is precisely a dagger with a curved blade, and the blade could have an even curve, or it could be shaped like a scimitar blade, like the example shown in the photo.
Total length: 41 cm.
The blade is not sharpened.
Blade material: Eastern Damascus, about 300 layers. Damascus pattern "Bird's Eye" and "Wave" (one of the rarest types of welded Damascus due to the high labor intensity of the forging process and increased demands on the master blacksmith).
The package and blades are forged by hand, using ancient technology, in an earthen forge, on charcoal; machine processing is minimal (almost the entire blade is produced by hand). This technology was used in Europe before the production of conversion steel and has remained in Asia to this day. In the manufacture of blades, iron (ST3), cast iron and analogue 65G are used. During the forging process, the welded package is sprinkled with coal, cast iron and river sand, and the blade is carburized. This results in an average carbon content of about 0.6-0.8%, and the layers are both soft and hard. Blade hardening is usually at the level of 54-56 HRc.
It is the variation in the hardness of the layers that gives Damascus its unique properties. For example, fragility is significantly reduced. Even in the cold, if used incorrectly, it is very difficult to break the blade. Damascus is not afraid of small nicks, which on a regular steel blade can lead to crack growth and blade breakage. Real Damascus does not allow cracks to grow (there are ancient working blades with notches up to 1/3 of the blade width). These properties and the beauty of the pattern determined the use of damascus in the manufacture of weapons from the Iron Age to the present day.
Price: 10560.00 rub.
In its shape, the weapon largely resembles a fang or claw of an animal, which, however, is not reflected in its name, which comes from the Persian “jamb” - side. At the same time, as some weapons researchers note, the term “jambiya” itself in Arabic is used to refer to the word “dagger.” The name of another weapon has the same meaning - khanjar (or kanjar), however, no less popular in Arab countries (for example, in Oman, neighboring Yemen) and, by the way, outwardly similar to jambia. However, to avoid confusion, some researchers prefer to understand khanjar as an Indo-Persian dagger, usually with a narrower, smoothly curved blade.
Jambia (left), khanjar (right)
The name jambia comes from the Persian “jamb” - side
The blade of the jambia is correspondingly wider, and not only at the base. At the hilt, the blade of the Arab dagger is almost straight, but as it approaches the tip, it also bends slightly. Moreover, the blade is not single-edged, as it might seem at first glance, but double-edged. So, with the inside it was easy to attack the enemy’s throat. The width of the blade made it possible to make various cutting blows, and thanks to the edge sharpened on both sides, it was also possible to stab. In this case, they attacked either with a regular or reverse grip; blows, accordingly, could be delivered from bottom to top or vice versa. According to reports from the British, who visited Mecca back in the 70s of the 19th century, the jambiya perfectly pierces skin and hair: for example, it was said that with one blow of this weapon one could pierce a rolled sheep's skin.
Jambia
Yemeni men start wearing jambiya in their youth
However, in our time, this dagger mostly performs a status function. The male half of Yemen begins to wear a jambiya from adolescence (similar to how in Malaysia they wear a kris dagger). The father gives a weapon to his son as a symbol of becoming a man. Moreover, in Yemen, the dagger is not only an indicator of maturation, but also, of course, an indicator of status. Rumor has it that the cost of some types of weapons can reach or even exceed a million dollars. Yemenis themselves claim that when they meet a person, the first thing their eyes fall on is not their clothes or jewelry, but the jambiya. That is why they try to richly decorate the handle, which is usually made of wood or horn, with coins, gold or silver filigree, or even precious stones.
Yemenis always wear a jambiya with a wide belt at the center of the waist.
Therefore, the dagger is worn in the most visible place - almost on the stomach. For example, the khanjar sheath is distinguished by the fact that it has special rings, with the help of which the weapon is suspended on straps from a thin belt so that it can be conveniently grabbed with the left hand. The jambia is, as it were, placed behind a wide sash in the middle of the waist, so the end of its sheath is usually more curved than the khanjar for greater fixation. This method of carrying weapons, apparently, meant the warrior’s constant readiness for battle. However, they say that even today there is a belief that if the blade is nevertheless removed from its sheath in the event of any conflict, it can only be returned back bloodied.
