Khukuri classification

J

Johan van Zyl

Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Messages
372
I have now for a number of weeks wanted to put in this new topic, but for various reasons I have been hesitant. I have asked myself over and over, will the forumites WANT to discuss this topic once they see what it entails, or is it going to be just a theoretical exercise that only I am interested in. So in the end I decided to begin slapping it on and see what happens. Allow me to begin slowly (if I begin too fast I might confuse myself and everybody else). I hasten to add that I fully realise that many of you guys might have been playing around with the same kind of thing in your minds, so I definitely do NOT claim to be original in this!)

For just about everything there is a classification system. To name a few: animals, birds, reptiles, pathogens, steels, soils etc. So I don't think it's going to be necessary for me to try to convince you guys that khukuris can (and maybe should) also be classified.

IF (capital letters) a "good" classification system can be devised for khukuris, then much can be learned from it. I can motivate this statement fully if need be. For instance, if a newbie should appear and wants to know all about khuks, then the classification system is the first thing you suggest he study. IF the system is well-devised and compiled, a world will open up for him. The big picture should be clearer for him, compared to giving him a few disjointed or specific facts to start him off with.

Classification systems consist of various LEVELS of classification, one "higher" than the other. In khukuris, what would the first (highest)level be? I SUGGEST it might be as follows:

1. MILITARY KHUKURIS (under which heading we must understand all original khukuris made for military purposes over the ages)
2. CIVILIAN KHUKURIS (under which we must understand all original khukuris made for civilian / village / domestic / non-military purposes)
3. SOUVENIR KHUKURIS (under which we must understand all undersized or full-size khukuris, made for souvenir purposes or for tourists, intended as wall-hangers or to open envelopes with)
4. WESTERN-INFLUENCED KHUKURIS (by which we understand all khukuri-type knives not answering fully to the physical description of original khukuris OR not made by traditional hammer forging methods).

I can't go on with the lower levels of classification while doubts may exist as to the suitability of this first level. I believe we must argue this level through first.

If, for instance, you argue that tourist khuks are not real khuks at all, and should be totally disregarded, then I counter and say what is the use of classification if a given khukuri-shaped object cannot be accounted for. Users NEED to find that given object in the system. The fact that it occupies a place in the system does not give it increased value or acceptability.

ANY "khukuri" you can think of, MUST fit one of the categories listed above.

So the question is, are these four suggested highest-level criteria "good", or do you think others should be used which might be "better"?

Gee, guys, I hope this thing grabs you! Lt. Dan will probably declare it to be good, because he's such a nice guy. But I wanna fight and argue some points here!
 
Congratulations for starting this inetersting and usefull thread, Johan.
I thought about some geographic categories "Nepalese", "Indian" and "others", in substitution to "Wester-Influenced".
Regarding "Souvenir", I have serios doubt taht that this categiory would be usefull, as it is too broad and confusing and, even though there are khukus you clearly see are wallhangers, other ornate pieces may have a decent blade, still not having being made for local use.
And what about a time classification? that would be of utmost importance, don't you think? Maybe the experts like John Powell could give us some help here.

------------------
Ivan Campos
Full-time knifemaker...finally!


http://www.bitweb.com.br/users/campos

Visit Cutelaria Hoje - The first Brazilian virtual knife magazine
(English/Portuguese)
http://www.cutelariahoje.com.br
 
I like it, Johan, and it also happens to be the way I picture them in my own mind. How do you fit in a Kothimora? (maybe it's in a class by itself!)

You've cooked up something good!
 
A great topic/idea Johan. Some suggestions:

Divide the Military catagory into three sub-parts; Modern (World War I to present day), Historic (1700 to World War I) and Classical (pre 1700). These could also be divided into sub-parts according to country of origin.

I would eliminate the Souvenir catagory and would instead classify them under a Non-Military classification as Artistic, Ornamental, or Decorative depending on the quality and workmanship/materials. The geographic and time frame sub-divisions would work here as well.

I like the idea of keeping the Western influenced Khuks in a seperate catagory.

 
Responding to the kind and knowledgeable inputs of you three forumites, I find I cannot proclaim one idea or opinion to be right and the others wrong, because we are only accumulating ideas at this stage. But I do want to respond dynamically, and so here it is:

IVAN: I've got "geographical categories" in my SECOND level of classification, so we'll see what you think about it when we get there. Whether or not these can substitute "Western-influenced" khuks, remains to be seen. Blackdog likes this category. "Decent bladed ornate pieces" is a good example of a khuk that needs to be accommodated. Let's say it is civilian, made in Bhutan (and it's not a wall-hanger due to its decent blade). So it falls under (1.) CIVILIAN, and (c) MADE IN OTHER EASTERN COUNTRIES.

1, 2, 3, 4 is FIRST LEVEL
a, b, c, d is SECOND LEVEL
i, ii, iii, iv is THIRD LEVEL.

So your example will NOT fall under "souvenir", as long as it's a close enough copy of the traditional style.

Your "time class" is in my THIRD level of classification.

JP, Ivan wants you to come in. YES YES YES

LT. DAN: Your example of the Kothimora will come in under MILITARY. Unsympathetically speaking, the kothimora is just like a very ornate, very special version of a khukuri like the SN1 Ceremonial. So I believe it falls in the same niche as the SN1 Ceremonial. Its place in the 2nd and 3rd levels will depend on where it was made, and when.

BLACKDOG: Your three subparts sound good, But I think this time classification is relevant to ALL khuks, not just military. Therefore we would not be able to be so specific as to refer to different wars, but to stick to ranges of year dates, such as in eg. centuries. Country of origin should, I think, be 2nd level. I like your suggestion as to "artistic, ornamental or decorative". Ivan supports you in this. We might replace the current "souvenir" category with this.

Remember, I'm not the final judge in this, although it might seem like it due to my somewhat arrogant way of writing. I'm COLLECTING your ideas and EXPLAINING myself at the same time. Please come in and give more ideas!!!!
 
Not so fast here, Johan. If kothimora basically means "rich man's khukuri", it would seem like lots of them would be civillian. Maybe somebody can tell me more about them.

Have at it, buddy!
 
Lt. Dan, IF the kothimora is NOT solely military (which I assumed due to my depravity), then it changes my way of thinking about it. Thanks buddy! Then I suppose we need to establish whether any specific kothimora is civilian or military, and then put it in its place. Someone needs to verify this fact, though, otherwise it's going to remain a loose thread.

On another note: do you really think the ornateness of a khukuri should influence its place in the classification...?
 
I think this project is really neat. I will say, about the kothimora, that the etymology of the word involves "kothi" which is the tip on the sheath of the khukuri. I think Berkeley will have to weigh in on the possibility of other uses for the Kothimora besides military applications (awards). I've only heard it used as a military award, but I HAVE to assume that they are also given as gifts in the upper echelons of society in Nepal. I have no evidence for this, but it just seems right in my gut.
 
Maybe it is unfair to request ideas from the forumites if I hold back on the contents of the other levels of classification, for whatever reason. Well, let's put them on the table. I THINK the next (second) level MIGHT be:

a - Made in Nepal
b - Made in India
c - Made in Eastern countries other than Nepal and India
d - Made in Western countries.

The third level MIGHT be:

i - 18th century and before
ii - 19th Century
iii - 20th Century
iv - 21st Century.

It might not be wise to use MORE than three levels of classification.

I'm NOT saying this is any good. I'd just like to see the ball on the roll, and then maybe arrive at some or other end product.

[This message has been edited by Johan van Zyl (edited 05-11-2001).]
 
What about this very compact classification:

Use

1) Military ( everything that has actually been issued and there is proof of it, with or without issue marks, with traditional construction )

2) Civilian ( everything that is not supposed to be used as an issue khukuri, with traditional construction )

Goegrafic

A) Nepalese or indian

B) Neighboring countries

C) Other


Time span

i) Modern (20th, 21st century)

ii) Antique (18th and 19th century)

iii) Classic (before 18th century)


In this classification, a GH khukuri made yesterday would be:
2) Civilian; A) Nepalese or Indian; i) Modern

Or if we were to classify a Cold Steel khukuri:

2) Civilian; C)Other; i)Modern;

Or a WWII original:

1) Military; A) Nepalese or Indian; i) Classic

Or a Joseph Rodgers khukuri made in the 19th century:

2) Civilian; C) Other; ii) Antique;

Just some ideas, folks.

------------------
Ivan Campos
Full-time knifemaker...finally!


http://www.bitweb.com.br/users/campos

Visit Cutelaria Hoje - The first Brazilian virtual knife magazine
(English/Portuguese)
http://www.cutelariahoje.com.br
 
Ivan, I am in agreement with you except in one single aspect. (BTW, your fine example of a WW II khuk can't be "classic" - it's gotta be "modern" by your own definition...tiny mistake. Maybe we should make the whole of the 20th century "pre-modern", and then use "modern" for the 21st? What do you think?)

Where I am in blatant (but friendly) disagreement, is your clumping together of Nepal and India. Let me try to motivate. Nepal is the mecca of original khuks. An original khuk IS Nepal. Khuks are said to be Nepal's traditional weapon. These facts alone make it seem sacrilegeous (sp?) to include India, especially against the backdrop of the very many tourists khuks being manufactured by their thousands annually in India. This statement is not made in disrespect to India and its peoples, especially as a number of VERY GOOD khuks have come from there over the years. Maybe, if it is necessary to clump, we may consider clumping "India and other Eastern countries besides Nepal"....?

I wonder what other forumites think of your otherwise EXCELLENT suggestions?
 
Re:kothimoras
Craig is correct that kothi, the Nepalese term for chape, appears to be the root of the word, which makes sense when you think that the design includes a greatly enlarged and highly decorated chape. As to classification, kothimoras can be military, civilian, or tourist. (And as for origin the first two links are Nepalese, the last Indian).
 
Berk, I looked at the links and was once more astounded at the good looks of these khuks! Soon I'll have to get a kothimora! This is great stuff, and new information to me - they're not just military! Thanks!

[This message has been edited by Johan van Zyl (edited 05-14-2001).]
 
Good grief! I just realised. Here I am, ASSUMING a classification system for khukuris did NOT exist before this thread! I might be the greatest moron in khukuri history! But since no-one has set me straight, I must believe this post can continue....

So now, what do we have so far, taking into consideration the various valuable contributions from forumites?

FIRST LEVEL

1) Military
2) Civilian
3) Ornamental
4) Western-influenced

SECOND LEVEL

a) Made in Nepal
b) Made in India or other Eastern country
c) Made in Western countries

THIRD LEVEL

i) Classic (18th century and earlier)
ii) Antique (19th century)
iii) Pre-modern (20th century)
iv) Modern (21st century)

Important: I HAVE built in some suggestions of forumites, but not ALL that has been suggested. This draft above already looks different to the one I suggested earlier. No-one must feel jilted. Now I suggest we take the above draft and start to argue some points to compell me to make some more changes. Good motivation and support for a point is going to do the trick. "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!"

Using an example to TEST the usefulness of the draft system already in place, is a good idea, and it was already used by Ivan. Here's one: The knife in question is a khukuri shaped object, looking quite new, with a blade length similar to a SN1, although the belly width is somewhat greater. The neat blade is hammer-forged, as the hammer marks can be descerned. It has a horn handle with brass bolster and a somewhat crude brass buttcap. On the blade is stamped INDIA and there is also an arrow. The sheath is black buffalo hide, wrapped with dark olive camo tape. Allright, so this will be 3) ORNAMENTAL; b) MADE IN INDIA OR OTHER EASTERN COUNTRY; and iii) PRE-MODERN.

What the above exercise tells me is that it might be better to split b) Made in India or other Eastern country, into two. In terms of number of khukuris so far produced, India probably takes the record, so that I feel it deserves a second-level category all on its own. We can't wish away the existence of thousands of poor quality India-produced khuks having already flooded the market - we HAVE to make provision for them. Allright if I make the split?

[This message has been edited by Johan van Zyl (edited 05-14-2001).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top