DOI Heft:
Vol. VI : 3 1990
DOI Artikel:Mahias, Marie-Claude: Identification of tools: the case of the Indian khurpā
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49003#0186
IDENTIFICATION OF TOOLS:
THE CASE OF THE INDIAN KHURPA
By
Marie-Claude Mahias
The khurpd is a very common tool in north-
ern India, found in almost every village
house. It has been little described and still less
studied, because its very frequency of occur-
rence renders it invisible to users and observ-
ers.
Yet it has no equivalent in other parts of the
world, with the exception of the European
“transplantoir” (transplanting trowel) and a
few apparently similar tools with short
handles, used in limited areas of Africa (Cen-
tral African Republic, Cameroon), where
their mode of use and specific function are
not explicit (Seignobos 1984). The Indian
khurpd constitutes a separate category in a
recent “Essai d’identification des instruments
a bras du travail du sol” (Sigaut 1984)
“En ce qui concerne les beches, enfin, il n’y a
pas de doute : il existe des ’beches’ a une seule
main. L’exemple le plus important est le
khurpa du Nord-Ouest de 1’ Inde, dont la
forme evoque celle d’une truelle. On 1’utilise
accroupi : c’est 1’instrument a tout faire (mais
surtout les sarclages) le plus repandu partout
dans cette region”.
That this small tool hardly known to science
and made by the village smith from scrap
iron, be promoted to the rank of a taxon, in a
classification with a universal ambition, is but
one result of research which would surprise
Indian villagers and leave them rather scepti-
cal. Let us therefore give it its rightful place.
Close study shows that this tool does not
entirely correspond to the category of spades
as opposed to the category of hoes as dis-
tinguished by the type of gesture, that is ac-
cording to whether the tool is pushed or
pulled. It also illustrates how insufficient is
the criterion of shape - to say nothing of a
morphological analogy - to describe a tool.
This is well known by specialists but does not
prevent one from spontaneously resorting to
it especially when dealing with isolated ob-
jects. The analysis must go beyond this em-
pirical perception and set the objects within
dynamic processes, taking into account oper-
ations and modes of action.
In the material field as in others, descrip-
tion cannot be just a preliminary phase, inde-
pendent of analysis: the latter is necessarily
part of the former.
Morphology, functions and modes of action
1. Khurpd in North-Western India
The data in this first section were collected in
Delhi, Hisar and in a Haryana village, during
several stays covering a period from Novem-
ber to June. This precision is necessary as re-
search work during the rainy season would
possibly turn up other data.
In these areas the khurpd is a small tool, 25
to 40 cm in length (fig. 1 and 2). Its handle
(dasta or binda) is a piece of curved wood
which allows a good grip for work at ground
THE CASE OF THE INDIAN KHURPA
By
Marie-Claude Mahias
The khurpd is a very common tool in north-
ern India, found in almost every village
house. It has been little described and still less
studied, because its very frequency of occur-
rence renders it invisible to users and observ-
ers.
Yet it has no equivalent in other parts of the
world, with the exception of the European
“transplantoir” (transplanting trowel) and a
few apparently similar tools with short
handles, used in limited areas of Africa (Cen-
tral African Republic, Cameroon), where
their mode of use and specific function are
not explicit (Seignobos 1984). The Indian
khurpd constitutes a separate category in a
recent “Essai d’identification des instruments
a bras du travail du sol” (Sigaut 1984)
“En ce qui concerne les beches, enfin, il n’y a
pas de doute : il existe des ’beches’ a une seule
main. L’exemple le plus important est le
khurpa du Nord-Ouest de 1’ Inde, dont la
forme evoque celle d’une truelle. On 1’utilise
accroupi : c’est 1’instrument a tout faire (mais
surtout les sarclages) le plus repandu partout
dans cette region”.
That this small tool hardly known to science
and made by the village smith from scrap
iron, be promoted to the rank of a taxon, in a
classification with a universal ambition, is but
one result of research which would surprise
Indian villagers and leave them rather scepti-
cal. Let us therefore give it its rightful place.
Close study shows that this tool does not
entirely correspond to the category of spades
as opposed to the category of hoes as dis-
tinguished by the type of gesture, that is ac-
cording to whether the tool is pushed or
pulled. It also illustrates how insufficient is
the criterion of shape - to say nothing of a
morphological analogy - to describe a tool.
This is well known by specialists but does not
prevent one from spontaneously resorting to
it especially when dealing with isolated ob-
jects. The analysis must go beyond this em-
pirical perception and set the objects within
dynamic processes, taking into account oper-
ations and modes of action.
In the material field as in others, descrip-
tion cannot be just a preliminary phase, inde-
pendent of analysis: the latter is necessarily
part of the former.
Morphology, functions and modes of action
1. Khurpd in North-Western India
The data in this first section were collected in
Delhi, Hisar and in a Haryana village, during
several stays covering a period from Novem-
ber to June. This precision is necessary as re-
search work during the rainy season would
possibly turn up other data.
In these areas the khurpd is a small tool, 25
to 40 cm in length (fig. 1 and 2). Its handle
(dasta or binda) is a piece of curved wood
which allows a good grip for work at ground