EAA Research Consultant
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
I agree, Eric is clearly one of the most remarkable archivists, and seems to consistently come up with irrefutable illustrative examples to bring discussions to terms.
This is a great discussion on these interesting shamshirs, and I would not doubt in the least any attributions by Oliver or Ward. There is little substitute for the many years of countless examples and in depth study.
I would point out that even that being the case, one always seeks further corroboration and support for even apparently firmly set attributions. The reason for this is partly to explain the inevitable variants which will arise as well as being able to present the most comprehensively cited support in further study.
Naturally one has opinions, but a diligent and responsible researcher never stands on that alone, and does not stop seeking other published or researched material. Obviously those sources are also other opinions of those who have researched often similar material and examples, and can often provide remarkable perspective. Often this comes from examples or cases one or the other may not have had access to. In other cases it may be subsequent research and evidence not at hand when extant material was published.
This is well shown in the comments and notes from Ibrahiim, who has had extensive field experience in the field and with the ethnic groups being discussed as pertains to these sword forms.
Clearly the true and serious study of the history and development of arms forms is always a work in progress, and to ever seek further corroboration of evidence and to share opinions in a comparative manner in discussion is not only prudent, but powerfully constructive.
Thanks very much guys!!!