Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
This morning, after reading Katana's further posts I pulled out Ewart Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons".
If my opinion is incorrect, then it appears Mr. Oakeshott is also incorrect.
|
Hi A.G.,
I think you have misunderstood my view point. This is NOT my opinion ...it is the view of others....I only mentioned it, because it illustrates the point that accepted names of weapons and the origins of that name are not always widely accepted.
AFAIK this 'alternative' view of the 'bollock' knife has not been refuted. If the more widely accepted view is fact, then it should easily survive 'attacks' from differing views? I am no expert....but I do allow myself to be 'open minded', open to plausible 'alternative' view points.
The early Victorian 'researchers' were, to an extent, 'bogged' down with 'social constraint's (many ancient works of Art were left in storage, unavailable for public viewing due to the nudity/sexual content of these pieces) The 'romancism' that proliferated Victorian society had an impact in the 'research' of ancient weapons and warfare. A number of these facts, deduced by these 'researchers' and perpetuated by their published findings have since been disproved. For instance, it was believed that Knights were chivalrous in battle.....untrue ...they fought in any manner they could to survive and if a stab in the back would 'despatch' an enemy ..the opportunity would be taken. Armour was so heavy that knights were winched onto their large horses (shire houses ?) and that if they fell, they would be unable to get up...(like a turtle on its back)...all complete fallacy.
I am sure that many that oppose these published 'facts' were told they were incorrect in their assumptions ....until they were able to 'prove' conclusively that these 'facts' were incorrect. I say 'conclusively'.....because often, many would still believe 'the written word' and the common held belief that it created.(and of course, the situation that other authors use these 'facts' when they use them from 'references' to the original) There is always a danger that if 'published facts' (that are untrue, but not known to be incorrect at the time) are unchallenged they become 'gospel', and often,the longer they survive...the harder it is disprove....because it is so widely accepted ...people begin to believe that if the 'majority' say it is fact...then it must be. Not so long ago the masses believed that the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.......they were wrong.