Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AJ1356
The so-called apple blossom is a common motive, residents of Bukhara were perdominantly Tajik, so thier handywork would be Tajik not Uzbek. If no collector book is printed on a subject does not mean it does not exist, and is this book the same book that tells you there was an arsenal in Mazar e Sharif, that made stuff with the mosque stamp? I am trying to provide proper information for the benefit of everyone, because there are heaps of wrong information floating around. If you don't want to accept that because it is not in a book, that is your right.
|
Many thanks for your opinions. I respect them, but would like to have them supported by a more systematic source.
The Uzbeki book is the only one I have on Central Asian weapons ( except for Moser and a chapter in Elgood's book on Islamic Weapons). We all try to rely on published and peer-reviewed academic literature, don't we?
You might be right, and the what we traditionally call Bukharan style ( or Samarkand, or Chust, or whatever, - they are all discussed and differentiated in the book Song in Metal, published in Uzbekistan, by Uzbeki authors), is actually Tajik, not Uzbek, handiwork and tradition.
There are studies on Caucasian weapons differentiating West Georgian from East Georgian, Lak from Avar, Meghreli from Circassian styles etc, etc. Similarly, Elgood tried to find peculiarities of weapons produced in Boka Kotorska, Foca, Bosnia and others.
I am interested how do you differentiate Tajik from Uzbeki weapons and styles? Just an assertions that there were Tajiks in Uzbekistan is not enough: there were, and still are, Uzbeks living in Dushanbe and other Tajik areas.
In short, you provide a tantalizing piece of information, and we all would like to have it supported by academic evidence.
Best wishes.