Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 12th February 2010, 01:50 AM

Likewise, Dmitry, Fair enough, and thank you for the itemized notes.

I will confess that my views on this catalog were based on recollections from looking through it last several months ago, and even then was based on a hurried examination viewing a specific item rather than overall. Clearly my assessment was a 'mistatement' , but was well intended, and decidedly not meant to deceive, rather based on my recalled perception of the catalog overall.
My point is, that I was not 'lying', but expessing my belief based on what I knew.

I believe the assessments in the catalog are based on information at hand and provided to the authors, a situation well known to occur from time to time in auctions, catalogs, books, sales etc.

The items you have mentioned I have examined in the entries, and I will concede in degree that some of the descriptions are easily contestible. The subject of rapiers and smallswords is actually a very esoteric topic, and is often well clouded by the consistant revival of classical and traditional forms of these type weapons of earlier periods during the 19th century. It is a problem which has plagued even experienced collectors and dealers often, and even the most influential museums have carried misidentified items or items that turn out to be reconserved contrary to original assessments.

The items in question for the most part seem to be courtsword type items which may well have been collected, as noted, in the New Mexico area, and likely were presumed to be of earlier vintage as found in that context. It is not unusual to find earlier style weapons being worn presumptiously as allusions to elegance in traditional form, especially in the 19th century and early 20th. We could probably do sociological dissertations on that!

The 'no comment' items are obviously described based on the inscriptions on them as they are clearly in period, and hands on examination would be needed to further assess.

The last, 'rapier relic' is admittedly a late 19th century fencing foil, but if it was indeed found in this context, an over optimistic assessment is quite probable if based on assumption of regional historic association. I recall once years ago when a sword was discovered at a site in New York and declared by an archaeologist to be an ancient Roman sword. It later was revealed that it was actually a US M1833 artillery officers sword, which was produced in 1830s for years later in neoclassic form to recall early Roman style shortswords.As found in this site, it was mistakenly assumed of this ancient type...even though the pommel carried the American eagle device.

The remainder of the archaeologists data concerning other materials and configurations seems to have been sound, however the identification of the sword was of course 'misstated' . Obviously an officer during the Civil War had lost his sword during military activity in training in the area.

I see your point, and hope you will see mine.

Best regards,
Jim

12th February 2010, 01:50 AM	#19
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,767	Likewise, Dmitry, Fair enough, and thank you for the itemized notes. I will confess that my views on this catalog were based on recollections from looking through it last several months ago, and even then was based on a hurried examination viewing a specific item rather than overall. Clearly my assessment was a 'mistatement' , but was well intended, and decidedly not meant to deceive, rather based on my recalled perception of the catalog overall. My point is, that I was not 'lying', but expessing my belief based on what I knew. I believe the assessments in the catalog are based on information at hand and provided to the authors, a situation well known to occur from time to time in auctions, catalogs, books, sales etc. The items you have mentioned I have examined in the entries, and I will concede in degree that some of the descriptions are easily contestible. The subject of rapiers and smallswords is actually a very esoteric topic, and is often well clouded by the consistant revival of classical and traditional forms of these type weapons of earlier periods during the 19th century. It is a problem which has plagued even experienced collectors and dealers often, and even the most influential museums have carried misidentified items or items that turn out to be reconserved contrary to original assessments. The items in question for the most part seem to be courtsword type items which may well have been collected, as noted, in the New Mexico area, and likely were presumed to be of earlier vintage as found in that context. It is not unusual to find earlier style weapons being worn presumptiously as allusions to elegance in traditional form, especially in the 19th century and early 20th. We could probably do sociological dissertations on that! The 'no comment' items are obviously described based on the inscriptions on them as they are clearly in period, and hands on examination would be needed to further assess. The last, 'rapier relic' is admittedly a late 19th century fencing foil, but if it was indeed found in this context, an over optimistic assessment is quite probable if based on assumption of regional historic association. I recall once years ago when a sword was discovered at a site in New York and declared by an archaeologist to be an ancient Roman sword. It later was revealed that it was actually a US M1833 artillery officers sword, which was produced in 1830s for years later in neoclassic form to recall early Roman style shortswords.As found in this site, it was mistakenly assumed of this ancient type...even though the pommel carried the American eagle device. The remainder of the archaeologists data concerning other materials and configurations seems to have been sound, however the identification of the sword was of course 'misstated' . Obviously an officer during the Civil War had lost his sword during military activity in training in the area. I see your point, and hope you will see mine. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 12th February 2010 at 02:09 AM.