Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ALEX
Jim,
I believe that more comparative analysis and samples of similarly detailed arms, or other objects made in similar technique, would benefit the research. Beyond mounting, the artistic characteristics and details can point to certain regions, masters and even workshops. I do not recall seeing similar enameled fittings on Maghreb weapons. Are there any? Again, I mean not just enamel, but this particular style of enameling. It is not characteristic of Maghreb in my opinion. Sadly, these details are not considered enough when it comes to arms, and 'artistic' part of research is often lacking, especially when it comes to such non-standard 'impressive' sword, whereas with other non-arms objects, it is a common practice. Perhaps I am over-analyzing. What do you think?
|
Not over analyzing at all Alex, in fact you more eloquently expressed exactly what I was trying to say. I am admittedly not especially adept at analysis of artistic techniques, but have always noted your observations as astute.
\
I think one of the most confounding circumstances is when artisans from other cultures or regions are working in areas outside their own which transposes their indigenous character into other context.
This was the situation which Elgood described concerning Bukharen enamel work in Mecca, but then suggested perhaps the item was removed to Bukhara and decorated there. Considering the diffusion of Bukharen goods and influences, possibly Yemen would be included, we know there were distinct religious connections there from Bukhara as previously discussed.
I completely agree, the artistic values and character in the evaluation of arms decoration is essential in classification of at least the mounts, the blades of course often being another story.
Well noted as always.
PS in my previous post I stated Elgood noted Yemen/Bukharen work but meant Mecca as he actually noted.