Atypical and unusual are not bad words.
Often they tell us about bridges between traditions and cultures. Charles presented here quite a few such examples, mainly from Indonesia. Deccan was a place where South Indian and Mughal traditions fused together.
Sometimes they are rare surviving examples of a previously well-established pattern: Shapsugh kindjals were described as having unusually wide blades. But Shapsughs were exiled from their land by the Russians ~150 years ago, settled elsewhere in the Ottoman realm and ceased to maintain their exclusive traditions. Their weapons largely vanished as a result. Currently, having encountered their old kindjal, we may dismiss it as an “ atypical” and exclude it from consideration.
We are to ignore the “unusual” to our peril: it impoverishes our understanding of history of people and their weapons. We are at our right ( and obligation?) to weed out fakes, but we need to support such a decision with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements.
Regretfully, cocky self-appointed “gurus” are the most vocal and the most aggressive popularisers of their pseudo-knowledge, and Internet as well as self-publishing book companies present them a vast arena for spreading their narcissistic balderdash.
This is why it is an obligation to remain serious, factual and “academic” in our discussions. There are quite a few people who can teach us how to do it, - LaRocca, Alexander, Elgood, Rivkin, Mohamed. They are professionals unlike us, the amateurs, but we still can learn the basics from them.
|