By the way, in Russian, where a good chunk of its vocabulary is of Turkish ( not necessarily Ottoman, but much earlier, back to the Mongolian invasion) the word Sarai ( Сарай) designates not a castle but just a shed, like garden shed. Also, in a slightly modified meaning , “Sarai” is an unkempt, dirty and disorganized living space.
The “Ottoman” origin of all Yataghans in Russian literature was due to the inability of Soviet weapon historians ( such as Astvatsaturian) to visit foreign museums and to talk to foreign colleagues, especially in Yugoslavia: Tito was regarded as a traitor to the great Lenin-Stalin orthodoxy. Greece, after suppression of the communist putsch, was also out of bounds. And, since Bulgaria was “liberated” from the Ottomans by the Russian armies in the 19 century and every “non- Slavic” feature was regarded as Turkish. Thus, Astvatsaturian’s attribution of Ottoman weapons was grossly misinformed and fallacious. Not her fault: the realities of the closed and politicized nature of Communist regime(s).
Relatively recent Turkish books, such as the one by Gozde Yasar, perpetuate this narrow view: each and every yataghan there is labeled as Ottoman, with the unspoken implication of being Turkish. No attempt was made to pinpoint decorative features specific to their non-Anatolian origin.
Works of Marija Sercer from Zagreb were largely unknown and were not even cited in the above books. Only from a recent book by Dora Boskovic did we learn about Sercer’s major contributions.
First time I heard of Bulgarian weapon centers was from the Daskalov’s book.
And, finally, the role of Balkan centers was brought to the full view by Elgood.
All of them were published and widely available only after collapse of the Soviet Union and redrawing of the maps.
Sadly, politics and nationalism play major and destructive role in historical studies.
|