Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
At that time Vladikavkaz became a very important center of manufacture of Caucasian weapons. Large workshops ( Omarov, Guzunov, Mudunov, Koshtoyants et al) and multiple smaller establishments employed masters from all over Caucasus and Transcaucasia. They utilized a variety of ornamentations irrespective of the ethnic origin of the maker and only names or probirer stamps can pinpoint the origin of the weapon.
Well, weapon is an overstatement: a lion share were sold as souvenirs and decorative costume trinkets. Even Kubachi and Tiflis acquired industrial strength and the ethnic characters of ornamentations were lost. Buyers simply chose what style they wished to have and the shops had them all.
Blue jeans, formerly an idiosyncratic American garb, nowadays are made all over the world, from Vietnam to Guatemala and Ukraine. Most of the erstwhile Druze Majjali daggers were made in large Syrian cities. Industrial globalization did not start yesterday.
|
Very well said Ariel,
The study of ethnographic weapons is probably one of the greatest conundrums ever because of this very phenomenon, the commercial production of ethnic weapons as souvenirs and tourist curiosities.
During the colonial eras of major powers, people became intrigued by these kinds of items brought back by occupying forces and the stage was set.
As noted, the upswing in production of such items which were produced to simulate styles and character of the decoration on the originals and their intricate meanings were gradually lost through diffused interpretation.
With Caucasian weapons they are inherently attractive and exotic, so their beauty remains compelling, but for ethnographic arms historians, the challenges are formidable. While Ariel and a number of others who often write here are indeed powerful authorities on these arms, one of the best sources I know which can help in better understanding them for the rest of us is the book by Kirill Rivkin, "Arms and Armor of the Caucusus".