No sense looking for some kind of deep meaning of "Asia Minor" vs. "Ottoman".
It is just a lack of uniformity, poor choice of words or faithful but thoughtless adherence to the terminology used on the original accession card.
Even more glaringly: it is described in Russian as a "Yataghan" while in English as a "Scimitar".
I have a pretty big book about Oriental sword collection from the Russian Ethnographic Museum with multiple misattributions, inaccuracies and just primitive mistakes . The publisher sesequently tried to explain them away simply by saying that : 1. They just blindly used the existing museum descriptions; 2. They had only a couple of months to prepare the catalog ; 3. Changing even the silliest error required lengthy bureaucratic process of approval by the museum bonzas; and 4. It is good enough for the masses.
In short, do not dwell on peculiarities of description. I do not remember who said that there is no need suspecting evil intent when just sheer stupidity would suffice:-)
Last edited by ariel; 15th February 2016 at 11:31 AM.
|