I recall a query where a guy asked what 'Byzantine swords' were like.
Imagine trying to respond to that one.
I was once told that 'weapons have no geographic boundaries'. Naturally that pretty much applies to many things, but obviously such objects transcend such restrictions.
Often in the study of Indian arms, items are classified as 'Deccani'. This term of course describes topographically the plateau of Central India and includes various geographic boundaries. However, the term may denote more of a cultural or tribal character of a weapon. But then, the complex dynamics of these aspects are altered by the futility of establishing a reasonable period with traditional forms in use for centuries. Then throw in commemorative and revival forms.
Collectors use many 'buzz' words in their desperation to have catchy classifications and denominators in their descriptions of weapons, and most seem to shy away from any sort of extra wording in qualification, so we end up with these 'broadly' described items.
As noted, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', or correct manner of classification, just reasonable effort to be accurate and avoid deception. Also, and again as noted, the influences of various Ottoman features and decoration, if not entire forms, were prevalent in many cultures and regions. It seems that if such provenance or origin can be specified, it should be used over the Ottoman term.
|