You know if you study ethnic weaponry seriously than you have to join to one of serious disciplines: or history of art or ethnography. If you don't do it then you will be able to publish only beautiful pictures. There is nothing wrong but for what?
Quote:
|
Without thorough immersion into their contemporary atmospheres ( further complicated by linguistic problems), one cannot fully understand the multilayered depth of meaning of the peculiar names given to old elongated and sharpened pieces of steel.
|
Many thanks Ariel again. This is what I consulted before with some serious ethnographers about. They advised me: you should not to make new "right" classification. It will also be bad as other ones. Just show how Indians looked at their weapons, what they felt and how they explained it. It is what I am working on.
The article we discussed here (thank you all, I saw how it was hard for some of you) is an article about military (warriors) practices of North India of 1600-1800. This article was reported (and published) at 5th International Science-practical conference, May 2014 in the Military-Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineer and Signal Corps (Russia, St.Petersburg). The second part of the article (about kinds and names of weapons) was reported at 6th conference, May, 2015. You know when you are researching in the fields such as of the using weapons it is very important to know what kind of weapons was used (while you have for it only the mix of names and languages).
Some of this information was published in "On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types" in "Historical Weaponology" #1, 2015.