Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mahratt
Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.
Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)
I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.
But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?
|
Actually Mahratt, your English is remarkably clear, and clearly in our discussion there are some different points of view. I agree with you and of course Oliver, that it is preferred that substantial evidence should be provided in support of assertions. In the case of photographic evidence, even this cannot always be trusted for irrefutable truth.
For example, it is well known, particularly in earlier stages of the 'photographic era', that photos were typically staged, and in many cases (often possibly most) used props and various embellished posturing etc. .
This is often seen in the military photos of the times, where actual combat scenes were staged, and there are many other examples.
With reference to these durbars, most of these photos I would suspect fall into these categories. It is, in my mind, inconceivable that the entire scope of these events would be captured photographically. I perceive these durbars as much like 'fairs', where these scenes involving significant people and groups are shown do not include the lesser scenes at accompanying bazaars with vendors hawking their wares and materials,
In many cases facts may be found in related mediums, such as narratives, personal notes or recollections, and particularly provenanced items.
Sometimes it may be that a reasonable assumption might be made which is compelling by other factors, but these cases are so many that including them here would be almost impossible. Most of these kinds of situations are well explained in books like "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection",
( J.W. Davidson, M.H. Lytle, N.Y. Knopf, 1982).
Those interesting in carrying investigations in these degrees would be most enlightened by this and other writings on this topic. Here, we maintain a more fluid and not quite as collegiate discussion format, which enables us to cover a broader scope pertaining to items at hand. Naturally many elements of these discussions serve as benchmarks for those choosing to pursue detailed factors to more comprehensive study .
While your personal levels of study and research are clearly of very high standards and academically exemplary, they are not necessarily demanded nor even expected in our formats. While recommendations for more thorough supportive findings are welcomed, it is purely elective as far as the other participants in discussion are concerned. With that in mind, those recommendations should be entered as just that, and in a cordial manner, without negative feature.
I think in that light, your knowledge will be better employed to the advantage of us all, rather than in conflicting interaction.
Best regards
Jim