View Single Post
Old 26th January 2016, 11:32 PM   #7
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,497
Default

I hope the descriptions used in the book have been checked by someone who knows armor and weapons, there are many mistakes in the Mets online collection descriptions. Here is one example, this char-aina is listed as being Indian, to me it has all the characteristics of a Persian char-aina, another obviously Persian char-aina that was listed as being Indian for many years just recently had its description corrected to Persian. The dagger below is described as being a khanjar (Dagger (Khanjar) Date: 18th–19th century) but it looks like a type of jambiya to me.

Many weapons do not mention wootz steel being used. Several mail shirts are listed as being "Ottoman" but their construction looks nothing like any Ottoman mail examples that I have seen, I think the Met may be relying on some very old descriptions which need to be updated, since I have not seen the book yet I do not know if they have in fact done this already.



Cuirass (Char-aina)
Date: late 18th–19th century
Culture: Indian
Medium: Steel, gold, textile.
Attached Images
  

Last edited by estcrh; 27th January 2016 at 02:30 AM.
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote