Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 30th September 2019, 12:32 PM   #1
Ren Ren
Member
 
Ren Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Russia, Moscow
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahratt
Hi Jens
I am a biologist by profession and work at the Museum of Natural History. One of the collections that I oversee (keep) in the museum is a collection of osteology (that is, a collection of bones)
I wrote a guide to identify bones and horns in items (including on the handles edged weapons). If we are talking about the leg bone of an animal that was used in some kind of artifact (for example, a hilt), unfortunately, it is impossible to visually identify this animal to a species.
But I like Ren Ren's idea of bone thickness.
It is difficult to argue with a recognized specialist in the field of osteology. But I'm not trying to argue. I propose once again to pay attention to the structure of the camel's bone (especially with a longitudinal section). It was once difficult to distinguish ivory from an elephant and from a mammoth

P. S. Mahratt spoke very modestly about himself. He is not only the curator of the collections of the Museum of Natural History, but also an expert whose help leading museums and government agencies seek.
Ren Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 12:40 PM   #2
mahratt
Member
 
mahratt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ren Ren
I propose once again to pay attention to the structure of the camel's bone (especially with a longitudinal section). It was once difficult to distinguish ivory from an elephant and from a mammoth
That is why I said that I like your idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ren Ren
P. S. Mahratt spoke very modestly about himself. He is not only the curator of the collections of the Museum of Natural History, but also an expert whose help leading museums and government agencies seek.
Thank you for your words I considered it not modest to write this information about myself
mahratt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 01:59 PM   #3
Kubur
Member
 
Kubur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
Default

Arms and armour collectors are not stupid brutes in fact... interesting....

Kubur
Kubur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 04:51 PM   #4
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

I would like to correct anatomical error in the description of walrus tusk written in the book on identification of various osteological materials. The author calls the inner marbled ( oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) part of the tusk a " pulp". It is not a pulp. Pulp of any tooth is a soft living tissue located in the middle of the tooth and composed of arteries, veins, nerves and some supporting soft tissue. It is locates in the so-called " pulp cavity" that originates at the basis of the root and disappears completely well before the tip of the tooth. It provides nutrients to the cells lining the dentine that are responsible for tooth growth. When we have root canal procedure, the pulp is what is removed by our endodontists:-((( The jello-like consistency of the pulp makes it absolutely unsuitable for any practical use in the process of carving.


Walrus tusk is a modified canine tooth. Its outer layer is enamel, that is worn off at a very young age. Underneath is cementum, also thin and flaky material that is removed by the carver. The rest of the tusk consists of dentine and this part is used for carving purposes. The outer layer of the dentine is homogeneous (primary dentine) and the inner part ( secondary dentine or osteodentine) is exactly the one that is erroneously called " pulp" in the book.
You can look it in the CITES book
https://www.cites.org/sites/default/...vory-guide.pdf
and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services book
https://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php

Also, a pic of the cut across the tusk:C- cementum, PD- primary dentine; SD - secondary dentine. Right in the center we can see a dark irregular structure, the final remnant of the pulp.

Thus, when we discuss walrus ivory, let's use correct anatomical terminology.
Attached Images
 
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 08:44 PM   #5
mahratt
Member
 
mahratt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
Default

Thank you very much for the valuable addition taken from the CITES website.
In Russian (and the book is written in Russian for Russian-speaking specialists), the inner (oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) at the same time, the hard part of the walrus fang is called "pulpa".
If I decide to make an English version of my book on the definition of osteological materials, I will definitely describe the structure of the walrus fang, as is customary in the English scientific literature
mahratt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 09:28 PM   #6
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahratt
.
In Russian (and the book is written in Russian for Russian-speaking specialists), the inner (oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) at the same time, the hard part of the walrus fang is called "pulpa".
You are trying to wiggle out of the obvious error on your part. It ain't gonna happen: in Russian, as in every other language pulp is the soft content of the inner tooth cavity ( blood vessels, nerves etc) and is a separate entity from dentin. It pertains to every species with teeth: humans, walruses, elephants, cats etc. Basic anatomy from my first year of medical school:-)
For your benefit I am attaching a slide from a Russian source with Latin names for different tooth components ( for the benefit of other Forumites). If you do not trust it, you can consult any Russian book on anatomy or dentistry or Google it in Russian.
Just admit your goof, say thank you and that's it. The more you try to dig yourself out , the deeper you get.
Attached Images
 
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 10:16 PM   #7
mahratt
Member
 
mahratt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariel
You are trying to wiggle out of the obvious error on your part. It ain't gonna happen: in Russian, as in every other language pulp is the soft content of the inner tooth cavity ( blood vessels, nerves etc) and is a separate entity from dentin. It pertains to every species with teeth: humans, walruses, elephants, cats etc. Basic anatomy from my first year of medical school:-)
For your benefit I am attaching a slide from a Russian source with Latin names for different tooth components ( for the benefit of other Forumites). If you do not trust it, you can consult any Russian book on anatomy or dentistry or Google it in Russian.
Just admit your goof, say thank you and that's it. The more you try to dig yourself out , the deeper you get.
Dear friend, I see you try to be "have a finger in every pie" all the time, if it concerns my messages. It really flatters me
There are many specific linguistic circulation in the Russian language that you are not familiar with due to the specifics of your profession. This is normal. You can’t know everything. But this is not scary. We are all learning.
I did not say anything about the structure of the tooth. Therefore, you put a picture in the subject in vain I spoke of the fact that in Russian, among specialists, a certain part of walrus fang is called “pulpа” and this has nothing to do with ordinary tooth pulp. The same part of the tooth is also called "scadra". There is no such word in English at all.
So you don’t have to try to seem smarter than it really is You are already a smart enough person. Nevertheless, do not try to be an expert in all sciences. Otherwise, you will look stupid.

I propose to continue the discussion of the Khyber knife of Norman. Of course, if someone can say something new.

P.S. I must add that the manuscript of the book has a positive response from a leading specialist in Russia, who specializes in tusks of elephants and mammoths, as well as walrus fangs, an expert from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation This review was published at the beginning of my "Guide to Osteological Materials".
But, probably, you know more than this respected specialist

Last edited by mahratt; 30th September 2019 at 10:59 PM.
mahratt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 08:55 PM   #8
Ren Ren
Member
 
Ren Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Russia, Moscow
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubur
Arms and armour collectors are not stupid brutes in fact... interesting....

Kubur
Hi Kubur! You touched a painful point
For the sake of justice, I must say that I have met several such collectors. But they collected regular army items never ethnographic arms.
Ren Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 09:45 PM   #9
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ren Ren
Hi Kubur! You touched a painful point
For the sake of justice, I must say that I have met several such collectors. But they collected regular army items never ethnographic arms.

"Ethnographics" are usually not brutes, but stupidity among them is of the same incidence as in general population or collectors of regulation weapons. They are usually more arrogant, because there are no regulation standards, and they are free to make statements on the basis of their opinions, not on officially recorded facts.
Well, as any negative trait, it can have some good in it: replace arrogance with perseverance:-)
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2019, 09:59 PM   #10
Ren Ren
Member
 
Ren Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Russia, Moscow
Posts: 379
Default

Between arrogance and stupidity, I choose arrogance
Ren Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.