Another Black Sea Yataghan out of Africa

[Ian]

We are again entering contentious areas where there is a high likelihood of heated exchanges that can turn unpleasant.

Errors in earlier texts, even some relatively recent examples, are common in the field of ethnographic arms and armor. If we were to catalog all of the mistakes in every book on the subject, then we would have a substantial series of errata lists. But I doubt that such lists would be very helpful. Forums such as this one are much better vehicles for discussing what is correct, without dwelling on the errors of other sources unduly.

I doubt there are many authors who deliberately publish false information in this field, although there are certainly some who do little research and simply cite the mistakes of others. Some authors lack the resources to do very much research themselves, while others may be lazy or sloppy. It is neither lazy nor sloppy if an author has searched the available literature on a subject, reports a considered opinion based on the available literature, and cites the sources that were consulted in arriving at that opinion. If such a considered opinion is later shown to be wrong, then the author can be excused for making a mistake because it was based on the best information available at the time the opinion was expressed.

Let's not get into whose scholarship is the best. In discussing mistakes made in publications, please address the errors themselves, not the efforts of the authors. Better yet, let's focus on what information is correct going forward!

[ariel]

Ian,
There are no contentions regarding collective, country-wise, quality of authorship. I was talking about a particular book written by a particular group of authors.

This book was mercilessly criticized on at least 2 Russian Fora for exactly the same reasons that were mentioned by me, plus some I have omitted, plus some I know little about. The only explanations offered in response were that they did not have enough time to research, and the objections from the muzeum to alter contexts of the existing labels.

Certainly, the authors did not engage in any malicious behavior such as willful falsification.

Please note that I have excluded books of Tirri and Astvatsaturian: their books were published before correct information became available. This is inevitable in any scientific endeavor and the authors, albeit mistaken, are blameless.

As to the access to Internet, both in the US and Russia it became available in the mid-1990’s ( see Wikipedia “Internet history in[country]”). I know it personally, since I communicated with American, European and Russian colleagues and searched their respective auctions and Fora for more than 20 years.

[gp]

some more on the Black Sea Yataghan / Laz Bichaq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DI6HH9iVxI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeLiqM_jZPc&t=10s

concerning the latter:
The caption below the clip is:
OSMANLI DÖNEMİNE AİT KESİNLİKLE GERÇEK ORJİNAL BİR KILIÇ 1800 LÜ YILLARDA ÜRETİLEN BİR SUİKAST SİLAHIDIR TARİHİ ESERDİR NADİR BULUNAN BİR KILIÇTIR DOĞU KARADENİZ BÖLGESİNDE KULLANILMIŞTIR.

Translation: A REAL ORIGINAL SWORD OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD IS AN ASSASSINATION WEAPON PRODUCED IN THE YEARS 1800 THE HISTORICAL MONUMENT IS A RARE SWORD USED IN THE EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION.

source : Mr. Gene Wilkinson

and on its people(s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUT-QYYkXMQ&t=35s

[mahratt]

I apologize that this post does not contribute to the development of the topic of Laz Bichak, but I take an example from more experienced forum members.

Originally Posted by ariel

Ian,
There are no contentions regarding collective, country-wise, quality of authorship. I was talking about a particular book written by a particular group of authors.

This book was mercilessly criticized on at least 2 Russian Fora for exactly the same reasons that were mentioned by me, plus some I have omitted, plus some I know little about. The only explanations offered in response were that they did not have enough time to research, and the objections from the muzeum to alter contexts of the existing labels.

Certainly, the authors did not engage in any malicious behavior such as willful falsification.

Please note that I have excluded books of Tirri and Astvatsaturian: their books were published before correct information became available. This is inevitable in any scientific endeavor and the authors, albeit mistaken, are blameless.

As to the access to Internet, both in the US and Russia it became available in the mid-1990’s ( see Wikipedia “Internet history in[country]”). I know it personally, since I communicated with American, European and Russian colleagues and searched their respective auctions and Fora for more than 20 years.

It looks very funny when the author of a book written in 2004 is forgiven for his mistakes, and a book written 2 years later but in a much larger "information vacuum" is sharply criticized.
If the moderators do not object, I still propose to compare the number of errors in Tirri's book and the catalog of the Ethnographic Museum in order to close this topic once and for all.

When using Wikipedia data, you should be very careful. Information from Wikipedia and reality are very often far apart.



And on topic - beautiful Laz Bichak from the collection of the Historical Museum (Moscow, Russia). Published in the book Astvatsaturyan:

[ariel]

That is the very same “yataghan of original form” I have mentioned earlier.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

That is the very same “yataghan of original form” I have mentioned earlier.

It is reasonable to name an unfamiliar object with a name that is understandable to everyone that suits it and not invent its origin.

[ariel]

Please see my post #20: that was exactly the reason why I hold Astvatsaturian blameless.

[mahratt]

Astvatsaturian simply did not have any information about this item. So she used such an evasive formulation.