Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26th January 2016, 11:32 PM   #1
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
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
Old 29th January 2016, 03:55 PM   #2
Jens Nordlunde
Member
 
Jens Nordlunde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
Default

I just got my copy, having skimmed it, read here and there, and I can recommend it as a very interesting book, showing, if I remember correctly, 176 different weapons with texts explaining about the different weapon types.
Jens Nordlunde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2016, 09:46 PM   #3
CharlesS
Member
 
CharlesS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,854
Default

Just got mine too...impressive at first glance, but haven't had a chance to really peruse it yet.
CharlesS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2016, 01:00 PM   #4
mariusgmioc
Member
 
mariusgmioc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
Default first critic

I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.

Last edited by mariusgmioc; 2nd February 2016 at 02:24 PM.
mariusgmioc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2016, 02:35 PM   #5
Kubur
Member
 
Kubur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.
Dear Marius,

It's exactly the opposite!!!
Specialists and scientific will use neutral vocabulary or standard lexicon.
Collectors or connoisseurs - like most of US on this forum, will use specific terms related to one region, tribe or dynasty... Specialists are smart enough to cover their ass using generic terms.
As we say "more we learn less we know..."

Best,
Kubur
Kubur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2016, 02:49 PM   #6
mariusgmioc
Member
 
mariusgmioc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubur
Dear Marius,

It's exactly the opposite!!!
Specialists and scientific will use neutral vocabulary or standard lexicon.
Collectors or connoisseurs - like most of US on this forum, will use specific terms related to one region, tribe or dynasty... Specialists are smart enough to cover their ass using generic terms.
As we say "more we learn less we know..."

Best,
Kubur
Thank you for this very interesting oppinion!
Unfortunately, I did not research the book long enough, neither do I posess enough knowledge to agree with your oppinion.
In my oppinion, a specialist in the field should be confident enough to be able to be both accurate and specific when dealing with a subject within his area of expertise. I don't really appreciate a "specialist" that is so cautious with terms that prefers to use very broad and generic terms instead of the specific ones just to be "on the safe side."
Then, I wonder what kind of "specialist" would use the term "dagger" for a classic single edge knife.
It would be interesting to hear other people's oppinions though.
mariusgmioc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2016, 05:03 PM   #7
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.
It would not be unusual for an author to use terms which he feels will not change or be outdated after a period of time. Being to timid when describing items could mean that the author is not exacty sure what term to use so the most basic/safe description ends up being used. It is to bad that the author took this approach but it is understandable, he had the ability to photograph the items but delving into the various terms/descriptions that WE may be familiar with and use could cause anyone a big headache.
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2016, 10:49 AM   #8
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.
Well, I guess David Alexander and Stuart Pyhrr know a thing or two about wootz, shamshirs, kilijes and khanjars:-)))

Generally, a short-bladed weapon is generically called a "dagger" when it is clearly a fighting item and is primarily designed for stabbing. It does not matter whether it is single, - or double edged. Khanjars are double edged, pesh kabzes are single edged. Knives can be fighting or utility. I do not think this point is worth much discussion.

My guess , the authors wrote this book with an educated and advanced reader in mind, well past the "name game" stage.
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2016, 10:55 AM   #9
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariel
Well, I guess David Alexander and Stuart Pyhrr know a thing or two about wootz, shamshirs, kilijes and khanjars:-)))
Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2016, 12:18 PM   #10
mahratt
Member
 
mahratt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
Default

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.
mahratt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2016, 02:12 PM   #11
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by estcrh
Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?
In a couple of places I had time to look at, - yes. I have no problem with it. Wootz is a Europeanized variant of the indian ukku ( or whatever the correct phonetization might have been). Technologically, it is crucible steel, which is undoubtedly correct.

I guess there is a valid reason to use a local name for a thing when we need either to specify a unique pattern or to pinpoint its origin: Turkish saber is kilij , not saif, and Uzbeki knife is P'chak, not Kard.

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 03:13 AM.


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.