![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools
![]() |
Search this Thread
![]() |
Display Modes
![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
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. Last edited by estcrh; 27th January 2016 at 02:30 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,854
|
![]()
Just got mine too...impressive at first glance, but haven't had a chance to really peruse it yet.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
![]()
I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
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?:-))) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|