Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[CharlesS]

Just got mine too...impressive at first glance, but haven't had a chance to really peruse it yet.

[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.

[Kubur]

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

[mariusgmioc]

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.

[estcrh]

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.

[ariel]

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.

[estcrh]

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?

[mahratt]

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.

I would be very interested in your enumeration of imperfections of the texts ( plural). Always good to learn from a specialist. Thanks.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I would be very interested in your enumeration of imperfections of the texts ( plural). Always good to learn from a specialist. Thanks.

Experts at the forum, who know better than I, already named some imperfections. I noticed:

1) strange doubts in the regional localization of items - pp. 56, 66

2) the fact that some things are called simply: saber, sword. Although they have a name - pp. 178, 180, 184

3) the fact that the knife for some reason called "dagger" - p. 194

I hope I have helped you to understand that you did not know?

While I only quickly scanned book. So, of course, I do not enumerate all the pages.

[ariel]

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?:-)))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

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?:-)))

According to Ann Feuerbach there were two main production areas, Indian and Central Asia, with wootz being used to describe the steel originating in India and bulat for steel originating in Central Asia....I suppose if you do not know the origin "damascus or watered" steel would suffice. While the term "crucible steel" is used instead of "wootz, bulat, damascus steel, watered steel' it probably should not be as it really describes the method and not the specific end product.

Ann Feuerbach

It must therefore be concluded that the materials and techniques associated with the crucible steel process in Central Asia (pulad) and those used in India and Sri Lanka (wootz) are significantly different.

[ariel]

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))