Review of "Arms and Armour from Iran" by M. Khorasani

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Mark

And by "this matter," we mean (a) the book, and (b) the merits/demerits of the review topping this thread. It is possible to discuss the book AND the review without having to put it in terms of the personalities involved. Discussion of, for example, personal history, motivation, or any real or perceived "conflict," is off-topic.

Clear enough for everyone?

Hi Mark, Andrew and Ian.

Can I get a clarification? Since Manoucher makes many "personal observations" and conclusions in his book, his credentials as an expert may occasionally come up. How would the moderators like this to be handled?

Thanks
Jeff

[Ian]

Jeff:

We need to avoid commenting on the author, his credentials or his position on another forum, and focus on the substance of the book. The book is the enduring contribution to our field of interest and it needs to be evaluated on its merits. Where there are statements of personal opinion, these should be treated as such, but they should not be used to attack the author or his credibility.

This is a mammoth piece of work and deserves careful review, as Dr Rivkin has attempted.

Ian.

[Jeff D]

Thanks Ian,

I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation.

Thank you and good luck
Jeff

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Jeff D

Thanks Ian,

I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation.

Thank you and good luck
Jeff

I really don't see what the problem is here. If there is a question of reliability of a source, whether it be a literary one or a personal observation, that question must be coming from somewhere. So point it out, explain it, explain the counter-point. If you think there is bias, explain why, establish the point.

What would be unacceptable, of course, are personalized criticisms, for example questioning a particular statement's accuracy or validity without any particular basis other than a negative personal opinion of the author, or based mostly (or entirely) on resentment or disagreement over some past exchange. It is the difference between debate and name-calling. The former is what mature, reasoning people do, articulating their positions in a respectful way, with reference to information and/or reasoning that is pertinent to the topic being discussed. The latter is what little people in kindergarten do.

Since we all here are long out of kindergarten, I am sure that it will not be difficult to carry on a productive debate on this topic.

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Mark

I really don't see what the problem is here. If there is a question of reliability of a source, whether it be a literary one or a personal observation, that question must be coming from somewhere. So point it out, explain it, explain the counter-point. If you think there is bias, explain why, establish the point.

Thank you Mark.

Jeff

[Rivkin]

Btw, I have a question to those who read the book. It constantly says "attribute to" then the name of some Shah. How was this attribution made ? Was it made by analyzing when it was acquired by the collection, by analyzing the maker's mark and exactly pinning the sword's origin and the master and from the length of master's life - approximate production time or it was done solely based on what is written on the sword ?

Did they take in mind, how many of those "Shah Abbas" or "Nader-Shah" are fake, and how many of such swords Amuzga and Kubachi alone were making in XIXth century ?

[frequent]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Btw, I have a question to those who read the book. It constantly says "attribute to" then the name of some Shah. How was this attribution made ? Was it made by analyzing when it was acquired by the collection, by analyzing the maker's mark and exactly pinning the sword's origin and the master and from the length of master's life - approximate production time or it was done solely based on what is written on the sword ?

Did they take in mind, how many of those "Shah Abbas" or "Nader-Shah" are fake, and how many of such swords Amuzga and Kubachi alone were making in XIXth century ?

hi i have been reading this thread and it is interesting but it isnt interesting in a good way. this looks like a negatively biased review can you offer any evidence for these claims that you're making please. please start with this last one you make. so much of this review is generalizing too many things. i dont understand why the moderators are not controlling this negative words here. i thought ths was a friendly place to go to.

[Rivkin]

Dear All,

1. "Crap" was a characteristic of some of my earlier posts.
2. I apologize if I misunderstood your words, Mr. Ko. It is indeed a cultural thing.

3. What I mean with all this stuff about peace, is that even if we would have a "peace agreement", I would not have written something drastically different, but who knows, I have tried to be more or less objective, but probably failed, I can not be a judge of that. I have nothing against any posts on SFI, by any authors, including the one you call "monster" on SFI. I welcome them and have no problem with their existance, despite profoundly disagreeing with their nature. And yes, if the triple-cursed mekhitarist sword will come up again for the evaluation, I will still refer you to the same book.

4. I apologize for mentioning my title here, and I think it is irrelevant who we are and what we do, this was done only to say that if we go formal we need to go formal. Please adress me by my nick here - Rivkin, or by my first name - Kirill.

5. Finally I want to mention that we discuss too much my relationship with Manoucher. I have clearly stated it on top of my review, I think quite accurately.

6. Now concerning the books - there is a book by Allen and Gilmore, "Persian Steel, Tannavoli Collection". I did not like Lebedinsky's book on Caucasian weapons, but have not read the one on "Oriental" weapons. There is a number of other books, but I do believe the present book is a very good starting point, and a very good basic book on the subject.

7. I again would like to express my apologies for some of my previous words. I honestly believed that the book will be filled with "Arrani" problems, criticism of Western Myths, declarations of Arian unity, and many other things that have been stated many times in the past, often in the connection with this book. I would like to reiterate my statement, that I do not think any of those is a big concern here. There are some "territorial" (you have seen one example - Circassia) and other issues here and there (too much heroic folklore, too many times questionably names people "persian or "iranian") but in general it is a good book.

8. Finally, I think we use the word "academic" too much. Let me tell you of my experience. I am far from being honored with a publication of the size of Manoucher's work, but some time ago I did submit a 10 times smaller manuscript to some colleagues for review. Two politely replied with commentaries about font, pictures and congratulated me on my accomplishment (translation - they have not read the damn thing). The third one did read it.
The phrase written on the cover was "SHAME !!! Did not reference:". Below it was a list of articles that I failed to reference. On every page he has found something that was uncertain, or misinterpreted, or misrepresented.
Now, I swallowed my pride and implemented corrections.
The moral to it is simple - you want to be an academian, read periodic journals and reference them, extensively. Otherwise people will look at your reference list and will think that you are unaware of the current work or you simply copied lots of textbooks. Here I believe a lot of articles and books should have been referenced because they directly relate to the field, and their context should have been discussed here.
And above all - send your work for review to people who are not your super-friends, but those who will tear your work apart, for you learn from their comments, not from yours friends' praise.