Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 27th February 2014, 04:30 AM

Sancar:

" I don't see a similar approach(there is distinct classification, but not separation) when it comes to western bladeswhich makes me think that this issue has its roots in "orientalism" as in most socio-cultural areas of research in modern social sciences."

Perhaps, the reason why European arms are so similar stems from a long tradition of cultural unity: Roman Empire spread from Italy to Spain, to Britain, to Germany ( I am talking only about Europe here, mind you). Since then, Latin became a lingua franca of Europe, and generations of educated Europeans were raised on Homer and Virgil. After that, the Holy Roman Empire somewhat continued the tradition. Royal Houses intermarried to the point of French royalty becoming kings of Hungary and Poland,and at the beginning of the 20th century kings of England, Germany, Russia, Greece , Denmark etc. looked remarkably alike :-) And let's not forget religion: both New and Old Testaments were the cornerstone of literacy, art forms, and beliefs of all Europeans. The Pope was an official ( although not always welcome) religious authority from Spain to Poland and from Britain to Sicily.

Europe was in effect a single culture with some local flavours. In that climate, it was no wonder that the arms development was also more or less standard and evolved in parallel. Orthodox Russia decided to "join the club" only in the 18th century. Till then, Russian weapons were distinctly " oriental".

The "Orient" as we define it, consists of a multitude of different cultures: Persian, Ottoman, Arab, Indian ( with her separate flavors) etc. The unifying influence of Islam came relatively late, and the native cultures/religions/traditions persisted side by side despite it. This is why, IMHO, we still see distinct styles of weapons. Moreover, with the exception of the Ottomans, no country in Western Asia built a humongous empire, stretching from South Aravia to the Balkans. Importantly, within the Ottoman areal, weapons also became rather homogeneous. Matter of size, I guess, and of central authority.

The big problems with the Oriental weapons ( excluding Japan, perhaps) is not "orientalism" a la Edward Said, but rather pillaging of arsenals ( India comes to mind), complete lack of real museums with detailed attribution and provenance as well as the absence of academic research. Topkapi collection was catalogued for the first time by Hans Stocklein in the 1930s, Iranian collections , - by the Russian Romanovsky in the 1950-1960s, the first academic books about Indian weapons were written by the Brits: Lord Egerton and Rawson. Luckily, there is a new wave of younger researchers , especially in Turkey, who are trying to fill the void.

As to the commonality of yataghan and karabela handles, I beg to differ. The only example of it were the North African yataghans with karabela-like pommels. I am also confused by your statement that kilijes with yataghan handles were popular in the Ottoman Empire ( or did I misunderstand you?). Pala is a later development of Kilij, so the retention of the drop-like ( pear-like: -) ) pommel is not surprising. Moreover, we have no idea how did Seljuk swords look like. Did the Turks take this form from the Mamluks? Or, vice versa, did they just replace the original handles of the Mamluk swords with their own creations ( witness Sacred Swords in Topkapi)?

27th February 2014, 04:30 AM	#33
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Sancar: " I don't see a similar approach(there is distinct classification, but not separation) when it comes to western bladeswhich makes me think that this issue has its roots in "orientalism" as in most socio-cultural areas of research in modern social sciences." Perhaps, the reason why European arms are so similar stems from a long tradition of cultural unity: Roman Empire spread from Italy to Spain, to Britain, to Germany ( I am talking only about Europe here, mind you). Since then, Latin became a lingua franca of Europe, and generations of educated Europeans were raised on Homer and Virgil. After that, the Holy Roman Empire somewhat continued the tradition. Royal Houses intermarried to the point of French royalty becoming kings of Hungary and Poland,and at the beginning of the 20th century kings of England, Germany, Russia, Greece , Denmark etc. looked remarkably alike :-) And let's not forget religion: both New and Old Testaments were the cornerstone of literacy, art forms, and beliefs of all Europeans. The Pope was an official ( although not always welcome) religious authority from Spain to Poland and from Britain to Sicily. Europe was in effect a single culture with some local flavours. In that climate, it was no wonder that the arms development was also more or less standard and evolved in parallel. Orthodox Russia decided to "join the club" only in the 18th century. Till then, Russian weapons were distinctly " oriental". The "Orient" as we define it, consists of a multitude of different cultures: Persian, Ottoman, Arab, Indian ( with her separate flavors) etc. The unifying influence of Islam came relatively late, and the native cultures/religions/traditions persisted side by side despite it. This is why, IMHO, we still see distinct styles of weapons. Moreover, with the exception of the Ottomans, no country in Western Asia built a humongous empire, stretching from South Aravia to the Balkans. Importantly, within the Ottoman areal, weapons also became rather homogeneous. Matter of size, I guess, and of central authority. The big problems with the Oriental weapons ( excluding Japan, perhaps) is not "orientalism" a la Edward Said, but rather pillaging of arsenals ( India comes to mind), complete lack of real museums with detailed attribution and provenance as well as the absence of academic research. Topkapi collection was catalogued for the first time by Hans Stocklein in the 1930s, Iranian collections , - by the Russian Romanovsky in the 1950-1960s, the first academic books about Indian weapons were written by the Brits: Lord Egerton and Rawson. Luckily, there is a new wave of younger researchers , especially in Turkey, who are trying to fill the void. As to the commonality of yataghan and karabela handles, I beg to differ. The only example of it were the North African yataghans with karabela-like pommels. I am also confused by your statement that kilijes with yataghan handles were popular in the Ottoman Empire ( or did I misunderstand you?). Pala is a later development of Kilij, so the retention of the drop-like ( pear-like: -) ) pommel is not surprising. Moreover, we have no idea how did Seljuk swords look like. Did the Turks take this form from the Mamluks? Or, vice versa, did they just replace the original handles of the Mamluk swords with their own creations ( witness Sacred Swords in Topkapi)?