Words and bids

Rivkin · 17th November 2005, 05:17 PM

Ham,

I'm a little bit surprised - most of the times I publish something at least one of the referees is going to say something really insulting.
I always thought that it's probably the same in history related journals ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Miyamoto · 17th November 2005, 06:04 PM

Am I really totaly wrong?

If Ashoka knew what it was, and he is a great connosieur of asiatic arms I think, he would obviously write it down...

Look carefully to both of the auctions again. Eftis wouldn't lie that it was found in Hungary (wich is the case, that it is verry close to Slovenia) I think. And Ashoka would be certain of its origin if it were rather a recent beduin piece. Ab further there is strong evidence that a similar weapon (again with turkish blade) was used in central Europe 300 years ago...

Now look at the picture from my book.

No, I do not feel offended and Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but at least not totally.

Rivkin · 17th November 2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miyamoto

Am I really totaly wrong?

If Ashoka knew what it was, and he is a great connosieur of asiatic arms I think, he would obviously write it down...

Look carefully to both of the auctions again. Eftis wouldn't lie that it was found in Hungary (wich is the case, that it is verry close to Slovenia) I think. And Ashoka would be certain of its origin if it were rather a recent beduin piece. Ab further there is strong evidence that a similar weapon (again with turkish blade) was used in central Europe 300 years ago...

I think Eftis said "purchased from a hungarian collector". Does not mean he observed it's being excavated... In general there is a lot of eastern stuff being sold as eastern european - the reason being that the arms of eastern europe are the arms or steppe tribes (well, not to mention that genetically eastern europeans are in between of Khazach and Kyrgyz people).

The same problem comes up here and there with turkish karabela being sold as "polish sword" etc.

Concerning the beduin blade - I also thought the first time I've seen this sword "hey, here is afghani-uzbek shashka"... However the hilt seemed suspicious to me. But I'm a newbie and ariel is the shashka guy.
I don't think in this case someone suffered a financial setback, because I think afghani shashkas command similar prices to beduin pieces, and most of them are basically from the same period - XIX to early XX century ?

Ham: I'm genuinely surprised. Just to give you a sence of "how it can be" - the guy I know was recently hired by a high profile institution. One of the first thing he did - made sure that everyone who disagreed with his scientific theories and does not have a tenure, got fired. Made sure these guys will not a position in good places, too.

TVV · 17th November 2005, 09:43 PM

To get back to the discussion on hand, are there any differences between the Sinai Peninsula swords and the Slovenian ones? For example, I believe I can see a yelman on the sword from the book Miyamoto has posted, and I guess this is a feature not likely to appear on Bedouin blades? Furthermore, Artzi has stated in his site that the Bedouin blades are likely to exhibit multiple fullers, and I cannot see any fullers on the Slovenian sword, even though the picture quality is not the best. I am by far not an expert on neither the Bedouin, nor the Slovenian swords, but as there is a similarity in the hilt shape, I am just trying to figure out a way to safely distinguish between the two types.
Regards,
Teodor

Rivkin · 17th November 2005, 10:54 PM

As I said before I'm a newbie, but:
imho "slovenian" sword is in fact a rehilted kilij. As some kilij do, it has "heavy" end (I don't know how to say it - basically around the end the blade gets wider ?) and it has no fullers.

The bedoin sword in my opinion is more similar to heavy shashka blades - slighter, but more uniform curvature, gets thinner towards the end, multi-fullers.

ariel · 18th November 2005, 12:56 AM

As a matter of fact, one of my Beduins has a European blade with a single wide fuller. It was so polished and repolished that no markings are discernible any longer.
Artzi in his notes on the Beduin in his collection specifically states that they used whatever blades were available, and he saw even Kilij blades in typical Beduin furniture.
The Slovenian provenance is intriguing. However, was there a specific type of Slovenian (South European?) swords with this type of handle or is there only a single or very rare example? If the latter is true, we may be talking about an "accidental traveler" rather than a specific type.

TVV · 18th November 2005, 01:40 AM

Ariel's last question is great and I will be looking forward to its answer.
Overall, the sword types used in the Balkans in the period from the 16th to the beggining of the 19th century exhibit a huge variety due to the geographical situation and history of the region. Here are some swords in the collection of a friend, which have been found in Bulgaria, and yet in terms of their hilts (and blades) they are not so typical of the Balkans. There are accidental travellers, especially on the Balkans. Any comments on the swords I posted are welcome.

ham · 17th November 2005, 06:25 PM

I'm a little bit surprised - most of the times I publish something at least one of the referees is going to say something really insulting.
I always thought that it's probably the same in history related journals ?

Sorry to hear that, doesn't sound like a very nurturing academic environment.

Not to muddy the waters further-- the sword in question which appeared on eBay was certainly a Bedouin type. As to the assumed knowledge of sellers out there... caveat emptor.

Ham

17th November 2005, 06:04 PM	#2
Miyamoto Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 44	Am I really totaly wrong? If Ashoka knew what it was, and he is a great connosieur of asiatic arms I think, he would obviously write it down... Look carefully to both of the auctions again. Eftis wouldn't lie that it was found in Hungary (wich is the case, that it is verry close to Slovenia) I think. And Ashoka would be certain of its origin if it were rather a recent beduin piece. Ab further there is strong evidence that a similar weapon (again with turkish blade) was used in central Europe 300 years ago... Now look at the picture from my book. No, I do not feel offended and Ok, maybe I'm wrong, but at least not totally. Attached Images

18th November 2005, 01:40 AM	#7
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	Ariel's last question is great and I will be looking forward to its answer. Overall, the sword types used in the Balkans in the period from the 16th to the beggining of the 19th century exhibit a huge variety due to the geographical situation and history of the region. Here are some swords in the collection of a friend, which have been found in Bulgaria, and yet in terms of their hilts (and blades) they are not so typical of the Balkans. There are accidental travellers, especially on the Balkans. Any comments on the swords I posted are welcome. Attached Images

17th November 2005, 05:17 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Ham, I'm a little bit surprised - most of the times I publish something at least one of the referees is going to say something really insulting. I always thought that it's probably the same in history related journals ? Sincerely yours, K.Rivkin

17th November 2005, 09:43 PM	#4
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	To get back to the discussion on hand, are there any differences between the Sinai Peninsula swords and the Slovenian ones? For example, I believe I can see a yelman on the sword from the book Miyamoto has posted, and I guess this is a feature not likely to appear on Bedouin blades? Furthermore, Artzi has stated in his site that the Bedouin blades are likely to exhibit multiple fullers, and I cannot see any fullers on the Slovenian sword, even though the picture quality is not the best. I am by far not an expert on neither the Bedouin, nor the Slovenian swords, but as there is a similarity in the hilt shape, I am just trying to figure out a way to safely distinguish between the two types. Regards, Teodor

17th November 2005, 10:54 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	As I said before I'm a newbie, but: imho "slovenian" sword is in fact a rehilted kilij. As some kilij do, it has "heavy" end (I don't know how to say it - basically around the end the blade gets wider ?) and it has no fullers. The bedoin sword in my opinion is more similar to heavy shashka blades - slighter, but more uniform curvature, gets thinner towards the end, multi-fullers.

18th November 2005, 12:56 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	As a matter of fact, one of my Beduins has a European blade with a single wide fuller. It was so polished and repolished that no markings are discernible any longer. Artzi in his notes on the Beduin in his collection specifically states that they used whatever blades were available, and he saw even Kilij blades in typical Beduin furniture. The Slovenian provenance is intriguing. However, was there a specific type of Slovenian (South European?) swords with this type of handle or is there only a single or very rare example? If the latter is true, we may be talking about an "accidental traveler" rather than a specific type.

17th November 2005, 06:25 PM	#8
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	I'm a little bit surprised - most of the times I publish something at least one of the referees is going to say something really insulting. I always thought that it's probably the same in history related journals ? Sorry to hear that, doesn't sound like a very nurturing academic environment. Not to muddy the waters further-- the sword in question which appeared on eBay was certainly a Bedouin type. As to the assumed knowledge of sellers out there... caveat emptor. Ham