Middle eastern sword

ariel · 15th May 2019, 02:52 AM

At that time Vladikavkaz became a very important center of manufacture of Caucasian weapons. Large workshops ( Omarov, Guzunov, Mudunov, Koshtoyants et al) and multiple smaller establishments employed masters from all over Caucasus and Transcaucasia. They utilized a variety of ornamentations irrespective of the ethnic origin of the maker and only names or probirer stamps can pinpoint the origin of the weapon.

Well, weapon is an overstatement: a lion share were sold as souvenirs and decorative costume trinkets. Even Kubachi and Tiflis acquired industrial strength and the ethnic characters of ornamentations were lost. Buyers simply chose what style they wished to have and the shops had them all.

Blue jeans, formerly an idiosyncratic American garb, nowadays are made all over the world, from Vietnam to Guatemala and Ukraine. Most of the erstwhile Druze Majjali daggers were made in large Syrian cities. Industrial globalization did not start yesterday.

Jim McDougall · 15th May 2019, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

At that time Vladikavkaz became a very important center of manufacture of Caucasian weapons. Large workshops ( Omarov, Guzunov, Mudunov, Koshtoyants et al) and multiple smaller establishments employed masters from all over Caucasus and Transcaucasia. They utilized a variety of ornamentations irrespective of the ethnic origin of the maker and only names or probirer stamps can pinpoint the origin of the weapon.

Well, weapon is an overstatement: a lion share were sold as souvenirs and decorative costume trinkets. Even Kubachi and Tiflis acquired industrial strength and the ethnic characters of ornamentations were lost. Buyers simply chose what style they wished to have and the shops had them all.

Blue jeans, formerly an idiosyncratic American garb, nowadays are made all over the world, from Vietnam to Guatemala and Ukraine. Most of the erstwhile Druze Majjali daggers were made in large Syrian cities. Industrial globalization did not start yesterday.

Very well said Ariel,
The study of ethnographic weapons is probably one of the greatest conundrums ever because of this very phenomenon, the commercial production of ethnic weapons as souvenirs and tourist curiosities.
During the colonial eras of major powers, people became intrigued by these kinds of items brought back by occupying forces and the stage was set.

As noted, the upswing in production of such items which were produced to simulate styles and character of the decoration on the originals and their intricate meanings were gradually lost through diffused interpretation.

With Caucasian weapons they are inherently attractive and exotic, so their beauty remains compelling, but for ethnographic arms historians, the challenges are formidable. While Ariel and a number of others who often write here are indeed powerful authorities on these arms, one of the best sources I know which can help in better understanding them for the rest of us is the book by Kirill Rivkin, "Arms and Armor of the Caucusus".

ariel · 16th May 2019, 02:48 AM

Jim,

With all due respect, it is not “one of the”, it is “THE”.

Kirill forgot more about Caucasian weapons than all of us here know......

And his recent book about the evolution of the Eastern sword is an academic masterpiece.

I admire him.

Kubur · 16th May 2019, 10:27 AM

With all due respect, it is “one of the”.
Kirill's book is really great but I prefer Lebedynsky.

And completely disagree about the book on the evolution of the Eastern sword.With four pages of references (and half in Russian), it's not an academic masterpiece. I was very disapointed by this book. I agree with most of the theories and ideas of the author, but the book is more a like a discussion that you can find on this forum. Lot of opinions without historical evidences.

ariel · 16th May 2019, 10:44 PM

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Just like I to mine.

Taking into account that a good part of the book is dedicated to the nomadic swords, most of which are located in what is now Caucasus, Russia and Ukraine, it is not a miracle that many references are from local archeologists.

Kubur · 17th May 2019, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Just like I to mine.

Taking into account that a good part of the book is dedicated to the nomadic swords, most of which are located in what is now Caucasus, Russia and Ukraine, it is not a miracle that many references are from local archeologists.

I respect your opinion and your experience as I respect Dr. Rivkin's work.

I totally agree with you about Russian scholars, and also I think that it is particulary unfair that Turkish, Iranian and Arab scholars as not mentionned as well by Europeans and North Americans.

ariel · 17th May 2019, 10:31 PM

There are no Arabian books dedicated to bladed weapons. The same is true about Iranian authors as well, Khorasani’s is the only one, and it is referenced in Rivkin’s book.
The only Turkish one I know is by Unsal Yucel. It is cited extensively, because its topic is right up the alley.

Regretfully, the first and only study of the Topkapi collection was done by a visiting German in the 1920s, and the only previous attempt to describe the content of military museums in Iran was done by a visiting Russian art historian from Leningrad ( now St. Petersburg) in the AFAIK 1950s. He died suddenly and the Iranians did nothing since.

It is sad that the entire field of Oriental weapons with the exception of Japan and Indonesia is covered by the Europeans.

15th May 2019, 02:52 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	At that time Vladikavkaz became a very important center of manufacture of Caucasian weapons. Large workshops ( Omarov, Guzunov, Mudunov, Koshtoyants et al) and multiple smaller establishments employed masters from all over Caucasus and Transcaucasia. They utilized a variety of ornamentations irrespective of the ethnic origin of the maker and only names or probirer stamps can pinpoint the origin of the weapon. Well, weapon is an overstatement: a lion share were sold as souvenirs and decorative costume trinkets. Even Kubachi and Tiflis acquired industrial strength and the ethnic characters of ornamentations were lost. Buyers simply chose what style they wished to have and the shops had them all. Blue jeans, formerly an idiosyncratic American garb, nowadays are made all over the world, from Vietnam to Guatemala and Ukraine. Most of the erstwhile Druze Majjali daggers were made in large Syrian cities. Industrial globalization did not start yesterday.

16th May 2019, 02:48 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, With all due respect, it is not “one of the”, it is “THE”. Kirill forgot more about Caucasian weapons than all of us here know...... And his recent book about the evolution of the Eastern sword is an academic masterpiece. I admire him.

16th May 2019, 10:27 AM	#4
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	With all due respect, it is “one of the”. Kirill's book is really great but I prefer Lebedynsky. And completely disagree about the book on the evolution of the Eastern sword.With four pages of references (and half in Russian), it's not an academic masterpiece. I was very disapointed by this book. I agree with most of the theories and ideas of the author, but the book is more a like a discussion that you can find on this forum. Lot of opinions without historical evidences.

16th May 2019, 10:44 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just like I to mine. Taking into account that a good part of the book is dedicated to the nomadic swords, most of which are located in what is now Caucasus, Russia and Ukraine, it is not a miracle that many references are from local archeologists.

17th May 2019, 10:31 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	There are no Arabian books dedicated to bladed weapons. The same is true about Iranian authors as well, Khorasani’s is the only one, and it is referenced in Rivkin’s book. The only Turkish one I know is by Unsal Yucel. It is cited extensively, because its topic is right up the alley. Regretfully, the first and only study of the Topkapi collection was done by a visiting German in the 1920s, and the only previous attempt to describe the content of military museums in Iran was done by a visiting Russian art historian from Leningrad ( now St. Petersburg) in the AFAIK 1950s. He died suddenly and the Iranians did nothing since. It is sad that the entire field of Oriental weapons with the exception of Japan and Indonesia is covered by the Europeans.