Another Black Sea Yataghan out of Africa

ariel · 3rd July 2022, 01:05 PM

Obviously, earlier researchers did commit attributional errors when there was no ironclad information about the objects.

The correct attribution of Laz Bicagi appeared on this Forum in 2004 with several iconographic examples testifying to it.

Tirri's book was already published in 2004, and E. G. Astvatsaturian called high-class Laz Bicagi simply " yataghan of unusual form" in her book on Ottoman weapons published in 2002. They just did not and could not have correct information. They were plainly not informed but definitely not careless.

However, the Ethnographic Muzeum album came out in 2006, when the information was already widely available. Its authors' complaints of insufficient time for careful research and/or muzeum policies betrays their wish to publish obviously slapdash information as soon as possible without even researching ( or ignoring?) the objects. This is a different kettle of fish. Their repeat attributions of Sudanese Kaskara to Arabs ( with a "?" mark), Qajar Revival swords to Kurds and Algerian Flissas as "Chopping weapon. Ethnicity unknown" are even worse: they could have at least consulted the 1934 book by G.C. Stone.
Bad book is worse than no book at all. In the best possible case it is a source of illustrations confusing, rather than educating, the reader.

But let's stop here and go back to the Laz Bicagi.

3rd July 2022, 01:05 PM	#16
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Obviously, earlier researchers did commit attributional errors when there was no ironclad information about the objects. The correct attribution of Laz Bicagi appeared on this Forum in 2004 with several iconographic examples testifying to it. Tirri's book was already published in 2004, and E. G. Astvatsaturian called high-class Laz Bicagi simply " yataghan of unusual form" in her book on Ottoman weapons published in 2002. They just did not and could not have correct information. They were plainly not informed but definitely not careless. However, the Ethnographic Muzeum album came out in 2006, when the information was already widely available. Its authors' complaints of insufficient time for careful research and/or muzeum policies betrays their wish to publish obviously slapdash information as soon as possible without even researching ( or ignoring?) the objects. This is a different kettle of fish. Their repeat attributions of Sudanese Kaskara to Arabs ( with a "?" mark), Qajar Revival swords to Kurds and Algerian Flissas as "Chopping weapon. Ethnicity unknown" are even worse: they could have at least consulted the 1934 book by G.C. Stone. Bad book is worse than no book at all. In the best possible case it is a source of illustrations confusing, rather than educating, the reader. But let's stop here and go back to the Laz Bicagi.