What Would You Do ?

ariel · 4th March 2009, 11:44 PM

Once again, we are getting into murky waters of what is permissible in the restoration process.
Obviously, Robert's bolo is not of real cultural importance. The goal was to make it look better and " serviceable". I have no objection to that. The yataghan is also unlikely to ever be exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts.
What drives me bananas is when people find a really unique item, and "renovate" it into a shiny but culturally meaningless object. Some are even seriously describing it as a "reuse". Well, this is permissible only if one absolutely needs a part for actual use: a swordmaker from 15th century remounting a 13th century blade to use it as functional weapon. These days, we do not really need swords as weapons and destruction of archeological objects should be viewed as criminal offense. Stabilize, preserve, protect, but never renovate!
Look at the Topkapi collection of the swords of Muhammed and Califs. Bloody Ottoman sultans ordered the swords remounted, repolished, re-inscribed etc. By now it is impossible to make even a half-decent guess about their age, provenance, original construction etc. Did the Sultans really need them as weapons? No way, they had enough newly-made ones. Cultural barbarism with the best intentions!

David · 5th March 2009, 12:10 AM

Ariel, i think we are on to apples and oranges here. I see nothing murky in the waters of this thread and find the restoration work these guys have done admirable.

ariel · 5th March 2009, 02:42 AM

Oh, no! Both of these are perfectly legit in my book. Good job(s), guys!

I was just irritated because of a post on another forum: a very old and rare knife that should have been in the museum, fell in the hands of an enthusiastic "recycler". The rusty blade was removed and discarded, a new and shiny was put in and the owner proudly presented the final product as something he would now use as a hunting? kitchen? utility? implement. Ugh...
Sorry if my remark appeared aggressive; I had no intentions to offend anyone ( except, maybe, the Sultans).

LPCA · 5th March 2009, 04:53 AM

Yes you are right, Ariel, a distinction is to be made between the restorations of this thread which concern common weapons and those of the prestigious weapons. At our level, They are weapons that we have the pleasure to discover and that we restore without damage in the world heritage of the humanity.

As regards the swords of the prophet, Ali and the following ones, on 9 swords, there remains 3 which were all distorted by their state of origin. It is really pity in our current vision of things. This vision evolved a lot because these Arabic swords are for us really mythical.

I suppose that the sultans (not Arabic and freshly Moslem) made it an instrument of their power, each appropriating them by addition of writings and decorations to be more a caliph than the caliph.

Louis-Pierre

4th March 2009, 11:44 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Once again, we are getting into murky waters of what is permissible in the restoration process. Obviously, Robert's bolo is not of real cultural importance. The goal was to make it look better and " serviceable". I have no objection to that. The yataghan is also unlikely to ever be exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts. What drives me bananas is when people find a really unique item, and "renovate" it into a shiny but culturally meaningless object. Some are even seriously describing it as a "reuse". Well, this is permissible only if one absolutely needs a part for actual use: a swordmaker from 15th century remounting a 13th century blade to use it as functional weapon. These days, we do not really need swords as weapons and destruction of archeological objects should be viewed as criminal offense. Stabilize, preserve, protect, but never renovate! Look at the Topkapi collection of the swords of Muhammed and Califs. Bloody Ottoman sultans ordered the swords remounted, repolished, re-inscribed etc. By now it is impossible to make even a half-decent guess about their age, provenance, original construction etc. Did the Sultans really need them as weapons? No way, they had enough newly-made ones. Cultural barbarism with the best intentions!

5th March 2009, 12:10 AM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Ariel, i think we are on to apples and oranges here. I see nothing murky in the waters of this thread and find the restoration work these guys have done admirable.

5th March 2009, 02:42 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Oh, no! Both of these are perfectly legit in my book. Good job(s), guys! I was just irritated because of a post on another forum: a very old and rare knife that should have been in the museum, fell in the hands of an enthusiastic "recycler". The rusty blade was removed and discarded, a new and shiny was put in and the owner proudly presented the final product as something he would now use as a hunting? kitchen? utility? implement. Ugh... Sorry if my remark appeared aggressive; I had no intentions to offend anyone ( except, maybe, the Sultans).

5th March 2009, 04:53 AM	#4
LPCA Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Toulouse - FRANCE Posts: 83	Yes you are right, Ariel, a distinction is to be made between the restorations of this thread which concern common weapons and those of the prestigious weapons. At our level, They are weapons that we have the pleasure to discover and that we restore without damage in the world heritage of the humanity. As regards the swords of the prophet, Ali and the following ones, on 9 swords, there remains 3 which were all distorted by their state of origin. It is really pity in our current vision of things. This vision evolved a lot because these Arabic swords are for us really mythical. I suppose that the sultans (not Arabic and freshly Moslem) made it an instrument of their power, each appropriating them by addition of writings and decorations to be more a caliph than the caliph. Louis-Pierre