Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kubur
Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...
|
Well noted Kubur, and the term Ottoman, for example, does denote certain stylistic characteristics and themes, and from that standpoint is useful, however for more specific classification purposes it is more so if properly qualified.
I recall quite some time ago for example in the case of the now properly classified laz bichagi, earlier in the century these were termed Kurdish-Armenian yataghans. Obviously these were not 'yataghans' by definition (and that is another troublesome term) but the term later adopted, 'Black Sea yataghan' was equally ineffective.
Though situated geographically in Ottoman territory, clearly these did not fall under the Ottoman style or conventions as they were obviously of ethnic groups outside that classification. The term 'Black Sea' was far too broad to effectively denote region or the ethnic character of the weapons.
Robert, please pardon the digression into classification terminology and the complexities of proper terms describing weapons. Your sword posted here is a great example for us to discuss this very topic, and I hope we can all learn more as we probe into various circumstances. This may also offer a better perspective on what your sword may best be classified.