Nomadic swords

ariel · 22nd October 2018, 12:38 PM

Philip,
Thanks for the answer. I am not, and have never been, knowledgeable enough about East Asian weapons ( China, Japan, Korea etc) and am glad for the opportunity to be educated by the “gurus”.

As to your reluctance to rely on images:
History of anything is an in exact science, if it is a science at all. It lacks the cardinal defining scientific instrument: ability to conduct an experiment. Historians have to operate with remaining materials and with testimonials by long-dead witnesses of uncertain veracity. And the further back we wish to dig, the less actual materiel we have at our disposal. Necessarily, we have to engage our personal opinions formed on the basis of very meager data sets. Most of what Khudyakov and other wrote about early nomadic swords is based on a limited number of rock carvings. Artistic imprecision was always a problem , even with Rembrandt and the Orientalists, but we have to take artistic images at their face value if they are reproducible across and along the sources. Of course, actual objects are better, but even they have uncertain provenance and datability. In his chapter on nomadic swords Kirill has acknowledged it time and time again.
I trust Iranian images ( ##626 f and o) because in the same book there are other similar images. As to the sword of St. Nikita, it conforms in all details ( blade, handle, pommel) to actual examples and the entire image is highly realistic. Again, the “ inverted tunkou” is seen on thousands objects from that and later eras. I would view this images as fully confirmatory of the real state of affairs.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

22nd October 2018, 12:38 PM	#16
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Philip, Thanks for the answer. I am not, and have never been, knowledgeable enough about East Asian weapons ( China, Japan, Korea etc) and am glad for the opportunity to be educated by the “gurus”. As to your reluctance to rely on images: History of anything is an in exact science, if it is a science at all. It lacks the cardinal defining scientific instrument: ability to conduct an experiment. Historians have to operate with remaining materials and with testimonials by long-dead witnesses of uncertain veracity. And the further back we wish to dig, the less actual materiel we have at our disposal. Necessarily, we have to engage our personal opinions formed on the basis of very meager data sets. Most of what Khudyakov and other wrote about early nomadic swords is based on a limited number of rock carvings. Artistic imprecision was always a problem , even with Rembrandt and the Orientalists, but we have to take artistic images at their face value if they are reproducible across and along the sources. Of course, actual objects are better, but even they have uncertain provenance and datability. In his chapter on nomadic swords Kirill has acknowledged it time and time again. I trust Iranian images ( ##626 f and o) because in the same book there are other similar images. As to the sword of St. Nikita, it conforms in all details ( blade, handle, pommel) to actual examples and the entire image is highly realistic. Again, the “ inverted tunkou” is seen on thousands objects from that and later eras. I would view this images as fully confirmatory of the real state of affairs.