OTTOMAN....What do we mean?

Kubur · 22nd November 2015, 09:31 PM

I agree with Ariel.
Ottoman is a very practical term to stay vague and to me much more cautious, than to pretend to know exactly where an object comes from.
If i'm sure of an origin for example, I will say Balkans or whatever, if I'm not sure, I will say Ottoman...
For Indo-Persian, I totally agree, it's too big and I don't like this vocabulary.
I guess for a lot of people, Indo-Persian means just a location: between modern days Pakistan and Afghanistan...
A lot of Persian influences in India probably pushed a lot of collectors to talk of Indo-Persians weapons. To me the opposite is not true, except few cases I haven't seen a lot of Indian weapons in Persia... I hope someone will understand what i'm trying to say...

kahnjar1 · 22nd November 2015, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

I agree with Ariel.
Ottoman is a very practical term to stay vague and to me much more cautious, than to pretend to know exactly where an object comes from.
If i'm sure of an origin for example, I will say Balkans or whatever, if I'm not sure, I will say Ottoman...
For Indo-Persian, I totally agree, it's too big and I don't like this vocabulary.
I guess for a lot of people, Indo-Persian means just a location: between modern days Pakistan and Afghanistan...
A lot of Persian influences in India probably pushed a lot of collectors to talk of Indo-Persians weapons. To me the opposite is not true, except few cases I haven't seen a lot of Indian weapons in Persia... I hope someone will understand what i'm trying to say...

As we know the Ottoman Empire was rather large and existed for a relatively short time in history, and the term therefore as you say is very vague. There are other ways of answering the question as to origin, that would perhaps be more helpful.....something like, as an example, "Ottoman, possibly/probably Turkish or Balkan" I realise these days that it is not very PC if one is found to be wrong in what they say, but isn't that the purpose of this Forum....to DISCUSS and if possible reach an agreement?? Being wrong is not a crime!
Stu

Kubur · 22nd November 2015, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

As we know the Ottoman Empire was rather large and existed for a relatively short time in history
Stu

Short time compared to what? The dinosaurs?
1299 - 1923 AD. It's not short to me.
But I agree with you, we learn from our mistakes.

kahnjar1 · 22nd November 2015, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Short time compared to what? The dinosaurs?
1299 - 1923 AD. It's not short to me.
But I agree with you, we learn from our mistakes.

I think this proves my point. So an item described as "Ottoman" could be anything from 100 to 700 years old and come from almost anywhere. Also anything identified here as Ottoman would have to be made before 1923.

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2015, 12:30 AM

I recall a query where a guy asked what 'Byzantine swords' were like.
Imagine trying to respond to that one.

I was once told that 'weapons have no geographic boundaries'. Naturally that pretty much applies to many things, but obviously such objects transcend such restrictions.

Often in the study of Indian arms, items are classified as 'Deccani'. This term of course describes topographically the plateau of Central India and includes various geographic boundaries. However, the term may denote more of a cultural or tribal character of a weapon. But then, the complex dynamics of these aspects are altered by the futility of establishing a reasonable period with traditional forms in use for centuries. Then throw in commemorative and revival forms.

Collectors use many 'buzz' words in their desperation to have catchy classifications and denominators in their descriptions of weapons, and most seem to shy away from any sort of extra wording in qualification, so we end up with these 'broadly' described items.

As noted, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', or correct manner of classification, just reasonable effort to be accurate and avoid deception. Also, and again as noted, the influences of various Ottoman features and decoration, if not entire forms, were prevalent in many cultures and regions. It seems that if such provenance or origin can be specified, it should be used over the Ottoman term.

kahnjar1 · 23rd November 2015, 01:05 AM

Thanks Jim for coming in on this. Your last paragraph I think sums it up nicely.
Stu

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2015, 01:29 AM

You bet Stu! Couldn't resist adding to this interesting discussion!

22nd November 2015, 09:31 PM	#1
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	I agree with Ariel. Ottoman is a very practical term to stay vague and to me much more cautious, than to pretend to know exactly where an object comes from. If i'm sure of an origin for example, I will say Balkans or whatever, if I'm not sure, I will say Ottoman... For Indo-Persian, I totally agree, it's too big and I don't like this vocabulary. I guess for a lot of people, Indo-Persian means just a location: between modern days Pakistan and Afghanistan... A lot of Persian influences in India probably pushed a lot of collectors to talk of Indo-Persians weapons. To me the opposite is not true, except few cases I haven't seen a lot of Indian weapons in Persia... I hope someone will understand what i'm trying to say...

23rd November 2015, 12:30 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,454	I recall a query where a guy asked what 'Byzantine swords' were like. Imagine trying to respond to that one. I was once told that 'weapons have no geographic boundaries'. Naturally that pretty much applies to many things, but obviously such objects transcend such restrictions. Often in the study of Indian arms, items are classified as 'Deccani'. This term of course describes topographically the plateau of Central India and includes various geographic boundaries. However, the term may denote more of a cultural or tribal character of a weapon. But then, the complex dynamics of these aspects are altered by the futility of establishing a reasonable period with traditional forms in use for centuries. Then throw in commemorative and revival forms. Collectors use many 'buzz' words in their desperation to have catchy classifications and denominators in their descriptions of weapons, and most seem to shy away from any sort of extra wording in qualification, so we end up with these 'broadly' described items. As noted, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', or correct manner of classification, just reasonable effort to be accurate and avoid deception. Also, and again as noted, the influences of various Ottoman features and decoration, if not entire forms, were prevalent in many cultures and regions. It seems that if such provenance or origin can be specified, it should be used over the Ottoman term.

23rd November 2015, 01:05 AM	#6
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,797	Thanks Jim for coming in on this. Your last paragraph I think sums it up nicely. Stu

23rd November 2015, 01:29 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,454	You bet Stu! Couldn't resist adding to this interesting discussion!