OTTOMAN....What do we mean?

kahnjar1 · 23rd November 2015, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

The terms "Ottoman" and "Indo-Persian" are great examples of internet search terms. Without such broad terms it would take a lot longer for people to find what they are looking for. Tagging your posts and or images etc with these and or similar terms is the best way in todays internet driven world for dealers, collectors, Museums etc to have their images, research, etc found.

I have contributed thousands of images to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Pinterest, Photobucket, Flicker and various forums and I have found that an image/post/research etc can be publically available for years without ever being seen, and yet a newly available image/post etc can be found all over the internet, the difference being the words used, the same goes for forum discussions. Using the right search term will get your posts/images noticed.

I agree that in the case of the Internet, the terms as mentioned are the accepted "norm" for easy search, but that was not the purpose of my thread.
My concern, if that is what you want to call it, was the response to a Member asking for origin of a particular item, and hoping to find out where his piece originated.
Stu

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2015, 07:11 PM

I am very much 'old school' in most things about arms research, as most of my researching was done in the early 70s-80s BC (=before computers), and in those days we relied on the now venerable references, and of course 'snail mail' queries. For obscure references my faithful research librarian would find them via interlibrary loans etc. and hours at local office stores to copy important references.

These days, I still use the old methods, but very much use online resources as well. These, just like the older printed references, serve as 'benchmarks' and offer key routes and venues to pursue study further . Just as with any reference, the material can be misrepresented or more often outdated as new evidence comes available. It was a wise person who said "..the thing I like most about history is that its always changing!".

Unfortunately, these broad classifications, while maybe serving well to many in online searches, do not fare well for the serious study and identification and proper description of arms being discussed, published or displayed.
While the well known online auction venue is great for collectors in seeking items, it is laughable in the descriptions often........a single sword might be described with virtually dozens of sword types having nothing to do with the example itself.

As discussed here on occasion, massive groupings of impressive photos are tantalizing, but offer no specific detail as what is key or unique about them, or how to address them individually for specific discussion.
A huge slide show of katars is impressive, but offers nothing as to what is different or where the examples are from, what period, region etc.

Many years ago when my grandmother passed away, we were going through some boxes of now fading snapshots and photos, all unlabeled and with no notes. Nobody could figure out who the people were, where the locations were and most baffling was an old color snapshot of a strategically placed bell pepper. Naturally the speculation went rampant.......but who knew what in the world was so important about a single bell pepper?????

The point is....I think things should be identified, footnoted, cited, and properly described in every reasonable way possible. Otherwise it just becomes an object with little meaning beyond the obvious.

Emanuel · 23rd November 2015, 10:49 PM

A bit tricky since Ottoman refers to a culture, a political entity, and the time that that entity was in power.

I agree with Ariel and others here that since it is very difficult to closely identify some objects or parts of objects to specific items and places, the more vague but correct identification as "Ottoman" is acceptable.

With many weapons, the blades were produced in one part of the Ottoman sphere at some time, and decorations/fittings were added in other parts at other times. Some daggers, guns, sabres and yataghan can be called Balkan sometimes, but they may have parts produced in what is now modern Turney. Parts of modern Turkey itself are now in "the Balkans".

Even when some objects were entirely produced in parts of Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary or Albania, they were fully derived from the influence of the dominant Ottoman culture.

Unless we can provide backup with a high degree of confidence to say that an object was produced in Foça, or Sarajevo, or maybe Ioannina, all we can say is that it is Ottoman, from this or that century. That just means it was produced in the Ottoman cultural and/or political sphere of influence.

I think we can qualify these objects as a Greek yataghan, or Bulgarian kilij, without calling them Ottoman, because the terms "yataghan" and "kilij" already carry the association with the Ottoman culture.

Emanuel

Kubur · 24th November 2015, 10:02 AM

Very well written and I fully agree with Manu!

kahnjar1 · 24th November 2015, 06:49 PM

I also agree with Manu, but the key to what I was trying to clarify lies in his last paragraph.
We can not IMHO simply classify EVERYTHING which comes from the area of the old Ottoman Empire as Ottoman, if the question is being asked as to ORIGIN......in other words "Where is this FROM"
Stu

ariel · 25th November 2015, 01:50 AM

In many cases, the only answer would be" Somewhere in the Ottoman Empire, but where exactly, - I have no bloody idea. Sorry.....":-)

But do not despair: only 15 or so years ago we had vicious and unproductive battles on the origin of ( what became clear later) Laz Bichaq:-)
And only 5 years ago or so, we had no idea that the unusually long and simple yataghans with a T-handle were Zeibek.

In another 50 or so years we shall confidently distinguish yataghans from Ioannina from those of Plovdiv manufacture. Then we shall start working on kilijes:-)))

rickystl · 26th November 2015, 04:32 PM

Hi Stu.
Well. Now look what you've done. You've opened up a can of worms. And Indo-Persian would probably be a two cans of worms. LOL!!

Seriously, good question. And thanks to all that posted. The responses above to your original question are all much better than I can produce. Great Thread and interesting reading.
Rick.

23rd November 2015, 07:11 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,454	I am very much 'old school' in most things about arms research, as most of my researching was done in the early 70s-80s BC (=before computers), and in those days we relied on the now venerable references, and of course 'snail mail' queries. For obscure references my faithful research librarian would find them via interlibrary loans etc. and hours at local office stores to copy important references. These days, I still use the old methods, but very much use online resources as well. These, just like the older printed references, serve as 'benchmarks' and offer key routes and venues to pursue study further . Just as with any reference, the material can be misrepresented or more often outdated as new evidence comes available. It was a wise person who said "..the thing I like most about history is that its always changing!". Unfortunately, these broad classifications, while maybe serving well to many in online searches, do not fare well for the serious study and identification and proper description of arms being discussed, published or displayed. While the well known online auction venue is great for collectors in seeking items, it is laughable in the descriptions often........a single sword might be described with virtually dozens of sword types having nothing to do with the example itself. As discussed here on occasion, massive groupings of impressive photos are tantalizing, but offer no specific detail as what is key or unique about them, or how to address them individually for specific discussion. A huge slide show of katars is impressive, but offers nothing as to what is different or where the examples are from, what period, region etc. Many years ago when my grandmother passed away, we were going through some boxes of now fading snapshots and photos, all unlabeled and with no notes. Nobody could figure out who the people were, where the locations were and most baffling was an old color snapshot of a strategically placed bell pepper. Naturally the speculation went rampant.......but who knew what in the world was so important about a single bell pepper????? The point is....I think things should be identified, footnoted, cited, and properly described in every reasonable way possible. Otherwise it just becomes an object with little meaning beyond the obvious.

23rd November 2015, 10:49 PM	#3
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	A bit tricky since Ottoman refers to a culture, a political entity, and the time that that entity was in power. I agree with Ariel and others here that since it is very difficult to closely identify some objects or parts of objects to specific items and places, the more vague but correct identification as "Ottoman" is acceptable. With many weapons, the blades were produced in one part of the Ottoman sphere at some time, and decorations/fittings were added in other parts at other times. Some daggers, guns, sabres and yataghan can be called Balkan sometimes, but they may have parts produced in what is now modern Turney. Parts of modern Turkey itself are now in "the Balkans". Even when some objects were entirely produced in parts of Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary or Albania, they were fully derived from the influence of the dominant Ottoman culture. Unless we can provide backup with a high degree of confidence to say that an object was produced in Foça, or Sarajevo, or maybe Ioannina, all we can say is that it is Ottoman, from this or that century. That just means it was produced in the Ottoman cultural and/or political sphere of influence. I think we can qualify these objects as a Greek yataghan, or Bulgarian kilij, without calling them Ottoman, because the terms "yataghan" and "kilij" already carry the association with the Ottoman culture. Emanuel

24th November 2015, 10:02 AM	#4
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Very well written and I fully agree with Manu!

24th November 2015, 06:49 PM	#5
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,797	I also agree with Manu, but the key to what I was trying to clarify lies in his last paragraph. We can not IMHO simply classify EVERYTHING which comes from the area of the old Ottoman Empire as Ottoman, if the question is being asked as to ORIGIN......in other words "Where is this FROM" Stu

25th November 2015, 01:50 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	In many cases, the only answer would be" Somewhere in the Ottoman Empire, but where exactly, - I have no bloody idea. Sorry.....":-) But do not despair: only 15 or so years ago we had vicious and unproductive battles on the origin of ( what became clear later) Laz Bichaq:-) And only 5 years ago or so, we had no idea that the unusually long and simple yataghans with a T-handle were Zeibek. In another 50 or so years we shall confidently distinguish yataghans from Ioannina from those of Plovdiv manufacture. Then we shall start working on kilijes:-)))

26th November 2015, 04:32 PM	#7
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Hi Stu. Well. Now look what you've done. You've opened up a can of worms. And Indo-Persian would probably be a two cans of worms. LOL!! Seriously, good question. And thanks to all that posted. The responses above to your original question are all much better than I can produce. Great Thread and interesting reading. Rick.