Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.

Well, I guess David Alexander and Stuart Pyhrr know a thing or two about wootz, shamshirs, kilijes and khanjars:-)))

Generally, a short-bladed weapon is generically called a "dagger" when it is clearly a fighting item and is primarily designed for stabbing. It does not matter whether it is single, - or double edged. Khanjars are double edged, pesh kabzes are single edged. Knives can be fighting or utility. I do not think this point is worth much discussion.

My guess , the authors wrote this book with an educated and advanced reader in mind, well past the "name game" stage.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, I guess David Alexander and Stuart Pyhrr know a thing or two about wootz, shamshirs, kilijes and khanjars:-)))

Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?

[mahratt]

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.

I would be very interested in your enumeration of imperfections of the texts ( plural). Always good to learn from a specialist. Thanks.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I would be very interested in your enumeration of imperfections of the texts ( plural). Always good to learn from a specialist. Thanks.

Experts at the forum, who know better than I, already named some imperfections. I noticed:

1) strange doubts in the regional localization of items - pp. 56, 66

2) the fact that some things are called simply: saber, sword. Although they have a name - pp. 178, 180, 184

3) the fact that the knife for some reason called "dagger" - p. 194

I hope I have helped you to understand that you did not know?

While I only quickly scanned book. So, of course, I do not enumerate all the pages.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Experts at the forum, who know better than I, already named some imperfections. I noticed:

1) strange doubts in the regional localization of items - pp. 56, 66

2) the fact that some things are called simply: saber, sword. Although they have a name - pp. 178, 180, 184

3) the fact that the knife for some reason called "dagger" - p. 194

I hope I have helped you to understand that you did not know?

While I only quickly scanned book. So, of course, I do not enumerate all the pages.

Mahratt:
Drs. Alexander and Pyhrr are not amateurs. Please read CAREFULLY the text to the items on pages 56 and 66. Then, perhaps, you would understand the complexity of attribution and the depth of research that went into it.



The rest of your "comments" are just a repetition of previously-mentioned personal opinions of other people, and I have already said what I thought. See last sentence of post #14.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt:
Drs. Alexander and Pyhrr are not amateurs. Please read CAREFULLY the text to the items on pages 56 and 66. Then, perhaps, you would understand the complexity of attribution and the depth of research that went into it.

Be sure to read it carefully when I have time. As I wrote before, I quickly scan the book. I got a few books. And I can not study them all at once))))

Originally Posted by ariel

The rest of your "comments" are just a repetition of previously-mentioned personal opinions of other people ...

I am glad that my opinion coincides with that of the other participants.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Experts at the forum, who know better than I, already named some imperfections. I noticed:

1) strange doubts in the regional localization of items - pp. 56, 66

2) the fact that some things are called simply: saber, sword. Although they have a name - pp. 178, 180, 184

3) the fact that the knife for some reason called "dagger" - p. 194

I hope I have helped you to understand that you did not know?

While I only quickly scanned book. So, of course, I do not enumerate all the pages.

If you have time, can you post some scanned examples from the book for discussion, I am interested in knowing if this is a coffee table book or if there was actually some research behind the descriptions of the items.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

If you have time, can you post some scanned examples from the book for discussion, I am interested in knowing if this is a coffee table book or if there was actually some research behind the descriptions of the items.

Oh! You can buy this book. The book is written by one of the best specialist in the field. I join Ariel on all his comments. Alexander is a world specialist, the MET is one of the best museum in the world. This book has nothing to do with coffee table book or dealers catalogs with basic descriptions such as Wagner/Pinchot. I read to learn something not to see what I know already...
I'm just disapointed of their choices, I expected to see different objects. I guess this choice is linked to their own tastes and experience.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?

In a couple of places I had time to look at, - yes. I have no problem with it. Wootz is a Europeanized variant of the indian ukku ( or whatever the correct phonetization might have been). Technologically, it is crucible steel, which is undoubtedly correct.

I guess there is a valid reason to use a local name for a thing when we need either to specify a unique pattern or to pinpoint its origin: Turkish saber is kilij , not saif, and Uzbeki knife is P'chak, not Kard.

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))

According to Ann Feuerbach there were two main production areas, Indian and Central Asia, with wootz being used to describe the steel originating in India and bulat for steel originating in Central Asia....I suppose if you do not know the origin "damascus or watered" steel would suffice. While the term "crucible steel" is used instead of "wootz, bulat, damascus steel, watered steel' it probably should not be as it really describes the method and not the specific end product.

Ann Feuerbach

It must therefore be concluded that the materials and techniques associated with the crucible steel process in Central Asia (pulad) and those used in India and Sri Lanka (wootz) are significantly different.

[ariel]

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))

Ariel, I know you are aware of Anns work, I really wrote that for anyone who was reading this that might not be aware of the different terms.

Can anyone scan one image and its accompanying text so that we can discuss whether the item is in fact properly identified and described, now that would be helpful.

I do not have the book (I already have a huge stack of unread books!!) but I am well acquanted with the all of the Mets Indo-Persian arms and armour items and their current descriptions. It would be interesting to see if the authors added anything to the Mets descriptions or if they in fact just went with what was already written without changing anything (this would be quite weak).