Another early shibriya

ariel · 30th January 2017, 03:10 AM

Moran,
This is emphatically not MY theory. This was taken from Denis' article. The ownership is his, and his alone.

I agree with your objections, the connection is highly implausible. But I would still give Denis the benefit of the doubt. He researches his subjects carefully and is definitely not a blowhard.

Hopefully, at some stage of the game he may want to revisit his idea ( not even "a theory" that requires at least a modicum of factual information) and give us a more definitive answer.

motan · 30th January 2017, 09:34 AM

Hi Ariel, you are right of course. It was late and I did use my words a bit loosely. Denis' idea is a hypothesis and not a theory and I only meant that it was yours because you brought it up, eventhough you did not give an indication that you actually support it. But I am not a moran

. There are hardley any bedouin daggers that were made before 1900 and survived. They are not very sturdy and were discarded when out of use. Many shibriyas found in local souks are in very poor shape. This, together with the lack of written sources, make it highly unlikely to find any evidense supporting Denis' idea. In my view, shibriyas are a local type with very humble beginnings (see picture) made in small towns bordering the Syrian desert/Negev/Sinai to the needs and imagination of local users, but this idea is only based on observation and deduction from scant evidence.

motan · 30th January 2017, 09:48 AM

Hi Miguel, I hope you are not too dissapointed by my comment. You have a nice group of shybriyas representing both the hay day of shibriyas making with two older and rarer types. You were also right about most of them. They are all in very good shape, which is not that common. In short, a good representative group.
Eytan

Miguel · 30th January 2017, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motan

Hi Miguel, I hope you are not too dissapointed by my comment. You have a nice group of shybriyas representing both the hay day of shibriyas making with two older and rarer types. You were also right about most of them. They are all in very good shape, which is not that common. In short, a good representative group.
Eytan

Hello Eytan,
Far from it, indeed, I am more than pleased with your input for which I am very grateful and think you underestimate your knowledge of this type of dagger. I wondered if the date was 1955 but I didn't know that the dates may be a mixture of Gregorian and Arabic so was confused. thank you again for your input.
Regards
Miguel

30th January 2017, 09:34 AM	#2
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	To Ariel Hi Ariel, you are right of course. It was late and I did use my words a bit loosely. Denis' idea is a hypothesis and not a theory and I only meant that it was yours because you brought it up, eventhough you did not give an indication that you actually support it. But I am not a moran . There are hardley any bedouin daggers that were made before 1900 and survived. They are not very sturdy and were discarded when out of use. Many shibriyas found in local souks are in very poor shape. This, together with the lack of written sources, make it highly unlikely to find any evidense supporting Denis' idea. In my view, shibriyas are a local type with very humble beginnings (see picture) made in small towns bordering the Syrian desert/Negev/Sinai to the needs and imagination of local users, but this idea is only based on observation and deduction from scant evidence. Attached Images

30th January 2017, 09:48 AM	#3
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	To Miguel Hi Miguel, I hope you are not too dissapointed by my comment. You have a nice group of shybriyas representing both the hay day of shibriyas making with two older and rarer types. You were also right about most of them. They are all in very good shape, which is not that common. In short, a good representative group. Eytan

30th January 2017, 03:10 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Moran, This is emphatically not MY theory. This was taken from Denis' article. The ownership is his, and his alone. I agree with your objections, the connection is highly implausible. But I would still give Denis the benefit of the doubt. He researches his subjects carefully and is definitely not a blowhard. Hopefully, at some stage of the game he may want to revisit his idea ( not even "a theory" that requires at least a modicum of factual information) and give us a more definitive answer.