Crimean Tatars knives in the 18th century

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

What an amazing knife Ariel!
So Persian
What about the blade is it a katar??
Do you know other examples like this or it is an anomaly?

The most amazing thing is that several years ago (to be precise in 2010) this knife was actively discussed at the Russian forum (the very one where Ariel took the illustrations from), because this knife was bought by a friend of mine from Russia. And there Ariel claimed that this knife had nothing to do with Crimea ... Ariel wrote that it was an Afghan or Indian knife, and he was mistakenly called the "Crimean" ...

[ariel]

Please pay attention: I called this knife “ allegedly Crimean” and noted the only feature that hinted at that attribution. I also faithfully cited the owner’s reason why he suspected its Crimean origin. Accusing me of “ not being entirely accurate in presenting the facts” is incorrect and amounts to slander. And I do not like it.
Re. My early thoughts of attributing this knife to Afghanistan, I might have gotten smarter and learned new things since 2010:-)
Hope you did too.

As to the presentation about Crimean weapons, in my opinion it was first rate. It was a presentation by a professional historian, not a weapon specialist. He analyzed relevant documents pertaining to local weapon industry before and after Russian occupation. I distinctly heard citations of Potemkin’s orders to confiscate Crimean weapons. It was not translated from some other language; it was in Russian. What I heard from this presentation was informative, novel and useful, at least to me. The presenter answered questions very well, to the point, with citing relevant sources. He did not lose his cool even when some rude jerk started openly accusing him of repeating his previous talk and mis-interpretation of inscriptions. I do not know who that person was, but he obviously wanted to demonstrate his vast erudition, resorting even to crude language. This told the participants more about his own narcissistic personality rather than about clarification of factual points and the academic level of the presenter.

As to Dr. Samgin’s presentation, I do not know what questions were asked and whether they were answerable at all. Perhaps, the same rude jerk asked the questions. However, a Yataghan- like dagger bought by Nickolas I in Bakhchisarai in 1837 does give us some ideas about Crimean weapons in 1783, when the Russians occupied Crimea for the first time.

Maligning people behind their backs is not a good habit. You may think about it.

[TVV]

I am still not sure exactly how Crimean knives looked like, assuming they had distinct characteristics. However, I am very familiar with Bulgarian shepherd's knives and can guarantee that the example at the bottom of post 17 (larger and smaller knife in the same wooden scabbard) is very much a late 19th century Bulgarian shepherd's knife.

[ariel]

Only those two were bought by the Tsar himself from a Bakhchisarai knifemaker in 1837:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Only those two were bought by the Tsar himself from a Bakhchisarai knifemaker in 1837:-)

Ohhhh! Perfectly. Do you have any confirmation from the Kremlin’s Armory that these are exactly these knives? When I was in the vaults of the Armory and the curator of the collection showed me oriental sabers and daggers, for some reason he didn’t show these two knives ... But I can call him today, take an interest in these knives by sending him a photo using WhatsApp . Are you sure that the photo shows the knives from the Armory? Or are there still knives in the photo, presumably such as those in the Kremlin Armory?

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ariel

Only those two were bought by the Tsar himself from a Bakhchisarai knifemaker in 1837:-)

I read the description, but the picture is of a so-called double knife consisting of the two most popular types of shepherd's knives in Bulgaria in the 19th century - the smaller is a so-called Buynovo knife, after the village of Buynovo where the typical hilt form with a pommel cap originated, while the larger one is known as a "yalamiya" or "karakulak". There are thousands of these in Bulgaria and I have seen hundreds of them, to the point where I have absolutely no doubt as to what they are. I am not sure of how the Bakhchisarai attribution happened, but it is just plain wrong.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by TVV

I am not sure of how the Bakhchisarai attribution happened, but it is just plain wrong.

I think you are absolutely right. But let's wait for Ariel's answer. Perhaps he contacted with Armory Kremlin on this issue.

In principle, since I am well acquainted with the curator of edged weapons of the Armory Kremlin, I can ask him about these knives.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Please pay attention: I called this knife “ allegedly Crimean” and noted the only feature that hinted at that attribution. I also faithfully cited the owner’s reason why he suspected its Crimean origin. Accusing me of “ not being entirely accurate in presenting the facts” is incorrect and amounts to slander. And I do not like it.
Re. My early thoughts of attributing this knife to Afghanistan, I might have gotten smarter and learned new things since 2010:-)
Hope you did too.

As to the presentation about Crimean weapons, in my opinion it was first rate. It was a presentation by a professional historian, not a weapon specialist. He analyzed relevant documents pertaining to local weapon industry before and after Russian occupation. I distinctly heard citations of Potemkin’s orders to confiscate Crimean weapons. It was not translated from some other language; it was in Russian. What I heard from this presentation was informative, novel and useful, at least to me. The presenter answered questions very well, to the point, with citing relevant sources. He did not lose his cool even when some rude jerk started openly accusing him of repeating his previous talk and mis-interpretation of inscriptions. I do not know who that person was, but he obviously wanted to demonstrate his vast erudition, resorting even to crude language. This told the participants more about his own narcissistic personality rather than about clarification of factual points and the academic level of the presenter.

As to Dr. Samgin’s presentation, I do not know what questions were asked and whether they were answerable at all. Perhaps, the same rude jerk asked the questions. However, a Yataghan- like dagger bought by Nickolas I in Bakhchisarai in 1837 does give us some ideas about Crimean weapons in 1783, when the Russians occupied Crimea for the first time.

Maligning people behind their backs is not a good habit. You may think about it.

I am so sorry. I was inattentive. Yes, you said "allegedly" I apologize again. My mistake is related to the fact that 9 years ago you claimed that this knife has nothing to do with Crimea .... By the way, I don’t understand your phrase “I might have gotten smarter” if you use the term "allegedly" when talk about this knife. Does the term “allegedly” not mean that you doubt the Crimean origin of this knife? .... Or are these some nuances of the English language that I simply don’t understand, since I don’t speak English as fluently as you? Once again, I apologize for my mistake.

At the expense of the presentation - she was very pretentious. The author used some documents, but "forgot" about the existence of other documents that were not very convenient for him. In addition, although the author of the report is a historian, unfortunately, he did not analyze various documents... And this is at least strange for the historian.
I am sincerely glad that you heard something new for yourself that you have not heard before. But unfortunately during the answers to the questions, the author of the report did not refer to the original sources, but to poor translations and as a result made unforgivable mistakes.
Speaker, answering the questions that Russian arms and armor experts asked him, tried not to be nervous, but made gross mistakes that were unforgivable for the historian.
To my great regret, indeed, the speaker really practically word for word repeated his report, which the week before he had told at a conference in Tula. I don’t know if this is allowed in the USA, but in Russia it’s considered bad form (bad manners) to give the same report at different conferences ... One of the forum participants from Russia, the Mercenary, was present at this presentation and I think that he will confirm my words. As will confirm that the speaker “ran away” from the conference, without waiting for the end of the conference, when Russian arms and armor experts wanted to discuss his report in more detail ...

Questions to your colleague Samgin were asked by various experts on the history of weapons from Russia (for example, from the Kremlin Armory). All questions were exclusively on the report (more precisely, on its weak argumentation). Unfortunately, your colleague could not answer not one of these questions.

I don’t like your hints that I “Maligning people behind their backs”, because you know very well that I told your colleague Sergey Samgin everything that I wrote here in person and spoke this more than once.

P.S. You can show the pictures here this "a Yataghan- like dagger bought by Nickolas I in Bakhchisarai in 1837" ? I think everyone will be interested.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by ariel

As to the presentation about Crimean weapons, in my opinion it was first rate. It was a presentation by a professional historian, not a weapon specialist. He analyzed relevant documents pertaining to local weapon industry before and after Russian occupation. I distinctly heard citations of Potemkin’s orders to confiscate Crimean weapons. It was not translated from some other language; it was in Russian. What I heard from this presentation was informative, novel and useful, at least to me. The presenter answered questions very well, to the point, with citing relevant sources. He did not lose his cool even when some rude jerk started openly accusing him of repeating his previous talk and mis-interpretation of inscriptions. I do not know who that person was, but he obviously wanted to demonstrate his vast erudition, resorting even to crude language. This told the participants more about his own narcissistic personality rather than about clarification of factual points and the academic level of the presenter.

I spent 45 minutes to listen to the report and the questions that followed. And now I feel the obligation to state my point of view.
Firstly, this report is only a way to draw attention to the author’s ambitious project - an exhibition of Crimean arms and armour is planned at he State Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow in late 2020 and early 2021. The author made an attempt to single out those objects from the collection of Russian museums that he would like to see at this exhibition. The methodology for the selection of objects was based on the presence of inscriptions testifying to the Crimean origin of the owners of arms and armour. This method received sharp criticism of the specialists present at the conference.
Secondly, with all my desire, I could not hear where the documents cited by the author of the report talk about the operation carried out by the military and police forces of the Russian Empire on gratuitous and irretrievable confiscation of weapons from the Crimean Tatars. It says about taking weapons for safekeeping by local Tatar administrations during the war with the Ottoman Empire and a possible landing of Turkish troops in Crimea. I do not exclude that subsequently these weapons were not returned to their owners and even destroyed, but there is not a single word about the documents cited by the author of the report.

[ariel]

The presenter specifically stressed that the choice of objects was based on their presence and usage by the military of the Crimean Khanate, NOT on the purported place of their manufacture, Crimea or otherwise.

This was a time-limited oral presentation, not a full manuscript.
It set a well-defined scope of presentation and covered it very well.

When his m/s is submitted for publication, the reviewers will be within their rights and obligations to ask for clarifying points.Provided, of course that they do not resort to ad hominem attacks and crudities expressed by one commentator

[mahratt]

Dear Ariel, perhaps you did not notice my question, which I voiced above? Please tell me, in the United States it is considered normal to make the same scientific report at 2 scientific conferences (that is, the same article will then be published in the same language in two different scientific publications)? Just in Russia, this is considered completely unacceptable ...

And one more question. Please tell me what you consider the “Weapon of the Crimean Khanate”? (this is what the report was called). Is this any weapon that fell into the Crimean Khanate? Can Polish, Russian, and Turkish weapons be called if the Crimean Khanate used such weapons — Crimean weapons?
The presenter was asked a question which, by the way, he couldn’t answer: “If in Russia a Russian will drive a German BMW car, on which he, as the owner of this car, will make inscriptions in Russian, will this BMW car - “Russian car?” I wonder how you answer this question.
Can a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle and an American M-16 rifle be called "Somali weapons" if these weapons are used by Somali pirates?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Ariel, perhaps you did not notice my question, which I voiced above? Please tell me, in the United States it is considered normal to make the same scientific report at 2 scientific conferences (that is, the same article will then be published in the same language in two different scientific publications)? Just in Russia, this is considered completely unacceptable ...

And one more question. Please tell me what you consider the “Weapon of the Crimean Khanate”? (this is what the report was called). Is this any weapon that fell into the Crimean Khanate? Can Polish, Russian, and Turkish weapons be called if the Crimean Khanate used such weapons — Crimean weapons?
The presenter was asked a question which, by the way, he couldn’t answer: “If in Russia a Russian will drive a German BMW car, on which he, as the owner of this car, will make inscriptions in Russian, will this BMW car - “Russian car?” I wonder how you answer this question.
Can a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle and an American M-16 rifle be called "Somali weapons" if these weapons are used by Somali pirates?

Long list of questions... I’ll start from the bottom.

We have multiple examples of weapons utilizing foreign-made parts or made entirely in one country and used in another. They sill can be called by the name of the user country, and the name of the manufacturer is added if known.

Indian Firangi is still Indian despite European blades. Caucasian shashkas are still Caucasian despite having Polish, Hungarian and German blades. Russian officers were proud of their German blades.
Cossack Hosts ordered their entire shashkas from Poland and Belgium and they are still Cossack by usage.

AK-47 made in China is not Russian : it is Chinese. There are also Polish, Bulgarian, Philippine etc copies of AK-47 manufactured by license. And salesmen call them as such.

And, as a matter of fact, AK-47 is not Russian either: does the name of Hugo Schmeisser tell you something?

The presenter specifically said that he was not discussing the place of manufacture; he was explicitly referring to the place of usage based on the name of the owner: one of the Crimean Giray khans.

Thus, your criticisms and indignation were out of place.

As to the issue of double publication. Neither in the US nor in Europe are there any restrictions on presenting the same material ( poster or oral) at several meetings. However, there are very severe punishments for publishing the same material as full papers in different journals

For example, you yourself published an article in the Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” arguing for the legitimacy of a name “ karud” for straight-bladed pesh-kabz and virtually simultaneously re- published the English translation of the same paper in the Italian journal “Armi Antici”
As a Chief Editor of one medical journal, and Assoc. Editor of another I can assure you that would ban you forever from both journals and from a multitude of others as well. But ... different countries, different customs.

BTW, where is my copy of the English translation of your book? I did buy it from the publisher, after all.
You can send it to my e-mail address. Thanks.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Indian Firangi is still Indian despite European blades. Caucasian shashkas are still Caucasian despite having Polish, Hungarian and German blades. Russian officers were proud of their German blades.
Cossack Hosts ordered their entire shashkas from Poland and Belgium and they are still Cossack by usage.

Well, let's start in order.
Firangi in which only the European blade is used, and the hilt and scabbard will be Indian, will undoubtedly Indian weapons. But the English saber in the hands of the Indian warrior will remain an English saber.

Originally Posted by ariel

AK-47 made in China is not Russian : it is Chinese. There are also Polish, Bulgarian, Philippine etc copies of AK-47 manufactured by license. And salesmen call them as such.

And, as a matter of fact, AK-47 is not Russian either: does the name of Hugo Schmeisser tell you something?

The AK-47 brand is Russian and this is a fact (it didn’t matter if Kalashnikov used someone’s ideas or not). And if we are talking about the AK-47 made in Russia, then in the hands of the Chinese and in the hands of the African - this will be the Russian AK-47, not Chinese or non-African

Originally Posted by ariel

The presenter specifically said that he was not discussing the place of manufacture; he was explicitly referring to the place of usage based on the name of the owner: one of the Crimean Giray khans.

Thus, your criticisms and indignation were out of place.

The problem is that the author of the report does not understand that the weapons were made in Turkey, Poland or Russia and the khans of the Crimean Khanate were only users of these weapons. It was this problem that the Russian weapons experts tried to explain to the author of the report. But, unfortunately, the author of the report did not understand ...

Originally Posted by ariel

As to the issue of double publication and explicit ban on such practice in Russia: that is new to me.

Yes, in Russia it is not customary to report and publish the same study at two conferences. Is it allowed in the USA?

Originally Posted by ariel

You yourself published an article in the Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” arguing for the legitimacy of a name “ karud” for straight-bladed pesh-kabz and virtually simultaneously re- published the English translation of it in the Italian journal “Armi Antici”
I have assumed that it was a usual practice in Russia, although as a Chief Editor of one medical journal, and Assoc. Editor of another I can assure you that would b an you forever from both journals and from a multitude of others as well. But ... different countries, different customs.

t's nice that you are so closely following my research. Once you asked, I’ll explain. A Russian magazine asked for my article (Russian version) after I submitted my article to an Italian magazine “Armi Antici”. This can be confirmed by the Mercenary, who is one of the editors of the Russian magazine “ Studies of historical weapons”. So the Russian “ Studies of historical weapons” magazine was aware that my article had already been sent to the Italian magazine. By the way, if the author of the report “Weapons of the Crimean Khanate” sent a translation of his article in English to a foreign magazine, this would not raise any questions, since in that case he would simply attract an international audience to his article.

I hope that now I was able to explain to you a situation that is probably bothering you for a long time?