Another Black Sea Yataghan out of Africa

ariel · 2nd July 2022, 04:08 AM

Jim,
Re. Your mention of a Laz Bichagi thought to be of Kurdish-Armenian origin, in the generally execrable album of weapons from the Russian Ethnographic Museum, #191 is an example of a sword with a typical Laz blade and yataghan-ish “eared” handle, bought in Tashkent ( Uzbekistan) in 1934 and allegedy called “Shoi”. The museum attributed it as “ Front Asia” ( that’s how Central Asia is often called in the Russian literature).

mahratt · 2nd July 2022, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
Re. Your mention of a Laz Bichagi thought to be of Kurdish-Armenian origin, in the generally execrable album of weapons from the Russian Ethnographic Museum, #191 is an example of a sword with a typical Laz blade and yataghan-ish “eared” handle, bought in Tashkent ( Uzbekistan) in 1934 and allegedy called “Shoi”. The museum attributed it as “ Front Asia” ( that’s how Central Asia is often called in the Russian literature).

Great example. Thank you for remembering. Another proof of how the lack of information limits researchers.

ariel · 3rd July 2022, 05:59 AM

The " Front Asian", allegedly Kazakh, example from Tashkent from the Russian Ethnographic Muzeum was not the only bizarre item from that album.

Items #162 and 163 both with Laz configuration of their blades and eared pommels beat the " Kazakh" one in their astonishing attribution.
One was brought to the muzeum in 1925, another was registered there in 1954. Both were attributed as " Iranians, Kurds", although #163 had yet another potential place of birth: Turkey.

Both blades look suspiciously like reworked Chassepot bayonets. The original Chassepot was slightly yataghan-ish, but both creations exaggerated their double curvatures to caricature-ish proportion. The blade of Chassepot was 57.2 cm, but as the results of extensive "plastic surgery" their lengths ( from base to tip) were shortened to 49 and 55 cm respectively.
Both were given museum labels defining them as " Khopesh". The local weapons gurus in Leningrad never asked themselves a question, how and why Egyptian Khopesh existing as bronze and, later, as iron variant between ~2500 BCE to ~1300 BCE and never appearing anywhere from there on, was reborn 3-4 millennia later out of the blue in Iran or Kurdistan of all places...

The rest of that book was predictably just as illiterate, and the authors expained away their nonsense by : a). not enough time; and b). bureaucratic problems of changing the existing muzeum labels.

Anyone objecting to my use of word "execrable" as an evaluation of that book, might better change his opinion :-((((

Few scientific books and even articles are immediately accepted as 100% correct ( Watson and Crick's paper on the double helix of DNA is a rare exception). But as a minimum, almost any really good academic book will still contain 5% of it as some arguable points. That is how science works.
But publishing a book in which what is new is not right and what is right is not new is simply an exercise in shameless graphomania.
The above book is a stark example of it.

mahratt · 3rd July 2022, 09:35 AM

The topic about Laz Bichak imperceptibly turn out the discussion of the Russian catalog "Edged weapons in the collection of the Russian Ethnographic Museum". Surely, there are a lot of errors. But it's very funny that the even bigger mistakes of Tirri', Lebedinsky' and Jacob' books are downplayed, and we have to "pay tribute" to their authors )))) While the Russian catalog is called "execrable")))) It would be fair to create a new topic dedicated to the errors in the catalog of museum and the errors in Tirri's book. We would collectively analyze the errors, compare these errors in percentage terms, and only then make a decision about which of the books is more "execrable")))

ariel · 3rd July 2022, 01:05 PM

Obviously, earlier researchers did commit attributional errors when there was no ironclad information about the objects.

The correct attribution of Laz Bicagi appeared on this Forum in 2004 with several iconographic examples testifying to it.

Tirri's book was already published in 2004, and E. G. Astvatsaturian called high-class Laz Bicagi simply " yataghan of unusual form" in her book on Ottoman weapons published in 2002. They just did not and could not have correct information. They were plainly not informed but definitely not careless.

However, the Ethnographic Muzeum album came out in 2006, when the information was already widely available. Its authors' complaints of insufficient time for careful research and/or muzeum policies betrays their wish to publish obviously slapdash information as soon as possible without even researching ( or ignoring?) the objects. This is a different kettle of fish. Their repeat attributions of Sudanese Kaskara to Arabs ( with a "?" mark), Qajar Revival swords to Kurds and Algerian Flissas as "Chopping weapon. Ethnicity unknown" are even worse: they could have at least consulted the 1934 book by G.C. Stone.
Bad book is worse than no book at all. In the best possible case it is a source of illustrations confusing, rather than educating, the reader.

But let's stop here and go back to the Laz Bicagi.

mahratt · 3rd July 2022, 01:46 PM

Go back to the topic it is much better then offtop as usual. But, in fairness, let's before finish discussing. The lack of information hindered researchers of the past, limited them and led to rather naive mistakes. And there is no difference if the authors wrote the book in 2004 in Europe, where the Internet appeared earlier, or in 2006 in Russia, where the Internet appeared later. The common problem of these books is the lack of information and the use of old unverified data. So let's respect the authors of the recent past, no matter if they worked in Europe, Russia or the USA. We need just recognize their mistakes which were made due to lack of information.

Ian · 3rd July 2022, 02:20 PM

We are again entering contentious areas where there is a high likelihood of heated exchanges that can turn unpleasant.

Errors in earlier texts, even some relatively recent examples, are common in the field of ethnographic arms and armor. If we were to catalog all of the mistakes in every book on the subject, then we would have a substantial series of errata lists. But I doubt that such lists would be very helpful. Forums such as this one are much better vehicles for discussing what is correct, without dwelling on the errors of other sources unduly.

I doubt there are many authors who deliberately publish false information in this field, although there are certainly some who do little research and simply cite the mistakes of others. Some authors lack the resources to do very much research themselves, while others may be lazy or sloppy. It is neither lazy nor sloppy if an author has searched the available literature on a subject, reports a considered opinion based on the available literature, and cites the sources that were consulted in arriving at that opinion. If such a considered opinion is later shown to be wrong, then the author can be excused for making a mistake because it was based on the best information available at the time the opinion was expressed.

Let's not get into whose scholarship is the best. In discussing mistakes made in publications, please address the errors themselves, not the efforts of the authors. Better yet, let's focus on what information is correct going forward!

ariel · 4th July 2022, 05:54 PM

Ian,
There are no contentions regarding collective, country-wise, quality of authorship. I was talking about a particular book written by a particular group of authors.

This book was mercilessly criticized on at least 2 Russian Fora for exactly the same reasons that were mentioned by me, plus some I have omitted, plus some I know little about. The only explanations offered in response were that they did not have enough time to research, and the objections from the muzeum to alter contexts of the existing labels.

Certainly, the authors did not engage in any malicious behavior such as willful falsification.

Please note that I have excluded books of Tirri and Astvatsaturian: their books were published before correct information became available. This is inevitable in any scientific endeavor and the authors, albeit mistaken, are blameless.

As to the access to Internet, both in the US and Russia it became available in the mid-1990’s ( see Wikipedia “Internet history in[country]”). I know it personally, since I communicated with American, European and Russian colleagues and searched their respective auctions and Fora for more than 20 years.

3rd July 2022, 05:59 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The " Front Asian", allegedly Kazakh, example from Tashkent from the Russian Ethnographic Muzeum was not the only bizarre item from that album. Items #162 and 163 both with Laz configuration of their blades and eared pommels beat the " Kazakh" one in their astonishing attribution. One was brought to the muzeum in 1925, another was registered there in 1954. Both were attributed as " Iranians, Kurds", although #163 had yet another potential place of birth: Turkey. Both blades look suspiciously like reworked Chassepot bayonets. The original Chassepot was slightly yataghan-ish, but both creations exaggerated their double curvatures to caricature-ish proportion. The blade of Chassepot was 57.2 cm, but as the results of extensive "plastic surgery" their lengths ( from base to tip) were shortened to 49 and 55 cm respectively. Both were given museum labels defining them as " Khopesh". The local weapons gurus in Leningrad never asked themselves a question, how and why Egyptian Khopesh existing as bronze and, later, as iron variant between ~2500 BCE to ~1300 BCE and never appearing anywhere from there on, was reborn 3-4 millennia later out of the blue in Iran or Kurdistan of all places... The rest of that book was predictably just as illiterate, and the authors expained away their nonsense by : a). not enough time; and b). bureaucratic problems of changing the existing muzeum labels. Anyone objecting to my use of word "execrable" as an evaluation of that book, might better change his opinion :-(((( Few scientific books and even articles are immediately accepted as 100% correct ( Watson and Crick's paper on the double helix of DNA is a rare exception). But as a minimum, almost any really good academic book will still contain 5% of it as some arguable points. That is how science works. But publishing a book in which what is new is not right and what is right is not new is simply an exercise in shameless graphomania. The above book is a stark example of it. Last edited by ariel; 3rd July 2022 at 06:27 AM.

3rd July 2022, 02:20 PM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Be careful please ... We are again entering contentious areas where there is a high likelihood of heated exchanges that can turn unpleasant. Errors in earlier texts, even some relatively recent examples, are common in the field of ethnographic arms and armor. If we were to catalog all of the mistakes in every book on the subject, then we would have a substantial series of errata lists. But I doubt that such lists would be very helpful. Forums such as this one are much better vehicles for discussing what is correct, without dwelling on the errors of other sources unduly. I doubt there are many authors who deliberately publish false information in this field, although there are certainly some who do little research and simply cite the mistakes of others. Some authors lack the resources to do very much research themselves, while others may be lazy or sloppy. It is neither lazy nor sloppy if an author has searched the available literature on a subject, reports a considered opinion based on the available literature, and cites the sources that were consulted in arriving at that opinion. If such a considered opinion is later shown to be wrong, then the author can be excused for making a mistake because it was based on the best information available at the time the opinion was expressed. Let's not get into whose scholarship is the best. In discussing mistakes made in publications, please address the errors themselves, not the efforts of the authors. Better yet, let's focus on what information is correct going forward!

4th July 2022, 05:54 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Ian, There are no contentions regarding collective, country-wise, quality of authorship. I was talking about a particular book written by a particular group of authors. This book was mercilessly criticized on at least 2 Russian Fora for exactly the same reasons that were mentioned by me, plus some I have omitted, plus some I know little about. The only explanations offered in response were that they did not have enough time to research, and the objections from the muzeum to alter contexts of the existing labels. Certainly, the authors did not engage in any malicious behavior such as willful falsification. Please note that I have excluded books of Tirri and Astvatsaturian: their books were published before correct information became available. This is inevitable in any scientific endeavor and the authors, albeit mistaken, are blameless. As to the access to Internet, both in the US and Russia it became available in the mid-1990’s ( see Wikipedia “Internet history in[country]”). I know it personally, since I communicated with American, European and Russian colleagues and searched their respective auctions and Fora for more than 20 years. Last edited by Ian; 5th July 2022 at 12:02 AM. Reason: Unnecessary comment about authors' motifs.

2nd July 2022, 04:08 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, Re. Your mention of a Laz Bichagi thought to be of Kurdish-Armenian origin, in the generally execrable album of weapons from the Russian Ethnographic Museum, #191 is an example of a sword with a typical Laz blade and yataghan-ish “eared” handle, bought in Tashkent ( Uzbekistan) in 1934 and allegedy called “Shoi”. The museum attributed it as “ Front Asia” ( that’s how Central Asia is often called in the Russian literature).

3rd July 2022, 09:35 AM	#4
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	The topic about Laz Bichak imperceptibly turn out the discussion of the Russian catalog "Edged weapons in the collection of the Russian Ethnographic Museum". Surely, there are a lot of errors. But it's very funny that the even bigger mistakes of Tirri', Lebedinsky' and Jacob' books are downplayed, and we have to "pay tribute" to their authors )))) While the Russian catalog is called "execrable")))) It would be fair to create a new topic dedicated to the errors in the catalog of museum and the errors in Tirri's book. We would collectively analyze the errors, compare these errors in percentage terms, and only then make a decision about which of the books is more "execrable")))

3rd July 2022, 01:05 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Obviously, earlier researchers did commit attributional errors when there was no ironclad information about the objects. The correct attribution of Laz Bicagi appeared on this Forum in 2004 with several iconographic examples testifying to it. Tirri's book was already published in 2004, and E. G. Astvatsaturian called high-class Laz Bicagi simply " yataghan of unusual form" in her book on Ottoman weapons published in 2002. They just did not and could not have correct information. They were plainly not informed but definitely not careless. However, the Ethnographic Muzeum album came out in 2006, when the information was already widely available. Its authors' complaints of insufficient time for careful research and/or muzeum policies betrays their wish to publish obviously slapdash information as soon as possible without even researching ( or ignoring?) the objects. This is a different kettle of fish. Their repeat attributions of Sudanese Kaskara to Arabs ( with a "?" mark), Qajar Revival swords to Kurds and Algerian Flissas as "Chopping weapon. Ethnicity unknown" are even worse: they could have at least consulted the 1934 book by G.C. Stone. Bad book is worse than no book at all. In the best possible case it is a source of illustrations confusing, rather than educating, the reader. But let's stop here and go back to the Laz Bicagi.

3rd July 2022, 01:46 PM	#6
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Go back to the topic it is much better then offtop as usual. But, in fairness, let's before finish discussing. The lack of information hindered researchers of the past, limited them and led to rather naive mistakes. And there is no difference if the authors wrote the book in 2004 in Europe, where the Internet appeared earlier, or in 2006 in Russia, where the Internet appeared later. The common problem of these books is the lack of information and the use of old unverified data. So let's respect the authors of the recent past, no matter if they worked in Europe, Russia or the USA. We need just recognize their mistakes which were made due to lack of information.