OTTOMAN....What do we mean?

[kahnjar1]

I notice that lately a lot of items are being described as "Ottoman" in origin. I am/was of the understanding that the term Ottoman was a period in history rather than a location.
To me it is like describing (for example) an African sword/club/knife as British just because the Brits once were "in charge" of a given area of the world......so what do we ACTUALLY mean when we describe something as Ottoman? To me it would mean a Turkish item from the Ottoman period, but I do not think that IS the origin of many of the pieces described this way.
Stu

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

I notice that lately a lot of items are being described as "Ottoman" in origin. I am/was of the understanding that the term Ottoman was a period in history rather than a location.
To me it is like describing (for example) an African sword/club/knife as British just because the Brits once were "in charge" of a given area of the world......so what do we ACTUALLY mean when we describe something as Ottoman? To me it would mean a Turkish item from the Ottoman period, but I do not think that IS the origin of many of the pieces described this way.
Stu

To me, the term when applied to armor or weapons simply means that it originated from within the confines of the Ottoman Empire. That is quite a wide area and time period, not much different than describing an item as "European". From there you would have to narrow it down to a more specific area and time period, which sometimes can be quite difficult.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by estcrh

To me, the term when applied to armor or weapons simply means that it originated from within the confines of the Ottoman Empire. That is quite a wide area and time period, not much different than describing an item as "European". From there you would have to narrow it down to a more specific area and time period, which sometimes can be quite difficult.

Exactly my point......Usually when a Member asks for origin, he or she is looking to find out the ORIGIN of an item, in other words,where it ACTUALLY comes from......
"Ottoman" simply (as you say) means it came from some part of the Ottoman Empire within some time period that the Empire existed. It really does not tell us much does it?
Stu

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Exactly my point......Usually when a Member asks for origin, he or she is looking to find out the ORIGIN of an item, in other words,where it ACTUALLY comes from......
"Ottoman" simply (as you say) means it came from some part of the Ottoman Empire within some time period that the Empire existed. It really does not tell us much does it?
Stu

Stu, I cant wait until we discuss the term "Indo-Persian"!!!

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Stu, I cant wait until we discuss the term "Indo-Persian"!!!

Me either, but another thread would be better for that. It's just that "Ottoman" seems to be the current buzz word for describing almost anything which is of questioned (not questionable) origin.

[harrywagner]

Slightly off topic, but if you have not already read "The fall of the Ottomans" by Eugene Rogan, I recommend it.

[ariel]

Turkish weapons made enormous impact on other Ottoman weapon centers. This is why it is so difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the manufacturer.
Yataghan is an example.
We can be certain only about two subtypes: Zeibek and Laz Bichaq.
Less certain are the North African, Cretan and Focan.
But we cannot distinguish between the Anatolian proper and the Balkan/ Greek/ Bulgarian. Out of necessity we call them Ottoman.

Also, yataghan blades were made. Largely in Turkey and the Balkans; from there they went across the Empire. How should we define examples: by the blade or by the handle/decorations? Again, "Ottoman" is the safest bet.

Somehow, daggers are easier to pinpoint: they must have been less regimented

[DaveA]

Often the regional variations on a common design theme are the most fascinating aspects to me. Saying "Ottoman" merely gives me a set of design themes (e.g., "yataghan") and historical period. Useful, but insufficient IMHO. Indo-Persian was mentioned as a similar challenge. I also think that some ethnic groups that extend across current geopolitical boundaries engender similar questions about the actual location of origin (for example, the Shan of Myanmar/Thailand/China/Laos).

[kahnjar1]

Thanks Gentlemen.
ARIEL....I agree with what you say, but the term Ottoman does not indicate to an UNinformed collector, where any particular weapon might come from. What I was trying to get at with my thread was the general use of the term. As an example, if I had a Yataghan and wanted to know where it came from (without tying it down to the last mile), I would find "Turkey/Balkans" far more informative than just "Ottoman".

DAVEA......Todays geographical boundries do not necessarily give the ACTUAL origin of a piece either as they have changed dramatically over time. A good example of this would be Saudi Arabia which did not even exist as a country until the 1930s, but we see items described as Saudi.
You mention Shan in terms of Myanmar etc. This is a bit different as we are talking TRIBAL here rather than an actual country. Other examples of this would be Tuareg and Berber.
Stu

[Kubur]

I agree with Ariel.
Ottoman is a very practical term to stay vague and to me much more cautious, than to pretend to know exactly where an object comes from.
If i'm sure of an origin for example, I will say Balkans or whatever, if I'm not sure, I will say Ottoman...
For Indo-Persian, I totally agree, it's too big and I don't like this vocabulary.
I guess for a lot of people, Indo-Persian means just a location: between modern days Pakistan and Afghanistan...
A lot of Persian influences in India probably pushed a lot of collectors to talk of Indo-Persians weapons. To me the opposite is not true, except few cases I haven't seen a lot of Indian weapons in Persia... I hope someone will understand what i'm trying to say...

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I agree with Ariel.
Ottoman is a very practical term to stay vague and to me much more cautious, than to pretend to know exactly where an object comes from.
If i'm sure of an origin for example, I will say Balkans or whatever, if I'm not sure, I will say Ottoman...
For Indo-Persian, I totally agree, it's too big and I don't like this vocabulary.
I guess for a lot of people, Indo-Persian means just a location: between modern days Pakistan and Afghanistan...
A lot of Persian influences in India probably pushed a lot of collectors to talk of Indo-Persians weapons. To me the opposite is not true, except few cases I haven't seen a lot of Indian weapons in Persia... I hope someone will understand what i'm trying to say...

As we know the Ottoman Empire was rather large and existed for a relatively short time in history, and the term therefore as you say is very vague. There are other ways of answering the question as to origin, that would perhaps be more helpful.....something like, as an example, "Ottoman, possibly/probably Turkish or Balkan" I realise these days that it is not very PC if one is found to be wrong in what they say, but isn't that the purpose of this Forum....to DISCUSS and if possible reach an agreement?? Being wrong is not a crime!
Stu

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

As we know the Ottoman Empire was rather large and existed for a relatively short time in history
Stu

Short time compared to what? The dinosaurs?
1299 - 1923 AD. It's not short to me.
But I agree with you, we learn from our mistakes.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Short time compared to what? The dinosaurs?
1299 - 1923 AD. It's not short to me.
But I agree with you, we learn from our mistakes.

I think this proves my point. So an item described as "Ottoman" could be anything from 100 to 700 years old and come from almost anywhere. Also anything identified here as Ottoman would have to be made before 1923.

[Jim McDougall]

I recall a query where a guy asked what 'Byzantine swords' were like.
Imagine trying to respond to that one.

I was once told that 'weapons have no geographic boundaries'. Naturally that pretty much applies to many things, but obviously such objects transcend such restrictions.

Often in the study of Indian arms, items are classified as 'Deccani'. This term of course describes topographically the plateau of Central India and includes various geographic boundaries. However, the term may denote more of a cultural or tribal character of a weapon. But then, the complex dynamics of these aspects are altered by the futility of establishing a reasonable period with traditional forms in use for centuries. Then throw in commemorative and revival forms.

Collectors use many 'buzz' words in their desperation to have catchy classifications and denominators in their descriptions of weapons, and most seem to shy away from any sort of extra wording in qualification, so we end up with these 'broadly' described items.

As noted, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', or correct manner of classification, just reasonable effort to be accurate and avoid deception. Also, and again as noted, the influences of various Ottoman features and decoration, if not entire forms, were prevalent in many cultures and regions. It seems that if such provenance or origin can be specified, it should be used over the Ottoman term.

[kahnjar1]

Thanks Jim for coming in on this. Your last paragraph I think sums it up nicely.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

You bet Stu! Couldn't resist adding to this interesting discussion!

[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.

[TVV]

Interesting topic. Just like you Stu, I have often been frustrated with the vagueness of the term "Ottoman". The most extreme examples of its indiscriminate application are some recent catalogues of arms from the Askeri Museum, where every single item that comes from an area that may have once been part of the Empire, is labeled as "Osmanli" - from tribal Arab khanjars to Albanian tanchika rifles.

On the other hand, there was a large amount of trade between the various provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and that trade included arms, along with their manufacturing techniques and decoration. On top of that, there was a significant movement within the borders of the Empire by various ethnic groups, which brought their weapons and art with them. It certainly makes things more complicated, because as Ariel pointed out, it is often hard or impossible to state with any certainty where a yataghan or a pala may have been made, and the craftsmen very rarely indicated their home towns.

I agree that we should strive to learn enough about minor local differences in decoration and construction, to the point where we can attribute arms to a specific province within the Ottoman Empire, if not to a specific manufacturing center, but I do not feel we are quite there yet.

Regards,
Teodor

[kahnjar1]

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]

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]

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]

Very well written and I fully agree with Manu!

[kahnjar1]

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]

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]

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.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by rickystl

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.

Thanks Rick

[ariel]

The confusion about this term is not unique.
After all, Ottoman implies Turkish Royal dynasty. It was in control for ~ 700 years and ruled over tribes of different ethnic and geographical origins.

In this sense it is not much different from our usage of Qajar swords, Ming vases or Tzarist Russian Shashkas. All objects from these groups could have been made in different times and different localities. Napoleonic swords are even more ambiguous: we imply era, but lump together French, German and British swords. Luckily, for them we have readable inscriptions and well-known patterns; those are as a rule unavailable on Ottoman weapons.

To sum up, we use the term "Ottoman" not because it is the best one, but simply because there is no more precise attribution.

[Sancar]

It is not that confusing actually. Do you have any confusion about using the term "Roman"? Then you shouldn't have any confusion about using the term "Ottoman".

That is the short answer. But if you want the long one... Well it is quite long. Long enough to fill a library actually. There are tons and tons of books written in every language in the world that explains in detail what exactly Ottoman culture and art is, with its own origins, disciplines, styles, evolution and whatnot. Architecture is a part of it, as well as music, literature and plastic arts, so is the arms and armour. I advice anyone interested to read one.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Sancar

It is not that confusing actually. Do you have any confusion about using the term "Roman"? Then you shouldn't have any confusion about using the term "Ottoman".

That is the short answer. But if you want the long one... Well it is quite long. Long enough to fill a library actually. There are tons and tons of books written in every language in the world that explains in detail what exactly Ottoman culture and art is, with its own origins, disciplines, styles, evolution and whatnot. Architecture is a part of it, as well as music, literature and plastic arts, so is the arms and armour. I advice anyone interested to read one.

I totally agree my Ottoman friend

Kubur

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

The confusion about this term is not unique.
After all, Ottoman implies Turkish Royal dynasty. It was in control for ~ 700 years and ruled over tribes of different ethnic and geographical origins.

In this sense it is not much different from our usage of Qajar swords, Ming vases or Tzarist Russian Shashkas. All objects from these groups could have been made in different times and different localities. Napoleonic swords are even more ambiguous: we imply era, but lump together French, German and British swords. Luckily, for them we have readable inscriptions and well-known patterns; those are as a rule unavailable on Ottoman weapons.

To sum up, we use the term "Ottoman" not because it is the best one, but simply because there is no more precise attribution.

I agree also and to sum up:
Is it the chicken who invented the egg or the egg who invented the chicken?