Review of "Arms and Armour from Iran" by M. Khorasani

Rivkin · 15th November 2006, 08:41 PM

First of all I must acknowledge that historically me and the book’s author, Manoucher Khorasani are not on the best terms. I will not comment on the reasons behind it and unfortunately the thread that started it, on Armenian kings have been deleted. In light of this I would ask you to treat this review with a grain of salt. I have made an attempt to insure an independent review for my review, but certain rude and erroneous assumptions were drawn concerning my nationality (not entirely without my fault) and my commercial interests, so this idea has died.

Please also understand that I am obviously not an authority in the field, so me reviewing this book goes against the well established policy when the review is performed by someone of a higher status than the author. Please understand that I may be wrong, and I review this book as myself, and not in any official function. I also apologize that since I have not spent too much time writing this review (and cited the sources mostly by memory), I do not offer an extensive analysis of the book.

First I would like to start with an apology to the author, Manoucher Khorasani. A lot of things I feared concerning his book are not true, and it was highly presumptuous of me to assume that some of the most politicized discussions we had over the years would be transformed by Mr. Khorasani into this book.

I will start with a short summary of my opinion on this book and its positive sides.

I believe it is to be an excellent introductory text on Persian Weapons. It is written in such a way that it is accessible to a wide audience, and gives you a brief overview of all weapons associated with Iran, with short, but important statements concerning their possible use and function. This is being illustrated by many pictures made of pieces that mostly belong to prominent Iranian Museums and therefore inaccessible to many of us. The weapons shown are of varied quality, from that of prominent Kings to those of servants, even though there is a slight overrepresentation of the first kind. However this overrepresentation does not mean showing a lot of jewel-encased parade swords, but rather functional military blades of very high quality. It is a very interesting book which will give you the basics of virtually every aspect of Iranic weapons, whether this would be the references in famous manuscripts, the use by martial artists, native words and attributions used to describe the weapons, and, finally, the weapons themselves. I would strongly recommend buying this book to everyone who starts researching or collecting Iranian weapons.

The information contained in this book is truly enormous, and one can only imagine how much of very hard work came into publishing this book. An argument can be made that this book is more pricey than others in the field, but if one is to use commercial terms, this book can be bought instead of a number of other books: basics of wootz and Damascus steel, Iranic weapons from bronze to age to late XIXth century, basics of archery, bows and arrows, many examples of textual references demonstrating the change in the attitude people had towards weapons throughout the time, all of it can be to some extent learned from this single book.

However, if we are to exceed the basic level and to look at the details, we can see a number of problems, as discussed below. While each of these issues I will illustrate with just a few quotes, all of them are very general in nature, and appear on a very regular basis, i.e. it is not a typo here or misquote there.

The first problem is that the author very extensively quotes from a very few books, quite general in nature, almost entirely ignoring the publications in academic journals. Let me show what I mean by taking just 3 pages as an example:
Pages 130-132 discuss the origin of the curved swords.
Discoveries at Galiat, Saltovskaja culture, the sword of Charlemagne, Khazar Kaganat and Alans is what one expects to find in any material related to the sabre’s origin. Instead we have only brief mentioning of Alans here and the discussion evolves into very strange statements like (p.131) :”However, in a sense, Kobylinski is right to doubt that the Turkish people where the original inventors of the curved sword since forging technology demands urbanization, and that poses a variety of challenges to Steppe people…” and a very long discussion of Chinese weapons. These and following statements are very strange in light of massive evidence of sword production by Steppe cultures, starting with Al-Bukavi, Al-Mukkadasi about Volga Bulgars’ sword (one has to mention that there are alternative interpretations) to nearly any professional work on Steppe nations, summarized by Gorelik in his recent interview “Nomadic tatars lost the ability to produce weapons as late as XVI-XVIIth century, while mongols did not”, followed by the reference to relatively recent Kalmykian production of armour and cannons. Instead the production moves to large cities like Kazan (but yet again even in Khazar Kaganat there were semi-settled areas like Ittil). Second, again, one needs to understand the differences between Alanic, Khazarian, Proto-Hungarian and Proto-Circassian(?) cultures, which includes acknowledging their sabres and clearly stating how they were dated and probably even addressing the question of who is likely to be the first of them to create the saber, based on archeology. Speculative discussion of Chinese and Mongol weapons is clearly out of place here. In all not a single archeological paper, even review ones in English by V.N.Kaminsky or in German by Vinogradov are referenced here, nor the recent book of Astvatsaturjan (Oruzhie Narodov Kavkaza). Instead the entire discussion (as much of this book) is based on a few works by Lebedinsky, Kobylinsky, Allen and Gilmore, and David Nicolle. It is highly surprising that relatively late graphic evidence as presented by David Nicolle is widely addressed but only a single, very late, excavated sword, dated to IX-Xth century, is mentioned. What follows is a number of statements based on the famed manuscript “Manaqib al-Turk” concerning the use of curved sabers by Khorasanis, whom author, following David Nicolle, defines as “Persian troops of the so called Khorasanis”. Again, if one starts to talk about Manaqib al-Turk and Khorasanis one has to give the variety of interpretations of who these Khorasanis where – from one based on the statement in Manaqib al-Turk that they speak the language similar to that of turks, to the one which identifies them as Arab colonists. Again, the relevant research articles by Togan, Sheshen should have been cited here. As part of such tendency, the author, outside of the part on ancient bronze, ignores the archeology (for example, the whole archeology of Caucasian kindjals), substituting it with observations drawn from Persian miniatures.

The second problem is that there are a lot of statements where instead of a reference to some scientific article or book, the author inserts that it is “author’s observations”. For example, on page 214 it says (concerning qames) “… stemmed from the Circassian parts of Iran”, with a footnote to this: “Note that Iran lost much of its territories in the North to Russia during Qajar period (author’s observations)”. These and other similar statements are somewhat strange – I can think of no time when Circassia was part of Iran, nor therefore the time when it was lost to Russia by Iran (the ownership of Circassia was traditionally claimed by Krimean Girey family or Ottoman Empire, with not a lot of factual support in either case). Also these statements about territories lost to Russia are being repeated throughout the book, with no reference that by the time of Russian conquest almost all of these territories severed any ties with Iran, the process that gained momentum with Nader-Shah’s defeat in 1741 by Dagestani confederation. A lot of arguments in this book include assumptions that are questioned by the author, like on page 136-137 a few shamshirs are shown with the following words: “Judging by the curvature of their blades, it can be assumed that highly curved swords were, indeed, in use even prior to the Safavid period, provided that these Shamshirs truly belong to the Timurid period”. It better to phrase such and following statements as the possibility that “highly curved swords…”, rather than as “it can be assumed”. A lot of properties of Iranian blades are illustrated with what I would consider to be questionable (i.e. derived from folklore) stories. A lot of statements require much more extensive documentation (like in the part on Damascus, what was exactly made by Anosov and how it was different from the work of later “bulat” makers; “Rusi” are actually far more likely Viking (it is suspected this is the way they were called in early Arabic literature) than Russian swords, and many-many other things in the same Chapter), instead the author simply extensively quotes from other (not necessarily reliable) books.

The third and the biggest problem is that the author does seem to spend very little time addressing the differences between Persian weapons per se and that of Caucasus, Ottoman Empire and others. While it is acknowledged that there was a significant exchange between all these nations and artisans, as well as warriors, were constantly moving from one place to another and therefore obviously a lot of Persian weapons did not originate in Persia, he offers virtually no key to how differentiate between Persian and non-Persian items. For example when it comes to qamas (kindjals), he makes a statement that Persian kindjals usually do not have metal scabbards, while Caucasian sometimes do, but for most part does not address the differences beyond that. In fact there are a lot of them – the form of the pommel, the method of decorations, shape, metal, all is different, albeit to some extent similar. This problem goes way beyond qames – for example, on page 143 it is stated that Ivanov believes that a given Shamshir is not an Iranian based on signature and shape. One needs better arguments, than given here, to show that it is Iranian, and say not an imitation. Two pages before that there is a shamshir from Oruzheinaja Palata, Moscow collection; without an inventory number or far better photographs I can not be completely sure, but I think this one was taken into the collection as that of Persian work, but Circassian construction (which accounts for the differences with respect to more “Persian” types). There is no statement about this in this book.
In all I believe that there is a number of Ottoman, Kubachi, Uzbek, may be Georgian pieces that are present in this book, however because of the problem that is cited in the next paragraph I can not be sure. In order to explain the differences one should have spoken about floral motifs, their connection with China, Silk Trade, and Armenian Migration, their differences in Dagestan, Iran and Ottoman Empire, their symbolism, the difference between Dagestani and Iranian Koftgari techniques, the difference in the approach to make fullers, the difference between Tiflis stamped maker’s mark, and those made in Iranian Azerbaijan, finally one has to show how the popular attributions to Abbas-Mirza, Shah Abbas, portraits on the blades and so on, differed between Iran and surrounding countries (surprisingly there are a lot of “Abbas-Mirza” blades that are coming from Caucasus). Also, some but very little effort is made with respect to post-Sassanid blades to identify where exactly they are coming from inside Iran (i.e. which weapons are more characteristic of Azerbaijan and so on), or what nationality/tribe where the people who made them. Also, I would strongly disagree on time attribution given to some pieces.

The last problem is photographs. A lot of them are dim and improperly color balanced, but worse of all – the photographs of entire swords are usually made so small one can barely see the details, while they are accompanied by many big blow ups of the blade fragments, that are virtually identical to each other. There are horrible amounts of photographs, but most of them are barely legible – the number of photographs should be cut down by a factor of 3, but they should be bigger.

As a conclusion I should state what I believe to be the reason behind all these problems. The book attempts to cover the weapons of a huge Empire over a colossal time range, something that would demand either a freak genius who knows it all, or, more likely, a co-authorship or at least editing by many highly respected scientists, specializing on ancient Iran, Sassanids, Central Asia, Caucasus, early Islamic Rule , Safavids, Qajars and so on.
Instead the book reverts to very extensive quoting from a few texts (Feuerbach, Wulff, Lebedinsky, Nicolle, Ivanov, Zakey and others) with virtually no acknowledgement of research articles, sometimes with missing discussion of the primeral sources, based on which the above mentioned authors formed their conclusions. Sometimes it seems the writing was done without a very deep understanding of the topic, resulting in a very large number of imprecise statements that can either cause misrepresentations, or can be even considered as errors.
Part of the reason is probably that none of the Editors is known as a prominent collector or researcher of Iranian weapons, or even a prominent expert on Iranian history. Only one of the editors has a Ph.D. (in Virology), but many specialize in Chinese or Japanese weapons and martial styles (which explains out of place references to Chinese and Japanese weapons).

It is a very interesting and valuable book, but it fails as an advanced material.

Ian · 15th November 2006, 08:54 PM

Thank you Rivkin for a lengthy and thoughtful review of this book. As many of you already know, this book has been a controversial subject on this Forum. Moderators will be monitoring discussions here VERY CLOSELY. Any attempt to escalate discussions or inflame debate will be dealt with promptly and severely. Avoid personalities and stay on topic please.

Ian.

Tim Simmons · 15th November 2006, 09:02 PM

Bringing to mind the cost, I have found this quite helpful. I will just have to wait untill I come across I cheap copy.

Bill M · 15th November 2006, 11:41 PM

Personalities aside, where can I find a copy of the book?

Searched Google and can't find any for sale. Since I know nothing about Iranian weapons it might be a good start for me.

David · 15th November 2006, 11:55 PM

Here's one site Bill: http://www.interbook-artbooks.com/in...ucts_id=350252
I also saw some used on bookfinder.com, but the price wasn't really any better.

Adrian Ko · 16th November 2006, 12:40 AM

Mr. Rivkin, is it possible that any review or critique of Manouchehr's book by you will be unavoidably baised due to your personal issues with the gentleman?

Having read your past words towards Manouchehr and his publication, and also having reviewed Dr. Ann Feuerbach's treatment on this website, I see not only Manouchehr being attacked but also attempts to undermine the very people who have been supportive of this book. It no longer appears that the motivation is purely intellectual. This behavior has to stop.

I'm here to personally offer an olive branch to you and all to please not let personal differences cloud us and to not allow resentment to taint the views of others. I'm also asking for the kindest consideration that the reconciliation and healing process begin now before it gets worse where people will end up carrying this vitriol to their graves.

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 01:13 AM

Is it possible that my opinion is biased ? Ofcoarse. It says so right in the first paragraph of my review, that is why I ask people to "treat this review with a grain of salt".

Concerning Dr. Feuerbach (btw, since we started this, why Mr. Rivkin, but Dr. Feuerbach ?), I am sorry if my statement that her beliefs are her beliefs was offensive. I really do not know how to refrase it, but yes, as I stated many times, there are a lot of different opinions on the subject, and those that are not mine could be wrong or could be right.

I actually objected (and do object) to only a single phrase in her review (which btw does not relate to the book), concerning preservation of the knowledge of antiquity. First of all I do not believe in significant importance of a lot of this knowledge of antiquity for post-renessaince science (were epicycles really helpful ?). Yes, on the other hand one should note the excessive quoting/translation of Aristotel and others by Muslim Philosophers, but it is a very complex question, how much was preserved and how much was destroyed and by whom, and yes I find the recent controversy over "preservation" to be largely politically driven. If Dr. Feuerbach wants to waste her valuable time discussing this with me, I would be honored to, but I am obviously not an expert on this, so I do not know if it is a good idea to argue with me.

Concerning the rest of her review I think I agree with 80%, may be even 90% of what she says. Only she says it in a very polite way, and I say it in a rude way. Well, she is a fine lady and I am a vicious savage.

Concerning your peace offer. Thank you very much. May I ask how do you see this peace ? We stop criticizing Manoucher and Ruel, Ruel downgrades his charge of plagiarism against Tirri to misdimeanor ? I will be honest I have no problem if Manoucher for example comes after stuff I published on this forum. A lot of it (10-20%) is different than what I think today, and a some of it is simply crap.

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Ko

I'm also asking for the kindest consideration that the reconciliation and healing process begin now before it gets worse where people will end up carrying this vitriol to their graves.

It this a threat ?

. Dear Adrian Ko, I understand you may be unaware of the situation, but this is a very bad idea

.

Bill M · 16th November 2006, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Here's one site Bill: http://www.interbook-artbooks.com/in...ucts_id=350252
I also saw some used on bookfinder.com, but the price wasn't really any better.

Thanks David,

Hmmm, $250 USD?

Rick · 16th November 2006, 01:33 AM

I think we are drifting off topic and into personalities Gentlemen.

B.I · 16th November 2006, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Ko

Mr. Rivkin, is it possible that any review or critique of Manouchehr's book by you will be unavoidably baised due to your personal issues with the gentleman.

i think that rivkins post is quite well written and, considering we are aware of his, and others opinion on the author, i think the post itself is concentrated on the book itself. we are all aware of the sensitive issue at hand, and all personal issues MUST be put aside. that said, all opinions on any published book/article should be both welcomed and encouraged, if concentrated on the material itself.
i think his opinion is as valid as ann feuerbach's, for anns opinion was a personal one, and she did not speak for the academic world as a whole. her opinion was extremely well written and appreciated, but it was the opinion of a scholar from her personal point of view. if we cant give our own opinion, understanding the rules and ethics involved in a controlled discussion, then i dont really see the point of a forum.
as rivkin said, i think that everyone should buy this book, and judge it based on what they get out of it. mainly because i value my library as much as i do my collection, and all books, whether good or bad should be bought, read, and reviewed. if i can learn one thing from a huge, lengthy (and expensive) book, then it was worth buying, for surely knowledge is what it is all about.
however, i dont for one minute believe that all, or any books are definative, and mistakes should be pointed out and discussed. many will not agree as opinions themselves are personal, but debating is healthy. surely any author will want his issues discussed as, in an ideal world, the point of putting forward an idea or concept is to provoke a discussion.
i was in a unique position, to be able to watch this book hit the academic world, via the london arms fair. many people i know had never heard of the author or the book before seeing it on a well known booksellers table (remember, the majority of the academic world is not internet based, much to our disappointment). the book was bought and read, and there are many academic opinions that will not agree with ann. but, as i said, this is purely personal. individuals have there own expectations of what any published book should contain, and i definately do not agree on applauding a book on face value alone.
i dont think anyone will not accept the authors time and effort in publishing such a huge contribution, but there are issues that do need to be discussed. i have already seen the book quoted in the wrong way, and his terminology used incorrectly.
another point that rivkin made, that i completely agree with, is that amongst the many editors, not one had a speciality or knowledge in persian arms. i personally think this was the authors failing, and one of main the reasons that it hasnt been accepted in the academic world. the author acknowledged help from people i know well, and i know that if he had sent them the text beforehand, their suggestions would have aided the faults in the cataloguing.
i have wanted to write a review as well, but because i have yet to find the time to read the book from cover to cover, it would be a gross injustice to offer an overall opinion. i can review what i have read so far, but that would be unfair.
once again, i urge all to buy this book and read it well. there are so few publications on oriental arms, that none should slip the net.
but, it should be read alongside other books, and the text should be compared. there is much text that has been lifted and quoted, and a lot of the cataloguing has been assumed, without the opinion of the author involved. a book on persian arms should be as such. the inclusion of non persian pieces, classified as persian must be offered up for others to see, and if they dont agree (for all of this is opinion based) then a forum is a great place to discuss these issues.
i dont agree that they should be hushed up and taken as a given!
i personally commend the author for having both the time and inclination to publish a book on oriental arms, for any book, whether good or bad will attract an audience, and we all desperatly need arms to be brought up for discussion. there are too many museums that are putting away their weapons and replacing the space with more politically correct exhibitions. we need the attention that any book can offer. whether anyone agree with what the author has said is neither here nor there. his personal crusade in promoting his book (for whatever reason) can only help in attracting a non-collective audience to the issue of antique arms!

i made a point on an earlier post on this book. the author has listed the inventories of 10 museums in iran. this is invaluable! with the current and ongoing political situation, there is a good chance that many of us will never see the contents of these museums. i have travelled a lot to see collections, both private and in institution. the knowledge of a country full of antique weapons that i may never seen is very disheartening!
i dont really care wheter i agree with the cataloguing or not. it is good to see these weapons! i have many books in my library that were written as academic, but i treat as pure picture books. for surely a picture alone speaks a thousand words. i dont care whether its a bad picture or not, or whether the author says its persian and 19thC, and i feel its indian and 18thC. the point is i get to see the picture., and so can judge it for myself. for that, i thank the author.
i think it is time to put aside all differences. not just rivkin (which i think he did) but others that will assume he is posting in a negative manner. this aggression can only go against the book they are trying to defend!
there are biased views from both camps and i think enough threads have been locked for us to see the true way forward. this is a discussion of material, and in no way personal.
with that in mind, i look forward to a very interesting conversation!
i also look forward to finding the time to finish the book!!
i have a friend who is a well known academic and a well published author that was rejected by legat (manouchers publishing house) some time back. again, another point in the authors favour! publishing anything on a subject like arms is extremely difficult, and the promotion the author has instigated via his forum and various lectures will lead the way for others to publish, and attract other publishing houses to incorporate this subject into their portfolio.

Adrian Ko · 16th November 2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

It this a threat ?

. Dear Adrian Ko, I understand you may be unaware of the situation, but this is a very bad idea

.

Mr. Rivkin,

How can an olive branch be a threat? I'm offering to act as a go-between so that we can once and for all heal the rift that's causing division. I hope you're not trying to politicize a call for peace, but I think I'm a little more aware of the situation than you're crediting me for.

If there is a cultural issue here, "going to the grave" is not a death threat. Rather, all I'm saying is that if a person doesn't deal with interpersonal issues, those specific issues end up unresolved for the rest of his life. I hope that makes things clear.

Jeff D · 16th November 2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Ko

I see not only Manouchehr being attacked but also attempts to undermine the very people who have been supportive of this book. It no longer appears that the motivation is purely intellectual. This behavior has to stop.

Thank you Adrian for trying to protect me from such covert seditious behaviour. However, I think I will judge the book and Kirill's review for myself.

I too have only had a chance to do a preliminarly review. So far there are parts I really like and parts I am very disappointed with. Overall I am really enjoying the process of going through the book.

I would also like to reiterate Brian's sentiment and hope this work will also encourage others to step up to the plate and write their knowledge down. We will all benefit!

Jeff

Rick · 16th November 2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Ko

Mr. Rivkin,

How can an olive branch be a threat? I'm offering to act as a go-between so that we can once and for all heal the rift that's causing division. I hope you're not trying to politicize a call for peace, but I think I'm a little more aware of the situation than you're crediting me for.

If there is a cultural issue here, "going to the grave" is not a death threat. Rather, if you don't deal with interpersonal issues, they end up with you for the rest of your life. I hope that makes things clear.

Adrian, I believe you are ignoring my request , nay demand that this discussion not degenerate into personalities as first cautioned by Ian .
As there is no other Moderator online at the moment I find myself forced to intercede.

Please cease this line of discussion and take it to PM.

Thank you.

Adrian Ko · 16th November 2006, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Concerning Dr. Feuerbach (btw, since we started this, why Mr. Rivkin, but Dr. Feuerbach ?), I am sorry if my statement that her beliefs are her beliefs was offensive. I really do not know how to refrase it, but yes, as I stated many times, there are a lot of different opinions on the subject, and those that are not mine could be wrong or could be right.

If I am missing your credentials, it is unintentional as I do not know you. Nor is there any mention of a doctorate in your SFI profile. I only know you by your words. So let me proceed by letting the titles go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Concerning your peace offer. Thank you very much. May I ask how do you see this peace ? We stop criticizing Manoucher and Ruel, Ruel downgrades his charge of plagiarism against Tirri to misdimeanor ? I will be honest I have no problem if Manoucher for example comes after stuff I published on this forum. A lot of it (10-20%) is different than what I think today, and a some of it is simply crap.

I'm sorry, I missed the meeting where I'm supposed to silence someone for you.

You know, it's this kind of mentality that now I see creates this "us vs. them" and "EAAF vs. SFI". First, you seem to be of the misunderstanding that if you stop criticizing Manoucher and Ruel that I have to somehow silence Ruel. First off, I neither am for or against Ruel as an individual. But that individual has a right to express his viewpoints so long as he can back them up. He has to date provided a reasonable arguementative defense for his beliefs. Whether people accept them or not is up to them. Since I removed the concern of Rivkin from the "Dressed to Kill" thread, things have been civil only up until the point on EAAF member decided to say enough on SFI merit my concerns of inter-forum issues.

(And for the record, I've firmly asked Ruel not bring the issue regarding Tirri up on SFI. He has a valid concern that the level of scrutiny of Tirri's work does not hold a candle to Manoucher's work. Ruel alleges there is almost unquestioned acceptance of Tirri's work even though there are clear echoes of the same errors in Stone's book. He belives certain individuals on EAAF have not answered those concerns publicly while relentlessly assailing Manoucher's book, creating an impression for Ruel there are double standards.)

Let it be noted that for whatever the reason, Ruel was banned from this website. Simply because Ruel now posts on a website that hasn't permanently banned him does not mean that Ruel is "ours" any more than Ruel was "yours." For all the ruckus Ruel has caused me, I don't want him to be "mine". If he posts on NetSword, does that mean he's NetSwords?

Kirill, if you have found it within yourself to say that some of Manoucher's stuff is "simply crap" then it is evident you have a personal vendetta. Is that kind of phrasing necessary? You tell me.

Look, I really don't care to "debate" you because I don't have issue with you on this subject matter. My concern is your vendetta, and that vendetta is politiciziing people against my site because you guys created a monster in Ruel, and now SFI is the enemy because we won't silence a monster you created?

Will you consider making friends with these people instead?

Adrian Ko · 16th November 2006, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Adrian, I believe you are ignoring my request , nay demand that this discussion not degenerate into personalities as first cautioned by Ian .
As there is no other Moderator online at the moment I find myself forced to intercede.

Please cease this line of discussion and take it to PM.

Thank you.

Sorry, the implication that my post is a threat against Kirill Rivkin is too "hot" a topic to be left alone, especially if I am deprived the right to say what I mean.

There was never any threat to Kirill Rivkin. I believe sometimes things are misunderstood because of the way Americans post "American" English.

Nor was I intentionally ignoring your post, Rick. I did not read this thread in linear fashion and just zoomed in on what was directed at me.

Emanuel · 16th November 2006, 03:00 AM

Greetings,

So sorry to butt in on this, but I believe Rivkin here alludes to his own past writing being crap compared to what he believes today...not an attack on the author.

Quote:

I have no problem if Manoucher for example comes after stuff I published on this forum. A lot of it (10-20%) is different than what I think today, and a some of it is simply crap.

I think I will buy this book...soon. At my level of collecting, I care very little about fine details and perfect provenance of examples and dates accurate to a few decades. From Rivkin's review and the few others I've read about this book, it would be good for me to get the book as it encompasses a lot that I could otherwise only get from many books - perhaps as expensive individually as this one.

Now to settle it in my mind, is there any other book published now or in the last three years comparable to M. Khorasani's book in geographi, historical, typological scope, etc...? If this book is generally, the most up to date publication around and reasonably accurate, then I'll get it.

Best regards, and forgive my intrusion
Emanuel

Andrew · 16th November 2006, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Ko

If I am missing your credentials, it is unintentional as I do not know you. Nor is there any mention of a doctorate in your SFI profile. I only know you by your words. So let me proceed by letting the titles go.

I'm sorry, I missed the meeting where I'm supposed to silence someone for you.

You know, it's this kind of mentality that now I see creates this "us vs. them" and "EAAF vs. SFI". First, you seem to be of the misunderstanding that if you stop criticizing Manoucher and Ruel that I have to somehow silence Ruel. First off, I neither am for or against Ruel as an individual. But that individual has a right to express his viewpoints so long as he can back them up. He has to date provided a reasonable arguementative defense for his beliefs. Whether people accept them or not is up to them. Since I removed the concern of Rivkin from the "Dressed to Kill" thread, things have been civil only up until the point on EAAF member decided to say enough on SFI merit my concerns of inter-forum issues.

(And for the record, I've firmly asked Ruel not bring the issue regarding Tirri up on SFI. He has a valid concern that the level of scrutiny of Tirri's work does not hold a candle to Manoucher's work. Ruel alleges there is almost unquestioned acceptance of Tirri's work even though there are clear echoes of the same errors in Stone's book. He belives certain individuals on EAAF have not answered those concerns publicly while relentlessly assailing Manoucher's book, creating an impression for Ruel there are double standards.)

Let it be noted that for whatever the reason, Ruel was banned from this website. Simply because Ruel now posts on a website that hasn't permanently banned him does not mean that Ruel is "ours" any more than Ruel was "yours." For all the ruckus Ruel has caused me, I don't want him to be "mine". If he posts on NetSword, does that mean he's NetSwords?

Kirill, if you have found it within yourself to say that some of Manoucher's stuff is "simply crap" then it is evident you have a personal vendetta. Is that kind of phrasing necessary? You tell me.

Look, I really don't care to "debate" you because I don't have issue with you on this subject matter. My concern is your vendetta, and that vendetta is politiciziing people against my site because you guys created a monster in Ruel, and now SFI is the enemy because we won't silence a monster you created?

Will you consider making friends with these people instead?

Nice to see you here, Adrian.

I think Kirill's reference to "crap" was regarding prior posts of his own, not anything Manouchehr has written. Take a look at it again.

To everyone: this thread has nothing to do with Ruel. Don't bring him up again.

I urge everyone to heed Ian and Rick's warnings. We do not want to lock yet another thread on this topic. We will, however, be handing out bans to those unable to discuss this matter objectively.

Mark · 16th November 2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

I urge everyone to heed Ian and Rick's warnings. We do not want to lock yet another thread on this topic. We will, however, be handing out bans to those unable to discuss this matter objectively.

And by "this matter," we mean (a) the book, and (b) the merits/demerits of the review topping this thread. It is possible to discuss the book AND the review without having to put it in terms of the personalities involved. Discussion of, for example, personal history, motivation, or any real or perceived "conflict," is off-topic.

Clear enough for everyone?

Adrian Ko · 16th November 2006, 03:48 AM

As a site operator, I see the value of moderation and appreciate the difficulty it is to keep threads on topic. I apologize for any inconvenience and I'll submit to the requests of the moderators. I thank everyone for allowing me to share. This is my final post on this thread.

Have a great rest of the week! (And beyond that, of course!)

Jeff D · 16th November 2006, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

And by "this matter," we mean (a) the book, and (b) the merits/demerits of the review topping this thread. It is possible to discuss the book AND the review without having to put it in terms of the personalities involved. Discussion of, for example, personal history, motivation, or any real or perceived "conflict," is off-topic.

Clear enough for everyone?

Hi Mark, Andrew and Ian.

Can I get a clarification? Since Manoucher makes many "personal observations" and conclusions in his book, his credentials as an expert may occasionally come up. How would the moderators like this to be handled?

Thanks
Jeff

Ian · 16th November 2006, 03:58 AM

Jeff:

We need to avoid commenting on the author, his credentials or his position on another forum, and focus on the substance of the book. The book is the enduring contribution to our field of interest and it needs to be evaluated on its merits. Where there are statements of personal opinion, these should be treated as such, but they should not be used to attack the author or his credibility.

This is a mammoth piece of work and deserves careful review, as Dr Rivkin has attempted.

Ian.

Jeff D · 16th November 2006, 04:16 AM

Thanks Ian,

I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation.

Thank you and good luck

Jeff

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 05:07 AM

Dear All,

1. "Crap" was a characteristic of some of my earlier posts.
2. I apologize if I misunderstood your words, Mr. Ko. It is indeed a cultural thing.

3. What I mean with all this stuff about peace, is that even if we would have a "peace agreement", I would not have written something drastically different, but who knows, I have tried to be more or less objective, but probably failed, I can not be a judge of that. I have nothing against any posts on SFI, by any authors, including the one you call "monster" on SFI. I welcome them and have no problem with their existance, despite profoundly disagreeing with their nature. And yes, if the triple-cursed mekhitarist sword will come up again for the evaluation, I will still refer you to the same book.

4. I apologize for mentioning my title here, and I think it is irrelevant who we are and what we do, this was done only to say that if we go formal we need to go formal. Please adress me by my nick here - Rivkin, or by my first name - Kirill.

5. Finally I want to mention that we discuss too much my relationship with Manoucher. I have clearly stated it on top of my review, I think quite accurately.

6. Now concerning the books - there is a book by Allen and Gilmore, "Persian Steel, Tannavoli Collection". I did not like Lebedinsky's book on Caucasian weapons, but have not read the one on "Oriental" weapons. There is a number of other books, but I do believe the present book is a very good starting point, and a very good basic book on the subject.

7. I again would like to express my apologies for some of my previous words. I honestly believed that the book will be filled with "Arrani" problems, criticism of Western Myths, declarations of Arian unity, and many other things that have been stated many times in the past, often in the connection with this book. I would like to reiterate my statement, that I do not think any of those is a big concern here. There are some "territorial" (you have seen one example - Circassia) and other issues here and there (too much heroic folklore, too many times questionably names people "persian or "iranian") but in general it is a good book.

8. Finally, I think we use the word "academic" too much. Let me tell you of my experience. I am far from being honored with a publication of the size of Manoucher's work, but some time ago I did submit a 10 times smaller manuscript to some colleagues for review. Two politely replied with commentaries about font, pictures and congratulated me on my accomplishment (translation - they have not read the damn thing). The third one did read it.
The phrase written on the cover was "SHAME !!! Did not reference:". Below it was a list of articles that I failed to reference. On every page he has found something that was uncertain, or misinterpreted, or misrepresented.
Now, I swallowed my pride and implemented corrections.
The moral to it is simple - you want to be an academian, read periodic journals and reference them, extensively. Otherwise people will look at your reference list and will think that you are unaware of the current work or you simply copied lots of textbooks. Here I believe a lot of articles and books should have been referenced because they directly relate to the field, and their context should have been discussed here.
And above all - send your work for review to people who are not your super-friends, but those who will tear your work apart, for you learn from their comments, not from yours friends' praise.

Mark · 16th November 2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff D

Thanks Ian,

I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation.

Thank you and good luck

Jeff

I really don't see what the problem is here. If there is a question of reliability of a source, whether it be a literary one or a personal observation, that question must be coming from somewhere. So point it out, explain it, explain the counter-point. If you think there is bias, explain why, establish the point.

What would be unacceptable, of course, are personalized criticisms, for example questioning a particular statement's accuracy or validity without any particular basis other than a negative personal opinion of the author, or based mostly (or entirely) on resentment or disagreement over some past exchange. It is the difference between debate and name-calling. The former is what mature, reasoning people do, articulating their positions in a respectful way, with reference to information and/or reasoning that is pertinent to the topic being discussed. The latter is what little people in kindergarten do.

Since we all here are long out of kindergarten, I am sure that it will not be difficult to carry on a productive debate on this topic.

Jeff D · 16th November 2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I really don't see what the problem is here. If there is a question of reliability of a source, whether it be a literary one or a personal observation, that question must be coming from somewhere. So point it out, explain it, explain the counter-point. If you think there is bias, explain why, establish the point.

Thank you Mark.

Jeff

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 07:32 AM

Btw, I have a question to those who read the book. It constantly says "attribute to" then the name of some Shah. How was this attribution made ? Was it made by analyzing when it was acquired by the collection, by analyzing the maker's mark and exactly pinning the sword's origin and the master and from the length of master's life - approximate production time or it was done solely based on what is written on the sword ?

Did they take in mind, how many of those "Shah Abbas" or "Nader-Shah" are fake, and how many of such swords Amuzga and Kubachi alone were making in XIXth century ?

frequent · 16th November 2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Btw, I have a question to those who read the book. It constantly says "attribute to" then the name of some Shah. How was this attribution made ? Was it made by analyzing when it was acquired by the collection, by analyzing the maker's mark and exactly pinning the sword's origin and the master and from the length of master's life - approximate production time or it was done solely based on what is written on the sword ?

Did they take in mind, how many of those "Shah Abbas" or "Nader-Shah" are fake, and how many of such swords Amuzga and Kubachi alone were making in XIXth century ?

hi i have been reading this thread and it is interesting but it isnt interesting in a good way. this looks like a negatively biased review can you offer any evidence for these claims that you're making please. please start with this last one you make. so much of this review is generalizing too many things. i dont understand why the moderators are not controlling this negative words here. i thought ths was a friendly place to go to.

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 09:59 AM

Why not. Astvatzaturjan, "Oruzhie Narodov Kavkaza", p.202 ..."Besides signatures on the blades they used to put (long description of various items)... with a singature Haderat Shah Abbas, meaning "His Highness Shah Abbas"". Or for example on page 333 about georgian shamshirs: "Real iranian bular blades of XVIIIth century are rare. Much more often we see steel blades of caucasian work, imitating iranian shape with signatures imitating those on iranian blades". Sometimes this imitation was sort of painless, like "no hero but Ali, no sword but Zulfakar" on Geurk's blades, but sometimes it was quite menacing.

Now most of Amuzga "fakes" are quite easy to identify, even those that are copies: in XIXth century some russian noblemen would send a persian blade to Kubachi asking to make a copy.
In the end of Kubachi/Amuzga story I would say that I personally have seen a lot of absolutely fantastic blades from there attributed to various Iranian leaders, mostly to Nader-Shah (don't know why, but Kubachians probably were proud to withstand his siege).
There are even legends coming around about all of this, for example Rasul Gamzatov cites a funny legend "Napoleon was given by Persians a blade of Timur, the East is great, those of knowledge when looked at the blade immideately identified it as coming from Amuzga".

Look out for turks as well. Astvatzaturjan, "Turezkoe Oruzhie", p.111: "Comparing to sabres kilij, sabres shamshir have few signatures, From 21 sabres in the State Historical Museum, 7 are signed and only 2 of them are dated. Both blades and signatures were made in Turkey (using turkish methods of signing), but were supposed to be the work of iranian masters, specifically .... Assadullah from Isfahan. That is why the fake signature "Work of Assadullah from Isfahan" appears often on the blades from Hermitage and State historical museum".

Finally there is a blade that was recently shown by Dr. Feuerbach. I could not read "Shah Abbas" there, but I think I trust al-Anitzi. Is it also an early XVIIth century ?

In short, faking Timurs, Abbases, Assadullah was a profitable and respectable thing to do. I am not an expert and hope to be corrected by you, frequent (Ruel, Doug, Manoucher ?), or others, who are more of an expert. I hope numerous russian-speaking people here can check the translation.

Concerning friendly place - well we can occasionally ask questions here, don't we ?

Rivkin · 16th November 2006, 10:17 AM

The message that I have tried to deliver here - it can be written on the blade that was owned by biblical king David, or Mohammed, or Timur, or Shah-Abbas, but it does not mean they can be "attributed" to these historical figures, otherwise we have to assume that every blade in the pavilion of holy relics should be used to date arab and one - even hebrew swords, the spear of destiny should be used to date ancient roman spears and so on.
Some of them are definitely original and have authentic signatures, but some of them...

Btw, I repeatedly stated - treat my review with a grain of salt. It can be based, and a lot of things there can simply be wrong.

For example, frequent, that is a simple question - how come Iran lost its Circassian part to Russia ?

15th November 2006, 08:41 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Review of "Arms and Armour from Iran" by M. Khorasani First of all I must acknowledge that historically me and the book’s author, Manoucher Khorasani are not on the best terms. I will not comment on the reasons behind it and unfortunately the thread that started it, on Armenian kings have been deleted. In light of this I would ask you to treat this review with a grain of salt. I have made an attempt to insure an independent review for my review, but certain rude and erroneous assumptions were drawn concerning my nationality (not entirely without my fault) and my commercial interests, so this idea has died. Please also understand that I am obviously not an authority in the field, so me reviewing this book goes against the well established policy when the review is performed by someone of a higher status than the author. Please understand that I may be wrong, and I review this book as myself, and not in any official function. I also apologize that since I have not spent too much time writing this review (and cited the sources mostly by memory), I do not offer an extensive analysis of the book. First I would like to start with an apology to the author, Manoucher Khorasani. A lot of things I feared concerning his book are not true, and it was highly presumptuous of me to assume that some of the most politicized discussions we had over the years would be transformed by Mr. Khorasani into this book. I will start with a short summary of my opinion on this book and its positive sides. I believe it is to be an excellent introductory text on Persian Weapons. It is written in such a way that it is accessible to a wide audience, and gives you a brief overview of all weapons associated with Iran, with short, but important statements concerning their possible use and function. This is being illustrated by many pictures made of pieces that mostly belong to prominent Iranian Museums and therefore inaccessible to many of us. The weapons shown are of varied quality, from that of prominent Kings to those of servants, even though there is a slight overrepresentation of the first kind. However this overrepresentation does not mean showing a lot of jewel-encased parade swords, but rather functional military blades of very high quality. It is a very interesting book which will give you the basics of virtually every aspect of Iranic weapons, whether this would be the references in famous manuscripts, the use by martial artists, native words and attributions used to describe the weapons, and, finally, the weapons themselves. I would strongly recommend buying this book to everyone who starts researching or collecting Iranian weapons. The information contained in this book is truly enormous, and one can only imagine how much of very hard work came into publishing this book. An argument can be made that this book is more pricey than others in the field, but if one is to use commercial terms, this book can be bought instead of a number of other books: basics of wootz and Damascus steel, Iranic weapons from bronze to age to late XIXth century, basics of archery, bows and arrows, many examples of textual references demonstrating the change in the attitude people had towards weapons throughout the time, all of it can be to some extent learned from this single book. However, if we are to exceed the basic level and to look at the details, we can see a number of problems, as discussed below. While each of these issues I will illustrate with just a few quotes, all of them are very general in nature, and appear on a very regular basis, i.e. it is not a typo here or misquote there. The first problem is that the author very extensively quotes from a very few books, quite general in nature, almost entirely ignoring the publications in academic journals. Let me show what I mean by taking just 3 pages as an example: Pages 130-132 discuss the origin of the curved swords. Discoveries at Galiat, Saltovskaja culture, the sword of Charlemagne, Khazar Kaganat and Alans is what one expects to find in any material related to the sabre’s origin. Instead we have only brief mentioning of Alans here and the discussion evolves into very strange statements like (p.131) :”However, in a sense, Kobylinski is right to doubt that the Turkish people where the original inventors of the curved sword since forging technology demands urbanization, and that poses a variety of challenges to Steppe people…” and a very long discussion of Chinese weapons. These and following statements are very strange in light of massive evidence of sword production by Steppe cultures, starting with Al-Bukavi, Al-Mukkadasi about Volga Bulgars’ sword (one has to mention that there are alternative interpretations) to nearly any professional work on Steppe nations, summarized by Gorelik in his recent interview “Nomadic tatars lost the ability to produce weapons as late as XVI-XVIIth century, while mongols did not”, followed by the reference to relatively recent Kalmykian production of armour and cannons. Instead the production moves to large cities like Kazan (but yet again even in Khazar Kaganat there were semi-settled areas like Ittil). Second, again, one needs to understand the differences between Alanic, Khazarian, Proto-Hungarian and Proto-Circassian(?) cultures, which includes acknowledging their sabres and clearly stating how they were dated and probably even addressing the question of who is likely to be the first of them to create the saber, based on archeology. Speculative discussion of Chinese and Mongol weapons is clearly out of place here. In all not a single archeological paper, even review ones in English by V.N.Kaminsky or in German by Vinogradov are referenced here, nor the recent book of Astvatsaturjan (Oruzhie Narodov Kavkaza). Instead the entire discussion (as much of this book) is based on a few works by Lebedinsky, Kobylinsky, Allen and Gilmore, and David Nicolle. It is highly surprising that relatively late graphic evidence as presented by David Nicolle is widely addressed but only a single, very late, excavated sword, dated to IX-Xth century, is mentioned. What follows is a number of statements based on the famed manuscript “Manaqib al-Turk” concerning the use of curved sabers by Khorasanis, whom author, following David Nicolle, defines as “Persian troops of the so called Khorasanis”. Again, if one starts to talk about Manaqib al-Turk and Khorasanis one has to give the variety of interpretations of who these Khorasanis where – from one based on the statement in Manaqib al-Turk that they speak the language similar to that of turks, to the one which identifies them as Arab colonists. Again, the relevant research articles by Togan, Sheshen should have been cited here. As part of such tendency, the author, outside of the part on ancient bronze, ignores the archeology (for example, the whole archeology of Caucasian kindjals), substituting it with observations drawn from Persian miniatures. The second problem is that there are a lot of statements where instead of a reference to some scientific article or book, the author inserts that it is “author’s observations”. For example, on page 214 it says (concerning qames) “… stemmed from the Circassian parts of Iran”, with a footnote to this: “Note that Iran lost much of its territories in the North to Russia during Qajar period (author’s observations)”. These and other similar statements are somewhat strange – I can think of no time when Circassia was part of Iran, nor therefore the time when it was lost to Russia by Iran (the ownership of Circassia was traditionally claimed by Krimean Girey family or Ottoman Empire, with not a lot of factual support in either case). Also these statements about territories lost to Russia are being repeated throughout the book, with no reference that by the time of Russian conquest almost all of these territories severed any ties with Iran, the process that gained momentum with Nader-Shah’s defeat in 1741 by Dagestani confederation. A lot of arguments in this book include assumptions that are questioned by the author, like on page 136-137 a few shamshirs are shown with the following words: “Judging by the curvature of their blades, it can be assumed that highly curved swords were, indeed, in use even prior to the Safavid period, provided that these Shamshirs truly belong to the Timurid period”. It better to phrase such and following statements as the possibility that “highly curved swords…”, rather than as “it can be assumed”. A lot of properties of Iranian blades are illustrated with what I would consider to be questionable (i.e. derived from folklore) stories. A lot of statements require much more extensive documentation (like in the part on Damascus, what was exactly made by Anosov and how it was different from the work of later “bulat” makers; “Rusi” are actually far more likely Viking (it is suspected this is the way they were called in early Arabic literature) than Russian swords, and many-many other things in the same Chapter), instead the author simply extensively quotes from other (not necessarily reliable) books. The third and the biggest problem is that the author does seem to spend very little time addressing the differences between Persian weapons per se and that of Caucasus, Ottoman Empire and others. While it is acknowledged that there was a significant exchange between all these nations and artisans, as well as warriors, were constantly moving from one place to another and therefore obviously a lot of Persian weapons did not originate in Persia, he offers virtually no key to how differentiate between Persian and non-Persian items. For example when it comes to qamas (kindjals), he makes a statement that Persian kindjals usually do not have metal scabbards, while Caucasian sometimes do, but for most part does not address the differences beyond that. In fact there are a lot of them – the form of the pommel, the method of decorations, shape, metal, all is different, albeit to some extent similar. This problem goes way beyond qames – for example, on page 143 it is stated that Ivanov believes that a given Shamshir is not an Iranian based on signature and shape. One needs better arguments, than given here, to show that it is Iranian, and say not an imitation. Two pages before that there is a shamshir from Oruzheinaja Palata, Moscow collection; without an inventory number or far better photographs I can not be completely sure, but I think this one was taken into the collection as that of Persian work, but Circassian construction (which accounts for the differences with respect to more “Persian” types). There is no statement about this in this book. In all I believe that there is a number of Ottoman, Kubachi, Uzbek, may be Georgian pieces that are present in this book, however because of the problem that is cited in the next paragraph I can not be sure. In order to explain the differences one should have spoken about floral motifs, their connection with China, Silk Trade, and Armenian Migration, their differences in Dagestan, Iran and Ottoman Empire, their symbolism, the difference between Dagestani and Iranian Koftgari techniques, the difference in the approach to make fullers, the difference between Tiflis stamped maker’s mark, and those made in Iranian Azerbaijan, finally one has to show how the popular attributions to Abbas-Mirza, Shah Abbas, portraits on the blades and so on, differed between Iran and surrounding countries (surprisingly there are a lot of “Abbas-Mirza” blades that are coming from Caucasus). Also, some but very little effort is made with respect to post-Sassanid blades to identify where exactly they are coming from inside Iran (i.e. which weapons are more characteristic of Azerbaijan and so on), or what nationality/tribe where the people who made them. Also, I would strongly disagree on time attribution given to some pieces. The last problem is photographs. A lot of them are dim and improperly color balanced, but worse of all – the photographs of entire swords are usually made so small one can barely see the details, while they are accompanied by many big blow ups of the blade fragments, that are virtually identical to each other. There are horrible amounts of photographs, but most of them are barely legible – the number of photographs should be cut down by a factor of 3, but they should be bigger. As a conclusion I should state what I believe to be the reason behind all these problems. The book attempts to cover the weapons of a huge Empire over a colossal time range, something that would demand either a freak genius who knows it all, or, more likely, a co-authorship or at least editing by many highly respected scientists, specializing on ancient Iran, Sassanids, Central Asia, Caucasus, early Islamic Rule , Safavids, Qajars and so on. Instead the book reverts to very extensive quoting from a few texts (Feuerbach, Wulff, Lebedinsky, Nicolle, Ivanov, Zakey and others) with virtually no acknowledgement of research articles, sometimes with missing discussion of the primeral sources, based on which the above mentioned authors formed their conclusions. Sometimes it seems the writing was done without a very deep understanding of the topic, resulting in a very large number of imprecise statements that can either cause misrepresentations, or can be even considered as errors. Part of the reason is probably that none of the Editors is known as a prominent collector or researcher of Iranian weapons, or even a prominent expert on Iranian history. Only one of the editors has a Ph.D. (in Virology), but many specialize in Chinese or Japanese weapons and martial styles (which explains out of place references to Chinese and Japanese weapons). It is a very interesting and valuable book, but it fails as an advanced material.

15th November 2006, 08:54 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,200	Moderator's note Thank you Rivkin for a lengthy and thoughtful review of this book. As many of you already know, this book has been a controversial subject on this Forum. Moderators will be monitoring discussions here VERY CLOSELY. Any attempt to escalate discussions or inflame debate will be dealt with promptly and severely. Avoid personalities and stay on topic please. Ian.

16th November 2006, 01:33 AM	#10
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Olive Branches and Vitriol I think we are drifting off topic and into personalities Gentlemen.

16th November 2006, 05:07 AM	#24
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Dear All, 1. "Crap" was a characteristic of some of my earlier posts. 2. I apologize if I misunderstood your words, Mr. Ko. It is indeed a cultural thing. 3. What I mean with all this stuff about peace, is that even if we would have a "peace agreement", I would not have written something drastically different, but who knows, I have tried to be more or less objective, but probably failed, I can not be a judge of that. I have nothing against any posts on SFI, by any authors, including the one you call "monster" on SFI. I welcome them and have no problem with their existance, despite profoundly disagreeing with their nature. And yes, if the triple-cursed mekhitarist sword will come up again for the evaluation, I will still refer you to the same book. 4. I apologize for mentioning my title here, and I think it is irrelevant who we are and what we do, this was done only to say that if we go formal we need to go formal. Please adress me by my nick here - Rivkin, or by my first name - Kirill. 5. Finally I want to mention that we discuss too much my relationship with Manoucher. I have clearly stated it on top of my review, I think quite accurately. 6. Now concerning the books - there is a book by Allen and Gilmore, "Persian Steel, Tannavoli Collection". I did not like Lebedinsky's book on Caucasian weapons, but have not read the one on "Oriental" weapons. There is a number of other books, but I do believe the present book is a very good starting point, and a very good basic book on the subject. 7. I again would like to express my apologies for some of my previous words. I honestly believed that the book will be filled with "Arrani" problems, criticism of Western Myths, declarations of Arian unity, and many other things that have been stated many times in the past, often in the connection with this book. I would like to reiterate my statement, that I do not think any of those is a big concern here. There are some "territorial" (you have seen one example - Circassia) and other issues here and there (too much heroic folklore, too many times questionably names people "persian or "iranian") but in general it is a good book. 8. Finally, I think we use the word "academic" too much. Let me tell you of my experience. I am far from being honored with a publication of the size of Manoucher's work, but some time ago I did submit a 10 times smaller manuscript to some colleagues for review. Two politely replied with commentaries about font, pictures and congratulated me on my accomplishment (translation - they have not read the damn thing). The third one did read it. The phrase written on the cover was "SHAME !!! Did not reference:". Below it was a list of articles that I failed to reference. On every page he has found something that was uncertain, or misinterpreted, or misrepresented. Now, I swallowed my pride and implemented corrections. The moral to it is simple - you want to be an academian, read periodic journals and reference them, extensively. Otherwise people will look at your reference list and will think that you are unaware of the current work or you simply copied lots of textbooks. Here I believe a lot of articles and books should have been referenced because they directly relate to the field, and their context should have been discussed here. And above all - send your work for review to people who are not your super-friends, but those who will tear your work apart, for you learn from their comments, not from yours friends' praise. Last edited by Rivkin; 16th November 2006 at 07:05 AM.

15th November 2006, 09:02 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Bringing to mind the cost, I have found this quite helpful. I will just have to wait untill I come across I cheap copy.

15th November 2006, 11:41 PM	#4
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Personalities aside, where can I find a copy of the book? Searched Google and can't find any for sale. Since I know nothing about Iranian weapons it might be a good start for me.

15th November 2006, 11:55 PM	#5
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Here's one site Bill: http://www.interbook-artbooks.com/in...ucts_id=350252 I also saw some used on bookfinder.com, but the price wasn't really any better.

16th November 2006, 12:40 AM	#6
Adrian Ko Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5	Mr. Rivkin, is it possible that any review or critique of Manouchehr's book by you will be unavoidably baised due to your personal issues with the gentleman? Having read your past words towards Manouchehr and his publication, and also having reviewed Dr. Ann Feuerbach's treatment on this website, I see not only Manouchehr being attacked but also attempts to undermine the very people who have been supportive of this book. It no longer appears that the motivation is purely intellectual. This behavior has to stop. I'm here to personally offer an olive branch to you and all to please not let personal differences cloud us and to not allow resentment to taint the views of others. I'm also asking for the kindest consideration that the reconciliation and healing process begin now before it gets worse where people will end up carrying this vitriol to their graves.

16th November 2006, 01:13 AM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Is it possible that my opinion is biased ? Ofcoarse. It says so right in the first paragraph of my review, that is why I ask people to "treat this review with a grain of salt". Concerning Dr. Feuerbach (btw, since we started this, why Mr. Rivkin, but Dr. Feuerbach ?), I am sorry if my statement that her beliefs are her beliefs was offensive. I really do not know how to refrase it, but yes, as I stated many times, there are a lot of different opinions on the subject, and those that are not mine could be wrong or could be right. I actually objected (and do object) to only a single phrase in her review (which btw does not relate to the book), concerning preservation of the knowledge of antiquity. First of all I do not believe in significant importance of a lot of this knowledge of antiquity for post-renessaince science (were epicycles really helpful ?). Yes, on the other hand one should note the excessive quoting/translation of Aristotel and others by Muslim Philosophers, but it is a very complex question, how much was preserved and how much was destroyed and by whom, and yes I find the recent controversy over "preservation" to be largely politically driven. If Dr. Feuerbach wants to waste her valuable time discussing this with me, I would be honored to, but I am obviously not an expert on this, so I do not know if it is a good idea to argue with me. Concerning the rest of her review I think I agree with 80%, may be even 90% of what she says. Only she says it in a very polite way, and I say it in a rude way. Well, she is a fine lady and I am a vicious savage. Concerning your peace offer. Thank you very much. May I ask how do you see this peace ? We stop criticizing Manoucher and Ruel, Ruel downgrades his charge of plagiarism against Tirri to misdimeanor ? I will be honest I have no problem if Manoucher for example comes after stuff I published on this forum. A lot of it (10-20%) is different than what I think today, and a some of it is simply crap.

16th November 2006, 03:48 AM	#20
Adrian Ko Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5	As a site operator, I see the value of moderation and appreciate the difficulty it is to keep threads on topic. I apologize for any inconvenience and I'll submit to the requests of the moderators. I thank everyone for allowing me to share. This is my final post on this thread. Have a great rest of the week! (And beyond that, of course!)

16th November 2006, 03:58 AM	#22
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,200	Jeff: We need to avoid commenting on the author, his credentials or his position on another forum, and focus on the substance of the book. The book is the enduring contribution to our field of interest and it needs to be evaluated on its merits. Where there are statements of personal opinion, these should be treated as such, but they should not be used to attack the author or his credibility. This is a mammoth piece of work and deserves careful review, as Dr Rivkin has attempted. Ian.

16th November 2006, 04:16 AM	#23
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thanks Ian, I agree with your sentiments, but the lawyers here would never accept the testimony of a expert witness without first establishing his credentials. The situation I would personally like to avoid is the disagreement with one of Manoucher's personal observations or conclusions, with the attempt to support this position sounding like a personal attack, when it was not intended to be. Solid credentials as you know alleviates this (to some degree). Since there is more than a few of these potential bombs in the book I would like to see a guide line to defuse this situation. Thank you and good luck Jeff

16th November 2006, 07:32 AM	#27
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Btw, I have a question to those who read the book. It constantly says "attribute to" then the name of some Shah. How was this attribution made ? Was it made by analyzing when it was acquired by the collection, by analyzing the maker's mark and exactly pinning the sword's origin and the master and from the length of master's life - approximate production time or it was done solely based on what is written on the sword ? Did they take in mind, how many of those "Shah Abbas" or "Nader-Shah" are fake, and how many of such swords Amuzga and Kubachi alone were making in XIXth century ?

16th November 2006, 09:59 AM	#29
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Why not. Astvatzaturjan, "Oruzhie Narodov Kavkaza", p.202 ..."Besides signatures on the blades they used to put (long description of various items)... with a singature Haderat Shah Abbas, meaning "His Highness Shah Abbas"". Or for example on page 333 about georgian shamshirs: "Real iranian bular blades of XVIIIth century are rare. Much more often we see steel blades of caucasian work, imitating iranian shape with signatures imitating those on iranian blades". Sometimes this imitation was sort of painless, like "no hero but Ali, no sword but Zulfakar" on Geurk's blades, but sometimes it was quite menacing. Now most of Amuzga "fakes" are quite easy to identify, even those that are copies: in XIXth century some russian noblemen would send a persian blade to Kubachi asking to make a copy. In the end of Kubachi/Amuzga story I would say that I personally have seen a lot of absolutely fantastic blades from there attributed to various Iranian leaders, mostly to Nader-Shah (don't know why, but Kubachians probably were proud to withstand his siege). There are even legends coming around about all of this, for example Rasul Gamzatov cites a funny legend "Napoleon was given by Persians a blade of Timur, the East is great, those of knowledge when looked at the blade immideately identified it as coming from Amuzga". Look out for turks as well. Astvatzaturjan, "Turezkoe Oruzhie", p.111: "Comparing to sabres kilij, sabres shamshir have few signatures, From 21 sabres in the State Historical Museum, 7 are signed and only 2 of them are dated. Both blades and signatures were made in Turkey (using turkish methods of signing), but were supposed to be the work of iranian masters, specifically .... Assadullah from Isfahan. That is why the fake signature "Work of Assadullah from Isfahan" appears often on the blades from Hermitage and State historical museum". Finally there is a blade that was recently shown by Dr. Feuerbach. I could not read "Shah Abbas" there, but I think I trust al-Anitzi. Is it also an early XVIIth century ? In short, faking Timurs, Abbases, Assadullah was a profitable and respectable thing to do. I am not an expert and hope to be corrected by you, frequent (Ruel, Doug, Manoucher ?), or others, who are more of an expert. I hope numerous russian-speaking people here can check the translation. Concerning friendly place - well we can occasionally ask questions here, don't we ?

16th November 2006, 10:17 AM	#30
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	The message that I have tried to deliver here - it can be written on the blade that was owned by biblical king David, or Mohammed, or Timur, or Shah-Abbas, but it does not mean they can be "attributed" to these historical figures, otherwise we have to assume that every blade in the pavilion of holy relics should be used to date arab and one - even hebrew swords, the spear of destiny should be used to date ancient roman spears and so on. Some of them are definitely original and have authentic signatures, but some of them... Btw, I repeatedly stated - treat my review with a grain of salt. It can be based, and a lot of things there can simply be wrong. For example, frequent, that is a simple question - how come Iran lost its Circassian part to Russia ?