Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,
As a rule I do not wish to enter into direct argument with you.


Let me explain: the minute you put your thoughts on paper and publish them, they become a part of the public domain and are opened to discussion and criticism.

I originally gave you high marks only for your descriptive abilities and still maintain this position. Please pay attention: nowhere and never did I praise your discussions of your material or the quality of your conclusions. I discussed it with you both personally and publicly on some Russian Fora about a host of your papers. You preferred not to take my comments into consideration. This was your unquestionablle right, just as it was your choice to advertise your publications here. But then it is my choice and my right to reflect on their quality.

There is no animosity on my part; just an objective peer review. There is nothing personal, it is only business, and it applies to you just the same way it applies to anybody else .

This is how the game of academic publishing is played. Learn the rules and welcome to the arena.

Originally Posted by Ian

Serious academic contributions, such as the paper mahratt has brought before us, are important information to our field and deserve our careful consideration. Respectful "rigorous discussion" by critics is actually the ultimate compliment to be paid to the author of such an article, and that is what Ariel has offered. Of course, distinguished academic researchers in unrelated fields can be wrong in their opinions about ethnographic weapons, but Ariel is engaging the author in an objective manner that asks for objective responses.

Ian.

Originally Posted by Rick

You know, I would not like being executed by such a weapon.
It would be a very ugly way to die.
So maybe no one carried one into combat.
Instead it's a sword for execution? :shrug:

I haven't read the article yet tbh; this is just an observation. :o

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I OF COURSE AM NOT AND DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT OR AN ACADEMIC BUT JUST A LONG TIME COLLECTOR WHO LOVES COLLECTING AND LEARNING ABOUT THE ITEMS I COLLECT AND THE SOCIETY'S WHO MADE AND USED THEM.
THEREFORE IN ACADEMICIAN CIRCLES NOTHING I OBSERVE OR SAY IS PERTINENT OR TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. PERHAPS MY MEASUREMENTS OF AN ITEM AND PICTURES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AS AN INVENTORY BUT LITTLE ELSE.
ACADEMIA IS UNDER THE STRICT CONSTRAINTS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVENIENCED IN THE SAME APPROVED ARTICLES AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THAT ALL USE. DRAWINGS AND TEXT FROM SOME OF THE FAMOUS EXPEDITIONS SUCH AS COOKS EXPEDITIONS ARE ACCEPTED. BUT COOK AND OTHER ACCEPTED SOURCES SURELY DIDN'T SEE EVERYTHING OR LEARN ALL THE STORIES AND BELIEFS THAT MAY HAVE WENT WITH THE ITEMS THEY BROUGHT BACK. MOST SOCIETY'S DO NOT OPENLY SHARE THEIR BELIEFS OR STORIES WITH STRANGERS AND MANY OF THESE EXPEDITIONS DID NOT STAY LONG ENOUGH TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE OR GAIN THE TRUST AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRIBES EVEN IF THEY WISHED TO.
I LIKE AND ENJOY THE LORE, STORIES AND SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE USING LOGIC AND COMPARISONS TO OTHER SOCIETIES. THIS CAN NOT BE USED IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES DUE TO THE RULES AND THE CURRENT ACCEPTED FACTS AND PAPERS AND MAY BE LOOKED DOWN ON. BUT I FIND THAT A BIT TOO CONSTRAINED AND LACKING IN INTEREST MANY TIMES SO WOULD PREFER TO HEAR OR READ THE LORE WHICH IS USUALLY MORE INTERESTING.
:D
I THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR BOTH BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE AS TO WHAT CAN BE PROVED AND WHAT IS SPECULATION OR LORE. AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE SAWFISH WEAPONS WE DISCUSS HERE ARE SURE TO HAVE HAD MANY STORIES AND LORE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BY THE PEOPLE WHO MADE AND USED THEM. THIS IS LOST OR UNDOCUMENTED BUT BE SURE IT IS LIKELY AS, SUPERSTITION, MAGIC , MANNA AND TABOOS ALL HAD PARTS IN THE HISTORY OF THESE OBJECTS. UNFORTUNATELY EVEN IF THE LORE IS STILL TOLD IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ACADEMIA. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS POINT TO THESE BELIEFS AND LORE BUT USUALLY CAN'T BE PROVED. SO WE WILL HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN UNTIL THE TIME MACHINE IS AVAILABLE. ;)