Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art
 

I received notice from Amazon this morning that "Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art" will be released later this month. A little ahed of schedule.

Harry

I just ordered it from Amazon.

Me too.

OMG
Should I kill someone to get it or can i just buy it?
:)

Yes, first you should kill somebody, and only then you might be allowed to use your VISA.

That's the rule.

I got it, one of the best book ever!
It's sad that most of the weapons presented are pre-19th c.
Nevertheless some members will have to change their minds about Arabian jambiya...
:)
Kubur

I hope the descriptions used in the book have been checked by someone who knows armor and weapons, there are many mistakes in the Mets online collection descriptions. Here is one example, this char-aina is listed as being Indian, to me it has all the characteristics of a Persian char-aina, another obviously Persian char-aina that was listed as being Indian for many years just recently had its description corrected to Persian. The dagger below is described as being a khanjar (Dagger (Khanjar) Date: 18th–19th century) but it looks like a type of jambiya to me.

Many weapons do not mention wootz steel being used. Several mail shirts are listed as being "Ottoman" but their construction looks nothing like any Ottoman mail examples that I have seen, I think the Met may be relying on some very old descriptions which need to be updated, since I have not seen the book yet I do not know if they have in fact done this already.



Cuirass (Char-aina)
Date: late 18th–19th century
Culture: Indian
Medium: Steel, gold, textile.

I just got my copy, having skimmed it, read here and there, and I can recommend it as a very interesting book, showing, if I remember correctly, 176 different weapons with texts explaining about the different weapon types.

Just got mine too...impressive at first glance, but haven't had a chance to really peruse it yet.

first critic
 

I just got my copy today and I can say it is a monumental work illustrating some magnificent and unique weapons. However, it definitely is quite far from a reference book as it avoids using specific technical terms and sometimes even uses them erroneously. For example, all curved blade swords are called "saber" whether it is a Persian Shamshir (page 182), an Ottoman Kilij (page 161) or an Indian Tuwar (page 184). It goes as far as calling "dagger" an archetipal single edged Persian Kard (page 222). It also uses the generic and rather inaccurate term "crucible steel" for describing Wootz.
Overall, the book certainly looks beautiful but it sounds like being written by the museum's photographer, and not by a reputed authority in the field.

Dear Marius,

It's exactly the opposite!!!
Specialists and scientific will use neutral vocabulary or standard lexicon.
Collectors or connoisseurs - like most of US on this forum, will use specific terms related to one region, tribe or dynasty... Specialists are smart enough to cover their ass using generic terms.
As we say "more we learn less we know..."

Best,
Kubur

Thank you for this very interesting oppinion!
Unfortunately, I did not research the book long enough, neither do I posess enough knowledge to agree with your oppinion.
In my oppinion, a specialist in the field should be confident enough to be able to be both accurate and specific when dealing with a subject within his area of expertise. I don't really appreciate a "specialist" that is so cautious with terms that prefers to use very broad and generic terms instead of the specific ones just to be "on the safe side."
Then, I wonder what kind of "specialist" would use the term "dagger" for a classic single edge knife.
It would be interesting to hear other people's oppinions though.

It would not be unusual for an author to use terms which he feels will not change or be outdated after a period of time. Being to timid when describing items could mean that the author is not exacty sure what term to use so the most basic/safe description ends up being used. It is to bad that the author took this approach but it is understandable, he had the ability to photograph the items but delving into the various terms/descriptions that WE may be familiar with and use could cause anyone a big headache.

Well, I guess David Alexander and Stuart Pyhrr know a thing or two about wootz, shamshirs, kilijes and khanjars:-)))

Generally, a short-bladed weapon is generically called a "dagger" when it is clearly a fighting item and is primarily designed for stabbing. It does not matter whether it is single, - or double edged. Khanjars are double edged, pesh kabzes are single edged. Knives can be fighting or utility. I do not think this point is worth much discussion.

My guess , the authors wrote this book with an educated and advanced reader in mind, well past the "name game" stage.

Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?

I just got my copy book. Beautiful illustration. The texts are not ideally perfect. But disadvantages can be at any book.

In a couple of places I had time to look at, - yes. I have no problem with it. Wootz is a Europeanized variant of the indian ukku ( or whatever the correct phonetization might have been). Technologically, it is crucible steel, which is undoubtedly correct.

I guess there is a valid reason to use a local name for a thing when we need either to specify a unique pattern or to pinpoint its origin: Turkish saber is kilij , not saif, and Uzbeki knife is P'chak, not Kard.

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))

I would be very interested in your enumeration of imperfections of the texts ( plural). Always good to learn from a specialist. Thanks.

Experts at the forum, who know better than I, already named some imperfections. I noticed:

1) strange doubts in the regional localization of items - pp. 56, 66

2) the fact that some things are called simply: saber, sword. Although they have a name - pp. 178, 180, 184

3) the fact that the knife for some reason called "dagger" - p. 194

I hope I have helped you to understand that you did not know?

While I only quickly scanned book. So, of course, I do not enumerate all the pages.

According to Ann Feuerbach there were two main production areas, Indian and Central Asia, with wootz being used to describe the steel originating in India and bulat for steel originating in Central Asia....I suppose if you do not know the origin "damascus or watered" steel would suffice. While the term "crucible steel" is used instead of "wootz, bulat, damascus steel, watered steel' it probably should not be as it really describes the method and not the specific end product.

Ann Feuerbach

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))

Mahratt:
Drs. Alexander and Pyhrr are not amateurs. Please read CAREFULLY the text to the items on pages 56 and 66. Then, perhaps, you would understand the complexity of attribution and the depth of research that went into it.



The rest of your "comments" are just a repetition of previously-mentioned personal opinions of other people, and I have already said what I thought. See last sentence of post #14.

Be sure to read it carefully when I have time. As I wrote before, I quickly scan the book. I got a few books. And I can not study them all at once))))

I am glad that my opinion coincides with that of the other participants.

Remember to keep this civil folks................

Good!

You will find answers to your questions.

Ariel, I know you are aware of Anns work, I really wrote that for anyone who was reading this that might not be aware of the different terms.

Can anyone scan one image and its accompanying text so that we can discuss whether the item is in fact properly identified and described, now that would be helpful.

I do not have the book (I already have a huge stack of unread books!!) but I am well acquanted with the all of the Mets Indo-Persian arms and armour items and their current descriptions. It would be interesting to see if the authors added anything to the Mets descriptions or if they in fact just went with what was already written without changing anything (this would be quite weak).

If you have time, can you post some scanned examples from the book for discussion, I am interested in knowing if this is a coffee table book or if there was actually some research behind the descriptions of the items.

Oh! You can buy this book. The book is written by one of the best specialist in the field. I join Ariel on all his comments. Alexander is a world specialist, the MET is one of the best museum in the world. This book has nothing to do with coffee table book or dealers catalogs with basic descriptions such as Wagner/Pinchot. I read to learn something not to see what I know already...
I'm just disapointed of their choices, I expected to see different objects. I guess this choice is linked to their own tastes and experience.

Kuber, I know that Alexander has a great amount of knowledge, but people with a great amount of knowledge can publish a not so great book. It depends on the audience that is being targeted and the demands of the publisher. While a book can have nice pictures and be entertining for the masses it may not be as well received by collectors/researchers/dealers etc. I think this is the crux of the questions about this book, will people from this forum learn something from the items descriptions or will we be looking at some pretty pictures and descriptions that are no better than the Mets less than amazing descriptions.

If anyone has an interest in Ottoman armor this essay by Alexander is available online.

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/me...rnal_v_18_1983

Another good armor essay by Alexander
"The Guarded Tablet": Metropolitan Museum Journal, v. 24 (1989)
http://www.metmuseum.org/research/me...rnal_v_18_1983

"Two Aspects of Islamic Arms and Armor": Metropolitan Museum Journal, v. 18 (1983) David G. Alexander.

It is exciting to see this new book by the MET, and of course I will be ordering it as well!
It is always interesting to see opinions, observations and critique evolve as these publications filter into the community, though much as with literature, music and movies, individual judgements will vary according to personal taste and requirements.

While many of the comments exchanged are 'entertaining', there are many very reasonable and actually helpful observations entered in the discussion.
One I most agree with is that in these kinds of books, often intended to reach a much broader consumption than specialized collectors, more attention is directed to an accordingly broader scope in descriptive terms.
I agree this is probably more deliberate than any oversight or deficiency in knowledgeable terminology ......the phenomenon we know well as the 'name game', the specious pursuit of a kind of weapons term 'Scrabble'.

The term 'coffee table' book is of course typically used to describe large volumes of which are profusely illustrated and usually very light on description, detail and explanatory text. Ironically, many of these can be most useful, such as the well known work by Anthony Tirri, which while offering little in reference, is a wonderful collectors guide showing many identified weapons of the level most often seen in collecting circuits.

The mention of dealers catalogs along with these 'coffee table' books of course can be accurately included in many cases, but I would most emphatically note and disagree with the Wagner/Pinchot inclusion.
While Oliver Pinchot of course did deliberately tone down the descriptions and text in this outstanding catalog of Kip Wagners amazing collection,
anyone familiar with his writing on arms will know his knowledge on these arms is unsurpassed.
I would not classify anything written by him categorically with dealers catalogs nor anything to do with coffee tables! however I do know that the Wagner book was admittedly basic in descriptions. I just wanted to clarify.

Most authors know to expect nit picking, and as many have told me, it sort of comes with the territory. Actually in most cases, such derisive notes usually reveal deficiencies in the critics themselves, however in some cases where comments are constructive they can truly offer valuable corrections. These are not only encouraged but very much welcomed by responsible authors.

Good notes guys! Thank you!