Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 29th March 2019, 12:21 AM   #5
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Nice hypothesis.
But I would note the following:

1. Walrus ivory was imported directly to Persia from Shirvan( Baku) and Astrakhan . The latter was also augmented by Indian traders who maintained large permanent missions there and then re-sold furs and walrus ivory to Iran. Thus, there was no scarcity of this material in Persia as witnessed by multiple examples of sword and dagger handles.

2. Examination of shamshirs from large collections shows very high proportion of the “oatmeal inside” slabs. See Khorasani’s book, Polish collections, Hales’ book, Kamil Khaidakov’s book “ Persian sabers”, catalogues of large auctions etc. Does it mean that all such handles went through restoration?
And that leads us to the next question:
3. If the traditional old ( sacral?) scheme was “ oatmeal outside”, why would not restorers maintain it? Why would they, according to the assertion of the author of that hypothesis, have suddenly and en masse put the slabs in reverse? After all, technically it would have been just as easy to maintain traditional order.
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.