OTTOMAN....What do we mean?

[kahnjar1]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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

[estcrh]

The terms "Ottoman" and "Indo-Persian" are great examples of internet search terms. Without such broad terms it would take a lot longer for people to find what they are looking for. Tagging your posts and or images etc with these and or similar terms is the best way in todays internet driven world for dealers, collectors, Museums etc to have their images, research, etc found.

I have contributed thousands of images to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Pinterest, Photobucket, Flicker and various forums and I have found that an image/post/research etc can be publically available for years without ever being seen, and yet a newly available image/post etc can be found all over the internet, the difference being the words used, the same goes for forum discussions. Using the right search term will get your posts/images noticed.

[TVV]

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

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

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

Regards,
Teodor

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by estcrh

The terms "Ottoman" and "Indo-Persian" are great examples of internet search terms. Without such broad terms it would take a lot longer for people to find what they are looking for. Tagging your posts and or images etc with these and or similar terms is the best way in todays internet driven world for dealers, collectors, Museums etc to have their images, research, etc found.

I have contributed thousands of images to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Pinterest, Photobucket, Flicker and various forums and I have found that an image/post/research etc can be publically available for years without ever being seen, and yet a newly available image/post etc can be found all over the internet, the difference being the words used, the same goes for forum discussions. Using the right search term will get your posts/images noticed.

I agree that in the case of the Internet, the terms as mentioned are the accepted "norm" for easy search, but that was not the purpose of my thread.
My concern, if that is what you want to call it, was the response to a Member asking for origin of a particular item, and hoping to find out where his piece originated.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

I am very much 'old school' in most things about arms research, as most of my researching was done in the early 70s-80s BC (=before computers), and in those days we relied on the now venerable references, and of course 'snail mail' queries. For obscure references my faithful research librarian would find them via interlibrary loans etc. and hours at local office stores to copy important references.

These days, I still use the old methods, but very much use online resources as well. These, just like the older printed references, serve as 'benchmarks' and offer key routes and venues to pursue study further . Just as with any reference, the material can be misrepresented or more often outdated as new evidence comes available. It was a wise person who said "..the thing I like most about history is that its always changing!".

Unfortunately, these broad classifications, while maybe serving well to many in online searches, do not fare well for the serious study and identification and proper description of arms being discussed, published or displayed.
While the well known online auction venue is great for collectors in seeking items, it is laughable in the descriptions often........a single sword might be described with virtually dozens of sword types having nothing to do with the example itself.

As discussed here on occasion, massive groupings of impressive photos are tantalizing, but offer no specific detail as what is key or unique about them, or how to address them individually for specific discussion.
A huge slide show of katars is impressive, but offers nothing as to what is different or where the examples are from, what period, region etc.

Many years ago when my grandmother passed away, we were going through some boxes of now fading snapshots and photos, all unlabeled and with no notes. Nobody could figure out who the people were, where the locations were and most baffling was an old color snapshot of a strategically placed bell pepper. Naturally the speculation went rampant.......but who knew what in the world was so important about a single bell pepper?????

The point is....I think things should be identified, footnoted, cited, and properly described in every reasonable way possible. Otherwise it just becomes an object with little meaning beyond the obvious.

[Emanuel]

A bit tricky since Ottoman refers to a culture, a political entity, and the time that that entity was in power.

I agree with Ariel and others here that since it is very difficult to closely identify some objects or parts of objects to specific items and places, the more vague but correct identification as "Ottoman" is acceptable.

With many weapons, the blades were produced in one part of the Ottoman sphere at some time, and decorations/fittings were added in other parts at other times. Some daggers, guns, sabres and yataghan can be called Balkan sometimes, but they may have parts produced in what is now modern Turney. Parts of modern Turkey itself are now in "the Balkans".

Even when some objects were entirely produced in parts of Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary or Albania, they were fully derived from the influence of the dominant Ottoman culture.

Unless we can provide backup with a high degree of confidence to say that an object was produced in Foça, or Sarajevo, or maybe Ioannina, all we can say is that it is Ottoman, from this or that century. That just means it was produced in the Ottoman cultural and/or political sphere of influence.

I think we can qualify these objects as a Greek yataghan, or Bulgarian kilij, without calling them Ottoman, because the terms "yataghan" and "kilij" already carry the association with the Ottoman culture.

Emanuel

[Kubur]

Very well written and I fully agree with Manu!