Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

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.

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.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

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))))

Originally Posted by ariel

The rest of your "comments" are just a repetition of previously-mentioned personal opinions of other people ...

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

[Battara]

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

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

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))))

Good!

You will find answers to your questions.