Sawfish sword

[mahratt]

Yes, dear Vandoo.

Article in English. It is published in the journal: Armi Antiche. I think in the near future article will be available. I myself have not yet received the author's copy of the journal Armi Antiche with my article

[ariel]

Vandoo,
I read it in Russian.

As usual, Mahratt presented very impressive factual description of specimens and Internet pictures.

However, the final conclusion is flawed: during 15-19 centuries rostra might have been used as fighting implements by some primitive island societies, but were not true weapons in the Indo-Persian areal or in Europe. They might have served there as processional, decorative, votive or parade curiosities, but the above areas left not only the Stone but even the Bronze Age well behind them.
As I mentioned in an earlier post here, discussing their fighting role is as productive as deliberating about military history of General Tso's Chicken.

I cannot tell you whether in the "Italian" version of the article this obvious error was stemming from a faulty judgement or from poor translation. Hopefully, the latter.

[mahratt]

Vandoo,
dear Ariel, has recently "short memory" (do not know what it is connected)

In 2014 (when the article was published in Russian, and I placed it on a Russian forum) Ariel wrote: "Very good article: Unfolded, sober and indisputable examples." This can be confirmed by those participants in the forum who also speak Russian (as Ariel). And they are here in the forum

post 284: http://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/79/1077965-12.html

So I propose to await the release of the magazine (it will appear in September). Then the one who reads my article, be able to make on the article his personal opinion

[ariel]

Well, I can only repeat my earlier assessment: factual descriptions of the examples are very good. Mahratt did an excellent job and should be rightfully proud of it.
It is the conclusions that make no sense.

Hopefully, translation was the real culprit.

[mahratt]

Of course, of course

I wonder why it was not mentioned in Russian forum? There were only praise from a reputable Ariel)))) Perhaps, dear Ariel - a very tactful man And he was afraid to hurt me? Or maybe the whole thing in the personal animosity that arose over the past two years? Of course not! I think Ariel little forgotten the Russian language, and therefore did not understand my article.

But, I repeat. It is not necessary to impose their views to others. Soon everyone interested will be able to read the article and draw up a personal opinion.

[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.

[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?

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

[Ian]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,

... 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. ...

This is how the game of academic publishing is played. ...

Ariel has observed correctly that the academic world sometimes can be a tough arena in which to express oneself, and that objective criticism of an academic paper can be blunt at times.

There are some folks here who adopt a strict academic approach in discussing ethnographic edged weapons, and wish to see all opinions justified logically and supported by facts. Other members do not participate in discussions at that level, but rather they prefer to speculate in a less formal manner about how things might be. Personally, I think there is a place for both approaches. Informal, free wheeling discussions freed from the constraints of rigorous proof or supporting data are fun to engage in and sometimes produce some interesting ideas (hypotheses) that can then be looked at more critically.

The different views between those who are looking for an "informal chat" and those who want to engage in a more "rigorous discussion" sometimes has led to problems in our discussions. I would venture to say that most members who contribute to these forums are not from an academic background and do not necessarily wish to engage in "rigorous discussions," but would prefer to engage in a more informal manner. Others who want a more rigorous approach will take exception to a lack of evidence in such ideas. Strong disagreements and tensions may develop. That's one of the reasons why these forums have moderators--to intercede when interpersonal exchanges get overly heated.

When an article is published in a reputable journal (as is the case here) it is an academic paper that has hopefully passed through peer review and is open to rigorous analysis by those who read it. By bringing such a paper to our attention, the author invites Forum members to view it as a serious academic contribution to the field and to subject it to careful scrutiny.

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.

The present discussion of a peer reviewed paper illustrates when a more rigorous discussion is not only appropriate but seems the correct way to approach the information it contains.

Ian.

[mahratt]

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.

Dear Ariel. It is easy to "play with words" when the majority of the forum participants could not understand that in fact you wrote to me in Russian))))) But now is not even about it. You have studied the article. And I am very happy about it. I look forward to criticism. But only if this criticism on specific issues. Criticism - is first of all check and specific considerations and not the general words. You, dear Ariel, unfortunately, nothing concrete has been said. You just expressed their negative opinion by saying general words.


I'm in my article to make reference to specific historical sources. In September, when the magazine will appear in the press, participants in the forum (which is interested in this topic), be able to read my article and make your own opinion.

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.

Dear Ian
Could you cite where respected Ariel make: Respectful "rigorous discussion"? Perhaps the phrase on "history of General Tso's Chicken"?
Thank you in advance for your response.