How many researchers are there on the forum when it comes to Indian wapons

Jens Nordlunde · 26th September 2018, 01:37 PM

Marius,
When I started the thread I thought someone would ask the question you asked, and I wondered how long time it would take before the question surfaced:-).
Depending which meaning you give the word 'research'. Someone may say he has researches a tulwar, and found out it is from Rajasthan 18th century, while another one might want to find out from which state in Rajasthan, and yet another one would like to know if he can relate it to a person in a specific state in Rajasthan.
The time used in these three cases will, of course, be very different, but in a way all three are research - on a very different level.

mariusgmioc · 26th September 2018, 02:02 PM

Both of you (Jens & Ian) are right... but so am I.

In the end all depends on what depth we allocate to the term "research".

Mercenary · 26th September 2018, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Marius,
Someone may say he has researches a tulwar, and found out it is from Rajasthan 18th century...

Another one may say that it is Mughal 19th...
Third one - that it is from Deccan 18th...
But in fact it is the tourist item of the late 19th.
This is not research but of varying degrees of speculation. There is no science in it at all.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th September 2018, 04:34 PM

Mercenary,
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is, that you have to be a scientist to do a research. I think you must be an academic to say something like that.
As far as I know everyone can make a research.

So I dont agree with you, as someone who has gotten his first sword, and used ten maybe twenty hours to find out what it is (due to lack of books), will likely call it a research. When he has added to his collection he may find out that research is something else -far more reading and far more time consuming.

ariel · 26th September 2018, 05:01 PM

When we are talking about real research, we are talking about patterns and trends. Figuring out that a particular sword is from, say, Kutch and belonged to such-and-such is like putting a small simple tile on an empty board of 10,000 piece puzzle. Research is about unearthing governing principles.

Unfortunately, very few people are dealing with it. Perhaps, a book by Rivkin and Isaaks about history of Eastern sword comes closest to it.

Also, we lack the most powerful research tool: experimental verification. We cannot change anything in our database, we just observe individual examples and try to tie them into some more or less coherent story. But our databases are contaminated by outliers, composite examples ( true, not faked by sellers), throwbacks, accidental examples of items wandering into foreign territories, late imitations etc.
We have to rely on the opinions of our predecessors, and we all know how far-fetched some of them could have been.

In short, research of arms and armour can never be as academic and conclusive as, say, physics or molecular biology ( and those have their problems, too). We are dealing with the past, with history, and I do not have to remind anyone that we still are not sure about demise of Roman Empire or the meaning of French Revolution.

This is not to say that we should abandon all hope; just that we have to know out limitations.

Mercenary · 26th September 2018, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

This is not to say that we should abandon all hope; just that we have to know out limitations.

Absolutely agree too

Bob A · 26th September 2018, 05:35 PM

Absent the availability of living links to former cultures and artifacts, there is little on which to base a conclusion.

Some research of this nature has been conducted by perusal of old images; photographs, paintings, statuary and so forth. Those who experienced it are silent, leaving only artifacts from which to extrapolate.

The notion of a vast, empty puzzle table is exact. Collectors, accumulators and scholars all work to populate the table, and all contribute what they can. What is written is sometimes correct, often not. Traders in antique cultural artifacts have long influenced the language - and therefore the conceptualisation - of this research. We've seen this here. Even museum curators have not infrequently gotten it wrong.

We live in fortunate times for research, as a planet-wide information system is being implemented. Availability of information (and disinformation, alas) has never been greater. Communications between isolated individuals with common interests has laid the groundwork for a far more extensive study of obscure areas of interest and endeavor.

The effort now seems to consist in populating the puzzle table with pieces, and establishing frameworks within which the pieces can be organised. In time, it is to be hoped that documentation from the source cultures can be found, processed and translated to aid in the creation of filters through which artifacts may be viewed, and perhaps understood, in a fashion that approximates their long-lost original reality.

So far we have the beginning of he creation of tools for the study; expanding and refining the available information continues. The more varied viewpoints that can be brought to bear on the topics of interest, the better. Sorting through the resulting glut of information and misinformation will continue to be the ongoing challenge.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th September 2018, 06:24 PM

Bob,
Thank you very much for commenting - and for claryfiyng that the key words are - information and disinformation.
Jens

Bob A · 26th September 2018, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Bob,
Thank you very much for commenting - and for claryfiyng that the key words are - information and disinformation.
Jens

Jens, you're welcome.

Certainly disinformation is rife on the internet, but misinformation is also prevalent, and bears a more innocent connotation. All three apply, as I understand the situation.

Mercenary · 26th September 2018, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Mercenary,
So I dont agree with you, as someone who has gotten his first sword, and used ten maybe twenty hours to find out what it is (due to lack of books), will likely call it a research

I agree. It is very good if someone want to know something more. It is a real research. Private research for myself.

26th September 2018, 01:37 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Marius, When I started the thread I thought someone would ask the question you asked, and I wondered how long time it would take before the question surfaced:-). Depending which meaning you give the word 'research'. Someone may say he has researches a tulwar, and found out it is from Rajasthan 18th century, while another one might want to find out from which state in Rajasthan, and yet another one would like to know if he can relate it to a person in a specific state in Rajasthan. The time used in these three cases will, of course, be very different, but in a way all three are research - on a very different level.

26th September 2018, 02:02 PM	#2
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	Both of you (Jens & Ian) are right... but so am I. In the end all depends on what depth we allocate to the term "research".

26th September 2018, 04:34 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Mercenary, If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is, that you have to be a scientist to do a research. I think you must be an academic to say something like that. As far as I know everyone can make a research. So I dont agree with you, as someone who has gotten his first sword, and used ten maybe twenty hours to find out what it is (due to lack of books), will likely call it a research. When he has added to his collection he may find out that research is something else -far more reading and far more time consuming.

26th September 2018, 05:01 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	When we are talking about real research, we are talking about patterns and trends. Figuring out that a particular sword is from, say, Kutch and belonged to such-and-such is like putting a small simple tile on an empty board of 10,000 piece puzzle. Research is about unearthing governing principles. Unfortunately, very few people are dealing with it. Perhaps, a book by Rivkin and Isaaks about history of Eastern sword comes closest to it. Also, we lack the most powerful research tool: experimental verification. We cannot change anything in our database, we just observe individual examples and try to tie them into some more or less coherent story. But our databases are contaminated by outliers, composite examples ( true, not faked by sellers), throwbacks, accidental examples of items wandering into foreign territories, late imitations etc. We have to rely on the opinions of our predecessors, and we all know how far-fetched some of them could have been. In short, research of arms and armour can never be as academic and conclusive as, say, physics or molecular biology ( and those have their problems, too). We are dealing with the past, with history, and I do not have to remind anyone that we still are not sure about demise of Roman Empire or the meaning of French Revolution. This is not to say that we should abandon all hope; just that we have to know out limitations.

26th September 2018, 05:35 PM	#7
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 443	Absent the availability of living links to former cultures and artifacts, there is little on which to base a conclusion. Some research of this nature has been conducted by perusal of old images; photographs, paintings, statuary and so forth. Those who experienced it are silent, leaving only artifacts from which to extrapolate. The notion of a vast, empty puzzle table is exact. Collectors, accumulators and scholars all work to populate the table, and all contribute what they can. What is written is sometimes correct, often not. Traders in antique cultural artifacts have long influenced the language - and therefore the conceptualisation - of this research. We've seen this here. Even museum curators have not infrequently gotten it wrong. We live in fortunate times for research, as a planet-wide information system is being implemented. Availability of information (and disinformation, alas) has never been greater. Communications between isolated individuals with common interests has laid the groundwork for a far more extensive study of obscure areas of interest and endeavor. The effort now seems to consist in populating the puzzle table with pieces, and establishing frameworks within which the pieces can be organised. In time, it is to be hoped that documentation from the source cultures can be found, processed and translated to aid in the creation of filters through which artifacts may be viewed, and perhaps understood, in a fashion that approximates their long-lost original reality. So far we have the beginning of he creation of tools for the study; expanding and refining the available information continues. The more varied viewpoints that can be brought to bear on the topics of interest, the better. Sorting through the resulting glut of information and misinformation will continue to be the ongoing challenge.

26th September 2018, 06:24 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Bob, Thank you very much for commenting - and for claryfiyng that the key words are - information and disinformation. Jens