Sawfish sword

[ariel]

I guess there are three distinct groups of such "swords":

1. Genuine native examples . Those need to be treated with respect: their owners were true warriors who used the only materials available to them with imagination and dignity.

2. Scrimshaw examples made often (if not mostly) by bored sailors or beachcombers to pass time or just to enjoy the ability to fashion something pretty. Those are good examples of folk arts and crafts, with no connection to any military purpose or tradition. In the same category as trench art.

3. Pretentious mixes of true military parts ( handles mostly) and plain sawfish rostra, despite easy availability of true fighting blades. Those I would view as shameless pretenders, exotics for its own sake and ,- most likely,- touristy items. They have neither fighting purpose, nor artistic flair. Discussing them seriously is akin to pondering upon military significance of General Tso's chicken.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I guess

Why guess? You have read the article in Russian. May I post your public review here? Your opinion will be very important for colleagues:

Very good article: a detailed, sober and indisputable examples.
With respect.
Ariel

[Mercenary]

From Palace Museum of Forbidden City. Qing Dinasty:

[Tim Simmons]

Great contribution ! If you were to be slashed by a sawfish sword weapon you would be in a very poor state. I think it has been established that pre industrial communities used these natural resources as weapons. That is all I wanted to show in the beginning.

[VANDOO]

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF A NATIVE MADE SAWFISH SWORD AND ONE MADE INTO A SOUVENIR FROM COSTA RICA. NO DOUBT THESE SAWFISH BILLS HAVE BEEN OF INTEREST TO MAN FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES EITHER AS A WEAPON OR CURIOSITY OR TROPHY. UNFORTUNATELY THE SAWFISH IS EASILY FOULED IN NETS AND IS FOUND IN SHALLOW WATERS SO IS OFTEN CAUGHT AND KILLED BY ACCIDENT BY THOSE FISHING FOR OTHER KINDS OF FISH. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A COMMERCIAL FISHERY FOR THEM SO THEY MUST NOT BE TASTY. THEY ARE THE LAST THING A FISHERMAN WOULD WANT IN HIS NET, CAN YOU IMAGINE A 600 POUND SAWFISH TANGLED IN YOUR NET GETTING IT OUT AND THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE NET WOULD RUIN A DAYS FISHING. AND IT SURE WOULD NOT DO THE SAWFISH ANY GOOD. THOUGH I DON'T LIKE SEEING A PAINTED SAWFISH BILL SOUVENIR I SUPPOSE ITS BETTER THAN JUST THROWING SUCH COOL OBJECTS IN THE TRASH HEAP.
#1. & #2. SAWFISH SWORD FROM PAPUA NEW GUINEA NATIVE MADE.
31.75 IN LONG
#3. COSTA RICAN SOUVENIR CIRCA 1960 22 IN. LONG
#4. 12 FOOT LONG ,CAUGHT 1920'S FLORIDA I WOULD ESTIMATE THE BILL TO BE AROUND 30 IN. LONG
#5 & #6 ARE FROM HEDGES OLD BOOK GIANT FISH, I CAN'T VOUCH FOR THE INFORMATION GIVEN, BUT IF TRUE THEY TRULY ARE HUGE.
#7. A VERY LARGE SAWFISH

A BOY CAUGHT A 900 POUND SAWFISH AT GALVESTON TEXAS IN THE 1970'S THERE WERE PICTURES AND AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE LENGTH. I HAVE SEEN A LARGE SAWFISH ROSTRUM IN A MUSEUM SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE A GOOD LADDER TO CLIMB INTO A BUNK BED.

[ariel]

Good examples, Vandoo.
Weapons outlive their purpose and with it their meaning.

Islanders used sawfish swords as true weapons, just like Native Americans used flint knives. They did it for as long as there were no replacements.
When (and if) iron became available, newly-made examples ceased to exist as historical weapons and became art objects, ceremonial/parade contraptions, tourist fodder etc.

I would find it impossible to believe that despite wide availability of iron implements, sawfish swords retained even a minimal role as weapons per se. The Chinese, German and Indian examples shown here are just arts and crafts. Nobody in his right mind would actually pit them against even the crudest steel sword.

As a matter of fact, even steel swords share the same fate: millions of them shed blood in the 17-18 centuries, but now, with tanks, missiles, planes and machine guns, swords are just parade toys.

And in another vein: would any of us collect modern China- or India-made swords made out of even the most beautiful damascus?

[mahratt]

Dear Ariel
Very soon all seriously interested in the matter will be able to draw conclusions on how to, when and who used rostrum sawfish in the Indo-Persia, as a weapon.
I will let you know in this topic name of the journal in which the English language will my article: Using the sawfish rostrums (Pristis pectinatus) as a weapon in the Indo-Iranian region inthe XVth – XIXth centuries.

Best Regards

[VANDOO]

MAHRATT I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR ARTICLE KEEP US POSTED. HERE IS A PICTURE OF TWO VARIETIES OF SAWFISH FOR COMPARISON. THE SMALL TOOTHED MORE NARROW ONE BEING THE TYPE COMMON IN THE RED SEA AND INDIAN OCEAN. THE BROAD LARGE TOOTHED ONE IS WHAT IS FOUND IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND LIKELY THRU-OUT THE CARIBBEAN. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL RANGE OF THESE SPECIES. I INCLUDE TWO PICTURES OF A FOSSIL SAWFISH ROSTRUM AND SOME TEETH. THE LARGE SECTION IS 10 INCHES LONG THEY ARE FROM MOROCCO, CRETACEOUS PERIOD. ONCOPRISTUS NUMIDUS SAWFISH.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

MAHRATT I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR ARTICLE KEEP US POSTED.

Vandoo, I will inform you as soon as the magazine will appear in print.

[mahratt]

Photos:

[mahratt]

Dear participants of the Forum,
I represent to your attention the article:

[VANDOO]

IS THE ARTICLE IN ENGLISH ? I LOOKED UP HE SITE BUT DID NOT FIND THE RECENT PUBLICATION LISTED OR A WAY TO ORDER IT. THERE ONLY SEEMS TO BE THE ABSTRACT OF THE ARTICLE ON THE FORUM POST IS THERE A WAY TO LINK WITH IT AND READ IT ON THE POST. I LOOK FORWARD TO READING YOUR ARTICLE. THANKS

[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.

[ariel]

Rick,

The use of comfy chairs and fluffy pillows as torture devices has already been extensively documented by J. Cleese, E Idle et al.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by 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.

Rick,
I contacted the publisher. In September, the magazine will appear in print. And you can read the article and make your own conclusions.

[VANDOO]

I OF COURSE AM NOT AND DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT OR AN ACADEMIC BUT JUST A LONG TIME COLLECTOR WHO LOVES COLLECTING AND LEARNING ABOUT THE ITEMS I COLLECT AND THE SOCIETY'S WHO MADE AND USED THEM.
THEREFORE IN ACADEMICIAN CIRCLES NOTHING I OBSERVE OR SAY IS PERTINENT OR TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. PERHAPS MY MEASUREMENTS OF AN ITEM AND PICTURES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AS AN INVENTORY BUT LITTLE ELSE.
ACADEMIA IS UNDER THE STRICT CONSTRAINTS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVENIENCED IN THE SAME APPROVED ARTICLES AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THAT ALL USE. DRAWINGS AND TEXT FROM SOME OF THE FAMOUS EXPEDITIONS SUCH AS COOKS EXPEDITIONS ARE ACCEPTED. BUT COOK AND OTHER ACCEPTED SOURCES SURELY DIDN'T SEE EVERYTHING OR LEARN ALL THE STORIES AND BELIEFS THAT MAY HAVE WENT WITH THE ITEMS THEY BROUGHT BACK. MOST SOCIETY'S DO NOT OPENLY SHARE THEIR BELIEFS OR STORIES WITH STRANGERS AND MANY OF THESE EXPEDITIONS DID NOT STAY LONG ENOUGH TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE OR GAIN THE TRUST AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRIBES EVEN IF THEY WISHED TO.
I LIKE AND ENJOY THE LORE, STORIES AND SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE USING LOGIC AND COMPARISONS TO OTHER SOCIETIES. THIS CAN NOT BE USED IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES DUE TO THE RULES AND THE CURRENT ACCEPTED FACTS AND PAPERS AND MAY BE LOOKED DOWN ON. BUT I FIND THAT A BIT TOO CONSTRAINED AND LACKING IN INTEREST MANY TIMES SO WOULD PREFER TO HEAR OR READ THE LORE WHICH IS USUALLY MORE INTERESTING.

I THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR BOTH BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE AS TO WHAT CAN BE PROVED AND WHAT IS SPECULATION OR LORE. AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE SAWFISH WEAPONS WE DISCUSS HERE ARE SURE TO HAVE HAD MANY STORIES AND LORE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BY THE PEOPLE WHO MADE AND USED THEM. THIS IS LOST OR UNDOCUMENTED BUT BE SURE IT IS LIKELY AS, SUPERSTITION, MAGIC , MANNA AND TABOOS ALL HAD PARTS IN THE HISTORY OF THESE OBJECTS. UNFORTUNATELY EVEN IF THE LORE IS STILL TOLD IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ACADEMIA. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS POINT TO THESE BELIEFS AND LORE BUT USUALLY CAN'T BE PROVED. SO WE WILL HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN UNTIL THE TIME MACHINE IS AVAILABLE.

[Ian]

Ariel and mahratt. You each have a PM from me.

Ian

[Ian]

Well said Barry.

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I OF COURSE AM NOT AND DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT OR AN ACADEMIC BUT JUST A LONG TIME COLLECTOR WHO LOVES COLLECTING AND LEARNING ABOUT THE ITEMS I COLLECT AND THE SOCIETY'S WHO MADE AND USED THEM.
THEREFORE IN ACADEMICIAN CIRCLES NOTHING I OBSERVE OR SAY IS PERTINENT OR TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. PERHAPS MY MEASUREMENTS OF AN ITEM AND PICTURES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AS AN INVENTORY BUT LITTLE ELSE.
ACADEMIA IS UNDER THE STRICT CONSTRAINTS THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVENIENCED IN THE SAME APPROVED ARTICLES AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THAT ALL USE. DRAWINGS AND TEXT FROM SOME OF THE FAMOUS EXPEDITIONS SUCH AS COOKS EXPEDITIONS ARE ACCEPTED. BUT COOK AND OTHER ACCEPTED SOURCES SURELY DIDN'T SEE EVERYTHING OR LEARN ALL THE STORIES AND BELIEFS THAT MAY HAVE WENT WITH THE ITEMS THEY BROUGHT BACK. MOST SOCIETY'S DO NOT OPENLY SHARE THEIR BELIEFS OR STORIES WITH STRANGERS AND MANY OF THESE EXPEDITIONS DID NOT STAY LONG ENOUGH TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE OR GAIN THE TRUST AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRIBES EVEN IF THEY WISHED TO.
I LIKE AND ENJOY THE LORE, STORIES AND SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE USING LOGIC AND COMPARISONS TO OTHER SOCIETIES. THIS CAN NOT BE USED IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES DUE TO THE RULES AND THE CURRENT ACCEPTED FACTS AND PAPERS AND MAY BE LOOKED DOWN ON. BUT I FIND THAT A BIT TOO CONSTRAINED AND LACKING IN INTEREST MANY TIMES SO WOULD PREFER TO HEAR OR READ THE LORE WHICH IS USUALLY MORE INTERESTING.

I THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR BOTH BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE AS TO WHAT CAN BE PROVED AND WHAT IS SPECULATION OR LORE. AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE SAWFISH WEAPONS WE DISCUSS HERE ARE SURE TO HAVE HAD MANY STORIES AND LORE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BY THE PEOPLE WHO MADE AND USED THEM. THIS IS LOST OR UNDOCUMENTED BUT BE SURE IT IS LIKELY AS, SUPERSTITION, MAGIC , MANNA AND TABOOS ALL HAD PARTS IN THE HISTORY OF THESE OBJECTS. UNFORTUNATELY EVEN IF THE LORE IS STILL TOLD IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ACADEMIA. ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS POINT TO THESE BELIEFS AND LORE BUT USUALLY CAN'T BE PROVED. SO WE WILL HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN UNTIL THE TIME MACHINE IS AVAILABLE.

[Tim Simmons]

More in the American Museum of Natural history.

I copy and paste the blurb.

SWORD, TWO HANDLE
PACIFIC ETHNOGRAPHIC COLLECTION

Catalog No: ST/ 1716
Locale: NEW GUINEA
Region: MELANESIA
Country: PAPUA NEW GUINEA?/INDONESIA?
Date: Late 19th Century A.D.
Material: BONE (SAW FISH)
Acquisition Year: 1895 [PURCHASE]
Donor: STURGIS, APPLETON
Keywords: SWORD

[Tim Simmons]

Pigorini Museum Rome.

[ariel]

That’s exactly what I was talking about: a tribal fighter with a weapon made from the only material available to him. This is a perfectly genuine and legitimate example well deserving careful consideration.

P.S. Unfortunately I could not find even an electronic form of a full English version of the paper by Mr. Miloserdov published in Armi Antiche. Perhaps the author could post here a scan of it for our information and subsequent discussion. In the absense of such we are limited to the preliminary Russian version published on an informal Russian forum in 2014 as well as the title and the abstract ( both in English) published in the Italian journal in 2016.