Revising the Oakeshott Typology
Heh, heh!

I couldn't resist...

So there I was, reading my copy of The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, and started thinking-- if the arms and armor collecting community left it up to me to revise Oakeshott's typology, how would I do it?

Indeed, how would YOU do it? Why would you do it that way?
Re: Revising the Oakeshott Typology
Jeremiah Swanger wrote:
Heh, heh!

I couldn't resist...

So there I was, reading my copy of The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, and started thinking-- if the arms and armor collecting community left it up to me to revise Oakeshott's typology, how would I do it?

Indeed, how would YOU do it? Why would you do it that way?


How *I* would do it:

Fold Xa into XI. If you think about it, the main criterium that distinguishes a Xa from an XI is the width and definition of the fuller-- a pretty darn tenuous criterium, if you ask me.

I suppose I'd keep XIa, because they are a little easier to distinguish from a X, but there are so darned few of them...

XII and XIIa would remain intact.

I've been contemplating folding XIII into XIIIa (and renaming XIIIb to XIII), but the differences between XIII and XIIIa are pretty specific...

XIV I'd leave alone...

XVI will be renamed to XV. In The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Oakeshott himself admits that the two should probably be reversed...

XVII would remain as-is...

XV would be renamed to XVI.

The base XVIII would remain the same.

XVIIIa would include virtually all longsword variants of XVIII that don't neatly fit into XVIIIb.

Anything resembling the Albrecht Durer swords would be placed into XVIIIb. Waisted grips would be mandatory placement criteria.

XVIIIc would include the light riding swords, such as the Espada Ropera, A&A's German Branch sword, and the long, slender, proto-rapier side-swords.

The "d" in XVIIId will stand for "Dane". Yes, what is currently an XVIIIe will be easier to remember.

XIX will remain similar, though hand-and-a-half (apparently, there are a few) variants can be named "XIXa", though this may not be necessary.

XX, XXa, XXI, and XXII would remain as-is.


Things I decided against:

--Moving XVIII to XVII to put it right smack dab next to XVI (which we currently know as XV), thus moving what we currently know as XVII to XVIII so that it's next to XIX, which shares the hexagonal cross-section and short fuller. I decided against this because people are too familiar with the current type XVIII and moving it would only cause mass confusion. I had fewer reservations about switching XV and XVI because they're both far less popular than XVIII.

-- Moving XX to XVI, since it could be argued that the current Type XX could be considered a big and burly evolution of what we currently know as the XVIa. Thus, what we know as XVII would become XX, and what we currently know as XV would become XVII. I had reservations against this because it appears to disrupt chronological order. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Oakeshott's XV appeared before Oakeshott's XX, and that Oakeshott's XVII appeared a century before Oakeshott's XIX.
XVIIIs
Hi,

regarding the XVIIIs:
I understood that Oakeshott in "Records" cancelled the subtypes XVIIId and XVIIIe. He states: "There are 3 sub-types for XVIII (...) XVIIIIa denotes a larger XVIII with a longer blade, often with a 1/3 length fuller, and a long grip, while XVIIIb is a very long-gripped Bastard sword, while XVIIIc is a shorter gripped one."
"Records" is much newer than SAC, and Oakeshott admits, that he had to correct some errors. So in the in the "actual " Oakeshott typology there are no more XVIIIe's and XVIIId's

IMO that means that the former XVIIId falls into XVIII and the former XVIIIe into XVIIIb.

Thomas
During some activity lately it became increasingly apparent that the typology does in fact need to be revisited and codified, and fixed, there is certainly a certain amount of ambiguity and even contradiction as well as holes in the typology that all could be addressed. However since I'm not sure anyone has the status of Oakeshott currently in the field I think it would be difficult to fix the problem areas and have those fixes generally accepted.
I'm with Russ on that. Now that I've studied the typology, and am familiar with it, and have used it and referred to it from time to time, it's become very adaptable. Lately whenever I'd see a picture of a sword, I try to figure out where within Oakeshott's typology it would go (if it would at all). In other words, I'd just leave it the way it is though I agree with Jeremiah on folding the Type Xa and XI. Interesting topic. -Ted
Russ Ellis wrote:
During some activity lately it became increasingly apparent that the typology does in fact need to be revisited and codified, and fixed, there is certainly a certain amount of ambiguity and even contradiction as well as holes in the typology that all could be addressed. However since I'm not sure anyone has the status of Oakeshott currently in the field I think it would be difficult to fix the problem areas and have those fixes generally accepted.


It will take time. There are few respected researchers out there. It will take a book or so to lay out their take on the typology and their proposed changes. then it will take time for us to read and assimilate what they have said. I am 100% positive that for such modifications to be accepted they have to be put in a developed written piece(s).

Oakeshott wrote the Archeology of weapons in 1962 (if I remember correctly). I wonder when was it that the typology took roots, i.e. became popularly accepted? My guess is that it took a while.

Alexi
Alexi Goranov wrote:
Russ Ellis wrote:
During some activity lately it became increasingly apparent that the typology does in fact need to be revisited and codified, and fixed, there is certainly a certain amount of ambiguity and even contradiction as well as holes in the typology that all could be addressed. However since I'm not sure anyone has the status of Oakeshott currently in the field I think it would be difficult to fix the problem areas and have those fixes generally accepted.


It will take time. There are few respected researchers out there. It will take a book or so to lay out their take on the typology and their proposed changes. then it will take time for us to read and assimilate what they have said. I am 100% positive that for such modifications to be accepted they have to be put in a developed written piece(s).

Oakeshott wrote the Archeology of weapons in 1962 (if I remember correctly). I wonder when was it that the typology took roots, i.e. became popularly accepted? My guess is that it took a while.

Alexi


Agreed, I think that whoever it is would have to be a published author, as well as a more or less generally recognized expert in the field. Anyone have any names? :)
Russ Ellis wrote:

Agreed, I think that whoever it is would have to be a published author, as well as a more or less generally recognized expert in the field. Anyone have any names? :)


Peter Johnsson and Craig Johnson are both extremely knowledgable and have shown dedication to share their wealth of information and educate others.

Peter has already expressed interest in writing a book. I think both these guys (given some time to put it in writing) could give us plenty of material to think about.

I do not wish to presume that these two researchers are the only candidates for taking Oakeshott's work further. There are other skilled and knowledgable folks out there who may be able to make written contributions to our understanding of the sword as it relates to historically available species.

Time will show.

Alexi
Oakeshotte was the first to admit his work was only a starting place for understanding the medieval sword, so I am sure that, in the future, a scholar like Mr. Johnsson (for example) will undertake a revision of Oakeshotte's work. It would be a massive undertaking, given that the surviving body of examples is spead all over the world in thousands of museums, churches, and private collections. I don't know if it is even possible to do enough detailed research to produce a work that one could call "encyclopedic."
I don't feel remotely qualified to suggest how the typology should be revised. The more I learn about it, the more it's obvious to me how much I don't know.

Brian M
Brian M wrote:
Oakeshotte was the first to admit his work was only a starting place for understanding the medieval sword, so I am sure that, in the future, a scholar like Mr. Johnsson (for example) will undertake a revision of Oakeshotte's work. It would be a massive undertaking, given that the surviving body of examples is spead all over the world in thousands of museums, churches, and private collections. I don't know if it is even possible to do enough detailed research to produce a work that one could call "encyclopedic."
I don't feel remotely qualified to suggest how the typology should be revised. The more I learn about it, the more it's obvious to me how much I don't know.

Brian M


Hi Brian,

Maybe I need to be more clear what I meant regarding the Peter or Craig writing about swords :D

The point, as I see it, is to study existing examples and understand how they relate to each other and what repeating characteristics underline both appearance and function.

initially people concentrated on the hilts exclusively. This changed with Oakeshott who concentrated on both the blade and the hilt as comprising a single entity. There is an evolution of the way we think an perceive the sword more than anything else. Encyclopedic descriptions often lack underlining understanding. The typology is not there to describe or list all extant swords but to aid us in understanding them from the perspective of form and function.

What I hope we are discussing here is the desire to push further, elaborate, and refine the work done by Oakeshott and not an initiative to simply revise it and make it simpler to digest or more straight forward. Yes, a good systematic description/classification of items (a typology) should be simple enough to be useful, but not overly simple otherwise it fails to underline the variety and complexity of the objects being classified. There is a balance that needs to be maintained. Which is why the Oakeshott typology is pretty good: fairly simple yet capturing most of the underlining repeating features.

Alexi
The Archaeology Of Weapons
By Ewart Oakeshott was copyrighted in 1960.

I don't see anything wrong with manipulating his typology to suit our purposes but publishing it as a continuation, or abridged edition would be disrespectful, no mater how well intentioned.

Oakeshott himself condensed other typologies to suit his purpose but footnoted the original.

Trying to rearrange Oakeshott's typology by shape and/or chronology is a bit futile. Better to say maybe a sword is hard to pidgeonhole in that typology.

A J&J Journal would be quite a collaboration.

Cheers

GC

Don't be messing around with my XVs now ya hear? ;)
Alexi Goranov wrote:


Peter Johnsson and Craig Johnson are both extremely knowledgable and have shown dedication to share their wealth of information and educate others.


I'd also add Chris Poor of A&A to that list. Being President of the Oakeshott Institute and all (not to mention founder of A&A)... ;)

It should also be noted that Vince Evans is a Founding Patron of the Oakeshott Institute...


Last edited by Jeremiah Swanger on Tue 29 Mar, 2005 1:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Glen A Cleeton wrote:
The Archaeology Of Weapons
Trying to rearrange Oakeshott's typology by shape and/or chronology is a bit futile. Better to say maybe a sword is hard to pidgeonhole in that typology.


I've said it before and I'll say it again-- the Oakeshott Typology, the way I see it, is best viewed as a measure of trend. Between types X, XI, XII, XIV, and XVI, we see fullered swords getting shorter fullers and becoming more pointy, and a stiffer, betterl-defined diamond cross section toward the tip. The evolution displayed by the types in this particular progression is, in my (not very educated) opinion, a definite trend.

I suppose you could continue that trend further by adding XX at the end there...

Also, there seems to be a natural "refinement" of the XV and XVa into the XVIII and XVIIIa. Another possible trend.

Yeah, of course there will be some swords that you can't neatly fit into any one type. Nevertheless, it is still fairly easy to see where that particular sword fits into the evolution of the Medieval sword.
Glen A Cleeton wrote:
The Archaeology Of Weapons
By Ewart Oakeshott was copyrighted in 1960.

I don't see anything wrong with manipulating his typology to suit our purposes but publishing it as a continuation, or abridged edition would be disrespectful, no mater how well intentioned.

Oakeshott himself condensed other typologies to suit his purpose but footnoted the original.

Trying to rearrange Oakeshott's typology by shape and/or chronology is a bit futile. Better to say maybe a sword is hard to pidgeonhole in that typology.

A J&J Journal would be quite a collaboration.

Cheers

GC

Don't be messing around with my XVs now ya hear? ;)


LOL. Come on we can't mess with those XVs even a little?

I don't know that even Mr. Oakeshott would consider it disrespectful. After all his own typologies are simply continuations of the works of others, and they do need to be cleaned up. Is it disrespectful to make a useful tool more useful? No one appreciates Mr. Oakeshott's work more then I, but there's no need to canonize him or say that he is the end all and be all of sword classification. We all know that's not the case. He knew it to and said as much many times.

I suspect that the guys at OI would be great candidates as would the others mentioned here. Of course do any of these gentlemen actually have time to do the work? :)
What I'm getting at is not revising Oakeshott's typology but creating a new system of categories.

What follows is an example of what happens;

Oakeshott references Jan Pederson's viking hilt typology as having 26 varieties. He then says Sir Mortimer Wheeler's simplified system of seven types warrants two additions.

Continuing scholars may look at all three and shake their heads in astonishment, some going back to Pederson's work when trying to place an example in time.
~~~~~
While Oakeshott's sword typology could probably be reduced to six or seven categories of blade profile and cross section; would this address the chronological evolution of swords? Style came and went, some to return. Where to draw the line and start over? The advent of firearms and more civilian use?

I think Ewart will go on, in our minds, with that wry smile on his face. I think he would be amused by a schoolboy's tinkering with his typology but much more impressed with an entirely different perspective.

My random thoughts, truly.

GC
In his books Oakeshott himself stated more than once that he hoped someone would carry on where he had left off. (Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the text in these books or just look at the pictures and captions.) He considered his typology, indeed all typologies, as fluid and ever changing things. He expected and hoped that someone would continue his work.
Patrick Kelly wrote:
In his books Oakeshott himself stated more than once that he hoped someone would carry on where he had left off. (Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the text in these books or just look at the pictures and captions.) He considered his typology, indeed all typologies, as fluid and ever changing things. He expected and hoped that someone would continue his work.


I hope to expand my library to include more of his writing. I bought AOW specifically because it is less of a picture book. After first finding a cloth bound edition of Records, I was looking for more to read. There are certainly more titles to absorb to become as well read on the subject as many here.

The continuing examination of any subject has merit but most proceed by referencing existing work while presenting their own unique perspective.

Cheers

GC
Glen A Cleeton wrote:
What I'm getting at is not revising Oakeshott's typology but creating a new system of categories.


~~~~~
While Oakeshott's sword typology could probably be reduced to six or seven categories of blade profile and cross section; would this address the chronological evolution of swords? Style came and went, some to return. Where to draw the line and start over? The advent of firearms and more civilian use?

I think Ewart will go on, in our minds, with that wry smile on his face. I think he would be amused by a schoolboy's tinkering with his typology but much more impressed with an entirely different perspective.

My random thoughts, truly.

GC


I agrea very much. Typology is not nessesary cronology. Typology is originaly a dating methode established by schoolars like Oscar Montelius (the father of typology) and Pit Rivers. Typology was used to establish a rellative chronology, telling what artefact follows another. To get callender years some kind of refference point has to be established from the archaeological context it was found.
When a typology is established, the next step is to examine the chronology, dating the types by the context in which it was found, coins, other weapons or artefacts which a cronolgy already has been established. The various finds combinations should be examined. Thus only closed finds like graves, or found in context with datable material can be used to establish the chronolgy. The typology which first looked like an evolutionary line one form developed from the previous may after the chronology has been established have a diferent look.

Jan Petersens work is exelent in both cronology and typology. The swords are dated based on the context in which it was found, based on which different types of weapons was found together. Later Petersen did the same for viking age broaches and jewelry. The chronology is still very usefull when dating graves from the later germanic iron age. I have used it dating several graves, and has been astonished how everything fits together.

Sincerly Raymond Sauvage

Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum