User talk:Gkneiselwiki
| This user is a student editor in Clackamas_Community_College/English_Composition_(Summer_2018) . |
Gkneiselwiki, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Gkneiselwiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Gkneiselwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello![edit]
My name is Zack Odell, I am also in this writing class. Ancient arms and armor is a very interesting subject! I don't know much about it, but is there a certain time period or culture/location from which you are most interested in? I've always thought that some of the old European armors and swords are very cool, but I don't really know much about that or others. Personally I am really interested in astronomy. I enjoy amateur astrophotography, and would like to get more invested in it one day when I have better ability to fund it, as it can be a very expensive but very rewarding hobby.
OdellZ17 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you Zack! Primarily the European ones are my area of interest, like you mentioned. That astrophotography sounds really cool, to be able to capture something people have seen so little of. I can understand how that would get expensive though, in terms of tech and lenses. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oakeshott typology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pommel and Chappe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ancient arms and armour[edit]
If you don't know him already, check out Mike Loades on YouTube. Narky Blert (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Analysis Draft[edit]
Gregory Kneisel Professor Nicole Rosevear Writing 121 10 August 2018
The Limitations of the Oakeshott Typology
Within the practice of studying medieval swords, such a broad variety of blades can be found that a method of categorization is required in order to maintain a systematic study. The Oakeshott Typology is the most widely known and accepted taxonomy of medieval swords, though its acceptance remains limited, and its applicability is often questionable. Swords were the weapon of choice long before the dawn of mass production, making the assignment of identification far more subjective than recognizing an early 1900’s Ford Model-T. Usage of the Typology by leading authorities in the field of study can be found to a limited degree, though usage is far from the frequency with which a fossil would be labeled by its species. Medieval weapons are certainly more recent than Viking age artifacts, though the five hundred years minimum that have passed have still considerably narrowed the sample size available for study, potentially leading to the loss of entire classes of weapons from the record of specimens. This can be similarly observed with the “Atgier” sword-staff mentioned in Viking Sagas but without any known surviving examples. The Typology was also almost exclusively the development of Ewart Oakeshott, and while the breadth of specimens studied was expansive, it must be remembered that this was not the sanctioned work of a reputed university or archaeologist. The manufacture of swords was a tedious and relatively uncommon task in the middle ages, restricted by the difficulty of making them with contemporary technology as well as the cost of lengthy labor and uncommon expertise. Each weapon had to be made by hand, hammer and anvil primarily, with imprecise metallurgy and measurements. As such, each sword was unique, leading to a diversity that Oakeshott himself warned should not be shoehorned into the categories of his typology**must re-find passage I remember this from to cite** additionally in Records of the Medieval Sword he states in the introduction that the categories are deliberately vague. In my own research to expand the Wikipedia article about Oakeshott’s typology I found such a considerable variation in the specimens identified by type that it seemed more appropriate to either treat the Typology as a spectrum, similar to the way an infinite number of color combinations can be found between green and blue, than as a rigid taxonomy used for speciation. In the online archives of the Tower of London, I was able to find a few weapons that were included an Oakeshott type in their description, demonstrating an acceptance by one of the most expensive and prestigious museums in the world. These identified specimens however, only accounted for a small amount of the swords from medieval times, indicating that in spite of the partial acceptance of the system, it did not take precedence over identification by date and other limited descriptions. While I found many blogs and websites featuring their own descriptions, images, and understandings of the Typology, other art collections, such as the Rijksmuseum's images made no reference to the Typology at all, though these did feature excellent images to which it could be applied. A few types and subtypes were categorized partially from painting and other contemporary art, with few surviving examples. The limited availability of artifacts may have limited the amount of categories within the Typology, with many of the swords being lost, buried, or reforged into something considered more useful. Types XXI and XXII for example were not parts of the original typology and were introduced in a later version of the Typology in due to the prevalence of these swords which Oakeshott had previously underestimated. It must be considered that some distinct weapons with common characteristics could have eluded the study of one man and remained unclassified, as types XXI and XXII did in the first edition of the Typology. Ultimately the Typology only applies to double-edged, cruciform, straight-bladed swords, meaning that it has no use on any curved or single-edged swords at all. Oakeshott catalogues dozens if not hundreds of swords in his combined works, though the solitary composition of his Typology does impair its credibility to an extent. Oakeshott worked extensively museums and private collectors, recording details, measurements, illustrations and photos to fulfill the basis of his system, though the creation of the Typology was performed mostly by him alone, and I have been unable to find review or critique of his system by traditionally qualified archaeologists. Ewart Oakeshott was not formally educated as a historian, though at the time he began his study there was little specialized systematic study of medieval weapons for him to become educated in. Oakeshott could be compared to Sigmund Freud to an extent, a founding father of an academic discipline that had previously been underdeveloped. Unlike the subsequent challenges to Freud’s assertions however, little seems to exist that challenges or builds of Oakeshott’s studies. The Oakeshott Typology remains the closest to the gold standard that medieval sword studies has, though it still leaves a lot to be desired. Further study by future generations using superior technology and practices will likely build Oakeshott’s Typology into something even greater, something Oakeshott directly stated he hoped for in**re-find name and cite**.
Works Cited
.
Gkneiselwiki (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)