Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

[William Fox]

Dear members,

This is my first post on this forum. I have been collecting antique edged weapons for many years, since I was twelve, I'm now 36.

Years ago I started collecting German pattern welded damascus swords, mostly 19th and early 20th century vintage, and became fascinated with the art of European 'Damascus' blades. Inevitably I tried to find out what real damascus blades were all about, and I began to study Persian sword making and wootz steel. I spent time looking at examples in museums and books, and finally, very recently, I have purchased an example of a wootz steel Persian shamshir. The grip seems to be in bad shape, with signs of old repairs, but the blade looks pretty good.

The blade has two cartouches, with some other writing. I asked a friend in the Middle East if he could help me translate them, but although he is a calligrapher, he is not expert in Persian / Farsi. He thinks that one cartouche says: 'made by Zaman Esfahani'.

Can anyone help me with translating what is written on this blade, and also tell me anything about its age and who Zaman was.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Kind regards

Will

[mariusgmioc]

Can't help you with the translation but to me, it looks like the blade is older than the grip, possibly 18th century.
The photos are not very good, but the blade appears to be in pretty good condition. Could you discern any pattern in the wootz?

[William Fox]

Can't help you with the translation but to me, it looks like the blade is older than the grip, possibly 18th century.
The photos are not very good, but the blade appears to be in pretty good condition. Could you discern any pattern in the wootz?

Thanks.

You are correct. To me, it looks like the blade is an old quality piece, but the hilt has been repaired, or the blade re-hilted, in an unskilled way. It is firm in the hilt and could be used in combat, but it was crudely done.

I have a feeling that the old Persian blade was at some point in its history disassembled and was later put back into use somewhere in Arab world, probably the Gulf. I say this because the re-hilt is so crudely done. If it had been constructed in one of the major cities like Damascus surely it could have been done better. There is some form of plaster crammed into the gaps, to give it extra strength! This is the sort of field repair I would expect was done in the Hejaz. All of this is just a felling, nothing more.

[estcrh]

Maybe someone on the forum can answer how the grip of a Syrian shamshir is different from the grip of a Persian shamshir. This looks like a persian blade but is it a Syrian sword with a Persian blade, or a Persian sword?

[mahratt]

Maybe someone on the forum can answer how the grip of a Syrian shamshir is different from the grip of a Persian shamshir. This looks like a persian blade but is it a Syrian sword with a Persian blade, or a Persian sword?

Hello my friend. I will try to answer your question. Here are a photos hilts of Persian and Syrian Shamshir. And with the other photos I've highlighted the main features of which say it is Syrian Shamshir handle.

I hope that in spite of my bad English, I was able to explain the differences :)

[mahratt]

The blade has two cartouches, with some other writing. I asked a friend in the Middle East if he could help me translate them, but although he is a calligrapher, he is not expert in Persian / Farsi. He thinks that one cartouche says: 'made by Zaman Esfahani'.


I do not read Farsi. But I will try to make a guess. The cartouche on the blade of your shashmir likely written: "Assadula Isfahani". Although, of course, I could be wrong. Then members will correct me.

I think your Shamshir blade can be dated to the end of 18 - the middle of the 19th century.

[Jeff D]

Hi Will,

I think your friend has it right. "Zaman Isfahani". I believe he was active early to mid 19th century.


Jeff

[estcrh]

Hello my friend. I will try to answer your question. Here are a photos hilts of Persian and Syrian Shamshir. And with the other photos I've highlighted the main features of which say it is Syrian Shamshir handle.

I hope that in spite of my bad English, I was able to explain the differences :)Thanks!!!!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Dear members,

This is my first post on this forum. I have been collecting antique edged weapons for many years, since I was twelve, I'm now 36.

Years ago I started collecting German pattern welded damascus swords, mostly 19th and early 20th century vintage, and became fascinated with the art of European 'Damascus' blades. Inevitably I tried to find out what real damascus blades were all about, and I began to study Persian sword making and wootz steel. I spent time looking at examples in museums and books, and finally, very recently, I have purchased an example of a wootz steel Persian shamshir. The grip seems to be in bad shape, with signs of old repairs, but the blade looks pretty good.

The blade has two cartouches, with some other writing. I asked a friend in the Middle East if he could help me translate them, but although he is a calligrapher, he is not expert in Persian / Farsi. He thinks that one cartouche says: 'made by Zaman Esfahani'.

Can anyone help me with translating what is written on this blade, and also tell me anything about its age and who Zaman was.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Kind regards

Will

Salaams William Fox, This is a great sword from the stable of...as you say Zaman Isfahan...and I discovered another write up indicating its provenance using a similar sword which I have recomposed and redrawn viz;

Quote"With octagonal grips covered in black shagreen leather, steel pommel and guard of characteristic form. The blade Shamshir (lions tail), forged of wootz steel and inlaid at the forte, VICTORY FROM GOD AND CONQUEST NIGH, together with a baduh or magic square, and a polylobate cartouche containing the maker?s name, WORK OF ZAMAN ISFAHANI, a well-known smith said to have been a student of Assad Allah. Mid-18th century".Unquote.

There is further detail on another website by the world renowned Oliver Pinochet of Imperial Auctions and this Forum where the discussion as to true signatures including Zaman Isfahan exist and the variables concerning their authenticity... and indeed if there was a sword maker called assad - allah Please see~

http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-persian-shamshir-and-the-signature-of-assad-allah/

Indeeed it would not be the first time that a spurious name appeared and went on for several centuries for example ANDREA FERRERA...and in its many spellings. It would be interesting to discover if Zaman Isfahan was simply an extension of the expertise of one such sword making school/workshop (Assad - Allah) so that the tradition of the name on a sword was simply extended in time.

In fact looking at http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/shamshir/ this on Forum, by Lee Jones, whose detail indicates that the sword can be clearly compared. Note that the life span of the sword maker, Assad - Allah, would have needed to be in excess of 500 years !!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In Islamic Armourers and Their Works by L.A.Mayer, Albert Kundig, Geneva, 1962, on page 78 he mentions a Zaman Isfahani.
"Zaman Isfahani, a pupil od Asad Allah, is known by at least two swords.
1. One made in 1836 in Kabul.
2. No date, but in the National Museum in Denmark.

[estcrh]

A PERSIAN QAJAR DYNASTY SHAMSHIR SWORD

With octagonal grips covered in black shagreen leather, steel pommel and guard of characteristic form. The massive blade of considerable curvature, forged of highly-contrasted black wootz steel and inaid at the forte, VICTORY FROM GOD AND CONQUEST NIGH, together with a baduh or magic square, and a polylobate cartouche containing the maker?s name, WORK OF ZAMAN ISFAHANI, a well-known smith said to have been a student of Assad Allah. In its velvet-covered wooden scabbard with black wootz suspension bands and pierced chape.Mid-18th century. Light wear. Overall length 101.4 cm.

[ariel]

Assadulla worked in the first half of the 17th century. I doubt that a sword made in 1836 could have been forged 100 years later by a direct pupil of Assadulla: a workshop initially belonging to one and maintaining its activity is more plausible.

The name of Zaman Isfaghani is pretty well known; likely he was famous even in his times. Thus, forging his signature much later was likely a burgeoning business, just like Assadulla's.

Either the pics of your blade are pretty poor, or the blade should be re-etched to reveal its true pattern.

Don't be upset about the handle: all organic materials have a limited life span, and, IMHO, most if not all 17-18 century swords have second or third handles.

And count your blessings: very nice shamshir!

[fernando]

...world renowned Oliver Pinochet ...

:confused:

[mahratt]

Guys, let's not talk constantly mistaken clichés and misconceptions. "Assadulla worked in the first half of the 17th centuries" - which we have evidence of this? Stamp (cartouche) Assadula Isfahani put on the blades and in the 19th century.

There is a good version of that Assadula - "Lion of Allah" is a brand, which confirms the quality of the blade. She was a good explanation of why the name "Assadula" was put on the blades almost 300 years.

[ariel]

Ibrahim and Estcrh:


Isn't it a bit strange to see " Qajar dynasty" and "mid 18th century" in the same description?

Qajars rule started in 1785 or 1794 depending on the count:-)

[ariel]

Physical existence of a Safavid swordmaker named Assadullah ( var.) is suggested by the famous episode of a helmet and by the existence of Kalb Ali, who signed his blades as " son of Assadullah" and was referred to as such by various sources.
Forged signatures of both are encountered on the blades from different countries and different centuries.
Khorasani's assertion that "Assadullah" was a sign of high quality bestowed by the guild is easily refuted by a plethora of junky blades with that ( often illiterate) signature.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Guys, let's not talk constantly mistaken clichés and misconceptions. "Assadulla worked in the first half of the 17th centuries" - which we have evidence of this? Stamp (cartouche) Assadula Isfahani put on the blades and in the 19th century.

There is a good version of that Assadula - "Lion of Allah" is a brand, which confirms the quality of the blade. She was a good explanation of why the name "Assadula" was put on the blades almost 300 years.


Salaams mahrat, The conundrum surrounding this phenomena...That of signatures taking on a life of their own when in fact what we may well be looking at is the same illusion that surrounds ANDREA FERRERA inscriptions. Surely that is the sort of question we are constantly puzzling over?...

There is no doubt that the inscriptions were placed and there may be many that are accurate in the date...but it is entirely logical that if Assad-Allah was simply the signature but the man himself (though he may have been real) was more connected to the "workshop signature" that produced high quality blades...and that if that is allowable...then there is a fair chance that all of the follow on signatures including Zaman Isfahan were also placed for the same reason.

I don't necessarily follow the reasoning on the lion brand either...It is perhaps worth noting that Shamshiir means Lions tail and I would suggest that it may also be a Lions Tale!! :)

There is hardly any information on the characters, however, research may reveal something...Having a signed cartouche on blades does not prove the person existed...but it does point to a top class sword making facility/workshop...likely to be at Royal Workshop quality or close to it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

In Islamic Armourers and Their Works by L.A.Mayer, Albert Kundig, Geneva, 1962, on page 78 he mentions a Zaman Isfahani.
"Zaman Isfahani, a pupil od Asad Allah, is known by at least two swords.
1. One made in 1836 in Kabul.
2. No date, but in the National Museum in Denmark.


Salaams Jens, LA Mayer states Quote"No contemporary chronicle mentions him as a living being and no details of historical value are known about his life or work".Unquote.

Indeed it does appear as very suspect and I have to conclude that there is a very strong likelihood that no such persons were ever involved in swordmaking and that the signatures were cleverly construed to give the illusion they were real people when they were no more than clever early marketing tools.

A full account of this very question of signatures on Shamshiir blades may be found at http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-persian-shamshir-and-the-signature-of-assad-allah/


I add later...from http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/shamshir/ Shamshir Quote."blades will often include one or more of the following inscriptions: the maker's name, the owner's name, a dedication to a ruler, quotations from the Koran and talismanic devices. The most celebrated swordsmith to create shamshirs, Assadullah (or: Asad Allah, Asad Ullah, Asadullah) of Isfahan, worked during the high renaissance of the Safavid Persian Empire in the time of Shah 'Abbas, who reigned between 1588 and 1629 A.D. Essentially no actual details of Assadullah's life are known. Inscriptions proclaiming blades to be his work are common and vary greatly in position of inscription placement, technique and style of execution, wording and calligraphy. Mayer notes inscribed dates associated with Assadullah range from 811 AH to 1808 AD and Elgood reports a wootz blade also inscribed as the work of Assadullah but dated 1921 A.D. - a span of about 500 years! Another famed swordsmith from this same time and place was Assadullah's son Kalb 'Ali (or: Quli Ali) for whom an equally variable and large number of inscriptions have also been documented. From the large numbers of blades so inscribed and from the variations in style, it becomes obvious that these blades cannot be solely the work of the named swordsmith or even of a particular workshop. Considering the variation in the inscribed dates and rulers it seems unlikely that these inscriptions were truly made to deceive contemporary buyers, hence these inscriptions may essentially have been intended as talismanic devices. Exactly which of the blades bearing the signatures of these and other celebrated smiths are actually the work of these smiths is likely now entirely unknowable. Rawson advises assessment of the worthiness of a blade to bear the mark of a great swordsmith, however this does not allow definite attribution of authorship. On the basis of a broad heavy blade bearing a bold, complex wootz pattern, Figel attributed a few of the swords in his collection to Assadullah, as inscribed, however the cataloger of his collection at the time of auction was understandably more cautious." Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Dear members,

This is my first post on this forum. I have been collecting antique edged weapons for many years, since I was twelve, I'm now 36.

Years ago I started collecting German pattern welded damascus swords, mostly 19th and early 20th century vintage, and became fascinated with the art of European 'Damascus' blades. Inevitably I tried to find out what real damascus blades were all about, and I began to study Persian sword making and wootz steel. I spent time looking at examples in museums and books, and finally, very recently, I have purchased an example of a wootz steel Persian shamshir. The grip seems to be in bad shape, with signs of old repairs, but the blade looks pretty good.

The blade has two cartouches, with some other writing. I asked a friend in the Middle East if he could help me translate them, but although he is a calligrapher, he is not expert in Persian / Farsi. He thinks that one cartouche says: 'made by Zaman Esfahani'.

Can anyone help me with translating what is written on this blade, and also tell me anything about its age and who Zaman was.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Kind regards

Will


Salaams William Fox, Your thread is indeed an excellent one... in reading the many details regarding signatures on Shamshiirs I conclude that the following is perhaps the nearest I would agree with; from http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/shamshir/

Quote"Considering the variation in the inscribed dates and rulers it seems unlikely that these inscriptions were truly made to deceive contemporary buyers, hence these inscriptions may essentially have been intended as talismanic devices."Unquote.

I have to say that I am at the same time delighted with the wording since Talismanic inscription is an important area in its own right. To be clear I think the illusion of an actual person is very much in line with the invention albeit a masquerade and a play with words not so much as to lie or cheat a buyer moreover to classify a workshop (though it may well be that other workshops also used the signature as well) as the producer of fine blades. Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ...

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

[Jim McDougall]

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

I am inclined to agree, and as Ariel has noted, hilts were often replaced to maintain serviceability or in many cases as these blades changed hands.

As Ibrahiim has well noted, the cartouche with this signature would seem to be associated with talismanic imbuement of this very attractive blade, as seen with the bedough square adjacent.
As Mahratt has noted, we must be cautious in observing these inscriptions of these profoundly known makers as indeed they, just as famed makers in Toledo, North Italy and Germany had their very names become fixtures in the implication of quality in blades.

Though Mayer's work is a most venerable source, and typically most reliable, some of the references are notably brief but serve well as benchmarks for the subsequent research that has transpired.

I think Oliver Pinchot's work on the Assad Adulah blades has become a well established reference on the topic of these markings on Persian blades, and his reputation and knowledge has indeed become well known in the international arms community.

As mentioned with the case of the legendary Andrea Ferara which became legion in the famed Scottish swords, we cannot be absolutely certain of the true existence of the original personage. What is certain is that the name became the byword for excellence in the blades on which it was present.

That this practice might have in some cases been applied to substandard blades with the application naturally alluding to these well known blades seems rather anticipated.

[mahratt]

Salaams mahrat, The conundrum surrounding this phenomena...That of signatures taking on a life of their own when in fact what we may well be looking at is the same illusion that surrounds ANDREA FERRERA inscriptions. Surely that is the sort of question we are constantly puzzling over?...

There is no doubt that the inscriptions were placed and there may be many that are accurate in the date...but it is entirely logical that if Assad-Allah was simply the signature but the man himself (though he may have been real) was more connected to the "workshop signature" that produced high quality blades...and that if that is allowable...then there is a fair chance that all of the follow on signatures including Zaman Isfahan were also placed for the same reason.

I don't necessarily follow the reasoning on the lion brand either...It is perhaps worth noting that Shamshiir means Lions tail and I would suggest that it may also be a Lions Tale!! :)

There is hardly any information on the characters, however, research may reveal something...Having a signed cartouche on blades does not prove the person existed...but it does point to a top class sword making facility/workshop...likely to be at Royal Workshop quality or close to it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange? :)

[Jim McDougall]

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange? :)

Mahratt, that is amazing ! I have never seen the monumental book by the great expert of all Persian arms, Manoucher, but of the weapons shown in that book, there are none ascribed to Assad Adullah?

I for one do think that is very strange, especially since this book has been acclaimed by him to be the last word on these Persian swords.
Perhaps, these inscriptions are indeed for trade blades only?

Are you familiar with the article by Oliver Pinchot? I need to find my copy and read it again!! :)

[mahratt]

Khorasani's assertion that "Assadullah" was a sign of high quality bestowed by the guild is easily refuted by a plethora of junky blades with that ( often illiterate) signature.

I'm not saying that he fully agrees with Dr. Manoucher Khorasani opinion. I believe that "Assadula" - it was a brand. But this does not mean that no one has done poor quality swords, signing their cartouche "Assadula". If you have a brand, it is sure there will be a fake.
The same is true today. There branded Rolex watch. They cost $ 10,000. And there is a Chinese fake. It also says "Rolex". But they cost $ 10. :)

[mahratt]

Mahratt, that is amazing ! I have never seen the monumental book by the great expert of all Persian arms, Manoucher, but of the weapons shown in that book, there are none ascribed to Assad Adullah?

I for one do think that is very strange, especially since this book has been acclaimed by him to be the last word on these Persian swords.
Perhaps, these inscriptions are indeed for trade blades only?

Are you familiar with the article by Oliver Pinchot? I need to find my copy and read it again!! :)

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

If Kirill Rivkin says that in Manouchers book the swords represented are only second half 18th and into 19th centuries, then I would presume that comment to be compellingly accurate knowing the level of his knowledge and experience.

It seems, after rereading the remarkable article by Oliver Pinchot, that dated examples of 17th century shamshirs are relatively uncommon, thus often the method of recognizing them is primarily by the character of the blade itself. Apparantly Mayer (1962) was able to identify a good number of Assad Allah blades signed, but these all were apparently AFTER the reign of Shah Abbas I. As his reign was c. 1587-1628 (Stone) then these still would fall into 17th century.
Mayer (opcit.) notes that despite the questionable historicity of the name Assad Allah, the name was associated with fine sword blades in Persia by the late 17th c . and notes dated blades supporting this.

I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy.

[ariel]

Jim,
The problem is not only with Persian swors, but with any swords. The older they are, the rarer they are.
Weapons are perishable, and we have only one example of Seljuk swords ( in the Furussia collection), no Ottoman weapons prior to Mehmet II, virtually no Caucasian weapons prior to the end of the 18th century.

However, the book of Khorasani does contain several shamshirs of Safavid period signed by Assadullah Isfaghani.

# 73 ( p. 422) shows shamshir of Shah Abbas with Assadullah' s signature.
#74: the same
#75: the same
#76: the same
# 77: shah Abbas, signed by Kalbeali
# 78: the same
#79: shah Abbas/ Safi: signed by Assadullah

After that there are swords belonging to the later shahs , also signed with Assadulla's and Kalbeali's names. Those, of course, cannot be directly attributable to the original father/ son team, but on what grounds can we claim that ##73-79 are forgeries? They are openly mentioned in the book, with extensive photography, and all can see them and reach reasonable conclusions.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange? :)


Salaams mahratt, Your comments are much appreciated. In trying to give a similar example in European work when I say ~ Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ... I over simplify the situation since in the Persian scenario it is a far more deliberate and sustained proceedure whereby the sword factory use the illusion of the signature over several centuries almost as a trade mark. Naturally other workshops tried to cut in on the deal...and in some cases that can be looked on as somewhat frauduleny though imperfect signatures or badly done would reflect as bad quality craftsmanship thus undermining their efforts... and your later post on Rolex is agreed as an example.

The remark placed at thread by Jim sums it up nicely~ Quote"
I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy."Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[mahratt]

Guys, look at life realistically.

Unfortunately, the inscription is not the blade does not mean anything. Who prevents the early 19th century to make Shamshir and sign it - "1650"?

Let's talk about the items that are 100% provenance. Shamshir 17th century - diplomatic gifts, the kings of the property - they remained a couple dozen. Only they have the 100% provenance, only their date - 100% correct. They are different from what we mean by "Shamshir" geometry (Shamshir and those that we see in the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani), and cartush with "Shah Abbas" and "Assadula" them not ....

Unfortunately, in many museums around the world data shamshir (and not only) are not correct ... From this error, that appear in the books. These errors are due to the fact that the books of the authors believe what is written in the museum.

For example, I come to the museum in a small town in Russia, and see the Persian shashmshir. Around him the label. On the label is written: "Russian saber 14th century.." I would have thought that such errors are only in Russia. But, I traveled a lot in Europe. And in museums in different cities also saw such errors (incorrect date)....

[mahratt]

Salaams mahratt, Your comments are much appreciated. In trying to give a similar example in European work when I say ~ Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ... I over simplify the situation since in the Persian scenario it is a far more deliberate and sustained proceedure whereby the sword factory use the illusion of the signature over several centuries almost as a trade mark. Naturally other workshops tried to cut in on the deal...and in some cases that can be looked on as somewhat frauduleny though imperfect signatures or badly done would reflect as bad quality craftsmanship thus undermining their efforts... and your later post on Rolex is agreed as an example.

The remark placed at thread by Jim sums it up nicely~ Quote"
I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy."Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.


Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim! You're absolutely right.

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
Do you have any idea why would swordmakers in Iran call their brand of quality "Assadullah Isfaghani"? Did they just pick this moniker out of a thin air?


Usually, the titles of highest achievements carry names of remarkable individuals that were instrumental in financing the award ( Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize ) or themselves were examples of excellence in a relevant field ( Tchaikovsky or Chopin piano competitions, Lombardi Super Bowl trophy, Fields Award in mathematics , Olivier in acting etc.)

[mahratt]

Asadula translated as " Lion of Allah " . This is not necessarily the person's name .

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

[QUOTE=ariel]Ibrahiim,
Do you have any idea why would swordmakers in Iran call their brand of quality "Assadullah Isfaghani"? Did they just pick this moniker out of a thin air?


Usually, the titles of highest achievements carry names of remarkable individuals that were instrumental in financing the award ( Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize ) or themselves were examples of excellence in a relevant field ( Tchaikovsky or Chopin piano competitions, Lombardi Super Bowl trophy, Fields Award in mathematics , Olivier in acting etc.)[/QUOTE
.................................................. .................................................. ....

Salaams Ariel, Yes I do. Assad Allah was a prominent folk hero in Persian lore whilst Ali known in Shi ite Iran as Assad Allah holds a position of paramount importance. Naturally both these names would be held in great esteem supporting the reasoned arguement..that these names were honorary or Iconic and allowed to create an illusion, some would say a mark of excellence...and my meaning is contained in both... on this signed blade story.
I have to say that I remain skeptical as to the actual possibility of a real person being at the sword making point faced with the mountain of evidence to the contrary..."Is it a mysterious smith or a mysterious myth" ? :)

Much of the above detail is drawn from http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-persian-shamshir-and-the-signature-of-assad-allah/ which sets down a very comprehensive arguement in favour of the somewhat mythical aspect of the signatures on the blades.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
Yes, I know what Assadulla means and I have read Khorasani's book.
But why specifically Isfaghani? :-)
The very same name serving as a signature on Shah Abbas' swords, the very same name as in the "helmet" affair, the very same name mentioned as a father of Kalbeali...

My point is that there was such a real person, and after his death his name began to serve as a mark of quality and distinction. Nothing contradicting the later role, but somebody must have earned the original fame.

[mahratt]

Isfahan was the capital of Persia. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the inscription "Isfahan" was put on the blades.

If we continue the analogy ... "Isfahan" could be the second part of the brand. How is that "Rolex" - the Swiss watch quality. It is unlikely that someone will buy watches "Rolex", if they are to be written, "Chinese quality";)

[Jens Nordlunde]

mahratt - why not 'Omega or some other Swiss watch names'?

I find Ariels question quite resonable.

[mahratt]

mahratt - why not 'Omega or some other Swiss watch names'?

I find Ariels question quite resonable.

Jens, and what more iconic "brands" for the sword in the Islamic world than "The Lion of Allah", you can name?

In Spain, there were other "brands", except "Toledo", but if we talk about Spanish blades, it is the "Toledo" remember in the first place.

[mariusgmioc]

First, please do not forget that in the absence of irrefutable factual evidence, all our discussions are just speculations that can be very distant or very close to the historical truth.

Second, while no oppinion, even from a most reputed researcher, can be considered as ultimate truth, it is simply more likely/probable that a guy who dedicated its entire life researching this subject is closer to the truth than an amateur who spent much less time researching the subject and mostly, had access to much less first-hand resources on the topic.

Third, there is some generally factual evidence pertaining this topic that is the presence pf Assadulah Isfahani cartouche on early 17th century shamshirs.

Now, how do we know that those swords were genuinely made in the 17th century or how do we know that signatures weren't added later?!

We don't know, but we can assume with a high degree of certainty that those swords were genuinely made in 17th century based on coroborating of more historical data (like knowing with certainty that some swords belonged to certain rulers of the period) assesing the general shape and style of the sword and last but not least dating the sword wih scientific lab methods like C14.

Now knowing that the signatures weren't added later is a little bit trickier but not necessarily based on guessing. For example the technique of doing the signatures, changed in time, the style of the signatures, and the wording also changed. But there are examples of swords that can be attributed with certainty to some famous rulers of the period and those can serve as a reference when assesing other similar swords and signatures. So we can asses a sword and a signature by comparing it with another sword of confirmed origin.

Now, regarding te meaning of the signature "Assadulah Isfahani" we can speculate ad nauseam as to whether it was the name of the swordsmith, the name of the owner, or purely a talismanic symbol, withot recahing a conclusion.

However, I believe that the asumption it represents the name of the original swordsmith as mostly probable. The mere presence of other signature-names, like Kalb-Ali or Zaman Isfahani, tend to dismiss the idea that the signatures have purely talismanic meaning. If they were purely talismanic, then why AFTER Assadulah appeared the other names-signatures? Then why te attribute "Isfahani" which clearly relates to the geographical location and it was a common attribute to many Persian names at the time?! To me it seems that adding a geographical locator to a purely talismanic text, doesn't make too much sense. Then what about the swords bearing the clear wording "work of Kalb-Ali?"

Last, I would like to draw an analogy with several other known examples in the field. The oldest and probably best known would be the case of the "Vlfberht" swords. While this example still stirrs much debate related to the meaning of the inscription, the case of "Tomas Ayale Toledo" is quite explicit as it can certainly be associated with the name of an original master swordsmith who was carried on by his followers, to the point where it became like a quality seal and become used by other, unrelated smiths as well. There are also many such examples in the field of Japanese swords where entire schools with activity spanning over a few centuries signed with the name of the original, founding master swordsmith.

[mahratt]

mariusgmioc, thank you for the interesting thoughts.

I have only one question. Do we have at least one evidence of the existence of master Assadula Isfahani of Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

~ it became like a quality seal and become used by other, unrelated smiths as well. There are also many such examples in the field of Japanese swords where entire schools with activity spanning over a few centuries signed with the name of the original, founding master swordsmith.[/QUOTE]

Salaams mariusgmioc The first half of your text dealt with the likelihood that the Persian Swords in question were signed by a real person of that signature...The rest outlined above goes the other way.? It does however nicely lay out the essence of a signature as a quality seal and the analogy with a Japanese masters seal going on beyond his death for centuries is also relevant ...It should be considered however that the Persian predicament was different to the Ulfbehrt and the reasons for having these Persian dignitaries as sword signatures does not mean they were actual people ... but were honoured in Persian history, thus, if we are looking for a quality seal we have it right here.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Ibrahiim,
Yes, I know what Assadulla means and I have read Khorasani's book.
But why specifically Isfaghani? :-)
The very same name serving as a signature on Shah Abbas' swords, the very same name as in the "helmet" affair, the very same name mentioned as a father of Kalbeali...

My point is that there was such a real person, and after his death his name began to serve as a mark of quality and distinction. Nothing contradicting the later role, but somebody must have earned the original fame.


Salaams Ariel. I never querried if you knew Assad Allahs name nor did I ask if you had read Khorasanis book...nor would I since your knowledge in this field is respected ...Why would I ask that?... :)

The discussion is whether or not these people were real sword smiths...or associated with the making of the swords?...

Other than the actual signatures there is no proof so far. I don't think there was any question of anyone being tricked or fooled by this since it was simply a badge of distinction and quality only. Further more if there was such a person or persons and they were prolific in churning out swords where is the historic evidence...anecdotal proof, facts or anything to point to real time people ...not Icons of the Persian Psyche...

I quote from LA Mayer who quipped Quote "The number of swords bearing the name Assad Allah is legion, so much so that it is difficult to resist the temptation to say that of the 300 swords of which he could have made during his lifetime at least 500 have found their way to Western collections alone". Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ariel]

Mariusgmioc,
Very cogent exposition of the problem. It constructs a logical ( albeit indirect) basis of a true existence of Assadullah as a famous swordmaker. The incident of a helmet naming him by name strongly supports the reality of his existence.

Multiple old writers living much closer to the Abbas' era refer to Assadullah as a living person. It is only recently that the trend of deconstructing him has begun.

Interestingly, the proponents of a "purely talismanic" hypothesis cannot provide a single evidence to the contrary: such as, for example , a testimony of a contemporary witness unequivocally stating that Assadullah Isfaghani was purely a legend. Instead, they construct complicated and convoluted stratagems invoking the meaning of his name, it's cognomens, ancient personalities using it as a honorary title etc, but not a single direct argument.

Occam Rule always wins: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But when it is supported by a direct reference ( the helmet), it becomes virtually unbeatable:-)

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
I did not mean you personally re. the meaning of Assadullah and my reading Khorasani's book. No offence meant or taken. BTW , my own name, Ariel, - has the same meaning in Hebrew as Assadullah in Farsi:-)))

No doubt later masters used Assadullah's name for purely pecuniary purposes. The same is true about paintings by Rembrandt, watches by Cartier, and leather bags by Versace. It does not mean that Rembrandt, Versace and Cartier did not physically exist. On the contrary, it it they and their names that gave rise to the legendary fame of the brands.

[mahratt]

Multiple old writers living much closer to the Abbas' era refer to Assadullah as a living person. It is only recently that the trend of deconstructing him has begun.

Interestingly, the proponents of a "purely talismanic" hypothesis cannot provide a single evidence to the contrary: such as, for example , a testimony of a contemporary witness unequivocally stating that Assadullah Isfaghani was purely a legend. Instead, they construct complicated and convoluted stratagems invoking the meaning of his name, it's cognomens, ancient personalities using it as a honorary title etc, but not a single direct argument.

Occam Rule always wins: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But when it is supported by a direct reference ( the helmet), it becomes virtually unbeatable:-)

I hope, will not be difficult to name those writers who say that Assadula - this is a man (sword master). And to clarify, when these authors lived. It would have been very convincing.

[mariusgmioc]

mariusgmioc, thank you for the interesting thoughts.

I have only one question. Do we have at least one evidence of the existence of master Assadula Isfahani of Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?

I do not know whether there are any contemporary documents mentioning Assadullah as being a swordsmith of the period.
But that doesn't mean that
1. such documents do not exist, or,
2. that Assadulah never existed in reality.

Do we have at least one evidence DENYING the existence of master Assadula Isfahani in Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?! (just to add a twist to your question)

Do we have any evidence that the cartouche signature appeared just like that, from thin air, for purely talismanic purposes?!

If it were purely for talismanic purposes, why don't we see it on other objects, like ceramics, armour, etc?!

You are stating that none of the 17th century pieces you saw in certain museums bear the signature cartouche. At the same time you admit that many pieces even in famous museums are wrongfully classified/dated. Then how can you be sure that the pieces you saw are accurately dated?! What if the pieces you saw are earlier pieces, prior to the apparition of Assadullah? What if they are contemporay with Assadullah but were made by diferent smiths, from different locations? What if the pieces you are referring to, were made after Assadullah but by a different workshop in a different city?

So, in the end I am restating it again: we can only SPECULATE about the subject, but some speculations seem much more probable than others.

;)

[mahratt]

I do not know whether there are any contemporary documents mentioning Assadullah as being a swordsmith of the period.
But that doesn't mean that
1. such documents do not exist, or,
2. that Assadulah never existed in reality.

Do we have at least one evidence DENYING the existence of master Assadula Isfahani in Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?! (just to add a twist to your question)

Do we have any evidence that the cartouche signature appeared just like that, from thin air, for purely talismanic purposes?!

If it were purely for talismanic purposes, why don't we see it on other objects, like ceramics, armour, etc?!

You are stating that none of the 17th century pieces you saw in certain museums bear the signature cartouche. At the same time you admit that many pieces even in famous museums are wrongfully classified/dated. Then how can you be sure that the pieces you saw are accurately dated?! What if the pieces you saw are earlier pieces, prior to the apparition of Assadullah? What if they are contemporay with Assadullah but were made by diferent smiths, from different locations? What if the pieces you are referring to, were made after Assadullah but by a different workshop in a different city?

So, in the end I am restating it again: we can only SPECULATE about the subject, but some speculations seem much more probable than others.

;)


It's simple, it seems to me :) If Asadula - a well-known person (sword master), it must be mentioned in the writings of the time when he lived (17 century). But no one can give an example of such a manuscript .... If we see this manuscript, of course I'll be the first to say that Assadula was a real person. So far, unfortunately, there are no such data.
In the absence of this evidence, all other arguments are (I think) - just "mind games";)

There are real Persian sword of the 17th century. Such swords save some, but they are. And know exactly where they are stored. Neither one of them no has a cartouche "Assadula". Moreover, as I have said before, the Persian sword of the 17th century are not similar to those sabers, which we used to call "Persian Shamshir" and wherein the blade has a cartouche "Asadula". :)

Draw conclusions* *;)

[mariusgmioc]

Dear Ariel. I've done better - show the authentic record Anosov 1841, where he writes that received a wootz "Kara-Khorasan" and wootz "Taban". And you (unlike the majority of the forum) can not only read my bad translation, and real publication.

I thought, for researcher it enough :)

I have shown in another topic a few Shashka of Bukhara with three rivets. And I think that this is enough. Now you insist that I show Bukhara shashkas with large rivets. :) Perhaps you began to doubt that the shashkas, which you have shown (with small rivets) from Bukhara?
Do not worry. This is a good shashkas. I even a little jealous of you :)

I do not understand your point. Neither do I understand the point of inserting a photo with the grips of three different blades.

As with regards to the terms Kara Khorasan and Kara Taban, there is not a single clear description that would allow their unambiguous identification and differentiation. It is most likely they are refering to the same type of wootz steel, dark, with high contrast and large strips of of watering patterns. More exactly Kara Taban means "black base" and "Kara Khorasan" means "black Khorasan" where the first tries to describe the steel in terms of its aspect, and the second attempts to describe in terms of aspect and origin (black from Khorasan).

[Jim McDougall]

First, please do not forget that in the absence of irrefutable factual evidence, all our discussions are just speculations that can be very distant or very close to the historical truth.

Second, while no oppinion, even from a most reputed researcher, can be considered as ultimate truth, it is simply more likely/probable that a guy who dedicated its entire life researching this subject is closer to the truth than an amateur who spent much less time researching the subject and mostly, had access to much less first-hand resources on the topic.

Third, there is some generally factual evidence pertaining this topic that is the presence pf Assadulah Isfahani cartouche on early 17th century shamshirs.

Now, how do we know that those swords were genuinely made in the 17th century or how do we know that signatures weren't added later?!

We don't know, but we can assume with a high degree of certainty that those swords were genuinely made in 17th century based on coroborating of more historical data (like knowing with certainty that some swords belonged to certain rulers of the period) assesing the general shape and style of the sword and last but not least dating the sword wih scientific lab methods like C14.

Now knowing that the signatures weren't added later is a little bit trickier but not necessarily based on guessing. For example the technique of doing the signatures, changed in time, the style of the signatures, and the wording also changed. But there are examples of swords that can be attributed with certainty to some famous rulers of the period and those can serve as a reference when assesing other similar swords and signatures. So we can asses a sword and a signature by comparing it with another sword of confirmed origin.

Now, regarding te meaning of the signature "Assadulah Isfahani" we can speculate ad nauseam as to whether it was the name of the swordsmith, the name of the owner, or purely a talismanic symbol, withot recahing a conclusion.

However, I believe that the asumption it represents the name of the original swordsmith as mostly probable. The mere presence of other signature-names, like Kalb-Ali or Zaman Isfahani, tend to dismiss the idea that the signatures have purely talismanic meaning. If they were purely talismanic, then why AFTER Assadulah appeared the other names-signatures? Then why te attribute "Isfahani" which clearly relates to the geographical location and it was a common attribute to many Persian names at the time?! To me it seems that adding a geographical locator to a purely talismanic text, doesn't make too much sense. Then what about the swords bearing the clear wording "work of Kalb-Ali?"

Last, I would like to draw an analogy with several other known examples in the field. The oldest and probably best known would be the case of the "Vlfberht" swords. While this example still stirrs much debate related to the meaning of the inscription, the case of "Tomas Ayale Toledo" is quite explicit as it can certainly be associated with the name of an original master swordsmith who was carried on by his followers, to the point where it became like a quality seal and become used by other, unrelated smiths as well. There are also many such examples in the field of Japanese swords where entire schools with activity spanning over a few centuries signed with the name of the original, founding master swordsmith.


These are most interesting postulations, and nicely thought out.
While I am far from any authority on the subject of these fine Islamic swords, I have gained good working understanding of many factors about them through the years. It has been my understanding that the early penchant for the naming of Islamic swords typically would allude to either where the sword was made'; the master who made it; sometimes even the place from which the steel came with occasionally the owner.

It seems this may have been a factor in the addition of the name Isfahani in the inscriptions.
To look at this in accord with the well placed analogy concerning the well known cases regarding Ulfberth and Ayala of Toledo, I think that the case of the famed ANDREA FERARA blades are probably the most descriptive of this 'brand name' phenomenon.
While there is no doubt Ayala and his son existed, the case for Ulfberth is more clouded as this may be a term possibly related to a sobriquet for a warrior, but remains debatable.
With Andrea Ferara, much more mystery in involved, and the myths perpetuated remain disputed as to whether this was a real person or not, just as with Assad Allah. The blades with this name, just as with Assad Allah, cover lifetimes in the same way, thus could not have been produced by one man. There is no supportable evidence whether in guilds, genealogical or other records, and as related in research by DeCosson , where buildings and other iconographic details are found supporting the existence of for example, the Missaglia's, none is found for Ferara.

It is far too compelling without that substantiation, the consider the possibility that Andrea (of Ferara, the Italian city) might have been an eponym for a sword of good iron/steel. That the name Andrea (Andrew) was also linked to true/good was an archaic instance of such associations.
Thus the 'name' in essence was a brand/term for good steel.
It is curious that as far as known Italian swords there are so few that are so marked, possibly only several exist.

It was not until Solingen picked up use of the name for is blades destined for Scotland, that the name became legion.

The closest thing we have to establishing Assad Allah to an actual personage is the apocryphal tale in Persian lore of the helmet, which has been mentioned here and is well noted in the article by Oliver Pinchot.

We know that Assad Allah (Lion of God) was often used to refer to Ali, and of course would be a term of the highest honor as applied in the beautifully poetic similes and metaphors of Persian lore.

As has been noted, the debate and discussion on whether or not Assad Allah was a real person or an honorific title or brand will remain elusive, just as will likely the Andrea Ferara mystery.

[mahratt]

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

[mahratt]

And here's a Persian sword of the 17th century. Not very much like a Shamshir familiar to us, does not it? :)

Sorry for the bad quality of the photo. But I think - the blade shape is clearly visible.

[Jim McDougall]

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

I very much agree! and I think anyone here who is seriously interested in further understanding of the dilemma with the case of the Assad Allah blades should definitely read:
"On the Persian Shamshir and the Signature of Assad Allah"
Arms Collecting, Vol 40 #1, Feb. 2002
as linked by Ibrahiim here in previous post or can be found online.

In this outstanding and thoroughly researched article, Oliver notes that there are no specific tests for the actual work as far as original blades attributed to him in the literature as most descriptions are lyrical and not necessarily sufficient to be supportable. It is noted that the signature on later blades seems likely the use of the name by numerous makers as quality inference. Many examples later using name and considerably inferior are clearly forgeries.

He also cites the single historical reference which though seemingly apocryphal (in my own opinion at this point) notes:
"...Shah Abbas is said to have received a helmet from the Ottoman sultan who offered a sum of money to whoever could break the helmet with a sword. No one was able to do this until a certain Asad-a sword maker nade a sword with which he cut through the helmet".
Islamic Society in Persia
A.K.S. Lambton, London , 1954
*as cited and footnoted in Oliver's paper.

It should be noted that the time of Shah Abbas was c. 1587-1628

As has been noted, dated examples of 17th century Persian swords seem quite uncommon, but generally they seem identifiable by their characteristic heavier blades. Perhaps most of these are like the example posted by Mahratt on the example with heavier blade with wide blade near tip rather than the thinner, sweeping radius of the shamshirs we are discussing.

This would seem to lend credence to the note suggesting that most of blades signed with Assad Allah and these variations seem post Shah Abbas reign.

Still, this does not eliminate the possibility the actual existence of a distinguished sword maker named Asad, as implied by the story on the helmet event, which might have been the origin of a long standing tradition which suggests reasons for the use and perpetuation of the name on swords.

[mariusgmioc]

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?


As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

[mahratt]

As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

Asadula (if it was a real person) - this is not a simple wizard. If Assadula - a real person, a great master of the sword. This wizard necessarily had to fall into the manuscripts. But no manuscripts, where his name is mentioned.
Now Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani . They have no 100% provenance. What Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani are in the museum in Tehran - not guarantee that they are the 17th century. If I take wootz Shamshir 19th century, and write on it, "Shah Abbas", it becomes Shamshir 17th century? We do not know when and who wrote the inscription on the Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani. But we know that the brand "Assadula" has generated a lot of fakes. Is not it?

Those Persian saber, which I say (and that shows in the pictures) - 100% 17 th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Just spent some time going through a long text of one of Manouchers articles on the Assadollah blades and markings, and he explains that he thinks the Assadollah as well as Kalb Ali are titles used by the seyyeds to describe association to descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and or devotion to Ali and mastery of the craft.
He cites references to this in his book (2006, pp.148-167), which I do not have, but wanted to add these notes.

It seems that the word 'shamshir' of course is a general Persian word for sword which predates the actual appearance of these lighter blade sabres being discussed. This as always makes it difficult when looking into early sources for references.
It does seem the sabre shown by Mahratt in the post with its scabbard has an indeed heavy blade which seems more like Central Asia type sabres of the 17th c. Naturally these were likely contemporary to these light bladed forms now visually associated with the term 'shamshir'.

It certainly seems to me , the more I read through these things that the cartouches as well as dates and allusions including what may be honorific titles must be added in a commemorative or traditional sense on these blades. Thus many of these are not of course 'fakes but genuinely quality blades with these inscriptions which have a certain talismanic imbuement .

[ariel]

Well, we seem to have different opinions. Since neither can be supported by a direct evidence, both are equally plausible.

I tend to go along with the simpler one: there was an exceptionally good swordmaker named Assadullah at the time of Shah Abbas who had a son named Kalbali, also a famous master.
Later Persian swordmakers signed their works with these two names either at the request of a vane customer, as the talismanic mark of exceptional quality or just for pecuniary reasons.


Other people may think differently, but there is no way we can convince each other.

We should just keep our own opinions and stop the senseless argument until new evidences becomes available.

[mahratt]

Guys, I do not understand why we are arguing. Make easier. Someone can show the Persian sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?

[Jim McDougall]

Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible.
In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven.
What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely.

So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so .

In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.

[mahratt]

Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.

[mariusgmioc]

Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.

To me it seems that you are not interested in the debate but are interested only in having your view accepted as the ultimate truth, and of course having the last word.

Why?

Well, first you asked about a documented mentionig of Assadullah as a real person but completely ignored the answers (the answer regarding the existence of such a mentioning related to the split helmet story, and my answers relating to the relevance of such a question).

Second, while we all agree that without irrefutable evidence, all our discussions are pure speculations, you akeep trying to press for your hypothesis as being the ultimate one.

Well, be it your way! You are right, absolutely right! And when I am saying that, I am referring also to your answer to my present comment, as I am not going to sink further into this "debate."

[mahratt]

To me it seems that you are not interested in the debate but are interested only in having your view accepted as the ultimate truth, and of course having the last word.

Why?

Well, first you asked about a documented mentionig of Assadullah as a real person but completely ignored the answers (the answer regarding the existence of such a mentioning related to the split helmet story, and my answers relating to the relevance of such a question).


I prefer to stick to the facts. Do you think that "the legend of the helmet, which cut the sword" in the retelling of 1954 - this is a serious argument? Did you read A.K.S. Lambton Islamic society in Persia? I will be very grateful, if you say, on a which manuscript makes reference Lambton.


Second, while we all agree that without irrefutable evidence, all our discussions are pure speculations, you akeep trying to press for your hypothesis as being the ultimate one.

Now about the irrefutable evidence and their absence. Can you give examples of Persian swords of the 17th century (which have 100% provenance, vindicated by historical documents) which has a cartouche "Assadula"? I can not remember such Persian swords. If you know of such a Persian sword, please tell me about it. I will be grateful.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All, The designed name ...and continuation of it Assad Allah were used in honour of the person in Persian Lore...and History which is why no detailed history exists of the sword maker with that name...there wasnt one! The story of the helmet is purely mythical and an invention around one of the names. As outlined above these names were placed in honour of the sword quality and as a mark of that quality.

I am amazed it has created such a fuss...and one member even throws down his pen (is that not the same as throwing down ones sword? :) ) although as with all things if someone wishes to compile a data sheet showing the names as real persons I would be pleased to read it. Meanwhile for those wishing to observe the full weighing up of this apparent conundrum please look at and note ~ if it does not appear it may be accessed at the right side under recent blogs..;

http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-...of-assad-allah/

It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it. :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ALEX]

...
It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it. :shrug:
...


Ibrahiim, I totally agree!
Here's that LINK (http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-persian-shamshir-and-the-signature-of-assad-allah/) again.

[Jeff D]

I love this, old school forum debates. While we are at it can anyone find contemporary evidence of Homer, Shakespeare and Jesus...?

Jeff

[mahratt]

It is strange to compare the person who lived 2,000 years ago (Jesus and Homer), as well as Shakespeare , whose existence is not in doubt (as far as I know) with the mythical personality "Assadula", who was supposed to live in the 17th century. Amazing ... we know about Shakespeare when he was baptized, who were his parents, etc. Life "Assadula" (about the same time) - is shrouded in mystery :)

[ariel]

JeffD:

How can you even bring up the mythical personality of someone called Shakespeare?
I am surprised!


It is a common knowledge that William Shaxpere, aka Shagspere did not write Hamlet, King Lear and the rest of them. It was Francis de Vere ( or Francis Bacon, or Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, or Sir Walter Raleigh, or Amelia Bassano Lanier , a Venetian Jewess of Moroccan ancestry, or....)

"Shakespeare" was just a talismanic mark, a sign of quality used by a local guild of play writers. It is obvious that Othello and Titus Andronicus could not have been written by the same hand!

Multiple British researchers and theater personalities , including Derek Jacobi, can swear on local phone books and testify in court to that effect.

:-)))))))

[Emanuel]

LOL :)

SHAVER KOOL :)

[Jeff D]

🤔

Jeff

[Jim McDougall]

LOL :)

SHAVER KOOL :)


OH NO!!!!!!!

[William Fox]

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

Thank you, and everyone here, for sharing your knowledge and helping me to understand this sword a little better. I have recently acquired a decent camera so will take some better photos and post them.

Regards to all,

Will

[ariel]

Never expected this thread to be resurrected:-)
But it is , and I wish to add a general thought.

The attempt of disproving the authorship of Assadulla is just a part of a relatively modern general trend: to doubt the importance of a single personality as a driving force of creativity and history. Tolstoy in his "War and Peace" argued that Napoleon was just a puppet of some unseen historical forces, and even did not engineer his military victories. In the 19th century nobody doubted the authorship of Shakespeare, it is only recently that previously unheard of personalities have been proposed to replace him as The Bard. Biblical studies try to demolish the existence of "legendary figures" , King David and Jesus included.
It is all "the unseen hand of history" or, more often, "the collective genius ( or will) of masses".
There is this marxist attempt to bring the outstanding individual down and to replace him with a swarm of mediocrities. The funniest thing is that it is the monomaniacal tyrants who brainwash the "masses" with the illusion of the Volk's importance: Hitler and Stalin are the two outstanding examples.

So what if there is no a certificate of merit given to Assadulla by Shah Abbas himself? How many documentary evidences naming outstanding makers of pesh kabz, armour, shields or helmets do we have? Prominent musicians? Was Avicenna the only great Islamic physician? Ulugbeg the only astronomer? We have repeat mentions of Assadulla's name and his family relations to Kalb Ali by people who had first or second hand knowledge of their physical existence. And we, 500 years later, blithely dismiss their stories as just... fantasies? Do we know better?


I am reading Jens' book now, and am delighted that he repeatedly mentions both Assadulla and Kalb Ali as real personalities and casually discusses the distinctions between their genuine works and those of the followers and clumsy forgers...

Not all is lost, gentlemen:-)

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ariel, I think there is a difference in an author mentioning "something" on passing in a book and actually setting down a proof of "something" with considered notes and appraisals. It may be that the author genuinely believes it is true but it is quite different to a claim that it must be true because an author has casually mentioned it. I think that encroaches on being slightly "out of context."

Please see http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-persian-shamshir-and-the-signature-of-assad-allah/?locale=en (LA Mayer supports the fact and notes the myth that these swords are not made by the signaturee...and concludes there was no such person ...per se. )

~and the considerable work also of Dr Ann Feuerbach where the question is carefully considered. Further, in fact, no one person made these weapons but that many had a hand in doing so. Perhaps half a dozen workshops and individuals were responsible and that grouped together they may be associated as one broad school but with many craftsmen doing different parts of the sword... I find it perfectly plausible without taking away any of the mystique and without doggedly claiming that Assad Ullah was a real sword master when there is no proof he was...not that I would lose any sleep over this as it is quite irrelevant. I rather prefer the myth in this case. :)

[mariusgmioc]

Never expected this thread to be resurrected:-)
But it is , and I wish to add a general thought.

The attempt of disproving the authorship of Assadulla is just a part of a relatively modern general trend: to doubt the importance of a single personality as a driving force of creativity and history. Tolstoy in his "War and Peace" argued that Napoleon was just a puppet of some unseen historical forces, and even did not engineer his military victories. In the 19th century nobody doubted the authorship of Shakespeare, it is only recently that previously unheard of personalities have been proposed to replace him as The Bard. Biblical studies try to demolish the existence of "legendary figures" , King David and Jesus included.
It is all "the unseen hand of history" or, more often, "the collective genius ( or will) of masses".
There is this marxist attempt to bring the outstanding individual down and to replace him with a swarm of mediocrities. The funniest thing is that it is the monomaniacal tyrants who brainwash the "masses" with the illusion of the Volk's importance: Hitler and Stalin are the two outstanding examples.

So what if there is no a certificate of merit given to Assadulla by Shah Abbas himself? How many documentary evidences naming outstanding makers of pesh kabz, armour, shields or helmets do we have? Prominent musicians? Was Avicenna the only great Islamic physician? Ulugbeg the only astronomer? We have repeat mentions of Assadulla's name and his family relations to Kalb Ali by people who had first or second hand knowledge of their physical existence. And we, 500 years later, blithely dismiss their stories as just... fantasies? Do we know better?

I am reading Jens' book now, and am delighted that he repeatedly mentions both Assadulla and Kalb Ali as real personalities and casually discusses the distinctions between their genuine works and those of the followers and clumsy forgers...

Not all is lost, gentlemen:-)

Couldn' t have said it better!

[Arthur.Rothschild]

Can't help you with the translation but to me, it looks like the blade is older than the grip, possibly 18th century.
The photos are not very good, but the blade appears to be in pretty good condition. Could you discern any pattern in the wootz?


It is a Quran scripture( Nasr mn Allah wa Fateh Qareeb) which means victory from Allah and an imminent conquest. In addition to the maker name Asfahani. It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real. Unfortunately, many makers try to forge the stamp and using his name as trade mark.

[ALEX]

... It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real...

The cartouches and inscriptions on the blade in Post 1 and 11 seem to be proper, authentic and contemporary to the blade. Whether made by AssadAllah himself or not is something that cannot be claimed with certainty. Most authors describe such blades as "bearing AssadAllah maker mark". Labeling all such cartouches as non-authentic/not-real would be inaccurate and improper.. unless they are obviously modern made and/or on modern blades.

[ariel]

And yet another resurrection of the topic!
I love it.


AFAIK, no new evidence for or against physical existence of an Abbas-era swordmaker named Assadulla had surfaced in the interim. We are back to our deeply held beliefs about the role of a single personality in history.



Meanwhile, Israeli archeologists find one evidence after another pointing to a historical figure of King David. The latter was hotly “disproved” by a modern bunch of deconstruction specialists.

Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence: somebody may still find a shred of old paper mentioning Assadulla by name. And recently,a very smart guy named Kamil Khaidakov from Moskow reported Shamshir blades with deep stamps of Assadulla on their tangs. Something to think about.

BTW, The Iliad was written not by Homer, but by another ancient blind Greek poet ( or a commune of them) :-)

[mariusgmioc]

Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence: somebody may still find a shred of old paper mentioning Assadulla by name. And recently,a very smart guy named Kamil Khaidakov from Moskow reported Shamshir blades with deep stamps of Assadulla on their tangs. Something to think about.

BTW, The Iliad was written not by Homer, but by another ancient blind Greek poet ( or a commune of them) :-)

Hello Ariel,

As I am not a native speaker, I may have misunderstood your message.

However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

I will illustrate my argument with a single example (albeit there are many) inspired by you.
For decades scholars argued there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Troy, and that Homer's poems Iliad and Odyssey are purely fictional creations...
... until one individual with absolutely no theoretical background took the two poems for EVIDENCE and started digging. And he found Troy.

Now there is another issue I want to bring up. WHAT IS "EVIDENCE?" Is an inscription on a sword saying "Work of XXX" evidence for the existence of the respective swordsmith? And here, we can argue ad nausea because what is evidence for some, can be rejected by others. However, based on my own common sense, I believe that we can make a rationally valid assumption that there existed a certain swordsmith named XXX. Now, whether he made the respective sword himself or a later imitator, is another issue but the mere existence of immitators I see as a confirmation of the assumption that at a certain moment there existed a swordsmith XXX. If he had not existed, why would his signature be immitated?

My two cents... :shrug:

[A.alnakkas]

It is a Quran scripture( Nasr mn Allah wa Fateh Qareeb) which means victory from Allah and an imminent conquest. In addition to the maker name Asfahani. It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real. Unfortunately, many makers try to forge the stamp and using his name as trade mark.

You are correct that the translation on he spine is a Quranic verse. But the maker's mark is not even Assadullah, it is Zaman Asfahani, another well known smith. The translation was included in the original post so I am not sure how that was missed. There are no signs of fake inscriptions, as well documented items have such method of signatures in well established collections.

[ariel]

“However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”

Marius,
You are absolutely correct: this was a typing error and I am guilty for not noticing it:-((((((

And I agree with your argument: the very mention of Assadulla’s name and his “address” (“ from Isfaghan”) , as well as his relatives ( “Son Kalbali”) and pupils (“Zaman Isfaghani”) suggest that old swordmakers who lived close to his time knew about his physical existence.