Spanish Rapiers, a Bilbo FYC.

[Atlantia]

Jim is doing a great job on this forum, and I am happy to add to the discussion of European swords with this:

Here is my favourite sword, my Bilbo.
I bought it about 15 years ago, and at the time it cost more than the car I drove. It came from a reputable dealer who dated it at 1580, which I think may have been a bit 'enthusiastic' and I'd say it could be anything up to mid 17thC. It is 41 1/2 " long overall with a 35" blade (visible edge).
The blade is marked: .S A H A G V N. in pig-latin, I don't see any great reason to doubt the German origin, but either way, its a fine blade. The entire piece is darkly mottled, I know many would clean it up, but I kind of like it this way. The hilt is wrapped with silver wire.
The larger shell is engraved with a large flower (sunflower?)
The small shell is engraved with what seems to be a 'closed' flower.
It has some contemporary 'working' repairs done, nothing serious, the shell is held in place by four steel pins. It looks as though the sword took a hard blow on one of the quillions and bent it and loosened the shell. The quillion has been straightened and as you can see is not quite round in section any more, the steel pins have been tightened and onein particular has 'punch' marks around it. This working repair has left the quillions about 5 degrees off of the right angle. I must admit, I kind of like this, and the various little 'knicks' in the edge, this sword was clearly used. I just wish I could identify the iconography of the flower emblems and if they represented the man/family/organisation that it was made for.

I'd love to hear the members opionions on this sword. Please be kind, its my pride and joy ;-)


Pictures:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000057.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000061.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000062.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000063.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000065.jpg

[Atlantia]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000066.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000068.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000069.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000070.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000073.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000075.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000076.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000077.jpg

[Jim McDougall]

Atlantia, this piece is fantastic!! Actually when we talked and you spoke of a 'bilbo' I was thinking of an entirely different sword, those considered to be the M1728 (described in numerous works on Spanish weapons, with some dissent on the application of that model date, but military swords used into the 19th c.).
In checking "The Rapier and Small Sword" by the esteemed A.V.B.Norman (London, 1980, p.156) hilt #82 is very much like this sword, though the example has up and down turned quillons, and the pommel is quite different. Norman describes the example with wide range 1660-1795, leaving assessment of your example to the variation in elements.

The term 'bilbo' is often misleading and confusing, and though it is typically regarded as a Victorian collectors term probably derived from the term bilobate (which these asymmetrical shell guard swords are), it seems to have been applied to Spanish swords as early as Shakespeares time. In "Merry Wives of Windsor" the term 'bilbo' refers to a fine sword, however it is used in a metaphoric context.

I would consider this sword a 'bilobate' rapier, and it seems the faceted pommel has been described as mid 18th century I believe attributed to Royal Bodyguards in Spain, but cannot recall for sure the reference. The straight quillons recalling the familiar Spanish cuphilt of the 17th century, and seen on early 18th century swords of this type (also with the wire wrapped grip enclosed by four posts) that are likely associated with the M1728 military pattern, also bilobate with the four post grip.

The 'Sahagum' is of course a Solingen interpretation alluding to the Spanish smith, and as early as 1620's blades with this spurious application I believe were being sent to the Netherlands. I think this note was found in Norman as well, and with the Spanish presence there at the time this sounds very logical.

The scalloped guardopolvo is another possible Spanish feature in my opinion, as the striated clamshell is found often on the guards of Spanish edged weapons.

I'd really like to hear other opinions on this beautiful piece, but wanted to note my observations, which at this point would consider this a Spanish bilobate rapier, possibly an officers, and early 18th century. The clearly Solingen blade with that choice of trademark name may suggest this possibly has provenance to the Spanish Netherlands, and the faceted pommel may be a point of contention to dating the sword.

Thank you for posting this Atlantia, and I look forward to other views.

All the best,
Jim

[Atlantia]

Wow Jim,
Thanks for kicking this discussion off mate!
I'm still trying to absorb all the information and implications of what you've written!
Is it possible to scan and add some pics of the examples you mention? I can't picture that pattern, so when you talk about M1728 I can't help but think 'Isn't that a galaxy in the constellation Andromeda?' ;-)

Seriously though, I can see that this thread is clearly going to be a serious education for me. I'm not sure now what I'm hoping for when it comes to a definative ID on this sword, but I guess I am hoping to ID it beyond any doubt.
Do you recognise the flowers? Do you think there is any relevance to them, or just randomly chosen decoration?

Regards
Gene

Atlantia, this piece is fantastic!! Actually when we talked and you spoke of a 'bilbo' I was thinking of an entirely different sword, those considered to be the M1728 (described in numerous works on Spanish weapons, with some dissent on the application of that model date, but military swords used into the 19th c.).
In checking "The Rapier and Small Sword" by the esteemed A.V.B.Norman (London, 1980, p.156) hilt #82 is very much like this sword, though the example has up and down turned quillons, and the pommel is quite different. Norman describes the example with wide range 1660-1795, leaving assessment of your example to the variation in elements.

The term 'bilbo' is often misleading and confusing, and though it is typically regarded as a Victorian collectors term probably derived from the term bilobate (which these asymmetrical shell guard swords are), it seems to have been applied to Spanish swords as early as Shakespeares time. In "Merry Wives of Windsor" the term 'bilbo' refers to a fine sword, however it is used in a metaphoric context.

I would consider this sword a 'bilobate' rapier, and it seems the faceted pommel has been described as mid 18th century I believe attributed to Royal Bodyguards in Spain, but cannot recall for sure the reference. The straight quillons recalling the familiar Spanish cuphilt of the 17th century, and seen on early 18th century swords of this type (also with the wire wrapped grip enclosed by four posts) that are likely associated with the M1728 military pattern, also bilobate with the four post grip.

The 'Sahagum' is of course a Solingen interpretation alluding to the Spanish smith, and as early as 1620's blades with this spurious application I believe were being sent to the Netherlands. I think this note was found in Norman as well, and with the Spanish presence there at the time this sounds very logical.

The scalloped guardopolvo is another possible Spanish feature in my opinion, as the striated clamshell is found often on the guards of Spanish edged weapons.

I'd really like to hear other opinions on this beautiful piece, but wanted to note my observations, which at this point would consider this a Spanish bilobate rapier, possibly an officers, and early 18th century. The clearly Solingen blade with that choice of trademark name may suggest this possibly has provenance to the Spanish Netherlands, and the faceted pommel may be a point of contention to dating the sword.

Thank you for posting this Atlantia, and I look forward to other views.

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

... I'd love to hear the members opionions on this sword. Please be kind, its my pride and joy ;-)


Hi Gene,
Envy has been sufocating me ... and doesn't allow me to coment :eek:
Forget me not, the day you decide to get rid of it :cool: .
Fernando

[Atlantia]

Hi Gene,
Envy has been sufocating me ... and doesn't allow me to coment :eek:
Forget me not, the day you decide to get rid of it :cool: .
Fernando


Hi Buddy :-)

It would look quite at hiome in your magnificent collection!

Thank you for your kind envy ;-) Please do comment, you probobly know more about these than I do.

Regards
Gene

[fernando]

... Please do comment, you probably know more about these than I do ...

No, it's a mistake. When i need to discuss something i rush to the Net and to the miserable couple books i have, learn the most possible in a moment and come back to drop a coment.
I don't possess a pre-built knowledge (luggage, like we say here) like Jim or Marc (or others) to validate things instantly, as already known from previous experience and learnings. As i don't have a piece the type of this one of yours, i haven't yet cultivated such area.
But i know i like it ... very much :cool:
Fernando

[TVV]

Gene,
I cannot make any other comments other than you, Fernando and the rest of the guys here had done it and now I crave Spanish (and Portuguese) rapiers and broadswords on top of everything else I already crave. Before I plunge into acquiring one, I will need to learn a lot, so keep them coming.
Regards,
Teodor

[fernando]

Hi Gene,

... I can't picture that pattern, so when you talk about M1728 I can't help but think [I]'Isn't that a galaxy in the constellation Andromeda ...

Can you read Spanish (Castillian) ?

http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/49-Conchas.pdf

another one:

http://perso.wanadoo.es/jjperez222/tropacab.htm

Fernando

[fernando]

BTW, Gene ... and Jim,
It seems as the grip of the sword under discussion, with the wiring 'locked' by four iron filets, is a pattern used at an earlier stage . I can see precisely the same thing in a Peninsular left hand dagger from the first half XVII century.
... for what it matters.

Fernando

[celtan]

Hi Guys,

I really don't have time to search for data in my books on the subject, but as Jim knows, I love these beasties. I also enjoy the rare opportunity to handle them at the local museum deposits. Please excuse any gaffe that I may committ by writing sans references. These are my two bits:

First: I love how this sword looks, it seems to exude History.

That being said, the bilobate shell-guard is not as deep as that found in the Spanish 1728, it seems somewhat "flatter". It's attachment is completely different to any I have previously seen.

The blade is beautiful, but is more rapier-like than the " a tres mesas" broad no-nonsense blade, utilitarian and characteristical of this type. The only things in this sword that truly look spanish to me are the grip and the pommel.

I seem recall that there are some swords called "espadas del viejo modelo" that were forerunners to the 1728, but they usually held the pas-de-ane to the guard with only two screws. This one seems to have a variation of the four screws "boca de caballo" plate without actually being one...

The attachment itself is via four bolts, instead of the four traditional spanish slotted-head screws so typical of the 1728. Then, many earlier spanish swords used bolts.

My take on this sword is that it is either a forerunner of the M1728, or more probably a beautiful period high-quality variation made by a foreign armourer following the spanish style, so much in vogue across Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and some say even Oceania...

Congrats Gene!

Best

Manuel Luis

BTW: The Sahaguns were Toledo armourers, father and son.

[Atlantia]

Hi Guys,

I really don't have time to search for data in my books on the subject, but as Jim knows, I love these beasties. I also enjoy the rare opportunity to handle them at the local museum deposits. Please excuse any gaffe that I may committ by writing sans references. These are my two bits:

First: I love how this sword looks, it seems to exude History.

That being said, the bilobate shell-guard is not as deep as that found in the Spanish 1728, it seems somewhat "flatter". It's attachment is completely different to any I have previously seen.

The blade is beautiful, but is more rapier-like than the " a tres mesas" broad no-nonsense blade, utilitarian and characteristical of this type. The only things in this sword that truly look spanish to me are the grip and the pommel.

I seem recall that there are some swords called "espadas del viejo modelo" that were forerunners to the 1728, but they usually held the pas-de-ane to the guard with only two screws. This one seems to have a variation of the four screws "boca de caballo" plate without actually being one...

The attachment itself is via four bolts, instead of the four traditional spanish slotted-head screws so typical of the 1728. Then, many earlier spanish swords used bolts.

My take on this sword is that it is either a forerunner of the M1728, or more probably a beautiful period high-quality variation made by a foreign armourer following the spanish style, so much in vogue across Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and some say even Oceania...

Congrats Gene!

Best

Manuel Luis

BTW: The Sahaguns were Toledo armourers, father and son.

Thanks for all your thoughts on this one Manuel,
I always assumed that 'SAHAGUN' was Solingen in pig-latin! I just googled it to try and find more info about your family of smiths and now I see that it's also a town in Spain!!
Thsi thread really is going to be an education for me.
I'm going to do some more research on all the information that everyone has provided so far and try and get 'up to speed' for later today ;-)
Thanks again
Gene

[Atlantia]

Hi Gene,



Can you read Spanish (Castillian) ?

http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/49-Conchas.pdf

another one:

http://perso.wanadoo.es/jjperez222/tropacab.htm

Fernando


LOL, I can pick out a few words! But the pictures speak volumes!!
The last picture on this page:
http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/49-Conchas.pdf

Has BIG similarities to my sword. Can't wait for more information, keep it coming :-)

[Jim McDougall]

I just opened this thread, and you guys are truly amazing! It is fantastic to see such excitement and discussion, especially that everybody is turning to whatever resources are at hand to add comments, and that everyone's comments become more and more constructive. This is the kind of threads I had hoped would develop here, and not only do we have a fantastic sword as the object of discussion, but clearly some equally fantastic observers!!

Please keep it going guys!! Outstanding discourse :)

All the best,
Jim

[celtan]

Precisely. that's a german made version.

Best

M


LOL, I can pick out a few words! But the pictures speak volumes!!
The last picture on this page:
http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/49-Conchas.pdf

Has BIG similarities to my sword. Can't wait for more information, keep it coming :-)

[Atlantia]

Precisely. that's a german made version.

Best

M

LOL< thanks, I couldn't even read that much! ;-)


Regards
Gene

[Atlantia]

This thread has thrown up an interesting question.

Manuel has informed us that 'SAHAGUN' could refer to a family of Toledo armourers.

I always assumed that it was a bastardisation of Solingen.

It's also a town in Spain!

Can we nail this sword to one of the three definately?


Also, the flower designs on the shells. Does anyone have any thoughts on them?


LOL, this thread has thrown up more questions than I thought it would and I'm very keen to explore them in more depth.

Thanks again to everyone for hleping with this.

Gene

[celtan]

Hi Jim,

Sahagun refers to the Toledo armourers, topographic coincidences nonwithstanding

:D

Their name was so much copied,(like the dog trademark of Master "Perrillo" was by Passau) that it even changed across time, from Sahagun, to Samacum, long after the armourers had become dust.

:shrug:

Regarding the flower, it looks to me like a "margarita", a sunflower.

Best

M

[fernando]

...Can we nail this sword to one of the three definately? ...
The name Sahagun comes from a village in the province of Leon, called as such after the marthirdom of two saints, whose name gave its origin, after a couple corruptions. It has nothing to do directly with swords.
Alonzo Sahagun was one of the best sword makers Toledo ever saw and lived around 1570. He had a shop in la Calle de los Armeros.
In the case of your piece, i'd go for the version of a Solingen alusion to the master's name.
... but what do i know ? :o

Fernando

[fernando]

Hoops, Manolo has posted on the Sahagun thing, in the meantime :shrug: .
Fernando

[Atlantia]

Hmm, Well I did buy it as a circa 1580 sword, and I always believed it was early rather than late. Is it too much to hope that it was actually made by the Sahagun father?

[fernando]

Hmm, Well I did buy it as a circa 1580 sword, and I always believed it was early rather than late. Is it too much to hope that it was actually made by the Sahagun father?

Most unlikely ... the experts will say :shrug:
Fernando

[Atlantia]

Most unlikely ... the experts will say :shrug:
Fernando

It seems they don't know any more than us! I think this one may remain a mystery :-(

[celtan]

Wasn't Sahagun the name of The Shadows Weapon Factory Planet in "Babylon 5"?

: )

Me' self, I have never seen an original Sahagun blade. The one we have here is badly spelled: Samacum.

Cheers

M

It seems they don't know any more than us! I think this one may remain a mystery :-(

[Atlantia]

Wasn't Sahagun the name of The Shadows Weapon Factory Planet in "Babylon 5"?

: )

Me' self, I have never seen an original Sahagun blade. The one we have here is badly spelled: Samacum.

Cheers

M

Hey Manuel! B5 was a great show!!


LOL, that was Z'ha'dum! I've been watching seasons 3 and 4 over the last few days while working! Great series.

Where is the misspelt one? Can you post a pic or a link?

I assume mine is spelt correctly? Well assuming they were always spelt in latin?
the inscription on my blade is 'S A H A G V N' do we know if they used 'U' or 'V'?

Regards
Gene

[Atlantia]

More a bump than anything else!
Just wanting to recap and try and decide if we've actually decided anything concrete about my sword?

So, it may not stricly be regarded as simply a Bilbo, not that bilbo is anything more than a victorian collectors term anyway, but you know what I mean.

So what would we call it?
'Spanish Rapier'?

The Blade Inscription purports to be the makers name and not the place of origin.

Some of its elements seem to indicate an early date, some a later date.

And thats it?


:confused:
:shrug:

Gene

[celtan]

I would call it a "Period rapier made in the spanish style".
They often used V instead of U, but it should be pronounced U, and the latter is the correct spelling also.
Also, Bilbo is a connotation for a cheaply made sword made for export...
Best
Manuel Luis





More a bump than anything else!
Just wanting to recap and try and decide if we've actually decided anything concrete about my sword?

So, it may not stricly be regarded as simply a Bilbo, not that bilbo is anything more than a victorian collectors term anyway, but you know what I mean.

So what would we call it?
'Spanish Rapier'?

The Blade Inscription purports to be the makers name and not the place of origin.

Some of its elements seem to indicate an early date, some a later date.

And thats it?


:confused:
:shrug:

Gene

[fernando]

Some (most) times is easier to be told what specimens are not, than what they are. So many weapons are a mix of styles ... whether added within time or originaly intended by the maker. A significant quantity of my stuff falls into that area :shrug: .
It appears than in (Iberian) typology, you have the 'sword' as so called, belonging to 'military' universe and the 'rapier', that of 'civilian' development ... although also used by military, in determined contexts. Two (of the?) sympthoms which indicate that the piece is a rapier are, the blade being narrow (er), more vocationed to fencing and the knuckle bow being loose, and not screwed or welded to the pommel, a detail not neglectable in Ordnance combat examples.
So your specimen could be called a rapier, although with some military features like, i guess, its guard, typically called boca de caballo (horse mouth), as already mentioned here by the connoisseurs.
A couple forumites can tell you that this guard did not exist till the beg. XVIII century; therefore a pattern later than the (beg. XVII century?) grip. Then if you fix the grip date as being originaly assembled to the (imported blade), you will find that the Sahagun legend is not the maker's mark but an allegory to him, to add value to the blade. This way you could say that, basically, this is a XVII century rapier, with a later military type guard addition.
I don't beleive i dared to adventure giving a presumptious opinnion in such matters..
... Just forget it :o
Fernando

[celtan]

Hi Fer,

Nice summation!
A note though, the reason its called a boca de caballo is because the hilt/pas d'ane arrangement (sans the bivalve shell guard) united to a four holed table, looked like a period horse's bit.
I was until very recently of the belief that it was because head-on, the shell guard looked like an open horses mouth. Not so! Its the underneath framework that gives it its name.

Cosas veredes Sanxo...

: )

Manolo

[fernando]

... Cosas veredes Sanxo ... .

Pues no me lo diga, Don Manuel :confused:
Haven't i burned my brains trying to acomodate the vision of a horse mouth to the sword shell guard ?
We learn until we die.
Glad you told ... me ... and certainly others ;)

[Atlantia]

Excellent Thank-you Gentlemen.
I had actually not heard of the 'horses mouth' description before, but I can see it!
Do you have any thoughts on the flower designs?

Regards
Gene

[celtan]

Margaritas/Sunflowers...

Holland?

[Atlantia]

Margaritas/Sunflowers...

Holland?


I've been googling 'sunflower' images to try and find any ancient familys that used it! No luck as yet.
Holland you think perhaps?
hmmmm........ ;-)

[Gonzalo G]

Apart from both Sahagún, father and son, respectively Alonso de Sahagún or Sahagun el Viejo, and Luis de Sahagún, there was another Sahagún, Alonso de Sahagún el Jóven. All of them swordsmiths from Toledo. And all of them had a personal marking to identify their swords, apart from the inscription of their names. I don´t have registers of other Sahagún´s. It must be taken on account that there was also a "Sahagún School" they left for the posterity, so you can find swords from the Sahagún School, formally recognized as that by the scholars on this subject. For more references, please see this document from German Dueñas Beraiz, published in Gladius magazine:

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/viewFile/42/43

The markings of 99 swordsmiths form Toledo, including the Sahagún´s, can be seen in:

Claudio del Fraxno y Joaquín de Bouligny
Memoria Sobre la Teoría y Fabricación del Acero en General y de su Aplicación a las Armas Blancas,
Segovia, Imprenta de D. Eduardo Baeza,
1850

I agree with Jim. The blade seems not to be from those swordsmiths. But a very good piece anyway. Yes, to envy, Gene. Probably form Solingen.
My best regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Good material Gonzalo; thanks for sharing.
I've saved it.
Fernando

[celtan]

So did I!
Muchas gracias
Manolo

[Atlantia]

Hi Gonzalo,
Thanks for posting. I'm going to have to try and muddle through with babelfish! ;-)
Any paragraphs you think are particularly relevant to my sword?

Brilliant material.
:-)
Thanks
Gene

[Atlantia]

Just a BIG ole BUMP to see if anyone else has had any ideas or any new information has come to light?

:-)

[celtan]

There's currently one very similar on EBay, with different grips and shell-guard art. Auction ended sans sale, item 120332175778http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/globalAssets/rtCurve.gif


Just a BIG ole BUMP to see if anyone else has had any ideas or any new information has come to light?

:-)

[Gonzalo G]

Gene, I apologize for not seeing your question before. I have the bad habit of not subscribing to the threads, as I post just a little, and I thought the thread was inactive. About the references: from the Gladius article, they refer to the style and characteristics of the Sahagun´s rapiers. Please traslate:

pag. 239, last two paragraphs
pag. 240, first two paragraphs (the mention of the sword found un Sueden, is refered to a work from Sahagun)
pag. 241, second paragraph

The marks or stamps form the toledan swordsmiths, on the book, appear in the Plate 2, at the end of the book.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Atlantia]

Gene, I apologize for not seeing your question before. I have the bad habit of not subscribing to the threads, as I post just a little, and I thought the thread was inactive. About the references: from the Gladius article, they refer to the style and characteristics of the Sahagun´s rapiers. Please traslate:

pag. 239, last two paragraphs
pag. 240, first two paragraphs (the mention of the sword found un Sueden, is refered to a work from Sahagun)
pag. 241, second paragraph

The marks or stamps form the toledan swordsmiths, on the book, appear in the Plate 2, at the end of the book.
Regards

Gonzalo

Don't worry Gonzalo, I'm very greatful for your help, I will study those parts now :-)
Thank you.
Gene

[Atlantia]

There's currently one very similar on EBay, with different grips and shell-guard art. Auction ended sans sale, item 120332175778http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/globalAssets/rtCurve.gif


Well, thats rather exciting!!!
Thanks Manuel!!!
I cant resist a comparison shot:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/rapier4.jpghttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000073.jpg

It's like my rapier has a skinny sister!! And she's a babe ;-)

length is about the same, its clearly the same 'family' of sword. Very thin duelling blade?

Comments anyone?
:D

[Gonzalo G]

Well, thats rather exciting!!!
Thanks Manuel!!!
I cant resist a comparison shot:
It's like my rapier has a skinny sister!! And she's a babe ;-)

length is about the same, its clearly the same 'family' of sword. Very thin duelling blade?

Comments anyone? :D

Yes, the similarities are obvious. It looks your sword is a military model, and the other one is a civil model, more rapier-like.
Regards

Gonzalo

[celtan]

Interesting, both have one quillon larger than the other.

BTW: The grip on Gonzalo's can be found in the Spanish 1728' Regulation Model.

Yes, the similarities are obvious. It looks your sword is a military model, and the other one is a civil model, more rapier-like.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Atlantia]

Interesting, both have one quillon larger than the other.

BTW: The grip on Gonzalo's can be found in the Spanish 1728' Regulation Model.

How strange, the asymetry is reversed on them.
On mine the longer quillion is the one on the knuckle-bow side at 85mm, whilst the other is only 75mm.
On the ebay sword it loks the other way around.

I wonder why they are not the same length?

[fearn]

Hi Atlantia,

I hadn't checked this thread until now.

So far as the flowers go, we've got another one of those annoying, eight-petaled sword flowers again on one side, and a three-petaled thingie on the other.

My guess on the three-petaled thingie is that it's a side view of an iris (link to pic of spanish iris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iris-xiphium.JPG), which is appropriately called Iris xiphium).

As for the eight petaled flower, I just posted about a similar figure on that serpentine rapier thingie (link (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7494&page=2)). The short answer is that there aren't any eight-petaled simple flowers. However, there are, potentially, eight petaled composite flowers in the sunflower family (Asteraceae, aka the Compositae). So, it could be a margerite, a daisy, or some such. It's not a true sunflower. OTOH, the Asteraceae is one of the biggest families of flowering plants in the world, so asking, "which one is it?" could take a long time to answer.

It also could be some sort of symbolic flower, as Katana suggested for the undulating rapier.

Hope this helps a little.

My 0.002 centavos,

F

[Gonzalo G]

It also could be some sort of symbolic flower, as Katana suggested for the undulating rapier.

Hope this helps a little.

My 0.002 centavos,

F


I think you have a point in this, Fearn. This could be a matter of a research. I don´t believe those decorations were only sudden inspirations of somebody.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Atlantia]

Good afternoon Gentlemen,
Welcome Fearn, thanks for your help. I'll see if I can draw the designs on paper and upload them in a bit.

Hugely greatful for your help guys.

[Atlantia]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/SAHAGVN1.jpg

The border of 'petals'? is the same on both sides. The designs are crudely executed but quite complex. Excuse my scribbles, they do make the designs clearer than the photos do. I think it defiantely looks like a sunflower. Any thoughts as to why or when?
Thanks
Gene
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/IM000061.jpg

[fearn]

Hi Atlantia,

Interesting, and thanks for the sketches. Oddly enough, that "iris" looks more like the fruits of a larkspur (see first image) or even wolfsbane fruits (see second image) than an iris.

As for the sunflower, I'll repeat my first position: it's a relative of a sunflower, but I'm not convinced it's a sunflower. The reason I'm not convinced is two-fold: first, sunflowers tend to have more than eight petals (they're technically ray flowers), and second, they tend to have petals of a single color, where the petals on the rapier flower have a band halfway up. That band is characteristic of many other species of sunflower relatives, so I tend to think it's not a sunflower.

One thing I think we can ignore is the leaves under the flowers or fruits. Since they're the same for both flowers (unlike in nature), I think they're just a standardized leaf shape, without other meaning.

Best,

F

[Atlantia]

Hi Atlantia,

Interesting, and thanks for the sketches. Oddly enough, that "iris" looks more like the fruits of a larkspur (see first image) or even wolfsbane fruits (see second image) than an iris.

As for the sunflower, I'll repeat my first position: it's a relative of a sunflower, but I'm not convinced it's a sunflower. The reason I'm not convinced is two-fold: first, sunflowers tend to have more than eight petals (they're technically ray flowers), and second, they tend to have petals of a single color, where the petals on the rapier flower have a band halfway up. That band is characteristic of many other species of sunflower relatives, so I tend to think it's not a sunflower.

One thing I think we can ignore is the leaves under the flowers or fruits. Since they're the same for both flowers (unlike in nature), I think they're just a standardized leaf shape, without other meaning.

Best,

F

Ah I see,
Great points Fearn, I hadn't made the connection with the inner patterning on the petals. And of course (doh!) Sunflowers have LOTS of petals, lol, not just eight! Thanks for a new and clearly clearer perspective on this, I think I've had it so many years, I cant see the wood for the trees!
I'd always juat thought the smaller design was the flower 'closed', but you think its something else entirely?

[fearn]

Hi Atlantia,

It's always fun trying to figure these things out. So far as the smaller design goes, I'm pretty sure that it's not the closed form of the big one. In general, the bud of the sunflower family looks something like an artichoke (not surprisingly, because artichokes are distant relatives of sunflowers), so that three-parted whatever-it-is is definitely not a closed sunflower.

As for what it is, I've already made my guesses above. It would have been nice for it to have been an iris, because irises do show up in heraldry. One good example is the fleur-de-lys. That pattern really looks like the fruits of some members of the buttercup family, such as larkspurs or wolfsbane. These are semi-reasonable guesses, as the designer could easily find these fruits in a garden or a meadow near the shop. WHY someone sould choose such a pattern really puzzles me. Larkspurs and wolfsbane are fairly poisonous, so there might be some symbolism there. There might also be some family name association. Whatever it is, I'm currently puzzled.

Feel free to keep bugging me about it. Perhaps the right question will shake loose a better answer.

Best,

F

[katana]

Hi Atlantia,
as Fearn has pointed out, the 'symbology' might indeed be similar to the serpentine bladed rapier.

".......Fleur-de-lys
The French symbol of royalty to the far left is known as the Fleur-de-lys. It originated with the first of the Merovingian kings of France. This symbol comes out of Sumeria and is directly related to the Tree of Life. It can be traced all the way back to the Sumerian god Enki. In the image he is holding a pot of flowing waters with the symbol above it. This is also a maritime symbol which always indicates north. The next illustration is from Urartu which clearly shows the fluer attached to the fruit. Starting the next row is a Phoenician drawing of the Tree of Life. Notice the fluer at the center top. This is a style known as the vortical tree as is the following Assyrian tree. The final example of the fluer is from a piece of metal work from Urartu. It dons the helmet of a genii. The Fleur-de-lys has been so widely used that it is considered classical.

Rosette
Then we have the rosette. It too is a symbol connected to the Tree of Life. It has eight spoke-like leaves just like the symbol for the sun god Shamash. Standard rosette design with center dark pit to the far left. Next is Urartian metal work with a band of rosettes. The last image is from a Sumerian seal showing rosette's connection to the tree. This symbol is closely associated with the goddess Inanna and of course to the Tree of Life. This is a pan-Mesopotamian symbol....."

The 8 petalled flower fits in with the rosette and the 3 'leaved' configuration seems to suggest the Fleur-de-lys. The above paragraphs and additional pictures (which are a little small but worth looking at) are here...approx. 1/3 page down

http://firstlegend.info/3rivers/3rivervalley.html

Kind Regards David

[fearn]

Hi David,

Another debate?

Yes, I would be very happy if the small thing was a fleur-de-lys, aka an iris. That would solve a lot of problems, because it would be safely inside the symbol cannon of Europe.

Thing is, the artist took some trouble to put details into the picture that made me decide it wasn't a fleur-de-lys. That leads to two possible conclusions:

1. It's not a fleur-de-lys, or

2. It is supposed to be a fleur-de-lys, but the artist was so clueless about what a fleur-de-lys represents (an iris flower, which has six visible parts) as a three parted whatzis with two leaves underneath.

The second interpretation isn't impossible, as there are some fleur-de-lys images that could have been the model for this one.

Basically, the artist may have wanted the fleur-de-lys to look "realistic," but lacking any knowledge of what the fleur-de-lys represented, he didn't raid his wife's flower garden for an iris flower, but scratched out this figure instead. It certainly happens, and I can think of a few Hollywood movie sets that were decorated with the same lack of attention to detail.

Still, there is the possibility that the artist did know what he was trying to represent, in which case, it's not a fleur-de-lys, but something else.

Fun!

F

[katana]

Hi Fearn,
I agree with what you have said. However, you have previously stated that there are no 8 petaled flowers .... if it was a literal interpretation of a flower then it must be incorrect. Assuming that it was not a mistake then we could asume that the Fleur-de-lys is also not a 'literal' interpretation either.

Irrespective of this ....why are two symbols associated with the tree of life, together on the cup :shrug:

It seems that this and the serpentine rapier display similar symbology ....coincidence :shrug:

Regards David

[fearn]

Hi David,

I guess it's botany lesson time. I've been fudging, and it's time to be more precise. (WARNING: LONG-WINDED MESSAGE TO FOLLOW :D)

In most groups of plants, the number of petals per flower is strongly controlled. The basic rule is that it's generally five petals for dicots (less often four petals). In monocots, petal number is generally three, sometimes six (when the petals and sepals are indistinguishable as in a lily). There are some dicots, a very few monocots, and some primitive plants (neither dicot nor monocot) where the petal number is something else. In one small group, it's nine. More often, it's labelled "many" which is botanist's code for: lots of petals (usually more than 10), and the number is not strongly controlled, so it varies by flower. This is true for the sacred lotus, and for cactus flowers.

Now for the exceptions: I'll deal with the artificial one first. Some roses have more than five petals. They are not primitive. What happens in roses is that, occasionally, one of the stamens gets the wrong hormonal message and turns into a petal instead. Plant breeders noticed this, and deliberately bred mutants, where many of the stamens instead become petals. This is actually what happens naturally with cactus flowers, but that's a side issue. We're not looking at a cactus flower on this sword.

The second, bigger exception is composite flowers. Some groups, most notably the aster family, have decided to make a bigger "flower" by gathering a lot of smaller, simpler flowers together into one composite flower. The outer flowers in the composite (the "petals" on a sunflower) 3 or 5 petals fused together into one large banner (these are called ray florets, technically), while the flowers that make up the disk of the sunflower (technically, the disk florets) have highly reduced petals. It gets much more complicated, but that's enough for now. Sunflowers are not the only group to produce composite flowers, but they are by far the biggest and most successful.

ONE FINAL NOTE: I believe people widely really realized that the number of petals was important around the time of Linnaeus, who published Systema Naturae in 1735. Linnaeus' system was grouped plants based on the number of stamens and carpels inside the plant and got everyone counting flower parts. Prior to 1735, I suspect that the only people who noticed the numbers of petals and such were accurate observers. As botany spread following Linnaeus, people knew that the number of flower parts was really important, and the pictures became more accurate.


NOW, TO GET BACK TO THE SWORD. we have a three-parted smaller figure, and an eight-petaled bigger figure.

Start with the smaller one: if those structures are petals, it's pretty definitely a monocot. The iris (on which the fleur-de-lys is modeled) is a monocot, so we've got a possible answer.

Problem is, if that's an iris, we're missing all the other parts of the flower. So far, I've just been talking about petals. Flowers also usually have sepals (below and outside the petals), and stamens and carpels (above and inside the petals). That's why I said that, if it's a fleur-de-lys, the artist didn't know what he was drawing.

Alternatively, those figures could be fruits, which develop from the carpels. When fruits develop, typically the sepals, petals, and stamens fall away. The rules for petal number do not govern the rules for stamen number, and in any case, those fruits could be from some member of the buttercup family, such as a larkspur or a wolfsbane.

That's how I interpreted the smaller figure.

Now for the bigger figure: Eight petals. Again, either the artist was drawing something realistically, or he was not.

If he was drawing something realistic, it's highly unlikely that it was a simple flower, because no group consistently has eight petals. To get there, you have to start with something five petaled, and add three mutant stamens. Doesn't happen often.

Or, the artist could be drawing a composite flower. This is possible, as there are some that have eight ray florets per composite flower. I'd have to sit down with a European flora to look, as there are literally dozens of possibilities. Most of these are obscure weeds, but one might be culturally important.

If the artist was not portraying a realistic flower, then either he was drawing some sort of symbol, or he was drawing a generic flower. In this case, the best we can do is figure out the symbolism, if any.

Eight-fold flowers happen to be easy to draw (i.e. make a petal every 45 degrees around a circle), so I've seen a lot of them in artwork. For various reasons I won't get into here (aren't you glad?:rolleyes: :D), eight petals doesn't work as well as five in the wild, and eight-petaled flowers are very uncommon.

That's the gist of it. So, if anyone wants to figure out the ID of a flower on a sword hilt, this is how I do it.

Hope it helps,

F

[Atlantia]

Hi guys, thanks for debating this one! I've had one thought... I'm thinking the radiate lines might be significant, as in a 'hairy' stem and leaves, seems a bit more weird on the petals but.......
Have either of you had any thoughts on this 'feature'?

[fearn]

Hi Atlantia,

The hairs definitely could be a clue. Some plants have more hairs than others, so it could be a clue.

F

[Jim McDougall]

Hi David,

I guess it's botany lesson time. I've been fudging, and it's time to be more precise. (WARNING: LONG-WINDED MESSAGE TO FOLLOW :D)

In most groups of plants, the number of petals per flower is strongly controlled. The basic rule is that it's generally five petals for dicots (less often four petals). In monocots, petal number is generally three, sometimes six (when the petals and sepals are indistinguishable as in a lily). There are some dicots, a very few monocots, and some primitive plants (neither dicot nor monocot) where the petal number is something else. In one small group, it's nine. More often, it's labelled "many" which is botanist's code for: lots of petals (usually more than 10), and the number is not strongly controlled, so it varies by flower. This is true for the sacred lotus, and for cactus flowers.

Now for the exceptions: I'll deal with the artificial one first. Some roses have more than five petals. They are not primitive. What happens in roses is that, occasionally, one of the stamens gets the wrong hormonal message and turns into a petal instead. Plant breeders noticed this, and deliberately bred mutants, where many of the stamens instead become petals. This is actually what happens naturally with cactus flowers, but that's a side issue. We're not looking at a cactus flower on this sword.

The second, bigger exception is composite flowers. Some groups, most notably the aster family, have decided to make a bigger "flower" by gathering a lot of smaller, simpler flowers together into one composite flower. The outer flowers in the composite (the "petals" on a sunflower) 3 or 5 petals fused together into one large banner (these are called ray florets, technically), while the flowers that make up the disk of the sunflower (technically, the disk florets) have highly reduced petals. It gets much more complicated, but that's enough for now. Sunflowers are not the only group to produce composite flowers, but they are by far the biggest and most successful.

ONE FINAL NOTE: I believe people widely really realized that the number of petals was important around the time of Linnaeus, who published Systema Naturae in 1735. Linnaeus' system was grouped plants based on the number of stamens and carpels inside the plant and got everyone counting flower parts. Prior to 1735, I suspect that the only people who noticed the numbers of petals and such were accurate observers. As botany spread following Linnaeus, people knew that the number of flower parts was really important, and the pictures became more accurate.


NOW, TO GET BACK TO THE SWORD. we have a three-parted smaller figure, and an eight-petaled bigger figure.

Start with the smaller one: if those structures are petals, it's pretty definitely a monocot. The iris (on which the fleur-de-lys is modeled) is a monocot, so we've got a possible answer.

Problem is, if that's an iris, we're missing all the other parts of the flower. So far, I've just been talking about petals. Flowers also usually have sepals (below and outside the petals), and stamens and carpels (above and inside the petals). That's why I said that, if it's a fleur-de-lys, the artist didn't know what he was drawing.

Alternatively, those figures could be fruits, which develop from the carpels. When fruits develop, typically the sepals, petals, and stamens fall away. The rules for petal number do not govern the rules for stamen number, and in any case, those fruits could be from some member of the buttercup family, such as a larkspur or a wolfsbane.

That's how I interpreted the smaller figure.

Now for the bigger figure: Eight petals. Again, either the artist was drawing something realistically, or he was not.

If he was drawing something realistic, it's highly unlikely that it was a simple flower, because no group consistently has eight petals. To get there, you have to start with something five petaled, and add three mutant stamens. Doesn't happen often.

Or, the artist could be drawing a composite flower. This is possible, as there are some that have eight ray florets per composite flower. I'd have to sit down with a European flora to look, as there are literally dozens of possibilities. Most of these are obscure weeds, but one might be culturally important.

If the artist was not portraying a realistic flower, then either he was drawing some sort of symbol, or he was drawing a generic flower. In this case, the best we can do is figure out the symbolism, if any.

Eight-fold flowers happen to be easy to draw (i.e. make a petal every 45 degrees around a circle), so I've seen a lot of them in artwork. For various reasons I won't get into here (aren't you glad?:rolleyes: :D), eight petals doesn't work as well as five in the wild, and eight-petaled flowers are very uncommon.

That's the gist of it. So, if anyone wants to figure out the ID of a flower on a sword hilt, this is how I do it.

Hope it helps,

F


Fearn, this is absolutely fantastic application of 'botanical forensics in studying decorative motif on weapons'!! On the Ethnographic Forum , Jens has for considerable time devoted a great deal of study on this subject as applied to Indian swords and daggers. Robert Elgood discusses this in some degree in his great book "Hindu Arms and Ritual", where much of the symbolism of various botanicals are used in ceremony, decorative motif and even in metallurgy.
I really enjoy the discussions you and David get into on these subjects, which really add dimension to better understanding these motifs on weapons.


All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Hi Guys,

Possible ID on the big flower. I think it's something like a marigold. My girlfriend and I were out at a farmer's market, and there they were, eight petals/flowers around the rim, and the petals were red on the inside and yellow on the outside. Leaves are lobed too. Not a perfect ID, but that's my guess for now.

Although my girlfriend wanted something more decorative, I've got a bouquet of said flowers on the table right now. I'll get a picture when the light's better.

Best,

F

[celtan]

Aren't Marigolds and Margaritas the same flower?

Best

Manolo

[Atlantia]

Hi Fearn, I see what you mean :-)


I also googled up some of the ones with the same variagation in the petals but I havent seen one with all the element somcined yet, ie the varigated petals, numbering 8 and the parge centre.

Be very interested to see yours.
Thanks
Gene

[Atlantia]

Aren't Marigolds and Margaritas the same flower?

Best

Manolo

Are they? I thought Margaritas were Sunflowers? :confused:

[fearn]

Hi All,

Here's the deal. All the flowers (sunflowers, margaritas, marigolds) are in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Sunflowers are in the genus Helianthemum. Marigolds are in the genus Tagetes. Margaritas (actually marguerite, aka the ox eye daisy) are genus Leucanthemum.

Thing to remember is that the sunflower family (Asteraceae) has on order 23,000 species worldwide. It's an easy group to get confused about, so don't worry if you are confused right now. So far as the picture on the sword being a marigold, I rate that as probable, and I'll get a picture up later.

Best,

F

[fearn]

I've got an ugly picture of the marigold (or whatever it is), showing a flower with 8 "petals" (ray florets). Oddly, on this plant, the ones with eight petals aren't in good shape for the most part. Don't know why that might be. Still, this is what I'm talking about.

Note above: Actually, sunflowers are genus Helianthus, not Helianthemum, which is another genus that I worked with. My bad.

Best,

F

[Atlantia]

I've got an ugly picture of the marigold (or whatever it is), showing a flower with 8 "petals" (ray florets). Oddly, on this plant, the ones with eight petals aren't in good shape for the most part. Don't know why that might be. Still, this is what I'm talking about.

Best,

F


Ah, yes I see it :-)
I've found a similar on on my googling but single colour petals.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c59/Battlestar_Atlantia/flower.jpg

[celtan]

Now I see the difference! Except for their estambre , Margaritas are white.