Middle eastern sword
 

I acquired this sword in Oman. I don't know how it got there. I believe it is of Georgian heritage. The Arabic date (1287), stamped in the hilt converts into 1870. I am curious if the two asterisk’s have any meaning. I could find no other marks. It is 32" overall length, with a 8"grip and a 21" blade. Both sides are decorated in nielloed silver. I'm curious of what the group thinks of its origin. This is my first post I hope I have done it correctly. With Regards, rm

Hi RM:

Welcome to the Forum! You did fine in your posting of pics, etc.

This may well be a 19th C. Georgian kindjal, but others here are far more expert than I am and they can likely pin it down to a specific area or town for you.

Ian

This looks more like late 19th/early 20th century Kubachi (Dagestan) work to me, at least as far as the fittings go. Still, nice kindjal.

a close up of the hilt
 

The date ok, but I don't understand the asterisks. Perhaps no meaning but why bother?

Can you please post a photo of the whole blade, not taken at an angle, so that the shape of the blade can be clearly visible?

1870 is probably a correct date, but where does it come from is much more tricky. It is Caucasian for sure but whether is Daghestani or Georgian, is debatable.

Complete photo
 

I have added a more complete photo.
With Regards, rm

During todays homework I found similar craftmanship on an older auction website. The auction house described the knife as a "Kubachi example" What I found interesting as it was struck with the date (1900, I think) and a asterisk?

Asterisks are not a problem, they are like cheap versions of fabrication stamps
sometimes both sides of the maker's name. Look at my Omarov, eagles both sides instead of asterisks.
Ariel is the expert, but I think like Eric, yours is early 20th c.

reply
 

Understood and thank you, I am beginning to enjoy the research part of understanding the history of some of these artifacts.

Yes, most likely Daghestani.

Thank you.
 

Thank you.

At that time Vladikavkaz became a very important center of manufacture of Caucasian weapons. Large workshops ( Omarov, Guzunov, Mudunov, Koshtoyants et al) and multiple smaller establishments employed masters from all over Caucasus and Transcaucasia. They utilized a variety of ornamentations irrespective of the ethnic origin of the maker and only names or probirer stamps can pinpoint the origin of the weapon.

Well, weapon is an overstatement: a lion share were sold as souvenirs and decorative costume trinkets. Even Kubachi and Tiflis acquired industrial strength and the ethnic characters of ornamentations were lost. Buyers simply chose what style they wished to have and the shops had them all.

Blue jeans, formerly an idiosyncratic American garb, nowadays are made all over the world, from Vietnam to Guatemala and Ukraine. Most of the erstwhile Druze Majjali daggers were made in large Syrian cities. Industrial globalization did not start yesterday.

Very well said Ariel,
The study of ethnographic weapons is probably one of the greatest conundrums ever because of this very phenomenon, the commercial production of ethnic weapons as souvenirs and tourist curiosities.
During the colonial eras of major powers, people became intrigued by these kinds of items brought back by occupying forces and the stage was set.

As noted, the upswing in production of such items which were produced to simulate styles and character of the decoration on the originals and their intricate meanings were gradually lost through diffused interpretation.

With Caucasian weapons they are inherently attractive and exotic, so their beauty remains compelling, but for ethnographic arms historians, the challenges are formidable. While Ariel and a number of others who often write here are indeed powerful authorities on these arms, one of the best sources I know which can help in better understanding them for the rest of us is the book by Kirill Rivkin, "Arms and Armor of the Caucusus".

Jim,

With all due respect, it is not “one of the”, it is “THE”.

Kirill forgot more about Caucasian weapons than all of us here know......

And his recent book about the evolution of the Eastern sword is an academic masterpiece.

I admire him.

With all due respect, it is “one of the”.
Kirill's book is really great but I prefer Lebedynsky.

And completely disagree about the book on the evolution of the Eastern sword.With four pages of references (and half in Russian), it's not an academic masterpiece. I was very disapointed by this book. I agree with most of the theories and ideas of the author, but the book is more a like a discussion that you can find on this forum. Lot of opinions without historical evidences.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Just like I to mine.

Taking into account that a good part of the book is dedicated to the nomadic swords, most of which are located in what is now Caucasus, Russia and Ukraine, it is not a miracle that many references are from local archeologists.

I respect your opinion and your experience as I respect Dr. Rivkin's work.

I totally agree with you about Russian scholars, and also I think that it is particulary unfair that Turkish, Iranian and Arab scholars as not mentionned as well by Europeans and North Americans.

There are no Arabian books dedicated to bladed weapons. The same is true about Iranian authors as well, Khorasani’s is the only one, and it is referenced in Rivkin’s book.
The only Turkish one I know is by Unsal Yucel. It is cited extensively, because its topic is right up the alley.

Regretfully, the first and only study of the Topkapi collection was done by a visiting German in the 1920s, and the only previous attempt to describe the content of military museums in Iran was done by a visiting Russian art historian from Leningrad ( now St. Petersburg) in the AFAIK 1950s. He died suddenly and the Iranians did nothing since.

It is sad that the entire field of Oriental weapons with the exception of Japan and Indonesia is covered by the Europeans.