Sword with Persian style decoration in the Topkapi Saray
 

I think this is my first ever thread! It is actually a spin-off from B.I.'s thread on the Armeria Reale Collection. I have no wish to hijack his thread with my little obsessions. :D

This is B.I.'s original thread:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=890

One of the pieces B.I. showed was a straight sword with Iranian style decoration the blade. M. Carter pointed out that it was similar to a sword in the Topkapi "Blessed Swords" collection. This is a collection of swords attributed the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. Most of the swords in this group do appear to be very early Arab blades, albeit with replacement Ottoman hilts and scabbards. However this sword and another one like it just don't seem to fit in with the rest.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11.../ISAS_16_1.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11.../ISAS_21_1.jpg

Does anyone have any other suggestions about their age and place of Origin?
Are there any other swords of this type out there?

Thanks!

Hello!

Actually I think that blades presented here are more ornamental then those from Brian's thread (more gold and - in general - the picture of Phoenix and the Dragon (?) is a little different). Those presented by Brian seems to be more common, and I have a feeling (only a feeling, because I haven't much time for longer comparisons) they're all very similiar, often rehilted in 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. In my museum there is a Pallash with Polish hilt and blade like that of Brian's, and fliping through the catalogues I saw very similiar ones. In my museum this blade is dated 15th century, Persia of course.

Regards

I still do not have an idea why you claim that these have Persian style decoration. Anyway, I believe that sword in plate 21 is the most beautiful in the entire book.

i agree (with everything :) )
the topkapi examples are about as good as they get. the decoration is all of a particular style, and possibly redone on to the older blades. the hilts were replaced and redressed as the originals were rotten or missing. i believe yucel (from memory) was the one that described a hilt on a blade (from his first visit), which was missing by the time he published his book and done the in depth research.
the dates of these blades were all of a much older period, but neither stocklein, yucel, zaky or alexander (all well respected and had full access to the armoury) committed to anything past speculation on the dating.
the hilts were easier as the court dress, artistic style and decoration was recorded during the post medieval times.

It the Phoenix and the Dragon: very popular in Persian decoration.

I'm afraid I can't really answer this question very coherently. It's more of a "feeling" than anything else, but based on a number of things.

First there is the exuberance and liveliness of the animals, the simurghs and dragons. Representations of animals are also present in Turkish, Arab and Mughul paintings and metalwork, but they have a more restrained and staid appearence. I believe the simurgh is also a creature from Iranian folklore and finally the dragons on the swords ressemble those shown in Persian miniature paintings.

Then it is the simple fact of having representational art on a sword, Mamluk swords for example tend to have abstract arabesques and/or calligraphy, often the names and titles of sultans and amirs. I don't know enough about Ottoman and Mughul swords, so I'm not going to stick my neck out. :D

Dont forget that the ottomans were extremely influenced by Persian culture. Even the language of the Ottoman court was Persian I believe. That gives out a very high possibility that the decorations are indeed ottoman and not Persian.

Probably very wise considering these swords status as sacred relics... :)

What about the sword you posted from the Armeria Reale, is there a date or place of origin listed for that one?

and the persian culture was heavily influenced by the ottomans.
dont get too caught up with history, and forget artistic syle. there is much ottoman flair in persian decoration.
michals statement about his blade being persian was not an on-the-spot opinion, but one borne from much research. i am assuming (please correct me if i'm wrong, michal) that the inventory at kracow was compiled (or ammended) by dr. zygulski, who has referenced his work from earlier known sources. whilst i am the first to fly against known sources, i wouldnt dream of doing so until i had read them first.
dr. zygulski, when referring to that particular sword, says that persian swords with the simorgh and dragon on the forte date from the 15th and 16thC, and were exported from turkey to europe by italian and german merchants (like the trading house of fugger in ausburg). he goes on to reference stocklein and blair, amongst others.
dr zaky also goes on to push the importance of persian iron works during these periods and the trade of blades throughout the islamic world.
whilst i dont agree with everything dr. zygulski has written, i do know that he is thorough in his research and doesnt throw opinions lightly. my disagreements are concerning india, and i find his statements wrong only in that i disagree with his references.
these topkapi swords are probably the most researched swords in the islamic arsenal, attracting even european arms specialists.
i'm not saying the sword is persian or ottoman, just to be wary of assuming.
also, i am pretty sure he is talking about the blade, and not the decoration.

To be honest, I was always interested with these blades. I was wondering, if most of them are so similiar to each other, and every one is from ca. 15/16th century, they should be made in one workshop. I'm away from my resources and from the sword from my museum, so what I could find is only one picture with the sword and blade, I think similiar to that presented by Brian. There is very little about it in the text of the article where I found it, but author is refering to the steel that was probably made in one of Persian workshops, active at the end of the 15th and at the beginning of the 16th century. I think that scholars got more hints about Persian origin of these blades.

The picture is from article of prof. Carlo Panseri, Damascus Steel in legend and reality, Gladius, Tomo IV, 1965 (available also as L'acciaio di Damasco nella leggenda e nella realta, Armi Antice, 1962. Photo of this sword is also published bt C. Blair, European & American Arms)

i'm afraid not aqtai, giorgio dondi specualtes a date of 16th/17thC.
the blade is watered and he thinks it persian. the sword itself was a gift to Vittorio Emanuele III on his diplomatic mission to yemen (i think, its all in italian)

Yes but Dr.Uncal Seems quite sure about these swords above. They were captured by Sultan Selim in 1517 after the conquest of egypt and locked up in the sarai as "blessed swords", the persian assumption is way off I think, and still there is no evidence whatsoever that these swords arent circa 8th century (rehilted in 16th century).

EDIT: Besides, most of the swords in that book recieved later period decorations, so decorations dont really count anyway, and Dr.Uncal clearly states that this sword in particular was re-decorated.

very nice image michal. it was this article that i was referring to in my fugger/ausburg note.
i have met claude blair and he is probably the worlds leading arms academic (still alive) and even at his late age, his recollection for data is astonishing. were i to disagree with him, i would first lock myself in a room for many months with a very complete library.

Also, if you havent noticed, there is a golden spot on the blade, which confirms 8th century Ummayad/ Abbasid provenance.

[QUOTE=M.carter]Yes but Dr.Uncal Seems quite sure about these swords above. They were captured by Sultan Selim in 1517 after the conquest of egypt and locked up in the sarai as "blessed swords", the persian assumption is way off I think, and still there is no evidence whatsoever that these swords arent circa 8th century (rehilted in 16th century).
QUOTE]

i'm still not quite sure what you are saying.
yucel does not offer an opinion on the origin of these blades, whether persian or turkish. because they were captured Sultan Selim in 1517 doesnt mean they may not be persian. even if they are not as old as they purport to be, by the 16thC when they were captured, they were at least a few hundred years old (maybe more), so who knows where they were made.
again, i am not disagreeing, just saying there is no evidence of origin. all the authors i mentioned have gracefully declined to offer an opinion on the origin, and so anyone that does so is going to be on very unstable ground.
also, whether he believes the 8thC date or not, he clearly stated they is much doubt academically, with common thought being the inscriptions were of a later date.

Thanks B.I. and Wolviex for giving me possible dates and possible places of origin for that style of decoration.

M. Carter, I'm afraid I know very little about Early Islamic swords, so please forgive my ignorance. How does the gold spot confirm Ummayyad/'Abbassid origin?

using the word 'confirms' means you've left unstable ground and are now doing a handstand on a tightrope, with the knots slowly loosening :)

Ok, confirms wasnt a good word (confirming something that old is something almost impossible). Lets say its a sign of 8th century manufacture.

Yes, there is a doubt of the inscriptions and decorations on all the swords in the book, most are later additions to the old blades, yes no one can confirm that these swords belonged to the specific owners (in this case, Ja'far ibn abi Taleb). As for the blade's date, shape, size and the gold dots show that it is of 8th century make.

I've just been reading Unsal Yucel's book. I see what you mean about the gold dots. So the sword in plate 16 probably is Ummayyad or Abbassid, Yucel does say that it has 3 gold dots on the blade. The decoration clearly is not Ummayyad/Abbassid.

The sword in plate 21 doesn't seem to have the dots however. It also has grooves on the blade. Yucel does say on page 56 that Ummayyad/Abbassid sword do not have grooves. Sword 21 therefore seems to be post-Abbassid.

Maybe I should rephrase my question by asking about the time and place of origin of that style of decoration.

i apologise for pulling you up so sharply. the whole period is clouded in doubt and speculation, which is why any decent academic will tread very carefully.
there is no confirmation on the dating if these swords. if the original hilts exist (and it is purported that some are indeed original) then it would help, but a straight, wide blade was used over a long period of time. you can find architecture of the time, in a worn state, that show similar style swords and date to the 8thC, but you can say the same of the 10thC (and later).
my whole point was to enjoy the pictures without steering into mythology and speculation.
given the evidence and the reverence, i am inclined to believe that they could indeed date from this period. but, i am not ever going to stand and claim it without scattering my contribution with question marks.
the swords in question (topkapi) are early islamic swords of the highest quality and importance. i would be happy ending my sentence there, with pages of specualtion to follow for anyone bored enough to listen to me :)

this is the sword in michals museum.
michal, i apologize if my poor images dont do it justice.

and another example

Beautiful. They also have that dragon and simurgh motif.

Well, we've just seen a tatar sabre with a golden dot in another thread - I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with Abbasids. There is one sword on e-bay right now (and I don't discuss it :)) that has dots, and explicitly dated from XVIII century.

Concerning "swords of companions", it's usually impossible to prove that something is not of VIIIth century, but usually the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to be of VIIIth century.

Concerning mamluks and their relationship with Muhammed, one has to remember that circassian mamluks and even some later georgian mamluks (Ridwan bey) claimed descendancy from the companions by telling stories about some of the companions "getting lost" and "appearing" in Circassia. Actually few muslim leaders did not claim to be sharif, sayyid or at least in some relationship with Umar. My favorite example is that of my friend, Usupov, from Nogai nobility. Officially he descends from "Abu Bakr, Kirei ibn Dok - Caliph of Egypt and other countries". The problem being that Kirei is a tatar tribe, and Dok means fat in turkish :).

Another great example of how important religious relics are is example of judaim - when it was split in between of chasids and misnageds, the first ones suddenly "inherited" the staff of Moses (naturally the ones who presented it claimed the descendancy from Moses' brother) !

Just a shot in the dark,as I'm far from knowledgeable about these swords, but the blade of the very first emample posted looks a whole lot like a Chinese jian blade and the scabbard of the same sword looks very ,very jian like as well,I only skimmed through this thread but I was puzzled that no one had mentioned this yet{maybe I missed it}.


Ooops,at first glance I didnt see the script on the sheath's fittings,I guess it isnt so Chinese looking then.

oops
 

I'm truly sorry Brian but this sword isn't from my Museum :). I'll try to get photo tomorrow :)

Michal

dont apologise, michal. this means there is another in poland i am not aware of :)
the one i showed must be from wawel then.
another two swords, one with the said blade from the royal castel of wawel are attached here.
i look forward to seeing your museums sword.

another examples
 

Hello!

It is always as you need something you just can’t find it. I thought I will be able to find more photos of blades presenting the fight of the Phoenix with the Dragon.

First sword (pallash) is from my Museum. This presented by Brian above is indeed in Wawel castle collection. My is rehilted in 18th century. Sorry for not the best pictures, but I had to get into the display case to made them, while the first one is from catalogue. I couldn’t made the entire blade, but on one of the pictures you’ll find there is an gold inscription running down below the fight scene.

Second sword is scanned from “Blankwaffen” by Heribert Seitz. It is from Bayerisches National Museum in Munchen (Munich), hilt is from 17th century, blade “Persian, probably from the 15th century”.

And the third sword , and actually only the blade, while the handle was not shown, but this is most probably the same sword as the second one, was published in “Prunkwaffen” by Johannes Schobel. It is most interesting, while he gave more space for description. And, I want to point it out, just as in my Museum’s example, you can see an inscription on the blade. And Author wrote about this sabre, in short: “Blade is double edged, with Arabic inscription and Persian writhen foliate decoration. The Arabic inscription [this is hard, text is in German, so it won’t be literally meaning, sorry for any mistakes and nonsenses :o ] ‘Oh! Sword you can belittle (sic?!) the Gods/Deities. The Garden of Victory spreads through your water. You are in blood–relation with Ali’s Sword’ (excerpt)
Blades of this type are usually described as Mongolian from 14-15th centuries.
Persian work with Mongolian influence, beginning of the 15th century”.

For those who are laughing :) because of my translation, here is German translation of the Arabian inscription. If there will be any hints, please let me know, maybe I will be able to edit my translation and rescue my honour ;): “O Schwert, mögen durch dich der Götzenbilder sich verringern! Möge der Garten des Siegs durch dein Wasser gedaihen! Möge dein Bluntsverwandter das Schwert Alis sein!“

Regards!

Beautiful pictures Wolviex. You mentioned these are sabres, so I'm guessing that these blades, unlike the Topkapi swords, are not straight. Judging by the number of examples, this style of decoration however appears to be relatively common.

About the writing, I can't read Persian, but I can read Arabic. I don't understand that inscription, so I'm guessing it is not Arabic.

The style of the script is Nasta'liq, a style that was used mainly in Iran and India.

Early Arabic inscriptions, up until the 12th century, use a script (the arabic word for script is khatt) called Kufi. Many of the "Blessed swords" do have Kufi inscriptions on them. In the late 12th century more flowing styles of script like naskh became fashionable. Mamluk art usually used another script called thuluth, although kufi was still occasionally used during the mamluk period, and the Ottomans tended to prefer a script called diwani.