My potential dating was purely opinion based, on the feel and look of the blade. My knowledge is not in cartouches or inscriptions.
However, I have an interesting take on the cartouches, which offers a different opinion on the dating.
I have attached the sword in Elgoods book, and also an almost identical sword in patterning and form, with an almost identical inscription. I have no doubt they were made in the same region, of not the same workshop or even by the same hand.
The second sword reads
'Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat Abbas' on the top, and below 'amal Assadullah Isfahani 181'
The sword in Elgood has the same inscription, except a change in the numbering. His sword reads 192.
Roberts dating is based on a fourth numeral which, if compared to the second sword, could potentially not be a number, but part of the word 'amal'
I dont know which calender they use, but this date does not read 1926, as stated in the book, if you consider this as a letter and not a number.
I personally feel this is the case, as the letter is more towards the word than the numerals, but maybe I am just using this to buffer up my stance on this sword, which is confirmed already.
For a good discussion of Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat (servant of the king of trusteeship ie. servant of the Iman Ali) - see James Allen, pg 108/109 in 'Persian Steel Tanavoli Collection'.
Allen concludes that the phrase always followed by an important Safavid ruler, was a Qajar useage, designed to enchance the prestige of the object.
This research was done by a friend of mine, and can be taken literally, or as pure specualtion. It is enough for me, I feel.
I think this is an important point to discuss, as if we have a dated sword from the second quarter of the 20thC, with all the asthetics of an 18thC sword, then it would change how we date everything, as we would not be able to offer a dated opinion within at least 200 years.
I hope anyone with experience in translating cartouches will offer their opinion.
|