Origins of karabela

ariel · 14th December 2012, 12:41 AM

Quick journey toward the bookshelf:

**********************************

Documented Ottoman karabelas in the Dresden Turkish Chamber:

#166. Entered museum catalogue in 1672
#202 -----------"--------------------- in 1689
#165: -------"------------------------- in 1672
#198: --------"------------------------- in 1689
#295:------------"----------------------- in 1695

Several later ones , registered in the museum at least in 1714

*****************************

Khorasani's complete account of all major Iranian collections ( 10 major museums):

#80: not dated, defined by the author as "Karbala sword". The name of Shah Sefi ( 1629-1642) is mentioned in the cartouche, but ownership or relation to him are not even implied. This is the only blade so far with a wide fuller on both sides. The next shamshir with a blade of similar construction and ( what a co-incidence:-)) with a similar handle appears only in the mid-18th century ( #114). After that fullers are abound.

*****************************************

Let's think....

Only in a single German Museum of impeccable credentials (Dresden) there is an abundance of karabela-hilted swords of documented Turkish provenance and documented age of the 1600's ( at least by the date of entering a collection). Other European Museums ( Hungary, Croatia, Karlsruhe Turkish Chamber) have multiple additional examples of 17 century documented and provenanced Turkish Karabelas.

In contrast, the entire Iranian theory hinges on a SINGLE sword within the vast collections of 10 major military museums.
This sword is of unknown date and provenance. Its construction is grossly unusual for its purported age and is fully compatible with mid-1700s at the earliest.

Nevertheless, this sword was pronounced fully genuine, authentic "Karbala-type" weapon, and the origin of the Karabela handle was attempted to be set within the Iranian tradition by the author working

".... under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west" ( Jim MD).

As the Stooges used to say: Who are you gonna believe: me or your own cheating eyes?:-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

14th December 2012, 12:41 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Quick journey toward the bookshelf: ******************************** Documented Ottoman karabelas in the Dresden Turkish Chamber: #166. Entered museum catalogue in 1672 #202 -----------"--------------------- in 1689 #165: -------"------------------------- in 1672 #198: --------"------------------------- in 1689 #295:------------"----------------------- in 1695 Several later ones , registered in the museum at least in 1714 ************************* Khorasani's complete account of all major Iranian collections ( 10 major museums): #80: not dated, defined by the author as "Karbala sword". The name of Shah Sefi ( 1629-1642) is mentioned in the cartouche, but ownership or relation to him are not even implied. This is the only blade so far with a wide fuller on both sides. The next shamshir with a blade of similar construction and ( what a co-incidence:-)) with a similar handle appears only in the mid-18th century ( #114). After that fullers are abound. *************************************** Let's think.... Only in a single German Museum of impeccable credentials (Dresden) there is an abundance of karabela-hilted swords of documented Turkish provenance and documented age of the 1600's ( at least by the date of entering a collection). Other European Museums ( Hungary, Croatia, Karlsruhe Turkish Chamber) have multiple additional examples of 17 century documented and provenanced Turkish Karabelas. In contrast, the entire Iranian theory hinges on a SINGLE sword within the vast collections of 10 major military museums. This sword is of unknown date and provenance. Its construction is grossly unusual for its purported age and is fully compatible with mid-1700s at the earliest. Nevertheless, this sword was pronounced fully genuine, authentic "Karbala-type" weapon, and the origin of the Karabela handle was attempted to be set within the Iranian tradition by the author working ".... under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west" ( Jim MD). As the Stooges used to say: Who are you gonna believe: me or your own cheating eyes?:-)