QAJAR "REVIVAL" SWORD for Comment

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Easy
some of these blades are signed by sword makers from the 19th c.
Look at this MET sword (I have one from the same maker with a revival hilt...)

Well... nope! This is actually a confirmation that you have an older blade that was re-hilted.

Then...

1. How do you know the signature is of a 19 century swordsmith;
2. How do you know that the blade wasn't originally meant for business/battle;
3. How do you know that the signature wasn't added at the later date?!

There is a significant difference between early 19th century, when swords were still made and used in battle, and late 19th century when swords became more of a fashion item.

My two cents.

PS: I am not aware of any documented 19th century Persian swordsmiths that produced wootz. I would appreciate any information about this topic.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

PS: I am not aware of any documented 19th century Persian swordsmiths that produced wootz. I would appreciate any information about this topic.

My Dear Marius,
all your questions especially the last one, can be answered in one sentence:
It is because you are not reading books.
Please read Rivkin a study of the eastern sword
then Islamic arms and armour of the MET
then you will feel much better
stop etching your blades and read, at least to rest a bit

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Kubur

My Dear Marius,
all your questions especially the last one, can be answered in one sentence:
It is because you are not reading books.
Please read Rivkin a study of the eastern sword
then Islamic arms and armour of the MET
then you will feel much better
stop etching your blades and read, at least to rest a bit

Ok, ok, I can accept one thing here, one thing there but to STOP ETCHING MY WOOTZ BLADES...!?

NEVER... unless I am running out of etchant (like I am now)!


PS: Thank you for the bibliogrphy!

PPS: I do not have Rivkin's book but as soon as I got home from work I checked the Metropolitan book, and it seems the answers to my three questions are:

1. The signature is fake and is of an early 18th century swordsmith (Lotf Ali Shirazi)

2. The swod you posted is NOT a "revival" sword but a honest battle-ready weapon. The fact that yours has Qajar revival hilt does not make it a revival sword.

3. There is no evidence the other inscription saying "Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar" (ruled 1848-1896) was not added later on an older blade.

I already feel better!

[Jim McDougall]

Marius, very nicely explained, and please accept my apology for my remarks. I did try to note that you 'probably' had not meant the comment as I perceived it but I unfortunately used it at your expense, to make a point. That was improper, so again, my regrets.

Some good points have come up here in the ongoing discussion, that many 'revival' weapons do indeed bear actual combat or trophy components. This is much the same as weapons used in votive context in temples, etc.

Well noted as well on the absence of Qajar weapons in certain references and compendiums on Persian weapons. I would note that Manoucher's book, if I understand, is focused more on premiere examples and not on the broader spectrum of these weapons.

An interesting case in point in in the discussions we have had here concerning certain Omani broadswords, which have always been collectively termed 'kattara' in collectors parlance. What evolved is that in actuality, the majority of these swords were not actually 'weapons' , but used in Omani events where a sword dance was an impressive and key ritual.

It was argued that the 'kattara' was not a 'dance' sword, but indeed a sword used in combat. While there were examples of these cylindrically hilted swords which had substantial European blades, these were status oriented accoutrements worn by individuals of standing in a dress or court sword type demeanor.

The 'dance' versions were blades made primarily for dramatic effects with flashing shine and reverberating undulation with flexible but dreadfully sharp blades. The argument was that these WERE used in combat, but it was realized by many that there WAS distinctly a difference between the same visually appearing swords by the type of blades they had.
While obviously, the flimsy 'dance' blades would probably have not served well in combat, the dress versions with stout blades, if properly sharpened, may have. However the open hilt determined not likely.

This analogy simply is to illustrate that in certain cases, the composition of the blade metal and its manufacture is, as you well illustrate, most important. Obviously decorative character blades do not necessarily require the durability necessary for a combative blade.

However, the decoratively etched or engraved blades of Indian and Persian hunting swords (I believe termed shikargar) do seem to maintain the integrity of a usable blade. Perhaps numbers of these 'revival' blades were made in this manner, and thus serviceable if sharpened as mentioned.

Again, each case on its own merits, and that includes trophy, remounted former combat blades and even wootz
Again, my apologies for my own 'blunt' response earlier.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I am not aware of any documented 19th century Persian swordsmiths that produced wootz. I would appreciate any information about this topic.

Marius, I’m not sure I understood your PS correctly Therefore, I'm sorry if I answer out of place

In the 19th century, there were undoubtedly blacksmiths in Persia who made swords from wootz. They exactly produce wootz in the 19th century. There is an article of 1842, which was written by a Russian officer who was in Persia and himself observed this process.
Unfortunately, the article is written in Russian. But I can post it here if it's interesting, by attaching scanned pages.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Marius, I’m not sure I understood your PS correctly Therefore, I'm sorry if I answer out of place

In the 19th century, there were undoubtedly blacksmiths in Persia who made swords from wootz. They exactly produce wootz in the 19th century. There is an article of 1842, which was written by a Russian officer who was in Persia and himself observed this process.
Unfortunately, the article is written in Russian. But I can post it here if it's interesting, by attaching scanned pages.

I am familiar with the existance in Persia and India of wootz producing swordsmiths well into 19th century. However, I am not familiar with any of 19th century Persian swordsmiths signing the blades they produced.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I am familiar with the existance in Persia and India of wootz producing swordsmiths well into 19th century. However, I am not familiar with any of 19th century Persian swordsmiths signing the blades they produced.

Yes. The swordmasters who signed wootz blades in the 19th century, I can’t remember ... Perhaps because I also do not have Rivkin’s book

[mariusgmioc]

Citing from "Arms and Armor from Iran," page 201, column 1, e

"The double-edged, straight swords with downward quillons were by no means a revival movement specific to the Qajar period. There are a number of Iranian straight swords from earlier periods kept in Russian museums as discussed earlier. Hence, the tradition of making double-edged, straight swords in Iran goes back to the Timurid and Safavid eras, meaning there was a coexistence of straight and curved swords during the Safavid era [...]"

Further down the lines Mr. Moshtagh discusses briefly the Qajar straight swords stating that even some with highly decorated blades were fully functional.

So it seems I was wrong twice

1. saying these swords are not mentioned in the book, and
2. in my previous assumption, as I underestimated the qualities of the decorated Qajar "revival" swords.

[ariel]

What was meant there by “ highly decorated?
There are many ways besides wall-to-wall etching to decorate a blade.


How different in heft and sturdiness were these swords?
The Qajar era Revival swords usually had thin flat blades without even a T, resembling sheet metal ( no fullers, no midrib). Many ( like this one) imitated Ottoman Palas without being graciously contoured.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

What was meant there by “ highly decorated?
There are many ways besides wall-to-wall etching to decorate a blade.


How different in heft and sturdiness were these swords?
The Qajar era Revival swords usually had thin flat blades without even a T, resembling sheet metal ( no fullers, no midrib). Many ( like this one) imitated Ottoman Palas without being graciously contoured.

"Highly-decorated" was my expression. To avoid any further ambiguity, I am posting herewith a photo of the last of the two pages discussing these swords. Two pages out of about 750...

I have handled several of these swords but didn't keep any as I judged them to be purely touristy crap (exactly as described by Ariel, with flat blades like cut from sheet steel, with no - or very poorly shaped - cutting edge and fairly poorly executed etching).

So, in my uneducated oppinion (based on personal observation), many, if not most of the "Qajar revival" swords are purely decorative and probably don't even belong to the Qajar period but are much later (20th century).

I also believe the text in the book refers strictly to the genuine Qajar period straight swords and not to the vast majoity of touristy crap that invaded the markets in the 20th century.