QAJAR "REVIVAL" SWORD for Comment

mariusgmioc · 11th October 2019, 05:59 PM

Quote:

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 · 11th October 2019, 07:51 PM

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.

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

11th October 2019, 07:51 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	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.