Sword with Persian style decoration in the Topkapi Saray

wolviex · 21st June 2005, 01:27 PM

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

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 01:33 PM

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.

ariel · 21st June 2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

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.

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

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

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

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.

B.I · 21st June 2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

Dont forget that the ottomans were extremely influenced by Persian culture.

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.

B.I · 21st June 2005, 02:53 PM

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)

B.I · 21st June 2005, 02:58 PM

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.

wolviex · 21st June 2005, 02:47 PM

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)

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 02:53 PM

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.

B.I · 21st June 2005, 03:07 PM

[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.

Aqtai · 21st June 2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

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'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.

B.I · 21st June 2005, 01:35 PM

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.

Aqtai · 21st June 2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

...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...

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?

21st June 2005, 02:53 PM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	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) Attached Images

21st June 2005, 02:47 PM	#8
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	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) Attached Images

21st June 2005, 01:27 PM	#1
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	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

21st June 2005, 01:33 PM	#2
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	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.

21st June 2005, 02:58 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	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.

21st June 2005, 03:07 PM	#10
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	[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.

21st June 2005, 01:35 PM	#12
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	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.