Sword with Persian style decoration in the Topkapi Saray

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.

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 03:02 PM

Also, if you havent noticed, there is a golden spot on the blade, which confirms 8th century Ummayad/ Abbasid provenance.

Aqtai · 21st June 2005, 03:09 PM

Thanks B.I. and Wolviex for giving me possible dates and possible places of origin for that style of decoration.

M. Carter, I'm afraid I know very little about Early Islamic swords, so please forgive my ignorance. How does the gold spot confirm Ummayyad/'Abbassid origin?

B.I · 21st June 2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

Also, if you havent noticed, there is a golden spot on the blade, which confirms 8th century Ummayad/ Abbasid provenance.

using the word 'confirms' means you've left unstable ground and are now doing a handstand on a tightrope, with the knots slowly loosening

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 03:16 PM

Ok, confirms wasnt a good word (confirming something that old is something almost impossible). Lets say its a sign of 8th century manufacture.

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.

M.carter · 21st June 2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

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.

Yes, there is a doubt of the inscriptions and decorations on all the swords in the book, most are later additions to the old blades, yes no one can confirm that these swords belonged to the specific owners (in this case, Ja'far ibn abi Taleb). As for the blade's date, shape, size and the gold dots show that it is of 8th century make.

Aqtai · 21st June 2005, 03:34 PM

I've just been reading Unsal Yucel's book. I see what you mean about the gold dots. So the sword in plate 16 probably is Ummayyad or Abbassid, Yucel does say that it has 3 gold dots on the blade. The decoration clearly is not Ummayyad/Abbassid.

The sword in plate 21 doesn't seem to have the dots however. It also has grooves on the blade. Yucel does say on page 56 that Ummayyad/Abbassid sword do not have grooves. Sword 21 therefore seems to be post-Abbassid.

Maybe I should rephrase my question by asking about the time and place of origin of that style of decoration.

B.I · 21st June 2005, 03:40 PM

i apologise for pulling you up so sharply. the whole period is clouded in doubt and speculation, which is why any decent academic will tread very carefully.
there is no confirmation on the dating if these swords. if the original hilts exist (and it is purported that some are indeed original) then it would help, but a straight, wide blade was used over a long period of time. you can find architecture of the time, in a worn state, that show similar style swords and date to the 8thC, but you can say the same of the 10thC (and later).
my whole point was to enjoy the pictures without steering into mythology and speculation.
given the evidence and the reverence, i am inclined to believe that they could indeed date from this period. but, i am not ever going to stand and claim it without scattering my contribution with question marks.
the swords in question (topkapi) are early islamic swords of the highest quality and importance. i would be happy ending my sentence there, with pages of specualtion to follow for anyone bored enough to listen to me

B.I · 21st June 2005, 04:34 PM

this is the sword in michals museum.
michal, i apologize if my poor images dont do it justice.

Rivkin · 21st June 2005, 05:09 PM

Well, we've just seen a tatar sabre with a golden dot in another thread - I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with Abbasids. There is one sword on e-bay right now (and I don't discuss it

) that has dots, and explicitly dated from XVIII century.

Concerning "swords of companions", it's usually impossible to prove that something is not of VIIIth century, but usually the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to be of VIIIth century.

Concerning mamluks and their relationship with Muhammed, one has to remember that circassian mamluks and even some later georgian mamluks (Ridwan bey) claimed descendancy from the companions by telling stories about some of the companions "getting lost" and "appearing" in Circassia. Actually few muslim leaders did not claim to be sharif, sayyid or at least in some relationship with Umar. My favorite example is that of my friend, Usupov, from Nogai nobility. Officially he descends from "Abu Bakr, Kirei ibn Dok - Caliph of Egypt and other countries". The problem being that Kirei is a tatar tribe, and Dok means fat in turkish

.

Another great example of how important religious relics are is example of judaim - when it was split in between of chasids and misnageds, the first ones suddenly "inherited" the staff of Moses (naturally the ones who presented it claimed the descendancy from Moses' brother) !

21st June 2005, 02:53 PM	#3
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, 03:02 PM	#5
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Also, if you havent noticed, there is a golden spot on the blade, which confirms 8th century Ummayad/ Abbasid provenance. Attached Images

21st June 2005, 02:47 PM	#9
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, 04:34 PM	#15
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	this is the sword in michals museum. michal, i apologize if my poor images dont do it justice. Attached Images

21st June 2005, 02:58 PM	#4
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, 03:09 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks B.I. and Wolviex for giving me possible dates and possible places of origin for that style of decoration. M. Carter, I'm afraid I know very little about Early Islamic swords, so please forgive my ignorance. How does the gold spot confirm Ummayyad/'Abbassid origin?

21st June 2005, 03:16 PM	#8
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Ok, confirms wasnt a good word (confirming something that old is something almost impossible). Lets say its a sign of 8th century manufacture.

21st June 2005, 03:07 PM	#11
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, 03:34 PM	#13
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I've just been reading Unsal Yucel's book. I see what you mean about the gold dots. So the sword in plate 16 probably is Ummayyad or Abbassid, Yucel does say that it has 3 gold dots on the blade. The decoration clearly is not Ummayyad/Abbassid. The sword in plate 21 doesn't seem to have the dots however. It also has grooves on the blade. Yucel does say on page 56 that Ummayyad/Abbassid sword do not have grooves. Sword 21 therefore seems to be post-Abbassid. Maybe I should rephrase my question by asking about the time and place of origin of that style of decoration.

21st June 2005, 03:40 PM	#14
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i apologise for pulling you up so sharply. the whole period is clouded in doubt and speculation, which is why any decent academic will tread very carefully. there is no confirmation on the dating if these swords. if the original hilts exist (and it is purported that some are indeed original) then it would help, but a straight, wide blade was used over a long period of time. you can find architecture of the time, in a worn state, that show similar style swords and date to the 8thC, but you can say the same of the 10thC (and later). my whole point was to enjoy the pictures without steering into mythology and speculation. given the evidence and the reverence, i am inclined to believe that they could indeed date from this period. but, i am not ever going to stand and claim it without scattering my contribution with question marks. the swords in question (topkapi) are early islamic swords of the highest quality and importance. i would be happy ending my sentence there, with pages of specualtion to follow for anyone bored enough to listen to me

21st June 2005, 05:09 PM	#16
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Well, we've just seen a tatar sabre with a golden dot in another thread - I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with Abbasids. There is one sword on e-bay right now (and I don't discuss it ) that has dots, and explicitly dated from XVIII century. Concerning "swords of companions", it's usually impossible to prove that something is not of VIIIth century, but usually the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to be of VIIIth century. Concerning mamluks and their relationship with Muhammed, one has to remember that circassian mamluks and even some later georgian mamluks (Ridwan bey) claimed descendancy from the companions by telling stories about some of the companions "getting lost" and "appearing" in Circassia. Actually few muslim leaders did not claim to be sharif, sayyid or at least in some relationship with Umar. My favorite example is that of my friend, Usupov, from Nogai nobility. Officially he descends from "Abu Bakr, Kirei ibn Dok - Caliph of Egypt and other countries". The problem being that Kirei is a tatar tribe, and Dok means fat in turkish . Another great example of how important religious relics are is example of judaim - when it was split in between of chasids and misnageds, the first ones suddenly "inherited" the staff of Moses (naturally the ones who presented it claimed the descendancy from Moses' brother) !