Sword with Persian style decoration in the Topkapi Saray

[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).

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[B.I]

and another example

[Aqtai]

Beautiful. They also have that dragon and simurgh motif.

[Rivkin]

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) !

[Justin]

Just a shot in the dark,as I'm far from knowledgeable about these swords, but the blade of the very first emample posted looks a whole lot like a Chinese jian blade and the scabbard of the same sword looks very ,very jian like as well,I only skimmed through this thread but I was puzzled that no one had mentioned this yet{maybe I missed it}.


Ooops,at first glance I didnt see the script on the sheath's fittings,I guess it isnt so Chinese looking then.

[wolviex]

I'm truly sorry Brian but this sword isn't from my Museum . I'll try to get photo tomorrow

Michal