Odd sword that sold at Dorotheum

[Iain]

Surprised this hasn't generated any interest.

For me, it looks to have Nasrid influence?

[Jim McDougall]

I agree Iain, this certainly does seem to reflect Nasrid influence, and though the hilting seems later than the blade, still appears reasonably early in this incarnation. It appears one of the downturned quillons is broken off in the 'revival' style context seen here, and the rather 'blockish' stylization of the dragon (makara) form recalls the Ottoman/Persian type influence often diffused into Central Asian regions.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree Iain, this certainly does seem to reflect Nasrid influence, and though the hilting seems later than the blade, still appears reasonably early in this incarnation. It appears one of the downturned quillons is broken off in the 'revival' style context seen here, and the rather 'blockish' stylization of the dragon (makara) form recalls the Ottoman/Persian type influence often diffused into Central Asian regions.

Salaams Iain and Jim ~ This looks like influence from the Schiavona in the pommel and hilt though strange cuff and quillons suggest something more like the Wallace style of cuff. The blade has the look of a Solingen. The turned down quillons in Naga form are a further puzzle; The style usually seen is at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17430 in the second picture on the left of view. This one seems to be earlier or older looking and not so rigid.

Possible Constantinople weapon?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Iain and Jim ~ This looks like influence from the Schiavona in the pommel and hilt though strange cuff and quillons suggest something more like the Wallace style of cuff. The blade has the look of a Solingen. The turned down quillons in Naga form are a further puzzle; The style usually seen is at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17430 in the second picture on the left of view. This one seems to be earlier or older looking and not so rigid.

Possible Constantinople weapon?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Hi Ibrahiim,

There's nothing really schiavona like in the pommel in my view. It's not a "cat's head". It's a style of pommel known in the Oakeshott typology as Type I1, popular in the 14 and 15th centuries.

The blade could well be a German product although that's somewhat indeterminate from the imagery available. The auction house dating of 15th century seems plausible due the mark and style of inlay.

I wouldn't describe the quillions as "naga" that's a term related specifically to Buddhist and Hindu mythology. They are dragons from what we can see in the images. The arms and ornate collar are highly reminiscent of jineta. However the dragon form does point away from classical Nasrid designs.

In the image you linked - that's a Qajar revival piece from the 19th century.

The piece under discussion does not fit anything visible in the icongraphy or archeology of Byzantine or Trebizond that I'm aware of.


The Persian idea is interesting Jim, as I recall Chinese style dragons (as these seem to be from the head shape) started to be in vogue during the Timurid period.

The pommel looks potentially older than the rest of the hilt assembly to me...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

There's nothing really schiavona like in the pommel in my view. It's not a "cat's head". It's a style of pommel known in the Oakeshott typology as Type I1, popular in the 14 and 15th centuries.

The blade could well be a German product although that's somewhat indeterminate from the imagery available. The auction house dating of 15th century seems plausible due the mark and style of inlay.

I wouldn't describe the quillions as "naga" that's a term related specifically to Buddhist and Hindu mythology. They are dragons from what we can see in the images. The arms and ornate collar are highly reminiscent of jineta. However the dragon form does point away from classical Nasrid designs.

In the image you linked - that's a Qajar revival piece from the 19th century.

The piece under discussion does not fit anything visible in the icongraphy or archeology of Byzantine or Trebizond that I'm aware of.


The Persian idea is interesting Jim, as I recall Chinese style dragons (as these seem to be from the head shape) started to be in vogue during the Timurid period.

The pommel looks potentially older than the rest of the hilt assembly to me...

Salaams Iain, It may indeed be an Oakeshott Type XI. Readers may see https://www.google.com/search?q=oake...&bih=665&dpr=1 plus a vast array of other available data on probably the greatest ever specialist historian on medieval swords .. Actually I didn't get much in feedback when I typed Oakshott wrongly misspelled !! into library search but with the correction now giving lots of references... OAKESHOTT.

There were a number of Oakeshott styles made in Spain, Italy and Germany and some ended up in armouries in Alexandria and plundered in and out of Mamluke hands etc. Some were Milanese with an M stamp. The Nasrid form seems to be there and I also agree on a mixed hilt/blade situation here. The quite big decorated cuff is interesting... I haven't seen that yet in Oakeshott Type XI but as it states in the great masters guide on this vast array of swords a degree of flexibility is required when viewing such examples.

The work already at Library will take me a while to plough through but I look forward to that.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Iain, It may indeed be an Oakeshott Type XI. Readers may see https://www.google.com/search?q=oake...&bih=665&dpr=1 plus a vast array of other available data on probably the greatest ever specialist historian on medieval swords .. Actually I didn't get much in feedback when I typed Oakshott wrongly misspelled !! into library search but with the correction now giving lots of references... OAKESHOTT.

There were a number of Oakeshott styles made in Spain, Italy and Germany and some ended up in armouries in Alexandria and plundered in and out of Mamluke hands etc. Some were Milanese with an M stamp. The Nasrid form seems to be there and I also agree on a mixed hilt/blade situation here. The quite big decorated cuff is interesting... I haven't seen that yet in Oakeshott Type XI but as it states in the great masters guide on this vast array of swords a degree of flexibility is required when viewing such examples.

The work already at Library will take me a while to plough through but I look forward to that.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Hi Ibrahiim we can't really use the Oakeshott typology in full for a case like this I think, the XI was rather too early for this being in use during the 12th century. I referenced his pommel typology not the general sword typology. If we were to go down that route XIII might be more fitting although still too early in my view. As the large cuff is not original to the blade you won't find a match in Oakeshott for this.

Returning to the hilt and the decorative themes, more and more I'm favouring the central Asian provenance indicated by the auction house. The dragon theme in this form was popular during and after the Timurid period as can be seen on this jug handle. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/91.1.607

A blade such as this could have arrived in these environs in any number of ways, if I'm not mistaken the guard exhibits a two piece construction which could explain how it was fitted without removing the pommel.

[Jim McDougall]

Actually after looking more into this interesting sword, primarily the mounts at this point as the early European nature of the blade seems well established at probably latter 15th into 16th c.
The nature of the 'cross and orb' superimposed seems quite unusual and in its quadranted circumstance tenuously reminds me of Islamic astrolabe or navigationally oriented themes rather than the Christian cross and orb. While I am not saying this is what it nececcarily represents, it seems worthy of note. It is of course in the European latten inlay style, but I have not located any examples of the cross 'over' the orb as yet in sources checked.

As Iain notes, the dragon head (makara head in Indo-Persian weapons parlance)was indeed an artistic element used in varying material culture items from the Seljug Turks of 12th-13th c. but recorded as early as 9th.
("The Silver Dragon and Golden Fish", D.Alexander, Gladius XXIII, 2003).

It seems of course that these stylized forms were used as quillon terminals not only in Ottoman but well known in the downward quillon hilts of Persian qaddara from about 17th c. well into 19th. These same style quillons often with similar quillon terminals are seen in Qajar 'revival' type sword (1796+) as well as many Deccani associated swords.
It is interesting that the Afghan 'paluoar' sabre also has these stylized dragon head quillon terminals, with these typically regarded as 18th century and possibly slightly earlier.

I would note that while that may support the Central Asian theory for these mounts in degree, in "Arts of the Muslim Knight" (Furisiyya, ed.Bashir Mohammed, 2008) on p.78 (#42) there is a Bosnian sword of 17th c. (probably latter) which is remarkably in the same style as this sword with the brass openwork cuff, drooping quillons and dragon style terminals.
The blade is also noted as European, with Solingen mark date 1524.

Regarding the pommel seen on our example, I believe the association drawn to schiavona resulted from the boss type feature and later high relief faces seen in some of the earlier forms. The overall effect of this clearly refurbished old blade in reminiscent Nasrid style is probably composed with blade and earlier pommel, and likely ceremonially intended in the latter 18th into mid 19th c. Given the composite nature of the sword and its inherent stylization it would be hard to say exactly where it is from in present mounts.
As noted earlier, the dragonheads on earlier Ottoman and Persian hilts seem to be more dynamic in a more splayed profile. The more stylized 'blockish' nature of these terminals to me seems to suggest later production.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim we can't really use the Oakeshott typology in full for a case like this I think, the XI was rather too early for this being in use during the 12th century. I referenced his pommel typology not the general sword typology. If we were to go down that route XIII might be more fitting although still too early in my view. As the large cuff is not original to the blade you won't find a match in Oakeshott for this.

Returning to the hilt and the decorative themes, more and more I'm favouring the central Asian provenance indicated by the auction house. The dragon theme in this form was popular during and after the Timurid period as can be seen on this jug handle. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/91.1.607

A blade such as this could have arrived in these environs in any number of ways, if I'm not mistaken the guard exhibits a two piece construction which could explain how it was fitted without removing the pommel.

Salaams Iain, I agree ... Oakeshott does advise against such rigid terminology and I'm sure a more flexible approach is required. It looks like this is a mixed sword which follows the reason of such weapons as spoils of war then changed to suit a new owners favourite style. I have a picture sketch of a hilt from about 1290 as I recall and will publish that as it looks the same shape as the pommel at #1... I think each part of the weapon needs looking at as it could be a very mixed bag of tricks. The Wallace has a sword with a dominant cuff but I can't draw the conclusion yet of any link ..was that not made in Cairo?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.