The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[Richard Furrer]

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Dear Richard,
Salaams!

Of course you're welcome to this discussion. You'll never be too late, I hope. But first, I gotta understand the meaning of metallographic first! I'll check it out very soon!

Welcome to the discussions, Ric!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

[Richard Furrer]

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

[ariel]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

I agree with most of what you say, but there's a question here:

Are you saying that wrought iron can be flexible and has the ability to spring back to its original position after you bend it to 45 degrees???

The patterns were read by me via a magnifying glass; although at al-Kindi's time, people were content to see the patterns with their naked eyes!!!

Maybe you could ask Topkapi to bring you a small sample of the blade of this sword. Maybe they'll accept (though this is far-fetched). Who knows??!

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

Welcome back Richard,

I very much believe that a hard edge would reveal a sufficient carbon content; along with suitable quenching. As for the damask, the patterns on the surface of this blade were rather small and uniform; reflecting early medieval damask; not Yemeni damask.

When you're free, please share your thoughts with me; regarding early medieval Arab blades and their chemical composition. Would also be interested to know that hardness measuring device; the Vickers....

Thanks a lot in advance, sir.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

Dear Ric,

Thanks a lot for your clarifying post. Your postings are of great importance indeed. Regarding the weight, dimensions, etc...these are stated in pages 27-29.

BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

I very much agree with you regarding the blacksmiths point of view! I'm sure I've come to the right place, and am talking with the right people!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Dear Ric,


BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

The author's name is Prof. So'ad Maher. The one who conducted the analysis was Prof. Saleh Ahmed Saleh. The journa'sl name is the Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology. The article's title is: "The Sword that is attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now preserved in al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo." Edition year: 1976.

Hope this helps!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

ALEX said: "I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

Dear Alex,

Thank you very much for this. I look forward to your reviews and comments, Sir!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Welcome back, Richard!

Regarding metalographic studies done on this blade, I do not know any. However, I'll tell what I've experimented, observed, and concluded:

1- The blade is flexible and elastic; something which reveals it was made from superior steel with superior quenching and tempering. The blade springs back very well after you bend it. This proves the superiority of the steel from which it was forged.

2- The damask on the surface of the blade is rather small; even smaller than that of most other Arab blades preserved in Topkapi. This proves that the blade was made of crucible steel; as the blade is certainly not pattern-welded. The damask is what al-Kindi described as Indian damask; not Yemeni damask.

BTW, can you know, via metalography, the age of a certain blade? Please explain further...

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein