Early Islamic Signature

rand · 7th November 2007, 05:47 AM

Some Early Ottoman swords and one other.......

Top sword dates 1481-1512
Overall length 100cm
Blade length 85cm

Second sword dated 1506-7
Overall length 92cm
Blade length 81cm

Third sword
dated 1506-7
Overall length 95.5cm
Blade length 80.5cm

Fourth sword
Overall length 91cm
Blade length 79.5cm

Jens Nordlunde · 7th November 2007, 04:23 PM

A fantastic display Rand. One who may be able to help with a translation, is the former director of Top Kapi Museum in Istanbul, Yuncel - if he is still alive.
Jens

rand · 7th November 2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

A fantastic display Rand. One who may be able to help with a translation, is the former director of Top Kapi Museum in Istanbul, Yuncel - if he is still alive.
Jens

Hey Jens,

Have followed up on your suggestion and sent an email attention to him to the Islamic Research group he worked with....

rand

rand · 12th November 2007, 04:51 AM

Thanks to Sancar Ozar and his fellow Turkish Art historian have a translation of the inscriptions.

"Sorry for the late answer. I sent pictures of inscriptions on the kilic to a fellow art historian friend of mine from university who is very experienced on translating old letters. He was very busy and so he could return my e-mail today.Anyway according to his mail inscription in the picture is translated as "Bismillah" (İn the Name of Allah). He only could partially read the second inscription(which is in the right direction in the last picture you posted) because the gold inlay had partially come off. İt is a word, something like "namirun"(well, it is how it sounds when you write in Turkish,I guess it should sound like "neameeroon" for english sepakers). I have no idea what it means."

Thank You again Sancar and friend.....

rand

rand · 12th November 2007, 09:01 PM

Looked up namirun to see if it was Arabic, turns out it is and means tiger....

rand

rand · 14th November 2007, 04:28 AM

Comments received from Sancar Ozer....

"Tiger is the totem of "alp" warrior class in Turkic societies. Alp(alıp,alıb, alpago,alpakut etc.) and/or Batur(bagatur, baatur,batyr, bahadır etc.) were the name of a class of noble cavalry warriors who serve under a "bey". The word itself means hero or warrior in old Turkish and a popular name throughout Turkish history. Historians believe this warrior type formed in Central Asia in 6th century and continued to exist till 18th century. Tımarlı Sipahi cavalries were their last manifestation. İt can be compared to samurai and knight warrior classes of Japan and Europe.
Anyway tiger is widely used as those warriors' main symbol. İt symbolised strength and fighting spirit and it is closely related to shamanistic religion of central asian Turks. Alps used to wear tiger skin on their armour. Then they started to decorate thir clothes with tiger stripe motifs(a.k.a chinese clouds) And people used to name their sons after this symbol. You can find a large amount of warrior kings and heros with the name of "tiger" in Turkish (or Turkic, I really don't know what is the difference) history.Two examples are Sultan Baybars(Bey+pars=Lord+panther-difference between leopard and tiger is not clear in old turkish language)of Memluklu and Babur Şah of Mughal empires."

Thank You for this information Sancar,

rand

rand · 14th November 2007, 05:05 PM

The below exert from Denizar,

"The timar system of the Ottoman Empire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

The economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. It is known that the Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise especially in the first eras of the empire. The trade of the empire was usually handled by the minorities. Instead, the Ottoman economic policy was based on war and conquering new lands. Until the Turks started to develop and involve themselves in other areas, their wealth was dependant on the land system.

Introduction to the Timar system

The longevity of the Ottoman Empire was mostly dependant on its economic and military systems. Timar was one of these systems and addressed both the economy and the military of the Empire.

It was not possible for the Central Government to manage all the lands owned by the Ottoman Empire. Not only it would require a lot of organization, but it would also be an inefficient way of working the land. Therefore the government gave (or loaned) land to certain people. These people were called reaya and were expected to work the land and pay a certain amount of their income as tax.

Starting with Osman Gazi and Fatih Sultan Mehmed, the Padishah’s began to exchange the right to collect the tax given by the reaya, in return for certain services, preferably military. The people who were given this privilege were called timariots (timar holders). These tax collectors did not own the land, and the reaya were not their slaves. Instead of land, they owned the rights to collect the taxes, and in exchange for this income, they had to support the army with a number of cavalrymen, called the sipahis. The number of troops they needed to supply depended on the amount of income the timars provided. As a result of this system, the Government was able to efficiently manage the economy, and call upon an army of timarli sipahi’s when needed.

What were the roots of the timar system and how did it differ from the feudal system in Europe?

It would be wrong to search for the roots of the timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that in the feudal system the peasants are literally slaves of the landowning class. In the timar system, the timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the reaya. The people on the other hand are not slaves of the timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the timariots.

Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called ikta, and were very similar to timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the ikta system was a previous version of the timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the timar system.

More about the timar system

The timar system meant that the farming income of the government was in the hands of the reaya. If the reaya stopped working the land, the economy would be damaged. To prevent this, if a timar was not harvested for a certain period of time (usually three years) the reaya and the timariot would be replaced by law. The only exception was when the land was being rested, and during this period the reaya would not be expected to plant any crops. In order to help the reaya during this period, the timariots would not collect tax. The law meant that the timar had to be worked as efficiently as possible, contributing greatly to the economy of the Empire.

The timars differed in sizes, and were categorized into three groups determined by the amount of income they provided. If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes. Timars that had a yearly income between 20.000 and 100.000 akce were called zeamet, and these were given to high-ranking officials. The rest were simply called timars. In times of war, each timarli sipahi was supposed to bring one soldier armed and mounted for each 3000 akce income. For the zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akce. In the best times of the Ottoman Empire, the army could call up to 100.000 cavalrymen.

When a timariot died, his eldest son would be given the choice to replace the father. Otherwise, the land would be given to another person, usually someone loyal to the Sultan. This way the quality and the loyalty of the timariots were kept at a maximum. The system also contributed to the preservation of the throne. The army of the Empire consisted of kapikulu soldiers (Kapikulu soldiers were usually devshirmes, Christians taken at childhood and converted to Muslim, thought in the best schools the arts of governing and war) who received a salary by the government. These men could have a great influence on the politics of the empire, but this was prevented by keeping the balance of forces (timarli sipahis and kapikulu soldiers) even.

It is very important to mention that an empire run by such system would inevitably depend on war. In order to have a larger economy and military, the Ottomans needed to conquer more land. As more territories were controlled by the government, more timars could be loaned. This meant more farming income and more cavalrymen."

Quoted from Denizar

7th November 2007, 05:47 AM	#1
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Some Early Ottoman Swords and One Other Some Early Ottoman swords and one other....... Top sword dates 1481-1512 Overall length 100cm Blade length 85cm Second sword dated 1506-7 Overall length 92cm Blade length 81cm Third sword dated 1506-7 Overall length 95.5cm Blade length 80.5cm Fourth sword Overall length 91cm Blade length 79.5cm Attached Images Last edited by rand; 7th November 2007 at 06:00 AM.

12th November 2007, 04:51 AM	#4
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Translation of signature Thanks to Sancar Ozar and his fellow Turkish Art historian have a translation of the inscriptions. "Sorry for the late answer. I sent pictures of inscriptions on the kilic to a fellow art historian friend of mine from university who is very experienced on translating old letters. He was very busy and so he could return my e-mail today.Anyway according to his mail inscription in the picture is translated as "Bismillah" (İn the Name of Allah). He only could partially read the second inscription(which is in the right direction in the last picture you posted) because the gold inlay had partially come off. İt is a word, something like "namirun"(well, it is how it sounds when you write in Turkish,I guess it should sound like "neameeroon" for english sepakers). I have no idea what it means." Thank You again Sancar and friend..... rand

12th November 2007, 09:01 PM	#5
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Namirun Looked up namirun to see if it was Arabic, turns out it is and means tiger.... rand

14th November 2007, 04:28 AM	#6
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Tiger is Totem Comments received from Sancar Ozer.... "Tiger is the totem of "alp" warrior class in Turkic societies. Alp(alıp,alıb, alpago,alpakut etc.) and/or Batur(bagatur, baatur,batyr, bahadır etc.) were the name of a class of noble cavalry warriors who serve under a "bey". The word itself means hero or warrior in old Turkish and a popular name throughout Turkish history. Historians believe this warrior type formed in Central Asia in 6th century and continued to exist till 18th century. Tımarlı Sipahi cavalries were their last manifestation. İt can be compared to samurai and knight warrior classes of Japan and Europe. Anyway tiger is widely used as those warriors' main symbol. İt symbolised strength and fighting spirit and it is closely related to shamanistic religion of central asian Turks. Alps used to wear tiger skin on their armour. Then they started to decorate thir clothes with tiger stripe motifs(a.k.a chinese clouds) And people used to name their sons after this symbol. You can find a large amount of warrior kings and heros with the name of "tiger" in Turkish (or Turkic, I really don't know what is the difference) history.Two examples are Sultan Baybars(Bey+pars=Lord+panther-difference between leopard and tiger is not clear in old turkish language)of Memluklu and Babur Şah of Mughal empires." Thank You for this information Sancar, rand

14th November 2007, 05:05 PM	#7
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Explanation of Tımarlı Sipahi System The below exert from Denizar, "The timar system of the Ottoman Empire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction The economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. It is known that the Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise especially in the first eras of the empire. The trade of the empire was usually handled by the minorities. Instead, the Ottoman economic policy was based on war and conquering new lands. Until the Turks started to develop and involve themselves in other areas, their wealth was dependant on the land system. Introduction to the Timar system The longevity of the Ottoman Empire was mostly dependant on its economic and military systems. Timar was one of these systems and addressed both the economy and the military of the Empire. It was not possible for the Central Government to manage all the lands owned by the Ottoman Empire. Not only it would require a lot of organization, but it would also be an inefficient way of working the land. Therefore the government gave (or loaned) land to certain people. These people were called reaya and were expected to work the land and pay a certain amount of their income as tax. Starting with Osman Gazi and Fatih Sultan Mehmed, the Padishah’s began to exchange the right to collect the tax given by the reaya, in return for certain services, preferably military. The people who were given this privilege were called timariots (timar holders). These tax collectors did not own the land, and the reaya were not their slaves. Instead of land, they owned the rights to collect the taxes, and in exchange for this income, they had to support the army with a number of cavalrymen, called the sipahis. The number of troops they needed to supply depended on the amount of income the timars provided. As a result of this system, the Government was able to efficiently manage the economy, and call upon an army of timarli sipahi’s when needed. What were the roots of the timar system and how did it differ from the feudal system in Europe? It would be wrong to search for the roots of the timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that in the feudal system the peasants are literally slaves of the landowning class. In the timar system, the timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the reaya. The people on the other hand are not slaves of the timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the timariots. Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called ikta, and were very similar to timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the ikta system was a previous version of the timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the timar system. More about the timar system The timar system meant that the farming income of the government was in the hands of the reaya. If the reaya stopped working the land, the economy would be damaged. To prevent this, if a timar was not harvested for a certain period of time (usually three years) the reaya and the timariot would be replaced by law. The only exception was when the land was being rested, and during this period the reaya would not be expected to plant any crops. In order to help the reaya during this period, the timariots would not collect tax. The law meant that the timar had to be worked as efficiently as possible, contributing greatly to the economy of the Empire. The timars differed in sizes, and were categorized into three groups determined by the amount of income they provided. If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes. Timars that had a yearly income between 20.000 and 100.000 akce were called zeamet, and these were given to high-ranking officials. The rest were simply called timars. In times of war, each timarli sipahi was supposed to bring one soldier armed and mounted for each 3000 akce income. For the zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akce. In the best times of the Ottoman Empire, the army could call up to 100.000 cavalrymen. When a timariot died, his eldest son would be given the choice to replace the father. Otherwise, the land would be given to another person, usually someone loyal to the Sultan. This way the quality and the loyalty of the timariots were kept at a maximum. The system also contributed to the preservation of the throne. The army of the Empire consisted of kapikulu soldiers (Kapikulu soldiers were usually devshirmes, Christians taken at childhood and converted to Muslim, thought in the best schools the arts of governing and war) who received a salary by the government. These men could have a great influence on the politics of the empire, but this was prevented by keeping the balance of forces (timarli sipahis and kapikulu soldiers) even. It is very important to mention that an empire run by such system would inevitably depend on war. In order to have a larger economy and military, the Ottomans needed to conquer more land. As more territories were controlled by the government, more timars could be loaned. This meant more farming income and more cavalrymen." Quoted from Denizar

7th November 2007, 04:23 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	A fantastic display Rand. One who may be able to help with a translation, is the former director of Top Kapi Museum in Istanbul, Yuncel - if he is still alive. Jens