Spanish Rapiers, a Bilbo FYC.

Atlantia · 16th November 2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Atlantia,

Interesting, and thanks for the sketches. Oddly enough, that "iris" looks more like the fruits of a larkspur (see first image) or even wolfsbane fruits (see second image) than an iris.

As for the sunflower, I'll repeat my first position: it's a relative of a sunflower, but I'm not convinced it's a sunflower. The reason I'm not convinced is two-fold: first, sunflowers tend to have more than eight petals (they're technically ray flowers), and second, they tend to have petals of a single color, where the petals on the rapier flower have a band halfway up. That band is characteristic of many other species of sunflower relatives, so I tend to think it's not a sunflower.

One thing I think we can ignore is the leaves under the flowers or fruits. Since they're the same for both flowers (unlike in nature), I think they're just a standardized leaf shape, without other meaning.

Best,

F

Ah I see,
Great points Fearn, I hadn't made the connection with the inner patterning on the petals. And of course (doh!) Sunflowers have LOTS of petals, lol, not just eight! Thanks for a new and clearly clearer perspective on this, I think I've had it so many years, I cant see the wood for the trees!
I'd always juat thought the smaller design was the flower 'closed', but you think its something else entirely?

fearn · 17th November 2008, 08:25 PM

Hi Atlantia,

It's always fun trying to figure these things out. So far as the smaller design goes, I'm pretty sure that it's not the closed form of the big one. In general, the bud of the sunflower family looks something like an artichoke (not surprisingly, because artichokes are distant relatives of sunflowers), so that three-parted whatever-it-is is definitely not a closed sunflower.

As for what it is, I've already made my guesses above. It would have been nice for it to have been an iris, because irises do show up in heraldry. One good example is the fleur-de-lys. That pattern really looks like the fruits of some members of the buttercup family, such as larkspurs or wolfsbane. These are semi-reasonable guesses, as the designer could easily find these fruits in a garden or a meadow near the shop. WHY someone sould choose such a pattern really puzzles me. Larkspurs and wolfsbane are fairly poisonous, so there might be some symbolism there. There might also be some family name association. Whatever it is, I'm currently puzzled.

Feel free to keep bugging me about it. Perhaps the right question will shake loose a better answer.

Best,

F

katana · 18th November 2008, 10:32 PM

Hi Atlantia,
as Fearn has pointed out, the 'symbology' might indeed be similar to the serpentine bladed rapier.

".......Fleur-de-lys
The French symbol of royalty to the far left is known as the Fleur-de-lys. It originated with the first of the Merovingian kings of France. This symbol comes out of Sumeria and is directly related to the Tree of Life. It can be traced all the way back to the Sumerian god Enki. In the image he is holding a pot of flowing waters with the symbol above it. This is also a maritime symbol which always indicates north. The next illustration is from Urartu which clearly shows the fluer attached to the fruit. Starting the next row is a Phoenician drawing of the Tree of Life. Notice the fluer at the center top. This is a style known as the vortical tree as is the following Assyrian tree. The final example of the fluer is from a piece of metal work from Urartu. It dons the helmet of a genii. The Fleur-de-lys has been so widely used that it is considered classical.

Rosette
Then we have the rosette. It too is a symbol connected to the Tree of Life. It has eight spoke-like leaves just like the symbol for the sun god Shamash. Standard rosette design with center dark pit to the far left. Next is Urartian metal work with a band of rosettes. The last image is from a Sumerian seal showing rosette's connection to the tree. This symbol is closely associated with the goddess Inanna and of course to the Tree of Life. This is a pan-Mesopotamian symbol....."

The 8 petalled flower fits in with the rosette and the 3 'leaved' configuration seems to suggest the Fleur-de-lys. The above paragraphs and additional pictures (which are a little small but worth looking at) are here...approx. 1/3 page down

http://firstlegend.info/3rivers/3rivervalley.html

Kind Regards David

fearn · 19th November 2008, 12:16 AM

Hi David,

Another debate?

Yes, I would be very happy if the small thing was a fleur-de-lys, aka an iris. That would solve a lot of problems, because it would be safely inside the symbol cannon of Europe.

Thing is, the artist took some trouble to put details into the picture that made me decide it wasn't a fleur-de-lys. That leads to two possible conclusions:

1. It's not a fleur-de-lys, or

2. It is supposed to be a fleur-de-lys, but the artist was so clueless about what a fleur-de-lys represents (an iris flower, which has six visible parts) as a three parted whatzis with two leaves underneath.

The second interpretation isn't impossible, as there are some fleur-de-lys images that could have been the model for this one.

Basically, the artist may have wanted the fleur-de-lys to look "realistic," but lacking any knowledge of what the fleur-de-lys represented, he didn't raid his wife's flower garden for an iris flower, but scratched out this figure instead. It certainly happens, and I can think of a few Hollywood movie sets that were decorated with the same lack of attention to detail.

Still, there is the possibility that the artist did know what he was trying to represent, in which case, it's not a fleur-de-lys, but something else.

Fun!

F

katana · 19th November 2008, 02:06 PM

Hi Fearn,
I agree with what you have said. However, you have previously stated that there are no 8 petaled flowers .... if it was a literal interpretation of a flower then it must be incorrect. Assuming that it was not a mistake then we could asume that the Fleur-de-lys is also not a 'literal' interpretation either.

Irrespective of this ....why are two symbols associated with the tree of life, together on the cup

It seems that this and the serpentine rapier display similar symbology ....coincidence

Regards David

fearn · 19th November 2008, 06:25 PM

Hi David,

I guess it's botany lesson time. I've been fudging, and it's time to be more precise. (WARNING: LONG-WINDED MESSAGE TO FOLLOW

)

In most groups of plants, the number of petals per flower is strongly controlled. The basic rule is that it's generally five petals for dicots (less often four petals). In monocots, petal number is generally three, sometimes six (when the petals and sepals are indistinguishable as in a lily). There are some dicots, a very few monocots, and some primitive plants (neither dicot nor monocot) where the petal number is something else. In one small group, it's nine. More often, it's labelled "many" which is botanist's code for: lots of petals (usually more than 10), and the number is not strongly controlled, so it varies by flower. This is true for the sacred lotus, and for cactus flowers.

Now for the exceptions: I'll deal with the artificial one first. Some roses have more than five petals. They are not primitive. What happens in roses is that, occasionally, one of the stamens gets the wrong hormonal message and turns into a petal instead. Plant breeders noticed this, and deliberately bred mutants, where many of the stamens instead become petals. This is actually what happens naturally with cactus flowers, but that's a side issue. We're not looking at a cactus flower on this sword.

The second, bigger exception is composite flowers. Some groups, most notably the aster family, have decided to make a bigger "flower" by gathering a lot of smaller, simpler flowers together into one composite flower. The outer flowers in the composite (the "petals" on a sunflower) 3 or 5 petals fused together into one large banner (these are called ray florets, technically), while the flowers that make up the disk of the sunflower (technically, the disk florets) have highly reduced petals. It gets much more complicated, but that's enough for now. Sunflowers are not the only group to produce composite flowers, but they are by far the biggest and most successful.

ONE FINAL NOTE: I believe people widely really realized that the number of petals was important around the time of Linnaeus, who published Systema Naturae in 1735. Linnaeus' system was grouped plants based on the number of stamens and carpels inside the plant and got everyone counting flower parts. Prior to 1735, I suspect that the only people who noticed the numbers of petals and such were accurate observers. As botany spread following Linnaeus, people knew that the number of flower parts was really important, and the pictures became more accurate.

NOW, TO GET BACK TO THE SWORD. we have a three-parted smaller figure, and an eight-petaled bigger figure.

Start with the smaller one: if those structures are petals, it's pretty definitely a monocot. The iris (on which the fleur-de-lys is modeled) is a monocot, so we've got a possible answer.

Problem is, if that's an iris, we're missing all the other parts of the flower. So far, I've just been talking about petals. Flowers also usually have sepals (below and outside the petals), and stamens and carpels (above and inside the petals). That's why I said that, if it's a fleur-de-lys, the artist didn't know what he was drawing.

Alternatively, those figures could be fruits, which develop from the carpels. When fruits develop, typically the sepals, petals, and stamens fall away. The rules for petal number do not govern the rules for stamen number, and in any case, those fruits could be from some member of the buttercup family, such as a larkspur or a wolfsbane.

That's how I interpreted the smaller figure.

Now for the bigger figure: Eight petals. Again, either the artist was drawing something realistically, or he was not.

If he was drawing something realistic, it's highly unlikely that it was a simple flower, because no group consistently has eight petals. To get there, you have to start with something five petaled, and add three mutant stamens. Doesn't happen often.

Or, the artist could be drawing a composite flower. This is possible, as there are some that have eight ray florets per composite flower. I'd have to sit down with a European flora to look, as there are literally dozens of possibilities. Most of these are obscure weeds, but one might be culturally important.

If the artist was not portraying a realistic flower, then either he was drawing some sort of symbol, or he was drawing a generic flower. In this case, the best we can do is figure out the symbolism, if any.

Eight-fold flowers happen to be easy to draw (i.e. make a petal every 45 degrees around a circle), so I've seen a lot of them in artwork. For various reasons I won't get into here (aren't you glad?

), eight petals doesn't work as well as five in the wild, and eight-petaled flowers are very uncommon.

That's the gist of it. So, if anyone wants to figure out the ID of a flower on a sword hilt, this is how I do it.

Hope it helps,

F

Atlantia · 23rd November 2008, 01:10 AM

Hi guys, thanks for debating this one! I've had one thought... I'm thinking the radiate lines might be significant, as in a 'hairy' stem and leaves, seems a bit more weird on the petals but.......
Have either of you had any thoughts on this 'feature'?

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi David,

I guess it's botany lesson time. I've been fudging, and it's time to be more precise. (WARNING: LONG-WINDED MESSAGE TO FOLLOW

)

In most groups of plants, the number of petals per flower is strongly controlled. The basic rule is that it's generally five petals for dicots (less often four petals). In monocots, petal number is generally three, sometimes six (when the petals and sepals are indistinguishable as in a lily). There are some dicots, a very few monocots, and some primitive plants (neither dicot nor monocot) where the petal number is something else. In one small group, it's nine. More often, it's labelled "many" which is botanist's code for: lots of petals (usually more than 10), and the number is not strongly controlled, so it varies by flower. This is true for the sacred lotus, and for cactus flowers.

Now for the exceptions: I'll deal with the artificial one first. Some roses have more than five petals. They are not primitive. What happens in roses is that, occasionally, one of the stamens gets the wrong hormonal message and turns into a petal instead. Plant breeders noticed this, and deliberately bred mutants, where many of the stamens instead become petals. This is actually what happens naturally with cactus flowers, but that's a side issue. We're not looking at a cactus flower on this sword.

The second, bigger exception is composite flowers. Some groups, most notably the aster family, have decided to make a bigger "flower" by gathering a lot of smaller, simpler flowers together into one composite flower. The outer flowers in the composite (the "petals" on a sunflower) 3 or 5 petals fused together into one large banner (these are called ray florets, technically), while the flowers that make up the disk of the sunflower (technically, the disk florets) have highly reduced petals. It gets much more complicated, but that's enough for now. Sunflowers are not the only group to produce composite flowers, but they are by far the biggest and most successful.

ONE FINAL NOTE: I believe people widely really realized that the number of petals was important around the time of Linnaeus, who published Systema Naturae in 1735. Linnaeus' system was grouped plants based on the number of stamens and carpels inside the plant and got everyone counting flower parts. Prior to 1735, I suspect that the only people who noticed the numbers of petals and such were accurate observers. As botany spread following Linnaeus, people knew that the number of flower parts was really important, and the pictures became more accurate.

NOW, TO GET BACK TO THE SWORD. we have a three-parted smaller figure, and an eight-petaled bigger figure.

Start with the smaller one: if those structures are petals, it's pretty definitely a monocot. The iris (on which the fleur-de-lys is modeled) is a monocot, so we've got a possible answer.

Problem is, if that's an iris, we're missing all the other parts of the flower. So far, I've just been talking about petals. Flowers also usually have sepals (below and outside the petals), and stamens and carpels (above and inside the petals). That's why I said that, if it's a fleur-de-lys, the artist didn't know what he was drawing.

Alternatively, those figures could be fruits, which develop from the carpels. When fruits develop, typically the sepals, petals, and stamens fall away. The rules for petal number do not govern the rules for stamen number, and in any case, those fruits could be from some member of the buttercup family, such as a larkspur or a wolfsbane.

That's how I interpreted the smaller figure.

Now for the bigger figure: Eight petals. Again, either the artist was drawing something realistically, or he was not.

If he was drawing something realistic, it's highly unlikely that it was a simple flower, because no group consistently has eight petals. To get there, you have to start with something five petaled, and add three mutant stamens. Doesn't happen often.

Or, the artist could be drawing a composite flower. This is possible, as there are some that have eight ray florets per composite flower. I'd have to sit down with a European flora to look, as there are literally dozens of possibilities. Most of these are obscure weeds, but one might be culturally important.

If the artist was not portraying a realistic flower, then either he was drawing some sort of symbol, or he was drawing a generic flower. In this case, the best we can do is figure out the symbolism, if any.

Eight-fold flowers happen to be easy to draw (i.e. make a petal every 45 degrees around a circle), so I've seen a lot of them in artwork. For various reasons I won't get into here (aren't you glad?

), eight petals doesn't work as well as five in the wild, and eight-petaled flowers are very uncommon.

That's the gist of it. So, if anyone wants to figure out the ID of a flower on a sword hilt, this is how I do it.

Hope it helps,

F

Fearn, this is absolutely fantastic application of 'botanical forensics in studying decorative motif on weapons'!! On the Ethnographic Forum , Jens has for considerable time devoted a great deal of study on this subject as applied to Indian swords and daggers. Robert Elgood discusses this in some degree in his great book "Hindu Arms and Ritual", where much of the symbolism of various botanicals are used in ceremony, decorative motif and even in metallurgy.
I really enjoy the discussions you and David get into on these subjects, which really add dimension to better understanding these motifs on weapons.

All the best,
Jim

17th November 2008, 08:25 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Atlantia, It's always fun trying to figure these things out. So far as the smaller design goes, I'm pretty sure that it's not the closed form of the big one. In general, the bud of the sunflower family looks something like an artichoke (not surprisingly, because artichokes are distant relatives of sunflowers), so that three-parted whatever-it-is is definitely not a closed sunflower. As for what it is, I've already made my guesses above. It would have been nice for it to have been an iris, because irises do show up in heraldry. One good example is the fleur-de-lys. That pattern really looks like the fruits of some members of the buttercup family, such as larkspurs or wolfsbane. These are semi-reasonable guesses, as the designer could easily find these fruits in a garden or a meadow near the shop. WHY someone sould choose such a pattern really puzzles me. Larkspurs and wolfsbane are fairly poisonous, so there might be some symbolism there. There might also be some family name association. Whatever it is, I'm currently puzzled. Feel free to keep bugging me about it. Perhaps the right question will shake loose a better answer. Best, F

18th November 2008, 10:32 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Atlantia, as Fearn has pointed out, the 'symbology' might indeed be similar to the serpentine bladed rapier. ".......Fleur-de-lys The French symbol of royalty to the far left is known as the Fleur-de-lys. It originated with the first of the Merovingian kings of France. This symbol comes out of Sumeria and is directly related to the Tree of Life. It can be traced all the way back to the Sumerian god Enki. In the image he is holding a pot of flowing waters with the symbol above it. This is also a maritime symbol which always indicates north. The next illustration is from Urartu which clearly shows the fluer attached to the fruit. Starting the next row is a Phoenician drawing of the Tree of Life. Notice the fluer at the center top. This is a style known as the vortical tree as is the following Assyrian tree. The final example of the fluer is from a piece of metal work from Urartu. It dons the helmet of a genii. The Fleur-de-lys has been so widely used that it is considered classical. Rosette Then we have the rosette. It too is a symbol connected to the Tree of Life. It has eight spoke-like leaves just like the symbol for the sun god Shamash. Standard rosette design with center dark pit to the far left. Next is Urartian metal work with a band of rosettes. The last image is from a Sumerian seal showing rosette's connection to the tree. This symbol is closely associated with the goddess Inanna and of course to the Tree of Life. This is a pan-Mesopotamian symbol....." The 8 petalled flower fits in with the rosette and the 3 'leaved' configuration seems to suggest the Fleur-de-lys. The above paragraphs and additional pictures (which are a little small but worth looking at) are here...approx. 1/3 page down http://firstlegend.info/3rivers/3rivervalley.html Kind Regards David

19th November 2008, 12:16 AM	#4
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi David, Another debate? Yes, I would be very happy if the small thing was a fleur-de-lys, aka an iris. That would solve a lot of problems, because it would be safely inside the symbol cannon of Europe. Thing is, the artist took some trouble to put details into the picture that made me decide it wasn't a fleur-de-lys. That leads to two possible conclusions: 1. It's not a fleur-de-lys, or 2. It is supposed to be a fleur-de-lys, but the artist was so clueless about what a fleur-de-lys represents (an iris flower, which has six visible parts) as a three parted whatzis with two leaves underneath. The second interpretation isn't impossible, as there are some fleur-de-lys images that could have been the model for this one. Basically, the artist may have wanted the fleur-de-lys to look "realistic," but lacking any knowledge of what the fleur-de-lys represented, he didn't raid his wife's flower garden for an iris flower, but scratched out this figure instead. It certainly happens, and I can think of a few Hollywood movie sets that were decorated with the same lack of attention to detail. Still, there is the possibility that the artist did know what he was trying to represent, in which case, it's not a fleur-de-lys, but something else. Fun! F

19th November 2008, 02:06 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Fearn, I agree with what you have said. However, you have previously stated that there are no 8 petaled flowers .... if it was a literal interpretation of a flower then it must be incorrect. Assuming that it was not a mistake then we could asume that the Fleur-de-lys is also not a 'literal' interpretation either. Irrespective of this ....why are two symbols associated with the tree of life, together on the cup It seems that this and the serpentine rapier display similar symbology ....coincidence Regards David

19th November 2008, 06:25 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi David, I guess it's botany lesson time. I've been fudging, and it's time to be more precise. (WARNING: LONG-WINDED MESSAGE TO FOLLOW ) In most groups of plants, the number of petals per flower is strongly controlled. The basic rule is that it's generally five petals for dicots (less often four petals). In monocots, petal number is generally three, sometimes six (when the petals and sepals are indistinguishable as in a lily). There are some dicots, a very few monocots, and some primitive plants (neither dicot nor monocot) where the petal number is something else. In one small group, it's nine. More often, it's labelled "many" which is botanist's code for: lots of petals (usually more than 10), and the number is not strongly controlled, so it varies by flower. This is true for the sacred lotus, and for cactus flowers. Now for the exceptions: I'll deal with the artificial one first. Some roses have more than five petals. They are not primitive. What happens in roses is that, occasionally, one of the stamens gets the wrong hormonal message and turns into a petal instead. Plant breeders noticed this, and deliberately bred mutants, where many of the stamens instead become petals. This is actually what happens naturally with cactus flowers, but that's a side issue. We're not looking at a cactus flower on this sword. The second, bigger exception is composite flowers. Some groups, most notably the aster family, have decided to make a bigger "flower" by gathering a lot of smaller, simpler flowers together into one composite flower. The outer flowers in the composite (the "petals" on a sunflower) 3 or 5 petals fused together into one large banner (these are called ray florets, technically), while the flowers that make up the disk of the sunflower (technically, the disk florets) have highly reduced petals. It gets much more complicated, but that's enough for now. Sunflowers are not the only group to produce composite flowers, but they are by far the biggest and most successful. ONE FINAL NOTE: I believe people widely really realized that the number of petals was important around the time of Linnaeus, who published Systema Naturae in 1735. Linnaeus' system was grouped plants based on the number of stamens and carpels inside the plant and got everyone counting flower parts. Prior to 1735, I suspect that the only people who noticed the numbers of petals and such were accurate observers. As botany spread following Linnaeus, people knew that the number of flower parts was really important, and the pictures became more accurate. NOW, TO GET BACK TO THE SWORD. we have a three-parted smaller figure, and an eight-petaled bigger figure. Start with the smaller one: if those structures are petals, it's pretty definitely a monocot. The iris (on which the fleur-de-lys is modeled) is a monocot, so we've got a possible answer. Problem is, if that's an iris, we're missing all the other parts of the flower. So far, I've just been talking about petals. Flowers also usually have sepals (below and outside the petals), and stamens and carpels (above and inside the petals). That's why I said that, if it's a fleur-de-lys, the artist didn't know what he was drawing. Alternatively, those figures could be fruits, which develop from the carpels. When fruits develop, typically the sepals, petals, and stamens fall away. The rules for petal number do not govern the rules for stamen number, and in any case, those fruits could be from some member of the buttercup family, such as a larkspur or a wolfsbane. That's how I interpreted the smaller figure. Now for the bigger figure: Eight petals. Again, either the artist was drawing something realistically, or he was not. If he was drawing something realistic, it's highly unlikely that it was a simple flower, because no group consistently has eight petals. To get there, you have to start with something five petaled, and add three mutant stamens. Doesn't happen often. Or, the artist could be drawing a composite flower. This is possible, as there are some that have eight ray florets per composite flower. I'd have to sit down with a European flora to look, as there are literally dozens of possibilities. Most of these are obscure weeds, but one might be culturally important. If the artist was not portraying a realistic flower, then either he was drawing some sort of symbol, or he was drawing a generic flower. In this case, the best we can do is figure out the symbolism, if any. Eight-fold flowers happen to be easy to draw (i.e. make a petal every 45 degrees around a circle), so I've seen a lot of them in artwork. For various reasons I won't get into here (aren't you glad? ), eight petals doesn't work as well as five in the wild, and eight-petaled flowers are very uncommon. That's the gist of it. So, if anyone wants to figure out the ID of a flower on a sword hilt, this is how I do it. Hope it helps, F

23rd November 2008, 01:10 AM	#7
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Hi guys, thanks for debating this one! I've had one thought... I'm thinking the radiate lines might be significant, as in a 'hairy' stem and leaves, seems a bit more weird on the petals but....... Have either of you had any thoughts on this 'feature'?