Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.
The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.
However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.
The proof rests on 3 main arguments:
1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.
2. It is unusually rich in decoration.
3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.
None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.
1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.
2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".
3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.
A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.
These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.
I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.
Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".
I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.
|
Welcome back again, Ariel!
You've stated: "A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David."
My answer: Did you not apply al-Kindi's typology on the early Islamic swords of Topkapi? Or are you just repeating the "claims" of the earlier academics that I've already answered at the start of the article? Didn't I say that the story that was Dhu'l-Faqar was sent as a gift by Queen Bilkis to Prophet Solomon (PBUH) was legend? Didn't I say that the blade was manufactured in the Arabian Peninsula (especially Yemen) in either the late 6th century or early 7th century CE? Did Bilkis and Solomon (PBUH) live in the 6th century CE or the 10th century BC?!
BTW, in my dissertation, I refuted the idea that the Yemeni sword attributed to Prophet David (PBUH) was his. In fact, the damask on the blade's surface proves it was made of wootz steel; something that was not known in the 11th-10th centuries BC in the Middle East.
You've also stated: "These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies."
My answer: Could you please send more of these notes and objections? Please?
You've then stated: " I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful."
My answer: I've done that before. When it comes to one-on-one talk, they all praised my work. Among those were David Nicolle, Oleg Grabar, James W. Allan, Brian Gilmour, and Robert Hoyland...and also Christoph Amberger. But when it came to publishing, those journals required a lot of reduction and some alterations that would ruin the article...so, I refused. I'll send the email in which Dr. David Nicolle commented on this article.