Nomadic swords

[ariel]

Having read Kirill Rivkin's book about Eastern swords and a chapter by Bashir Mohamed in his Furussia book as well as having written a paper about the penetration of sabers into the Arab/Islamic realm, I got an irresistible urge to have a couple of nomadic sabers.

So, here they are:

First, a classical Khazar saber 8-9 centuries with its crossguard and circular tunkou ( or habaki, as Kirill prefers to call them). Pay attention to the false edge at the very distal part of the blade that had been forged in a diamond-shaped pattern to create a strengthening rib: this saber could not just cut/slice, but stab as well.
It was preserved by tannic acid, that's why it is black.

[ariel]

And here is most likely an example from the Qipchaq armamentarium.
This one is in an unbelievably well-preserved condition: the soil must have been highly "hospitable" for a 10-11 century steel.
Here the tunkou is L-shaped with the longer arm going next to the edge. The last pic shows how it was made: a thin plate of iron was wrapped around the ricasso and the two were forged together. This one is diamond -shaped along the entire length and again, the distal part of the blade is double -edged.

[Ian]

Hi Ariel:

I assume you are familiar with the Siberian Sword discussion published on this site in 1998, http://www.vikingsword.com/vforum/for01.html, and with additional information and comments here, http://www.vikingsword.com:80/ethfor...sages/405.html

These blades seem very long. Can you provide dimensions please.

Ian.

[Ian]

Ariel,

It seems that Mr Peabody is away from his desk and the WayBackMachine is not accepting certain links, so I have posted replies to the original Siberia Sword thread here. These discussions date to the late 1990s and were among the earliest on these forums. At the time folks had to email their questions and comments to Lee, who would then post them online. We've come a long way since then. It's good to see the Archives are still relevant, and perhaps Jim and Rich will have something further to add ...

Ian

------------Posted by Oleg Kirsanov (via Lee Jones) on April 13, 1999 at 22:30:14:-------------

Dear colleagues

In this message I can inform you the shape, size & basic components of this saber:

-the length of the blade is 720 mm
-the length of the hilt is 75 mm
-the thickness of the middle part of the blade is 5,5 mm
-the widths of the middle part of the blade is 29,4 mm
-the length of the cross-section is 105 mm
-the widths of the cross-section in the middle part is 8,2 mm.

The shape of the cross-section is ellipse, very sharp & refined.
The blade of the sabre is rhombic shape & single-edged the side of the brand.

The curving of the blade is minimum - 4 mm from the straight line.
The whole shape of the blade, cross-section & the hilt let us refer this sword as a sabre.

The condition of this 1000 years saber is perfect, the structure & the property survived completely.

The steel is one of the shapes ( kinds ) of Damask steel.
In middle ages in South Siberian there was a high level technology of output & treatment of iron, excelling Chine & the other civilizations.

The sabre is at my disposal now but it may be sold. That's why I want to finish this scientific investigation of the saber & ask you for saving time contact me in E-mail. The origin and the age of the saber are being exactly established. The difficulty which we have faced concerns the brand on the saber. Is it an ornament used as a decorative pattern those days, or it has some shades of logical meaning?

That is the reason why we decided to consult the specialist and owners of medieval weapon collections.

Best regards,

Oleg Kirsanov, the collector.

• More PHOTOS and previous discussion

--------------Reply by Jim McDougall----------------

Mr. Kirsanov,

What a beautiful example of what appears to be an
early Altaic sabre, judging by examples shown in
drawings in books by David Nicolle Phd,. notably
The Mongol Warlords 1990, and Attila and the Nomad
Hordes, Osprey 1990, and examples shown are
similar noted as Turkish 6-10th century and others
as Khirghiz 10-12th c.

These suggest provenance from Sibero-Mongol borders
where nomad tribes belonged to all three
branches of the Altaic group Turkic,Mongol and
Tungusic.

Although I cannot make out clearly what appears to
be a triangular geometric motif at the forte
if it is at the cutting edge, it is likely a choil
or terminus of the sharpened edge.If it at the back
of the blade of course it is a backpiece as
is seen on many of these as a support piece.
The triangle is of course an ancient symbol which
usually represents fire as well as power, divinity,
etc, etc. As these nomads were typically Shamanistic
such symbolisation may have simply been adopted to
sanctify the blade.

Trying to be definitive on identifying this sword
accurately with the complexities of the vast area
and movements of these nomads is difficult but can
be done with some work.In a communication with
David Nicolle, he suggested Dr.Michael Gorelik of
I believe Kiev. I will check for an address on him.
I know I have it. He is an expert Oriental Arms and
Armour including Central Asian and early
weapons of the steppes.

If you would please contact me directly at my E mail
and we can discuss further research and getting
valuation established. I will start putting
together contacts if you are agreeable.

I would like to know more about provenance on this
sword if possible as well.

Looking forward very much to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Jim McDougall

----------------Comment by Rich----------------

This is a wonderful looking blade; however, I
don't recall ever seeing a tang notched like
that in any of Oakshott's books or any other -
of course memory fails (more and more .
I used the notches when I made knives to get
better glue adherence in the hilt. Also, the
tang strikes me as very, very short for a blade
of this length. Something strikes me that it
would not be a particularly strong hilt mount
especially for slashing type cuts. Just my
$0.02 worth. Rich

-----------Additional images from owner------------
.

[ariel]

Ian,
First, thanks for the references and the missing posts.

The lengths of blades:
Khazar 29.5"
Qipchaq 40.5" ( yes, this is no typo:-)
Both very slightly curved.

[TVV]

Nice swords Ariel, I especially like the Cuman period one, which is not only extremely well preserved but is also of beautiful proportions. I have been interested in these ever since I read a book about archaeological arms and armor finds from First Bulgarian Empire. With the additional knowledge from the Furusiyya Foundation book and of course Rivkin's most recent excellent book I can now see how many of these finds were from the 12-14th centuries and misidentified as earlier.

The good news is that there are quite a few "digging" entrepreneurs in Russia and Ukraine, who are finding a lot of these swords from the Khazar all the way to the Golden Horde and even the Crimean Tatar periods, including some really well preserved examples like your Cuman period saber. What is better, they can be obtained for prices that are comparable to those of lower end replicas, and so I am trying to acquire a few as well. For whatever reasons these are neglected compared to other medieval swords, but I do not mind it, as it makes collecting these less competitive.

My understanding is that Rivkin called these swords after the dominant entity in the Steppe region during a particular period, not necessarily implying that it is the only group/entity to use the type. For example, you can find Khazar period swords all the way from the Northern Caucasus (Khazars, Alans) to Central Europe (Avars), the Balkans (Bulgars) and even Asia Minor, as the Eastern Roman Empire was quick to adapt these (the paramerion?), not to mention anything of mercenaries in service of the Basileus.

I do not have much to add to your swords, other than what you have posted, but we are still in the early process of learning about these swords and I hope to see more examples in this thread.

Teodor

[Philip]

Originally Posted by ariel

And here is most likely an example from the Qipchaq armamentarium.
This one is in an unbelievably well-preserved condition: the soil must have been highly "hospitable" for a 10-11 century steel.
Here the tunkou is L-shaped with the longer arm going next to the edge. The last pic shows how it was made: a thin plate of iron was wrapped around the ricasso and the two were forged together. This one is diamond -shaped along the entire length and again, the distal part of the blade is double -edged.

Just thought you'd like to see a polished section of a very similar blade in my collection, was fortuitously preserved with some surfaces including the crisply-defined ridges with virtually no corrosion (albeit with a thick patina) interspersed with the usual pitting. So I polished a "window" on one stretch, and it reveals a distinct and rather attractive lamellar pattern. There does not seem to be any sign of differential heat treating of the edge; the steel offered the same resistance to the whetstone across its width. Indeed the blade, which is thick but narrow and has little if any distal taper, appears to have little resilience since it is bent in several areas.

[ariel]

Very interesting!
A variation of the pattern welded blade.
I also recall Anne Feuerbach's paper about North Caucasian production of crucible steel, a real wootz.
Those old cutlers were much more sophisticated than we imagine.

[Philip]

Ariel,
'Thought you might like to compare the tunkou (sleeve at the forte of the blade) on your Qipchaq saber with a couple examples from later in history. The concept had a long shelf-life. The upper image is a saber blade, probably Seljuk, ca 1200 (image and historical identification from Haase, et al, Oriental Splendour: Islamic Art from German Pvt. Collections, 1993.) The lower one is an early 18th cent. Qing liuyedao (willow leaf saber) formerly in my collection. As on your blade, the tunkou on both examples is fashioned from iron sheet and is a friction-fit onto the blade. On other examples from the Mamluk/Ottoman sphere, and Ming/Qing China, it is chiseled in relief from the steel of the blade and there serves more as a decorative motif, but that is another topic for discussion.

[ariel]

Hi Philip,

Thanks for addressing the issue of Tunkou.
I want to pick your brain a little deeper.
First, a seller's pic of a Khazar saber from the Ukraine, allegedly 7-9 century. Hope to have it in my hands within a week or two. Its tunkou is of a traditional early form: long arm goes along the edge.
Next, 2 figs from David Nicolle's book ( presumably Daghestan , 13-14 century), ##645 and 646
One tunkou is just like yours and mine, another is kind of a square with a slit in the middle ( some later Chinese ones have it)
After that Iran, ~1306-1304. Something happened, tunkous flipped over: the long arm goes along the spine, ##626f and 626o.

The last one is a fresco of St. Nikita from Serbian Gracanica church, finished in 1321. Again, the long arm is on the top.

After that all tunkous , both functional and decorative, from Mughals, Iran, Ottoman Empire follow the same pattern.

Seems like the westward migrating Turks changed their Tunkous sometimes ~12-13 centuries, whereas eastward migrating ( China, SE Asia) stayed with the classical pattern. Japanese habaki may be an analog of a plain sleeve-like type.

Any thoughts?

P.S. Sorry, my computer has a mind of his own and the order of pics is mixed. But they are labeled and self-explanatory.