Shamshir: Turkish or Syrian?

ariel · 19th March 2006, 02:11 PM

Again, a picture from the catalogue of the Belgrade Military Museum.
It is a saber identified as Turkish.
Look carefully: the handle is of typical Syrian configuration, with a down-turned pommel and a wire-wrapped upper langet.
It is signed " Master Mehmet. Owner Abdul Karim the Antiochian". This is slightly strange, because such inscriptions were usually put on Yataghans: those were mainly private purchase weapons, unlike swords that were usually labelled only with the master's name. What it means, is that Mr. Abdul Karim wanted a very well defined weapon. But, be it as it may, we find ourselves in the middle of an unending international conflict

: Antiochia or Antakia was a part of the Ottoman Empire and is now a part of modern Turkey, but the Syrians claim ownership too. It was taken away from Syria by the French in 1938 and given to Turkey in 1939. It was a capital of the Republic of Hatay (remember Indiana Jones? That's where, near Alexandretta or Iskenderun, he found the Holy Grail, even though the featured temple was, in fact, Petra, in Jordan. Artistic license, I guess...).
So, Ottoman Empire or not, but Antiochians (at least the venerable Abdul Karim) liked their sabers made in a specific, Syrian style

M.carter · 20th March 2006, 08:34 AM

Hello,

Ive seen the so called "wahabite" nejdi jambiyas in Topkapi labeled "Turkish".....

ham · 22nd March 2006, 11:28 PM

Ariel,

You make some good observations, might want to consider the following:

The Ottoman Empire was intensely multinational-- people did not refer to themselves as Turks or Arabs, they tended to be identified, but not labeled by, language and the nearest city or imposing landmark, such as a mountain or lake. As you probably know, they also lacked a surname and were known, if at all, by a clan name applied to the group, as Sa'udis still are today. Ottoman citizens generally spoke Turkish (not always fluently, but enough to communicate with the powers that be), in addition to whatever ethnic tongue they were raised with. Hence, If Abdul Karim was from Antioch, he probably was (Arabic-speaking) Arab born-- perhaps Christian, perhaps Muslim, but Arab nonetheless (the name is not unusual, it means Servant of the Generous One.) He may have been a local official, military leader or officer. He almost certainly came from a family of means.

So that to be precise, the sword under discussion can be considered Ottoman, because Antioch was (and is) under Turkish control, despite the fact that most of its inhabitants were Arabs who spoke Arabic, and had a strong material culture which differed from that of Turkic speakers. It can also be called an Arab sword for this reason, though that is rather vague. Finally, as you indicated, it probably should be called Syrian, since we know that such mountings were produced in Dimashq.

It is a sticky web to be sure, but one which is more effectively untangled by an understanding of the political-cultural interrelationships which existed in that place and time.

Ham

Rivkin · 23rd March 2006, 12:11 AM

All things below are imho:

The question of turkish-ottoman identity is probably as explosive as you can find. In Ottoman empire you have supposedly a turkish-dominated country, however most of the time most of important officies were not held by turks. You have sultans-khalifas who do not make haj, but often described as wine-drinkers (for example Ibn-Iyas on a contrast between mamluks and turks). You have almost every language and nationality present in the country, but the tribalism is such that the national identity does not develop until 1920 or so, and even this after numerours failed attempts to establish a "no christian, no jew, no muslim, but all ottoman" identity of ittihad ve terraki. You have turkish nationalists and pan-turkists whose origins are almost everything - bolgarians, greeks, circassians, albanians, georgians, jews and etc.

With respect to weapons it makes a lot of labels like "arab" or "turkish" relatively useless, and more local, tribal identity - wahhabi, laz, pomak, bosnian etc. to be more important, with some geographical entities, such as balkans, syria etc. being more prominent than others.

One more thing - I always thought that "abd" more relates to slave, rather than servant ? So AbdAllah is more of a "slave of Allah", rather than servant ?
Just like what usually translated from the bible as "manservant" - avod, is usually a slave, distinctively different from "worker hired for money", which is servant per se. I also somehow thought that in many areas "Abdallah" was one of the most favorite names taken by converts to Islam.

ariel · 23rd March 2006, 02:53 AM

Off we go to the forest of linguistics!
I do not know Arabic, but in Hebrew (another Semitic language) both words, "slave" and "servant, or worker for hire" derive from the same 3 letter root: ain, bet, daled. However, slave is eved (pl. avadim), whereas servant is oved (pl. ovdim). In the latter there is letter vav inserted between ain and vet.
In Hebrew, the word "worship" is "avodah" and a pious person is referred to as a "servant of G-d", never as "slave". Guess there must be noticeable difference in the God/man relations between Judaism and Islam. Here we enter theology...
Any takers?

Rivkin · 23rd March 2006, 04:11 AM

well my knowledge of both languages is rudinmentary - eved, avod, I would not be able to tell the difference (I thought that they are both simply derived from "avod" - to work), however imho it is also "slave of god" in judaism as well - the one who studied a single passage 101 times.

Returning to arabic - I always was taught that abd is 100% slave, but on a very rare ocasion it can simply mean "black african", and in general _never_ being used to refer to a white-"blood tax", especially military slave.

ham · 23rd March 2006, 04:56 AM

Kyril,

I purposely chose the word 'servant' because 'slave' has a considerable number of negative cultural associations in England and America which I do not feel bear in the slightest on the discussion-- these tend to get us all off track easily and also seem to verge into issues which end up locked....

As for your other observations, I believe we are essentially making the same point.

Ham

ariel · 23rd March 2006, 09:28 AM

Just like "avoda" in Hebrew is " worship", perhaps "Abd-allah" is properly translated as " worshiper of God"?
I think we are at the end of our rope; we need a native Arabic speaker.

Andrew · 23rd March 2006, 01:54 PM

Mark Carter already posted on this thread. Hopefully he'll come back and jump in.

eftihis · 23rd March 2006, 02:12 PM

Hi, just to tell that almost all of Cretans that were converted to Islam after the conguest of Crete by the Ottomans in 1670 were named Abdullah. It is a name that was given to new converts. So in the turkish religious court papers we can read Abdullah, son of George and Maria etc...

Rivkin · 23rd March 2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Just like "avoda" in Hebrew is " worship", perhaps "Abd-allah" is properly translated as " worshiper of God"?
I think we are at the end of our rope; we need a native Arabic speaker.

Nagh, prayer is salat/namaz. I think ham already said it - abd literaly is a slave, but it does not really relates to our forum's topic.

ariel · 23rd March 2006, 08:25 PM

Prayer and worship are two different things. Again, in Hebrew they are Tfilah and Avoda, respectively. Abdallah is definitely not "praying to God", but could he be " worshipping God"?
Or, indeed, just as Rivkin said "God's slave"?

19th March 2006, 02:11 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Shamshir: Turkish or Syrian? Again, a picture from the catalogue of the Belgrade Military Museum. It is a saber identified as Turkish. Look carefully: the handle is of typical Syrian configuration, with a down-turned pommel and a wire-wrapped upper langet. It is signed " Master Mehmet. Owner Abdul Karim the Antiochian". This is slightly strange, because such inscriptions were usually put on Yataghans: those were mainly private purchase weapons, unlike swords that were usually labelled only with the master's name. What it means, is that Mr. Abdul Karim wanted a very well defined weapon. But, be it as it may, we find ourselves in the middle of an unending international conflict : Antiochia or Antakia was a part of the Ottoman Empire and is now a part of modern Turkey, but the Syrians claim ownership too. It was taken away from Syria by the French in 1938 and given to Turkey in 1939. It was a capital of the Republic of Hatay (remember Indiana Jones? That's where, near Alexandretta or Iskenderun, he found the Holy Grail, even though the featured temple was, in fact, Petra, in Jordan. Artistic license, I guess...). So, Ottoman Empire or not, but Antiochians (at least the venerable Abdul Karim) liked their sabers made in a specific, Syrian style Attached Images

23rd March 2006, 04:11 AM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	well my knowledge of both languages is rudinmentary - eved, avod, I would not be able to tell the difference (I thought that they are both simply derived from "avod" - to work), however imho it is also "slave of god" in judaism as well - the one who studied a single passage 101 times. Returning to arabic - I always was taught that abd is 100% slave, but on a very rare ocasion it can simply mean "black african", and in general _never_ being used to refer to a white-"blood tax", especially military slave. Last edited by Rivkin; 23rd March 2006 at 04:28 AM.

20th March 2006, 08:34 AM	#2
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Hello, Ive seen the so called "wahabite" nejdi jambiyas in Topkapi labeled "Turkish".....

22nd March 2006, 11:28 PM	#3
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Ariel, You make some good observations, might want to consider the following: The Ottoman Empire was intensely multinational-- people did not refer to themselves as Turks or Arabs, they tended to be identified, but not labeled by, language and the nearest city or imposing landmark, such as a mountain or lake. As you probably know, they also lacked a surname and were known, if at all, by a clan name applied to the group, as Sa'udis still are today. Ottoman citizens generally spoke Turkish (not always fluently, but enough to communicate with the powers that be), in addition to whatever ethnic tongue they were raised with. Hence, If Abdul Karim was from Antioch, he probably was (Arabic-speaking) Arab born-- perhaps Christian, perhaps Muslim, but Arab nonetheless (the name is not unusual, it means Servant of the Generous One.) He may have been a local official, military leader or officer. He almost certainly came from a family of means. So that to be precise, the sword under discussion can be considered Ottoman, because Antioch was (and is) under Turkish control, despite the fact that most of its inhabitants were Arabs who spoke Arabic, and had a strong material culture which differed from that of Turkic speakers. It can also be called an Arab sword for this reason, though that is rather vague. Finally, as you indicated, it probably should be called Syrian, since we know that such mountings were produced in Dimashq. It is a sticky web to be sure, but one which is more effectively untangled by an understanding of the political-cultural interrelationships which existed in that place and time. Ham

23rd March 2006, 12:11 AM	#4
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	All things below are imho: The question of turkish-ottoman identity is probably as explosive as you can find. In Ottoman empire you have supposedly a turkish-dominated country, however most of the time most of important officies were not held by turks. You have sultans-khalifas who do not make haj, but often described as wine-drinkers (for example Ibn-Iyas on a contrast between mamluks and turks). You have almost every language and nationality present in the country, but the tribalism is such that the national identity does not develop until 1920 or so, and even this after numerours failed attempts to establish a "no christian, no jew, no muslim, but all ottoman" identity of ittihad ve terraki. You have turkish nationalists and pan-turkists whose origins are almost everything - bolgarians, greeks, circassians, albanians, georgians, jews and etc. With respect to weapons it makes a lot of labels like "arab" or "turkish" relatively useless, and more local, tribal identity - wahhabi, laz, pomak, bosnian etc. to be more important, with some geographical entities, such as balkans, syria etc. being more prominent than others. One more thing - I always thought that "abd" more relates to slave, rather than servant ? So AbdAllah is more of a "slave of Allah", rather than servant ? Just like what usually translated from the bible as "manservant" - avod, is usually a slave, distinctively different from "worker hired for money", which is servant per se. I also somehow thought that in many areas "Abdallah" was one of the most favorite names taken by converts to Islam.

23rd March 2006, 02:53 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Off we go to the forest of linguistics! I do not know Arabic, but in Hebrew (another Semitic language) both words, "slave" and "servant, or worker for hire" derive from the same 3 letter root: ain, bet, daled. However, slave is eved (pl. avadim), whereas servant is oved (pl. ovdim). In the latter there is letter vav inserted between ain and vet. In Hebrew, the word "worship" is "avodah" and a pious person is referred to as a "servant of G-d", never as "slave". Guess there must be noticeable difference in the God/man relations between Judaism and Islam. Here we enter theology... Any takers?

23rd March 2006, 04:56 AM	#7
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Kyril, I purposely chose the word 'servant' because 'slave' has a considerable number of negative cultural associations in England and America which I do not feel bear in the slightest on the discussion-- these tend to get us all off track easily and also seem to verge into issues which end up locked.... As for your other observations, I believe we are essentially making the same point. Ham

23rd March 2006, 09:28 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Just like "avoda" in Hebrew is " worship", perhaps "Abd-allah" is properly translated as " worshiper of God"? I think we are at the end of our rope; we need a native Arabic speaker.

23rd March 2006, 01:54 PM	#9
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Mark Carter already posted on this thread. Hopefully he'll come back and jump in.

23rd March 2006, 02:12 PM	#10
eftihis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chania Crete Greece Posts: 507	Hi, just to tell that almost all of Cretans that were converted to Islam after the conguest of Crete by the Ottomans in 1670 were named Abdullah. It is a name that was given to new converts. So in the turkish religious court papers we can read Abdullah, son of George and Maria etc...

23rd March 2006, 08:25 PM	#12
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Prayer and worship are two different things. Again, in Hebrew they are Tfilah and Avoda, respectively. Abdallah is definitely not "praying to God", but could he be " worshipping God"? Or, indeed, just as Rivkin said "God's slave"?