mamluk khanjar ??

ariel · 20th July 2005, 09:33 PM

The very first post in this thread (by Rivkin) shows a bronze statue.
Rivkin, who is this fighter, where is the statue from and .....why does he have such a strange sword?

Rivkin · 20th July 2005, 10:59 PM

1. I think the problem is that we have no idea how khanjar is different from "dagger" - they seem to be different according to the text, therefore the whole question which is khanjar, which is dagger becomes extremely vague.

2. The stature is from Cairo Military Museum. It's supposed to be a mamluk- the fear of crusaders. There are a lot of things that look strange to me (starting with the fact that mamluks had extremely long beards, that even when cut in half were still something significant).
I have not seen monster-swords like this when it comes to crusades,
but may be it from the series when an indian made sword, that was owned by a circassian mamluk-atrak is labeled "an immortal example of arabic art" ?

ariel · 20th July 2005, 11:08 PM

For the life of me: he looks like something coming out of Russian history:
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/rus...s/slide_15.htm

RSWORD · 20th July 2005, 11:09 PM

Brian,

Unfortunately I did not take a camera but I did purchase a catalogue of the collection.

Here are two pics of the sword in question. According to the catalogue description, it is attributed to Sultan Baybars and they place the blade circa 1270. There are two inscriptions on the blade which reference Sultan Baybars. One is a great one and it translates as "Glory to our Lord, the Sultan, al-Malik, the Just, the Learned, the Defender of the Faith, The Warrior at the Frontiers......, al-Zahir Baybars, the Associate of the Commander of the Faithful, may God make his victories glorious!" The other inscription simply states "al-sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars".

Rivkin · 20th July 2005, 11:20 PM

1. Fantastic pictures ! A short sword (looks like something taken out of Samarkand's steppes is not it ?), can it be a khandjar ?

2. Ariel: The topic of russian arms and armor is a very controversial in itself. Once upon a time I had the opportunity to speak with a relatively well known russian viking archeologist, who was extremely interested in antique weapons. It's happened about 10 years ago, so lot's of it is gone from my memory, but his main point was that the majority, especially early ones, of russian arms and armour were by far not of a local manufacture. Unfortunately under the pressure from the Party the archeologists had to classify viking-frankish "ulbrecht" swords as "true russian bulat, the secret of which we don't know".

How much truth in what he told me, I don't know and I hope that someone more knowladgeble can enlighten us.

P.S. I awlays wondered if 14th century "russian" and 13th century "turko-mongolian" armour and arms related ?

B.I · 21st July 2005, 12:04 AM

hi rick,
a catalogue! of course!!
a very impressive sword and you have the advantage in having seen it. i must admit, my first impression is one of doubt on such an early attribution. the tang is of a later design. also, the inlay on such early swords was of a much higher level and the lion and script seems crude. i have seen some early dagger blades with inlay that cannot be compared to on later blades.
dates and attributions can be added and can i ask who wrote the catalogue? is the sword owned by khalili?
what was your impression of the sword and did you think it could be of such an early date?
i've attached the early blade. an interesting fact was that it was owned by the talpur family, who by repute collected early blades. the quality of the talpur swords are legendary and there are accounts of them seeking early pieces.

ariel · 21st July 2005, 12:26 AM

The Baybars' sword looks like an early Turkish Kilij or Shamshir, something like 16-19 cen. I cannot recall any 13 cen Islamic sword looking that way.
Perhaps, it was just "attributed" to Baybars, just like the so-called "Swords of the Prophet" were attributed to Mohammed... Everybody loves to have an authentic relic belonging to a famous personality. If one is not available, manufacturing it is a holy duty. I remember reading that Catholic churches around the world have something like 200 teeth of St. Paul...
I think I have already told an old Russian joke about a Soviet museum exhibiting 2 skulls of Comrade Lenin: one at age 7, and another at age 50.
I've heard the same joke from the French (Voltaire), Brits (King Arthur, I think), so the practice is well known.

RSWORD · 21st July 2005, 04:00 AM

Brian

The catalogue was written by Professor J.M. Rogers who is the Honorary Curator of the Khalili collection as well as holding the Khalili chair of Islamic art and archaeology at the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Much of the Khalili arms/armour collection was catalogued many years back by David Alexander. I do not know if the attribution to the 13th century is based on the opinion of Khalili, Alexander or any of a number of researchers that worked on his collection. I cannot say whether or not the sword would date to the 13th century. I have never handled or seen a sword of such an early date so I am poorly qualified to make such an assessment. The tang showed great age due to its coloration but we know that is not an exact science either. Some of the koftgari is obviously of a later date and the catalogue surmises it is 16th century because the particular "cloud" motif used is comparable to other 16th century work found. I would be comfortable with a 16th century date and it very well could date earlier if the inscription could be somehow authenticated. In any case, it was a nice sword that was being shown with two other really nice Shamshir and a fairly average Yataghan.

ariel · 21st July 2005, 04:45 AM

Yes, the "cloud" motif is mentioned by Astvatsaturyan as a Chinese "chi" , typical of Ottoman Turkish decoration of ~16th century and later.
The B.I.'s sword, from Talpur family, looks like Shamshir Shikargar, a hunting sword. The retaining plate at the ricasso is interesting: it looks like Yataghan's, but on the edge side of the blade.

20th July 2005, 11:09 PM	#4
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,087	Brian, Unfortunately I did not take a camera but I did purchase a catalogue of the collection. Here are two pics of the sword in question. According to the catalogue description, it is attributed to Sultan Baybars and they place the blade circa 1270. There are two inscriptions on the blade which reference Sultan Baybars. One is a great one and it translates as "Glory to our Lord, the Sultan, al-Malik, the Just, the Learned, the Defender of the Faith, The Warrior at the Frontiers......, al-Zahir Baybars, the Associate of the Commander of the Faithful, may God make his victories glorious!" The other inscription simply states "al-sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars". Attached Images

21st July 2005, 12:04 AM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi rick, a catalogue! of course!! a very impressive sword and you have the advantage in having seen it. i must admit, my first impression is one of doubt on such an early attribution. the tang is of a later design. also, the inlay on such early swords was of a much higher level and the lion and script seems crude. i have seen some early dagger blades with inlay that cannot be compared to on later blades. dates and attributions can be added and can i ask who wrote the catalogue? is the sword owned by khalili? what was your impression of the sword and did you think it could be of such an early date? i've attached the early blade. an interesting fact was that it was owned by the talpur family, who by repute collected early blades. the quality of the talpur swords are legendary and there are accounts of them seeking early pieces. Attached Images

20th July 2005, 09:33 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The very first post in this thread (by Rivkin) shows a bronze statue. Rivkin, who is this fighter, where is the statue from and .....why does he have such a strange sword?

20th July 2005, 10:59 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	1. I think the problem is that we have no idea how khanjar is different from "dagger" - they seem to be different according to the text, therefore the whole question which is khanjar, which is dagger becomes extremely vague. 2. The stature is from Cairo Military Museum. It's supposed to be a mamluk- the fear of crusaders. There are a lot of things that look strange to me (starting with the fact that mamluks had extremely long beards, that even when cut in half were still something significant). I have not seen monster-swords like this when it comes to crusades, but may be it from the series when an indian made sword, that was owned by a circassian mamluk-atrak is labeled "an immortal example of arabic art" ?

20th July 2005, 11:08 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	For the life of me: he looks like something coming out of Russian history: http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/rus...s/slide_15.htm

20th July 2005, 11:20 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	1. Fantastic pictures ! A short sword (looks like something taken out of Samarkand's steppes is not it ?), can it be a khandjar ? 2. Ariel: The topic of russian arms and armor is a very controversial in itself. Once upon a time I had the opportunity to speak with a relatively well known russian viking archeologist, who was extremely interested in antique weapons. It's happened about 10 years ago, so lot's of it is gone from my memory, but his main point was that the majority, especially early ones, of russian arms and armour were by far not of a local manufacture. Unfortunately under the pressure from the Party the archeologists had to classify viking-frankish "ulbrecht" swords as "true russian bulat, the secret of which we don't know". How much truth in what he told me, I don't know and I hope that someone more knowladgeble can enlighten us. P.S. I awlays wondered if 14th century "russian" and 13th century "turko-mongolian" armour and arms related ?

21st July 2005, 12:26 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The Baybars' sword looks like an early Turkish Kilij or Shamshir, something like 16-19 cen. I cannot recall any 13 cen Islamic sword looking that way. Perhaps, it was just "attributed" to Baybars, just like the so-called "Swords of the Prophet" were attributed to Mohammed... Everybody loves to have an authentic relic belonging to a famous personality. If one is not available, manufacturing it is a holy duty. I remember reading that Catholic churches around the world have something like 200 teeth of St. Paul... I think I have already told an old Russian joke about a Soviet museum exhibiting 2 skulls of Comrade Lenin: one at age 7, and another at age 50. I've heard the same joke from the French (Voltaire), Brits (King Arthur, I think), so the practice is well known.

21st July 2005, 04:00 AM	#8
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,087	Brian The catalogue was written by Professor J.M. Rogers who is the Honorary Curator of the Khalili collection as well as holding the Khalili chair of Islamic art and archaeology at the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Much of the Khalili arms/armour collection was catalogued many years back by David Alexander. I do not know if the attribution to the 13th century is based on the opinion of Khalili, Alexander or any of a number of researchers that worked on his collection. I cannot say whether or not the sword would date to the 13th century. I have never handled or seen a sword of such an early date so I am poorly qualified to make such an assessment. The tang showed great age due to its coloration but we know that is not an exact science either. Some of the koftgari is obviously of a later date and the catalogue surmises it is 16th century because the particular "cloud" motif used is comparable to other 16th century work found. I would be comfortable with a 16th century date and it very well could date earlier if the inscription could be somehow authenticated. In any case, it was a nice sword that was being shown with two other really nice Shamshir and a fairly average Yataghan.

21st July 2005, 04:45 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yes, the "cloud" motif is mentioned by Astvatsaturyan as a Chinese "chi" , typical of Ottoman Turkish decoration of ~16th century and later. The B.I.'s sword, from Talpur family, looks like Shamshir Shikargar, a hunting sword. The retaining plate at the ricasso is interesting: it looks like Yataghan's, but on the edge side of the blade.