The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

[ariel]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

[Richard Furrer]

Ariel,
I just wish to know what this particular sword's chemistry is and others in the collection would be good as well.
As to what that data proves?
It has to be placed into context with all the other data collected on other blades of the proposed time period.
BUT
no such comparable data exists.

We have wonderful analytical tools, but they are rarely used by museums for their weapons collections and one needs to start somewhere. Physical study of the metal itself is limited to a handful of data points at present.

Ric

[ariel]

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)

When I was in Topkapi, these swords were tightly guarded, set at a safe distance from the public and surrounded by rather athletic-looking "watchers". I am marveling at Ahmed's power of persuasion: to convince Topkapi's staff to let him, a 20-something year old undergraduate visitor from another country, not only to handle the coronation sword of Ottoman Sultans, but actually to bend it 45 degrees! One needs years of correspondence, tight connections, letters of recommendation, inter-museum contacts and who know what else just to be allowed to visit store rooms at the Hermitage and, likely, at any other serious museum in the world. Perhaps, he can convince his friends from Topkapi to donate a piece of this sword to you for careful study.

[VANDOO]

THE BLACKSMITHS POINT OF VIEW AND METALURGEY STUDIES HAVE ALLOWED MODERN BLACKSMITHS TO FORGE REPLICAS OF THE SWORD OF SUTTON HOO AS WELL AS THE OLD VIKINGSWORDS KNOWN AS ULFBERHT. THE STUDIES OF THE METAL AND TECKNIQUES USED IN MAKEING THESE SWORDS PROVIDED NEW KNOWLEGE AS WELL AS CONFIRMING ANCIENT TECKNIQUES. IT WOULD ADD A LOT TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT ISLAMIC WEAPONS AS IT HAS TO THE TWO MENTIONED ABOVE. A GOOD REPLICA CAN BE TESTED FOR ITS STRENGTHS AS WELL AS WEAKNESS.
THERE ARE POSTS IN THE FORUM ON THE SWORD OF SUTTON HOO AND A GOOD NOVA PROGRAM ABOUT THE ULFBERHT SWORD AS WELL. BOTH WELL WORTH WATCHING AND IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM THEY MIGHT GIVE YOU NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE STUDY OF THE SWORDS YOU ARE PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR CONTINUING QUEST.

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by ariel

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)

I obtained a few small samples for a 800-900AD Avar blade for study. The bits are very corroded so it may not yield much, but I will try.
At the right lab you can have a good look at the steel with minimal damage to the object. I am sure that some museum has a few corroded examples slowly rusting away never to see the light of day again.
The trick seems to be having the right benefactor say it needs to be done.

Vandoo:
I suggest looking at the ULFBERHT, Sutton Hoo as well as the Bamburgh Castle sword and the finds of Illerup Adal. It helps paint a broader picture of the skills involved.
You know I was the smith in the NOVA show right?

Ric

[VANDOO]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

I obtained a few small samples for a 800-900AD Avar blade for study. The bits are very corroded so it may not yield much, but I will try.
At the right lab you can have a good look at the steel with minimal damage to the object. I am sure that some museum has a few corroded examples slowly rusting away never to see the light of day again.
The trick seems to be having the right benefactor say it needs to be done.

Vandoo:
I suggest looking at the ULFBERHT, Sutton Hoo as well as the Bamburgh Castle sword and the finds of Illerup Adal. It helps paint a broader picture of the skills involved.
You know I was the smith in the NOVA show right?

Ric

I HAD LOST TRACK OF WHO FORGED THE SWORD FOR NOVA "TOO MANY IRONS IN THE FIRE AS USUAL" HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE MORE INTERESTING STUDIES AND WORK IN PROGRESS AS I ENJOYED THE NOVA PROGRAM.
THE ONLY WAY THE STUDIES OF TOPKAPI SWORDS COULD BE DONE WOULD BE IF THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT AND THE MUSEUM WERE INTERESTED IN LETTING THE WORK BE DONE ( AS YOU MENTIONED THE RIGHT BENEFACTOR MIGHT MAKE IT POSSIBLE). IT WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE TO BE UNDER STRICT SUPERVISON MOST LIKELY AT THE MUSEUM. THEY WOULD ALSO DECIDE WHO WROTE THE PAPERS AND WHAT WAS IN THEM CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SWORD BEING STUDIED THAT IS REASONABLE. NO DOUBT THERE WOULD BE THOSE FOR THE STUDY AS WELL AS THOSE OPPOSED TO IT FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS SO AGREEMENT IS NOT LIKELY ON THAT PARTICULAR SWORD.
PERHAPS OTHER SWORDS WITH SIMULAR AGE AND CONSTRUCTION BUT IN RELIC CONDITION COULD BE STUDIED TO SEE THE DIFRENCES AND SIMULARITIES IN METAL AND TECKNIQUE AND DETERMINE IF CRUCIBLE STEEL WAS USED AND AN APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME FOR THE TECKNIQUES DISCOVERY. IT WOULD BE A INTERESTING PROJECT AND I AM SURE MUCH COULD BE LEARNED.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)

When I was in Topkapi, these swords were tightly guarded, set at a safe distance from the public and surrounded by rather athletic-looking "watchers". I am marveling at Ahmed's power of persuasion: to convince Topkapi's staff to let him, a 20-something year old undergraduate visitor from another country, not only to handle the coronation sword of Ottoman Sultans, but actually to bend it 45 degrees! One needs years of correspondence, tight connections, letters of recommendation, inter-museum contacts and who know what else just to be allowed to visit store rooms at the Hermitage and, likely, at any other serious museum in the world. Perhaps, he can convince his friends from Topkapi to donate a piece of this sword to you for careful study.

Ariel,

The answer to all these questions would lay in a few words:

"Protocol; accompanied by almost endless bureaucracy procedures, luck, mutual understanding, and an innocent love story!"

As for your last proposal, I don't think this would be possible...EVER!

Cheers!
Ahmed

[ariel]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Ariel,

The answer to all these questions would lay in a few words:

"Protocol; accompanied by almost endless bureaucracy procedures, luck, mutual understanding, and an innocent love story!"



Cheers!
Ahmed

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Ariel,

Too many questions and doubts here! If you're REALLY interested in knowing the whole story, you could phone me, and I'll be glad to answer ALL the questions you want to know their answer. The fact is I'm a lazy typist, and the electricity has been cut very frequently those last days; including today; a few minutes ago!

Cheers!
Ahmed

[ariel]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Ariel,

Too many questions and doubts here! If you're REALLY interested in knowing the whole story, you could phone me, and I'll be glad to answer ALL the questions you want to know their answer. The fact is I'm a lazy typist, and the electricity has been cut very frequently those last days; including today; a few minutes ago!

Cheers!
Ahmed

Ahmed,
I am a lazy caller :-)
We started this discussion on these pages and I would prefer to continue it the same way.
You are not lazy under any circumstances: you were typing long and detailed communications one after another :-) How about answering my questions n writing too, so that everybody on the Forum can read them and judge for themselves?

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

Ahmed,
I am a lazy caller :-)
We started this discussion on these pages and I would prefer to continue it the same way.
You are not lazy under any circumstances: you were typing long and detailed communications one after another :-) How about answering my questions n writing too, so that everybody on the Forum can read them and judge for themselves?

Ariel,

I'm very flattered, but the fact is that it takes great effort for me to type; I even forget completing a long sentence that I've started. Please remember that English is but my second language.

OK, I'll type each paragraph and then post it. Actually, the disconnection of the ADSL as a result of electricity cuts really demoralizes me.

Cheers!
Ahmed

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Hello Ariel!

It's quite ironic that I composed my article "Dhu'l-Faqar" while I was sitting on Hilmi Aydin's chair and writing on his desk in Topkapi in November-December 2001! Of course, I made some additions to the article when I returned to Cairo, Egypt.

The reason why Hilmi couldn't say it was Dhu'l-Faqar was because he promised me not to declare any of my discoveries before I did. Emine Bilirgen and the others in Topkapi did the same. It's a matter of ethics.

Also, Topkapi asked for a translation of my article to Turkish. I had to go to a translation center called Furqan in Fatih District in Istanbul, and pay two hundred US Dollars to get my article translated to Turkish; only to find the curators at Topkapi say to me that the Turkish translation was poor; as it lacked the ability in translating many sword terminologies.

Also, a Turkish newspaper called "Yeni Safak" (New Dawn) said they would like to publish what I've written, but then they said that the Turkish translation wasn't good at all.

BTW, Hilmi Aydin doesn't speak English...but Emine Bilirgen does.

Noteworthy is that when Hilmi Aydin called Tahsin Taha-Oglu to come and read the inscription that I found on the sword, Tahsin said that the identification of the Prophet's sword was a great event. After reading the inscriptions and informing Hilmi and Emine that this sword was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed, he told me: "Hey! You told me that you've identified the Prophet's sword, but this is Dhu'l-Faqar; Imam Ali's sword!" Then I told him that Dhu'l-Faqar was the Prophet's sword and then it passed to Ali...so he said: "Oh! OK!" and did not comment any further.

The curators at Topkapi -although they acknowledged that I had identified Dhu'l-Faqar- really accepted the event rather coolly. In fact, Hilmi once told me: "Big deal! We have 11,000 historical objects here in Topkapi!" When I told them that announcing that Dhu'l-Faqar was in Topkapi would add to the tourists visiting Turkey; especially Topakapi...the curators smiled and winked to each other.

However, it should be noted that Hilmi Aydin did have positive comments to give me like:

"You're very clever! Very clever indeed!"

"It's a scandal that a non-Turkish scholar would identify Dhu'l-Faqar; that sword that has been many hundreds of years in Istanbul, and that has been exhibited for almost 80 years!"

He also brought an article titled "Dhu'l-Faqar"; composed in Turkish by a scholar called Tapozoglu in the Encylcopaedia of Islam (In Turkish). The article was short, but it talked about Dhu;l-Faqar's features in older sources. He then opened Professor Yucel's book at the page of Othman ibn Affan's sword (which I identified as the true Dhu'l-Faqar), and at the same time opened the Islamic Encyclopaedia at Tapozoglu's article "Dhu'l-Faqar". Then he would take each description mentioned in Tapozoglu's article and correspond it with what's in the sword's photos (in Yucel's book), and then he would laugh in agreement with what I've told him and he'd say it out loud: "You're very clever! Very clever indeed!"

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Regarding the last part of your question: I'm sorry that I was unable to photograph this sword in particular. I was unable to take the sword out of its exhibition showcase. As I said before, it was suspended in fear of an earthquake. But I was able to investigate everything in that sword. Regarding photographing, the Impearial Treasury Section has dim lighting. I had to use a light ray in order to investigate the sword thoroughly. The showcase opened from downwards to upwards; around 45 degrees only, so we had to duck until we were between the opened glass window and the sword itself, then we'd straighten ourselves again.

Kenan "the watcher" was with us; using a security wireless phone, and always answering to the main security office. I remember him receiving a question from there where he always answered by "Bilmiyorum" (I don't know). It was clear that they were asking him (when shall they finish?).

I held, investigated, and studied each sword two times; except "Dhu'l-Faqar" which I did 3 times. Worthy to note is that when I investigated the swords of the Sacred Trusts Section in the Topkapi Library (because it was warm there in late November!), I met some American scholars investigating Ottoman manuscripts (especially those dealing with Ottoman paintings). Yes, it was very weird for the tourists to see me and the curators inside the showrooms taking the swords in front of them in order to investigate and study them!

Regarding bending the blade, I did it with every sword; little by little: Bend it to say 10 degrees, then let go...it springs back...then bend it to 20 degrees, and then let go...it would then spring back right where it used to be...and so on. Of course, some swords were more elastic than others. Blades with a central ridge (of diamond cross-section) weren't tested for their elasticity.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all ~ Note to Library. Not everyone will have at their fingertips much of the specialists content referred to in the thesis of Ahmedh. It is however apparent that four in particular are outstanding and it is this group that attracts my focus as , Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni and Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Very clearly the trigger for the entire work is a combination of the authors brilliant tenacity coupled with the initial work by the famous early Islamic metallurgist (philosopher scientist mathematician etc) Al Kindi.

Col. Dr Zaky in our time has added such superb references and guides that his work is of an extremely useful calibre.

For very nice background detail please see http://www.history-science-technolog...ticles%205.htm

See http://books.google.com.om/books?id=...-_fMdeuepla1TM for some very interesting notes by Al Biruni on wootz and crucible steel.

Regards,
Ibrahiim ala Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams all ~ Note to Library. Not everyone will have at their fingertips much of the specialists content referred to in the thesis of Ahmedh. It is however apparent that four in particular are outstanding and it is this group that attracts my focus as , Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni and Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Very clearly the trigger for the entire work is a combination of the authors brilliant tenacity coupled with the initial work by the famous early Islamic metallurgist (philosopher scientist mathematician etc) Al Kindi.

Col. Dr Zaky in our time has added such superb references and guides that his work is of an extremely useful calibre.

For very nice background detail please see http://www.history-science-technolog...ticles%205.htm

See http://books.google.com.om/books?id=...-_fMdeuepla1TM for some very interesting notes by Al Biruni on wootz and crucible steel.

Regards,
Ibrahiim ala Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a trillion for your post! It was very informative and direct to the point. I hope the other members would open and read the links that you've provided.

I thank you, once again, for the effort you've undertaken to read, review, and evaluate my work. Thanks a lot, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a trillion for your post! It was very informative and direct to the point. I hope the other members would open and read the links that you've provided.

I thank you, once again, for the effort you've undertaken to read, review, and evaluate my work. Thanks a lot, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

Salaams Ahmedh... All thanks to Al Kindi !! Wa anta !!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

I agree with most of what you say, but there's a question here:

Are you saying that wrought iron can be flexible and has the ability to spring back to its original position after you bend it to 45 degrees???

The patterns were read by me via a magnifying glass; although at al-Kindi's time, people were content to see the patterns with their naked eyes!!!

Maybe you could ask Topkapi to bring you a small sample of the blade of this sword. Maybe they'll accept (though this is far-fetched). Who knows??!

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

Welcome back Richard,

I very much believe that a hard edge would reveal a sufficient carbon content; along with suitable quenching. As for the damask, the patterns on the surface of this blade were rather small and uniform; reflecting early medieval damask; not Yemeni damask.

When you're free, please share your thoughts with me; regarding early medieval Arab blades and their chemical composition. Would also be interested to know that hardness measuring device; the Vickers....

Thanks a lot in advance, sir.