Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

mahratt · 24th February 2016, 06:57 PM

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

Jim McDougall · 24th February 2016, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

I very much agree! and I think anyone here who is seriously interested in further understanding of the dilemma with the case of the Assad Allah blades should definitely read:
"On the Persian Shamshir and the Signature of Assad Allah"
Arms Collecting, Vol 40 #1, Feb. 2002
as linked by Ibrahiim here in previous post or can be found online.

In this outstanding and thoroughly researched article, Oliver notes that there are no specific tests for the actual work as far as original blades attributed to him in the literature as most descriptions are lyrical and not necessarily sufficient to be supportable. It is noted that the signature on later blades seems likely the use of the name by numerous makers as quality inference. Many examples later using name and considerably inferior are clearly forgeries.

He also cites the single historical reference which though seemingly apocryphal (in my own opinion at this point) notes:
"...Shah Abbas is said to have received a helmet from the Ottoman sultan who offered a sum of money to whoever could break the helmet with a sword. No one was able to do this until a certain Asad-a sword maker nade a sword with which he cut through the helmet".
Islamic Society in Persia
A.K.S. Lambton, London , 1954
*as cited and footnoted in Oliver's paper.

It should be noted that the time of Shah Abbas was c. 1587-1628

As has been noted, dated examples of 17th century Persian swords seem quite uncommon, but generally they seem identifiable by their characteristic heavier blades. Perhaps most of these are like the example posted by Mahratt on the example with heavier blade with wide blade near tip rather than the thinner, sweeping radius of the shamshirs we are discussing.

This would seem to lend credence to the note suggesting that most of blades signed with Assad Allah and these variations seem post Shah Abbas reign.

Still, this does not eliminate the possibility the actual existence of a distinguished sword maker named Asad, as implied by the story on the helmet event, which might have been the origin of a long standing tradition which suggests reasons for the use and perpetuation of the name on swords.

mariusgmioc · 24th February 2016, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

mahratt · 24th February 2016, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

Asadula (if it was a real person) - this is not a simple wizard. If Assadula - a real person, a great master of the sword. This wizard necessarily had to fall into the manuscripts. But no manuscripts, where his name is mentioned.
Now Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani . They have no 100% provenance. What Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani are in the museum in Tehran - not guarantee that they are the 17th century. If I take wootz Shamshir 19th century, and write on it, "Shah Abbas", it becomes Shamshir 17th century? We do not know when and who wrote the inscription on the Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani. But we know that the brand "Assadula" has generated a lot of fakes. Is not it?

Those Persian saber, which I say (and that shows in the pictures) - 100% 17 th century.

Jim McDougall · 24th February 2016, 11:54 PM

Just spent some time going through a long text of one of Manouchers articles on the Assadollah blades and markings, and he explains that he thinks the Assadollah as well as Kalb Ali are titles used by the seyyeds to describe association to descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and or devotion to Ali and mastery of the craft.
He cites references to this in his book (2006, pp.148-167), which I do not have, but wanted to add these notes.

It seems that the word 'shamshir' of course is a general Persian word for sword which predates the actual appearance of these lighter blade sabres being discussed. This as always makes it difficult when looking into early sources for references.
It does seem the sabre shown by Mahratt in the post with its scabbard has an indeed heavy blade which seems more like Central Asia type sabres of the 17th c. Naturally these were likely contemporary to these light bladed forms now visually associated with the term 'shamshir'.

It certainly seems to me , the more I read through these things that the cartouches as well as dates and allusions including what may be honorific titles must be added in a commemorative or traditional sense on these blades. Thus many of these are not of course 'fakes but genuinely quality blades with these inscriptions which have a certain talismanic imbuement .

ariel · 25th February 2016, 02:42 AM

Well, we seem to have different opinions. Since neither can be supported by a direct evidence, both are equally plausible.

I tend to go along with the simpler one: there was an exceptionally good swordmaker named Assadullah at the time of Shah Abbas who had a son named Kalbali, also a famous master.
Later Persian swordmakers signed their works with these two names either at the request of a vane customer, as the talismanic mark of exceptional quality or just for pecuniary reasons.

Other people may think differently, but there is no way we can convince each other.

We should just keep our own opinions and stop the senseless argument until new evidences becomes available.

mahratt · 25th February 2016, 04:10 AM

Guys, I do not understand why we are arguing. Make easier. Someone can show the Persian sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?

Jim McDougall · 25th February 2016, 05:05 AM

Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible.
In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven.
What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely.

So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so .

In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.

24th February 2016, 06:57 PM	#1
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

24th February 2016, 11:54 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Just spent some time going through a long text of one of Manouchers articles on the Assadollah blades and markings, and he explains that he thinks the Assadollah as well as Kalb Ali are titles used by the seyyeds to describe association to descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and or devotion to Ali and mastery of the craft. He cites references to this in his book (2006, pp.148-167), which I do not have, but wanted to add these notes. It seems that the word 'shamshir' of course is a general Persian word for sword which predates the actual appearance of these lighter blade sabres being discussed. This as always makes it difficult when looking into early sources for references. It does seem the sabre shown by Mahratt in the post with its scabbard has an indeed heavy blade which seems more like Central Asia type sabres of the 17th c. Naturally these were likely contemporary to these light bladed forms now visually associated with the term 'shamshir'. It certainly seems to me , the more I read through these things that the cartouches as well as dates and allusions including what may be honorific titles must be added in a commemorative or traditional sense on these blades. Thus many of these are not of course 'fakes but genuinely quality blades with these inscriptions which have a certain talismanic imbuement .

25th February 2016, 02:42 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, we seem to have different opinions. Since neither can be supported by a direct evidence, both are equally plausible. I tend to go along with the simpler one: there was an exceptionally good swordmaker named Assadullah at the time of Shah Abbas who had a son named Kalbali, also a famous master. Later Persian swordmakers signed their works with these two names either at the request of a vane customer, as the talismanic mark of exceptional quality or just for pecuniary reasons. Other people may think differently, but there is no way we can convince each other. We should just keep our own opinions and stop the senseless argument until new evidences becomes available.

25th February 2016, 04:10 AM	#7
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Guys, I do not understand why we are arguing. Make easier. Someone can show the Persian sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?

25th February 2016, 05:05 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible. In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven. What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely. So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so . In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.