Shamshir: Turkish or Syrian?

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.

23rd March 2006, 04:11 AM	#5
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	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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	#4
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	#6
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	#7
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.