"Saracen" sword

ariel · 30th July 2006, 06:49 PM

Just ended.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1
My guess that it is a nice, but not extraordinary, Persian Qajar (NOT 16th century!!!) sword, Ottoman type, plain steel, no doubt signed by Assadullah

The scabbard lost its leather and, likely, both throat and drag.
Was it worth that much?

Yannis · 30th July 2006, 07:10 PM

Well IMO I say persian too, early 19th. Nice clean kilij blade. This is important because kilij blades are more disirable of shamshir blades. Nice hilt. Scabbard is a mess. About price... I wouldnt buy it in that price but I dont blame the one who did. Desire is everything when you collect. Ask my credit cards

Hilt is probably a replacement.

Andrew · 30th July 2006, 07:41 PM

I don't know the seller at all, and have no comment about the item.

However, I would never purchase anything, let alone an item that cost thousands of dollars, from someone keeping their feedback "private".

What is that about?

Battara · 30th July 2006, 07:47 PM

I did see a remnants of silver koftgari on the hilt. Still, not worth tons of money in this condition.

I'm with you Andrew (a scary thought right there

) - I distrust "private" feedback. If I see that, I will privately move on...

Rick · 30th July 2006, 08:04 PM

I'm wit' you guys on the private feedback/private bidder thing . I think the engraving is 'different' looking and I'm not in love with the Qajar hilt .

S.Al-Anizi · 30th July 2006, 10:50 PM

Do you guys think this blade is Persian or Turkish?

Rivkin · 30th July 2006, 11:01 PM

There are a lot of "border lands" that used a mixture of ottoman and persian styles, primeraly Georgia, to lesser extent Dagestan and northern Azerbaijan. I can't say for sure where this guy comes from.

ham · 31st July 2006, 01:08 AM

Blade is unusual, Persian work in Ottoman style. Probably latter 18th c, mounts late 19th. Rare type.

Ham

ham · 31st July 2006, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yannis

This is important because kilij blades are more disirable of shamshir blades.

More disirable (sic)? Matter of personal preference, that.

erlikhan · 31st July 2006, 07:35 AM

A Turkish style Persian kilij. The hilt is changed -according to me-,thats perhaps because I hate these type ugly and cheap iron hilts,and because of this I can't match it with a beautiful kilij blade. And Ham,your opposition about preferences is right but -I think- Yannis talked for general. If the same sword had a shamshir blade instead of a kilij,for sure it would have a lower closing bid. Prices of many shamshir swords we see on ebay would easily double up if those swords had kilij blades.

Jim McDougall · 1st August 2006, 04:35 AM

The 16th century assessment and the archaic term Saracen surely do present a colorful description worthy of highly romanticized literature, recalling the antique weapons catalogs of a certain dealer whose name will not be used here

Sometimes I miss those old catalogs!!!

I agree with the observations placing this blade about late 18th c into the early 19th, and feel that it may well be one of the neoclassic blades that were termed 'Kalachuri'. In Oliver Pinchot's excellent article "The Persian Shamshir: and the Signature of Assad Allah" ("Arms Collecting", Vol.40, #1, February,2002), he notes the revival of these medieval type blades in the 19th century which had distinct ethnic significance for Persia's Turkic enclaves as well as in fact the Qajars themselves whose origins were Turkic. The shamshir remained popular of course with the Persian nobility.
The obviously later hilt and mounts, which as noted appear of probably latter 19th century, seem consistant with the Qajar 'revival' items, which I cannot recall details of thier production. Usually they are with this type motif, and the cast hilt reminds me of similar Indian weapons of that period, especially some of the serpentine bladed,parrot head hilted swords.

In the article it is noted that,"...the enormous demand for Persian blades both in Persia and abroad resulted in great increases in production at such centers as Khorassan, Qazvin and Isfahan in the late 18th and 19th centuries". Further "...Persian smiths reverted to producing a heavier and more complex type of blade, replete with fullers, grooves and false edge, which had been popular prior to the reign of Abbas". (p.7).
The data listed previous suggests these were the 'kalachuri' blades.

With the Arabian affinity for Persian blades, it does seem quite plausible that this sabre might have found its way there via the established trade routes.
It is therefore of earlier blade type, made probably in Persia of Turkic form, and later in 19th century as mounted. A most interesting sword.

Still cant figure why the guy didn't complete the description with 'scymitar'!!!

Best regards,
Jim

ariel · 1st August 2006, 04:54 AM

OK, Jim, you said the magic word: Kalachoori!
I am dying to get some actual information about this type of sword.
Please look at my early post
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2695

I am sure you have much more to say about it

Jim McDougall · 5th August 2006, 02:56 AM

Hi Ariel,
The term 'kalachuri' was taken from the footnotes in Olivers article, and I cannot seem to locate other references corresponding. I think the best sources for more on the term would be either Oliver himself or Philip Tom as they have comprehensive knowledge of this terminology.
Best regards,
Jim

31st July 2006, 07:35 AM	#10
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	A Turkish style Persian kilij. The hilt is changed -according to me-,thats perhaps because I hate these type ugly and cheap iron hilts,and because of this I can't match it with a beautiful kilij blade. And Ham,your opposition about preferences is right but -I think- Yannis talked for general. If the same sword had a shamshir blade instead of a kilij,for sure it would have a lower closing bid. Prices of many shamshir swords we see on ebay would easily double up if those swords had kilij blades. Last edited by erlikhan; 31st July 2006 at 09:40 AM.

1st August 2006, 04:54 AM	#12
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	OK, Jim, you said the magic word: Kalachoori! I am dying to get some actual information about this type of sword. Please look at my early post http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2695 I am sure you have much more to say about it Last edited by ariel; 1st August 2006 at 05:15 AM.

30th July 2006, 06:49 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	"Saracen" sword Just ended. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1 My guess that it is a nice, but not extraordinary, Persian Qajar (NOT 16th century!!!) sword, Ottoman type, plain steel, no doubt signed by Assadullah The scabbard lost its leather and, likely, both throat and drag. Was it worth that much?

30th July 2006, 07:10 PM	#2
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Well IMO I say persian too, early 19th. Nice clean kilij blade. This is important because kilij blades are more disirable of shamshir blades. Nice hilt. Scabbard is a mess. About price... I wouldnt buy it in that price but I dont blame the one who did. Desire is everything when you collect. Ask my credit cards Hilt is probably a replacement.

30th July 2006, 07:41 PM	#3
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I don't know the seller at all, and have no comment about the item. However, I would never purchase anything, let alone an item that cost thousands of dollars, from someone keeping their feedback "private". What is that about?

30th July 2006, 07:47 PM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,200	I did see a remnants of silver koftgari on the hilt. Still, not worth tons of money in this condition. I'm with you Andrew (a scary thought right there ) - I distrust "private" feedback. If I see that, I will privately move on...

30th July 2006, 08:04 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,288	I'm wit' you guys on the private feedback/private bidder thing . I think the engraving is 'different' looking and I'm not in love with the Qajar hilt .

30th July 2006, 10:50 PM	#6
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Do you guys think this blade is Persian or Turkish?

30th July 2006, 11:01 PM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	There are a lot of "border lands" that used a mixture of ottoman and persian styles, primeraly Georgia, to lesser extent Dagestan and northern Azerbaijan. I can't say for sure where this guy comes from.

31st July 2006, 01:08 AM	#8
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Blade is unusual, Persian work in Ottoman style. Probably latter 18th c, mounts late 19th. Rare type. Ham

1st August 2006, 04:35 AM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	The 16th century assessment and the archaic term Saracen surely do present a colorful description worthy of highly romanticized literature, recalling the antique weapons catalogs of a certain dealer whose name will not be used here Sometimes I miss those old catalogs!!! I agree with the observations placing this blade about late 18th c into the early 19th, and feel that it may well be one of the neoclassic blades that were termed 'Kalachuri'. In Oliver Pinchot's excellent article "The Persian Shamshir: and the Signature of Assad Allah" ("Arms Collecting", Vol.40, #1, February,2002), he notes the revival of these medieval type blades in the 19th century which had distinct ethnic significance for Persia's Turkic enclaves as well as in fact the Qajars themselves whose origins were Turkic. The shamshir remained popular of course with the Persian nobility. The obviously later hilt and mounts, which as noted appear of probably latter 19th century, seem consistant with the Qajar 'revival' items, which I cannot recall details of thier production. Usually they are with this type motif, and the cast hilt reminds me of similar Indian weapons of that period, especially some of the serpentine bladed,parrot head hilted swords. In the article it is noted that,"...the enormous demand for Persian blades both in Persia and abroad resulted in great increases in production at such centers as Khorassan, Qazvin and Isfahan in the late 18th and 19th centuries". Further "...Persian smiths reverted to producing a heavier and more complex type of blade, replete with fullers, grooves and false edge, which had been popular prior to the reign of Abbas". (p.7). The data listed previous suggests these were the 'kalachuri' blades. With the Arabian affinity for Persian blades, it does seem quite plausible that this sabre might have found its way there via the established trade routes. It is therefore of earlier blade type, made probably in Persia of Turkic form, and later in 19th century as mounted. A most interesting sword. Still cant figure why the guy didn't complete the description with 'scymitar'!!! Best regards, Jim

5th August 2006, 02:56 AM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	Hi Ariel, The term 'kalachuri' was taken from the footnotes in Olivers article, and I cannot seem to locate other references corresponding. I think the best sources for more on the term would be either Oliver himself or Philip Tom as they have comprehensive knowledge of this terminology. Best regards, Jim