The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Ahmed,
It has been days now, and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to adequately read through your paper as thoroughly as I could. I also did retrieve Dr. Alexander's work on Dhu'l -faqar as you implored.
I have been virtually immersed in rereading various parts of your paper and reviewing the content of Dr. Alexander's concurrently.
As I have indicated earlier I do not purport to have any particular expertise on Islamic arms and armor, however I have what may be considered a reasonable working knowledge. I also will note I have no advanced formal education or degrees so I may be considered 'non-academic' as well. Therefore I very much appreciate your confidence and favor toward specialists in arms and armor technically outside academic circles.

I must point out however that while the highly respected authorities you cite here, specifically Mr. Reinhardt; Mr. Clements and Mr. Oakeshott, are superbly informed and highly experienced, their expertise is primarily on medieval and renaissance arms and armor, which of course is fully many centuries later than that in which Dhu'l faqar is from.

As I have been consulting every reference and resource I have at hand, I wish to emphasize that my objectives are to find support and if possible any kind of corroboration which might strengthen what I consider a remarkable paper. I reiterate that I very much like the deductive reasoning you have displayed in what is a profoundly innovative and provocative approach to the mysteries of this magnificent sword.

It is important that I note here several things concerning Dr. Alexander's paper. I would point out that his work concerns Dhu'l faqar as it is perceived in history, literature and religious symbolism, rather than it's being located and substantiation of it's identity. In these respects, these papers are both resoundingly important in their quite different thesis' .

I also want to note that I have discovered through well informed sources that Dr. Alexander does indeed speak Arabic, and would note that he did in degree use al-Kindi as a cited source for certain references in his work. I think it is important that we recognize him for the scholarship he has achieved and concentrate on the work you are pursuing with your paper here.

At this point I hope to continue the discussion of your article here by finding more support or as required, alterations to the assertions made. I emphasize again, this is to be exercised constructively, and I hope that others here will join in analysis of this fascinating approach to this most important study.

For example, I was having difficulty with absorbing the idea of this, or any sword for that matter, being an iron cleaving sword. I had overlooked that you had specified 'mail, not necessarily plate armor, so that indeed made much more sense. I then checked into "Oriental Armour" H.Russell Robinson, 1967 (p.24) where the armour used by the Arab caliphate of the 7th century closely followed Sassanian and Persian equipment remained essentially the same for some time. This consisted of mail shirt and lamellar breast plate.
I looked into "By the Sword" (Richard Cohen, 2002, pp. 13,18,20) and found discussion regarding the increasing in thickness of armor, especially that of plate armor later with advent of gunpowder and firearms, but nothing more pertaining to warfare early enough to be of help.

Of much more help was "An Introduction to Arms and Warfare in Classical Islam" Dr. David Nicolle ("Islamic Arms and Armour", R. Elgood, ed. 1979, p.163)..."...lamella and mail were not unknown but the most valued armor of that era was a long hauberk known as the 'dir'. So valuable was a dir that in the pre Islamic period, tribes would carry out raids specifically to capture them".

This discussion refers to the period in which Dhu'l faqar would have been actively in use and illustrates that indeed, a heavy bladed sword such as this would have been conducive to the kind of crushing blows which would have tended to such armor of mail or lamellar. It would appear as well that armor which had been weakened either through damage or rusted as often could happen on campaign , might be defeated by blows by such a heavy weapon.

I will say here though that I am not sure the nature of the grooves or fullering in this case would impact the success of blows toward this armor as the blade would not be expected to pass through the armor in the way a cut to flesh and bone would react.

Again, this is what I mean as far as finding support or rebuttal toward the material, and meant to be entered respectfully with the goal of strengthening this work.

With all very best regards,
Jim

Dear Jim,

I'm very thankful for the efforts you've undertaken for the sake of my paper; along with reading Dr. Alexander's article. I really don't know from where I should begin, but let's start with the topic regarding non-academic experts on arms and armor:

Now then, most -if not all of us- know that our field of interest and expertise (arms and armor) has no place in universities; except when it comes to the study of art (like Asian art, Near Eastern art, Islamic art, etc). The professors there usually focus in the decorations of these objects (weapons). In short, none of them usually has our interest, our love, and our knowledge with arms and armor. This is why when I submitted my article here, I believed I've come to the right place. Granted that you, Jim, may not be specialized in Islamic arms and armor, but I believe well that you know a lot of things about arms and armor that would qualify you to judge my work, and the works of others in Islamic arms and armor as well. I mean you know how a sword cuts, thrusts, how an armor cleaving blade looks like, whether the hilt was appropriate for the blade or not, if its temper and other heat treatments were superb or not, etc. Academics usually do not know that.

Regarding Dr. Alexander's ability to speak Arabic, I telephoned him from Cairo, Egypt to where he resides in Puycesi, France on March 3rd 2008, and I asked him whether he liked me sending him a copy of my article, and he said that he'd love to read it. I then asked him: "Do you speak Arabic?" He replied: "No", but then he said that I could send him the article and he'll try to capture what he could understand from it. I then asked him whether I should translate my article to English for him, and he replied that that would be better. He then laughed and commented: "Your English is very good!" So, I translated my article to English using my own skills in English. I also remember that when he asked me to connect him with the curator of the arms and armor department in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo, that the Egyptian curator had to speak English with him in order for the two to understand each other. They spoke by phone, and I remember that the curator was that fluent in English; yet the conversation wasn't in Arabic.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Ahmed,
It has been days now, and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to adequately read through your paper as thoroughly as I could. I also did retrieve Dr. Alexander's work on Dhu'l -faqar as you implored.
I have been virtually immersed in rereading various parts of your paper and reviewing the content of Dr. Alexander's concurrently.
As I have indicated earlier I do not purport to have any particular expertise on Islamic arms and armor, however I have what may be considered a reasonable working knowledge. I also will note I have no advanced formal education or degrees so I may be considered 'non-academic' as well. Therefore I very much appreciate your confidence and favor toward specialists in arms and armor technically outside academic circles.

I must point out however that while the highly respected authorities you cite here, specifically Mr. Reinhardt; Mr. Clements and Mr. Oakeshott, are superbly informed and highly experienced, their expertise is primarily on medieval and renaissance arms and armor, which of course is fully many centuries later than that in which Dhu'l faqar is from.

As I have been consulting every reference and resource I have at hand, I wish to emphasize that my objectives are to find support and if possible any kind of corroboration which might strengthen what I consider a remarkable paper. I reiterate that I very much like the deductive reasoning you have displayed in what is a profoundly innovative and provocative approach to the mysteries of this magnificent sword.

It is important that I note here several things concerning Dr. Alexander's paper. I would point out that his work concerns Dhu'l faqar as it is perceived in history, literature and religious symbolism, rather than it's being located and substantiation of it's identity. In these respects, these papers are both resoundingly important in their quite different thesis' .

I also want to note that I have discovered through well informed sources that Dr. Alexander does indeed speak Arabic, and would note that he did in degree use al-Kindi as a cited source for certain references in his work. I think it is important that we recognize him for the scholarship he has achieved and concentrate on the work you are pursuing with your paper here.

At this point I hope to continue the discussion of your article here by finding more support or as required, alterations to the assertions made. I emphasize again, this is to be exercised constructively, and I hope that others here will join in analysis of this fascinating approach to this most important study.

For example, I was having difficulty with absorbing the idea of this, or any sword for that matter, being an iron cleaving sword. I had overlooked that you had specified 'mail, not necessarily plate armor, so that indeed made much more sense. I then checked into "Oriental Armour" H.Russell Robinson, 1967 (p.24) where the armour used by the Arab caliphate of the 7th century closely followed Sassanian and Persian equipment remained essentially the same for some time. This consisted of mail shirt and lamellar breast plate.
I looked into "By the Sword" (Richard Cohen, 2002, pp. 13,18,20) and found discussion regarding the increasing in thickness of armor, especially that of plate armor later with advent of gunpowder and firearms, but nothing more pertaining to warfare early enough to be of help.

Of much more help was "An Introduction to Arms and Warfare in Classical Islam" Dr. David Nicolle ("Islamic Arms and Armour", R. Elgood, ed. 1979, p.163)..."...lamella and mail were not unknown but the most valued armor of that era was a long hauberk known as the 'dir'. So valuable was a dir that in the pre Islamic period, tribes would carry out raids specifically to capture them".

This discussion refers to the period in which Dhu'l faqar would have been actively in use and illustrates that indeed, a heavy bladed sword such as this would have been conducive to the kind of crushing blows which would have tended to such armor of mail or lamellar. It would appear as well that armor which had been weakened either through damage or rusted as often could happen on campaign , might be defeated by blows by such a heavy weapon.

I will say here though that I am not sure the nature of the grooves or fullering in this case would impact the success of blows toward this armor as the blade would not be expected to pass through the armor in the way a cut to flesh and bone would react.

Again, this is what I mean as far as finding support or rebuttal toward the material, and meant to be entered respectfully with the goal of strengthening this work.

With all very best regards,
Jim

Welcome back, Jim!

Regarding Dr. Alexander and al-Kindi's Treatise, believe me when I tell you that I was stunned when, in a phone call between us on August 19th 2008, he told me that he hasn't read al-Kindi (although the treatise is mentioned in his work; as well as the bibliography of his sources and references), but that's what he told me.

As for Hank Reinhardt and Ewart Oakeshott, it's true that their primary focus was on European swords, but the fact remains that the European swords dating from 500 to 900 C.E. had a big share of their interest. In fact, it was during the time Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured that the golden age of the pattern-welded straight double-edged sword flourished in Europe. Both had great knowledge about the Migration Period swords. I think Dr. Lee Jones also has very vast knowledge about swords in that era. As for John Clements, he's well-known about how swords cut, and how duels occur; even in that period (7th century C.E.), so that's something.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Ahmed,
It has been days now, and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to adequately read through your paper as thoroughly as I could. I also did retrieve Dr. Alexander's work on Dhu'l -faqar as you implored.
I have been virtually immersed in rereading various parts of your paper and reviewing the content of Dr. Alexander's concurrently.
As I have indicated earlier I do not purport to have any particular expertise on Islamic arms and armor, however I have what may be considered a reasonable working knowledge. I also will note I have no advanced formal education or degrees so I may be considered 'non-academic' as well. Therefore I very much appreciate your confidence and favor toward specialists in arms and armor technically outside academic circles.

I must point out however that while the highly respected authorities you cite here, specifically Mr. Reinhardt; Mr. Clements and Mr. Oakeshott, are superbly informed and highly experienced, their expertise is primarily on medieval and renaissance arms and armor, which of course is fully many centuries later than that in which Dhu'l faqar is from.

As I have been consulting every reference and resource I have at hand, I wish to emphasize that my objectives are to find support and if possible any kind of corroboration which might strengthen what I consider a remarkable paper. I reiterate that I very much like the deductive reasoning you have displayed in what is a profoundly innovative and provocative approach to the mysteries of this magnificent sword.

It is important that I note here several things concerning Dr. Alexander's paper. I would point out that his work concerns Dhu'l faqar as it is perceived in history, literature and religious symbolism, rather than it's being located and substantiation of it's identity. In these respects, these papers are both resoundingly important in their quite different thesis' .

I also want to note that I have discovered through well informed sources that Dr. Alexander does indeed speak Arabic, and would note that he did in degree use al-Kindi as a cited source for certain references in his work. I think it is important that we recognize him for the scholarship he has achieved and concentrate on the work you are pursuing with your paper here.

At this point I hope to continue the discussion of your article here by finding more support or as required, alterations to the assertions made. I emphasize again, this is to be exercised constructively, and I hope that others here will join in analysis of this fascinating approach to this most important study.

For example, I was having difficulty with absorbing the idea of this, or any sword for that matter, being an iron cleaving sword. I had overlooked that you had specified 'mail, not necessarily plate armor, so that indeed made much more sense. I then checked into "Oriental Armour" H.Russell Robinson, 1967 (p.24) where the armour used by the Arab caliphate of the 7th century closely followed Sassanian and Persian equipment remained essentially the same for some time. This consisted of mail shirt and lamellar breast plate.
I looked into "By the Sword" (Richard Cohen, 2002, pp. 13,18,20) and found discussion regarding the increasing in thickness of armor, especially that of plate armor later with advent of gunpowder and firearms, but nothing more pertaining to warfare early enough to be of help.

Of much more help was "An Introduction to Arms and Warfare in Classical Islam" Dr. David Nicolle ("Islamic Arms and Armour", R. Elgood, ed. 1979, p.163)..."...lamella and mail were not unknown but the most valued armor of that era was a long hauberk known as the 'dir'. So valuable was a dir that in the pre Islamic period, tribes would carry out raids specifically to capture them".

This discussion refers to the period in which Dhu'l faqar would have been actively in use and illustrates that indeed, a heavy bladed sword such as this would have been conducive to the kind of crushing blows which would have tended to such armor of mail or lamellar. It would appear as well that armor which had been weakened either through damage or rusted as often could happen on campaign , might be defeated by blows by such a heavy weapon.

I will say here though that I am not sure the nature of the grooves or fullering in this case would impact the success of blows toward this armor as the blade would not be expected to pass through the armor in the way a cut to flesh and bone would react.

Again, this is what I mean as far as finding support or rebuttal toward the material, and meant to be entered respectfully with the goal of strengthening this work.

With all very best regards,
Jim

Regarding Dr. Alexander's work, I usually thought that my work was complementary to his, but after I sent him my article to review, I discovered that he didn't look to it that way. He thought that his PhD, as well as his later work, had grasped "all aspects of Dhu'l-Faqar"; including how the blade would have looked like, the hilt, the scabbard, the combat qualities of the sword, etc. At first, he told me that he believed the blade of this sword to be manufactured in the 16th century CE (thus after Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured with at least 9 centuries!), but it could be noted that in his article, he claims the blade of the sword in my article was manufactured in the 14th century C.E.! A week later, he told me that he was unable to thoroughly study and investigate this particular sword, unfortunately. He then told me stories of how the bureaucracy in Turkey badly affected his studies in Topkapi and the Askeri Museums; such a thing that did the same for me too!!! From his apologetic style, I was able to deduce that he was beginning to acknowledge that this was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed, but the sad fact was that all of our future calls and emails NEVER spoke about this issue again,...EVER! The sad fact was that he was not ready to debate with me regarding this issue anymore. In fact, it was his skill in making me shift my conversations with him to other topics; one of which he told me that he's been fasting the Islamic month of Ramadan for twenty something years! Very soon afterwards, I decided to stop any further contacts with him. It was clear that he was not ready to talk to me anymore on that topic, and that if I tried to do that again, he'll just change the subject.

[AhmedH]

Sorry for the typing error: I meant to say that the curator of arms and armor in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo WASN'T that fluent in English, yet Dr. Alexander spoke to him in English, instead of Arabic.

Regarding the grooves and ridges, they DO NOT increase the cutting ability of a sword, but they do help in absorbing the opposite force on the sword blade (that came as a result of the heavy blow of the sword and its wielder; especially against the metal armor). These grooves have other functions too.

Sassanian (and even Parthian) armor may have influenced Arab armor in the seventh century C.E., but that wasn't the main influence. The people of Yemen after c. 570 C.E. have decided to make a dramatic evolution for arms and armor in their country; something that also greatly influenced the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs of Syria, Palestine, and Southern Iraq, missed this great revolution and evolution; as they preferred being influenced by the Byzantines and the Sassanians. Wearing two full-length coats of chain-mail was very much well-known by c. 620; before that (probably around c. 580 C.E.), a full-length hauberk of mail with double-rings (6-in-1, or even 8-in-1, or 8-in-2) was known in Yemen. Full-length but sleeveless cloaks of lamellar steel plates were also worn by many warriors over their full-length full sleeved hauberks of chain-mail. Dir' was the name of a hauberk of chain-mail. The Arabs were also masters of the gambeson. They also wore raw silk and other non-metal armor in addition to their metal armor for increased protection.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

...
...As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor ....
...

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Hi Alex,

The idea that these huge swords were claimed to be "ceremonial" came from a continuous erroneous build up of information falsely claimed by European historians and early arms and armor "experts". Please let me explain more:

There has always been a misconception that during the Middle Ages (even the early Middle Ages), the Christian European warrior was usually heavier armed and armored than his Muslim counterpart. You'll find that in the writings of Gibbon, Creasy, Lane-Poole, Runciman, Meyer, Dupuy, Regan, Newby, etc. Even Dr. David Nicolle, who tried to refute many of such claims, found himself repeating many of these misconceptions. European historians and arms and armor experts have thought that in the period between 500 to 900 CE, European swords were longer, broader, and heavier than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The same was believed with the armor, and other military accoutrements. To be frank with you, this had to do with bias, along with anti-Islamic sentiments. If you read a lot in history, you'll always find Western historians giving materialistic explanations to the victories made by the Germanic tribes against the Romans (and later the Byzantines). You'll find them doing the same thing with the victories of the Huns, and later the Mongols. But when it comes to the early Islamic victories of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., and even the later on victories, these historians shall not give materialistic reasons for the Muslims victories; other than that the Muslims had far more numbers, and that there may have been a "fifth column" within Christian ranks. Others added that the Muslims usually had far more archers, and that the Muslims didn't care about their lives. But you'll find nothing being said about superior Arab and Islamic arms and armor; especially in terms of combat capabilities. This intended ignoring was done despite the fact that the Islamic sources are full of detailed information of how the Arabs and early Muslims were armed and armored; mush more information than that that speak about Germanic and Mongol arms and armor. When, at last, Western students of arms and armor started translating Islamic sources regarding the arms and armor of the Muslim warriors many errors were done, and I do not know why these errors ever happened. For example:

The Arabic word "faris" literally means "knight"...instead, Western scholars erroneously translate the word to "light horseman"!!!

The Arabic word "ratl" literally means "pound" (i.e. 16 ounces, or 453.7 grams). Instead, Western scholars translated it to 0.6 pounds!!!

A "sibr" means "span"...so, 4 "shibrs" (spans) would equal 36 inches (thus 91.44 cm), right? But the Western scholars claimed it would equal 31.5 inches (80 cm) only!!!

...And so on! Via such bias, the erroneous belief that those huge swords in Topkapi were ceremonial swords appeared. Al-Kindi states that while Frankish swords of the 8th and 9th centuries C.E. weighed 1.75 to 2.5 ratls (pounds); and this is what Hank Reinhardt and others (like Oakeshott) have stated in their compositions, he also stated that there were Arab swords that weighed up to 5 lbs were used by the Muslims at that time!

Instead of referring to al-Kindi, and holding the erroneous belief that Arab swords were lighter than their European counterparts, those who investigated the swords of Topkapi came quickly to an unfounded conclusion that these huge swords (some of which weighed as heavy as 5 lbs) were nothing more than ceremonial swords used by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks for their elite royalty!!!

Now you understand from where the claim that the swords in Topkakpi were ceremonial swords came from??? If you need more clarification, please say so. OK???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Welcome back, Alex!

A quick correction: It's "shibr" and not "sibr" that means "span" (i.e. 9 inches or 22.86 cm).

Among the other erroneous translations:

"Sayf"; which means "sword", was erroneously translated to "short sword" instead!!!

When al-Kindi said that some sword blades were "4 fingers wide"; thus their width (immediately after the hilt) was 3 inches, the Western scholars explained that to a much slimmer width (can't remember exactly what their calculations were, but it was considerably less than 3 inches, anyway), and so on.

As for testing the cutting ability of the blade of the sword now preserved in Topkapi under inv. no. 2/3775, I don't think anyone will EVER be allowed to do so...so, I can't really get your point from what you said regarding that. Do you mean to say that the answer to this sword shall remain vague forever? Please explain more.

BTW, the Ottoman curved hilt (referring to the 16th century CE) for this straight double-edged broad and heavy blade makes it almost impossible for one to wield the sword; except by two hands; one gripping the grip, and the other holding the blade from its middle, or near the blade's point.

No, this sword is not the largest sword referring to the 7th century CE. There's a sword attributed to Ja'far ibn Abi-Taleb (d. 629 CE) that has a longer and heavier blade than the sword of my article.

BTW, do you have any references...or have you read some of these references that deal with the history of the passing of the Prophet's relics from one ruling dynasty to another?? I believe Ahmed Taymour Pasha's work regarding this issue is top notch. His book even explains why the Prophet's relics were not lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.

Again, it would be much more logical if one were to compare the 7th century Arab swords preserved in Topkapi with what al-Kindi, al-Kateb, al-Biruni, and the countless 7th-9th century Arab poems said about the Arab swords back then, and see if they coincided (and actually they did very precisely!); rather than to make a quick and unfounded claim that these swords were ceremonial swords manufactured between the 14th and 17th centuries CE, just because of their immoderate dimensions and weights, along with their excessive decorations and ornamentation. Now the latter procedure would be nothing more than repetitions of repetitions of erroneous beliefs based on false information that was passed without any revision, correction, or even questioning.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

ALEX said: "I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Dear Richard,
Salaams!

Of course you're welcome to this discussion. You'll never be too late, I hope. But first, I gotta understand the meaning of metallographic first! I'll check it out very soon!

Welcome to the discussions, Ric!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Welcome back, Richard!

Regarding metalographic studies done on this blade, I do not know any. However, I'll tell what I've experimented, observed, and concluded:

1- The blade is flexible and elastic; something which reveals it was made from superior steel with superior quenching and tempering. The blade springs back very well after you bend it. This proves the superiority of the steel from which it was forged.

2- The damask on the surface of the blade is rather small; even smaller than that of most other Arab blades preserved in Topkapi. This proves that the blade was made of crucible steel; as the blade is certainly not pattern-welded. The damask is what al-Kindi described as Indian damask; not Yemeni damask.

BTW, can you know, via metalography, the age of a certain blade? Please explain further...

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

[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

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

ALEX said: "I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

Dear Ric,

Thanks a lot for your clarifying post. Your postings are of great importance indeed. Regarding the weight, dimensions, etc...these are stated in pages 27-29.

BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

I very much agree with you regarding the blacksmiths point of view! I'm sure I've come to the right place, and am talking with the right people!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[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

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

Dear Alex,

Thank you very much for this. I look forward to your reviews and comments, Sir!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Dear Ric,


BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

[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

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

The author's name is Prof. So'ad Maher. The one who conducted the analysis was Prof. Saleh Ahmed Saleh. The journa'sl name is the Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology. The article's title is: "The Sword that is attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now preserved in al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo." Edition year: 1976.

Hope this helps!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[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 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

[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,

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?

[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:-)