Early Islamic Signature

[rand]

Is the signature or inscription readable? Is on an early Islamic blade.

http://earlyislamicsword.blogspot.com/


rand

[rand]

Whole Sword Photo

Overall length 35 &1/4"

Blade length 31"

[rand]

This is a blade curvature photo study of the kilij compared to a very early shamshir blade with a shallow curve. The kilij sword is laid over the top of the shamshir on the bottom photo and the shamshir laid over the top of the kilij on the upper photo. Its shows that the two swords have very similar blade curvatures.

rand

[rand]

In this photo the kilij is laid over a classic shaped shamshir from the period of SHah Abbas. You can see how the curvature changes when the blades near their tips. The shamshir underneath has a very long 35" blade that makes the kilj look short, the kilij blade is 31" in length.

rand

[rand]

Comparison of the blades front sections side by side

[rand]

Notice how thick the gold is overlayed in the design,

[rand]

These are the three sword in the photo study above.

[rand]

Here is a reference for the design on the kilij, its on a sword at the Metropoliten Museum of Art that was made for Babur bewteen 1500-1526. The black and white photo is Baburs sword and Baburs sword with close up of design on blade.

[rand]

Sword Photo's.....

[rand]

Originally Posted by rand

Is the signature or inscription readable? Is on an early Islamic blade.

http://earlyislamicsword.blogspot.com/


rand

Have been comparing top inscription to Islamic alphabets and am wondering if its says either "Allah" or " something Allah", your help is appreciated....

rand

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hey Rand,

These are very beautiful swords, and what you show for evidence looks very interesting.

Jens

[rand]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hey Rand,

These are very beautiful swords, and what you show for evidence looks very interesting.

Jens

Thanks Jens,

This has been a fascinating study. Overlaying the swords on each other was an eye opener.

One thing to note is that on the raised areas of design the steel is a dark color, in a raised areas such as this you would expect to have scabbard wear polishing the raised steel areas bright. You can see how the wear has even worn away some of the raised steel decoration in places. To me this implys that some has stained the blade in recent years to bring out the pattern in the steel and did not want to risk damaging any of the gold decoration when repolishing avoiding getting close. Will contemplate this over time as it may be something to correct.

rand

[rand]

Originally Posted by rand

Is the signature or inscription readable? Is on an early Islamic blade.

http://earlyislamicsword.blogspot.com/


rand

Am working on translating this, are there four a's ( one vertical mark for beginning "a" and the three short marks on bottom for middle a's) and two l's?

rand

[Jens Nordlunde]

Rand, a very interesting observation, I wonder how many made the same observation - I did not, although I should have.

[rand]

Some Early Ottoman swords and one other.......

Top sword dates 1481-1512
Overall length 100cm
Blade length 85cm

Second sword dated 1506-7
Overall length 92cm
Blade length 81cm

Third sword
dated 1506-7
Overall length 95.5cm
Blade length 80.5cm

Fourth sword
Overall length 91cm
Blade length 79.5cm

[Jens Nordlunde]

A fantastic display Rand. One who may be able to help with a translation, is the former director of Top Kapi Museum in Istanbul, Yuncel - if he is still alive.
Jens

[rand]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

A fantastic display Rand. One who may be able to help with a translation, is the former director of Top Kapi Museum in Istanbul, Yuncel - if he is still alive.
Jens

Hey Jens,

Have followed up on your suggestion and sent an email attention to him to the Islamic Research group he worked with....

rand

[rand]

Thanks to Sancar Ozar and his fellow Turkish Art historian have a translation of the inscriptions.

"Sorry for the late answer. I sent pictures of inscriptions on the kilic to a fellow art historian friend of mine from university who is very experienced on translating old letters. He was very busy and so he could return my e-mail today.Anyway according to his mail inscription in the picture is translated as "Bismillah" (İn the Name of Allah). He only could partially read the second inscription(which is in the right direction in the last picture you posted) because the gold inlay had partially come off. İt is a word, something like "namirun"(well, it is how it sounds when you write in Turkish,I guess it should sound like "neameeroon" for english sepakers). I have no idea what it means."

Thank You again Sancar and friend.....

rand

[rand]

Looked up namirun to see if it was Arabic, turns out it is and means tiger....

rand

[rand]

Comments received from Sancar Ozer....

"Tiger is the totem of "alp" warrior class in Turkic societies. Alp(alıp,alıb, alpago,alpakut etc.) and/or Batur(bagatur, baatur,batyr, bahadır etc.) were the name of a class of noble cavalry warriors who serve under a "bey". The word itself means hero or warrior in old Turkish and a popular name throughout Turkish history. Historians believe this warrior type formed in Central Asia in 6th century and continued to exist till 18th century. Tımarlı Sipahi cavalries were their last manifestation. İt can be compared to samurai and knight warrior classes of Japan and Europe.
Anyway tiger is widely used as those warriors' main symbol. İt symbolised strength and fighting spirit and it is closely related to shamanistic religion of central asian Turks. Alps used to wear tiger skin on their armour. Then they started to decorate thir clothes with tiger stripe motifs(a.k.a chinese clouds) And people used to name their sons after this symbol. You can find a large amount of warrior kings and heros with the name of "tiger" in Turkish (or Turkic, I really don't know what is the difference) history.Two examples are Sultan Baybars(Bey+pars=Lord+panther-difference between leopard and tiger is not clear in old turkish language)of Memluklu and Babur Şah of Mughal empires."

Thank You for this information Sancar,

rand

[rand]

The below exert from Denizar,

"The timar system of the Ottoman Empire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

The economy of the Ottoman Empire was mainly based on farming. It is known that the Ottomans were not involved in trading and merchandise especially in the first eras of the empire. The trade of the empire was usually handled by the minorities. Instead, the Ottoman economic policy was based on war and conquering new lands. Until the Turks started to develop and involve themselves in other areas, their wealth was dependant on the land system.

Introduction to the Timar system

The longevity of the Ottoman Empire was mostly dependant on its economic and military systems. Timar was one of these systems and addressed both the economy and the military of the Empire.

It was not possible for the Central Government to manage all the lands owned by the Ottoman Empire. Not only it would require a lot of organization, but it would also be an inefficient way of working the land. Therefore the government gave (or loaned) land to certain people. These people were called reaya and were expected to work the land and pay a certain amount of their income as tax.

Starting with Osman Gazi and Fatih Sultan Mehmed, the Padishah’s began to exchange the right to collect the tax given by the reaya, in return for certain services, preferably military. The people who were given this privilege were called timariots (timar holders). These tax collectors did not own the land, and the reaya were not their slaves. Instead of land, they owned the rights to collect the taxes, and in exchange for this income, they had to support the army with a number of cavalrymen, called the sipahis. The number of troops they needed to supply depended on the amount of income the timars provided. As a result of this system, the Government was able to efficiently manage the economy, and call upon an army of timarli sipahi’s when needed.

What were the roots of the timar system and how did it differ from the feudal system in Europe?

It would be wrong to search for the roots of the timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that in the feudal system the peasants are literally slaves of the landowning class. In the timar system, the timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the reaya. The people on the other hand are not slaves of the timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the timariots.

Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called ikta, and were very similar to timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the ikta system was a previous version of the timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the timar system.

More about the timar system

The timar system meant that the farming income of the government was in the hands of the reaya. If the reaya stopped working the land, the economy would be damaged. To prevent this, if a timar was not harvested for a certain period of time (usually three years) the reaya and the timariot would be replaced by law. The only exception was when the land was being rested, and during this period the reaya would not be expected to plant any crops. In order to help the reaya during this period, the timariots would not collect tax. The law meant that the timar had to be worked as efficiently as possible, contributing greatly to the economy of the Empire.

The timars differed in sizes, and were categorized into three groups determined by the amount of income they provided. If a timar’s yearly income exceeded 100.000 akce the timar would be called has and it would usually be given to sultans, beys, viziers or princes. Timars that had a yearly income between 20.000 and 100.000 akce were called zeamet, and these were given to high-ranking officials. The rest were simply called timars. In times of war, each timarli sipahi was supposed to bring one soldier armed and mounted for each 3000 akce income. For the zeamet and has sipahis this amount would be 5000 akce. In the best times of the Ottoman Empire, the army could call up to 100.000 cavalrymen.

When a timariot died, his eldest son would be given the choice to replace the father. Otherwise, the land would be given to another person, usually someone loyal to the Sultan. This way the quality and the loyalty of the timariots were kept at a maximum. The system also contributed to the preservation of the throne. The army of the Empire consisted of kapikulu soldiers (Kapikulu soldiers were usually devshirmes, Christians taken at childhood and converted to Muslim, thought in the best schools the arts of governing and war) who received a salary by the government. These men could have a great influence on the politics of the empire, but this was prevented by keeping the balance of forces (timarli sipahis and kapikulu soldiers) even.

It is very important to mention that an empire run by such system would inevitably depend on war. In order to have a larger economy and military, the Ottomans needed to conquer more land. As more territories were controlled by the government, more timars could be loaned. This meant more farming income and more cavalrymen."

Quoted from Denizar

[rand]

Alp (Hero) Sipahi were the Ottoman heavy cavalry, their blazon was a tiger. The were Christian slaves bought when young and trained in the arts of war. They were not allowed to marry and their units became their family. They were supported by the fief system and owed their loyalty to the Sultan (strong). They would wear tiger skins over their armor, they had coats with stylized tiger stripes and once a year the Sultan would wear his tiger striped coat and go to the Sipahi dwellings to receive a traditional yearly pay same as the Sipahi.

rand

[rand]

From Islamic and Art Patronage, the al- Sabah Collection,


"TILE WITH EPIGRAPHIC BLAZON OF SULTAN QAITBAY


Egypt, late 15th century
Diameter 30.0 cm (11 13/16 in.)
LNS 190 C

The blazon on this circular tile - with the text placed in three horizontal fields reserved in white against a blue ground and bordered in black - belonged to the Mamluk sultan Qaitbay. The Arabic inscription follows the arrangement of the period and is read in the sequence of central field, upper panel, and lower panel. It states: "Glory to our master, the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Abu'l-Nasir Qaitbay, amy his victory be glorious."
Unique to the Mamluks, the epigraphic blazon was initiated by Sultan Nasir al-Din Muhammad around 1320 and became the emblem of all subsequent rulers. Offices held by the Mamluks were also identified by blazons, symbols of their rank. They were displayed on the owners' garments, arms, and armour and on the art and architecture commissioned by them."

[rand]

Mamluk style places great emphasis on abstract geometrical patterns. Mamluk door panels is an example of absract geometrical pattern and Mamluk/Venitian candle sticks combine the absract with a floral design.

The raised designs on the blade with heavy gold overlay are an abstract geometrical floral design, you can see the vine and leaf if you look carefully.

rand