|
Quote:
Salaams Ariel. I never querried if you knew Assad Allahs name nor did I ask if you had read Khorasanis book...nor would I since your knowledge in this field is respected ...Why would I ask that?... :) The discussion is whether or not these people were real sword smiths...or associated with the making of the swords?... Other than the actual signatures there is no proof so far. I don't think there was any question of anyone being tricked or fooled by this since it was simply a badge of distinction and quality only. Further more if there was such a person or persons and they were prolific in churning out swords where is the historic evidence...anecdotal proof, facts or anything to point to real time people ...not Icons of the Persian Psyche... I quote from LA Mayer who quipped Quote "The number of swords bearing the name Assad Allah is legion, so much so that it is difficult to resist the temptation to say that of the 300 swords of which he could have made during his lifetime at least 500 have found their way to Western collections alone". Unquote. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. |
Mariusgmioc,
Very cogent exposition of the problem. It constructs a logical ( albeit indirect) basis of a true existence of Assadullah as a famous swordmaker. The incident of a helmet naming him by name strongly supports the reality of his existence. Multiple old writers living much closer to the Abbas' era refer to Assadullah as a living person. It is only recently that the trend of deconstructing him has begun. Interestingly, the proponents of a "purely talismanic" hypothesis cannot provide a single evidence to the contrary: such as, for example , a testimony of a contemporary witness unequivocally stating that Assadullah Isfaghani was purely a legend. Instead, they construct complicated and convoluted stratagems invoking the meaning of his name, it's cognomens, ancient personalities using it as a honorary title etc, but not a single direct argument. Occam Rule always wins: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But when it is supported by a direct reference ( the helmet), it becomes virtually unbeatable:-) |
Ibrahiim,
I did not mean you personally re. the meaning of Assadullah and my reading Khorasani's book. No offence meant or taken. BTW , my own name, Ariel, - has the same meaning in Hebrew as Assadullah in Farsi:-))) No doubt later masters used Assadullah's name for purely pecuniary purposes. The same is true about paintings by Rembrandt, watches by Cartier, and leather bags by Versace. It does not mean that Rembrandt, Versace and Cartier did not physically exist. On the contrary, it it they and their names that gave rise to the legendary fame of the brands. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But that doesn't mean that 1. such documents do not exist, or, 2. that Assadulah never existed in reality. Do we have at least one evidence DENYING the existence of master Assadula Isfahani in Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?! (just to add a twist to your question) Do we have any evidence that the cartouche signature appeared just like that, from thin air, for purely talismanic purposes?! If it were purely for talismanic purposes, why don't we see it on other objects, like ceramics, armour, etc?! You are stating that none of the 17th century pieces you saw in certain museums bear the signature cartouche. At the same time you admit that many pieces even in famous museums are wrongfully classified/dated. Then how can you be sure that the pieces you saw are accurately dated?! What if the pieces you saw are earlier pieces, prior to the apparition of Assadullah? What if they are contemporay with Assadullah but were made by diferent smiths, from different locations? What if the pieces you are referring to, were made after Assadullah but by a different workshop in a different city? So, in the end I am restating it again: we can only SPECULATE about the subject, but some speculations seem much more probable than others. ;) |
Quote:
It's simple, it seems to me :) If Asadula - a well-known person (sword master), it must be mentioned in the writings of the time when he lived (17 century). But no one can give an example of such a manuscript .... If we see this manuscript, of course I'll be the first to say that Assadula was a real person. So far, unfortunately, there are no such data. In the absence of this evidence, all other arguments are (I think) - just "mind games";) There are real Persian sword of the 17th century. Such swords save some, but they are. And know exactly where they are stored. Neither one of them no has a cartouche "Assadula". Moreover, as I have said before, the Persian sword of the 17th century are not similar to those sabers, which we used to call "Persian Shamshir" and wherein the blade has a cartouche "Asadula". :) Draw conclusions* *;) |
Quote:
As with regards to the terms Kara Khorasan and Kara Taban, there is not a single clear description that would allow their unambiguous identification and differentiation. It is most likely they are refering to the same type of wootz steel, dark, with high contrast and large strips of of watering patterns. More exactly Kara Taban means "black base" and "Kara Khorasan" means "black Khorasan" where the first tries to describe the steel in terms of its aspect, and the second attempts to describe in terms of aspect and origin (black from Khorasan). |
Quote:
These are most interesting postulations, and nicely thought out. While I am far from any authority on the subject of these fine Islamic swords, I have gained good working understanding of many factors about them through the years. It has been my understanding that the early penchant for the naming of Islamic swords typically would allude to either where the sword was made'; the master who made it; sometimes even the place from which the steel came with occasionally the owner. It seems this may have been a factor in the addition of the name Isfahani in the inscriptions. To look at this in accord with the well placed analogy concerning the well known cases regarding Ulfberth and Ayala of Toledo, I think that the case of the famed ANDREA FERARA blades are probably the most descriptive of this 'brand name' phenomenon. While there is no doubt Ayala and his son existed, the case for Ulfberth is more clouded as this may be a term possibly related to a sobriquet for a warrior, but remains debatable. With Andrea Ferara, much more mystery in involved, and the myths perpetuated remain disputed as to whether this was a real person or not, just as with Assad Allah. The blades with this name, just as with Assad Allah, cover lifetimes in the same way, thus could not have been produced by one man. There is no supportable evidence whether in guilds, genealogical or other records, and as related in research by DeCosson , where buildings and other iconographic details are found supporting the existence of for example, the Missaglia's, none is found for Ferara. It is far too compelling without that substantiation, the consider the possibility that Andrea (of Ferara, the Italian city) might have been an eponym for a sword of good iron/steel. That the name Andrea (Andrew) was also linked to true/good was an archaic instance of such associations. Thus the 'name' in essence was a brand/term for good steel. It is curious that as far as known Italian swords there are so few that are so marked, possibly only several exist. It was not until Solingen picked up use of the name for is blades destined for Scotland, that the name became legion. The closest thing we have to establishing Assad Allah to an actual personage is the apocryphal tale in Persian lore of the helmet, which has been mentioned here and is well noted in the article by Oliver Pinchot. We know that Assad Allah (Lion of God) was often used to refer to Ali, and of course would be a term of the highest honor as applied in the beautifully poetic similes and metaphors of Persian lore. As has been noted, the debate and discussion on whether or not Assad Allah was a real person or an honorific title or brand will remain elusive, just as will likely the Andrea Ferara mystery. |
I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?
|
1 Attachment(s)
And here's a Persian sword of the 17th century. Not very much like a Shamshir familiar to us, does not it? :)
Sorry for the bad quality of the photo. But I think - the blade shape is clearly visible. |
Quote:
"On the Persian Shamshir and the Signature of Assad Allah" Arms Collecting, Vol 40 #1, Feb. 2002 as linked by Ibrahiim here in previous post or can be found online. In this outstanding and thoroughly researched article, Oliver notes that there are no specific tests for the actual work as far as original blades attributed to him in the literature as most descriptions are lyrical and not necessarily sufficient to be supportable. It is noted that the signature on later blades seems likely the use of the name by numerous makers as quality inference. Many examples later using name and considerably inferior are clearly forgeries. He also cites the single historical reference which though seemingly apocryphal (in my own opinion at this point) notes: "...Shah Abbas is said to have received a helmet from the Ottoman sultan who offered a sum of money to whoever could break the helmet with a sword. No one was able to do this until a certain Asad-a sword maker nade a sword with which he cut through the helmet". Islamic Society in Persia A.K.S. Lambton, London , 1954 *as cited and footnoted in Oliver's paper. It should be noted that the time of Shah Abbas was c. 1587-1628 As has been noted, dated examples of 17th century Persian swords seem quite uncommon, but generally they seem identifiable by their characteristic heavier blades. Perhaps most of these are like the example posted by Mahratt on the example with heavier blade with wide blade near tip rather than the thinner, sweeping radius of the shamshirs we are discussing. This would seem to lend credence to the note suggesting that most of blades signed with Assad Allah and these variations seem post Shah Abbas reign. Still, this does not eliminate the possibility the actual existence of a distinguished sword maker named Asad, as implied by the story on the helmet event, which might have been the origin of a long standing tradition which suggests reasons for the use and perpetuation of the name on swords. |
Quote:
As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not. Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist. As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent. On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583. |
Quote:
Now Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani . They have no 100% provenance. What Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani are in the museum in Tehran - not guarantee that they are the 17th century. If I take wootz Shamshir 19th century, and write on it, "Shah Abbas", it becomes Shamshir 17th century? We do not know when and who wrote the inscription on the Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani. But we know that the brand "Assadula" has generated a lot of fakes. Is not it? Those Persian saber, which I say (and that shows in the pictures) - 100% 17 th century. |
Just spent some time going through a long text of one of Manouchers articles on the Assadollah blades and markings, and he explains that he thinks the Assadollah as well as Kalb Ali are titles used by the seyyeds to describe association to descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and or devotion to Ali and mastery of the craft.
He cites references to this in his book (2006, pp.148-167), which I do not have, but wanted to add these notes. It seems that the word 'shamshir' of course is a general Persian word for sword which predates the actual appearance of these lighter blade sabres being discussed. This as always makes it difficult when looking into early sources for references. It does seem the sabre shown by Mahratt in the post with its scabbard has an indeed heavy blade which seems more like Central Asia type sabres of the 17th c. Naturally these were likely contemporary to these light bladed forms now visually associated with the term 'shamshir'. It certainly seems to me , the more I read through these things that the cartouches as well as dates and allusions including what may be honorific titles must be added in a commemorative or traditional sense on these blades. Thus many of these are not of course 'fakes but genuinely quality blades with these inscriptions which have a certain talismanic imbuement . |
Well, we seem to have different opinions. Since neither can be supported by a direct evidence, both are equally plausible.
I tend to go along with the simpler one: there was an exceptionally good swordmaker named Assadullah at the time of Shah Abbas who had a son named Kalbali, also a famous master. Later Persian swordmakers signed their works with these two names either at the request of a vane customer, as the talismanic mark of exceptional quality or just for pecuniary reasons. Other people may think differently, but there is no way we can convince each other. We should just keep our own opinions and stop the senseless argument until new evidences becomes available. |
Guys, I do not understand why we are arguing. Make easier. Someone can show the Persian sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?
|
Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible.
In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven. What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely. So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so . In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive. |
Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.
|
Quote:
Why? Well, first you asked about a documented mentionig of Assadullah as a real person but completely ignored the answers (the answer regarding the existence of such a mentioning related to the split helmet story, and my answers relating to the relevance of such a question). Second, while we all agree that without irrefutable evidence, all our discussions are pure speculations, you akeep trying to press for your hypothesis as being the ultimate one. Well, be it your way! You are right, absolutely right! And when I am saying that, I am referring also to your answer to my present comment, as I am not going to sink further into this "debate." |
Quote:
Quote:
|
"Mysterious smith or a mysterious myth" ?
Salaams All, The designed name ...and continuation of it Assad Allah were used in honour of the person in Persian Lore...and History which is why no detailed history exists of the sword maker with that name...there wasnt one! The story of the helmet is purely mythical and an invention around one of the names. As outlined above these names were placed in honour of the sword quality and as a mark of that quality.
I am amazed it has created such a fuss...and one member even throws down his pen (is that not the same as throwing down ones sword? :) ) although as with all things if someone wishes to compile a data sheet showing the names as real persons I would be pleased to read it. Meanwhile for those wishing to observe the full weighing up of this apparent conundrum please look at and note ~ if it does not appear it may be accessed at the right side under recent blogs..; http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-...of-assad-allah/ It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it. :shrug: Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. |
Quote:
Here's that LINK again. |
I love this, old school forum debates. While we are at it can anyone find contemporary evidence of Homer, Shakespeare and Jesus...?
Jeff |
It is strange to compare the person who lived 2,000 years ago (Jesus and Homer), as well as Shakespeare , whose existence is not in doubt (as far as I know) with the mythical personality "Assadula", who was supposed to live in the 17th century. Amazing ... we know about Shakespeare when he was baptized, who were his parents, etc. Life "Assadula" (about the same time) - is shrouded in mystery :)
|
JeffD:
How can you even bring up the mythical personality of someone called Shakespeare? I am surprised! It is a common knowledge that William Shaxpere, aka Shagspere did not write Hamlet, King Lear and the rest of them. It was Francis de Vere ( or Francis Bacon, or Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, or Sir Walter Raleigh, or Amelia Bassano Lanier , a Venetian Jewess of Moroccan ancestry, or....) "Shakespeare" was just a talismanic mark, a sign of quality used by a local guild of play writers. It is obvious that Othello and Titus Andronicus could not have been written by the same hand! Multiple British researchers and theater personalities , including Derek Jacobi, can swear on local phone books and testify in court to that effect. :-))))))) |
LOL :)
SHAVER KOOL :) |
🤔
Jeff |
Quote:
OH NO!!!!!!! |
Quote:
Regards to all, Will |
Never expected this thread to be resurrected:-)
But it is , and I wish to add a general thought. The attempt of disproving the authorship of Assadulla is just a part of a relatively modern general trend: to doubt the importance of a single personality as a driving force of creativity and history. Tolstoy in his "War and Peace" argued that Napoleon was just a puppet of some unseen historical forces, and even did not engineer his military victories. In the 19th century nobody doubted the authorship of Shakespeare, it is only recently that previously unheard of personalities have been proposed to replace him as The Bard. Biblical studies try to demolish the existence of "legendary figures" , King David and Jesus included. It is all "the unseen hand of history" or, more often, "the collective genius ( or will) of masses". There is this marxist attempt to bring the outstanding individual down and to replace him with a swarm of mediocrities. The funniest thing is that it is the monomaniacal tyrants who brainwash the "masses" with the illusion of the Volk's importance: Hitler and Stalin are the two outstanding examples. So what if there is no a certificate of merit given to Assadulla by Shah Abbas himself? How many documentary evidences naming outstanding makers of pesh kabz, armour, shields or helmets do we have? Prominent musicians? Was Avicenna the only great Islamic physician? Ulugbeg the only astronomer? We have repeat mentions of Assadulla's name and his family relations to Kalb Ali by people who had first or second hand knowledge of their physical existence. And we, 500 years later, blithely dismiss their stories as just... fantasies? Do we know better? I am reading Jens' book now, and am delighted that he repeatedly mentions both Assadulla and Kalb Ali as real personalities and casually discusses the distinctions between their genuine works and those of the followers and clumsy forgers... Not all is lost, gentlemen:-) |
Salaams Ariel, I think there is a difference in an author mentioning "something" on passing in a book and actually setting down a proof of "something" with considered notes and appraisals. It may be that the author genuinely believes it is true but it is quite different to a claim that it must be true because an author has casually mentioned it. I think that encroaches on being slightly "out of context."
Please see http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-p...lah/?locale=en (LA Mayer supports the fact and notes the myth that these swords are not made by the signaturee...and concludes there was no such person ...per se. ) ~and the considerable work also of Dr Ann Feuerbach where the question is carefully considered. Further, in fact, no one person made these weapons but that many had a hand in doing so. Perhaps half a dozen workshops and individuals were responsible and that grouped together they may be associated as one broad school but with many craftsmen doing different parts of the sword... I find it perfectly plausible without taking away any of the mystique and without doggedly claiming that Assad Ullah was a real sword master when there is no proof he was...not that I would lose any sleep over this as it is quite irrelevant. I rather prefer the myth in this case. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is a Quran scripture( Nasr mn Allah wa Fateh Qareeb) which means victory from Allah and an imminent conquest. In addition to the maker name Asfahani. It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real. Unfortunately, many makers try to forge the stamp and using his name as trade mark. |
Quote:
|
And yet another resurrection of the topic!
I love it. AFAIK, no new evidence for or against physical existence of an Abbas-era swordmaker named Assadulla had surfaced in the interim. We are back to our deeply held beliefs about the role of a single personality in history. Meanwhile, Israeli archeologists find one evidence after another pointing to a historical figure of King David. The latter was hotly “disproved” by a modern bunch of deconstruction specialists. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence: somebody may still find a shred of old paper mentioning Assadulla by name. And recently,a very smart guy named Kamil Khaidakov from Moskow reported Shamshir blades with deep stamps of Assadulla on their tangs. Something to think about. BTW, The Iliad was written not by Homer, but by another ancient blind Greek poet ( or a commune of them) :-) |
Quote:
As I am not a native speaker, I may have misunderstood your message. However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. I will illustrate my argument with a single example (albeit there are many) inspired by you. For decades scholars argued there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Troy, and that Homer's poems Iliad and Odyssey are purely fictional creations... ... until one individual with absolutely no theoretical background took the two poems for EVIDENCE and started digging. And he found Troy. Now there is another issue I want to bring up. WHAT IS "EVIDENCE?" Is an inscription on a sword saying "Work of XXX" evidence for the existence of the respective swordsmith? And here, we can argue ad nausea because what is evidence for some, can be rejected by others. However, based on my own common sense, I believe that we can make a rationally valid assumption that there existed a certain swordsmith named XXX. Now, whether he made the respective sword himself or a later imitator, is another issue but the mere existence of immitators I see as a confirmation of the assumption that at a certain moment there existed a swordsmith XXX. If he had not existed, why would his signature be immitated? My two cents... :shrug: |
Quote:
|
“However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”
Marius, You are absolutely correct: this was a typing error and I am guilty for not noticing it:-(((((( And I agree with your argument: the very mention of Assadulla’s name and his “address” (“ from Isfaghan”) , as well as his relatives ( “Son Kalbali”) and pupils (“Zaman Isfaghani”) suggest that old swordmakers who lived close to his time knew about his physical existence. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.