The value of the additional visual sources for the study of historical weapons.
 

Today when someone is studying in the field of weapons very often are used additionally visual sources such miniatures, sculptures and so. What do you think it is correctly to use images on the coins for learning in the field of weaponry? Offer to you some coins with weapons images. What kind of weapons do you see on them?

It is an interesting subject you have started, but from where are the coins and how old are they?
Coins are important objects to study, when it comes to which weapons were used where and when.
At first glance I dont think I see many weapons, although I am sure they are there. Please help a bit.

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=206666
ISLAMIC, Umayyad Caliphate. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. AH 65-86 / AD 685-705. Æ Fals (20mm, 2.67 g, 6h). Halab (Aleppo) mint. Struck circa 693-697. Caliph standing facing, hand on pommel of sword / Transformed cross on steps; wafin to left, halab to right. Walker 106ff; SICA 1, 609; Album 3529. Good VF, earthen black patina.

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=194745
ISLAMIC, Umayyad Caliphate. temp. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. AH 65-86 / AD 685-705. Æ Fals (20mm, 4.13 g, 3h). Ilya (Jerusalem) mint. Caliph standing facing, hand on sheathed sword / Large m; filastin to either side. SICA I -; cf. Goodwin 43 (for obv. die) and 45; Album 111. Near VF. Rare.

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=226700
ISLAMIC, Arab-Byzantine (Standing Caliph) coinage. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. AH 65-86 / AD 685-705. Æ Fals (17mm, 2.07 g, 9h). Halab (Aleppo) mint. Caliph standing facing, with left hand on sheathed sword; legend with Caliph’s name / Transformed cross; bi-halab-wāf flanking. SICA 1, 615; Album 3529. Good Fine, black desert patina.

http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=106808
ISLAMIC, Umayyad Caliphate. temp. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. AH 65-86 / AD 685-705. Æ Fals (18mm, 2.37 g). Manbij mint. Struck circa 694-697. Caliph standing facing with hand on sword / Transformed cross potent on steps; mint name in right field. SICA 679. VF, dusty patina.

http://agoraauctions.com/listing/viewdetail/2832
Arab-Byzantine, Umayyad Caliphate. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. 65-86 / 685-705. Æ Fals. Ilya Filastin (Aelia Capitolina, Jerusalem). - See more at: http://agoraauctions.com/listing/vie....fFwHjZGe.dpuf

That was very fast :-), Was you next post prepared already?
The coins you show are very early, and the only thing I can see are a few swords.
I do however agree with you that the coins are important too, so I also have an Indian coin catalogue for my research.

Jens, of course I have had links to these coins. I wrote that this subject is being discussed in Russia.
I think that on all of the coins is shown the only one item. It is plain to see on the gold coins, which always been the best quality. But if someone has a good imagination he can see machete, saber, khanda-sword, mace or even fighting rake.

These very old coins are interesting, but they are not struck very well, so it can be hard to see what is on them.
The later coind are more precise, so it is easier to see which weapon is shown.

You're absolutely right! Of course, in the later coins weapon shown better!
So you agree that we can not say for sure what is depicted in these very old coins?

THE GOLD COIN LOOKS LIKE A SWORD TO ME BUT SOME OF THE ONES ABOVE IT LOOKS LIKE A LARGE CLUB TO ME. OF COURSE I AM INTO CLUBS SO THAT COMES AS NO SURPRISE. :D HERCULES MAIN WEAPON WAS A CLUB AND HE WORE A LIONS SKIN SO THEY WERE OFTEN REPRESENTED IN COUNTRIES WHERE HIS LEGEND WAS POPULAR. PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME GREEK COINS SHOWING HERCULES.

On these coins are images of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (the 5th Umayyad caliph) or Muhammad himself. There are no any clubs ))

No I cant say for sure, but what does that prove?

These images, like many other early ones are stylized, so the only prove is that these early rulers had swords:), which were also always symbols of power and authority.

First of all it is necessary to explan that on another forum we discussed about development of a sabre but to no avail ((
As we found out there are three versions of sabre development:
1. Turkic origin. In the period of the second Eastern Turkic (682-744 years) khaganate. The first samples had one and half edged blade and a straight handle without the cross-section.
2. On Iran territory together with turkic slave-warriors in 8-9th century.
3.Then a saber was adopted by Arabs.

But there was discussed an article too in which states that Arabs used a sabre in 7th century before Turkic people and as the only evidence was shown one of coins posted above:

"...this coin series dates to the very beginning of the rule of Al-Malik (685-705). On the obverse has a figure with no face, dressed in a burnous, long robe and with a sword at the left side. It is the shape of this sword that is of interest: the sword is curved, the blade is up-turned (kind of “shashka-like” suspension), the handle top being inclined towards the blade and a trace of yelman seen in its farthest third. These three features help to distinctly characterize this weapon as a saber".
"Finally, an Umayyad coin of the late 7 th century showing Caliph Al-Malik (or the very Muhammad) armed with a typical saber is presented here. Its dating by far precedes the emergence of sabers in the Iranian region of the Abbasid Caliphate, which excludes the possibility of primary coming of saber through Iran in the Islamic world. This coin is the earliest dated and documented image of saber known in the literature on weapon studies"

If on the coin we have a saber (but it is very strange to see saber in the scabbard with "up-turned suspension" and simultaneously "elman"), then the version of Arab origin of a saber in 7th century to have a right to exist.

I am sorry. The item of discussed coin:

This discussion is complicated by the fact that the references chosen by Mahratt bear little connection with the images posted by him. At the very least, two references have no corresponding images.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "fighting rake" allegedly shown on one of the images? Can you pinpoint please?

And, BTW, can you provide correct reference to the source of the very last coin you present and which was also cited by Mercenary? I will be much obliged.

Hi Ariel

Many thanks that you joined to us. It is very interesting question about origin of saber. The solution of this question can change the course of known world history.

I am sorry, was it your article: Ariel Barkan, "The Question of Emergence of Saber as Islamic Weapon" in Russian-Ukranian journal? If it so be so kind to help us to understand the article. This is a very serious theme, wich involved leading scientists, archaeologists and there were published a lot of articles. Could you post image of your coin and the whole attribution?

For information the Turkic saber from Tien-Shan:
Besh-Tash-Koroo-II,barrow №3. In the burial of a man with a horse an iron saber lying on the left side of the deceased was found. Its dimensions are: blade length 73 cm, maximum width 4.5 cm, maximum thickness of 1.2 cm, the deflection of the back 1.8 cm; handle length 16 cm, maximum width of 3.2 cm. Blade is one and half edged. The lower part of the blade, at a distance of 8.5 cm from the tip, is split in two egdes. In the cross section of the single-edge blade is in triangular in outline, and its two-edge portion is lenticular. The hilt of the sword is straight and even has a wooden lining leather. The blade was placed in a wooden scabbard with steel tip and clip on mouth and leather loop for hanging to the belt (Fig. 3, 1). The collection of weapons from the barrow №3, along with the sword, included a composite bow and quiver of arrows. The inventory of the tomb dates back to the 2nd half VII – 1st half VIII century A.D.

That is right, it was your article for sure in a serious journal:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...lik#post177887

Could you to explain why you think that it was saber and was not a defect of coinage?

Mercenary:
As you are well aware, what was published in the Ukrainian journal was a very preliminary draft. Due to the sudden death of the Editor and Publisher, this draft was published by his heirs without my knowledge, unedited and unfinished.

I am in а process of reworking the materials and adding new information. When I am satisfied with the quality of the paper, I shall submit it to a peer-reviewed journal dealing with the history of weapons.

As soon as it is published, I shall be more than happy to provide you with a reference. If the Journal's copyright policy permits it, I shall be glad to upload the PDF here.

All of the coins that I showed are " an Umayyad coin of the late 7 th century showing Caliph Al-Malik (or the very Muhammad) armed with...". The question is why on the some images we can see swords, clubs, even " double-barreled shotgun " but author for his article choosed only "saber"?

You know there is a fresco in Panticapaeum burial vault of Anfestery. It was built in 10-30 AD and dated by the glass vessels, the font of the labels and so. But none of the serious researchers will not write about "sabre" in 10-30 AD. Why do you think?

It was not so. I knew the man whom you call "crazy guy" - V.G.Shleifer very well and knew how the last issue of the journal was preparing. One of my article was supposed to be there too.

Be carefull. Do not send to Editorial Board the draft of article again.

I'm not good in other regions and times except India in 14-19th century, but what are the historical sources, the scientific basis and the logic I know a little.

Gents:

This is an interesting thread but I must admit that, while the premise that coins may be a useful source of information about when a type of weapon was used is intriguing, the examples shown here are unconvincing for the most part. Except for the image on the gold coin, I'm struggling to see much else that would be likely called a sword. And I sense that others are also having a problem identifying weapons in many of the images. There appears to be some distortion of the coins over time, which also makes interpretation difficult.

As far as frescos are concerned, there are always issues of when the drawings were made and how such artwork might relate to other items found nearby. So, the discovery of articles dating to 10-30 C.E. in the vicinity of the fresco that is shown does not mean that the fresco dates from the same period--it may have been added much later.

Nevertheless, interesting thoughts and conjecture. Ariel, I look forward to seeing your article when it is finished.

Ian.

Thanks Ian.
I am working on it. If only not for such minor distractions as an 8 to 7 regular job plus weekends :-)

I'm looking forward to new article too. I hope our discussion will help you in research.

This illustration appears in page 247 of Portugal History (directed J.H.Saraiva) where the author narrates the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula by the Berbere Tärik b. Ziyäd, in the year 711 (92 Hegira, Rajab-Sha'ban ), landing in Gibraltar (Djabal al-Tarik). Unfortunately the illustration is not dated, although one may assume that it is consistent with the related period.
Whether more or less stilysed, one can not deny that the swords carried by the Islamic knights are sligthly curved, the term sabre being pertinent in this case.


.

Wrong thread - sorry.
Good illustration Fernando :-)

The more I look at the picture, the more doubts I have...

First, it cannot come from the Arab source. By the beginning of the 8th century, the idea of aniconism ( ban on human images) was already in a full swing in the Arab world.
Second, the style is Persian/Indopersian, even with clouds in the style of Chinese "chi"
Third, the armour looks East Asian: Mongols? Chinese? Even Persian, may be (???)
Fourth, composite bows.

My guess , this picture might be a part of Persian/ Moghul collection of miniatures 15-17 century.

The fact that it was used in a book dedicated to the history of Portugal and supposedly attributable to the battle at Jabal-al-Tariq is suspect. Not every reference or iconographic source can be accepted at face value.

I would dearly love to be wrong, but would need much more supportive evidence.

This painting has nothing to do with Umayyad general Tarık Bin Ziyad or his invasion of Andulusian Spain. This is a scene from Shahnama, named "Charge of the Cavaliers of Faramouz". I can't say which time and place this miniature was painted for sure, but my educated guess is possibly in Iran, and more likely from post-Ilkhanid. It might be from Turkmen schools of art of Herat or Shiraz, or from Jelayirid period. The style of art looks like it is before Timurid period, so somewhere between Jalayirids and Timurids. ;)

Thanks for the precise attribution. Very impressive.

Precious input, Sancar. While your info is the correct one, this saves me from having to contact the publishers of 'History of Portugal' work, for further details, something i promised and was about to do.
Now it is easy to browse the Net and learn that this is a work of Persian school, a gouache on paper by Abu'l-Qasim Manur Firdawsi (C.934-C.1020).
On the other hand ...
I did not say that this scene represented the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, but was in the same page where the author narrates such events, apparently to call our attention for the efficiency of Islamic cavalry. What the legend side note refers is that "the quick progression of the Islamic armies, not only in the Iberian Peninsula but equally in other zones atacked by the Cavaliers of Islam (up to the Anatolic borders of the Bizantine empire, to the margins of the Indo and Uzbesquitan) was fundamentally based on the contingents of light cavalry, and so on ..."
Whether the parallelism between such scenes or the example chosen by the author is not so fortunate, is another issue.

Even worse: Firdawsi (10-11 cen) was the author of Shahname.
The miniature as per net references is either 14 or 17 century.