Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

ariel · 23rd February 2016, 02:02 AM

Jim,
The problem is not only with Persian swors, but with any swords. The older they are, the rarer they are.
Weapons are perishable, and we have only one example of Seljuk swords ( in the Furussia collection), no Ottoman weapons prior to Mehmet II, virtually no Caucasian weapons prior to the end of the 18th century.

However, the book of Khorasani does contain several shamshirs of Safavid period signed by Assadullah Isfaghani.

# 73 ( p. 422) shows shamshir of Shah Abbas with Assadullah' s signature.
#74: the same
#75: the same
#76: the same
# 77: shah Abbas, signed by Kalbeali
# 78: the same
#79: shah Abbas/ Safi: signed by Assadullah

After that there are swords belonging to the later shahs , also signed with Assadulla's and Kalbeali's names. Those, of course, cannot be directly attributable to the original father/ son team, but on what grounds can we claim that ##73-79 are forgeries? They are openly mentioned in the book, with extensive photography, and all can see them and reach reasonable conclusions.

23rd February 2016, 02:02 AM	#10
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, The problem is not only with Persian swors, but with any swords. The older they are, the rarer they are. Weapons are perishable, and we have only one example of Seljuk swords ( in the Furussia collection), no Ottoman weapons prior to Mehmet II, virtually no Caucasian weapons prior to the end of the 18th century. However, the book of Khorasani does contain several shamshirs of Safavid period signed by Assadullah Isfaghani. # 73 ( p. 422) shows shamshir of Shah Abbas with Assadullah' s signature. #74: the same #75: the same #76: the same # 77: shah Abbas, signed by Kalbeali # 78: the same #79: shah Abbas/ Safi: signed by Assadullah After that there are swords belonging to the later shahs , also signed with Assadulla's and Kalbeali's names. Those, of course, cannot be directly attributable to the original father/ son team, but on what grounds can we claim that ##73-79 are forgeries? They are openly mentioned in the book, with extensive photography, and all can see them and reach reasonable conclusions. Last edited by ariel; 23rd February 2016 at 02:27 AM.