swords of Mohammed, but what about...

nechesh · 3rd January 2005, 10:22 PM

Where is that ol' "Spear of Destiny" anyway? I thought i had it laying around here somewhere.

Lee · 4th January 2005, 12:46 AM

Well, many of the contents (such as the Arabic inscribed group of European swords) of the Mamluke's Alexandria (Egypt) Arsenal went to Constantinople (now Istanbul), probably in, if I remember correctly, the 16th century when the Ottomans prevailed over the Mamlukes in Egypt. So, if the Mamluke elite had these precious heirlooms in their possession at the time, it stands to reason that they may have found their way into Ottoman hands as trophies and holy relics.

Rivkin · 4th January 2005, 01:12 AM

Spear of Destiny I think is in Nuremberg.

I don't know the history of Mohammed's swords but every single religious artefact I've ever seen has one of the following sotries:

"Spear of Destiny"

The artefact was "discovered", usually by a saint or important warlord through having it's location revealed to him/her in a dream.

"Staff of Moses"

Once, the discoverer of the artefact was visited by a stranger (usually an old man), who claimed to be the last of the bloodline of the guardians of the ..., which was given to his great-grand-grand-father by ... himself. Now he transfers the ownership of the item to the "discoverer".

The latter ones sometimes mixes with the first one, by asserting that great-grand-grand was the saint from the story number one.

Now Mohammed lived relatively close to us (in time), so _one_ of these swords can be the real one. The rest mostly likely appeared all around the Ottoman Empire.

P.S. Did they do Y-chromosome genetics on Saeds ?

ariel · 4th January 2005, 02:14 AM

Mike,
Welcome to the Forum! We absolutely need a member with your fund of knowledge and expertise.
And.... please feel free to be irreverent: everybogy here has an unbruisable ego and a good sense of humor.
Join the club!

nechesh · 4th January 2005, 04:16 AM

Rivkin, i'm glad you picked up on my sarcasm. Even 1400 yrs. ago is quite a long time. What actual proof do we have that any of the swords of Mohammed were ever really his swords at all? Hard to believe the gold and jeweled encrusted one saw any battles. I would think that a few generations past the death of Mohammed it might be very advantagious for a powerful Islamic leader to be able to produce one the "swords of the prophet" to strenghten his hold on power. Forgive me if i am speaking blasphamy here, but can we really be certain of anything, or are the swords of Mohammed purely a matter of faith?
As for the "Spear of Destiny", i was keeping it right next to that grail thingy....now where DID it get to?

Rivkin · 4th January 2005, 05:15 AM

I think the spear was taken by crusaders back to Germany, where it stayed in Nuremberg - I guess it's still there. The True Cross was lost.

Converning authenticity - in my experience it's really rare when the fraud is so transparent. Usually it's either a result of enthusiastic searches - they do find a more or less correct age artefact, declare it the real thing, and then comes the story of a divine vision etc.

Or as in a story with the Staff of Moses it's a part of heirloom, and with every generation the nature of heirloom gets excagerated until it becomes hell knows what.

In the end the true responsibility lies on the shoulders of religious authority for accepting the items rumored to be the real thing as the real thing - not on kings or caliphs.

And the main motivation is like of those collectors who desparately try to prove that their Rembrandt, which happened to be painted with XX century paints, is not a fake - they just want it to be true.

Andrew · 4th January 2005, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

Rivkin, i'm glad you picked up on my sarcasm. Even 1400 yrs. ago is quite a long time. What actual proof do we have that any of the swords of Mohammed were ever really his swords at all? Hard to believe the gold and jeweled encrusted one saw any battles. I would think that a few generations past the death of Mohammed it might be very advantagious for a powerful Islamic leader to be able to produce one the "swords of the prophet" to strenghten his hold on power. Forgive me if i am speaking blasphamy here, but can we really be certain of anything, or are the swords of Mohammed purely a matter of faith?
As for the "Spear of Destiny", i was keeping it right next to that grail thingy....now where DID it get to?

Nechesh,

I don't think anyone is seriously positing that any of the swords in the Topkapi were actually Mohammed's. However, they appear to be extremely fine and, presumeably, valuable and important artifacts in their own right.

But I do agree that confirmation of such extraordinary provenance would require a miracle.

M.carter · 4th January 2005, 01:21 PM

Actually, of those nine swords, I have these beliefs,

The alleged "thulfiqar' is a fake. The 'Al-Battar' belongs to King David, not Mohammed. The 'Al-Ma'Thur' I believe is the real one that Mohammed used. The 'Al-Rasub' belongs to King David. The 'Al-Mukhatham' is clearly a fake, exactly identical to the style of swords produced in 14th Damascus. The 'Hatf' sword belongs to King David. I believe the 'Qali'i' sword is original, I mean it was used by Muhammad. The 'Al-Qadheeb' is a mystery. The 'Al-Adhb' is original.

Remember, all these swords were re-hilted during the 16th century, thats why the hilts look wrong on those straight blades. Nechesh, even the gold encrusted one was re-hilted so we must presume that the hilts were very different before.

The swords which I believe were actually the property of Muhammad are the 'Al-Ma'thur' , 'Qal'i' , and 'Al-Adhb'.

nechesh · 4th January 2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Nechesh,

I don't think anyone is seriously positing that any of the swords in the Topkapi were actually Mohammed's. However, they appear to be extremely fine and, presumeably, valuable and important artifacts in their own right.

But I do agree that confirmation of such extraordinary provenance would require a miracle.

Are you sure about that Andrew? The scholars at the Topkapi Museum apparently believe this. And Mr. Carter seems to have his own beliefs as well. I'm with Ariel on this one. Attributing swords to King David seems a bit far-fetched to me and this conversation could decline into a "my belief is stronger than your belief" argument. I am interested in provenance. MY "beliefs" would only scare people.

This looks like a job for Indiana Jones!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

3rd January 2005, 10:22 PM	#1
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Where is that ol' "Spear of Destiny" anyway? I thought i had it laying around here somewhere.

4th January 2005, 12:46 AM	#2
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 996	Well, many of the contents (such as the Arabic inscribed group of European swords) of the Mamluke's Alexandria (Egypt) Arsenal went to Constantinople (now Istanbul), probably in, if I remember correctly, the 16th century when the Ottomans prevailed over the Mamlukes in Egypt. So, if the Mamluke elite had these precious heirlooms in their possession at the time, it stands to reason that they may have found their way into Ottoman hands as trophies and holy relics.

4th January 2005, 01:12 AM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Spear of Destiny I think is in Nuremberg. I don't know the history of Mohammed's swords but every single religious artefact I've ever seen has one of the following sotries: "Spear of Destiny" The artefact was "discovered", usually by a saint or important warlord through having it's location revealed to him/her in a dream. "Staff of Moses" Once, the discoverer of the artefact was visited by a stranger (usually an old man), who claimed to be the last of the bloodline of the guardians of the ..., which was given to his great-grand-grand-father by ... himself. Now he transfers the ownership of the item to the "discoverer". The latter ones sometimes mixes with the first one, by asserting that great-grand-grand was the saint from the story number one. Now Mohammed lived relatively close to us (in time), so _one_ of these swords can be the real one. The rest mostly likely appeared all around the Ottoman Empire. P.S. Did they do Y-chromosome genetics on Saeds ?

4th January 2005, 02:14 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mike, Welcome to the Forum! We absolutely need a member with your fund of knowledge and expertise. And.... please feel free to be irreverent: everybogy here has an unbruisable ego and a good sense of humor. Join the club!

4th January 2005, 04:16 AM	#5
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Rivkin, i'm glad you picked up on my sarcasm. Even 1400 yrs. ago is quite a long time. What actual proof do we have that any of the swords of Mohammed were ever really his swords at all? Hard to believe the gold and jeweled encrusted one saw any battles. I would think that a few generations past the death of Mohammed it might be very advantagious for a powerful Islamic leader to be able to produce one the "swords of the prophet" to strenghten his hold on power. Forgive me if i am speaking blasphamy here, but can we really be certain of anything, or are the swords of Mohammed purely a matter of faith? As for the "Spear of Destiny", i was keeping it right next to that grail thingy....now where DID it get to?

4th January 2005, 05:15 AM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I think the spear was taken by crusaders back to Germany, where it stayed in Nuremberg - I guess it's still there. The True Cross was lost. Converning authenticity - in my experience it's really rare when the fraud is so transparent. Usually it's either a result of enthusiastic searches - they do find a more or less correct age artefact, declare it the real thing, and then comes the story of a divine vision etc. Or as in a story with the Staff of Moses it's a part of heirloom, and with every generation the nature of heirloom gets excagerated until it becomes hell knows what. In the end the true responsibility lies on the shoulders of religious authority for accepting the items rumored to be the real thing as the real thing - not on kings or caliphs. And the main motivation is like of those collectors who desparately try to prove that their Rembrandt, which happened to be painted with XX century paints, is not a fake - they just want it to be true.

4th January 2005, 01:21 PM	#8
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Actually, of those nine swords, I have these beliefs, The alleged "thulfiqar' is a fake. The 'Al-Battar' belongs to King David, not Mohammed. The 'Al-Ma'Thur' I believe is the real one that Mohammed used. The 'Al-Rasub' belongs to King David. The 'Al-Mukhatham' is clearly a fake, exactly identical to the style of swords produced in 14th Damascus. The 'Hatf' sword belongs to King David. I believe the 'Qali'i' sword is original, I mean it was used by Muhammad. The 'Al-Qadheeb' is a mystery. The 'Al-Adhb' is original. Remember, all these swords were re-hilted during the 16th century, thats why the hilts look wrong on those straight blades. Nechesh, even the gold encrusted one was re-hilted so we must presume that the hilts were very different before. The swords which I believe were actually the property of Muhammad are the 'Al-Ma'thur' , 'Qal'i' , and 'Al-Adhb'.