albanian jambiya

ariel · 14th December 2005, 10:06 PM

I do not think it is Wootz (crystalline damascus); it is mechanical damascus and, I think, of Shams variety.
The finial looks Ottoman, and the use of niello points more towards Asia Minor proper rather than the Balkans. I just got Yu. Miller's book on Caucasian Arms in the Hermitage collection; it has an example of a dagger with a handle traditionally attributed to Albania (deep diagonal cuts on the handle) but in fact of Georgian origin. This one is not Caucasian at all: wire-stitched scabbard, different niello ornaments, different location of hanging rings (look almost Syrian or Moroccan to me!) , wrong finial.
I vote for the Levant origin (Turkey, Western Middle East).

TVV · 14th December 2005, 11:41 PM

Ariel's post brings up a great question: sometimes wootz (pulad) and very fine mechanical damascus are difficult to differentiate, as they look similar. I think Risk had a khyber knife that was controversial in this aspect, and I have a qama blade that I initially thought was wootz but now I believe is simply fine mechanical damascus (sorry for the enormour picture and its poor quality, the problem if partially in the camera and partially in the photographer

)

Is there any way to tell the difference without a complex analysis causing harm to the blade?

RSWORD · 15th December 2005, 12:13 AM

In the first piece posted, the blade is wootz. Sham is a pattern style of wootz. The carving in the middle of the handle reminds me of "Marsh Arab" Jambiya although the handle form is not quite the same. I would vote for Iraqi/Kurdish origin for this piece. The picture is not too good in the Qama to be able to tell for sure but it does look more like pattern welding versus wootz. I don't think there is a definitive way to tell other than through experience in viewing various watered steels and gaining an understanding of what to look for to recognize each. Two decent books on the subject are Sasche's "Damascus Steel" where he has lots of good images and technical descriptions on the different types of "watered" steel. The other book is "On Damascus Steel" by Figiel. Less technical but lots of great images of wootz and pattern welded blades.

ariel · 15th December 2005, 02:53 AM

RSWORD, I am surprised by your assertion that Shams is a pattern of wootz.
Wootz is a crystalline Damascus, a natural one, whereas Shams is a pattern of mechanical Damascus and is formed by repeat folding, twisting etc. of different steel/iron pieces.
Am I wrong?
What do other Forumites think?

Jeff D · 15th December 2005, 04:42 AM

Hi All,

To my knowledge sham is a pattern in the steel that is not from mechanical folding. Whether it is a true wootz I am not sure? In Verhoeven's paper The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades . Sword 8 which most closely resembles sham, was eliminated from his study because it was hypoeutectoid. So by definition cannot be a true wootz. The pattern appeared superficial. Any thoughts Dr. Ann?

All the Best
Jeff

P.S. for what it is worth, the first looks like a very nice Indian wootz pattern (18th century), and the second although hard to say could be a late Persian piece of wootz.

Below is an example of sham pattern

Yannis · 15th December 2005, 09:48 AM

Fascinating thread! After all these years of discussing ethnographic blades we come back to the core. What is wootz and what is not. I am not an expert on the subject but my humble opinions are:
The first knife is not Albanian. But is not the common Kurdish also. I am not sure were it comes from. It has some Syrian look to me. Its blade is wootz but not sham pattern.
Sham pattern is shown clearly in Jeff’s example. Till now I was sure that sham was wootz. Middle eastern bladesmiths produced that pattern by forging wootz steel. Now I am not sure anymore, after your words. I wish someone clarify the subject.

Valjhun · 19th January 2006, 06:17 PM

I'm not so knowledeable so I cannot clarify the wootz-subject any further, but I've finally recived the dagger and it is a big mystery to me. The blade is gorgeus and it definetly looks like ottoman damascus to me. The handle look also old and I do not think that it is a later adition. The damascening on the scabbard looks nice, doing a little research on the net I've found a true albanian jambiya with similar damascening. In the Tirri's book there is a photo of a verry similar (almost identical jambiya) on the page 97, with the atribution that it is a Syrian Jambiya from 19th century. But if I'm honest, I do not believe to Mr. Tirri anymore, due to his fatal errors in the same book (Suremene knife = unusual balkan dagger, Laz bichagi = egyptian knopesh, and many more...) Any further comments?

15th December 2005, 04:42 AM	#5
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi All, To my knowledge sham is a pattern in the steel that is not from mechanical folding. Whether it is a true wootz I am not sure? In Verhoeven's paper The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades . Sword 8 which most closely resembles sham, was eliminated from his study because it was hypoeutectoid. So by definition cannot be a true wootz. The pattern appeared superficial. Any thoughts Dr. Ann? All the Best Jeff P.S. for what it is worth, the first looks like a very nice Indian wootz pattern (18th century), and the second although hard to say could be a late Persian piece of wootz. Below is an example of sham pattern Attached Images

14th December 2005, 10:06 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I do not think it is Wootz (crystalline damascus); it is mechanical damascus and, I think, of Shams variety. The finial looks Ottoman, and the use of niello points more towards Asia Minor proper rather than the Balkans. I just got Yu. Miller's book on Caucasian Arms in the Hermitage collection; it has an example of a dagger with a handle traditionally attributed to Albania (deep diagonal cuts on the handle) but in fact of Georgian origin. This one is not Caucasian at all: wire-stitched scabbard, different niello ornaments, different location of hanging rings (look almost Syrian or Moroccan to me!) , wrong finial. I vote for the Levant origin (Turkey, Western Middle East).

14th December 2005, 11:41 PM	#2
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,716	Ariel's post brings up a great question: sometimes wootz (pulad) and very fine mechanical damascus are difficult to differentiate, as they look similar. I think Risk had a khyber knife that was controversial in this aspect, and I have a qama blade that I initially thought was wootz but now I believe is simply fine mechanical damascus (sorry for the enormour picture and its poor quality, the problem if partially in the camera and partially in the photographer ) Is there any way to tell the difference without a complex analysis causing harm to the blade?

15th December 2005, 12:13 AM	#3
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,089	In the first piece posted, the blade is wootz. Sham is a pattern style of wootz. The carving in the middle of the handle reminds me of "Marsh Arab" Jambiya although the handle form is not quite the same. I would vote for Iraqi/Kurdish origin for this piece. The picture is not too good in the Qama to be able to tell for sure but it does look more like pattern welding versus wootz. I don't think there is a definitive way to tell other than through experience in viewing various watered steels and gaining an understanding of what to look for to recognize each. Two decent books on the subject are Sasche's "Damascus Steel" where he has lots of good images and technical descriptions on the different types of "watered" steel. The other book is "On Damascus Steel" by Figiel. Less technical but lots of great images of wootz and pattern welded blades.

15th December 2005, 02:53 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	RSWORD, I am surprised by your assertion that Shams is a pattern of wootz. Wootz is a crystalline Damascus, a natural one, whereas Shams is a pattern of mechanical Damascus and is formed by repeat folding, twisting etc. of different steel/iron pieces. Am I wrong? What do other Forumites think?

15th December 2005, 09:48 AM	#6
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Fascinating thread! After all these years of discussing ethnographic blades we come back to the core. What is wootz and what is not. I am not an expert on the subject but my humble opinions are: The first knife is not Albanian. But is not the common Kurdish also. I am not sure were it comes from. It has some Syrian look to me. Its blade is wootz but not sham pattern. Sham pattern is shown clearly in Jeff’s example. Till now I was sure that sham was wootz. Middle eastern bladesmiths produced that pattern by forging wootz steel. Now I am not sure anymore, after your words. I wish someone clarify the subject.

19th January 2006, 06:17 PM	#7
Valjhun Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 692	I'm not so knowledeable so I cannot clarify the wootz-subject any further, but I've finally recived the dagger and it is a big mystery to me. The blade is gorgeus and it definetly looks like ottoman damascus to me. The handle look also old and I do not think that it is a later adition. The damascening on the scabbard looks nice, doing a little research on the net I've found a true albanian jambiya with similar damascening. In the Tirri's book there is a photo of a verry similar (almost identical jambiya) on the page 97, with the atribution that it is a Syrian Jambiya from 19th century. But if I'm honest, I do not believe to Mr. Tirri anymore, due to his fatal errors in the same book (Suremene knife = unusual balkan dagger, Laz bichagi = egyptian knopesh, and many more...) Any further comments?