Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 22nd February 2016, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Fox

Dear members,

This is my first post on this forum. I have been collecting antique edged weapons for many years, since I was twelve, I'm now 36.

Years ago I started collecting German pattern welded damascus swords, mostly 19th and early 20th century vintage, and became fascinated with the art of European 'Damascus' blades. Inevitably I tried to find out what real damascus blades were all about, and I began to study Persian sword making and wootz steel. I spent time looking at examples in museums and books, and finally, very recently, I have purchased an example of a wootz steel Persian shamshir. The grip seems to be in bad shape, with signs of old repairs, but the blade looks pretty good.

The blade has two cartouches, with some other writing. I asked a friend in the Middle East if he could help me translate them, but although he is a calligrapher, he is not expert in Persian / Farsi. He thinks that one cartouche says: 'made by Zaman Esfahani'.

Can anyone help me with translating what is written on this blade, and also tell me anything about its age and who Zaman was.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Kind regards

Will

Salaams William Fox, Your thread is indeed an excellent one... in reading the many details regarding signatures on Shamshiirs I conclude that the following is perhaps the nearest I would agree with; from http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/shamshir/

Quote"Considering the variation in the inscribed dates and rulers it seems unlikely that these inscriptions were truly made to deceive contemporary buyers, hence these inscriptions may essentially have been intended as talismanic devices."Unquote.

I have to say that I am at the same time delighted with the wording since Talismanic inscription is an important area in its own right. To be clear I think the illusion of an actual person is very much in line with the invention albeit a masquerade and a play with words not so much as to lie or cheat a buyer moreover to classify a workshop (though it may well be that other workshops also used the signature as well) as the producer of fine blades. Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ...

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

mariusgmioc · 22nd February 2016, 04:28 PM

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

Jim McDougall · 22nd February 2016, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

I am inclined to agree, and as Ariel has noted, hilts were often replaced to maintain serviceability or in many cases as these blades changed hands.

As Ibrahiim has well noted, the cartouche with this signature would seem to be associated with talismanic imbuement of this very attractive blade, as seen with the bedough square adjacent.
As Mahratt has noted, we must be cautious in observing these inscriptions of these profoundly known makers as indeed they, just as famed makers in Toledo, North Italy and Germany had their very names become fixtures in the implication of quality in blades.

Though Mayer's work is a most venerable source, and typically most reliable, some of the references are notably brief but serve well as benchmarks for the subsequent research that has transpired.

I think Oliver Pinchot's work on the Assad Adulah blades has become a well established reference on the topic of these markings on Persian blades, and his reputation and knowledge has indeed become well known in the international arms community.

As mentioned with the case of the legendary Andrea Ferara which became legion in the famed Scottish swords, we cannot be absolutely certain of the true existence of the original personage. What is certain is that the name became the byword for excellence in the blades on which it was present.

That this practice might have in some cases been applied to substandard blades with the application naturally alluding to these well known blades seems rather anticipated.

William Fox · 21st October 2016, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello William,
Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade.

Thank you, and everyone here, for sharing your knowledge and helping me to understand this sword a little better. I have recently acquired a decent camera so will take some better photos and post them.

Regards to all,

Will

ariel · 22nd October 2016, 03:18 PM

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:-)

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 23rd October 2016, 06:08 AM

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.

mariusgmioc · 23rd October 2016, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

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:-)

Couldn' t have said it better!

22nd February 2016, 04:28 PM	#2
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	about the Shamshir Hello William, Although the photos you provided are not of very good quality, after a more careful examination, judging by the shape (amplitude of curvature), technique of the inscriptions and aspect of wootz, I believe your Shamshir is a late 17th century blade (of undoubtedly Persian origin). As with regards with the hilt, it is the original shape, with only the scales being replaced (and they could have been replaced practically anywhere). It is certainly a very beautiful blade. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 22nd February 2016 at 05:29 PM.

22nd October 2016, 03:18 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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:-)

23rd October 2016, 06:08 AM	#6
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	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.