Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

mahratt · 22nd February 2016, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Mahratt, that is amazing ! I have never seen the monumental book by the great expert of all Persian arms, Manoucher, but of the weapons shown in that book, there are none ascribed to Assad Adullah?

I for one do think that is very strange, especially since this book has been acclaimed by him to be the last word on these Persian swords.
Perhaps, these inscriptions are indeed for trade blades only?

Are you familiar with the article by Oliver Pinchot? I need to find my copy and read it again!!

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

Jim McDougall · 22nd February 2016, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

If Kirill Rivkin says that in Manouchers book the swords represented are only second half 18th and into 19th centuries, then I would presume that comment to be compellingly accurate knowing the level of his knowledge and experience.

It seems, after rereading the remarkable article by Oliver Pinchot, that dated examples of 17th century shamshirs are relatively uncommon, thus often the method of recognizing them is primarily by the character of the blade itself. Apparantly Mayer (1962) was able to identify a good number of Assad Allah blades signed, but these all were apparently AFTER the reign of Shah Abbas I. As his reign was c. 1587-1628 (Stone) then these still would fall into 17th century.
Mayer (opcit.) notes that despite the questionable historicity of the name Assad Allah, the name was associated with fine sword blades in Persia by the late 17th c . and notes dated blades supporting this.

I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy.

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.

mahratt · 23rd February 2016, 10:38 AM

Guys, look at life realistically.

Unfortunately, the inscription is not the blade does not mean anything. Who prevents the early 19th century to make Shamshir and sign it - "1650"?

Let's talk about the items that are 100% provenance. Shamshir 17th century - diplomatic gifts, the kings of the property - they remained a couple dozen. Only they have the 100% provenance, only their date - 100% correct. They are different from what we mean by "Shamshir" geometry (Shamshir and those that we see in the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani), and cartush with "Shah Abbas" and "Assadula" them not ....

Unfortunately, in many museums around the world data shamshir (and not only) are not correct ... From this error, that appear in the books. These errors are due to the fact that the books of the authors believe what is written in the museum.

For example, I come to the museum in a small town in Russia, and see the Persian shashmshir. Around him the label. On the label is written: "Russian saber 14th century.." I would have thought that such errors are only in Russia. But, I traveled a lot in Europe. And in museums in different cities also saw such errors (incorrect date)....

23rd February 2016, 02:02 AM	#3
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.

23rd February 2016, 10:38 AM	#4
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Guys, look at life realistically. Unfortunately, the inscription is not the blade does not mean anything. Who prevents the early 19th century to make Shamshir and sign it - "1650"? Let's talk about the items that are 100% provenance. Shamshir 17th century - diplomatic gifts, the kings of the property - they remained a couple dozen. Only they have the 100% provenance, only their date - 100% correct. They are different from what we mean by "Shamshir" geometry (Shamshir and those that we see in the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani), and cartush with "Shah Abbas" and "Assadula" them not .... Unfortunately, in many museums around the world data shamshir (and not only) are not correct ... From this error, that appear in the books. These errors are due to the fact that the books of the authors believe what is written in the museum. For example, I come to the museum in a small town in Russia, and see the Persian shashmshir. Around him the label. On the label is written: "Russian saber 14th century.." I would have thought that such errors are only in Russia. But, I traveled a lot in Europe. And in museums in different cities also saw such errors (incorrect date)....