Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

[mahratt]

mariusgmioc, thank you for the interesting thoughts.

I have only one question. Do we have at least one evidence of the existence of master Assadula Isfahani of Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?

[ariel]

Mariusgmioc,
Very cogent exposition of the problem. It constructs a logical ( albeit indirect) basis of a true existence of Assadullah as a famous swordmaker. The incident of a helmet naming him by name strongly supports the reality of his existence.

Multiple old writers living much closer to the Abbas' era refer to Assadullah as a living person. It is only recently that the trend of deconstructing him has begun.

Interestingly, the proponents of a "purely talismanic" hypothesis cannot provide a single evidence to the contrary: such as, for example , a testimony of a contemporary witness unequivocally stating that Assadullah Isfaghani was purely a legend. Instead, they construct complicated and convoluted stratagems invoking the meaning of his name, it's cognomens, ancient personalities using it as a honorary title etc, but not a single direct argument.

Occam Rule always wins: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But when it is supported by a direct reference ( the helmet), it becomes virtually unbeatable:-)

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
I did not mean you personally re. the meaning of Assadullah and my reading Khorasani's book. No offence meant or taken. BTW , my own name, Ariel, - has the same meaning in Hebrew as Assadullah in Farsi:-)))

No doubt later masters used Assadullah's name for purely pecuniary purposes. The same is true about paintings by Rembrandt, watches by Cartier, and leather bags by Versace. It does not mean that Rembrandt, Versace and Cartier did not physically exist. On the contrary, it it they and their names that gave rise to the legendary fame of the brands.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Multiple old writers living much closer to the Abbas' era refer to Assadullah as a living person. It is only recently that the trend of deconstructing him has begun.

Interestingly, the proponents of a "purely talismanic" hypothesis cannot provide a single evidence to the contrary: such as, for example , a testimony of a contemporary witness unequivocally stating that Assadullah Isfaghani was purely a legend. Instead, they construct complicated and convoluted stratagems invoking the meaning of his name, it's cognomens, ancient personalities using it as a honorary title etc, but not a single direct argument.

Occam Rule always wins: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But when it is supported by a direct reference ( the helmet), it becomes virtually unbeatable:-)

I hope, will not be difficult to name those writers who say that Assadula - this is a man (sword master). And to clarify, when these authors lived. It would have been very convincing.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Ariel. I've done better - show the authentic record Anosov 1841, where he writes that received a wootz "Kara-Khorasan" and wootz "Taban". And you (unlike the majority of the forum) can not only read my bad translation, and real publication.

I thought, for researcher it enough

I have shown in another topic a few Shashka of Bukhara with three rivets. And I think that this is enough. Now you insist that I show Bukhara shashkas with large rivets. Perhaps you began to doubt that the shashkas, which you have shown (with small rivets) from Bukhara?
Do not worry. This is a good shashkas. I even a little jealous of you

I do not understand your point. Neither do I understand the point of inserting a photo with the grips of three different blades.

As with regards to the terms Kara Khorasan and Kara Taban, there is not a single clear description that would allow their unambiguous identification and differentiation. It is most likely they are refering to the same type of wootz steel, dark, with high contrast and large strips of of watering patterns. More exactly Kara Taban means "black base" and "Kara Khorasan" means "black Khorasan" where the first tries to describe the steel in terms of its aspect, and the second attempts to describe in terms of aspect and origin (black from Khorasan).

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

mariusgmioc, thank you for the interesting thoughts.

I have only one question. Do we have at least one evidence of the existence of master Assadula Isfahani of Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?

I do not know whether there are any contemporary documents mentioning Assadullah as being a swordsmith of the period.
But that doesn't mean that
1. such documents do not exist, or,
2. that Assadulah never existed in reality.

Do we have at least one evidence DENYING the existence of master Assadula Isfahani in Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?! (just to add a twist to your question)

Do we have any evidence that the cartouche signature appeared just like that, from thin air, for purely talismanic purposes?!

If it were purely for talismanic purposes, why don't we see it on other objects, like ceramics, armour, etc?!

You are stating that none of the 17th century pieces you saw in certain museums bear the signature cartouche. At the same time you admit that many pieces even in famous museums are wrongfully classified/dated. Then how can you be sure that the pieces you saw are accurately dated?! What if the pieces you saw are earlier pieces, prior to the apparition of Assadullah? What if they are contemporay with Assadullah but were made by diferent smiths, from different locations? What if the pieces you are referring to, were made after Assadullah but by a different workshop in a different city?

So, in the end I am restating it again: we can only SPECULATE about the subject, but some speculations seem much more probable than others.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I do not know whether there are any contemporary documents mentioning Assadullah as being a swordsmith of the period.
But that doesn't mean that
1. such documents do not exist, or,
2. that Assadulah never existed in reality.

Do we have at least one evidence DENYING the existence of master Assadula Isfahani in Persian manuscripts of the 17th century?! (just to add a twist to your question)

Do we have any evidence that the cartouche signature appeared just like that, from thin air, for purely talismanic purposes?!

If it were purely for talismanic purposes, why don't we see it on other objects, like ceramics, armour, etc?!

You are stating that none of the 17th century pieces you saw in certain museums bear the signature cartouche. At the same time you admit that many pieces even in famous museums are wrongfully classified/dated. Then how can you be sure that the pieces you saw are accurately dated?! What if the pieces you saw are earlier pieces, prior to the apparition of Assadullah? What if they are contemporay with Assadullah but were made by diferent smiths, from different locations? What if the pieces you are referring to, were made after Assadullah but by a different workshop in a different city?

So, in the end I am restating it again: we can only SPECULATE about the subject, but some speculations seem much more probable than others.

It's simple, it seems to me If Asadula - a well-known person (sword master), it must be mentioned in the writings of the time when he lived (17 century). But no one can give an example of such a manuscript .... If we see this manuscript, of course I'll be the first to say that Assadula was a real person. So far, unfortunately, there are no such data.
In the absence of this evidence, all other arguments are (I think) - just "mind games"

There are real Persian sword of the 17th century. Such swords save some, but they are. And know exactly where they are stored. Neither one of them no has a cartouche "Assadula". Moreover, as I have said before, the Persian sword of the 17th century are not similar to those sabers, which we used to call "Persian Shamshir" and wherein the blade has a cartouche "Asadula".

Draw conclusions* *