Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All, The designed name ...and continuation of it Assad Allah were used in honour of the person in Persian Lore...and History which is why no detailed history exists of the sword maker with that name...there wasnt one! The story of the helmet is purely mythical and an invention around one of the names. As outlined above these names were placed in honour of the sword quality and as a mark of that quality.

I am amazed it has created such a fuss...and one member even throws down his pen (is that not the same as throwing down ones sword? ) although as with all things if someone wishes to compile a data sheet showing the names as real persons I would be pleased to read it. Meanwhile for those wishing to observe the full weighing up of this apparent conundrum please look at and note ~ if it does not appear it may be accessed at the right side under recent blogs..;

http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-...of-assad-allah/

It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

...
It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it.
...

Ibrahiim, I totally agree!
Here's that LINK again.

[Jeff D]

I love this, old school forum debates. While we are at it can anyone find contemporary evidence of Homer, Shakespeare and Jesus...?

Jeff

[mahratt]

It is strange to compare the person who lived 2,000 years ago (Jesus and Homer), as well as Shakespeare , whose existence is not in doubt (as far as I know) with the mythical personality "Assadula", who was supposed to live in the 17th century. Amazing ... we know about Shakespeare when he was baptized, who were his parents, etc. Life "Assadula" (about the same time) - is shrouded in mystery

[ariel]

JeffD:

How can you even bring up the mythical personality of someone called Shakespeare?
I am surprised!


It is a common knowledge that William Shaxpere, aka Shagspere did not write Hamlet, King Lear and the rest of them. It was Francis de Vere ( or Francis Bacon, or Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, or Sir Walter Raleigh, or Amelia Bassano Lanier , a Venetian Jewess of Moroccan ancestry, or....)

"Shakespeare" was just a talismanic mark, a sign of quality used by a local guild of play writers. It is obvious that Othello and Titus Andronicus could not have been written by the same hand!

Multiple British researchers and theater personalities , including Derek Jacobi, can swear on local phone books and testify in court to that effect.

:-)))))))

[Emanuel]

LOL

SHAVER KOOL

[Jeff D]

🤔

Jeff

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

LOL

SHAVER KOOL

OH NO!!!!!!!

[William Fox]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Arthur.Rothschild]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Can't help you with the translation but to me, it looks like the blade is older than the grip, possibly 18th century.
The photos are not very good, but the blade appears to be in pretty good condition. Could you discern any pattern in the wootz?

It is a Quran scripture( Nasr mn Allah wa Fateh Qareeb) which means victory from Allah and an imminent conquest. In addition to the maker name Asfahani. It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real. Unfortunately, many makers try to forge the stamp and using his name as trade mark.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Arthur.Rothschild

... It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real...

The cartouches and inscriptions on the blade in Post 1 and 11 seem to be proper, authentic and contemporary to the blade. Whether made by AssadAllah himself or not is something that cannot be claimed with certainty. Most authors describe such blades as "bearing AssadAllah maker mark". Labeling all such cartouches as non-authentic/not-real would be inaccurate and improper.. unless they are obviously modern made and/or on modern blades.

[ariel]

And yet another resurrection of the topic!
I love it.


AFAIK, no new evidence for or against physical existence of an Abbas-era swordmaker named Assadulla had surfaced in the interim. We are back to our deeply held beliefs about the role of a single personality in history.



Meanwhile, Israeli archeologists find one evidence after another pointing to a historical figure of King David. The latter was hotly “disproved” by a modern bunch of deconstruction specialists.

Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence: somebody may still find a shred of old paper mentioning Assadulla by name. And recently,a very smart guy named Kamil Khaidakov from Moskow reported Shamshir blades with deep stamps of Assadulla on their tangs. Something to think about.

BTW, The Iliad was written not by Homer, but by another ancient blind Greek poet ( or a commune of them) :-)

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence: somebody may still find a shred of old paper mentioning Assadulla by name. And recently,a very smart guy named Kamil Khaidakov from Moskow reported Shamshir blades with deep stamps of Assadulla on their tangs. Something to think about.

BTW, The Iliad was written not by Homer, but by another ancient blind Greek poet ( or a commune of them) :-)

Hello Ariel,

As I am not a native speaker, I may have misunderstood your message.

However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

I will illustrate my argument with a single example (albeit there are many) inspired by you.
For decades scholars argued there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Troy, and that Homer's poems Iliad and Odyssey are purely fictional creations...
... until one individual with absolutely no theoretical background took the two poems for EVIDENCE and started digging. And he found Troy.

Now there is another issue I want to bring up. WHAT IS "EVIDENCE?" Is an inscription on a sword saying "Work of XXX" evidence for the existence of the respective swordsmith? And here, we can argue ad nausea because what is evidence for some, can be rejected by others. However, based on my own common sense, I believe that we can make a rationally valid assumption that there existed a certain swordsmith named XXX. Now, whether he made the respective sword himself or a later imitator, is another issue but the mere existence of immitators I see as a confirmation of the assumption that at a certain moment there existed a swordsmith XXX. If he had not existed, why would his signature be immitated?

My two cents...

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by Arthur.Rothschild

It is a Quran scripture( Nasr mn Allah wa Fateh Qareeb) which means victory from Allah and an imminent conquest. In addition to the maker name Asfahani. It’s worth to mentythat this sword is Neither authentic work to Asad Allah neither the stamp is real. Unfortunately, many makers try to forge the stamp and using his name as trade mark.

You are correct that the translation on he spine is a Quranic verse. But the maker's mark is not even Assadullah, it is Zaman Asfahani, another well known smith. The translation was included in the original post so I am not sure how that was missed. There are no signs of fake inscriptions, as well documented items have such method of signatures in well established collections.

[ariel]

“However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”

Marius,
You are absolutely correct: this was a typing error and I am guilty for not noticing it:-((((((

And I agree with your argument: the very mention of Assadulla’s name and his “address” (“ from Isfaghan”) , as well as his relatives ( “Son Kalbali”) and pupils (“Zaman Isfaghani”) suggest that old swordmakers who lived close to his time knew about his physical existence.