Karabela? Persian? Balkan?

Rivkin · 27th September 2006, 04:20 PM

It is possible that both blade and hilt are kadjar. The star symbol actually appears in Azerbaijan, both Persian and independent; here one can see a quadara with Qajar coins, making persian attribution easy. Again one might speculate that the blade is from somewhere else, but I believe it is a local Iranian (Azerbaijani ?) production:
http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1170
Slightly more modern:
http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=135

S.Al-Anizi · 27th September 2006, 04:58 PM

Interesting find rivkin, this says that the blade could be Persian then.

ham · 1st October 2006, 07:52 PM

Gentlemen,

The hilt of the sword is late Qajar, the blade is a Caucasian, probably Amuzgi made, copy of a Persian saber blade. This type is covered in Elgood Arabian Arms.
The name 'karabela' may or may not derive from Turkish. Both Elgood and Pinchot argue for the city of Karbala, see Elgood Arabian Arms, Pinchot Shamshirs.

Ham

Yannis · 1st October 2006, 08:44 PM

I see so many similarities from Manoucher’s book that I am certain for Zand period too. The Qajar supporters must give us some examples to backup their opinion.

Of course I have to admit that I didn’t knew anything about Zand period before this.

Eftihis, did I earned my salary?

Rivkin · 1st October 2006, 09:56 PM

If my memory does not betray me, Zand is a family that ruled in the second half of XVIIIth century. The only dynasty of farsi (lori) background, spent zt least the half of their rule fighting turkish lords-Qajars and other semi-independent leaders. Lost to Qajars in the end of XVIIIth century.

Now I am no specialist on the matter, but first of all I always found it to be problematic to definitely distinguish between some of Qajar and Zand pieces, they are often done in the same style. The similarities are substantial, with an exception of touristy or very low quality revival pieces. Why I think this work is Qajar? The image is kind of soft and gives me the feeling of XIXth century processes - etching or something else. Indeed the style is reminiscent of Zand-Qajar, but I do think it is Qajar and btw not early Qajar.

Now with the blade I am even less of an expert - my take was somewhere in Azerbajan, north-south. Ham is probably right (?) with his Dagestani attribution.

Rivkin · 5th October 2006, 05:49 AM

Rered Minorsky - Zand dynastry was kurdish and not farsi. Shame on me.

Rivkin · 12th November 2006, 09:24 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen (or minding that so far we have only Dr. Feuerbach, should I say Lady and Gentlemen ?)

After rereading Astvatzaturjan and some other literature, I think I can rephrase their ideas on how to distinguish Dagestani from Persian per se shamshirs (never mind the georgian shamshirs for now, their fullers are different):

1. If the blade is wootz, the blade is most likely Persian
2. If the blade is plain steel or mechanical damascus, it something like half by half or so.
3. If the blade has fullers, it is most likely Dagestani.

Do you agree with such classification ?
It seems that in this case the blade is most certainly Dagestani ?
This blade actually satisfies what Astv. thinks to be distinctive Amuzga qualities: fullers start 1/4 of the blade away from the hilt, one is small next to the blunt side, other(s) are bigger, they slowly converge towards one to another, and around the blade only the big one(s) remains.

1st October 2006, 09:56 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	If my memory does not betray me, Zand is a family that ruled in the second half of XVIIIth century. The only dynasty of farsi (lori) background, spent zt least the half of their rule fighting turkish lords-Qajars and other semi-independent leaders. Lost to Qajars in the end of XVIIIth century. Now I am no specialist on the matter, but first of all I always found it to be problematic to definitely distinguish between some of Qajar and Zand pieces, they are often done in the same style. The similarities are substantial, with an exception of touristy or very low quality revival pieces. Why I think this work is Qajar? The image is kind of soft and gives me the feeling of XIXth century processes - etching or something else. Indeed the style is reminiscent of Zand-Qajar, but I do think it is Qajar and btw not early Qajar. Now with the blade I am even less of an expert - my take was somewhere in Azerbajan, north-south. Ham is probably right (?) with his Dagestani attribution. Last edited by Rivkin; 2nd October 2006 at 12:00 AM.

27th September 2006, 04:20 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	It is possible that both blade and hilt are kadjar. The star symbol actually appears in Azerbaijan, both Persian and independent; here one can see a quadara with Qajar coins, making persian attribution easy. Again one might speculate that the blade is from somewhere else, but I believe it is a local Iranian (Azerbaijani ?) production: http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1170 Slightly more modern: http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=135

27th September 2006, 04:58 PM	#2
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Interesting find rivkin, this says that the blade could be Persian then.

1st October 2006, 07:52 PM	#3
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, The hilt of the sword is late Qajar, the blade is a Caucasian, probably Amuzgi made, copy of a Persian saber blade. This type is covered in Elgood Arabian Arms. The name 'karabela' may or may not derive from Turkish. Both Elgood and Pinchot argue for the city of Karbala, see Elgood Arabian Arms, Pinchot Shamshirs. Ham

1st October 2006, 08:44 PM	#4
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	I see so many similarities from Manoucher’s book that I am certain for Zand period too. The Qajar supporters must give us some examples to backup their opinion. Of course I have to admit that I didn’t knew anything about Zand period before this. Eftihis, did I earned my salary?

5th October 2006, 05:49 AM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Rered Minorsky - Zand dynastry was kurdish and not farsi. Shame on me.

12th November 2006, 09:24 PM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Ladies and Gentlemen (or minding that so far we have only Dr. Feuerbach, should I say Lady and Gentlemen ?) After rereading Astvatzaturjan and some other literature, I think I can rephrase their ideas on how to distinguish Dagestani from Persian per se shamshirs (never mind the georgian shamshirs for now, their fullers are different): 1. If the blade is wootz, the blade is most likely Persian 2. If the blade is plain steel or mechanical damascus, it something like half by half or so. 3. If the blade has fullers, it is most likely Dagestani. Do you agree with such classification ? It seems that in this case the blade is most certainly Dagestani ? This blade actually satisfies what Astv. thinks to be distinctive Amuzga qualities: fullers start 1/4 of the blade away from the hilt, one is small next to the blunt side, other(s) are bigger, they slowly converge towards one to another, and around the blade only the big one(s) remains.