clunker saif?

katana · 14th February 2007, 11:35 AM

I may be 'digging up' old ground but the 'guard' shape suggests 'Allah'.
Fist pic is 'Allah' , second is the symbol on its side to match hilt of the third picture.

Emanuel · 14th February 2007, 05:13 PM

Nicely spotted, David!

The Acehnese rencong has a bism'allah carved at the base of the blade, so this certainly has precedent. Your observation could be correct, but keep in mind that the form is also derived from one that had nothing to do with "allah". Could be an armourer's aethetic sense at work, adapting existing shapes to new meanings.

Emanuel

ariel · 14th February 2007, 10:53 PM

I think we are seeing things that are not there: kind of "Lady Mondegreen" reading.
Algerean Nimchas had only 2 langets ( or are they bent quillons?) , and Zanzibarean swords had in effect 2 langets and a ring. Both would absolutely preclude "reading" the configuration of the handguard as "Allah".
If we follow the same reasoning, European D-guards would stand for " Dominus" or " Deus", and Albanian Khandjars, with their diagonally incised handles would hint at " Virgo Maria"

For those not familiar with Lady Mondegreen, here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen

Jim McDougall · 15th February 2007, 02:55 AM

These are some really interesting observations!!

and I think such constructive ideas are often very important in studying ethnographic weapons. One of my favorite quotes:
"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen,
and thinking what nobody has thought".
-Albert von Szent-Gyorgy

Actually the very interesting hilt structure of these sa'if/ nimchas has been studied and discussed numerous times over the years. It would seem that many of the features, especially the distinctive quillon, guard arrangement evolved from early Italian swords, and these influences were carried by mostly trade interaction from about the late 15th c. onward. Study on this development was discussed by Anthony North in 1975 ( "A Late 15th c. Italian Sword", in 'The Connoisseur' Dec.1975).

Prior to this, the catalog of the collections of Charles Buttin (Rumilly, France, 1933) shows numerous examples of these sa'if, those with the distinct ring on the crossguard noted as 'Arab' without any reference to 'Zanzibar' attribution. I believe the Zanzibar association developed with its prominence as a trade center, and prevalence of furbishers and outfitters there who produced examples of earlier Arab swords with both trade and native blades there in the 19th c. It does seem that the ring guard has been established as typically found on these sa'if known to have come from Zanzibar, but they do not seem to have been necessarily indiginous prior to examples produced later in the 19th c. there.In the Buttin reference, examples of these sa'if without the ring guard and with the multiple downward quillons were invariably labelled Moroccan. Interestingly, I believe the ring guards are reflections also of early Italian swords, which often had these as the more complex guards developed.

While this material on the development of these hilts presents the results of existing and much earlier researches, I find the suggestions made most interesting and never discount the possibilities of the many ways key influences may have been selected.

All best regards,
Jim

FenrisWolf · 15th February 2007, 03:09 AM

It also never hurts to try and get inside the heads of those who made and used such weapons. There is little practical reason for such an ornate hilt that would not be equally served by a simpler design. so what was the aesthetic that attracted the weaponsmith? Perhaps an early artisan noticed the similarity between the basic design and the calligraphy for 'Allah'; perhaps it was away of avoiding producing weapons whose hilts were also the 'sign of the cross'. At this late date no one is likely to know for sure, but it never hurts to speculate so long as one remembers to keep an open mind and not become over-attached to any one theory, at least until such time as there is sufficient evidence to choose one in preference over others.

Pukka Bundook · 15th February 2007, 05:28 AM

Well I'm still with you chaps, and find it all very fascinating!

Katana's observation appears to me very possible.

I do not know how many known examples of sa'ifs have a guard like this one.
The ones I have seen either have a 'D' ring, or 'quillons' that taper out and down, away from the blade, not curling in in the manner of a ring guard.

One observation I can make, is this sword is very handy, fast and very comfortable to hold, with the finger over the cross.
Held in this manner it really comes to life, Yet, the very few other examples of sa'ifs I have seen pictures of appear to pre-clude holding in this manner. (no-where for finger to go!)
The sword does appear to hav been held in this manner, as the sharp corner of the cross is worn down much smoother in the finger area.
I know these obsevations are pointless from an historical point of view, but it may help us understand this specific ring shaping.

I must thank all for sharing in this discussion!!

Best,
Richard.

ariel · 15th February 2007, 01:34 PM

If Jim's info about the Italian predecessors of these guards is correct ( and I tend always to believe him!), then the "Allah" theory becomes even less probable.

Mark · 16th February 2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

I may be 'digging up' old ground but the 'guard' shape suggests 'Allah'.
Fist pic is 'Allah' , second is the symbol on its side to match hilt of the third picture.

I see the resemblance, but for that matter it also resembles the sacred syllable "Om" (aum):

katana · 16th February 2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I see the resemblance, but for that matter it also resembles the sacred syllable "Om" (aum):

One side Allah.....the otherside the sacred 'Om'

Perhaps the maker of this hilt wanted to 'double the divine protection' for the owner

Well noted, Mark

BSMStar · 17th February 2007, 05:24 PM

Let me breach another possibility for the “Genoa” stamp.

Jim, you have pointed out that the sword may have been modified in the Caucus and/or the Chechen region… if so, that would place the sword in Mother Russia.

Being in Russia, it opens to possibility of Cyrillic letters. The backward “N” and the letter “л” (the letter lambda, you see it as the letter “A” without the cross bar) are a give-away. This is clue number one.

The theory that it is just simply to mislead and to look like the word Genoa (due to a Genoan connection) would not make sense if we were “Russian” and living in that region. There is a letter “A” in Cyrillic and I would have to assume that the last letter would have been an “A” and not “л” as it was stamped, if the word Genoa was intended. This is clue number two. Therefore, any local Russian would see the word Seiol and not Genoa. In order for the Genoa theory to work, we would have to assume that these swords were stamped for sale to the West. Only western eyes would be “mislead.”

Jim, you have also pointed out a time frame of the later 1800’s… these opens the possibility (building on your other points) that the sword may have survived the October Revolution (of 1918). This is clue number three. In the new Soviet State, no medals or formal award system existed until after the formation of the Federation (“local” medals started production but were still very difficult to obtain in the field). Decorations for valor in the battlefield usually consisted of items confiscated by the Red Army in the name of the people. Guns, swords, daggers, and even clothing were handed out as decorations, usually with hand written citations. It was not too unusual to have the persons name engraved or stamped on the item (depending on the importance of the recipient, availability to do the engraving and so on).

Therefore, I would like to suggest, there maybe other explanations for the “Genoa” stamp.

Best regards,

Wayne

Jim McDougall · 18th February 2007, 12:17 AM

Hi Wayne,
Extremely well written and thought out post responding to the Genoa markings and Caucasian trade blades!
Actually what I was suggesting, and apparantly could have worded better, was that this blade, of uncertain origin appears to have had motif and the 'Genoan' marking added, probably by a tribal armourer in the Maghreb.
The point that I was bringing up about the ' sickle mark' used in linear motif was known to occur on the blades from the Caucusus, and that this much more crudely done representation suggested that these blades must have been known to the armourer. The only other place I know of this linear motif with these sickle marks besides the Caucusus has been an example of sword in India, so it seemed most interesting to see it here in the Maghreb.

My note on the transcribing of words and lettering by armourers or blacksmiths on these refurbished blades simply was suggesting that the obvious errors were a result of being done by a person not able to read the language, and quite possibly illiterate even in thier own language. I'm sure that if I were trying to inscribe something in Cyrillic, the end result would probably even be worse than this !

considering my limited knowledge of Russian.

Thank you for the outstanding and informative post concerning possibilities concerning these 'Genoan' markings and the very impressive deductive reasoning you present to support your observations ! My point could certainly have been presented more clearly, so my apologies for the wild goose chase!

All best regards,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 18th February 2007, 02:35 AM

Jim,
Re. the backwards 'N', I was looking at a rather nice Italian 18th century flint sporting gun recently, the lock was signed, And the 'N' was backwards!

Sooo, room for thought......

BSMStar · 18th February 2007, 04:19 AM

Jim, there is no reason to apologize… your points are well taken and I was just following up on them. My theory is no more correct than any other… I just chose to follow the three clues, 1. the location, 2. the language, and 3.the historical context… but my ideas are still just a theory.

Best regards,

Wayne

14th February 2007, 11:35 AM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I may be 'digging up' old ground but the 'guard' shape suggests 'Allah'. Fist pic is 'Allah' , second is the symbol on its side to match hilt of the third picture. Attached Images

17th February 2007, 05:24 PM	#10
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	Three clues... Let me breach another possibility for the “Genoa” stamp. Jim, you have pointed out that the sword may have been modified in the Caucus and/or the Chechen region… if so, that would place the sword in Mother Russia. Being in Russia, it opens to possibility of Cyrillic letters. The backward “N” and the letter “л” (the letter lambda, you see it as the letter “A” without the cross bar) are a give-away. This is clue number one. The theory that it is just simply to mislead and to look like the word Genoa (due to a Genoan connection) would not make sense if we were “Russian” and living in that region. There is a letter “A” in Cyrillic and I would have to assume that the last letter would have been an “A” and not “л” as it was stamped, if the word Genoa was intended. This is clue number two. Therefore, any local Russian would see the word Seiol and not Genoa. In order for the Genoa theory to work, we would have to assume that these swords were stamped for sale to the West. Only western eyes would be “mislead.” Jim, you have also pointed out a time frame of the later 1800’s… these opens the possibility (building on your other points) that the sword may have survived the October Revolution (of 1918). This is clue number three. In the new Soviet State, no medals or formal award system existed until after the formation of the Federation (“local” medals started production but were still very difficult to obtain in the field). Decorations for valor in the battlefield usually consisted of items confiscated by the Red Army in the name of the people. Guns, swords, daggers, and even clothing were handed out as decorations, usually with hand written citations. It was not too unusual to have the persons name engraved or stamped on the item (depending on the importance of the recipient, availability to do the engraving and so on). Therefore, I would like to suggest, there maybe other explanations for the “Genoa” stamp. Best regards, Wayne

14th February 2007, 05:13 PM	#2
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Nicely spotted, David! The Acehnese rencong has a bism'allah carved at the base of the blade, so this certainly has precedent. Your observation could be correct, but keep in mind that the form is also derived from one that had nothing to do with "allah". Could be an armourer's aethetic sense at work, adapting existing shapes to new meanings. Emanuel

14th February 2007, 10:53 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I think we are seeing things that are not there: kind of "Lady Mondegreen" reading. Algerean Nimchas had only 2 langets ( or are they bent quillons?) , and Zanzibarean swords had in effect 2 langets and a ring. Both would absolutely preclude "reading" the configuration of the handguard as "Allah". If we follow the same reasoning, European D-guards would stand for " Dominus" or " Deus", and Albanian Khandjars, with their diagonally incised handles would hint at " Virgo Maria" For those not familiar with Lady Mondegreen, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen

15th February 2007, 02:55 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	These are some really interesting observations!! and I think such constructive ideas are often very important in studying ethnographic weapons. One of my favorite quotes: "...discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought". -Albert von Szent-Gyorgy Actually the very interesting hilt structure of these sa'if/ nimchas has been studied and discussed numerous times over the years. It would seem that many of the features, especially the distinctive quillon, guard arrangement evolved from early Italian swords, and these influences were carried by mostly trade interaction from about the late 15th c. onward. Study on this development was discussed by Anthony North in 1975 ( "A Late 15th c. Italian Sword", in 'The Connoisseur' Dec.1975). Prior to this, the catalog of the collections of Charles Buttin (Rumilly, France, 1933) shows numerous examples of these sa'if, those with the distinct ring on the crossguard noted as 'Arab' without any reference to 'Zanzibar' attribution. I believe the Zanzibar association developed with its prominence as a trade center, and prevalence of furbishers and outfitters there who produced examples of earlier Arab swords with both trade and native blades there in the 19th c. It does seem that the ring guard has been established as typically found on these sa'if known to have come from Zanzibar, but they do not seem to have been necessarily indiginous prior to examples produced later in the 19th c. there.In the Buttin reference, examples of these sa'if without the ring guard and with the multiple downward quillons were invariably labelled Moroccan. Interestingly, I believe the ring guards are reflections also of early Italian swords, which often had these as the more complex guards developed. While this material on the development of these hilts presents the results of existing and much earlier researches, I find the suggestions made most interesting and never discount the possibilities of the many ways key influences may have been selected. All best regards, Jim

15th February 2007, 03:09 AM	#5
FenrisWolf Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 181	It also never hurts to try and get inside the heads of those who made and used such weapons. There is little practical reason for such an ornate hilt that would not be equally served by a simpler design. so what was the aesthetic that attracted the weaponsmith? Perhaps an early artisan noticed the similarity between the basic design and the calligraphy for 'Allah'; perhaps it was away of avoiding producing weapons whose hilts were also the 'sign of the cross'. At this late date no one is likely to know for sure, but it never hurts to speculate so long as one remembers to keep an open mind and not become over-attached to any one theory, at least until such time as there is sufficient evidence to choose one in preference over others.

15th February 2007, 05:28 AM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Well I'm still with you chaps, and find it all very fascinating! Katana's observation appears to me very possible. I do not know how many known examples of sa'ifs have a guard like this one. The ones I have seen either have a 'D' ring, or 'quillons' that taper out and down, away from the blade, not curling in in the manner of a ring guard. One observation I can make, is this sword is very handy, fast and very comfortable to hold, with the finger over the cross. Held in this manner it really comes to life, Yet, the very few other examples of sa'ifs I have seen pictures of appear to pre-clude holding in this manner. (no-where for finger to go!) The sword does appear to hav been held in this manner, as the sharp corner of the cross is worn down much smoother in the finger area. I know these obsevations are pointless from an historical point of view, but it may help us understand this specific ring shaping. I must thank all for sharing in this discussion!! Best, Richard.

15th February 2007, 01:34 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	If Jim's info about the Italian predecessors of these guards is correct ( and I tend always to believe him!), then the "Allah" theory becomes even less probable.

18th February 2007, 12:17 AM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Hi Wayne, Extremely well written and thought out post responding to the Genoa markings and Caucasian trade blades! Actually what I was suggesting, and apparantly could have worded better, was that this blade, of uncertain origin appears to have had motif and the 'Genoan' marking added, probably by a tribal armourer in the Maghreb. The point that I was bringing up about the ' sickle mark' used in linear motif was known to occur on the blades from the Caucusus, and that this much more crudely done representation suggested that these blades must have been known to the armourer. The only other place I know of this linear motif with these sickle marks besides the Caucusus has been an example of sword in India, so it seemed most interesting to see it here in the Maghreb. My note on the transcribing of words and lettering by armourers or blacksmiths on these refurbished blades simply was suggesting that the obvious errors were a result of being done by a person not able to read the language, and quite possibly illiterate even in thier own language. I'm sure that if I were trying to inscribe something in Cyrillic, the end result would probably even be worse than this ! considering my limited knowledge of Russian. Thank you for the outstanding and informative post concerning possibilities concerning these 'Genoan' markings and the very impressive deductive reasoning you present to support your observations ! My point could certainly have been presented more clearly, so my apologies for the wild goose chase! All best regards, Jim

18th February 2007, 02:35 AM	#12
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Jim, Re. the backwards 'N', I was looking at a rather nice Italian 18th century flint sporting gun recently, the lock was signed, And the 'N' was backwards! Sooo, room for thought......

18th February 2007, 04:19 AM	#13
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	Jim, there is no reason to apologize… your points are well taken and I was just following up on them. My theory is no more correct than any other… I just chose to follow the three clues, 1. the location, 2. the language, and 3.the historical context… but my ideas are still just a theory. Best regards, Wayne