Sword of the Last Armenian King: 14th century

[ariel]

There is an interesting thread on SFI about a sword in the Armenian Church in Venice allegedly belonging to the last King of Cilicia (Lesser Armenia) Leon (Levan)V from mid-14th century. With Andrew's permission, I am posting the entire thread here for our discussion.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...threadid=67095
If true, this is a major cultural find and a great source of information for all the sword-loving nations and, especially, individuals
I already formed my opinion, but would like to hear from other people what do they think.
Not often are we given an opportunity to discuss something of that magnitude. Let's not miss it!

[Rivkin]

It is very interesting. Cilician armenia was an ally of Ilkhanid empire, later a vassal to anatolian turks. In fact, it was always an open question, how many "mongol" soldiers in Ilkhanid-mamluk war were actually armenian/georgian. Would be interesting to see the authentication of this one.

Attached is 14th century georgian fresca.

[ariel]

the georgian wields a straight-bladed sword. What does his opponenr carry?
The moral: don't grab the blade!

[M.carter]

If you honestly believe that that sword is earlier than 17th century, you really should read a history book

[ariel]

Aaa-h, somebody agrees with me!
My feelings exactly!


First, the style of the inlay: this is a typical Turkish Ottoman technique with gold wire hammered into incised design and protruding above the surface. The earliest examples are from the 17th century.The intactness of the inlay is astounding: no way it could have been made in the 14th century: only museum exponates survive that well, but the older swords were put to use.


Second, the ornament of flags and halberds is very European , at the earliest 17th, more likely 18-19th century.

The figure of sitting Mary with baby Jesus in her lap is very Western: first, it has uncovered hair that was unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Church and, second, the Cherub above her head is also Western: head with two wings. The "all-seeing eye in a triangle" in the uppermost cartouche looks suspiciouly as a Masonic symbol that came into popular use in the second half of the 18th century.

The blade also looks Turkish, typical early Kilic 17-18th century.

The handle looks Persian (iron crossguard and 90 deg. pommel) but it could have been remounted. Remounted and broken handle and perfectly intact blade???


My overall assessment: this is a very nice and valuable sword made in Turkey, likely Istanbul in the 18th century at the earliest under significant Western influence. It resembles mightily the series of similar swords shown in the Astvatsaturyan's book "Turkish Weapons" and bearing Greek, Latin, Slavic or Arabic inscriptions. Probably, there was a fashion of the times.

As to the attribution of this sword to Leon V.... Not every "Indiana Jones" knife was actually owned by Harrison Ford

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by ariel

Aaa-h, somebody agrees with me!
My feelings exactly!


First, the style of the inlay: this is a typical Turkish Ottoman technique with gold wire hammered into incised design and protruding above the surface. The earliest examples are from the 17th century.The intactness of the inlay is astounding: no way it could have been made in the 14th century: only museum exponates survive that well, but the older swords were put to use.


Second, the ornament of flags and halberds is very European , at the earliest 17th, more likely 18-19th century.

The figure of sitting Mary with baby Jesus in her lap is very Western: first, it has uncovered hair that was unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Church and, second, the Cherub above her head is also Western: head with two wings. The "all-seeing eye in a triangle" in the uppermost cartouche looks suspiciouly as a Masonic symbol that came into popular use in the second half of the 18th century.

The blade also looks Turkish, typical early Kilic 17-18th century.

The handle looks Persian (iron crossguard and 90 deg. pommel) but it could have been remounted. Remounted and broken handle and perfectly intact blade???


My overall assessment: this is a very nice and valuable sword made in Turkey, likely Istanbul in the 18th century at the earliest under significant Western influence. It resembles mightily the series of similar swords shown in the Astvatsaturyan's book "Turkish Weapons" and bearing Greek, Latin, Slavic or Arabic inscriptions. Probably, there was a fashion of the times.

As to the attribution of this sword to Leon V.... Not every "Indiana Jones" knife was actually owned by Harrison Ford

My opinion exactly on swordforum, though manouchehr says he believes that its something different. He says that in his upcoming book, he found out that these hilts and blade styles go much older than 15th century.

[Rivkin]

My reputation among dashnaktzatyun is that of a turk and fashist, so I preferred to abstain from commenting on this sword. I am also _not_ a specialist on this kind of swords or cilician history.

I disagree with some of the criticism. I think that here it is hard to say whether virgin mary's head is covered by mopharion, as it is supposed to be. I also would somewhat disagree concerning western-eastern difference in head cover. For example, afaik, ethiopian tradition is uncovered hair, but all byzantine influenced countries (russia, syria, armenia, partially italy) have covered hair, and only north-western europe - france, germany, scandinavia, netherlands portray uncovered hair.
Despite the fact that cilician armenian art was extremely influenced by crusaders (but yet they always depicted Mary with her head covered), I have never seen cherub in such a position on any cilician icons or manuscripts. However, as noted by Ariel, such depiction is typical for ottoman-produced swords, starting with the end of XVIth century. The style of goldwork is also somewhat ottoman. The banners are in fact very typical for XVIII century as well. I agree with all of this, but there are even more problems:

Levon the Vth ruled in 1374 - 1375. Not 1366, not 1336. I doubt that his armorer was so ignorant and arrogant as just to put a date on the sword from the top of his head. I also have a small problem with a cross that is held by the king. I am no expert on armenian symbolics, but such crosses imho are much more characteristic for Levon the Ist and lorraine cross; later kings would be expected to use - templar of jerusalem's crosses.

And finally - I mentioned the union with mongols, because it could have explained the type of the sword. Curved swords were not used by armenians, instead they used swords very similar to the georgian sword depicted above. Attached are excavated (???) armenian cilician swords, Levon the Ist time or so.

P.S. I think the demon just has a torch.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

My opinion exactly on swordforum, though manouchehr says he believes that its something different. He says that in his upcoming book, he found out that these hilts and blade styles go much older than 15th century.

My aplologies to Manoucher - while he is a great specialist, certainly of incomparably higher caliber than I am, but I find certain things he says objectionable. For example, in his recent article he claimed that "indian swords" referred in mediaval iranian sources are in fact iranian swords made from wootz. While it is possible, he did not offer any proof of such attribution, therefore I find it too optimistic.

[B.I]

i agree with all (except the 14thC date of course).
i think the blade could go as early as the 17thC, and the hilt can so as late as 19thC, so ariels 18thC is a safe bet. i do feel a strong possibility that the blade is earlier than the hilt, so a possibility the inscription was put on during this refit.
there are many claims on SFI, many of which are unfounded unfortunately. i look forward to any new book on oriental arms as my library is as important as my collection, but i fear the 'expertise' there is on history and language, and definately not on arms. it seems the presence of inscriptions and placement in a museum seems to be 'proof' in some opinions.
not here i'm pleased to see

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

My aplologies to Manoucher - while he is a great specialist, certainly of incomparably higher caliber than I am, but I find certain things he says objectionable. For example, in his recent article he claimed that "indian swords" referred in mediaval iranian sources are in fact iranian swords made from wootz. While it is possible, he did not offer any proof of such attribution, therefore I find it too optimistic.

Well, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

[ariel]

A short quote from the original description of the monastery where this sword is exhibited:
"There is the one that is belived to be the sword of the very last
King of Armenia. The golden inlay on it says it belonged to Leone
V, dated 1366, but the monks said it is slightly historically
inaccurate"
Well, slightly....Rivkin is absolutely correct: the dates do not agree. How could one overlook this glaring discrepancy ans still accept the " 14th century Persian" origin of ths sword, is beyond belief!
First thing I did when I read the story, was to google Leon V: it all went downhill from there on....

[tsubame1]

The pictures taken in Venice are mine. As a quiet good NihonTo expert I would suggest that using such poorly made pictures for a Kantei (sword judgment in japanese terms) is a very bad idea no matter how great is the knowledge. On SFI it has been clearly stated in the topics that he date is mismatching by 25 years, and this is notorious to the monks too.
Calendars changed during the time and documents about the swords are not available for consultation, YET.
Me an Manouchehr aren't searching for an Indiana Jones cheap notoriety but only to find what is really in the Sancta Sanctorum of San Lazzaro degli Armeni. I've personally got in touch with the father superior rev. Elia (surname omitted for privacy, makes your own research...) in order to handle and measure the blade directly, as well as to have a translation of the inlaids that are mainly Psalms. CHRISTIAN Psalms. If we're allowed to make it, stay sure we'll post results and EVIDENCIES here too, no matter about the results.
The blade is armenian. PERIOD. If it has been made in XVII c. by an iranian bladesmith with iranian or indian wootz, and in the classical iranian shape, it is treasured by the Mechitarist as the sword of the last Armenian King in the site that holds most of the whole cultural heritage of Armenian people. Till to evidencies of the contrary will be given by someone here with a too big mouth and possibly with some problem with Manouchehr, it still retain the title of the sword of the last armenian king, for respect to the Mechitarist word.
We all know the myth and swords walks together but to find out truth
needs ability, time, knowledge and ACTION. Manouchehr is trying to go to Venice in order to find out the truth. As a NihonTo collector and amateur I'm very little interested in the matter but I feel hurted the way it is managed here just to have a support that is not found on SFI, might be with a good reason.
More respect is due to the blade, the Mechitarists and Manouchehr.
BTW the sword is freely available (with a thick glass in between...) to everybody by decades. Get a ticket to Venice and prove Manouchehr is wrong before he proves he's right...
As for me, I'm going to oil my newly arrived Naginata.
Cheers to all.

[M.carter]

Beautiful first post Tsubame1, very friendly. I said, and still stick to my claim, that this is a Turkish made, 17th century blade, with later Persian fittings, and probably much later gold inlay. This isnt out of pure speculation, but according to Anthony C. Tirri's* great book, "Islamic Weapons, Maghrib to Moghul" (see page 130). The claim that it belonged to a 14th century Armenian King is still unproven, and never be proven, I believe.

*Anthony C. Tirri is a scholar of Islamic arms and history, who has handled more pieces than anyone I know probably, and his collection contains hundreds of beautiful pieces.

[Rivkin]

Well, as a big mouth guy, I replied on swordforum, basically repeating what I said here. Here I just probably tell 3 anecdotes, two happened with me in real life, 1 is an old georgian story.

When I was interested in nihonto I once saw a picture of a martial artists holding an unusual sword - judging by proportions the blade alone was 41 inch or so. I asked one of the collegues of the martial artist on the photograph about what kind of sword is it. Response was series of "how you can judge a sword based on the photographs ??? How can you ask such disrespectful questions, while the martial artists is a great ...., whose ansestors where strategists during the civil war ? What evidence do you have that this sword ...". Well, I did not get any information on this sword, but I certainly learned not to ask questions in nihonto community, unless one wants to get this kind of response. Just sent you stuff to NBHTK and bow before the great senseis.

Second anecdote relates to an armenian kindjal recently posted on the forum. I have decided to ask one very prominent (probably _the_ most prominent) armenian professor for his opinion on the grammar and language on the kindjal. Him being a dashnak I expected something bad to happen (sorry, my predisposition towards them ), but he was 200% helpful, polite and truly superb in his analysis. However, he and his students, not knowing much about weapons approached this kindjal (qajar kama) from historical prospective and cautiously identified it as probably made in New-Julfa, may be made right post Abbas time. They had only the best in mind, but based on historical arguments they identified the kama as being 200 years older than it most likely is. Trust me, if this would ever appear with his signature, _no one_ would be able to convince the world that there is a shadow of doubt related to this object being early XVIIth century artefact.

The last anecdote is just a georgian joke. There are actually quite a few of them, don't know which one to tell. There is really funny (for me) about great armenian poet-physicist Gazon Zaseyan. There is one about archeological dig, where one can see a poster "Komrades Georgians ! Komrades Armenians ! Please, stop damping your utensils and porcelin in our archeological dig - just because you do so, this place will not become more 'historicall georgian' or armenian".

[ariel]

A bit of history: Mechitarists are Armenian Roman Catholics. The order was established in 1701 in Istanbul, by one Mechitar Petrosian whose life mission was to convert Orthodox Armenians into Roman Catholicism. For that he was expelled by the Armenian community and the Venetians gave him the St. Lazzarro in 1717. Mechitarists collect Armenian artifacts and provide education to Armenian boys who are willing to convert.
This, in my opinion, is yet another piece of the puzzle: the connection with the Western, Catholic sources and the bias to prove that ancient Armenian kings were Catholics. The fact that Mechitarists accept the Leon V/14th century attribution of this sword proves nothing about it's true provenance. They wanted it to be Leon's! How many times all of us bought embarrassing junk on e-bay because we wanted it to be our Dream Blade?
I am sure that they did, and continue to do it, out of good intentions and not for any nepharious purposes or perpetration of a hoax. Blind faith, however, is not a good councelor. They could have brought an experienced museum curator who would have given them the facts. But... what religious faith had ever tried to puncture it's own balloon?
IMHO, the claim that this sword is Armenian is incorrect: there is nothing Armenian about it except the inscription. The claim that it is Persian is even more problematic: it ignores it's Kilic-like form and the astounding similarity with other Istanbul-made pieces of the same time period. To form conclusions on the basis of Damascus assumes that only Persians were capable of making it. The claim that it is 14th century is embarrassing, to say the least
Still, I admire Tsubame1 for his true Bushido spirit of loyalty to his master.
No hard feelings and no seppuku, OK?

[Andrew]

I did, indeed, authorize Ariel's linking of the SFI thread here, and I thank him for consulting me. Given the history of the subject region, I thought it prudent to insist that the discussion steer clear of genocide and religion and focus on the sword.

However, the discussion should have remained civil.

What a shame. This is an extremely interesting weapon, with great potential for meaningful discussion and education. Instead, we have the beginning of an inter-fora "war".

Not on my watch.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the spirit of sharing and learning. Feel free to take this to private email.