Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.
Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.
Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)
What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.
The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.
And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?
|
Regarding the last part of your question: I'm sorry that I was unable to photograph this sword in particular. I was unable to take the sword out of its exhibition showcase. As I said before, it was suspended in fear of an earthquake. But I was able to investigate everything in that sword. Regarding photographing, the Impearial Treasury Section has dim lighting. I had to use a light ray in order to investigate the sword thoroughly. The showcase opened from downwards to upwards; around 45 degrees only, so we had to duck until we were between the opened glass window and the sword itself, then we'd straighten ourselves again.
Kenan "the watcher" was with us; using a security wireless phone, and always answering to the main security office. I remember him receiving a question from there where he always answered by "Bilmiyorum" (I don't know). It was clear that they were asking him (when shall they finish?).
I held, investigated, and studied each sword two times; except "Dhu'l-Faqar" which I did 3 times. Worthy to note is that when I investigated the swords of the Sacred Trusts Section in the Topkapi Library (because it was warm there in late November!), I met some American scholars investigating Ottoman manuscripts (especially those dealing with Ottoman paintings). Yes, it was very weird for the tourists to see me and the curators inside the showrooms taking the swords in front of them in order to investigate and study them!
Regarding bending the blade, I did it with every sword; little by little: Bend it to say 10 degrees, then let go...it springs back...then bend it to 20 degrees, and then let go...it would then spring back right where it used to be...and so on. Of course, some swords were more elastic than others. Blades with a central ridge (of diamond cross-section) weren't tested for their elasticity.