Nice hypothesis.
But I would note the following:
1. Walrus ivory was imported directly to Persia from Shirvan( Baku) and Astrakhan . The latter was also augmented by Indian traders who maintained large permanent missions there and then re-sold furs and walrus ivory to Iran. Thus, there was no scarcity of this material in Persia as witnessed by multiple examples of sword and dagger handles.
2. Examination of shamshirs from large collections shows very high proportion of the “oatmeal inside” slabs. See Khorasani’s book, Polish collections, Hales’ book, Kamil Khaidakov’s book “ Persian sabers”, catalogues of large auctions etc. Does it mean that all such handles went through restoration?
And that leads us to the next question:
3. If the traditional old ( sacral?) scheme was “ oatmeal outside”, why would not restorers maintain it? Why would they, according to the assertion of the author of that hypothesis, have suddenly and en masse put the slabs in reverse? After all, technically it would have been just as easy to maintain traditional order.
|