Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

...world renowned Oliver Pinochet ...

[mahratt]

Guys, let's not talk constantly mistaken clichés and misconceptions. "Assadulla worked in the first half of the 17th centuries" - which we have evidence of this? Stamp (cartouche) Assadula Isfahani put on the blades and in the 19th century.

There is a good version of that Assadula - "Lion of Allah" is a brand, which confirms the quality of the blade. She was a good explanation of why the name "Assadula" was put on the blades almost 300 years.

[ariel]

Ibrahim and Estcrh:


Isn't it a bit strange to see " Qajar dynasty" and "mid 18th century" in the same description?

Qajars rule started in 1785 or 1794 depending on the count:-)

[ariel]

Physical existence of a Safavid swordmaker named Assadullah ( var.) is suggested by the famous episode of a helmet and by the existence of Kalb Ali, who signed his blades as " son of Assadullah" and was referred to as such by various sources.
Forged signatures of both are encountered on the blades from different countries and different centuries.
Khorasani's assertion that "Assadullah" was a sign of high quality bestowed by the guild is easily refuted by a plethora of junky blades with that ( often illiterate) signature.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Khorasani's assertion that "Assadullah" was a sign of high quality bestowed by the guild is easily refuted by a plethora of junky blades with that ( often illiterate) signature.

I'm not saying that he fully agrees with Dr. Manoucher Khorasani opinion. I believe that "Assadula" - it was a brand. But this does not mean that no one has done poor quality swords, signing their cartouche "Assadula". If you have a brand, it is sure there will be a fake.
The same is true today. There branded Rolex watch. They cost $ 10,000. And there is a Chinese fake. It also says "Rolex". But they cost $ 10.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Guys, let's not talk constantly mistaken clichés and misconceptions. "Assadulla worked in the first half of the 17th centuries" - which we have evidence of this? Stamp (cartouche) Assadula Isfahani put on the blades and in the 19th century.

There is a good version of that Assadula - "Lion of Allah" is a brand, which confirms the quality of the blade. She was a good explanation of why the name "Assadula" was put on the blades almost 300 years.

Salaams mahrat, The conundrum surrounding this phenomena...That of signatures taking on a life of their own when in fact what we may well be looking at is the same illusion that surrounds ANDREA FERRERA inscriptions. Surely that is the sort of question we are constantly puzzling over?...

There is no doubt that the inscriptions were placed and there may be many that are accurate in the date...but it is entirely logical that if Assad-Allah was simply the signature but the man himself (though he may have been real) was more connected to the "workshop signature" that produced high quality blades...and that if that is allowable...then there is a fair chance that all of the follow on signatures including Zaman Isfahan were also placed for the same reason.

I don't necessarily follow the reasoning on the lion brand either...It is perhaps worth noting that Shamshiir means Lions tail and I would suggest that it may also be a Lions Tale!!

There is hardly any information on the characters, however, research may reveal something...Having a signed cartouche on blades does not prove the person existed...but it does point to a top class sword making facility/workshop...likely to be at Royal Workshop quality or close to it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams mahrat, The conundrum surrounding this phenomena...That of signatures taking on a life of their own when in fact what we may well be looking at is the same illusion that surrounds ANDREA FERRERA inscriptions. Surely that is the sort of question we are constantly puzzling over?...

There is no doubt that the inscriptions were placed and there may be many that are accurate in the date...but it is entirely logical that if Assad-Allah was simply the signature but the man himself (though he may have been real) was more connected to the "workshop signature" that produced high quality blades...and that if that is allowable...then there is a fair chance that all of the follow on signatures including Zaman Isfahan were also placed for the same reason.

I don't necessarily follow the reasoning on the lion brand either...It is perhaps worth noting that Shamshiir means Lions tail and I would suggest that it may also be a Lions Tale!!

There is hardly any information on the characters, however, research may reveal something...Having a signed cartouche on blades does not prove the person existed...but it does point to a top class sword making facility/workshop...likely to be at Royal Workshop quality or close to it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange?

Mahratt, that is amazing ! I have never seen the monumental book by the great expert of all Persian arms, Manoucher, but of the weapons shown in that book, there are none ascribed to Assad Adullah?

I for one do think that is very strange, especially since this book has been acclaimed by him to be the last word on these Persian swords.
Perhaps, these inscriptions are indeed for trade blades only?

Are you familiar with the article by Oliver Pinchot? I need to find my copy and read it again!!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Mahratt, that is amazing ! I have never seen the monumental book by the great expert of all Persian arms, Manoucher, but of the weapons shown in that book, there are none ascribed to Assad Adullah?

I for one do think that is very strange, especially since this book has been acclaimed by him to be the last word on these Persian swords.
Perhaps, these inscriptions are indeed for trade blades only?

Are you familiar with the article by Oliver Pinchot? I need to find my copy and read it again!!

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, Dr. Kirill Rivkin said that in this book (interesting and certainly useful book) all Persian swords, only the second half of the 18th century and 19th century. I watched the Persian swords of the 17th century in the Armoury palata (Kremlin, Moscow). In form they are very different from the swords of the book Dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Is no doubt that in the Armory palata Persian swords of the 17th century. There are documents to prove it.

If Kirill Rivkin says that in Manouchers book the swords represented are only second half 18th and into 19th centuries, then I would presume that comment to be compellingly accurate knowing the level of his knowledge and experience.

It seems, after rereading the remarkable article by Oliver Pinchot, that dated examples of 17th century shamshirs are relatively uncommon, thus often the method of recognizing them is primarily by the character of the blade itself. Apparantly Mayer (1962) was able to identify a good number of Assad Allah blades signed, but these all were apparently AFTER the reign of Shah Abbas I. As his reign was c. 1587-1628 (Stone) then these still would fall into 17th century.
Mayer (opcit.) notes that despite the questionable historicity of the name Assad Allah, the name was associated with fine sword blades in Persia by the late 17th c . and notes dated blades supporting this.

I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim. Tell me, my friend, you know how to look Persian swords early and mid-17th century? Not the ones that were published in a book dr. Manoucher Khorasani. Those that are 100% made in the 17th century.

None of them are no cartush "Assadula" ... Do not you think it strange?

Salaams mahratt, Your comments are much appreciated. In trying to give a similar example in European work when I say ~ Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ... I over simplify the situation since in the Persian scenario it is a far more deliberate and sustained proceedure whereby the sword factory use the illusion of the signature over several centuries almost as a trade mark. Naturally other workshops tried to cut in on the deal...and in some cases that can be looked on as somewhat frauduleny though imperfect signatures or badly done would reflect as bad quality craftsmanship thus undermining their efforts... and your later post on Rolex is agreed as an example.

The remark placed at thread by Jim sums it up nicely~ Quote"
I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy."Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams mahratt, Your comments are much appreciated. In trying to give a similar example in European work when I say ~ Many Toledo, Solingen and other centres did the same thing with European swords... Running Wolf, Moons, Sickle marks, ANDREA FERRERA ... I over simplify the situation since in the Persian scenario it is a far more deliberate and sustained proceedure whereby the sword factory use the illusion of the signature over several centuries almost as a trade mark. Naturally other workshops tried to cut in on the deal...and in some cases that can be looked on as somewhat frauduleny though imperfect signatures or badly done would reflect as bad quality craftsmanship thus undermining their efforts... and your later post on Rolex is agreed as an example.

The remark placed at thread by Jim sums it up nicely~ Quote"
I am inclined to agree with your view that Assad Allah was likely used in the sense of a 'brand or quality imbuement, and that in time there were many copies of lesser quality produced to capitalize on the name as a marketing ploy."Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Wa-alaikum us-salaam Ibrahiim! You're absolutely right.

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
Do you have any idea why would swordmakers in Iran call their brand of quality "Assadullah Isfaghani"? Did they just pick this moniker out of a thin air?


Usually, the titles of highest achievements carry names of remarkable individuals that were instrumental in financing the award ( Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize ) or themselves were examples of excellence in a relevant field ( Tchaikovsky or Chopin piano competitions, Lombardi Super Bowl trophy, Fields Award in mathematics , Olivier in acting etc.)

[mariusgmioc]

First, please do not forget that in the absence of irrefutable factual evidence, all our discussions are just speculations that can be very distant or very close to the historical truth.

Second, while no oppinion, even from a most reputed researcher, can be considered as ultimate truth, it is simply more likely/probable that a guy who dedicated its entire life researching this subject is closer to the truth than an amateur who spent much less time researching the subject and mostly, had access to much less first-hand resources on the topic.

Third, there is some generally factual evidence pertaining this topic that is the presence pf Assadulah Isfahani cartouche on early 17th century shamshirs.

Now, how do we know that those swords were genuinely made in the 17th century or how do we know that signatures weren't added later?!

We don't know, but we can assume with a high degree of certainty that those swords were genuinely made in 17th century based on coroborating of more historical data (like knowing with certainty that some swords belonged to certain rulers of the period) assesing the general shape and style of the sword and last but not least dating the sword wih scientific lab methods like C14.

Now knowing that the signatures weren't added later is a little bit trickier but not necessarily based on guessing. For example the technique of doing the signatures, changed in time, the style of the signatures, and the wording also changed. But there are examples of swords that can be attributed with certainty to some famous rulers of the period and those can serve as a reference when assesing other similar swords and signatures. So we can asses a sword and a signature by comparing it with another sword of confirmed origin.

Now, regarding te meaning of the signature "Assadulah Isfahani" we can speculate ad nauseam as to whether it was the name of the swordsmith, the name of the owner, or purely a talismanic symbol, withot recahing a conclusion.

However, I believe that the asumption it represents the name of the original swordsmith as mostly probable. The mere presence of other signature-names, like Kalb-Ali or Zaman Isfahani, tend to dismiss the idea that the signatures have purely talismanic meaning. If they were purely talismanic, then why AFTER Assadulah appeared the other names-signatures? Then why te attribute "Isfahani" which clearly relates to the geographical location and it was a common attribute to many Persian names at the time?! To me it seems that adding a geographical locator to a purely talismanic text, doesn't make too much sense. Then what about the swords bearing the clear wording "work of Kalb-Ali?"

Last, I would like to draw an analogy with several other known examples in the field. The oldest and probably best known would be the case of the "Vlfberht" swords. While this example still stirrs much debate related to the meaning of the inscription, the case of "Tomas Ayale Toledo" is quite explicit as it can certainly be associated with the name of an original master swordsmith who was carried on by his followers, to the point where it became like a quality seal and become used by other, unrelated smiths as well. There are also many such examples in the field of Japanese swords where entire schools with activity spanning over a few centuries signed with the name of the original, founding master swordsmith.