mamluk khanjar ??

Rivkin · 20th July 2005, 11:20 PM

1. Fantastic pictures ! A short sword (looks like something taken out of Samarkand's steppes is not it ?), can it be a khandjar ?

2. Ariel: The topic of russian arms and armor is a very controversial in itself. Once upon a time I had the opportunity to speak with a relatively well known russian viking archeologist, who was extremely interested in antique weapons. It's happened about 10 years ago, so lot's of it is gone from my memory, but his main point was that the majority, especially early ones, of russian arms and armour were by far not of a local manufacture. Unfortunately under the pressure from the Party the archeologists had to classify viking-frankish "ulbrecht" swords as "true russian bulat, the secret of which we don't know".

How much truth in what he told me, I don't know and I hope that someone more knowladgeble can enlighten us.

P.S. I awlays wondered if 14th century "russian" and 13th century "turko-mongolian" armour and arms related ?

B.I · 21st July 2005, 12:04 AM

hi rick,
a catalogue! of course!!
a very impressive sword and you have the advantage in having seen it. i must admit, my first impression is one of doubt on such an early attribution. the tang is of a later design. also, the inlay on such early swords was of a much higher level and the lion and script seems crude. i have seen some early dagger blades with inlay that cannot be compared to on later blades.
dates and attributions can be added and can i ask who wrote the catalogue? is the sword owned by khalili?
what was your impression of the sword and did you think it could be of such an early date?
i've attached the early blade. an interesting fact was that it was owned by the talpur family, who by repute collected early blades. the quality of the talpur swords are legendary and there are accounts of them seeking early pieces.

ariel · 21st July 2005, 12:26 AM

The Baybars' sword looks like an early Turkish Kilij or Shamshir, something like 16-19 cen. I cannot recall any 13 cen Islamic sword looking that way.
Perhaps, it was just "attributed" to Baybars, just like the so-called "Swords of the Prophet" were attributed to Mohammed... Everybody loves to have an authentic relic belonging to a famous personality. If one is not available, manufacturing it is a holy duty. I remember reading that Catholic churches around the world have something like 200 teeth of St. Paul...
I think I have already told an old Russian joke about a Soviet museum exhibiting 2 skulls of Comrade Lenin: one at age 7, and another at age 50.
I've heard the same joke from the French (Voltaire), Brits (King Arthur, I think), so the practice is well known.

RSWORD · 21st July 2005, 04:00 AM

Brian

The catalogue was written by Professor J.M. Rogers who is the Honorary Curator of the Khalili collection as well as holding the Khalili chair of Islamic art and archaeology at the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Much of the Khalili arms/armour collection was catalogued many years back by David Alexander. I do not know if the attribution to the 13th century is based on the opinion of Khalili, Alexander or any of a number of researchers that worked on his collection. I cannot say whether or not the sword would date to the 13th century. I have never handled or seen a sword of such an early date so I am poorly qualified to make such an assessment. The tang showed great age due to its coloration but we know that is not an exact science either. Some of the koftgari is obviously of a later date and the catalogue surmises it is 16th century because the particular "cloud" motif used is comparable to other 16th century work found. I would be comfortable with a 16th century date and it very well could date earlier if the inscription could be somehow authenticated. In any case, it was a nice sword that was being shown with two other really nice Shamshir and a fairly average Yataghan.

ariel · 21st July 2005, 04:45 AM

Yes, the "cloud" motif is mentioned by Astvatsaturyan as a Chinese "chi" , typical of Ottoman Turkish decoration of ~16th century and later.
The B.I.'s sword, from Talpur family, looks like Shamshir Shikargar, a hunting sword. The retaining plate at the ricasso is interesting: it looks like Yataghan's, but on the edge side of the blade.

B.I · 21st July 2005, 08:43 AM

hi rick,
even more intriguing. professor rogers was khalilis teacher when he did his doctrate in SOAS and i believe their relationship began there. rogers knowledge is on islamic art, with a leaning towards painting. khalilis collection was not one of arms, but of islamic art with arms being an almost afterthought. when he began to compile the catalogues of his collection, he thought an arms collection needed to complete the islamic sphere, and so his collection was built up over a relatively short number of years.
david alexander, who is widely thought to be the leading academic on islamic arms, was called in to catalogue the collection and his studies into khalilis arms was just during this period. as the sword was not included in the catalogue, it seems unlikely that he would have researched it. a 13thC sabre is of great importance and so would not have been ommited.
as far as i am aware, khalili stopped compiling arms after the book was written, as the arms collection was for this purpose alone. i may be wrong but either way, i can find out in september through a meeting i have arranged.
i wonder if the sword was overlooked by alexander due to a 'spurious' date in his opinion and then taken up by someone else with more 'faith'.
i still stick with my initial opinion, but find the existance of this sword (at whatever date) intriguing enough to want to pursue it further.

another point on the seljuk blade, it is formed from a fully developed watered steel technology and shows a granular type pattern.
krill, apologies for hijacking your post and diverting it astray.

Aqtai · 21st July 2005, 11:38 AM

Thanks for all the great pictures RSWORD and B.I.

With regard to the sword of Beybars, he was such a famous figure, I'm not surprised that there are swords attributed to him. The Topqapi museum has two swords attributed to famous Mamluk Sultans: Qalawun and Muhammad ibn Qalawun, in both cases Unsal Yucel believed they were actually 16th century swords

Yucel belived that this sword however (apart from the scabbard, hilt and crossguard) is genuinely early Mamluk:

The Military Museum in Cairo has a quite a few mail shirts, shields, helmets and weapons, mostly of Ottoman origin, unfortunately the labels are unreliable at best. A lot of them have been placed on mannequins meant to represent figures from Egypt's history. For example there is a mannequin meant to represent an "Ummayyad cavalryman" wearing a kulah khud helmet!

The "reconstructions", of which there are many, are even dodgier. They owe more to the artists' imagination and preconceptions than to any historical evidence. That sword above is probably a figment of the artists imagination, although there is a slightly similar 15th century Mamluk sword in the Topqapi. I'll try and scan it for you.

21st July 2005, 12:04 AM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi rick, a catalogue! of course!! a very impressive sword and you have the advantage in having seen it. i must admit, my first impression is one of doubt on such an early attribution. the tang is of a later design. also, the inlay on such early swords was of a much higher level and the lion and script seems crude. i have seen some early dagger blades with inlay that cannot be compared to on later blades. dates and attributions can be added and can i ask who wrote the catalogue? is the sword owned by khalili? what was your impression of the sword and did you think it could be of such an early date? i've attached the early blade. an interesting fact was that it was owned by the talpur family, who by repute collected early blades. the quality of the talpur swords are legendary and there are accounts of them seeking early pieces. Attached Images

20th July 2005, 11:20 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	1. Fantastic pictures ! A short sword (looks like something taken out of Samarkand's steppes is not it ?), can it be a khandjar ? 2. Ariel: The topic of russian arms and armor is a very controversial in itself. Once upon a time I had the opportunity to speak with a relatively well known russian viking archeologist, who was extremely interested in antique weapons. It's happened about 10 years ago, so lot's of it is gone from my memory, but his main point was that the majority, especially early ones, of russian arms and armour were by far not of a local manufacture. Unfortunately under the pressure from the Party the archeologists had to classify viking-frankish "ulbrecht" swords as "true russian bulat, the secret of which we don't know". How much truth in what he told me, I don't know and I hope that someone more knowladgeble can enlighten us. P.S. I awlays wondered if 14th century "russian" and 13th century "turko-mongolian" armour and arms related ?

21st July 2005, 12:26 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The Baybars' sword looks like an early Turkish Kilij or Shamshir, something like 16-19 cen. I cannot recall any 13 cen Islamic sword looking that way. Perhaps, it was just "attributed" to Baybars, just like the so-called "Swords of the Prophet" were attributed to Mohammed... Everybody loves to have an authentic relic belonging to a famous personality. If one is not available, manufacturing it is a holy duty. I remember reading that Catholic churches around the world have something like 200 teeth of St. Paul... I think I have already told an old Russian joke about a Soviet museum exhibiting 2 skulls of Comrade Lenin: one at age 7, and another at age 50. I've heard the same joke from the French (Voltaire), Brits (King Arthur, I think), so the practice is well known.

21st July 2005, 04:00 AM	#4
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,089	Brian The catalogue was written by Professor J.M. Rogers who is the Honorary Curator of the Khalili collection as well as holding the Khalili chair of Islamic art and archaeology at the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Much of the Khalili arms/armour collection was catalogued many years back by David Alexander. I do not know if the attribution to the 13th century is based on the opinion of Khalili, Alexander or any of a number of researchers that worked on his collection. I cannot say whether or not the sword would date to the 13th century. I have never handled or seen a sword of such an early date so I am poorly qualified to make such an assessment. The tang showed great age due to its coloration but we know that is not an exact science either. Some of the koftgari is obviously of a later date and the catalogue surmises it is 16th century because the particular "cloud" motif used is comparable to other 16th century work found. I would be comfortable with a 16th century date and it very well could date earlier if the inscription could be somehow authenticated. In any case, it was a nice sword that was being shown with two other really nice Shamshir and a fairly average Yataghan.

21st July 2005, 04:45 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yes, the "cloud" motif is mentioned by Astvatsaturyan as a Chinese "chi" , typical of Ottoman Turkish decoration of ~16th century and later. The B.I.'s sword, from Talpur family, looks like Shamshir Shikargar, a hunting sword. The retaining plate at the ricasso is interesting: it looks like Yataghan's, but on the edge side of the blade.

21st July 2005, 08:43 AM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi rick, even more intriguing. professor rogers was khalilis teacher when he did his doctrate in SOAS and i believe their relationship began there. rogers knowledge is on islamic art, with a leaning towards painting. khalilis collection was not one of arms, but of islamic art with arms being an almost afterthought. when he began to compile the catalogues of his collection, he thought an arms collection needed to complete the islamic sphere, and so his collection was built up over a relatively short number of years. david alexander, who is widely thought to be the leading academic on islamic arms, was called in to catalogue the collection and his studies into khalilis arms was just during this period. as the sword was not included in the catalogue, it seems unlikely that he would have researched it. a 13thC sabre is of great importance and so would not have been ommited. as far as i am aware, khalili stopped compiling arms after the book was written, as the arms collection was for this purpose alone. i may be wrong but either way, i can find out in september through a meeting i have arranged. i wonder if the sword was overlooked by alexander due to a 'spurious' date in his opinion and then taken up by someone else with more 'faith'. i still stick with my initial opinion, but find the existance of this sword (at whatever date) intriguing enough to want to pursue it further. another point on the seljuk blade, it is formed from a fully developed watered steel technology and shows a granular type pattern. krill, apologies for hijacking your post and diverting it astray.

21st July 2005, 11:38 AM	#7
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks for all the great pictures RSWORD and B.I. With regard to the sword of Beybars, he was such a famous figure, I'm not surprised that there are swords attributed to him. The Topqapi museum has two swords attributed to famous Mamluk Sultans: Qalawun and Muhammad ibn Qalawun, in both cases Unsal Yucel believed they were actually 16th century swords Yucel belived that this sword however (apart from the scabbard, hilt and crossguard) is genuinely early Mamluk: The Military Museum in Cairo has a quite a few mail shirts, shields, helmets and weapons, mostly of Ottoman origin, unfortunately the labels are unreliable at best. A lot of them have been placed on mannequins meant to represent figures from Egypt's history. For example there is a mannequin meant to represent an "Ummayyad cavalryman" wearing a kulah khud helmet! The "reconstructions", of which there are many, are even dodgier. They owe more to the artists' imagination and preconceptions than to any historical evidence. That sword above is probably a figment of the artists imagination, although there is a slightly similar 15th century Mamluk sword in the Topqapi. I'll try and scan it for you.