Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 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.

These are most interesting postulations, and nicely thought out.
While I am far from any authority on the subject of these fine Islamic swords, I have gained good working understanding of many factors about them through the years. It has been my understanding that the early penchant for the naming of Islamic swords typically would allude to either where the sword was made'; the master who made it; sometimes even the place from which the steel came with occasionally the owner.

It seems this may have been a factor in the addition of the name Isfahani in the inscriptions.
To look at this in accord with the well placed analogy concerning the well known cases regarding Ulfberth and Ayala of Toledo, I think that the case of the famed ANDREA FERARA blades are probably the most descriptive of this 'brand name' phenomenon.
While there is no doubt Ayala and his son existed, the case for Ulfberth is more clouded as this may be a term possibly related to a sobriquet for a warrior, but remains debatable.
With Andrea Ferara, much more mystery in involved, and the myths perpetuated remain disputed as to whether this was a real person or not, just as with Assad Allah. The blades with this name, just as with Assad Allah, cover lifetimes in the same way, thus could not have been produced by one man. There is no supportable evidence whether in guilds, genealogical or other records, and as related in research by DeCosson , where buildings and other iconographic details are found supporting the existence of for example, the Missaglia's, none is found for Ferara.

It is far too compelling without that substantiation, the consider the possibility that Andrea (of Ferara, the Italian city) might have been an eponym for a sword of good iron/steel. That the name Andrea (Andrew) was also linked to true/good was an archaic instance of such associations.
Thus the 'name' in essence was a brand/term for good steel.
It is curious that as far as known Italian swords there are so few that are so marked, possibly only several exist.

It was not until Solingen picked up use of the name for is blades destined for Scotland, that the name became legion.

The closest thing we have to establishing Assad Allah to an actual personage is the apocryphal tale in Persian lore of the helmet, which has been mentioned here and is well noted in the article by Oliver Pinchot.

We know that Assad Allah (Lion of God) was often used to refer to Ali, and of course would be a term of the highest honor as applied in the beautifully poetic similes and metaphors of Persian lore.

As has been noted, the debate and discussion on whether or not Assad Allah was a real person or an honorific title or brand will remain elusive, just as will likely the Andrea Ferara mystery.

[mahratt]

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

I very much agree! and I think anyone here who is seriously interested in further understanding of the dilemma with the case of the Assad Allah blades should definitely read:
"On the Persian Shamshir and the Signature of Assad Allah"
Arms Collecting, Vol 40 #1, Feb. 2002
as linked by Ibrahiim here in previous post or can be found online.

In this outstanding and thoroughly researched article, Oliver notes that there are no specific tests for the actual work as far as original blades attributed to him in the literature as most descriptions are lyrical and not necessarily sufficient to be supportable. It is noted that the signature on later blades seems likely the use of the name by numerous makers as quality inference. Many examples later using name and considerably inferior are clearly forgeries.

He also cites the single historical reference which though seemingly apocryphal (in my own opinion at this point) notes:
"...Shah Abbas is said to have received a helmet from the Ottoman sultan who offered a sum of money to whoever could break the helmet with a sword. No one was able to do this until a certain Asad-a sword maker nade a sword with which he cut through the helmet".
Islamic Society in Persia
A.K.S. Lambton, London , 1954
*as cited and footnoted in Oliver's paper.

It should be noted that the time of Shah Abbas was c. 1587-1628

As has been noted, dated examples of 17th century Persian swords seem quite uncommon, but generally they seem identifiable by their characteristic heavier blades. Perhaps most of these are like the example posted by Mahratt on the example with heavier blade with wide blade near tip rather than the thinner, sweeping radius of the shamshirs we are discussing.

This would seem to lend credence to the note suggesting that most of blades signed with Assad Allah and these variations seem post Shah Abbas reign.

Still, this does not eliminate the possibility the actual existence of a distinguished sword maker named Asad, as implied by the story on the helmet event, which might have been the origin of a long standing tradition which suggests reasons for the use and perpetuation of the name on swords.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I propose to return to the "Asadula". As I understand it, there is no Persian manuscript of the 17th century, where they write that Assadula - a real person? Do I understand correctly? Maybe I missed some new articles on this topic?

As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

As I said earlier, the fact there are no documented Persian references from 17th century to a swordsmith called "Assdullah" has little if any relevance to the fact whether he existed or not.

Are there any Persian 17th century documents referring to other swordsmiths?! Sure there must have been many master swordsmiths in 17th century Persia but the fact their names are not mentioned in any document, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

As with respect to the photo you posted, it is simply one of the varieties of shapes that was used in 17th century Persia. However, this was not a typical shape for that period, since the archetypal Shamshir with its ample curvature and triangular cross-section was mostly prevalent.

On page 162 of "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani gives several examples of 17th century shamshirs bearing the Assadullah name. There is even an example attributed to Shah Abbas dated 1583.

Asadula (if it was a real person) - this is not a simple wizard. If Assadula - a real person, a great master of the sword. This wizard necessarily had to fall into the manuscripts. But no manuscripts, where his name is mentioned.
Now Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani . They have no 100% provenance. What Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani are in the museum in Tehran - not guarantee that they are the 17th century. If I take wootz Shamshir 19th century, and write on it, "Shah Abbas", it becomes Shamshir 17th century? We do not know when and who wrote the inscription on the Shamshir from the book "Arms and Armour from Iran," Mr. Khorasani. But we know that the brand "Assadula" has generated a lot of fakes. Is not it?

Those Persian saber, which I say (and that shows in the pictures) - 100% 17 th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Just spent some time going through a long text of one of Manouchers articles on the Assadollah blades and markings, and he explains that he thinks the Assadollah as well as Kalb Ali are titles used by the seyyeds to describe association to descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and or devotion to Ali and mastery of the craft.
He cites references to this in his book (2006, pp.148-167), which I do not have, but wanted to add these notes.

It seems that the word 'shamshir' of course is a general Persian word for sword which predates the actual appearance of these lighter blade sabres being discussed. This as always makes it difficult when looking into early sources for references.
It does seem the sabre shown by Mahratt in the post with its scabbard has an indeed heavy blade which seems more like Central Asia type sabres of the 17th c. Naturally these were likely contemporary to these light bladed forms now visually associated with the term 'shamshir'.

It certainly seems to me , the more I read through these things that the cartouches as well as dates and allusions including what may be honorific titles must be added in a commemorative or traditional sense on these blades. Thus many of these are not of course 'fakes but genuinely quality blades with these inscriptions which have a certain talismanic imbuement .

[ariel]

Well, we seem to have different opinions. Since neither can be supported by a direct evidence, both are equally plausible.

I tend to go along with the simpler one: there was an exceptionally good swordmaker named Assadullah at the time of Shah Abbas who had a son named Kalbali, also a famous master.
Later Persian swordmakers signed their works with these two names either at the request of a vane customer, as the talismanic mark of exceptional quality or just for pecuniary reasons.


Other people may think differently, but there is no way we can convince each other.

We should just keep our own opinions and stop the senseless argument until new evidences becomes available.

[mahratt]

Guys, I do not understand why we are arguing. Make easier. Someone can show the Persian sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?

[mahratt]

And here's a Persian sword of the 17th century. Not very much like a Shamshir familiar to us, does not it?

Sorry for the bad quality of the photo. But I think - the blade shape is clearly visible.