Help needed identifying shamshir wootz blade

Jim McDougall · 24th February 2016, 11:54 PM

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 · 25th February 2016, 02:42 AM

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 · 25th February 2016, 04:10 AM

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sword of the 17th century, which has a 100% provenance (a gift of the king, a diplomatic gift, which has a 17th century historical documents confirmation) with cartouche "Assadula"?

Jim McDougall · 25th February 2016, 05:05 AM

Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible.
In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven.
What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely.

So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so .

In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.

mahratt · 25th February 2016, 06:29 AM

Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.

mariusgmioc · 25th February 2016, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.

To me it seems that you are not interested in the debate but are interested only in having your view accepted as the ultimate truth, and of course having the last word.

Why?

Well, first you asked about a documented mentionig of Assadullah as a real person but completely ignored the answers (the answer regarding the existence of such a mentioning related to the split helmet story, and my answers relating to the relevance of such a question).

Second, while we all agree that without irrefutable evidence, all our discussions are pure speculations, you akeep trying to press for your hypothesis as being the ultimate one.

Well, be it your way! You are right, absolutely right! And when I am saying that, I am referring also to your answer to my present comment, as I am not going to sink further into this "debate."

mahratt · 25th February 2016, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

To me it seems that you are not interested in the debate but are interested only in having your view accepted as the ultimate truth, and of course having the last word.

Why?

Well, first you asked about a documented mentionig of Assadullah as a real person but completely ignored the answers (the answer regarding the existence of such a mentioning related to the split helmet story, and my answers relating to the relevance of such a question).

I prefer to stick to the facts. Do you think that "the legend of the helmet, which cut the sword" in the retelling of 1954 - this is a serious argument? Did you read A.K.S. Lambton Islamic society in Persia? I will be very grateful, if you say, on a which manuscript makes reference Lambton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Second, while we all agree that without irrefutable evidence, all our discussions are pure speculations, you akeep trying to press for your hypothesis as being the ultimate one.

Now about the irrefutable evidence and their absence. Can you give examples of Persian swords of the 17th century (which have 100% provenance, vindicated by historical documents) which has a cartouche "Assadula"? I can not remember such Persian swords. If you know of such a Persian sword, please tell me about it. I will be grateful.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 25th February 2016, 11:25 AM

Salaams All, The designed name ...and continuation of it Assad Allah were used in honour of the person in Persian Lore...and History which is why no detailed history exists of the sword maker with that name...there wasnt one! The story of the helmet is purely mythical and an invention around one of the names. As outlined above these names were placed in honour of the sword quality and as a mark of that quality.

I am amazed it has created such a fuss...and one member even throws down his pen (is that not the same as throwing down ones sword?

) although as with all things if someone wishes to compile a data sheet showing the names as real persons I would be pleased to read it. Meanwhile for those wishing to observe the full weighing up of this apparent conundrum please look at and note ~ if it does not appear it may be accessed at the right side under recent blogs..;

http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-...of-assad-allah/

It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

25th February 2016, 11:25 AM	#8
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	"Mysterious smith or a mysterious myth" ? Salaams All, The designed name ...and continuation of it Assad Allah were used in honour of the person in Persian Lore...and History which is why no detailed history exists of the sword maker with that name...there wasnt one! The story of the helmet is purely mythical and an invention around one of the names. As outlined above these names were placed in honour of the sword quality and as a mark of that quality. I am amazed it has created such a fuss...and one member even throws down his pen (is that not the same as throwing down ones sword? ) although as with all things if someone wishes to compile a data sheet showing the names as real persons I would be pleased to read it. Meanwhile for those wishing to observe the full weighing up of this apparent conundrum please look at and note ~ if it does not appear it may be accessed at the right side under recent blogs..; http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-...of-assad-allah/ It is in this publication by Oliver Pinchot that the whole 9 yards is delivered... You only need to read it. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 25th February 2016 at 11:48 AM.

24th February 2016, 11:54 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	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 .

25th February 2016, 02:42 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

25th February 2016, 04:10 AM	#3
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	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"?

25th February 2016, 05:05 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible. In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven. What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely. So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so . In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.

25th February 2016, 06:29 AM	#5
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Jim, of course, you - right. What I'm talking about - this is only version. But note that in my version, there are two questions to which none of the supporters version "Assadula - a real person," no answer.