 |
I acquired my first Luristan Iron Mask Sword (IMAS) in 2015. I was already fascinated
with these early manifestations of the iron age and that has not changed. Now it is 2025 and I could look at many more IMAS, |
| |
 |
I even managed to get a scientific project funded that allow a close look at some IMAS (most
of which are now in the Brussels / Belgium Royal History Museum. |
 |
IMAS come up in numerous modules of this hyperscript and, to be honest, I have
kind of lost track of all the stuff I have written in the last 10 years. This module tries to summarize the data obtained
from the IMAS I could personally look at in some detail. There are also a lot of new discoveries I made more recently. |
 |
Below you finds: |
| |
 |
1. A table supplying links to detailed descriptions to those Luristan swords
that I could investigate to some extent. Please excuse alt he typos you might encounter. My eyesight is now (2025) so poor
that I cannot easily read what Im writing in my html editor any more. |
| |
 |
2. Some generalization about the findings |
 |
The files you can open with the links are a hodgepodge of some old notes, stuff
from projects, pictures floating around in my PC, and, in many but not all cases, notes and pictures that are fairly new.
These swords, in the fullness of time, will go to some museum and I just want to make sure that the relevant information
I gathered is preserved. |
| |
| |
| |
Links to the Iron Mask Swords (IMAS) Modules |
| IMAS 1
|
My No. 1. A very well preserved "classic" mask sword, encountered in
various modules before. Very well preserved "lanimals" New features have been discovered: Wormholes and a complex way of doing the crimping
| |
| IMAS 2
|
Almost as good as IMAS 1 but the blade is broken. Very well preserved heads. | |
| IMAS 3 |
Rather corroded but with one good head. Shows a few interesting features at the
joint of blade and hilt | |
| IMAS 4 |
Very corroded but showing a unique feature (dafter cleaning): Two dents in the
blade were repaired by inserting bronze pieces by soldering! | |
| IMAS 5
|
Rather corroded but with an interesting feature: It demonstrates that crimping
here was done by employing what I called a crimping ring or "ctimping plate". | |
| IMAS 6
|
A simple undercoated IMAS and rather corroded. However, the tip part of the blade
is well preserved and shows remarkable workmanship | |
| IMAS 7
|
This sword is not a real IMAS but nevertheless the key to Luristan swords. It
embodies several technologies not formerly encountered like a side bar made from (probably faggoted)
sheet metal. Highly interesting! | |
| IMAS 8
|
TThe cut sword from the Luristan
sword project. Supplied and still supplies sinsight and questions Both halfs are now with the Royal History Museum in
Brussels | |
| | |
|
| IMAS 9
|
Used in the Luristan Project for C14 age determination. Age found
was 1427 – 1303 BCE ; much too old. Probably contamination with old carbon from ore, limestone,
Some metalographic data.. Now with the Royal History Museum in Brussels
| |
| IMAS 10
|
Used in the Luristan Project for C14 age determination. Age found
was 1745 – 1533 BCE ; much too old. Probably contamination with old carbon from ore, limestone,
Some metalographic data. The grip of the hilt shows some texture (banding). Now with the Royal History
Museum in Brussels
| |
| IMAS 11
|
Used in the Luristan Project for C14 age determination. Age found
was 1006 – 901 BCE; about right if still somewhat too old. But that result tells us that IMAS could have been made
after 1000 BC but not before. Some metalographic data. Now with the Royal History Museum in Brussels
| |
| IMAS 12
|
A simple undercoated IMAS very similar to the one investigated by Mareyon et al. but
with a completely different construction . X-rays were taken. Now with the Royal History Museum in Brussels
| |
| IMAS 13
|
Extremely corroded; lost one lion. Perfect for destructive analysis
like age determination from several areas . Now with the Royal History Museum in Brussels
| |
| IMAS 14
|
Very corroded bade but good hilt. Somewhat unusual tapered grip part. Now with
the Royal History Museum in Brussels .
| |
| IMAS 15 |
This double-disc-pommel sword is technically not an IMAS; its origin
is more likely to be Hasanlu. I include it anyway because it (presumably)
belongs to the same time period and is technically rather advanced.
| |
| | |
|
| | General Remarks |
 |
After studying Iron Luristan Mask Swords (IMAS)
for more than 10 years, I still can find out new things about these fascinating objects. I also have acquired a few IMAS
myself (to save them from destruction and to make them available for serious research at some time), and looking at them
every now and then still fills me with wonder about the workmanship they embody. Herr I will first give you some general
remarks (most of them not new but already expressed here and there in this hyperscript). |
 |
Let's look at my general points. Here is the list: |
| |
- All IMAS or Luristan type 1 swords were found exclusively in Luristan. It appears
that they were never exported, in contrast to type 2 swords that were found all over the middle east.
- None of the many sculptures and reliefs found in the middle east and dating
from roughly 800 +/- 100 BC show some individual carrying an IMAS. Once more an indications that they were not worn or used
and not known outside Luristan
- The male head and the animal so typical for IMAS have no counterpart whatsoever in the antique world around
1000 BC. None of the thousands of Luristan bronzes shows figures of this typer eithther
- X-ray images (or some cuts through the hilt) as far as available, show large empty spaces inside around the figures
or the rings around the hilt - but on the outside you do not see anything.
- Different technologies were used for rather similar looking swords
- The crimping is always masterfully done but with different and rather tricky technologies
- Extremely fine work is done. Think of gold smith and not of black smith
- IMAS makers must have had access to a very powerful grinding and polishing technology
- What did new IMAS look like? All shiny or with some features highlighted by paining?
|
 |
In what follows I will briefly comment on those points. |
|
 |
For the sake of clarity and brevity. will make clear statements that are mostly
not absolute truths but just high probability. I will thus not discuss the validity of everys tatement; you
will find a lot of that in the remainder of the hyperscript |
| | |
|
| 2 |
None of the many sculptures
and reliefs from roughly 800 +/- 100 BC show some individual carrying an IMAS |
 |
Well, I certainly havent seen all sculptures and reliefs from that time.
But I have seen quite a few. You may find all kinds of swords associated with some guy, including Luristan type II swords,
but never an IMAS. Check the gallery here. Obviously, high ranking guys (no others
were depicted wearing a sword), did not sport an IMAS. |
|
 |
Now, an IMAS was certainly not used for fighting. They must have been far too
precious for that, not to mention that they are not particularly good for that. Could it be that those swords were not part
of some dress code either but kept in a shrine, or exclusively used for burials? They would have been someway awkward to
wear anyway, since the figures on one side would look into your belly |
| |
| |
| 3 |
The male head and the animal so typical for IMAS
have no counterpart whatsoever in the antique world around 1000 BC. None of the thousands of Luristan bronzes shows figures
of this typer eithther |
 |
Classical archaeology sometimes make some vague claims that there is some relation
to Assyrian figures or other products. I beg to differ and challenge everybody out there to produce something non-Luristan
that looks even remotely like the lion or animal on an IMAS. To make things even worse, neither
the head nor the animal on an IMAS bears any resemblance to heads or animals appearing on the many Luistan bronzes. |
|
 |
Here are a few pictures just to illustrate what I mean: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Those two lions are quite similar but subtly different. They live exclusively
on IMAS; nothing like that has ever been seen in a different context. From IMAS 1 |
 |
King Luri here does look a bit like those guys on Assyriain reliefs but how different can
sculptures of a bearded guy be? Stylistically, they are quite different. From IMAS 2 |
| Many more pictures all over the hyperscript | |
| |
| |
| |
 |
If you look at the combination of head and animal, thee is just nothing that
comes close. I could make similar statements regarding the Master of Animal bronzes. Nothing ever found
outside of Luristan resembles the whole thing nor its parts (heads, animals,
). |
| |
| |
| 4
|
X-ray images (or some cuts through the hilt) , as far as available,
show large empty spaces inside around the figures or the rings around the hilt - but on the outside you do not see anything. |
 |
We only have a few X-ray pictures (or major cuts) But whey we have shows large
internal cavities that do not show in the outside |
| |
|
X-ray on the left. The sheets do nit touch closely but no sign of this on the eoutside
Pictures from literature but newly formatted |
 |
Large cleft between the animals and the sword body. But they seem to be an integral part
of the whole (see above) X-ray rom IMAS 1 |
 |
X-ray picture in: Vera Bird and Henry Hodges: A METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION
OF TWO EARLY IRON SWORDS FROM LURISTAN (1968) |
 |
| From: F. K. Naumann: Untersuchung eine eisernen luristanischen Kurzschwertes Archiv für
das Eisenhüttenwesen, 28. Jahrgang, Heft 9, (1957) 575 - 581, 1957 |
 |
The "cut" sword showing the empty space in black here Large picture here | |
| | |
|
 |
We must conclude that the old Luristan smiths made show pieces. Only what is
visible matters. This entails that they could judge the qualtiy of their raw material very well. |
|
 |
Actually, some time after I had written this, I found a simple explanations for
the empty spaces! Check IMAS 5 |
| | |
|
© H. Föll (Iron, Steel and Swords script)