Quote:
Originally Posted by O. Baskurt
Jim these type of blades are produced in Ottoman in very wide range of time period from early 16th to beginning 18th. As for steel variations they brought steels from different regions as well as they produced their own in Istanbul too there was a dimiskihane ( dimiski is damascus as well as refered to wootz / bulat / polat ) Now here is hint about this blade earlier forms has different types of patterns than later forms. Earlier blades has more P ( phosphorus element ) inside than later forms and later forms had higher carbon content than earlier versions as well as they have high Manganese inside of them too. Which changes patterning a lot in this case as myself i am wootz maker too and witnessing this in my works too i produced smiliar patterns to both lines. As for Indian blades they have totally different way in Egypt back then they dont use indian blades. As in your example photos even visible rissso area in Indian blade are extremely upside down thing with our style cuz we have unified edge all along . This blade is not an Indian one it is purely 17th century Ottoman work
|
Well noted, and I am honestly surprised that I managed to overlook a most important factor in Indian tulwar blades, which is the blunt edge of the blade at the root near hilt known as the "Indian ricasso" (Rawson, 1968).
I cannot tell by photos if JT's sword (OP) has this feature or not, but this would be a most telling factor. As noted, an Ottoman blade would not use this feature.
While it remains possible an Ottoman blade could have become situated in Indian context, just as cases of shamshir blades in the same manner as favored by Mughal principalities, it would be more an anomaly.
Note the excellent example shown by Norman in the previous post of this type of 'Turkic' style blade where the 'Indian ricsasso' is clearly seen.