Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alina
Aside from #37, there is no evidence for an early Mamluk kilic. I find the attribution of Yucel's to be dubious, because the very nature of dating a sword is inexact. Just because a sword is attributed to someone, doesn't mean he carried it. In addition, unattributed swords are difficult to place because some designs persisted for a span of several hundred years, and some earlier designs resemble some later designs. For that reason, I don't find the dating of sword #37 to the 13th century to be very convincing. It is the only kilic-type sword I've ever seen dated that early - a full century and a half before they begin to show up commonly in either Mamluk Egypt or the Ottoman empire. I think it's healthy to view a sword that anomalous with a high degree of skepticism.
As to the Persian sources, I don't have any images of Persian swords with yelmans at the moment. Persian arms and armor have always taken a back seat to Ottoman arms and armor for me. However, just because I don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. They certainly show up in the art of the period, as I've shown. David Nicolle's book "Arms and Armor of the Crusading Era" lists two 14th century Persian kilics with yelmans. But he admits that it's very difficult to date such weapons, and that they could be as late as the 15th or 16th centuries.
Given all of those difficulties, I think that we have to go with the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the kilic began appearing in the 15th century in both the Ottoman and Mamluk sultanates roughly simultaneously.
|
Dear Alina,
First, I am glad you agree that your earlier statement re. Sword #37 was in fact incorrect: otherwise, you would be arguing with yourself.
Second, your rather cavalier dismissal of Yusel's conclusions and dating is ... just cavalier. After all, he spent years studying these swords, whereas your only experience with them is limited to looking at the photographs in his book. This may be permissible if the error is blatant, but the intricacies of dating is not something that can be solved by a cursory glance.
I agree with you that there are many difficulties in studying the origin of different weapons and the preponderance of evidence is sometimes the best we can do. However, there is no preponderance of evidence for your case (Persian origin of Kilijes); in fact, you have no evidence at all. Until and unless you can show us an example of a Persian Kilij pre-dating the Mameluke ( and later Ottoman) examples, this is just a proclamation, but not a proof.