I disagree with this assessment of the history of the kilic. For starters, the kilic you scanned from Yucel's book isn't dated to the 13th or early 14th century. Those dates are the dates of the rule of Qalawun, the Mamluk Sultan, not of the sword. Of the sword, Yucel actually says the following:
Quote:
|
Both the curved form of the blade, and the style of decoration and calligraphy, suggest that the sword does not date from the period of Muhammad ibn Qalawun. Furthermore, the hilt, the cross-guard, and the scabbard are clearly later additions probably replaced during repairs carried out as late as the 18th century CE. The decoration is late Ottoman in style, probably 16th century CE. The inscriptions also appear to date from the same period.
|
In addition, there is another curved sword attributed to Qalawun on the preceding page that Yucel also considers to be a 15th or 16th century piece falsely attributed to Qalawun.
The only 13th century curved sword Yucel considers to be authentic is one on the next page attributed to Husam al-Din Lajin. He says it is the earliest authentic example of an Islamic curved, single-edged sword. However, I am skeptical of this claim, as all other known curved swords of similar type date from no earlier than the 15th century. However, we have loads of examples of straight, double-edged swords dating from earlier periods. So I take this last attribution with a grain of salt.
I'd also like to say that conventional wisdom doesn't state that the kilic was developed in the 16th-17th centuries, as there are very many examples of both Ottoman and Mamluk kilics from the 15th century, including the first half of that century.
Cheers,
Alina