Seldom seen Kilic type

RSWORD · 12th April 2011, 06:01 PM

This is a lovely sword with a fantastic bold wootz blade. It is nice to have such a complete example. I would date the mounts to the late 18th century with the blade probably earlier.

Personally, I would refer to this sword as a kilij. I tend to classify by blade and then hilt. So this example, to me, would be an Ottoman hilted kilij. Having a yelman and a widened blade towards the tip both say kilij to me. Again, this is more of a personal classification and don't know that it is uniformally applied amongst collectors. A shamshir to me is a blade of wedged shape cross section of slight or moderate curvature up to deep curvature but lacking a yelman. The spine is of continuous arc from handle to tip. So in your example of Indian swords being referred to as tulwar, I tend to elaborate a bit more. Let's say it is a shamshir(by my definition) blade. I would refer to that piece as a tulwar-hilted shamshir. With blades being traded, passed along, remounted often, to me the blade deserves its own attribution and then the handle and mounts are separately described or named. Of course, it can get muddied as some blades are not readily classified as either shamshir or kilij. Many Indian blades, for example, are more unique and I may classify them strictly as tulwar as opposed to tulwar hilted unique Indian blade sword.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

12th April 2011, 06:01 PM	#8
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,086	This is a lovely sword with a fantastic bold wootz blade. It is nice to have such a complete example. I would date the mounts to the late 18th century with the blade probably earlier. Personally, I would refer to this sword as a kilij. I tend to classify by blade and then hilt. So this example, to me, would be an Ottoman hilted kilij. Having a yelman and a widened blade towards the tip both say kilij to me. Again, this is more of a personal classification and don't know that it is uniformally applied amongst collectors. A shamshir to me is a blade of wedged shape cross section of slight or moderate curvature up to deep curvature but lacking a yelman. The spine is of continuous arc from handle to tip. So in your example of Indian swords being referred to as tulwar, I tend to elaborate a bit more. Let's say it is a shamshir(by my definition) blade. I would refer to that piece as a tulwar-hilted shamshir. With blades being traded, passed along, remounted often, to me the blade deserves its own attribution and then the handle and mounts are separately described or named. Of course, it can get muddied as some blades are not readily classified as either shamshir or kilij. Many Indian blades, for example, are more unique and I may classify them strictly as tulwar as opposed to tulwar hilted unique Indian blade sword.