New Kilij: need opinions and translation

ariel · 9th May 2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valjhun

Further, it is rather a shamshir that a kilij (SenSei forgive me my insolence)

I guess we still should call it Kilij: it is Turkish-influenced and not Persian. The curve is not Shamshir-ish, early Kilijes nad no yelman etc.
Any objections?

ariel · 12th May 2006, 12:01 AM

I am being impolite and putting this thread up on the top: perhaps somebody will pay attention and translate the inscription. Please?

Yannis · 12th May 2006, 10:29 AM

Dear Ariel, I will play devil's advocate

If it has no back edge close to tip, it is shamshir not kilij.

I am looking it again and again and I have a strange feeling. It has all the pieces of an old shamshir but also something is not quite “right”. I am possibly having nightmares and maybe I sound rude but…

a. The side opening of the wood up on the throat looks wrong. It should be wider.
b. The guard is broken in wrong place. Maybe it is upside down?
c. The two fittings with the rings look different of the other fittings, more “cheap” (later?). I cannot imagine anyone to trust these things in a furious horse riding.

My conclusion is that it is an old shamshir that it was wrongly restored and “upgraded” sometime in the last 50 years. Where? Two countries come to my mind Syria and Bulgaria, the later because of the copper used.

I wish to hear that I am totally wrong.

ariel · 12th May 2006, 11:35 AM

Yannis,
The wood is very, very old and dry. this is why the opening is so narrow. It needs to be replaced.
The small fittings are different from the rest, although they also look old and worn. The big fittings are very professionally repoussed whereas the small are chased.
The guard is old. The reason it does not fit perfectly is the crumbled "cement" within it, and the direction is correct. I shall clean it and reposition properly.
Overall, there is no doubt in my mind this is old and was not recently renovated. Old repairs? Sure, why not.
The idea of Bulgarian origin is interesting and did not occur to me. May just be the case.
As to the name... Turks call their swords Kilij, Iranians call them Shamshir.A Turkish sword with Shamshir blade was called Ajem Kilij, and one with a wavy blade Atesh Kilij.
Obviously, this is neither. And it is not Turkish, as we agree. It was fashioned in the Ottoman style but with a local blade. God only knows what the locals called it. I use the word Kilij for convenience, because shamshir implies a very special form of the blade which is not the case.

ham · 12th May 2006, 05:48 PM

Gentlemen,

Yannis' observations are astute.
There is an entire group of late 19th and 20th century swords which were made in the bazaar such as this one-- probably they were worn by rich townies- merchants, etc.-- for weddings as is still done in the Arab states.
It is to this group which the sword belongs. The blade may or may not be tempered, judging from the nick I would say not. Too, the style of the koftgari is characteristic of more recent work, c. 1920s.
Nice example of a style which endures to the present.

Sincerely,

Ham

M.carter · 12th May 2006, 10:15 PM

Ariel,

I would say that this sword would have been called a "saif", not a Kilij, and certainly not a shamshir, check this out :

http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=358

The scabbard is very similar, and also the blade and the koftgari, just the hilt is different, but still, Turkish bulb hilts were called "kilwi" hilts by Syrians, and were produced in Damascus probably even more than the typical "baddawi" classical arabic hilt.

EDIT: Oh and one more thing, the description on that is wrong, as pointed out by Artzi himself a long time ago on swordforum, this blade is made in damascus, not persian.

ariel · 13th May 2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.carter

Ariel,

I would say that this sword would have been called a "saif", not a Kilij, and certainly not a shamshir, check this out :

http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=358

The scabbard is very similar, and also the blade and the koftgari, just the hilt is different, but still, Turkish bulb hilts were called "kilwi" hilts by Syrians, and were produced in Damascus probably even more than the typical "baddawi" classical arabic hilt.

EDIT: Oh and one more thing, the description on that is wrong, as pointed out by Artzi himself a long time ago on swordforum, this blade is made in damascus, not persian.

That was exactly my point: a sword made under the artistic influence of Ottoman Empire would be called differently : Kilij in Turkey, Saif in Arabian areas, Mech in Russia,Szablja in Poland etc. Peculiarly, in Russia , a very much Shamshyr -type sabers were called Klych and the local name for the Bedouin sword (resembling shashka most of all ) is also Klych. Undoubtedly, Turkish influence.
This one can legitimately be called Saif in Damascus or Kilic in Istanbul.

M.carter · 12th May 2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ham

Gentlemen,

The blade may or may not be tempered, judging from the nick I would say not. Too, the style of the koftgari is characteristic of more recent work, c. 1920s.
Nice example of a style which endures to the present.

Sincerely,

Ham

I would agree with you on this, the nick shows the blade to be too soft. Still, one must remember that the hardness tests conducted on antique swords by many swordsmiths/ collectors, nearly all blades were at high 30RC, with a max of almost 40RC. With a hardness like that, a nick would look like the one on this sword.

M.carter · 12th May 2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yannis

c. The two fittings with the rings look different of the other fittings, more “cheap” (later?). I cannot imagine anyone to trust these things in a furious horse riding.

All the scabbard fittings, save the leather and wood, seem to be recent, low quality replacements.

12th May 2006, 12:01 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I am being impolite and putting this thread up on the top: perhaps somebody will pay attention and translate the inscription. Please?

12th May 2006, 10:29 AM	#3
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Dear Ariel, I will play devil's advocate If it has no back edge close to tip, it is shamshir not kilij. I am looking it again and again and I have a strange feeling. It has all the pieces of an old shamshir but also something is not quite “right”. I am possibly having nightmares and maybe I sound rude but… a. The side opening of the wood up on the throat looks wrong. It should be wider. b. The guard is broken in wrong place. Maybe it is upside down? c. The two fittings with the rings look different of the other fittings, more “cheap” (later?). I cannot imagine anyone to trust these things in a furious horse riding. My conclusion is that it is an old shamshir that it was wrongly restored and “upgraded” sometime in the last 50 years. Where? Two countries come to my mind Syria and Bulgaria, the later because of the copper used. I wish to hear that I am totally wrong.

12th May 2006, 11:35 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yannis, The wood is very, very old and dry. this is why the opening is so narrow. It needs to be replaced. The small fittings are different from the rest, although they also look old and worn. The big fittings are very professionally repoussed whereas the small are chased. The guard is old. The reason it does not fit perfectly is the crumbled "cement" within it, and the direction is correct. I shall clean it and reposition properly. Overall, there is no doubt in my mind this is old and was not recently renovated. Old repairs? Sure, why not. The idea of Bulgarian origin is interesting and did not occur to me. May just be the case. As to the name... Turks call their swords Kilij, Iranians call them Shamshir.A Turkish sword with Shamshir blade was called Ajem Kilij, and one with a wavy blade Atesh Kilij. Obviously, this is neither. And it is not Turkish, as we agree. It was fashioned in the Ottoman style but with a local blade. God only knows what the locals called it. I use the word Kilij for convenience, because shamshir implies a very special form of the blade which is not the case.

12th May 2006, 05:48 PM	#5
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, Yannis' observations are astute. There is an entire group of late 19th and 20th century swords which were made in the bazaar such as this one-- probably they were worn by rich townies- merchants, etc.-- for weddings as is still done in the Arab states. It is to this group which the sword belongs. The blade may or may not be tempered, judging from the nick I would say not. Too, the style of the koftgari is characteristic of more recent work, c. 1920s. Nice example of a style which endures to the present. Sincerely, Ham

12th May 2006, 10:15 PM	#6
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Ariel, I would say that this sword would have been called a "saif", not a Kilij, and certainly not a shamshir, check this out : http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=358 The scabbard is very similar, and also the blade and the koftgari, just the hilt is different, but still, Turkish bulb hilts were called "kilwi" hilts by Syrians, and were produced in Damascus probably even more than the typical "baddawi" classical arabic hilt. EDIT: Oh and one more thing, the description on that is wrong, as pointed out by Artzi himself a long time ago on swordforum, this blade is made in damascus, not persian.