Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
I beg to differ.
I have seen many authors making the very same confusion and identifying a sword exclusively by its hilt.
And yes, the hilt can be used for defining/identifying a sword, but when the blade is not very characteristic and cannot be identified as such.
In this case, the Ottoman Kilij is characterized primarily by the presence of the yelman and in lesser measure by the reinforced T-shaped spine extending along about two thirds of the blade and the fuller which the Shamshir lacks. Also the archetypal Kilij has a specific shape with a very shallow curvature (or no curvature at all) for the portion of the blade near the hilt, and a very deep curvature closer to the tip like the one in your second photo.
Of course there are blades that display mixed characteristics (as you may encounter "Shamshirs" having fullers or even an yelman) and cannot be accurately identified. In such cases allocating a specific name other than the generic terms of "sword" or "sabre" would be rather inaccurate and misleading, but it is not the case with the Ottoman Shamshir in your photo.
If however, you are Turkish, then the term Kilij (more accurately Kilic) will become also accurate, but only for you, because in Turkish, Kilic, literally means sword... any sword. But then, in the same line of thought, you would be correct calling "Kilic" even a Japanese Katana or an Italian Rapier.
|
That is your interpretation of the subject but it is not necessarily correct for other people, expecially English speaking collectors / dealers. Kilij has come to mean any Ottoman pistol grip sword whether it has a yelman or not, straight blade or highly curved blade, T spine or shamshir blade etc.
The same goes for shashka, if it looks like a shashka it is called "shashka", if it can be further identified such as Bukhara, Circassian, Afghan, Russian then that is added to the description.