An Ottoman Shamshir for Comment

CharlesS · 22nd February 2005, 01:42 AM

Though not mine, I would be grateful for any comments on Ottoman shamshir below. I am thinking it is mid-late 19th Century, and perhaps a Turkish version of the "revival" swords of Qajar Persia, in this case a classical kilij. The blade is not wootz, or damas, though seems of quite good quality. There is script thoughout, and some rather common markings...but a lot of them! The brass knobs have been removed form the pommel, and replaced with some sort of beads. Thanks for any input.

Philip · 22nd February 2005, 06:42 AM

The blade form, with its raised "yelman" or back-edge, would indicate a kilij, not a shamshir. Blades with yelmans and radiused tip contours are associated with the Ottoman Empire. Although on rather rare occasions one sees a Persian saber whose blade has a back-edge, such examples still exhibit the markedly tapering profile and acute point that are characteristic of a shamshir.

On the specimen illustrated in this post, the style of the hilt is typically Ottoman. Based upon this characteristic, and the shape of the blade, there does not seem to be any connection with Qajar saber types, either original or revival.

The blade on this piece is decorated with etched calligraphic motifs. There are two die-struck "eyelash" marks, and X stamps in the fullers, which are common on European blades made for the Eastern market. One can also see that a long central section of the spine is "sunken", i.e. at a level below that of the forte and the yelman. This latter characteristic is seen on a number of Eastern European sabers. A remarkably similar blade, minus the markings, is seen on a Polish "karabela" saber (Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, inv. no. 126244) published in W. Zablocki, CIECIA PRAWDZIWA SZABLA (Warsaw: Wydanictwo Sport i Turystika, 1988), pp 208-9. A closely-related specimen is on pp 206-7 (same collection, inv. no. 127454). That one is interesting for a dorsal fuller on the sunken central section, which parallels a Chinese example (Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 36.25.1473a,b); I discussed this and their Polish counterparts in my article "Some Notable Sabers of the Qing Dynasty at the Met. Mus. of Art", MET. MUS. JOURNAL, Vol 36/2001.

The position of the "eyelash" markings on the blade posted by Charles is rather close to the edge, which suggests that the edge may have been considerably ground down during its working life.

Over the years I have seen a fair number of European saber blades, mostly of the broad, multifullered hussar type, mounted in Ottoman hilts. It is possible that these were hilted up for issue to units in the Balkans, considering the proximity of that region to those parts of Europe in which those blades were so widely used.

Yannis · 22nd February 2005, 08:38 AM

Very accurate remarks Philip! I liked specially this about the proximity of the “eyelash” to the edge. The etched Damascus (or calligraphy) is also in strange place by the edge. Any work for sharpening this blade would destroy it. So I agree that it could be wider when it was made. Or this blade was made from the beginning for dress, not for fighting.

Blade and guard are very clean for the age. Very interesting hilt, with big bubble. It looks like rhino!

Charles, is it possible a close photo of hilt and another one under the guard, where hilt connects to blade? Is there any scabbard?

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd February 2005, 09:01 AM

This is an interesting sword, and Philip’s comments and references very good. I do however have one ‘but’, if the blade has been sharpened down to the width it has to day, would it not have been broader close to the hilt – the first 2-3 cm?
If this is so, and the fact that it cant take more sharpening, it looks like a dress sword to me.

tom hyle · 22nd February 2005, 09:42 AM

To call it a dress sword doesn't neccessarily mean it lacks any of the capabilities of a simpler piece (there is, as I've said before, no readable or consistant inclination either way on this issue of falsely equating fance with either quality or its lack). Is the blade sharp? I think it's original width, and I don't think that placing either the struck or etched marks where resharpenings would potentially eface them is all that unusual. In addition to the no untoward uneveness in the edge issue, the general lack of wear, and the handle matching the blade width, there is the front groove at the forte, whose placement seems original.

Conogre · 22nd February 2005, 11:25 PM

I'm struck by the red necklace-type bead in the center of the hilt, which seems very uncharacteristic for a sword of this type, more inclined to be found in a Moroccan or N African sword than in an Ottoman sword.
Mike

22nd February 2005, 01:42 AM	#1
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,855	An Ottoman Shamshir for Comment Though not mine, I would be grateful for any comments on Ottoman shamshir below. I am thinking it is mid-late 19th Century, and perhaps a Turkish version of the "revival" swords of Qajar Persia, in this case a classical kilij. The blade is not wootz, or damas, though seems of quite good quality. There is script thoughout, and some rather common markings...but a lot of them! The brass knobs have been removed form the pommel, and replaced with some sort of beads. Thanks for any input. Attached Images

22nd February 2005, 08:38 AM	#3
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Nice kilij! Very accurate remarks Philip! I liked specially this about the proximity of the “eyelash” to the edge. The etched Damascus (or calligraphy) is also in strange place by the edge. Any work for sharpening this blade would destroy it. So I agree that it could be wider when it was made. Or this blade was made from the beginning for dress, not for fighting. Blade and guard are very clean for the age. Very interesting hilt, with big bubble. It looks like rhino! Charles, is it possible a close photo of hilt and another one under the guard, where hilt connects to blade? Is there any scabbard?

22nd February 2005, 06:42 AM	#2
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	The blade form, with its raised "yelman" or back-edge, would indicate a kilij, not a shamshir. Blades with yelmans and radiused tip contours are associated with the Ottoman Empire. Although on rather rare occasions one sees a Persian saber whose blade has a back-edge, such examples still exhibit the markedly tapering profile and acute point that are characteristic of a shamshir. On the specimen illustrated in this post, the style of the hilt is typically Ottoman. Based upon this characteristic, and the shape of the blade, there does not seem to be any connection with Qajar saber types, either original or revival. The blade on this piece is decorated with etched calligraphic motifs. There are two die-struck "eyelash" marks, and X stamps in the fullers, which are common on European blades made for the Eastern market. One can also see that a long central section of the spine is "sunken", i.e. at a level below that of the forte and the yelman. This latter characteristic is seen on a number of Eastern European sabers. A remarkably similar blade, minus the markings, is seen on a Polish "karabela" saber (Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, inv. no. 126244) published in W. Zablocki, CIECIA PRAWDZIWA SZABLA (Warsaw: Wydanictwo Sport i Turystika, 1988), pp 208-9. A closely-related specimen is on pp 206-7 (same collection, inv. no. 127454). That one is interesting for a dorsal fuller on the sunken central section, which parallels a Chinese example (Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 36.25.1473a,b); I discussed this and their Polish counterparts in my article "Some Notable Sabers of the Qing Dynasty at the Met. Mus. of Art", MET. MUS. JOURNAL, Vol 36/2001. The position of the "eyelash" markings on the blade posted by Charles is rather close to the edge, which suggests that the edge may have been considerably ground down during its working life. Over the years I have seen a fair number of European saber blades, mostly of the broad, multifullered hussar type, mounted in Ottoman hilts. It is possible that these were hilted up for issue to units in the Balkans, considering the proximity of that region to those parts of Europe in which those blades were so widely used.

22nd February 2005, 09:01 AM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,716	This is an interesting sword, and Philip’s comments and references very good. I do however have one ‘but’, if the blade has been sharpened down to the width it has to day, would it not have been broader close to the hilt – the first 2-3 cm? If this is so, and the fact that it cant take more sharpening, it looks like a dress sword to me.

22nd February 2005, 09:42 AM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	To call it a dress sword doesn't neccessarily mean it lacks any of the capabilities of a simpler piece (there is, as I've said before, no readable or consistant inclination either way on this issue of falsely equating fance with either quality or its lack). Is the blade sharp? I think it's original width, and I don't think that placing either the struck or etched marks where resharpenings would potentially eface them is all that unusual. In addition to the no untoward uneveness in the edge issue, the general lack of wear, and the handle matching the blade width, there is the front groove at the forte, whose placement seems original.

22nd February 2005, 11:25 PM	#6
Conogre Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Clearwater, Florida Posts: 371	I'm struck by the red necklace-type bead in the center of the hilt, which seems very uncharacteristic for a sword of this type, more inclined to be found in a Moroccan or N African sword than in an Ottoman sword. Mike