Late 16 C Kilij / Pala blade for discussion

Oriental-Arms · 19th July 2007, 09:54 AM

In another thread ( Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword ) the early date of the sword posted above raised some questions regarding its age. It was thought that this type of Kilij blades (or Pala, to pacify Ariel), are rather late. Mid to late 18 C. and onward. The sword in the earlier thread was dated to 1037 (1627). I am bringing up for comments another blade, of even more important provenance, and of an even earlier date:

A close up of the inscription on the obverse side near the Yelmen:

Which reads: Al Mughazi Sinan Pasha Saneye 1000 (The invader Sinan Pasha the year 1591)

And:

Bisrasm Saheb al Dawlah (Ordered by the country's ruler)

And follows with: Bismella al Rahman al Rahim (In the name of God, the most Gracious, the most merciful) and than on both sides of the blade all the attributes of God:

He is Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Peace, the Keeper of Faith, the Protector, the Majestic, the Compeller, the Greatest, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper, the Great Forgiver, the Dominant, the Bestower, the Sustainer, the Opener, the Knower, the Withholder, the Expander, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Bestower of Honor, the Humiliator….. and so all the 99 attributes:

Sinan Pasha is a well known figure in the Ottoman history. For most of his mature years he was a high ranking commander in the Ottoman army under Murad III and Mehmet III, and five time appointed as the Grand Vasir until his death in 1596.

Was this his sword?? Why not. The blade is definitely old. The inscription is of top quality both in inlay technique and calligraphy and fits the period style. The blade might be even earlier: On the reverse side there are traces of an earlier cartouche.

So what do we have here: A late 16 C blade that was supposed to appear in the late 18 C. may be we should reconsider our knowledge on Pala swords??

p.s I already posted this one as a continuation to the earlier thread but there was no response and I thought it is an important enough issue to bring it up as a separate thread,

CharlesS · 19th July 2007, 01:33 PM

What can be said about a blade like this, but "amazing"....and if it is 16th century, it turns on its head previous assumptions about kilij/pala blades of the this style.

Thanks Artzi.

erlikhan · 22nd July 2007, 05:21 PM

I would look for a real 16th c. Ottoman expert to get assistance,about the correctness of the inscription,its grammer and caligraphy . We have been seeing samples certainly from 18th c. but which have 16th c. datings.
My general & amateurical opinion,16th c. was very glorious for Ottoman Turks and arms of that period could possibly gain demand in collapsing, unsuccesful 18th or 19th. centuries in parallel to the miss for those glorious old times, and such swords with earlier inscriptions can perhaps be named as "antique fakes ", not? But yours is lovely, even lovely enough to belong to a grand vizir, -or to invest long time and skill cost to produce as a convincing fake -not today for sure but 1-2 centuries ago-, to sell for a very high price. I doubt about the earlier cartuche traces. It should be very easy for a skilled 16th c. artist to remove those traces (I guess like the one signed in the attached picture) completely ,or to restore them in a harmony with his own golden decoration on the blade if he or his customer wishes to save them. Why would he leave them as they were ?

regards

ariel · 22nd July 2007, 10:08 PM

I hear the qualms and the doubts, but....
I think it is real. This one shows so many signs of natural aging that it is difficult to imagine it being made as a "historical fake".
This one may re-write a big chapter in the chronology of Ottoman weaponry!
Artzi, my hat is off to this blade. Mazal Tov!

erlikhan · 23rd July 2007, 12:13 AM

I dont doubt about the age wear of the sword. Just the koftgari and dating as I dont have any idea about reading Arabic alphabet or 16th c. Ottoman caligraphy. In 18th or 19th centuries, artists were still skillful enough to create beautiful and noble koftgaris as they were in earlier ages.

Aqtai · 23rd July 2007, 09:48 AM

Hi,

I'm no expert as well, but I also think it could be genuine, simply because of the simplicity of the calligraphy. It reminds me of late 15th-early 16th century Mamluk swords. I'm thinking in particular of the Sword of Tumanbay I in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo.

This is a picture of part of the blade of Tumanbay's sword, scanned from Esin Atil's "Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks":

19th July 2007, 09:54 AM	#1
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Late 16 C Kilij / Pala blade for discussion In another thread ( Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword ) the early date of the sword posted above raised some questions regarding its age. It was thought that this type of Kilij blades (or Pala, to pacify Ariel), are rather late. Mid to late 18 C. and onward. The sword in the earlier thread was dated to 1037 (1627). I am bringing up for comments another blade, of even more important provenance, and of an even earlier date: A close up of the inscription on the obverse side near the Yelmen: Which reads: Al Mughazi Sinan Pasha Saneye 1000 (The invader Sinan Pasha the year 1591) And: Bisrasm Saheb al Dawlah (Ordered by the country's ruler) And follows with: Bismella al Rahman al Rahim (In the name of God, the most Gracious, the most merciful) and than on both sides of the blade all the attributes of God: He is Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Peace, the Keeper of Faith, the Protector, the Majestic, the Compeller, the Greatest, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper, the Great Forgiver, the Dominant, the Bestower, the Sustainer, the Opener, the Knower, the Withholder, the Expander, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Bestower of Honor, the Humiliator….. and so all the 99 attributes: Sinan Pasha is a well known figure in the Ottoman history. For most of his mature years he was a high ranking commander in the Ottoman army under Murad III and Mehmet III, and five time appointed as the Grand Vasir until his death in 1596. Was this his sword?? Why not. The blade is definitely old. The inscription is of top quality both in inlay technique and calligraphy and fits the period style. The blade might be even earlier: On the reverse side there are traces of an earlier cartouche. So what do we have here: A late 16 C blade that was supposed to appear in the late 18 C. may be we should reconsider our knowledge on Pala swords?? p.s I already posted this one as a continuation to the earlier thread but there was no response and I thought it is an important enough issue to bring it up as a separate thread, Last edited by Oriental-Arms; 19th July 2007 at 02:00 PM.

22nd July 2007, 05:21 PM	#3
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	I would look for a real 16th c. Ottoman expert to get assistance,about the correctness of the inscription,its grammer and caligraphy . We have been seeing samples certainly from 18th c. but which have 16th c. datings. My general & amateurical opinion,16th c. was very glorious for Ottoman Turks and arms of that period could possibly gain demand in collapsing, unsuccesful 18th or 19th. centuries in parallel to the miss for those glorious old times, and such swords with earlier inscriptions can perhaps be named as "antique fakes ", not? But yours is lovely, even lovely enough to belong to a grand vizir, -or to invest long time and skill cost to produce as a convincing fake -not today for sure but 1-2 centuries ago-, to sell for a very high price. I doubt about the earlier cartuche traces. It should be very easy for a skilled 16th c. artist to remove those traces (I guess like the one signed in the attached picture) completely ,or to restore them in a harmony with his own golden decoration on the blade if he or his customer wishes to save them. Why would he leave them as they were ? regards Attached Images Last edited by erlikhan; 22nd July 2007 at 11:48 PM.

19th July 2007, 01:33 PM	#2
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,857	What can be said about a blade like this, but "amazing"....and if it is 16th century, it turns on its head previous assumptions about kilij/pala blades of the this style. Thanks Artzi.

22nd July 2007, 10:08 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I hear the qualms and the doubts, but.... I think it is real. This one shows so many signs of natural aging that it is difficult to imagine it being made as a "historical fake". This one may re-write a big chapter in the chronology of Ottoman weaponry! Artzi, my hat is off to this blade. Mazal Tov!

23rd July 2007, 12:13 AM	#5
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	I dont doubt about the age wear of the sword. Just the koftgari and dating as I dont have any idea about reading Arabic alphabet or 16th c. Ottoman caligraphy. In 18th or 19th centuries, artists were still skillful enough to create beautiful and noble koftgaris as they were in earlier ages.

23rd July 2007, 09:48 AM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Hi, I'm no expert as well, but I also think it could be genuine, simply because of the simplicity of the calligraphy. It reminds me of late 15th-early 16th century Mamluk swords. I'm thinking in particular of the Sword of Tumanbay I in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo. This is a picture of part of the blade of Tumanbay's sword, scanned from Esin Atil's "Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks":