Turkish Kilij-translation requested

[DaveS]

Here is a kilij for viewing. The handle is rhino-horn with an old repair on one side. The crossguard has silver inlay, mostly intact. The blade is 33 inches long and is made of sham wootz. No scabbard. I think this sword is an early 1800s piece but I would like more expert opinions on the date. Any help on a translation would be appreciated........Dave.

[Battara]

Interesting piece. The silver on the crossguard is not inlay but silver koftgari. Nice contrast wootz.

Others can tell you more.

[DaveS]

Sham wootz was always considered lowest on the list of desirable wootz patterns according to what I've read. It's easy to identify because the pattern basically runs parallel the length of the blade like ripples on the water. It also has almost none of swirls that are seen on the more common patterns like Kara-Khorrasan. Visually, I like it the best of all the wootz patterns. B.T.W., you are right, it is koftgari rather than inlay on the cross-guard. Should have noticed that!!!!!..........Dave.

[A.alnakkas]

isnt this one of the Persian wootz types??

Decent blade, but the koftgari on the blade and quillons are Syrian and recent.

[DaveS]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

isnt this one of the Persian wootz types??

Decent blade, but the koftgari on the blade and quillons are Syrian and recent.

I wish I could remember which publication had pictures of most of the wootz patterns. Sham definitely runs the length of the blade mostly as undulating ripple lines. Kara-Khorrasan which is the most common Persian wootz has swirls of crystals, which makes it easy tell the two types apart. How are you able to tell that the koftgari on the blade and quillons is recent?..........Dave.

[A.alnakkas]

Mainly from experience, Dave. I see such koftgari on blades with quillons and scabbard mounts that also have the same silver koftgari. These scabbards and inscriptions are almost uniform and is probably done in the same workshop... The spine inscription is probably even the same poetry.

[ALEX]

Dave, you are right about sham - it generally "runs the length of the blade". But it is also characterized by low contrast and low activity! The pattern on your blade is quite bold and active, and certainly of quite good quality. I'd not call it anywhere close to the "lowest on the list of desirable wootz patterns"
It's a nice blade! I also agree with A.alnakkas that the cross and coftgari inscription are recent (meaning post 19th Century ) and likely of Syrian origin, as could be the blade itself. I agree the blade is at least 19th Century.

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dave, you are right about sham - it generally "runs the length of the blade". But it is also characterized by low contrast and low activity! The pattern on your blade is quite bold and active, and certainly of quite good quality. I'd not call it anywhere close to the "lowest on the list of desirable wootz patterns"
It's a nice blade! I also agree with A.alnakkas that the cross and coftgari inscription are recent (meaning post 19th Century ) and likely of Syrian origin, as could be the blade itself. I agree the blade is at least 19th Century.

I wouldnt argue with you, Alex, as you are far more experienced than me when it comes to wootz patterns. But isnt the pattern too bold to count as sham?

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

... But isnt the pattern too bold to count as sham?

Yes, I agree. In some areas it looks like so-called "wavy damask", i.e. non-sham wootz.
One of sham patterns is shown HERE , second from the top. There are many other sham patterns that can be quite bold and active. I'll show one of them soon.
These patterns are relatively easy to call sham, but the pattern on Dave's sword is quite complex in my opinion to be called sham with certainty. Would be interesting what others think.

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Yes, I agree. In some areas it looks like so-called "wavy damask", i.e. non-sham wootz.
One of sham patterns is shown HERE , second from the top. There are many other sham patterns that can be quite bold and active. I'll show one of them soon.
These patterns are relatively easy to call sham, but the pattern on Dave's sword is quite complex in my opinion to be called sham with certainty. Would be interesting what others think.

Yes! I am interested as well as I have two blades with such pattern and never saw them as sham.

Interesting thing about those Syrian made mounts is often the quillons are old ones with added silver koftgari. Some are supposedly wootz too. Though I think the quillons on Dave's sword is Syrian made and recent while the rhino hilt is probably older with an obvious but skilfully made repair.

[DaveS]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Yes, I agree. In some areas it looks like so-called "wavy damask", i.e. non-sham wootz.
One of sham patterns is shown HERE , second from the top. There are many other sham patterns that can be quite bold and active. I'll show one of them soon.
These patterns are relatively easy to call sham, but the pattern on Dave's sword is quite complex in my opinion to be called sham with certainty. Would be interesting what others think.

In your opinion then which of the wootz types would this be called? I realize that there could be possibly many variations, as there are many types and variations of Indonesian pamor, so much so that even they can't always agree on just what this one or that one is...........Dave.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by DaveS

In your opinion then which of the wootz types would this be called? I realize that there could be possibly many variations, as there are many types and variations of Indonesian pamor, so much so that even they can't always agree on just what this one or that one is...........Dave.

Dave, you're right. There are many variations of wootz. I like Anossov's classification (in Manfred Sachse "Damascus Steel" book p.72). He set 5 categories:
1. Stripy/Simple damask (sham) - predominantly straight lines
2. Water damask - shorter straight lines mixed with curved lines
3. Wavy damask - more complex curved lines mixed with dots
4. Checkered mottle (network) damask - shorter lines with random web-like bands
5. Ladder damask (aka Kirk-Narduban).

I think yours falls under #2 - Water damask.

Attached are some pictures for comparison (not related to above system).
# 3 is sham on Persian shamshir, and #4 - sham on Ottoman kilij blade. Your pattern is more complex (in some/most sections of the blade!). it resembles #1, with lines going in random directions with some dots.

[DaveS]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dave, you're right. There are many variations of wootz. I like Anossov's classification (in Manfred Sachse "Damascus Steel" book p.72). He set 5 categories:
1. Stripy/Simple damask (sham) - predominantly straight lines
2. Water damask - shorter straight lines mixed with curved lines
3. Wavy damask - more complex curved lines mixed with dots
4. Checkered mottle (network) damask - shorter lines with random web-like bands
5. Ladder damask (aka Kirk-Narduban).

I think yours falls under #2 - Water damask.

Attached are some pictures for comparison (not related to above system).
# 3 is sham on Persian shamshir, and #4 - sham on Ottoman kilij blade. Your pattern is more complex (in some/most sections of the blade!). it resembles #1, with lines going in random directions with some dots.

Alex: I think this kilij might be a combination of #1 and 2. It seems to have predominately straight lines along with the shorter straight and curved lines. Thanks for these pictures also. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of this book "Damascus Steel". Is it still in print?.........Dave.

[ALEX]

Dave, the book is readily available. Make sure to get English version. It covers mainly modern mechanical damask, and has a chapter on wootz. it's a nice book overall and you can get it quite cheap now (PM sent).

[archer burak]

This one is not original Türk kılıç it seems made in afganistan , in these days we can see lots of them coming to istanbul too , there is no Türkish words on barrel , all seems arabic

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by archer burak

This one is not original Türk kılıç it seems made in afganistan , in these days we can see lots of them coming to istanbul too , there is no Türkish words on barrel , all seems arabic

I do not see anything related to Afganistan. Why do you think it came from there? Also, it is of typical Turkish kilic form. The coftgari could've beeen done elsewhere, but what do you mean it is not original Turkish kilij? What do you think it is?

[archer burak]

Originally Posted by ALEX

I do not see anything related to Afganistan. Why do you think it came from there? Also, it is of typical Turkish kilic form. The coftgari could've beeen done elsewhere, but what do you mean it is not original Turkish kilij? What do you think it is?

Alex , first the hilt form was not typical ottoman and feels like iran between afganistan an d since 2012 afgan sword makers rapidly make ottoman look kılıçs becaouse it favorite and good income for them , beleive me ıstanbul grand bazaar full of this replikas , they have damascus barrels like your , they have hilts and same non turkish words on barrel too . when ı see this koftgari and balçak it shows me the truth ...

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by archer burak

Alex , first the hilt form was not typical ottoman and feels like iran between afganistan an d since 2012 afgan sword makers rapidly make ottoman look kılıçs becaouse it favorite and good income for them , beleive me ıstanbul grand bazaar full of this replikas , they have damascus barrels like your , they have hilts and same non turkish words on barrel too . when ı see this koftgari and balçak it shows me the truth ...

Burak, one simply cannot call this sword a replica. It is most certainly not, just as Kapalicarsi is full of anything like this The blade is at least 19th Century, potentially earlier. The handle, crossguard and coftgari are later to the blade, likely Syrian, as was already mentioned before. They are not brand new, nowhere near 2012, and I think they were made when the swords were still used as part of men attire. My advice to you is not to judge a whole sword by its embellishments. Instead, consider the blade as a main element, and the rest as additions that followed it throughout its life. It is common for a blade to have multiple rehiltings, but the blade is always the core of the sword, and should be respected as such
-
Also, it would be great if you can show pictures of grand bazaar swords you mentioned, so we can compare and discuss. Cok teshakurlar!

[archer burak]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Burak, one simply cannot call this sword a replica. It is most certainly not, just as Kapalicarsi is full of anything like this The blade is at least 19th Century, potentially earlier. The handle, crossguard and coftgari are later to the blade, likely Syrian, as was already mentioned before. They are not brand new, nowhere near 2012, and I think they were made when the swords were still used as part of men attire. My advice to you is not to judge a whole sword by its embellishments. Instead, consider the blade as a main element, and the rest as additions that followed it throughout its life. It is common for a blade to have multiple rehiltings, but the blade is always the core of the sword, and should be respected as such
-
Also, it would be great if you can show pictures of grand bazaar swords you mentioned, so we can compare and discuss. Cok teshakurlar!

...and last photo is original on my message