Turkish Kilij-translation requested

[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