Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword

CharlesS · 6th July 2007, 07:45 PM

The blade's age is very interesting, but it is the cultural mix of the sword that is my most favorite aspect of our blade collecting hobby, and therefore, especially the combination here is most fascinating.

ariel · 6th July 2007, 08:21 PM

Very, very interesting .
Questions:
- Where did it come from? The language of the label seems to be "learned", not native British. "George 5" is very peculiar, has to be "George V". Also, I doubt any educated person in GB would mention "1914 War", instead of "Great War" or, in 1960, simply WWI.
India?

Tim Simmons · 6th July 2007, 08:26 PM

The label is really weird I cannot believe it is British. One might have said the 14-18 war. One that slipped out of the Royal Armoury or perhaps his drawing room?

I would also question that the 5, apart from not being a "V" is not 5th. Whoever wrote the label was thinking ahead in time very conveniently.

ham · 6th July 2007, 11:58 PM

Congratulations on the acquisition of a truly superior example!
As to how an Ottoman blade found its way into an Indian hilt, we know that trade and gifts between the Turks and the Mughals were by no means rare.
Regarding its age, I suggest this blade was made in the latter 18th or early 19th century. The date is probably commemorative, rather than literal.
Remember that the Ottoman Navy was in its heyday until the very end of the 17th century; its conquests were surprisingly far-reaching in the early 1600s:

"In 1617 the Ottoman fleet captured Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean, before raiding Sussex, Plymouth, Devon, Hartland Point, Cornwall and the other counties of western England in August 1625. In 1627 Ottoman naval ships, accompanied by corsairs from the Barbary Coast, raided the Shetland Islands, Faroe Islands, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Between 1627 and 1631 the same Ottoman force also raided the coasts of Ireland and Sweden."

from Wikipedia entry on the Turkish Navy, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_Turkish_Navy

The kilic was a popular weapon with naval officers; at 27" long this blade would probably have been used at sea.
A very nice find indeed.

Ham

drdavid · 7th July 2007, 04:08 AM

Googling Prawskay and Prawshay does not reveal any such surname? could you read this name differently. Wikipaedia references Guy Francis Laking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Francis_Laking
as the most likely Sir Laking
Drd

ariel · 7th July 2007, 04:36 AM

A hilarious comment from the Google site:
Recent Controversy
In 2004, Norwegian biographer Tor Bomann-Larsen put forward the hypothesis that King Olav V of Norway was not the biological son of King Haakon VII, but his mother, Queen Maud, had been, in 1902 in London, artificially inseminated by Sir Francis Laking with his own or his son Guy's semen. This hypothesis, based on shaky evidence and photographic resemblance met with general disbelief and official denial
....
The Norwegian link is intriguing: perhaps, Turks invaded Norway ( to which Ham refers) for a good purpose

Oriental-Arms · 7th July 2007, 06:46 PM

Two Comments:

Date: We all use to think that this type of weapons appeared in the 18 C. But isn't it possible that we were mistaken?? We have here quite a good example of a blade dated earlier than we think. Ham is correct that swords were used to carry early dates for commemoration of a certain event, be it a famous battle or important conquest, but in all such cases that I have seen, it was referred to the event. Here there is no such reference only a quote of a very common saying in the world of the Islam. Why not simply accept that may be these blades are earlier than we thought??

Provenance: The sword was acquired in the UK but I agree the label was not written by a British. We can only confirm the provenance by tracing the original Christies auction catalog.

6th July 2007, 08:26 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	The label is really weird I cannot believe it is British. One might have said the 14-18 war. One that slipped out of the Royal Armoury or perhaps his drawing room? I would also question that the 5, apart from not being a "V" is not 5th. Whoever wrote the label was thinking ahead in time very conveniently. Last edited by Tim Simmons; 6th July 2007 at 09:28 PM.

6th July 2007, 07:45 PM	#1
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	The blade's age is very interesting, but it is the cultural mix of the sword that is my most favorite aspect of our blade collecting hobby, and therefore, especially the combination here is most fascinating.

6th July 2007, 08:21 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Very, very interesting . Questions: - Where did it come from? The language of the label seems to be "learned", not native British. "George 5" is very peculiar, has to be "George V". Also, I doubt any educated person in GB would mention "1914 War", instead of "Great War" or, in 1960, simply WWI. India?

6th July 2007, 11:58 PM	#4
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Congratulations on the acquisition of a truly superior example! As to how an Ottoman blade found its way into an Indian hilt, we know that trade and gifts between the Turks and the Mughals were by no means rare. Regarding its age, I suggest this blade was made in the latter 18th or early 19th century. The date is probably commemorative, rather than literal. Remember that the Ottoman Navy was in its heyday until the very end of the 17th century; its conquests were surprisingly far-reaching in the early 1600s: "In 1617 the Ottoman fleet captured Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean, before raiding Sussex, Plymouth, Devon, Hartland Point, Cornwall and the other counties of western England in August 1625. In 1627 Ottoman naval ships, accompanied by corsairs from the Barbary Coast, raided the Shetland Islands, Faroe Islands, Denmark, Norway and Iceland. Between 1627 and 1631 the same Ottoman force also raided the coasts of Ireland and Sweden." from Wikipedia entry on the Turkish Navy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_Turkish_Navy The kilic was a popular weapon with naval officers; at 27" long this blade would probably have been used at sea. A very nice find indeed. Ham

7th July 2007, 04:08 AM	#5
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 372	Googling Prawskay and Prawshay does not reveal any such surname? could you read this name differently. Wikipaedia references Guy Francis Laking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Francis_Laking as the most likely Sir Laking Drd

7th July 2007, 04:36 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	A hilarious comment from the Google site: Recent Controversy In 2004, Norwegian biographer Tor Bomann-Larsen put forward the hypothesis that King Olav V of Norway was not the biological son of King Haakon VII, but his mother, Queen Maud, had been, in 1902 in London, artificially inseminated by Sir Francis Laking with his own or his son Guy's semen. This hypothesis, based on shaky evidence and photographic resemblance met with general disbelief and official denial .... The Norwegian link is intriguing: perhaps, Turks invaded Norway ( to which Ham refers) for a good purpose

7th July 2007, 06:46 PM	#7
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Two Comments: Date: We all use to think that this type of weapons appeared in the 18 C. But isn't it possible that we were mistaken?? We have here quite a good example of a blade dated earlier than we think. Ham is correct that swords were used to carry early dates for commemoration of a certain event, be it a famous battle or important conquest, but in all such cases that I have seen, it was referred to the event. Here there is no such reference only a quote of a very common saying in the world of the Islam. Why not simply accept that may be these blades are earlier than we thought?? Provenance: The sword was acquired in the UK but I agree the label was not written by a British. We can only confirm the provenance by tracing the original Christies auction catalog.