An Ottoman Shamshir for Comment

[CharlesS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Yannis]

Conogre
Sharp eye! I watched it as close as I could. My idea is that the “eye” is a replacement. I think it used to be another ornament there. Possibly a small silver plaque of a “tear” design. The color around this small hole is little different than the rest of the hilt. Also I am more pro of a rhino horn hilt.

[Philip]

Based upon the position of the eyelash markings at present, and comparison of its general proportions (including fuller width and spacing vis-a-vis the spine and edge) to other blades of its ilk which I have personally examined and/or seen in photos over many years, I still believe that the blade of this one has been ground down, most likely PRIOR to being mounted in its present hilt.

It is very likely that the narrowing of the blade (skilfully executed, to harmonize with the spine) was done at the same time the calligraphy was etched into the surface.

Kilij and shamshir blades have relatively diminutive tangs (generally no more than 3 1/2 in. long and about 2/3 the width of the blade) which are rivetted to an iron plate which has the contours of the hilt itself. A peripheral band or strap is brazed or soldered around the plate, and the gripscales rest upon the band, being held in place by rivets running through matching holes in the iron plate. The plate is invariably wider than the blade tang, and thus a tang can be attached a bit "off center", or even filed down on one side, to compensate for the loss of some width at the edge and thus end up being centered on the finished hilt.

There are also cases which I have seen in which the tang itself has been replaced; the old one (originally forged as an extension of the blade billet) replaced with a separate unit, whose forward end is cleft to accept the blade and perhaps just a nub of the original tang, to provide enough contact surface for a good forge-weld. In this way, the new tang can be made to be centered on whatever width the altered blade may happen to be.

The small short groove in the area corresponding to the ricasso may well have been cut after the blade was narrowed. On blades which I have studied which have this feature and all/most of their original width, this groove tends to be somewhat wider and deeper.

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Philip

ground down, most likely PRIOR to being mounted in its present hilt.

It is very likely that the narrowing of the blade (skilfully executed, to harmonize with the spine) was done at the same time the calligraphy was etched into the surface.

Possible, but almost certainly that would mean the small groove at the forte was also made at such time. That is possible, but is it likely? and it seems to match the small rear groove well?

Kilij and shamshir blades have relatively diminutive tangs (generally no more than 3 1/2 in. long and about 2/3 the width of the blade) which are rivetted to an iron plate which has the contours of the hilt itself. A peripheral band or strap is brazed or soldered around the plate, and the gripscales rest upon the band, being held in place by rivets running through matching holes in the iron plate. The plate is invariably wider than the blade tang, and thus a tang can be attached a bit "off center", or even filed down on one side, to compensate for the loss of some width at the edge and thus end up being centered on the finished hilt.

Thanks for the description. I don't see inside a lot of these, or even yatagans, but I've seen them have more after the nature of a half length (full width) tang rivetted to an extension (plate) for length.

There are also cases which I have seen in which the tang itself has been replaced; the old one (originally forged as an extension of the blade billet) replaced with a separate unit, whose forward end is cleft to accept the blade and perhaps just a nub of the original tang, to provide enough contact surface for a good forge-weld. In this way, the new tang can be made to be centered on whatever width the altered blade may happen to .....w

I believe you are misinterpretting what you have seen; the pinched and scarfed blade bases are more likely part of the original construction.

[tom hyle]

Hmmmm....I got my comments mixed in with the quote....I'd fix it, but my computer's acting up a little and also my cat is going to eat me if'n I don't play with her.

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding observations on this Ottoman kilic everybody!!
In looking at this beautiful parabolic shamshir type blade, with pronounced yelman which as Philip has noted more categorizes this in the 'kilic' group, I am with Mike in thinking of North Africa.
As has also been noted by Philip, the triple X marking derives from European trade blades, particularly German. It seems that this symbolism had certain parallels in early occult/cabalistic devices and that three crosses were in apothecary connotation cautionary for deadly substances. Whether or not this application is relevant, it seems interesting to note. As often occurs on trade or native blades, multiplication of symbols presumably were thought to increase potency.

Also, this kilic blade seems much more a horsemans blade than the much shorter and clearly heavier and less parabolic blade of the Turkish kilic most commonly seen. This brings to mind the Mamluk sabres of the end of the 18th c. which of course were from Egypt. It is interesting that the etching on the blade resembles 'thuluth' which was commonly applied to edged weapons in Sudanese regions in the last quarter of the 19th century. Since these regions closest to Egypt were under Ottoman suzerainty at that time, it would seem plausible that a Mamluk type blade could have been remounted or joined with this hilt. The 'thuluth' motif might have then been applied, including the 'dukari' or opposed crescent moons marking that although commonly associated with the Saharan 'takouba', is also known to occur of Sudanese kaskaras with the thuluth application.
The fact that this marking is applied close to the cutting edge, as well as the application of 'thuluth' motif would suggest that this was done as addition to an existing blade and around the fullering. The central location of the 'moons' also concurs with location on thuluth covered kaskaras attributed in Briggs article to the Hausa's.

These suppositions are presuming that this etched decorative motif is in fact 'thuluth' as described, and not other similar motif. Since it is noted this has no inclinations toward Persian revival type pieces, it would seem unlikely that the calligraphy would be 'naskh' , a Persian form of this motif .

Best regards,
Jim

[Philip]

Some years ago, I had a discussion with swordmaker Vincent Evans about these tangs which were cleft and forge welded to the blade. I showed him a couple of shamshir blades with this treatment, and also a Chinese saber blade that was similarly joined, albeit a fraction of an inch behind the blade shoulders. Vince, having forged many a blade in his time, could not see any logical reason why a smith would do a joint like that as part of original manufacture. If anything, it's more time consuming than it would be to hammer the tang out as an integral extension of the blade billet. Also, this type of joint creates a potential stress point since the contact area is relatively small.

I had thought about the desire to economize on materials as a rationale, to avoid "wasting" wootz or pattern weld on a part of the blade that would be hidden from view. Over time, I acquired and obtained for study several Ottoman kilij of the late 18th and early 19th cent, and did a polish and etch on the blades to bring out their structure. Two were wootz. Lo and behold, there was a lap weld at the forte, about 3 inches ahead of the shoulders, where the wootz was joined to a plain carbon steel "root" which also formed the tang. When the blade was new and pristine, the ornate gold koftgari decoration (a good deal of which still remained on these pieces) covered up the joint. Vince said that the contact area of this type of lap joint was larger than on the cleft-and-welded tangs, and thus the joint would be stronger.

On two multi-row twistcore pattern weld kilij blades, the tang and the steel at the very base of the forte was a simple linear laminate joined to the pattern weld via a diagonal scarf joint, likewise very strong. On these, the joint was skilfully laid out so that the linear blended with the twisted cores in an aesthetically attractive and structurally sound manner, and there seemed to be no attempt to hide it with koftgari onlay. The deliberateness of the assembly led Vince and me to conclude that these joints were purpose-made at time of manufacture and not a later repair.

[Philip]

Jim,
Your comments on the blade and its decor are most interesting, thank you for your contribution.

I looked through my references on Islamic calligraphy, and have determined that the style of penmanship on the etched inscription of this kilij is not thuluth, as you describe, but rather appears to be a variant of the common naskhi hand. Naskhi, described by Anthony Welch in CALLIGRAPHY IN THE ARTS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1979) as "a legible and stately script that long remained in favor for its straightforwardness, adherance to the horizontal, and simple virtuosities" (p 31), examples illus. on pp 93, 121,123.

Thuluth is more ponderous and monumental, and the vertical strokes are accentuated (Welch, ibid., examples illus. on pp 95, 101) and are often compressed, which de-emphasizes the horizontal element.

The Persians favored ta'liq, which has a very strong upper right to lower left diagonal orientation of the strokes (Welch, example illus. p 163), and a combination called nasta'liq which has elements of naskhi but still with the diagonal emphasis (Welch, example p 67).

Comparative examples of these and many other penmanship styles can be found in Celal Esad Arseven, LES ARTS DECORATIFS TURCS (Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basinevi, no date).

[tom hyle]

Philip, without seeing the blades in question I can only understand what you're saying without much comment on it. It is not my experience that pinch-welded tangs and blade bases are done on a shorter lap than simple scarfs, nor are otherwise weaker or more poorly done.
BTW, the reason to do this is not only to economize on materials, though that is often spoken of. The reason to do it is that an unhardenable (usually wrought iron) blade base/tang is stronger than carbon steel, especially old suphurous carbon steel, for absorbing the shock. The idea that it is inferior in some way and done to gain economic advantage or use scrap or something is largely an industrial misconception.

[Jim McDougall]

Philip,
Thank you very much for the note on my observations, and for addressing the comments on the etching. Quite frankly I was uncertain of which of these decorative forms were most applicable as I am not entirely familar with the Persian form you describe, although I have handled the thuluth covered weapons. With your very thorough description the differences are quite clear, and I agree the thuluth is as you well describe, much more monumental. I think that the crescent moons as often found stamped in takoubas and as noted, some kaskaras, led me to consider the often found thuluth as a possibility.

I am always incredibly impressed with your phenomenal descriptions of the dynamics of metallurgy and all aspects of edged weapons mounting and construction as well as your keen skills at furbishing. These descriptions truly give new dimension to understanding these weapons.

With the revision of the form of calligraphic motif to Persian, I am still wondering whether Egyptian or Mamluk attribution of this sabre, or kilic, may remain plausible. I would be interested in your opinion.

All best regards,
Jim

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

The reason to do it is that an unhardenable (usually wrought iron) blade base/tang is stronger than carbon steel, especially old suphurous carbon steel, for absorbing the shock.

That's interesting, Tom. Is there a significant improvement?

[tom hyle]

Well, it's certainly stronger; how much I can't meaningfully quantify. Carbon steel, especially suphurous carbon steel, especially but not only when hardened is much more liable to cracking and to cracks spreading than wrought iron. In practical reality I've never broken a sword at this point, but then I've never broken a "real" sword of forged steel. Often the idea is that the blade is thick enough at the base that bending is not much an issue, and the edge at the base is not an issue on many sword types (often enough it is unsharpened, and though it's sharpened all the way down on Japanese swords, for instance, I've seen an inlaid edge on one start several inches out into the blade.). Thus, the soft blade base offers little if any disadvantage (the main danger being a bad weld) and is stronger. Whether this strength is "overkill" in practical reality, I can't say, but it seems to have been the intention, and my feeling is when someone is swinging a sword at me, every little bit helps. Also, the thick soft part of the blade is supposed to make the hard part stronger, by absorbing shock and vibration that would otherwise damage/endanger it.

[Valjhun]

It has reapeared on ebay:

KILIJ

Seems that it has found its scabbard too. The nicest kilij on ebay in 2006

[ariel]

The description suggests that the scabbard fittings were restored; no mention of the scabbard (likely new too, although we do not know whether the original one, shown to Charles, had one). The problem is with a missing (?) comma between the words "silver fittings restored scabbard": a classic "eats shoots and leaves" story.

[Peter Newman]

Dear all,

The discussion on this page has been fascinating and enlightening to say the least. I have recently undertaken a second year study into Ottoman warfare, and the topics presented here (amongst others) instigated an interest such that I have chosen to study Ottoman non-gunpowder weapons under assessment.

However, as this is the first time I have looked at weaponry rather than battle technique, mechanisms for provision etc I have little knowledge of the terminology for sabres in general. Could somebody kindly assist with information on the basic features and correct terminology for an Ottoman sabre, and how it might have changed overt time?

Thankyou very much for your time,

Pete

[Battara]

Originally Posted by Conogre

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

Although a little unusual, it looks like this bead is made of cornelian (better closeups can show more) and this semi-precious stone is not unheard of in Ottoman jewelry or other pieces (archer's rings for example made of cornelian). I'm with Phillip with Ottoman origins.

[Aqtai]

Its a beautiful weapon. the combination of slender blade and yelman does remind me of Mamluk sabres, however the Mamluk sabres I've seen also tend to be much less curved, i.e. straighter.