Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword

Oriental-Arms · 6th July 2007, 07:21 PM

The sword below raised our interest in three aspects:

1) Blade and forging: The blade is 27 inches long, very curved with a 10 inches raised back edge. It is of superb quality, pattern welded steel forged in the pattern known as Turkish Ribbon, where several rows of twisted steel bars are forge welded together to produce the pattern.

This pattern was very common in Turkish swords and daggers from the 17 C. and on. It is very Characteristic and it is almost like screaming: I am Turkish. This blade has 7 or 8 layers which is quite unusual, as most of the blade will have 4-6 layers.

There is a gold inlaid cartouche in Arabic letters:

The inscription read: La fata ella Ali La Seif ella Dhulfaghar saneye 1037 (There is no brave man but Ali there is no sword but Dhulfaghar the year 1037). 1037 corresponds to 1627 in the Gregorian calendar. Quite an early date for this shape of blades which are believed to appear only in the 18 C.

2) Origin: Turkish style blade and definitely Indian style handle and scabbard:

Also the handle is of top quality and workmanship with heavy gold inlay (true inlay). The mounting of the handle is definitely old and uses the thick black resin as can be found in many old Tulwars and other Indian blades. So was it a Turkish blade that passes hands and finally arrived to India and received its Indian mounts?? Was it a custom made blade ordered in Turkey for an Indian buyer?? Any other suggestions?? Comments are most welcome.

3) Provenance: This sword came with an old label shown below:

. It reads:

"...From the collection of king George 5. Armourer Sir Laking sold up at Christies a year or 2 after the 1914 war, one of a set of 3, I believe, ?????, similar, each one larger than the other. Doubtless the Cimitar of one king or prince. The other two already passed on. Owen T.R. Prawskay (?). This label written 2.8.1960...

I am still looking for Christies catalogs from the period (1920 ??) to confirm the provenance and find the description of this 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.

Tim Simmons · 7th July 2007, 07:58 PM

It is a very beautiful sword.

ariel · 7th July 2007, 08:28 PM

No doubt, the sword is beautiful!
What is the motive on the handle ? Parasols? Mughal motive.
Another puzzle: the invocation of Ali and Dhulfaghar is Shia; the Ottomans were Sunnis, AFAIK. I guess the inscription might be contemporary to the handle.

Emanuel · 7th July 2007, 09:13 PM

I thought that invocations to Ali and Ali's sword were used by both Shi'a and Sunna. Don't Ottoman yataghans often have such invocations?

ham · 7th July 2007, 10:45 PM

Manolo,

It is correct that this phrase glorifying 'Ali and Dhul-fakar was used among both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.

Oriental-Arms,

Your observation,

"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."

intrigues me-- if I understand you correctly, you have seen Islamic blades which bear inscriptions that reference a specific historical occurrence? I regret that in all my years I have not, excepting weapons made after a European model, since this tends to be a Western practice. If there are any examples you could cite it would be most helpful.

Ham

Oriental-Arms · 8th July 2007, 07:27 AM

Yes indeed Ham. At least twice that I remember. One on a handle of a Persian Khanjar glorying an old battle and another on a blade, I believe it was Turkish. I will have to go through my archive of photos to find it ( some 20000 photos to search). Give me some time.

ham · 8th July 2007, 07:24 PM

Excellent, I look forward to seeing them!

Ham

Oriental-Arms · 15th July 2007, 07:48 PM

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 above 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??

6th July 2007, 07:21 PM	#1
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword The sword below raised our interest in three aspects: 1) Blade and forging: The blade is 27 inches long, very curved with a 10 inches raised back edge. It is of superb quality, pattern welded steel forged in the pattern known as *Turkish Ribbon, where several rows of twisted steel bars are forge welded together to produce the pattern. This pattern was very common in Turkish swords and daggers from the 17 C. and on. It is very Characteristic and it is almost like screaming: I am Turkish. This blade has 7 or 8 layers which is quite unusual, as most of the blade will have 4-6 layers. There is a gold inlaid cartouche in Arabic letters: The inscription read: La fata ella Ali La Seif ella Dhulfaghar saneye 1037 (There is no brave man but Ali there is no sword but Dhulfaghar the year 1037)*. 1037 corresponds to 1627 in the Gregorian calendar. Quite an early date for this shape of blades which are believed to appear only in the 18 C. 2) Origin: Turkish style blade and definitely Indian style handle and scabbard: Also the handle is of top quality and workmanship with heavy gold inlay (true inlay). The mounting of the handle is definitely old and uses the thick black resin as can be found in many old Tulwars and other Indian blades. So was it a Turkish blade that passes hands and finally arrived to India and received its Indian mounts?? Was it a custom made blade ordered in Turkey for an Indian buyer?? Any other suggestions?? Comments are most welcome. 3) Provenance: This sword came with an old label shown below: . It reads: "...From the collection of king George 5. Armourer Sir Laking sold up at Christies a year or 2 after the 1914 war, one of a set of 3, I believe, ?????, similar, each one larger than the other. Doubtless the Cimitar of one king or prince. The other two already passed on. Owen T.R. Prawskay (?). This label written 2.8.1960... I am still looking for Christies catalogs from the period (1920 ??) to confirm the provenance and find the description of this sword.

6th July 2007, 08:26 PM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	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.

15th July 2007, 07:48 PM	#15
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Another early Kilij for discussion 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 above 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??

6th July 2007, 07:45 PM	#2
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,857	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	#3
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	#5
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	#6
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 371	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	#7
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	#8
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.

7th July 2007, 07:58 PM	#9
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	It is a very beautiful sword.

7th July 2007, 08:28 PM	#10
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	No doubt, the sword is beautiful! What is the motive on the handle ? Parasols? Mughal motive. Another puzzle: the invocation of Ali and Dhulfaghar is Shia; the Ottomans were Sunnis, AFAIK. I guess the inscription might be contemporary to the handle.

7th July 2007, 09:13 PM	#11
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	I thought that invocations to Ali and Ali's sword were used by both Shi'a and Sunna. Don't Ottoman yataghans often have such invocations?

7th July 2007, 10:45 PM	#12
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Manolo, It is correct that this phrase glorifying 'Ali and Dhul-fakar was used among both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Oriental-Arms, Your observation, "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." intrigues me-- if I understand you correctly, you have seen Islamic blades which bear inscriptions that reference a specific historical occurrence? I regret that in all my years I have not, excepting weapons made after a European model, since this tends to be a Western practice. If there are any examples you could cite it would be most helpful. Ham

8th July 2007, 07:27 AM	#13
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Yes indeed Ham. At least twice that I remember. One on a handle of a Persian Khanjar glorying an old battle and another on a blade, I believe it was Turkish. I will have to go through my archive of photos to find it ( some 20000 photos to search). Give me some time.

8th July 2007, 07:24 PM	#14
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Excellent, I look forward to seeing them! Ham