Real Shamshir or Kilij?

FED · 5th July 2007, 03:33 PM

Hi all, they offered me this sword. I couldn't find any markings anywhere. I'd appreciate any insight or advice.
Thank you!

Jim McDougall · 7th July 2007, 07:58 PM

Hi FED,
It would appear this is an Ottoman hilt mounted with a European cavalry sabre blade, probably 18th century, though the hilt and scabbard probably furbished sometime in the mid 19th. It is always hard to be precise as these hilts were so widely distributed within the Ottoman sphere, and the form remained traditionally firm so such a long period. With so many blades coming out of Germany, and being used on so many military sabres throughout Europe, it is equally hard to be precise with the blade. The unusually pronounced parabolic curve and type of fuller does suggest mid to late 18th century though. It seems quite possible this sabre may have been assembled during periods of alliances between Ottoman and European forces in the 19th century.

Looks to be an interesting piece! The term 'kilij' or 'kilic' is a Turkish term for curved sword as I understand, and seems applied primarily to the shorter, heavier blade sabre with extremely pronounced yelman and of course the 'Ottoman' hilt of pistol grip form. The shamshir term usually refers to the swept curve Persian blade form without yelman, and typically associated to the simple, yet beautiful, open hilts of the Persian form.

All best regards,
Jim

ariel · 7th July 2007, 09:44 PM

Kilic in Turkish is just that: a sword. Just like Sayf in Arabic.
A sword with a bulbous handle and shamshir blade is a Turkish sword locally called Adjem Kilic ( "Persian sword") and with an undulating (kris-like) blade it becomes Atesh Kilic ( "Flaming sword"). It is still a mystery to me how the Westerners ( collectors, mainly) specified that Kilic (Kilij) should be a proper name for a yelman-ed variety.
Shorter and stubbier version of a yelman-ed Turkish sword was a Pala.
Am I wrong? Erlikhan, to the rescue!!!

erlikhan · 9th July 2007, 12:54 AM

Well, here is how i describe yelmaned swords (kilij as called in international terminology) : if it is long, i call it a " long pala", and if short, i call it a "short pala"

So do other local collectioners/dealers. Sword = Kilich. Yelmaned sword=Pala.

Perhaps they (long,short,stubbier etc.) were more spesifically named once in history when they were functional, but I don't know them for sure.

Kayahan · 9th July 2007, 02:19 PM

First, the term “yalman” is used wrongly by todays Westerners, as Ariel called them. "Yalman" in Turkish means the cutting or penetrating part of a cutting or penetrating weapon. Hence, for example, lances also have "yalman"s. To put it correctly, we can say “kilics have a double-edged yalman”. Similarly, shamshirs have a single-edged yalman. There is no specific word in Turkish language addressing the false edge (?) of a kilic.

It seems that the reason why Westerners specified that kilic should be a proper name for this variety was because it is how it was called in its original culture. It is true that kilic literally means sword in Turkish. So, they simply called what they originally use a “sword”. After they met to different types, they named them accordingly; with a reference either to its shape (“flaming sword”) or to its origin (persian sword).

(One related note: Historical accounts talk about the "yatagan bicagi (= yatagan knife)"; it is not just "yatagan" as we use it today. The same thing we see here: It is a variety of knife, and had its proper name either from its shape ("laid down") or from its origin (the village of Yatagan). Another inference of this note: Yatagan is a knife, not a sword!

)

Erlikhan, with all my respect, Ariel is right here: A “pala” is a shorter and wider (= stubbier) version of a “kilic”. It generally has an iron T-spine in the back. There is no “long” or “short” pala; I regret to say that but the local collectors and dealers are lacking of the necessary knowledge.

erlikhan · 9th July 2007, 03:55 PM

Odevan,what would you call this 110 cms long sword for example if you need to describe it to a customer or friend on phone? A "very long sword with double yelmans"? I would describe just a "very long pala" . And really so would do many other people I know. Yes, stubber ones match better to the image the word "pala" creates in mind, but unfortunately it is still the easiest definition to describe the longer ones as well. (Pls note, many local dealers even don't know what "yelman or yalman" means ) Anybody who has visited covered bazar can understand their -average- cultural and professional knowledge level when the subject is edged weapons (some must be noted as exception of course).

Kayahan · 9th July 2007, 04:46 PM

Dear Erlikhan, if it was a Westerner on the phone, I would call it "a very long kilic". If I was talking to a Turkish friend, the correct term would be "a very long Turk kilici". In either case, there would be no need to an emphasis on the double-edged yalman. And under no circumstances could it be classified as a "pala".

Personally, I always believe in sharing the knowledge. If people are using the wrong terminology, it is our responsibility to correct them. Of course you can't suddenly correct every single dealer at the Covered Bazaar. But at least you can start from somewhere; your friends who learned from you may correct their friends next time when they are talking on the subject, and hopefully, things can improve in time.

My two cents....

ariel · 9th July 2007, 04:53 PM

I would call it "nice"

Jim McDougall · 9th July 2007, 09:28 PM

Hello Odevan,
Thank you so much for addressing these terminology issues and for the corrections as required !

It does seem that, as we have noted many times over the years, western application of terms to weapons is often victim of transliteration, semantics, colloquialism among the many factors. It seems that in many cases it is better to offer more description and less applied terminology to avoid miscommunication.

I note, as Erlikhan has aptly noted, that many collectors and dealers haven't the slightest idea what the term 'yalman' means when it is used, in this case generally held to refer to the distinctly widened (stepped) end of the blade.As these are of course apparant on early Eastern European sabres, I was once informed that the term applied to them was something to the effect of 'poila' (I cannot recall exactly) and that it was a Polish word that referred to 'feather'. It was suggested that the purpose of this feature was to add weight and momentum to the cut. I have not been able to further substantiate either assertion, perhaps anyone might care to comment?

I once wrote to a British dealer when researching the curious notches at the end of a sabre blade, and in his interpretation the notch I described was the distinct yalman of the type we are discussing. Therefore his idea of the yalman was that it was termed the 'notch'!!!

That you again for the very well presented information on this! I will adjust my notes accordingly.

All the best,
Jim

erlikhan · 9th July 2007, 09:50 PM

Thnak you Odevan,correct, I mean when I try to describe it to a Turk for sure. If to a foreigner, no problem ,you just say long Kilij and all gets clear.
I agree and respect your idea about wishing to correct common mistakes in local terminology, but what convincing and practical new naming can we replace it with? The "double yelmaned"ness speciality of a sword is very important . I still believe "long Turkish sword" would not be satisfactory enough as every Turkish sword doesn't have double yelman, and double yelman is not a Turkish monopoly. According to me long and double yelmaned Turkish swords,which I would assume as primarily cavalry or sipahi sword should have been named something special in Ottoman military literature, to seperate it from short palas, or other kinds of long Turkish swords, but that information needs a better academical knowledge and research experience than I have. To revive real historical namings - if there is any- is the best correction in terminology. Do you know exactly that they didnt have any special name in past?
regards

Kayahan · 10th July 2007, 12:27 PM

Dear Jim,

It seems that the widened, double-edged yalman was not only adding weight and momentum to the blade, but also allowing "back-cuts". Logically thinking, there would be no need to sharpen a false edge if it was only to add weight and momentum. Archaeology (Kovacs: 1935) and practice (Zablocki: 1989) support this back-cut issue.

Dear Erlikhan,

You are right, not every sword that Turks used in history had a double-edged yalman, nor the double-edged yalman was a Turkish speciality. However, as I stated in a previous post, the type that we call "kilic" in this forum was their original sword and therefore had its name plainly; a "sword". Nevertheless, modern Turkish scholars call it "Turk kilici" in order to avoid a confusion due to the language being used.

For Ottomans, once again, it was simply "kilic". A shamshir-bladed Ottoman sword was a "simsir" (shimshir). A shorter and wider kilic-bladed sword with a T-spine was a "pala". An epee-bladed sword was a "mec" (mech).

In order not to bother forum members with the local terminology issues, I suggest that we could further discuss it via PMs if you like. Below are two local academical papers for reference to my terminology. I believe these are highly valueable for other forum members, too, provided that they could read Turkish.

- "Turk Kilicinin Mense ve Tekamulu Hakkinda", Bahaeddin Ogel, A.U. DTCF Dergisi 6, 1948, p. 431-460 ("On the Origin and the Development of Turkish Sword")

- "Topkapi Sarayi Muzesindeki Turk Kiliclari Uzerinde Bir Inceleme", A. Ural Bikkul, Turk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 6, 1961, p. 20-28 ("A Dissertation on the Turkish Swords at Topkapi Sarayi Museum")

Jim McDougall · 10th July 2007, 11:02 PM

Hi Odevan,
Thanks very much for the response!! I completely agree that the back cut was one of the practical features of the sharpened back edge, and it seems these widened points were usually sharpened. The dynamics of extra weight does sound logical as well.
Thank you very much for the excellent observations and nicely presented data here, and especially for adding the references.
All best regards,
Jim

5th July 2007, 03:33 PM	#1
FED Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3	Real Shamshir or Kilij? Hi all, they offered me this sword. I couldn't find any markings anywhere. I'd appreciate any insight or advice. Thank you! Attached Images

9th July 2007, 12:54 AM	#4
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Well, here is how i describe yelmaned swords (kilij as called in international terminology) : if it is long, i call it a " long pala", and if short, i call it a "short pala" So do other local collectioners/dealers. Sword = Kilich. Yelmaned sword=Pala. Perhaps they (long,short,stubbier etc.) were more spesifically named once in history when they were functional, but I don't know them for sure. Last edited by erlikhan; 9th July 2007 at 09:23 AM.

9th July 2007, 02:19 PM	#5
Kayahan Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8	First, the term “yalman” is used wrongly by todays Westerners, as Ariel called them. "Yalman" in Turkish means the cutting or penetrating part of a cutting or penetrating weapon. Hence, for example, lances also have "yalman"s. To put it correctly, we can say “kilics have a double-edged yalman”. Similarly, shamshirs have a single-edged yalman. There is no specific word in Turkish language addressing the false edge (?) of a kilic. It seems that the reason why Westerners specified that kilic should be a proper name for this variety was because it is how it was called in its original culture. It is true that kilic literally means sword in Turkish. So, they simply called what they originally use a “sword”. After they met to different types, they named them accordingly; with a reference either to its shape (“flaming sword”) or to its origin (persian sword). (One related note: Historical accounts talk about the "yatagan bicagi (= yatagan knife)"; it is not just "yatagan" as we use it today. The same thing we see here: It is a variety of knife, and had its proper name either from its shape ("laid down") or from its origin (the village of Yatagan). Another inference of this note: Yatagan is a knife, not a sword! ) Erlikhan, with all my respect, Ariel is right here: A “pala” is a shorter and wider (= stubbier) version of a “kilic”. It generally has an iron T-spine in the back. There is no “long” or “short” pala; I regret to say that but the local collectors and dealers are lacking of the necessary knowledge. Last edited by Odevan; 9th July 2007 at 02:29 PM.

9th July 2007, 03:55 PM	#6
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Odevan,what would you call this 110 cms long sword for example if you need to describe it to a customer or friend on phone? A "very long sword with double yelmans"? I would describe just a "very long pala" . And really so would do many other people I know. Yes, stubber ones match better to the image the word "pala" creates in mind, but unfortunately it is still the easiest definition to describe the longer ones as well. (Pls note, many local dealers even don't know what "yelman or yalman" means ) Anybody who has visited covered bazar can understand their -average- cultural and professional knowledge level when the subject is edged weapons (some must be noted as exception of course). Attached Images Last edited by erlikhan; 9th July 2007 at 09:31 PM.

9th July 2007, 09:50 PM	#10
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Thnak you Odevan,correct, I mean when I try to describe it to a Turk for sure. If to a foreigner, no problem ,you just say long Kilij and all gets clear. I agree and respect your idea about wishing to correct common mistakes in local terminology, but what convincing and practical new naming can we replace it with? The "double yelmaned"ness speciality of a sword is very important . I still believe "long Turkish sword" would not be satisfactory enough as every Turkish sword doesn't have double yelman, and double yelman is not a Turkish monopoly. According to me long and double yelmaned Turkish swords,which I would assume as primarily cavalry or sipahi sword should have been named something special in Ottoman military literature, to seperate it from short palas, or other kinds of long Turkish swords, but that information needs a better academical knowledge and research experience than I have. To revive real historical namings - if there is any- is the best correction in terminology. Do you know exactly that they didnt have any special name in past? regards Last edited by erlikhan; 10th July 2007 at 10:04 AM.

7th July 2007, 07:58 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Hi FED, It would appear this is an Ottoman hilt mounted with a European cavalry sabre blade, probably 18th century, though the hilt and scabbard probably furbished sometime in the mid 19th. It is always hard to be precise as these hilts were so widely distributed within the Ottoman sphere, and the form remained traditionally firm so such a long period. With so many blades coming out of Germany, and being used on so many military sabres throughout Europe, it is equally hard to be precise with the blade. The unusually pronounced parabolic curve and type of fuller does suggest mid to late 18th century though. It seems quite possible this sabre may have been assembled during periods of alliances between Ottoman and European forces in the 19th century. Looks to be an interesting piece! The term 'kilij' or 'kilic' is a Turkish term for curved sword as I understand, and seems applied primarily to the shorter, heavier blade sabre with extremely pronounced yelman and of course the 'Ottoman' hilt of pistol grip form. The shamshir term usually refers to the swept curve Persian blade form without yelman, and typically associated to the simple, yet beautiful, open hilts of the Persian form. All best regards, Jim

7th July 2007, 09:44 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Kilic in Turkish is just that: a sword. Just like Sayf in Arabic. A sword with a bulbous handle and shamshir blade is a Turkish sword locally called Adjem Kilic ( "Persian sword") and with an undulating (kris-like) blade it becomes Atesh Kilic ( "Flaming sword"). It is still a mystery to me how the Westerners ( collectors, mainly) specified that Kilic (Kilij) should be a proper name for a yelman-ed variety. Shorter and stubbier version of a yelman-ed Turkish sword was a Pala. Am I wrong? Erlikhan, to the rescue!!!

9th July 2007, 04:46 PM	#7
Kayahan Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8	Dear Erlikhan, if it was a Westerner on the phone, I would call it "a very long kilic". If I was talking to a Turkish friend, the correct term would be "a very long Turk kilici". In either case, there would be no need to an emphasis on the double-edged yalman. And under no circumstances could it be classified as a "pala". Personally, I always believe in sharing the knowledge. If people are using the wrong terminology, it is our responsibility to correct them. Of course you can't suddenly correct every single dealer at the Covered Bazaar. But at least you can start from somewhere; your friends who learned from you may correct their friends next time when they are talking on the subject, and hopefully, things can improve in time. My two cents....

9th July 2007, 04:53 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I would call it "nice"

9th July 2007, 09:28 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Hello Odevan, Thank you so much for addressing these terminology issues and for the corrections as required ! It does seem that, as we have noted many times over the years, western application of terms to weapons is often victim of transliteration, semantics, colloquialism among the many factors. It seems that in many cases it is better to offer more description and less applied terminology to avoid miscommunication. I note, as Erlikhan has aptly noted, that many collectors and dealers haven't the slightest idea what the term 'yalman' means when it is used, in this case generally held to refer to the distinctly widened (stepped) end of the blade.As these are of course apparant on early Eastern European sabres, I was once informed that the term applied to them was something to the effect of 'poila' (I cannot recall exactly) and that it was a Polish word that referred to 'feather'. It was suggested that the purpose of this feature was to add weight and momentum to the cut. I have not been able to further substantiate either assertion, perhaps anyone might care to comment? I once wrote to a British dealer when researching the curious notches at the end of a sabre blade, and in his interpretation the notch I described was the distinct yalman of the type we are discussing. Therefore his idea of the yalman was that it was termed the 'notch'!!! That you again for the very well presented information on this! I will adjust my notes accordingly. All the best, Jim

10th July 2007, 12:27 PM	#11
Kayahan Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8	Dear Jim, It seems that the widened, double-edged yalman was not only adding weight and momentum to the blade, but also allowing "back-cuts". Logically thinking, there would be no need to sharpen a false edge if it was only to add weight and momentum. Archaeology (Kovacs: 1935) and practice (Zablocki: 1989) support this back-cut issue. Dear Erlikhan, You are right, not every sword that Turks used in history had a double-edged yalman, nor the double-edged yalman was a Turkish speciality. However, as I stated in a previous post, the type that we call "kilic" in this forum was their original sword and therefore had its name plainly; a "sword". Nevertheless, modern Turkish scholars call it "Turk kilici" in order to avoid a confusion due to the language being used. For Ottomans, once again, it was simply "kilic". A shamshir-bladed Ottoman sword was a "simsir" (shimshir). A shorter and wider kilic-bladed sword with a T-spine was a "pala". An epee-bladed sword was a "mec" (mech). In order not to bother forum members with the local terminology issues, I suggest that we could further discuss it via PMs if you like. Below are two local academical papers for reference to my terminology. I believe these are highly valueable for other forum members, too, provided that they could read Turkish. - "Turk Kilicinin Mense ve Tekamulu Hakkinda", Bahaeddin Ogel, A.U. DTCF Dergisi 6, 1948, p. 431-460 ("On the Origin and the Development of Turkish Sword") - "Topkapi Sarayi Muzesindeki Turk Kiliclari Uzerinde Bir Inceleme", A. Ural Bikkul, Turk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 6, 1961, p. 20-28 ("A Dissertation on the Turkish Swords at Topkapi Sarayi Museum")

10th July 2007, 11:02 PM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Hi Odevan, Thanks very much for the response!! I completely agree that the back cut was one of the practical features of the sharpened back edge, and it seems these widened points were usually sharpened. The dynamics of extra weight does sound logical as well. Thank you very much for the excellent observations and nicely presented data here, and especially for adding the references. All best regards, Jim