Help needed with a Mamluk kilij

[A.alnakkas]

This is why I asked for close ups of the hilt. Because there is some East Europeans who buy old Indian swords and rehilt them as karabelas. This possibly could be one, but we can only get close to knowing if we look at the hilt.

[ALEX]

This is one way to tell. Another is to NOT to look at the hilt, and look at the blade alone as the hilt and/or cross can be old. but seeing closeups will certainly help.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

This is why I asked for close ups of the hilt. Because there is some East Europeans who buy old Indian swords and rehilt them as karabelas. This possibly could be one, but we can only get close to knowing if we look at the hilt.

I am with you. IMHO, too, this is a modern hybrid of a 19th century N. Indian blade and recently made handle/crossguard.
A close look at the handle is very important.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am with you. IMHO, too, this is a modern hybrid of a 19th century N. Indian blade and recently made handle/crossguard.
A close look at the handle is very important.

Hello and thanks for all the comments.

Here is a Picture of the handle. The handle is quite loose. Maybe the handle was added later to the blade. I bought the blade as a Mamluk sword.

The sham look is because of the weak etching, the real pattern is much more complex.

I dont believe that it was made in the late 19. century, the blade have dozens of nicks and was very intensively used in more than one combat.
I found another kilij in the internet, which looks similar from 16. century.

Best wishes
Roland

[ALEX]

Roland,
Thank you for closeup of the handle. It helps a lot... now, the bad news...
as A.alnakkas and Ariel noted, it is not Mamluk, Ottoman, and not 17th Century. The handle is recently added. the blade is of old indian tulwar or pulwar as noted earlier. please do not estimate the age of the blade by condition, nicks and pitting.. this is only indicative of how it was stored and cared for. the metal can look very old very fast Similarly, try not to compare to other so-called Karabelas on Internet. Comparing shapes and general profiles is wrong way to study, it takes way more. One can call it "Mamluk sword" of course, but this would be only indicative of its shape, not historic authenticity... not the best way to study and collect ethnographic arms. again, sorry for bad news, but that's the case here.

[A.alnakkas]

If anything, nicks tell signs that the blade was once abused by someone who did not know how to properly use a sword.

I REALLY like this blade, even though the hilt is not authentic and its sold to you as something else, its still a good piece. The blade is many levels over the usual North Indian production, its length, well made fullers and yelman and your excellent polish makes me think its a good item in any collection! Though I hope you did not pay for it what people generally pay for Mamluke items :-)

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Roland,
Thank you for closeup of the handle. It helps a lot... now, the bad news...
as A.alnakkas and Ariel noted, it is not Mamluk, Ottoman, and not 17th Century. The handle is recently added. the blade is of old indian tulwar or pulwar as noted earlier. please do not estimate the age of the blade by condition, nicks and pitting.. this is only indicative of how it was stored and cared for. the metal can look very old very fast Similarly, try not to compare to other so-called Karabelas on Internet. Comparing shapes and general profiles is wrong way to study, it takes way more. One can call it "Mamluk sword" of course, but this would be only indicative of its shape, not historic authenticity... not the best way to study and collect ethnographic arms. again, sorry for bad news, but that's the case here.

Thank you for the informations. Here is the Kilij from the Internet i found. It looks very similar. I am a little astonished about the many informations you can gather from my bad pictures. I would suggest, to wait until the etching job is finished to make a final judgement.

[ALEX]

Roland, the key word is "similar". these two blades have common features, like most of the blades general forms kept similar for very long time, but they are centuries and continents apart. I am afraid the etching will not change anything except of improving the contrast of the pattern.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Roland, the key word is "similar". these two blades have common features, like most of the blades general forms kept similar for very long time, but they are centuries and continents apart. I am afraid the etching will not change anything except of improving the contrast of the pattern.

Alex, other very similar swords are in the book: "Islamic swords and swordsmiths" from Unsal Yucel, from Plate 100 to 113, especially on Plate 112 and 113.

Here are two Pictures of the untouched and uncleaned sword.


"I am afraid the etching will not change anything except of improving the contrast of the pattern" This was the second attempt, in which i tried out something new (etching with a cloth instead of a brush), the first was much better.

[Kubur]

I agree with all my colleagues said previously.
Indian blade 19th, and may be a Polish hilt (grip) from the 21th c.
They are really good in Poland to do new hilts...
Kubur