Late 16 C Kilij / Pala blade for discussion

[Oriental-Arms]

In another thread ( Turkish / Indian ?? Kilij Sword ) 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 in the earlier thread 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??

p.s I already posted this one as a continuation to the earlier thread but there was no response and I thought it is an important enough issue to bring it up as a separate thread,

[CharlesS]

What can be said about a blade like this, but "amazing"....and if it is 16th century, it turns on its head previous assumptions about kilij/pala blades of the this style.

Thanks Artzi.

[erlikhan]

I would look for a real 16th c. Ottoman expert to get assistance,about the correctness of the inscription,its grammer and caligraphy . We have been seeing samples certainly from 18th c. but which have 16th c. datings.
My general & amateurical opinion,16th c. was very glorious for Ottoman Turks and arms of that period could possibly gain demand in collapsing, unsuccesful 18th or 19th. centuries in parallel to the miss for those glorious old times, and such swords with earlier inscriptions can perhaps be named as "antique fakes ", not? But yours is lovely, even lovely enough to belong to a grand vizir, -or to invest long time and skill cost to produce as a convincing fake -not today for sure but 1-2 centuries ago-, to sell for a very high price. I doubt about the earlier cartuche traces. It should be very easy for a skilled 16th c. artist to remove those traces (I guess like the one signed in the attached picture) completely ,or to restore them in a harmony with his own golden decoration on the blade if he or his customer wishes to save them. Why would he leave them as they were ?

regards

[ariel]

I hear the qualms and the doubts, but....
I think it is real. This one shows so many signs of natural aging that it is difficult to imagine it being made as a "historical fake".
This one may re-write a big chapter in the chronology of Ottoman weaponry!
Artzi, my hat is off to this blade. Mazal Tov!

[erlikhan]

I dont doubt about the age wear of the sword. Just the koftgari and dating as I dont have any idea about reading Arabic alphabet or 16th c. Ottoman caligraphy. In 18th or 19th centuries, artists were still skillful enough to create beautiful and noble koftgaris as they were in earlier ages.

[Aqtai]

Hi,

I'm no expert as well, but I also think it could be genuine, simply because of the simplicity of the calligraphy. It reminds me of late 15th-early 16th century Mamluk swords. I'm thinking in particular of the Sword of Tumanbay I in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo.

This is a picture of part of the blade of Tumanbay's sword, scanned from Esin Atil's "Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks":

[Oriental-Arms]

Thanks all for referring to this blade.

Of course I will be most happy if this sword belonged to Sinan Pasha. This will add great value to the blade, but the major issue here is how old is this blade??.

We used always to think that this type of Pala blades with the deep curvature and wide raised Yelmen appeared only in the second half of the 18 C. The earlier Kilij blades where slimmer and longer. Whenever an earlier date, 16 or 17 C. appears on such a blade we explain it as later inscription added to commemorate an early event or added to upgrade the value of the sword. But may be we are mistaken?? May be these blades appeared earlier than we think??

Four points in favour of an early date for this blade:

1) The patina: The patina on the blade is very dark, even and quite deep. It is not rusted or pitted steel. I cleaned a small area of the blade near the tip and find out that the surface of the steel below the patina is very smooth and clean. Such patina can be developed over very long time in a relatively dry area. A good storage for example. An 18 C. blade stored in good condition would not develop such a deep patina. An earlier blade may be.

2) Length: The length of this blade is 33 inches. Compared to inches average 27 on later Pala swords. Is it possible that the shorter 18 / 19 C. Pala blades are evolved form earlier, longer "Pala" shaped blades like this one??

3) The Gold inscription, language and grammer: I am not an expert on early Turkish language and grammer. I actually do not read Turkish or early Arabic. I trust the gentleman who translated the inscription for me and he thinks it is an early work.

4) The gold inscription, inlay technique: It is indeed a koftgari work and not true inlay. I agree that it was added after the blade has seen some age and the earlier worn cartouch is the best proof for it. But I modestly admit that I have examined many gold koftgari works and never seen one of this quality. In koftgari work, a gold wire or gold foil is hammered into a criss cross of scratches cut into the steel. In a good koftgari work, the criss cross cuts are seen only very little outside of the gold pattern. In later works they are grossly (and quite ugly) extend out of the pattern. I examined every millimeter of this blade with a strong magnifier and could not find even a fraction of a mm where the cuts appears outside of the inlaid pattern. I could not find any spot where the scratches cut into the patina, they all looks below the heavy patina. This in my opinion date the inscription not very much after the balde was made, surely before the patina developed. ( I will try to take a close up photo of the inscription and post it here)

I admit that I myself a bit puzzled with the older cartouch. If I was a faker adding a later inscription I would take all measures to erase the older decoration. If I was an artist commissioned to do it by the sword owner I would do the same. Why it is left there, and why it is not interlaced into the later work?? I am afraid I do not know.

[Oriental-Arms]

Just to demonstrate the quality of the gold inlay, see below side by side two works: On the left is a close up of the Pala blade in discussion. On the right is a section from a mid 19 C. Turkish Jambiya blade:



On the right image one can see the traces of the criss cross scratches on the steel. Also, the sharpness of the letters and the accuracy of the lines in the left image are quite evidence.

As a side note, I wish to add that I consider the inlay on this Jambiya dagger as a good one (every thing is of course relative).

[ariel]

This blade re-opens the question on the origing of Ottoman Kilij ( Pala, to keep Artzi happy ): similar blades were popular among the Mamelukes much earlier and the contacts between the Ottomans and Mamelukes were pretty strong.
Therefore, one can ask whether Pala is an originally Turkic weapon coming separately to Egypt with "white slaves" and to Turkey from Central Asia or a "Kipchak/Khazar" sword of the Mamelukes adopted by the Ottoman Turks.

[rand]

Hello Artzi,

Have located 30-40 kilij sword with long inscriptions on the blade, the majority of these were done with the square kufic calligraphy. Most are not dated but some also have the name of the current ownt and when Sultan or Shah the time period of that hilting can be established.

The blades that a date can be determined are from early 16th century to the 19th century, with the majorty usung the suare kufic script.

This yataghan form a private collection I have permission to show:

http://turkishyatghan2.blogspot.com/

The gold is inlay, believe it to be with the Turkish techinque of a triangular punch overlay and then the gold applied.

The calligraphy has a similar vertical line, also the slanted accent marks, but no diamond shaped dots. Your kilij's calligraphy had the diamond shaped dots. So we have similarities and dis-similarities between these two examples. Look carefully at the signature on the yataghan...

The great majority of calligraphy I find on 16th century Turkisih kilijs has the square kufic script.

rand

[rand]

Here is a known 16th century example from Topkapi....

[rand]

Originally Posted by Aqtai

Hi,

I'm no expert as well, but I also think it could be genuine, simply because of the simplicity of the calligraphy. It reminds me of late 15th-early 16th century Mamluk swords. I'm thinking in particular of the Sword of Tumanbay I in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo.

This is a picture of part of the blade of Tumanbay's sword, scanned from Esin Atil's "Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks":

This example of Tumanbay's sword has some very signifigant differences from Artzi'z kilij, the style and flow of the calligraphy, but maybe more important is the early vegetal motif that flows in a circular pattern with distinctive leaf shapes. There is a dynamic in 15th-16th century floral & vegetal motifs that is discernably different from later work. The shape of the flower, the consistancy, the size of the design, the shape of the tool to make the borders, the number of lines incised to form a single gold inlay line, the number which you can divide the desgn by, the number of the multiple in the design, the shape of the inside curve(angular or round), the over and under weave technique are just some of the points of change to look for.

And to add to the mix there are definate design differences between Mamluk(Egyptian), Ottoman (Turkish), Farsi (Persian), Syrian, Armenian, Arab, etc....

Also agree with the earlier post about the use of inscriptions on blades to remember historic events.

All that said, this is a very interesting kilij and it has a storey to tell.

rand

[Dom]

Originally Posted by rand

Here is a known 16th century example from Topkapi....

for me ...
the problem of Topkapi identification for what ever they show in display,
is subject at a lot of suspicions

when you see for instance;
- the wooden stick from Moïse, used by him to create miracles ...
- the wooden soup ban from Ibrahim (Abraham)

I doubt about their ability or their volontary to be correct ...

again 2 days ago (I still yet be in Istanbul) visited the Topkapi for the 4th time,
I was perplexed front to some identifications

à +

Dom

[ariel]

Well, the items you describe, just like some other objects allegedly belonging to Mohammed are strictly religious artifacts and as such are beyond any fruitful discussion.
This does not mean that many other objects ( swords included) related to the merely mortals are misidentified to a degree greater than in many ( if not all) other major museums.