And this is simply because Ottoman Turks did not differentiate as we do now between a zillion types of swords and sabers, and for them they were and are are all "kilij," namely swords.
Moreover, apparently Turkish language doesn't even have specific words for specific types of swords, well with the exception maybe with the yataghan.
Then what do we do?!
Do we continue to "improperly" use the Turkish word "kilij" to refer to the specific Ottoman saber with curved, wider, blade and yelman, or we switch to ethnographically "correct" term and call all swords..."swords" or "kilij?"
I think, in our collectors' community, we should strive for precision, clarity and concision, and we should use a terminology that is precise, clear and concise. And since in our community, the term "kilij" meets all these criteria, I think we should strive to consistently use it for defining this specific type of Ottoman saber described above and illustrated in the original posting.
And the same issues and more I see with many more swords and sabers where in the desire to be as much as possible ethnographically correct we use specific terms in their broadest sense, thus creating even more confusion and ambiguity, to the point the specific terms become void of any relevance.
So, for example, if we call "TULWAR" every Indian sword that has the specific disk pommel (see photos below, with the last two photos from The Royal Collection Trust), then the very use of the term "tulwar" will become mostly useless as we won't know which type of tulwar we are referring to.
|