Origins of Kilij

[ariel]

Dear Alina,
The Ottoman swords you posted are all from 15th century. Mameluke Yelman-ed swords date to earlier times. As I said, since we have no evidence of Ottoman Yelman-ed swords before the 15th century, we have no way of knowing whether they had them simultaneously with Mamelukes.As to your denial that you provided any example of a Mameluke Yelman-ed sword of 13th century, please look back at your earlier post mentioning Yusel's sword #37, belonging to Husam al-Din Lajin (1297-1299) and made by al-Ustad al-Halabi ( "of Aleppo", which is in modern Syria).
As to the Persian origin of Kilij, please be kind enough and provide pictures of authentic Persian Kilijes with Yelmans dating to... what? ... 12-13th century? Earlier? That will surely prove your point that Persia might have been the conduit of Yelman's transfer to Turkey and Egypt.

I shall be very grateful for the opportunity to learn something new.
Best wishes.

[Alina]

Originally Posted by ariel

Dear Alina,
The Ottoman swords you posted are all from 15th century. Mameluke Yelman-ed swords date to earlier times. As I said, since we have no evidence of Ottoman Yelman-ed swords before the 15th century, we have no way of knowing whether they had them simultaneously with Mamelukes.As to your denial that you provided any example of a Mameluke Yelman-ed sword of 13th century, please look back at your earlier post mentioning Yusel's sword #37, belonging to Husam al-Din Lajin (1297-1299) and made by al-Ustad al-Halabi ( "of Aleppo", which is in modern Syria).
As to the Persian origin of Kilij, please be kind enough and provide pictures of authentic Persian Kilijes with Yelmans dating to... what? ... 12-13th century? Earlier? That will surely prove your point that Persia might have been the conduit of Yelman's transfer to Turkey and Egypt.

I shall be very grateful for the opportunity to learn something new.
Best wishes.

Aside from #37, there is no evidence for an early Mamluk kilic. I find the attribution of Yucel's to be dubious, because the very nature of dating a sword is inexact. Just because a sword is attributed to someone, doesn't mean he carried it. In addition, unattributed swords are difficult to place because some designs persisted for a span of several hundred years, and some earlier designs resemble some later designs. For that reason, I don't find the dating of sword #37 to the 13th century to be very convincing. It is the only kilic-type sword I've ever seen dated that early - a full century and a half before they begin to show up commonly in either Mamluk Egypt or the Ottoman empire. I think it's healthy to view a sword that anomalous with a high degree of skepticism.

As to the Persian sources, I don't have any images of Persian swords with yelmans at the moment. Persian arms and armor have always taken a back seat to Ottoman arms and armor for me. However, just because I don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. They certainly show up in the art of the period, as I've shown. David Nicolle's book "Arms and Armor of the Crusading Era" lists two 14th century Persian kilics with yelmans. But he admits that it's very difficult to date such weapons, and that they could be as late as the 15th or 16th centuries.

Given all of those difficulties, I think that we have to go with the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the kilic began appearing in the 15th century in both the Ottoman and Mamluk sultanates roughly simultaneously.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Alina

Aside from #37, there is no evidence for an early Mamluk kilic. I find the attribution of Yucel's to be dubious, because the very nature of dating a sword is inexact. Just because a sword is attributed to someone, doesn't mean he carried it. In addition, unattributed swords are difficult to place because some designs persisted for a span of several hundred years, and some earlier designs resemble some later designs. For that reason, I don't find the dating of sword #37 to the 13th century to be very convincing. It is the only kilic-type sword I've ever seen dated that early - a full century and a half before they begin to show up commonly in either Mamluk Egypt or the Ottoman empire. I think it's healthy to view a sword that anomalous with a high degree of skepticism.

As to the Persian sources, I don't have any images of Persian swords with yelmans at the moment. Persian arms and armor have always taken a back seat to Ottoman arms and armor for me. However, just because I don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. They certainly show up in the art of the period, as I've shown. David Nicolle's book "Arms and Armor of the Crusading Era" lists two 14th century Persian kilics with yelmans. But he admits that it's very difficult to date such weapons, and that they could be as late as the 15th or 16th centuries.

Given all of those difficulties, I think that we have to go with the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the kilic began appearing in the 15th century in both the Ottoman and Mamluk sultanates roughly simultaneously.

Dear Alina,
First, I am glad you agree that your earlier statement re. Sword #37 was in fact incorrect: otherwise, you would be arguing with yourself.
Second, your rather cavalier dismissal of Yusel's conclusions and dating is ... just cavalier. After all, he spent years studying these swords, whereas your only experience with them is limited to looking at the photographs in his book. This may be permissible if the error is blatant, but the intricacies of dating is not something that can be solved by a cursory glance.
I agree with you that there are many difficulties in studying the origin of different weapons and the preponderance of evidence is sometimes the best we can do. However, there is no preponderance of evidence for your case (Persian origin of Kilijes); in fact, you have no evidence at all. Until and unless you can show us an example of a Persian Kilij pre-dating the Mameluke ( and later Ottoman) examples, this is just a proclamation, but not a proof.

[Alina]

Originally Posted by ariel

Dear Alina,
First, I am glad you agree that your earlier statement re. Sword #37 was in fact incorrect: otherwise, you would be arguing with yourself.
Second, your rather cavalier dismissal of Yusel's conclusions and dating is ... just cavalier. After all, he spent years studying these swords, whereas your only experience with them is limited to looking at the photographs in his book. This may be permissible if the error is blatant, but the intricacies of dating is not something that can be solved by a cursory glance.
I agree with you that there are many difficulties in studying the origin of different weapons and the preponderance of evidence is sometimes the best we can do. However, there is no preponderance of evidence for your case (Persian origin of Kilijes); in fact, you have no evidence at all. Until and unless you can show us an example of a Persian Kilij pre-dating the Mameluke ( and later Ottoman) examples, this is just a proclamation, but not a proof.

First of all, I never once made an incorrect statement about sword #37. Secondly, my dismissal of the dating, isn't a dismissal, it's a complication. It's not cavalier, it's based on other evidence I've seen. I do have evidence. I've shown you evidence. Artistic sources, while not the best sort of evidence are a sort. You have shown no evidence of mamluk kilics predating ottoman ones. I really don't see the point in arguing with you any further, as you dismiss all of the evidence I have shown you - much of it from the same book you yourself quoted. Then, you choose to twist my words around, to mean something completely different from what I said. I said that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the kilic began showing up in both Mamluk Egypt and the Ottoman Empire during the 15th century. I made no statement about Persia one way or the other. Yet, somehow, you make it out that I said the evidence shows the kilic came from Persia. I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed to an alternative theory that is worthy of exploration. This is absolutely maddening, and I'm going to refrain on posting from the subject again.

[Jeff D]

Thanks Ariel for the great response. I am going to be away for the next week and will try to come up with as well a thought out rebuttal (if I can).

All the best
Jeff

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jeff D

Thanks Ariel for the great response. I am going to be away for the next week and will try to come up with as well a thought out rebuttal (if I can).

All the best
Jeff

I would love to see your rebuttal: the best way to learn.
Unfortunately, the material is so scarce that we ( myself first and foremost) invent more theories than solid answers...
I'd love to see an old sword engraved " Qalachuri. Made in 1123" Fat chance. More likely it will be chemically etched "Made in India" all over the nickelplating...
Have a safe trip!

[Kayahan]

Dear Ariel,

The correct Turkish word is "Karaçori" and it was an export item during the Göktürk period (Z.V. Togan, 1946. Also, Manouchehr's book has a number of references to Persian manuscripts on the subject.) Having no survived copy of a sword that is at least 13 centuries old is not enough to call it the Unicorn of swords, I believe.

Dear Alina,

The same above source (Z.V. Togan) states that Mongols were not advanced blacksmiths; instead, they were buying "quality swords" from Göktürks first, and later from Uygurs. Therefore, Mongols cannot be the developer of the "Kılıç form" (by the way, "yalman" is not the correct word for the false edge, as literally "yalman" in Turkish means the cutting or penetrating part of a cutting or penetrating weapon. Hence, for example, lances also have "yalman"s). It might have come from the East, and Persia might have been on its route; but I believe that it is more logical to assume that (if not locally developed) it was developed by the Turkic people in Asian steppes, and came along with their migrations during the Mongol invasion period. With reference to your theory and the paintings; if they were buying swords from Turkic people, it is obvious that Mongols, too, were using swords of this form during the invasions.