Late 16 C Kilij / Pala blade for discussion

Oriental-Arms · 24th July 2007, 06:31 PM

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 · 29th July 2007, 07:04 PM

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 · 8th August 2007, 12:13 AM

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 · 9th December 2008, 08:57 PM

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

Dom · 14th December 2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

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 · 14th December 2008, 09:12 PM

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.

24th July 2007, 06:31 PM	#1
Oriental-Arms Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Haifa, Israel Posts: 183	Quality of inlay work 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).

8th August 2007, 12:13 AM	#3
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Kilij Inlay 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

9th December 2008, 08:57 PM	#4
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Here is a known 16th century example from Topkapi.... Attached Images

29th July 2007, 07:04 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

14th December 2008, 09:12 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.