Help translating inscription on shamshir

ariel · 18th May 2009, 12:47 AM

Also, I do not think we can call it a "shamshir". The pistol handle and long quillons suggest Ottoman origin. They did use a "shamshir"-type blades, but those were properly called Kilic Ajjemi: foreign sword. That may also explain the Al-Shams/Damascus point: it belonged to the Ottomans.
And, indeed, Dom is correct about the date of 875H. Perhaps, there might be a "1" before the "8"? !875 in Gregorian written with Arabic numerals? I am really going on a limb...

Dom · 18th May 2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

the date of 875H. Perhaps, there might be a "1" before the "8"? !875 in Gregorian written with Arabic numerals?

Ariel
you have to take in consideration, the mention in Arabic: "sana Hegeri" (Hegeri year)
that mention cancel all doubt of confusion

and the writting, it's clear

à +

Dom

ariel · 18th May 2009, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

Ariel
you have to take in consideration, the mention in Arabic: "sana Hegeri" (Hegeri year)
that mention cancel all doubt of confusion

and the writting, it's clear

à +

Dom

I know, I know...
I was just desperately trying to reconcile the nonreconcilable...:-(
I also doubt that the blade is old mameluke. Would be nice, of course, but I have read too many descriptions of swordmakers putting earlier dates on their blades to increase their value. Mind you, I do not think for a moment it is a modern fake, but a possibility of a 19th cen blade being presented as the 15th one needs to be considered.

ALEX · 18th May 2009, 01:32 PM

I completely agree with Ariel. The earlier-dated cartouches are too common on later blades, and this blade suggests it as such. It is very doubtful a 15th Century blade. The heavily patinated crossguard like this is not necessarily an indication of 500 y.o. age, it's shape also suggests 18/19 Cent.
But, Ariel, I'd call it a Shamshir. Should a Kilic have yelman?

18th May 2009, 12:47 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Also, I do not think we can call it a "shamshir". The pistol handle and long quillons suggest Ottoman origin. They did use a "shamshir"-type blades, but those were properly called Kilic Ajjemi: foreign sword. That may also explain the Al-Shams/Damascus point: it belonged to the Ottomans. And, indeed, Dom is correct about the date of 875H. Perhaps, there might be a "1" before the "8"? !875 in Gregorian written with Arabic numerals? I am really going on a limb...

18th May 2009, 01:32 PM	#4
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	I completely agree with Ariel. The earlier-dated cartouches are too common on later blades, and this blade suggests it as such. It is very doubtful a 15th Century blade. The heavily patinated crossguard like this is not necessarily an indication of 500 y.o. age, it's shape also suggests 18/19 Cent. But, Ariel, I'd call it a Shamshir. Should a Kilic have yelman?