Emanuel,
Thank you for the response. You are correct about yataghan blades being of different construction compared to the flyssa ones. The typical yataghan blade is of T cross section, where the T-back can be quite wide and certainly close to 1 cm in some cases, but I am not aware of any that even approximate 2 cm. Then the blade itself is often of a sandwich construction, with a hardened edge inserted between cheeks of softer iron. Some blades have rows of Turkish ribbon in the middle, and some even have fullering.
I have no older long flyssas in my collection and therefore cannot comment on the construction, but it looks different from that of a yataghan. I am yet to see a flyssa with fullering or with a pattern welded blade. It appears that the Kabyle craftsmen produced blades of simpler construction and their solution to preventing the long blades from snapping at the ricasso was to simply make the base of the blade quite thick for added strength. I am not a bladesmith, mind you, and what I am writing might make zero sense.
As for the s'boula, the one in the picture in my previous post is definitely fitted wit a crude, locally made blade (or reforged from a European bayonet or some other piece of steel that was available). I am sure that the early examples had European or reworked European blades, but I suspect that many blades started to be produced locally, in imitation of the earlier imports, similarly to how the production of takouba blades developped just a bit to the South.
The picture of the Maghrebi warrior with a musket and a s'boula has a musket characteristic of the Sous valley in Morocco (per Elgood) and I agree that this is a good distance from Kabylie. However, if the design originally came to the area in the 17th century, it may have spread throughout the Maghreb initially, before falling out of fashion and remaining popular only in a few pockets.
Regards,
Teodor
|