Origin of this Yataghan? (With pictures!)

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by gp

well quite some people in the Balkans during the Ottoman times converted to the new religion and hence took over the names accordingly.

Hi
The problem was not about the blade origin or the blade maker but about the silver niello fittings that some members attribute to Greeks without any proof. And even maybe to Christian orthodox Greeks! Glups...
Of course we all know that Balkans were Ottoman provinces and partly Muslim.
We need more forum members from Turkey to balance a bit the knowledge from the Balkans to Turkey... And never forget that the Balkans were amongst the first provinces of the Ottoman empire so Greek means nothing before the Greek uprising...

[TVV]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi
The problem was not about the blade origin or the blade maker but about the silver niello fittings that some members attribute to Greeks without any proof. And even maybe to Christian orthodox Greeks! Glups...
Of course we all know that Balkans were Ottoman provinces and partly Muslim.
We need more forum members from Turkey to balance a bit the knowledge from the Balkans to Turkey... And never forget that the Balkans were amongst the first provinces of the Ottoman empire so Greek means nothing before the Greek uprising...

Maybe you need a Turkish forum, where the other members will agree with labeling everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific as Ottoman.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by TVV

Maybe you need a Turkish forum, where the other members will agree with labeling everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific as Ottoman.

This is the problem Ottoman is not Turkish;
and Turkish is not Ottoman, it's more complicated...
If the Balkans are from the Atlantic to the Pacific , then you are perfectly right.

Forget about the Greeks: if you talk about an "epirus style" for some daggers, pistols and swords then I'll agree.
But again it will depend of what you put under this tag.

[ariel]

By the way, in Russian, where a good chunk of its vocabulary is of Turkish ( not necessarily Ottoman, but much earlier, back to the Mongolian invasion) the word Sarai ( Сарай) designates not a castle but just a shed, like garden shed. Also, in a slightly modified meaning , “Sarai” is an unkempt, dirty and disorganized living space.

The “Ottoman” origin of all Yataghans in Russian literature was due to the inability of Soviet weapon historians ( such as Astvatsaturian) to visit foreign museums and to talk to foreign colleagues, especially in Yugoslavia: Tito was regarded as a traitor to the great Lenin-Stalin orthodoxy. Greece, after suppression of the communist putsch, was also out of bounds. And, since Bulgaria was “liberated” from the Ottomans by the Russian armies in the 19 century and every “non- Slavic” feature was regarded as Turkish. Thus, Astvatsaturian’s attribution of Ottoman weapons was grossly misinformed and fallacious. Not her fault: the realities of the closed and politicized nature of Communist regime(s).

Relatively recent Turkish books, such as the one by Gozde Yasar, perpetuate this narrow view: each and every yataghan there is labeled as Ottoman, with the unspoken implication of being Turkish. No attempt was made to pinpoint decorative features specific to their non-Anatolian origin.

Works of Marija Sercer from Zagreb were largely unknown and were not even cited in the above books. Only from a recent book by Dora Boskovic did we learn about Sercer’s major contributions.
First time I heard of Bulgarian weapon centers was from the Daskalov’s book.
And, finally, the role of Balkan centers was brought to the full view by Elgood.
All of them were published and widely available only after collapse of the Soviet Union and redrawing of the maps.

Sadly, politics and nationalism play major and destructive role in historical studies.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

First time I heard of Bulgarian weapon centers was from the Daskalov’s book.
And, finally, the role of Balkan centers was brought to the full view by Elgood.
All of them were published and widely available only after collapse of the Soviet Union and redrawing of the maps.

Sadly, politics and nationalism play major and destructive role in historical studies.

I cannot agree more.
Elgood's book revealed the central role of the Balkans in Ottoman weapon's production. Then we need a map: if you look at this map you will see that the Balkans were amongst the oldest parts of the Ottoman empire. What does it mean? Just that Balkans were Ottomans. The problem with Elgood's book is the title "Arms of Greece" and then many forum members see Greek weapons everywhere whereas in fact these weapons were produced by Albanians, Bosnian, Turkish...

[gp]

Originally Posted by ariel

By the way, in Russian, where a good chunk of its vocabulary is of Turkish ( not necessarily Ottoman, but much earlier, back to the Mongolian invasion) the word Sarai ( Сарай) designates not a castle but just a shed, like garden shed. Also, in a slightly modified meaning , “Sarai” is an unkempt, dirty and disorganized living space.

The “Ottoman” origin of all Yataghans in Russian literature was due to the inability of Soviet weapon historians ( such as Astvatsaturian) to visit foreign museums and to talk to foreign colleagues, especially in Yugoslavia: Tito was regarded as a traitor to the great Lenin-Stalin orthodoxy. Greece, after suppression of the communist putsch, was also out of bounds. And, since Bulgaria was “liberated” from the Ottomans by the Russian armies in the 19 century and every “non- Slavic” feature was regarded as Turkish. Thus, Astvatsaturian’s attribution of Ottoman weapons was grossly misinformed and fallacious. Not her fault: the realities of the closed and politicized nature of Communist regime(s).

Relatively recent Turkish books, such as the one by Gozde Yasar, perpetuate this narrow view: each and every yataghan there is labeled as Ottoman, with the unspoken implication of being Turkish. No attempt was made to pinpoint decorative features specific to their non-Anatolian origin.

Works of Marija Sercer from Zagreb were largely unknown and were not even cited in the above books. Only from a recent book by Dora Boskovic did we learn about Sercer’s major contributions.
First time I heard of Bulgarian weapon centers was from the Daskalov’s book.
And, finally, the role of Balkan centers was brought to the full view by Elgood.
All of them were published and widely available only after collapse of the Soviet Union and redrawing of the maps.

Sadly, politics and nationalism play major and destructive role in historical studies.

Correction; Josip Broz and Djilas were close allies of Djugasjvilli ...only later a shift took place, just before the death of the latter :
https://yuhistorija.com/int_relations_txt01c1.html

As for literature concerning the yataghan : this is all in the eye of the beholder.
After Austria’s or better the Habsburg occupation of Bosnia and Hercegowina in 1878, quite some and very valid information can be found (if one masters German) in many publications of “ Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina “ (= scientific notices ) published in Vienna between 1892/3 and 1916.

Also a lot of visitors to the Balkans between 1600 and 1900 did write about their travels with sometimes excellent descriptions and drawings of knives, kamas, bicaqs, yataghans.
And due to absence of copyright, legal downloads are available for free , also cheap reprints 22-30 Euro can be bought and the original books for “ the yataghan collector” can be found for a reasonable price .

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ariel

Relatively recent Turkish books, such as the one by Gozde Yasar, perpetuate this narrow view: each and every yataghan there is labeled as Ottoman, with the unspoken implication of being Turkish. No attempt was made to pinpoint decorative features specific to their non-Anatolian origin.

If we adopt Yasar's attribution logic, then Sami knives and kindjals made in Tbilisi in the 19th century are both Russian (or Romanov, if you wish), as those were all made in the Russian Empire. It is a logic that ignores the multi-ethnic nature and regional material culture variations of large empires.

[gp]

some more pics from the book "Starinsko Oruzje"( = old weapons) by Vejsil Curcic , Sarajevo 1926 and one from "la Bosnie l"Herzegovine" by plural writers under supervision of Louis Olivier, Paris 1901.

[gp]

and 3 scans from the occupation war in 1878

[ariel]

Originally Posted by TVV

If we adopt Yasar's attribution logic, then Sami knives and kindjals made in Tbilisi in the 19th century are both Russian (or Romanov, if you wish), as those were all made in the Russian Empire. It is a logic that ignores the multi-ethnic nature and regional material culture variations of large empires.

Fully agree.