Possible origins of the yataghan hilt form

Jim McDougall · 18th July 2019, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim

For the blade shape don't forget the Greek kopis.

For the hilt, well I'm sure that it is Eastern, look at the shashqa and the Afghan chura knife. So i vote for your bronze eastern daggers.

But I'm not a specialist like the experts on this forum!!

Dont underestimate yourself Kubur! I follow your posts and know better

Exactly right, the kopis was definitely a root form for many eastern blades, and the Ottomans had variations of it in use for many centuries before these distinct hilts came into being. It seems that the term 'yataghan' has become interchangable for the hilt and blade shape in many cases, often of course misapplied.

Good points on the Afghan knife (commonly termed choora but that is another debate) and the shashka. It is tempting to consider the same influences I have described here as possible sources, whether indeed ancient (Iran) or the Renaissance European forms through trade.

The only thing about the bronze daggers is that they do not appear to have been forms which remained in use in a linear fashion, and the long gap in time between them and the European (or Ottoman) types is considerable.
Archaeology is a relatively new science so 'ancient' examples were not known..unless through iconographic sources.
That would mean the eared form from Eastern provenance would represent some 'revival' or commemorative traditional inspiration.

But, we know that has many times been the case, so your well reasoned position is well placed.

Thank you Kubur.

TVV · 18th July 2019, 10:45 PM

Jim,

These are questions that will probably never be answered with an absolute degree of certainty, and so by reading this thread, everyone has to do it with the understanding that the vast majority of anything written here is pure conjecture.

When it comes to the hilt form, it is best to start by looking at the earliest yataghans - most have probably seen Suleiman's, the Furusiyya Foundation book shows one belonging to Herzeg Khan made in the same workshop, and there is also Byazid II's yataghan. The early hilts tend to be similar to those of other Ottoman weapons from that time. None of them have eared pommels, those tend to appear later. The ears are a later development, and probably more connected to the need for a bigger pommel than to any femur symbolic meaning - in some areas the ears remained quite small well into the 19th century.

The blade is where we can all go wild with various theories. The downward curve is not something one finds in Central Asia (unless you want to go to Nepal and try to find similarities with khukris) so it does not seem likely that it was brought by the Seljuks and their Ottoman descendants. There are blades of similar shape in the Balkans from Antiquity - Thracian sicas and makhairas. Those obviously fell out of military use with the development of military technology and tactics in Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages. Eastern Roman sources, such as strategikons keep using the term makhaira, but more in the sense of a large knife/short sword and not referring to the ancient weapon form (see Kolias and Bruhn Hoffmeyer on the subject). However, just because the form used its military significance, it does not mean that it just disappeared for a millennium or so - it probably survived in a down sized version with utilitarian functions.

With the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and the restrictions on arms the new Ottoman administration imposed on the peasant population, there was probably a need for a self defense weapon which was not subject to the restrictions, such as swords, but still allowed the bearer some real functionality in battle. Thus, the yataghan emerged in the Balkans in the 15th century as a really long knife. There are parallels with other cultures, from Central European bauerwehrs to arm daggers in the Sahel allowed to slaves and lower castes.

Regards,
Teodor

Jim McDougall · 19th July 2019, 06:49 AM

Thank you so much for this excellent synopsis Teodor! If this summary is 'conjecture' then it is profoundly well ratiocinated as such, and presents a most reasonable overview of these weapons. Actually I was hoping you would come in on this as I have long considered your expertise in yataghans and most of the weapons in these areas as most reliable. That is fully supported by the many outstanding entries you have made in discussions on these over a decade and longer.

Well noted on the fact that the Ottoman yataghans did not have these 'eared hilts' initially. It seems these were more of a Balkan innovation, and I agree the sheep femur suggestion is an apocryphal note (I wish I could remember where I saw it).

I still wonder what pragmatic reason might explain these unusually large pommel arrangements.

TVV · 19th July 2019, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I still wonder what pragmatic reason might explain these unusually large pommel arrangements.

A HEMA practitioner will probably be able to give a better explanation, but the yataghan is a weapon optimized for chopping, and not for stabbing, with the point rarely used. Therefore, no guard is necessary, but a larger pommel assists with maintaining control over the grip and drawing back the weapon after a strike.

Jim McDougall · 19th July 2019, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVV

A HEMA practitioner will probably be able to give a better explanation, but the yataghan is a weapon optimized for chopping, and not for stabbing, with the point rarely used. Therefore, no guard is necessary, but a larger pommel assists with maintaining control over the grip and drawing back the weapon after a strike.

That makes sense, and clearly the yataghan blade with its recurve and overall character is not in the least conducive to stabbing. I was actually wondering if perhaps the aesthetic of the early daggers, which WERE for stabbing, might have been brought forward in an atavistic sense.

It does seem that certain weapons have a range of sizes which maintain the same hilt form such as the flyssa. The yataghan itself seems to have evolved from smaller short sword sizes into sometimes full size swords (though the term itself is said to refer to a 'knife').

The notion of a larger hilt to support the hand in chopping or slashing cuts does make sense, and sometimes the nature of certain hilts defy reasonable purpose in the actual dynamics of the sword in use.

Marius, I agree that coincidence or convergent development is always possible, but often the strong similarities compel further look into possible connections. I have often felt that iconographic sources such as depictions in friezes or sculptures for example, might influence cultures many centuries or more later to produce weapons ancestrally representative of more ancient times. In some cases in Africa we can see similarity to certain images in Egyptian art which are remarkably like more recent African forms.

That was why I mentioned the 'eared' dagger form from depictions in ancient Hittite pantheon representations.

As Teodor has noted, these are ideas that are admittedly speculation and conjecture, but worthy of note for discussion.

mariusgmioc · 19th July 2019, 06:50 AM

This topic is very interesting!

Yes, there are undeniable similarities between the "eared" yataghan hilts and the "eared" hilts of the Luristan period, but is there a real connection between them?!

While the common appearance tends to indicate that the yataghan hilt was inspired by the earlier examples, we should also consider the posibility that everything is a simple coincidence.

So, it is possible that the yataghan hilt evolved towards the "eared" shape completely independently from the earlier examples of the bronze age, and solely driven by functionality and aestethics. In other words, it was the function that lead to the appearance of the proeminent "eared" shape.

And I tend to favour this hypotesis since between the bronze examples and the later yataghan ones, is a time gap of a about 2000 years without any continuity of the shape inbetween.

The same can be said about the shape of the blade since between the use of the kopis and the appearance of the recurved yataghan, more than 2000 years have passed without any historical evidence of continuity inbetween.

18th July 2019, 10:45 PM	#2
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,660	Jim, These are questions that will probably never be answered with an absolute degree of certainty, and so by reading this thread, everyone has to do it with the understanding that the vast majority of anything written here is pure conjecture. When it comes to the hilt form, it is best to start by looking at the earliest yataghans - most have probably seen Suleiman's, the Furusiyya Foundation book shows one belonging to Herzeg Khan made in the same workshop, and there is also Byazid II's yataghan. The early hilts tend to be similar to those of other Ottoman weapons from that time. None of them have eared pommels, those tend to appear later. The ears are a later development, and probably more connected to the need for a bigger pommel than to any femur symbolic meaning - in some areas the ears remained quite small well into the 19th century. The blade is where we can all go wild with various theories. The downward curve is not something one finds in Central Asia (unless you want to go to Nepal and try to find similarities with khukris) so it does not seem likely that it was brought by the Seljuks and their Ottoman descendants. There are blades of similar shape in the Balkans from Antiquity - Thracian sicas and makhairas. Those obviously fell out of military use with the development of military technology and tactics in Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages. Eastern Roman sources, such as strategikons keep using the term makhaira, but more in the sense of a large knife/short sword and not referring to the ancient weapon form (see Kolias and Bruhn Hoffmeyer on the subject). However, just because the form used its military significance, it does not mean that it just disappeared for a millennium or so - it probably survived in a down sized version with utilitarian functions. With the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and the restrictions on arms the new Ottoman administration imposed on the peasant population, there was probably a need for a self defense weapon which was not subject to the restrictions, such as swords, but still allowed the bearer some real functionality in battle. Thus, the yataghan emerged in the Balkans in the 15th century as a really long knife. There are parallels with other cultures, from Central European bauerwehrs to arm daggers in the Sahel allowed to slaves and lower castes. Regards, Teodor

19th July 2019, 06:49 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	Thank you so much for this excellent synopsis Teodor! If this summary is 'conjecture' then it is profoundly well ratiocinated as such, and presents a most reasonable overview of these weapons. Actually I was hoping you would come in on this as I have long considered your expertise in yataghans and most of the weapons in these areas as most reliable. That is fully supported by the many outstanding entries you have made in discussions on these over a decade and longer. Well noted on the fact that the Ottoman yataghans did not have these 'eared hilts' initially. It seems these were more of a Balkan innovation, and I agree the sheep femur suggestion is an apocryphal note (I wish I could remember where I saw it). I still wonder what pragmatic reason might explain these unusually large pommel arrangements.

19th July 2019, 06:50 AM	#6
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	This topic is very interesting! Yes, there are undeniable similarities between the "eared" yataghan hilts and the "eared" hilts of the Luristan period, but is there a real connection between them?! While the common appearance tends to indicate that the yataghan hilt was inspired by the earlier examples, we should also consider the posibility that everything is a simple coincidence. So, it is possible that the yataghan hilt evolved towards the "eared" shape completely independently from the earlier examples of the bronze age, and solely driven by functionality and aestethics. In other words, it was the function that lead to the appearance of the proeminent "eared" shape. And I tend to favour this hypotesis since between the bronze examples and the later yataghan ones, is a time gap of a about 2000 years without any continuity of the shape inbetween. The same can be said about the shape of the blade since between the use of the kopis and the appearance of the recurved yataghan, more than 2000 years have passed without any historical evidence of continuity inbetween.