From whence this Bichaq?
 

Any help in placing this knife in time or place of origin would be appreciated

Also a Bichaq?
 

I have this now on order. Artzi attributes it to Bosnia.

The scabbard is decorated in a characteristic Balkan style. The hilt and blade look Greek to me.

Teodor

Which
 

Teodor are you referring to first or second one?

Hello Markus,

Your Bicak looks rather typically Bosnian to me. It is a nice piece and It carries the date AH 1250 (I believe) which corresponds to 1834-1835.

Marius

First

On the first one
 

Any comments or help with the maker's mark?

About the second one
 

Artzi said: "A typical knife from Bosnia & Herzegovina, from the very short period of independence before the annexation to the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of the 19th C"
Comments?

The first one is a full-sized yataghan which was shortened at some point. It is dated 1250 (1834/5 c.e.) As Teodor suggested, it is likely Greek work. The scabbard is more generically Ottoman, a working-life replacement.

Hello Oliver,
I beg to differ!
It seems to me the hilt is rather thin (0.5-0.6") for the hilt of a full size Yataghan.
Also the blade appears too narrow to come from a sword, unless it has been massively resahaped. However, then the engraving would not fit properly to the reshaped blade, but that doesn't appear to be the case as the engraving is also very narrow and perfectly matching the width of the blade.
What do you thinK?

I believe the description is quite accurate.

Hello, mijn, like most people's, is just an opinion. Arzi however, is (almost) never wrong, and the second one is definitly Bosnian.
However, the first one looks very Greek to me. The scabbard is obviously a replacement and has a general Ottoman style-could be from anywhere between the Balkan and Syria. Originally, this type of dagger has an enrgaved silver scabbard of the same style as the grip. See picture.

Greece or Crete?
 

I have a knife (not bichaq) from Crete with very similar embossed designs on the hilt. The slight ear flair at the pommel also suggests the same region to me.

Dave A.

Spot on!

spot not on
 

The diameter of the handle of #1 is only about half an inch. I do not think it is plausible that it would have been suitable for a full size sword.

From what 0liver wrote he seems to be suggesting that the blade may have originally been a yatagan that was shortened, I do not think he meant that the hilt was a yatagan hilt, just the blade, at least that is how I read it.

From what I read, Oliver refers to the whole knife as being a modified full size Yataghan and not only the blade.

Even if he were referring only to the blade, I believe that is highly improbable as there is absolutely no indication why would it be so (as Oliver didn't mention any reason).

On contrary, the engraving on the blade is small and narrow, perfectly matching the narrow blade of a knife and definitely not suitable for a wider Yataghan blade.

Moreover, if the blade were to come from a full size Yataghan that would have been immediately visible from the thickness of the blade... which I don't think is the case.

But I already made my case in an earlier comment.