Long yatagan

Emanuel · 16th February 2016, 05:06 PM

On another note, the lithograph below is attributed to Prince Grigory Grigorievich Gagarin and supposedly dated 1839.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1...graph-gagarin/

I've tried tracking down the original publication by the French publisher Roger & Cie. but no luck. This would make it the earliest dated illustration of Zeibek costume and gear and would push much further back the dates of these yataghan. Gagarin dies in 1893 so that would make a more plausible date

estcrh · 17th February 2016, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

On another note, the lithograph below is attributed to Prince Grigory Grigorievich Gagarin and supposedly dated 1839.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1...graph-gagarin/

I've tried tracking down the original publication by the French publisher Roger & Cie. but no luck. This would make it the earliest dated illustration of Zeibek costume and gear and would push much further back the dates of these yataghan. Gagarin dies in 1893 so that would make a more plausible date

Emanual I have been looking for earlier dated info on Zeybek as well, this painting by Charles Gleyre (1808-1874) is supposedly dated 1834,
"Zeibeck of Smyrna". Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

ariel · 17th February 2016, 03:29 AM

Interesting.... The pommel is not a typical Zeybek. The pants are not right..

Either Zeybeks changed their appearance and weapons, or .... can we trust iconography?

Sancar · 17th February 2016, 04:17 AM

Ariel, it is not a strict uniform, just the local costume.

And not specific to zeybeks either. This is mostly similar to most town folk wore in Ottoman Anatolia and Balkans in 19th century.

And that so-called "Zeybek" yatagan with T shaped ears. That is not specific to zeybeks either. It is just easier to make than a real ear shaped handle. And in late 19th century-early 20th century small town blacksmiths were not expert swordsmiths like in earlier times, so most made those ears T shaped because it was easier to make. Some yatagans that were made earlier also got those T shaped pommels when their original fancy handles got fallen apart and their owners or the local knifesmith made these simple handles for them.

Zeybek yatagan is just a name given by contemporary antique dealers, just to make it easier to classify and make it sound more important.

ariel · 17th February 2016, 04:43 AM

True enough. But all photographs ( not paintings) of Zeybeks show typical T-formed ears. Can you show a photograph of Zeybek with the yataghan handle of the pattern shown in the pic by Gleyre?

I have a healthy ( or pathological :-) doubt about paintings. Just my personal IMHO. Ready to change my mind, though.

Sancar · 17th February 2016, 10:51 AM

I understand that. As an art historian I know especially orientalist paintings have a great notoriety for being unreliable; it is to such a degree, it became one of the definitive aspects of orientalist european art. It seems artists that travelled "east" for insipration, did not find "east" as "oriental" or "exotic" enough, so they took the artistic licence to a whole new level, like using objects together that had nothing to do with each other, changing architecture, flora and fauna(basically putting Magribi horseshoe arches, palm trees and camels everywhere) as they wished.

But I wouldn't be so quick to trust photographs either. Especially the kinds of photos taken in studios. Let me give you some context: Photography came really early to Ottoman empire, earlier than even most European countries and it spread like wild fire. There were photo studios in almost every city, even some towns. studio of Abdullah Brothers(Frers Abdullah) of Istanbul being the most famous.

And almost all studios had a very large costume department. Customers, usually Western tourists, used to come to these studios to be photographed with those local exotic "oriental" clothes and props in front of painted fake background, making their visits immortalized. Also postcards were made for purchase in these studios, and again, local people were paid to wear different costumes and their photos were taken, being sold under titles like "an oriental harem woman" or "a notorious zeibek" something fancy and exotic like that.

And as you can imagine, those costumes and props were designed to be fancy, colourful, exotic,intesersting. And many were mismatched, from different eras/places were worn together: a circassian overcoat with a Moroccan fez, or a Bosnian jacket with a Turkistani fur hat and a black sea yatagan etc.

So most people in those Zeybek photos are likely either tourists or just amateur models, instead of the real deal.

estcrh · 17th February 2016, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sancar

So most people in those Zeybek photos are likely either tourists or just amateur models, instead of the real deal.

Do you have any proof of that..."most people"...is a very vague term, can you show some examples of what you consider to be "tourists / amateur models? What about first hand descriptions from travelers to the region during the 1800s to eatly 1900s, are they unreliable as well?

People make the exact same statement about photos taken in Japan of samurai during the late 1800s, they say that they are studio models but that is not accurate as many photos are authentic, as with anything you have to use some judgement.

16th February 2016, 05:06 PM	#1
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	On another note, the lithograph below is attributed to Prince Grigory Grigorievich Gagarin and supposedly dated 1839. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1...graph-gagarin/ I've tried tracking down the original publication by the French publisher Roger & Cie. but no luck. This would make it the earliest dated illustration of Zeibek costume and gear and would push much further back the dates of these yataghan. Gagarin dies in 1893 so that would make a more plausible date Attached Images

17th February 2016, 03:29 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Interesting.... The pommel is not a typical Zeybek. The pants are not right.. Either Zeybeks changed their appearance and weapons, or .... can we trust iconography?

17th February 2016, 04:17 AM	#4
Sancar Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 79	Ariel, it is not a strict uniform, just the local costume. And not specific to zeybeks either. This is mostly similar to most town folk wore in Ottoman Anatolia and Balkans in 19th century. And that so-called "Zeybek" yatagan with T shaped ears. That is not specific to zeybeks either. It is just easier to make than a real ear shaped handle. And in late 19th century-early 20th century small town blacksmiths were not expert swordsmiths like in earlier times, so most made those ears T shaped because it was easier to make. Some yatagans that were made earlier also got those T shaped pommels when their original fancy handles got fallen apart and their owners or the local knifesmith made these simple handles for them. Zeybek yatagan is just a name given by contemporary antique dealers, just to make it easier to classify and make it sound more important.

17th February 2016, 04:43 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	True enough. But all photographs ( not paintings) of Zeybeks show typical T-formed ears. Can you show a photograph of Zeybek with the yataghan handle of the pattern shown in the pic by Gleyre? I have a healthy ( or pathological :-) doubt about paintings. Just my personal IMHO. Ready to change my mind, though.

17th February 2016, 10:51 AM	#6
Sancar Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 79	I understand that. As an art historian I know especially orientalist paintings have a great notoriety for being unreliable; it is to such a degree, it became one of the definitive aspects of orientalist european art. It seems artists that travelled "east" for insipration, did not find "east" as "oriental" or "exotic" enough, so they took the artistic licence to a whole new level, like using objects together that had nothing to do with each other, changing architecture, flora and fauna(basically putting Magribi horseshoe arches, palm trees and camels everywhere) as they wished. But I wouldn't be so quick to trust photographs either. Especially the kinds of photos taken in studios. Let me give you some context: Photography came really early to Ottoman empire, earlier than even most European countries and it spread like wild fire. There were photo studios in almost every city, even some towns. studio of Abdullah Brothers(Frers Abdullah) of Istanbul being the most famous. And almost all studios had a very large costume department. Customers, usually Western tourists, used to come to these studios to be photographed with those local exotic "oriental" clothes and props in front of painted fake background, making their visits immortalized. Also postcards were made for purchase in these studios, and again, local people were paid to wear different costumes and their photos were taken, being sold under titles like "an oriental harem woman" or "a notorious zeibek" something fancy and exotic like that. And as you can imagine, those costumes and props were designed to be fancy, colourful, exotic,intesersting. And many were mismatched, from different eras/places were worn together: a circassian overcoat with a Moroccan fez, or a Bosnian jacket with a Turkistani fur hat and a black sea yatagan etc. So most people in those Zeybek photos are likely either tourists or just amateur models, instead of the real deal.