Ancestors of yataghans

erlikhan · 10th December 2004, 12:33 PM

http://www.pbase.com/erlikan/inbox

There you can see 3 samples of bronze nomadic Schytian arms from Azerbaijan. 1 long sword and 2 daggers. Belongs to B.C. 1500s. Their hilt forms are too close to Turkish yataghans and karakulaks. Do you agree that these must be the far ancestors of this type? But there is a huge time gap between these bronze arms and the appearance of yataghans in 17th century. Or does anybody know samples of the lost rings in the evolution chain?

ariel · 10th December 2004, 01:27 PM

What is your definition of Yataghan vs. Karakulak?
My understanding that the latter is just Turkish "black ear" and refers to the form of the hilt. I was always told that Karakulak was a "nickname" for Yataghan.

erlikhan · 10th December 2004, 01:59 PM

karakulak and yataghan. I think in Turkey sometimes karakulak is used as a name to describe the ear shaped hilt of yataghans ,right. I used both names to define just the hilt models of the daggers in the picture, according to the nuances between the samples. The blades of the samples are sure can not be related to yataghans. Only the hilts. karakulak - black ear trasnlation is correct. I name the longer sample as karakulak, and the shorter as a more classical yataghan according to just my understanding. (Hilt of the long sword seems a perfect yataghan type too).
In Balkans and Bulgaria especially - as far as I know) karakulak hilt form was widely used on yataghan blades.(the form of the longer dagger) , and they call the weapon only "Karakulak" , instead of "Yataghan". Correct?

About the ears, an addition.
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1551
this type is called "esekkulak" , which means "donkey ear")

Mark · 10th December 2004, 04:03 PM

One possibility is that the form survived among one or more of the nomadic Turkic tribes that superceded (or arose from) the Scythians. Since archeology on the steppes is slim at best, it might just a matter of no "missing links" having yet been found.

As the Turks moved south of the Black Sea and sort of entered into the consciousness of the West, the yatagan "appeared."

All theory, of course. What is the earliest date at which a yatagan form (other than these Scythian examples) is known?

TVV · 11th December 2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erlikhan

karakulak and yataghan. I
In Balkans and Bulgaria especially - as far as I know) karakulak hilt form was widely used on yataghan blades.(the form of the longer dagger) , and they call the weapon only "Karakulak" , instead of "Yataghan". Correct?

In Bulgaria (where I am from) the term "karakulak" is used to describe a shephard's knife with a yataghan-like eared hilt. A karakulak would look like a smaller and undecorated yataghan, as the blade also resembles that of a yataghan. Regards,
Teodor

Radu Transylvanicus · 11th December 2004, 09:23 AM

TVV welcome to the Forum... Zdrasti , priyatno mi e ... I have a feeling you will be a very good asset to this team ... I was born a few miles north of you in Romania ...

Yannis · 11th December 2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erlikhan

http://www.pbase.com/erlikan/inbox

There you can see 3 samples of bronze nomadic Schytian arms from Azerbaijan. 1 long sword and 2 daggers. Belongs to B.C. 1500s.

I am little suspicius in ancient weapons. The reason is that I have seen too many fakes and wrong discriptions. If you check Ebay you will understand my point.

Sorry to ask, and dont reply if you dont want to, but who says that theese are Schytian (or Schythian) and from B.C. 1500?

In that time Stonehenge built in England and Athens had its first kings. Crete was building it's colonies, Phoenicians developed alphabet...

No Schytian (or Schythian) artifacts from that era.

What is the materiar of theese weapons? If the quality of the metal is so good as we see in pictures it is equal as the medevial knights had a nuclear bomb

They could conquer the world with them...

TVV · 11th December 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radu Transylvanicus

TVV welcome to the Forum... Zdrasti , priyatno mi e ... I have a feeling you will be a very good asset to this team ... I was born a few miles north of you in Romania ...

Hi Radu, I have been a lurker on this forum for quite a while. Interestingly enough, as I live in the Bay Area currently, now I get to be several miles north of you, as it seems.
As far as the bronze weapons go, I also think that 1500 B.C. might be a little exaggerated, to me they look quite similar to some Luristan ear-pommelled daggers dating back to c. 750 B.C. . For an example take a look at p. 137 of Michael D. Coe's book (sorry, I do not have a scanner).

erlikhan · 14th December 2004, 03:32 PM

Yannis, the material is bronze as I told. About being fake or not, as many other, my basic criteria is who brings and offers it to market. I also understand your point of view but , about Schytian artifacts, if you search as" luristan" you will find many. They were nomads and warriors, having a superior bronze casting technology. They were also the first community to train horses enough to be used efficiently in wars starting mounted riding. First bronze, then iron working of nomads were always superior in any age(in general all kinds of metal, gold, silver etc. too), as strong,educated horses and efficient weapons were the things they needed to have whatever they wanted. As far as I know, they conquered and ruled today's Ukraine, Caucasia and Persia for several centuries, later forming a union till Egypt in 8th century b.c. So they have conquered not all, but much of the developed lands of their time .
About the date they belong to, some sources say 8-9th centuries b.c., and I knew like that till short time ago, but at that age, it had been more than 500 years since Hittites found iron working, and all near east was using iron instead of bronze, since it was much cheaper and easier to work. It doesnt seem logical for anybody to prefer expensive and difficult bronze swords at that age (but bronze continued to be used in helmets and shields, I dont know why). .
And, I learned the date 1500 b.c from the site of Azerbaijan national museum . They have samples like mines. They have dated their sample to b.c. 1500. Ariel had given its link in the previous forum. I dont remember it now. He can help us but I am unable to insist on the date as I am not an expert myself.
And one more sign about being fake or not, you can see many samples being sold in respectful auctions (not cyber. Real auctions). I can give you some links if you wish. Most have even much better conditions and sure much higher prices, compared to these ones. (Not only the Schytian ones, also Middle European ones, which was certainly not a civilized land in that age). Bronze stands against corrosion of natural effects under soil uncomparably better than iron. Thats why clean bronze age samples are more than much later's iron weapons of Roman, even Middle age times. But again, my judgement about being original or fake depends on just my feelings and reference books or auctions. The exact result can be taken only by carbon 14 test, nothing else i guess.

erlikhan · 14th December 2004, 11:38 PM

www.hermann-historica-ohg.de . This is the site of a German antiques auction company. You can see the better samples of the same type, and middle european bronze swords, belonging to another nomadic tribe, Kelts.
Most of the existing bronze age weapon samples belong to 2 main cultures as far as I have seen till now.
Schytian. Caucassia,Ukraine,Persia and Iraq. Name in the literature is Luristan culture.
Kelt . Middle Europe. Austria, Germany, Swiss, perhaps eastern France. Literature name is Hallstad culture.
Why samples of those two are seen much more, is perhaps that they were nomads , where not only noble soldiers, but all males were warriors living a tough life and needed to carry weapons to be strong enough to stay alive. I have seen pictures of Hittite or Babylonian ones too, some even having cuneiform inscriptions on them but samples belonging to those civilizations are more rare (maybe because of the this theory) and very expensive.

Yannis · 15th December 2004, 01:26 AM

I didnt found not even ONE link about Scythian civilization before 700BC. For example

Scythian World claims that the tribes lived 6 to 3 centuries BC.

Also it is the first time I hear about a nomadic tribe with good metallurgy. So bronze swords in 600 BC maybe where good for Scythians but they were not good enough for Persians and Greeks.

Dorians came to Greece 1100 BC and overruned Achaioi because they had iron swords. Agamemnon times are over. Troia is fallen...

erlikhan · 15th December 2004, 10:33 AM

What I remember is,he Azerbaijan museum had exactly the same type of bronze sword and they were dating it to something like b.c. 1500 and Schytians. I dont remember the link. As I said Ariel can give it again. Or if there is a way to see, it was in the previous forum, i guess under black sea yataghan topic.
About the metallurgy of nomads issue, how were the nomads like Turkic tribes,Magyars and Moghuls conquering huge lands in very short time, because of which advantage you think? By throwing stones very accurately? Iron and iron working was accepted something holy and by far the most used subject in Turkish legends.
And about iron-bronze subject, one must know that bronze and iron comparison can not be based on the improvement in unit quality of weapons, but total quantity. I read in several sources that, if iron was preferred instead of bronze , it was mainly because iron is very cheap and sources are plentiful everywhere, but zinc in bronze is rare and expensive. Some types of bronze cast is quite stronger than iron. Or there is nothing like, bronze technology is simple and iron technology is very complicated. After the development of simple method of iron forging,(you can melt iron even with just a big fire on a windy hill) everybody around immidiately turned their arms to iron mainly NOT because so they became able to produce stronger weapons, but they became able to produce much cheaper weapons ,so much more weapons with the same budget, which meant to have much more crowded armies.Schytians or anybody else should be just maniacs to insist on bronze weapons in years closer than 1000s b.c. They would vanish in a few days instead of conquering big areas.

Yannis · 15th December 2004, 06:42 PM

1. Even if Azerbaijan museum says so we dont have to believe it. I prefer to believe historical sources and we cannot find Scythians at that age.

2. Quality of weapons is not the only reason of victory.

4. Turkish tribes used mainly Mogol tactics and Persian weaponry to establish.

3. Iron melts at 1100 C and bronze at 700 C or less. The difference is very big, specially when you have to reach theese temperatures with fire from wood. It is another level of technology, thats why we speek about "bronze age" and "iron age"

P.S. I wanted to write 1453 in the other topic, not 1943. I dont like flames but I cannot stay quite when AFTER my apologies I read offensive and provocate posts.

I understand why Andrew locked the other topic and I hope he will not lock this one too

Jeff D · 15th December 2004, 06:43 PM

Interesting discussion,

I also have to wonder about the attribution of these weapons to the Scythians. As mentioned there is no written history left by the Scythians, but, Herodotus discusses them in his 4th book. Archeological evidence is also shedding some light.
The Scythians occupied the area of modern Ukraine from around 700-200 BC. They probably originated from just east of the Don river. The Scythians displaced the Cimmerians (Conan the barbarian) from the Ukraine, and were replaced themselves by the Sarmatians.
The first evidence of horse riding is found in the Ukraine and dates to 4350 BC. lt predates the Scythians.
Throughout the Ukraine Iron tools start to replace bronze in 900 BC. It is true the Scythians ruled to the boarder of Egypt, but this lasted for only 28 years. This also occured in the 7 th century BC.
The weapons that started this thread do not look like the Scythian weapons that have been dug up in the Ukraine. There is a slight similarity of the 2nd picture with the Scythian akinakers. To my knowledge these do not have the ears seen. The primary weapon of the Scythians was the composite bow (Scythian is derived from an Irainian word for shooter or archer).

Hope this helps,
Jeff

erlikhan · 16th December 2004, 12:19 AM

Well I didn't mean to provacate and even thanked for the apologizes, and I am sure I am not the one to carry the discussion to offense and signs of general hatred.
Moghuls came to the stage of history in 8th century and just as a record of existence, not any significant effect on politics, out of today's Mongolia to north, and that was 500 years after Turkic Huns invading and conquering China, 300 years after Attila in Europe, and 1-2 centuries after Gokturks ruling from Caspian sea to whole China including Mongolia, even having capitol Otuken established in central Mongolia of today( like Huns as well). Moghuls became a big power even 100-120 years after Seljuks defeated Byzance in 1071 Malazgirt and entered Anadolu. And ancient Persian weaponry still so developed and strong in the age of Turks ? Of course not. That is one of the reasons why Arabs easily conquered Persia by 1 single battle, and later Turks ruled there from 10th to 19th century. Well, if some obvious feelings mix into any kind of theories so much, I am sure neither I nor you will cause nobody to need to lock topics anymore, but definitely will cause time waste and pollution

Jeff, as I told, the Schytian-1500 b.c. information was certainly from Azerbaijan museum's definition for their samples. I am not an expert or especially interested in Schytians myself. My interest mainly aroused after I acquired this weapons. I remember even that I wrote in the forum that I was happy to see the museum's definition dating older, as I was assuming my weapons dating to 900-1000 before. Mines are from North Azerbaijan - Dagestan region. I am sure about it. And that area was ruled and established by Schytians for centuries like Ukraine, and unlike Palestine and Syria, which were occupied for short time. I am almost sure about it. Then 1-do they belong to Schytians and closer time or 2- if older and if not Schytian , to whom do they belong? The long sword is 90 cms. Who lived in that area and needed to produce such weapons before 900s b.c.? Any information?
10th century b.c. for iron work in Ukraine can be logical. What I said was just; iron working didn't require huge technological level which can't be reached by any community in the region, after once learning its clues, and no tribe would keep victorious, or even just independent if they used bronze weapons against their iron using neighbors. And I know horse riding started much earlier, but I said "mounted riding", and training, developing stronger horses, with which, horsemen became able to sit and control the horse better from the front part of its back, instead of the rear part. You can see that difference from Asyrian wall decorations. In 1000s, riders sit onto the back part, and in 700s, closer to the front shoulder, like today. Before that change, horsemen were not beneficiary in wars . Horses were preferred mainly to ride war charriots. Even camels were better than horses in a battle before these developments.
And, if you can give any link to pictures of well preserved samples of bronze or iron swords of Schytians, -and other tribes around before christ, especially Hittites and Asyrians, I will be grateful to you.
regards

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 01:44 AM

Hi Erlikhan,

Great information, my post was only reguarding the museums claim that these bronze swords where Scythian. Number 2 I think is Persian and I haven't a clue about the other, as bronze weapons are way out of my league. I will post some pictures to show what I mean.
Next to hockey and sabers, horses are my other passion. The mounting of the rider over the withers (the front part of the back) is to shift his weight onto the front legs, this allows the horse to run faster freeing up the back legs where most of the driving force is derived. A jockey is able to do this even more by having short stirrups allowing him to shift all his weight off the back and move it forward infront of the horses point of balance. Modern riders will slow a horse by simply shifting their weight back onto the horses back. The forward position is therefore not for control but for speed and endurance. There where a number of horse cultures before the Scythians in the steppes and many migrated out. Scythians were a light cavalry using composite bows and throwing javalins. Mobility and speed was their trade mark, to great effect. The next big breakthrough was the development of stirrups by the Goths. This allowed the horse to perform as a elevated platform for lance, sword etc. and act as a shock force, thus developing the heavy cavalry. This developed around 400 AD.
Here are a few examples of Scythian swords that I could find;

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 01:46 AM

Here is a sword similar to one of yours dates to around 1500 BC. found in laristan. (same as yours)

Hope this helps
Jeff

ed. I uploaded the wrong photo here is the correct one

TVV · 16th December 2004, 02:01 AM

Jeff, this is exactly what I started to write: Scythians did not have stirrups and it would have been hard for them to use swords while mounted. However, I always associated the invention of the stirrups with the Huns, or perhaps even the Sarmathians, and not the Goths, but this is immaterial to the discussion at hand. It was later than 1500 B.C. by all means.
Toa dd something more to the discussion, here is a picture of a Thracian mahaira, which in its essence is almost identical to the kopis, if not the same thing.

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 03:11 AM

Thanks TVV,

I just did a quick google and it seem that the Huns most likely did invent the stirrup. Things have changed since I last read about the battle of Hadrianople where the Romans where rudely introduced to it.
And to add a little more here is a Scythian hilt;

TVV · 16th December 2004, 05:49 AM

Jeff, I believe the Goths were unlucky enough to be in the Huns' way on their migration to Central Europe, as they inhabited Eastern Europe above the Danube. It is quite likely that they acquired the stirrups from the Huns, and somewhere I cannot really remember now I read the Sarmathians came up with the stirrups first. In any case, the Scythians did not have knowledge of the stirrups. This does not solve the question about the origin of Erlikhan's bronze swords, particularly the long one with the eared pommell. Just because it is long, it does not necessarily mean that it was used on horseback.

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 08:07 AM

Hi TVV,

I found these interesting swords thought to be Bactrian 1000BC. Note the ears on the larger one.

Jeff

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 05:39 PM

Hi Erlikhan,

I just found this one which is thought to be from Amlash. There is a fellow named John Piscopo who posts regularlly on the SFI site that could help you further http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdi...?s=&forumid=12

Jeff

TVV · 16th December 2004, 05:42 PM

Great job digging this one out. The similarity with Erlikhan's long eared pommel sword is obvious. In order to avoid further confusion, could you please provide the source of this picture, and more specifically the reasons for the dating.

erlikhan · 16th December 2004, 10:35 PM

Jeff and TVV, thank you very much for the pictures. Amazing. Bactria is the other side of the Caspian sea, western middle Asia, which is far from Caucassia, and Luristan is today's western-southwestern Iran. I don't know the other place "Amlash". Almost completely same type weapons in a very large area, considered in that age's scales. Between 1500 - 1000 b.c., was there a single tribe ruling over the area or many tribes copied and used similar weapons perhaps because of limited development level of creativity or technical difficulties?
In English,does "mounted" mean using "stirrup"? Or everything including saddles? I meant to define saddle especially by word" mounted". If you check John Keegan- "A history of warfare" book , there are wall pictures from Asyrians, first showing horsemen sitting back and without saddle in 850s , and 2nd picture dating to 650s, sitting front and both horse and camels are mounted with saddles. There is no stirrup.

Jeff D · 19th December 2004, 08:18 PM

Sorry for the slow response, I have been busy. Here are some of the sights I found the swords on.
Erlikhan, mounted only means on top of and thus has no inference on whether stirrups are used or not.

http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/An...nd_Swords.html

http://www.edgarlowen.com/a50ane.html

http://www.theinterestingshop.com/pa...ntweapons1.htm

Jeff

tom hyle · 20th December 2004, 02:23 AM

Fascinating. The mahaira/copis I think to be a fairly Northern sword in its origins, and not Greek or Mediterranean, as commonly thought (nor am I certain of its close relation to the Egypto/Palestinian kopsh, which seems to be derived of the "broad axe"). The people of the Caucases region were known for metalworking and arms making, and I've read that they exported both finished arms and metal to Greece in the bronze age.........what I find interesting about these possible proto-eared-hilts is that the "ears" seem to actually be a tube, perhaps for a lanyard.

10th December 2004, 12:33 PM	#1
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Ancestors of yataghans http://www.pbase.com/erlikan/inbox There you can see 3 samples of bronze nomadic Schytian arms from Azerbaijan. 1 long sword and 2 daggers. Belongs to B.C. 1500s. Their hilt forms are too close to Turkish yataghans and karakulaks. Do you agree that these must be the far ancestors of this type? But there is a huge time gap between these bronze arms and the appearance of yataghans in 17th century. Or does anybody know samples of the lost rings in the evolution chain?

10th December 2004, 01:59 PM	#3
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	karakulak and yataghan. I think in Turkey sometimes karakulak is used as a name to describe the ear shaped hilt of yataghans ,right. I used both names to define just the hilt models of the daggers in the picture, according to the nuances between the samples. The blades of the samples are sure can not be related to yataghans. Only the hilts. karakulak - black ear trasnlation is correct. I name the longer sample as karakulak, and the shorter as a more classical yataghan according to just my understanding. (Hilt of the long sword seems a perfect yataghan type too). In Balkans and Bulgaria especially - as far as I know) karakulak hilt form was widely used on yataghan blades.(the form of the longer dagger) , and they call the weapon only "Karakulak" , instead of "Yataghan". Correct? About the ears, an addition. http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1551 this type is called "esekkulak" , which means "donkey ear") Last edited by erlikhan; 10th December 2004 at 02:12 PM.

15th December 2004, 01:26 AM	#11
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Troia is fallen... I didnt found not even ONE link about Scythian civilization before 700BC. For example Scythian World claims that the tribes lived 6 to 3 centuries BC. Also it is the first time I hear about a nomadic tribe with good metallurgy. So bronze swords in 600 BC maybe where good for Scythians but they were not good enough for Persians and Greeks. Dorians came to Greece 1100 BC and overruned Achaioi because they had iron swords. Agamemnon times are over. Troia is fallen...

15th December 2004, 10:33 AM	#12
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	What I remember is,he Azerbaijan museum had exactly the same type of bronze sword and they were dating it to something like b.c. 1500 and Schytians. I dont remember the link. As I said Ariel can give it again. Or if there is a way to see, it was in the previous forum, i guess under black sea yataghan topic. About the metallurgy of nomads issue, how were the nomads like Turkic tribes,Magyars and Moghuls conquering huge lands in very short time, because of which advantage you think? By throwing stones very accurately? Iron and iron working was accepted something holy and by far the most used subject in Turkish legends. And about iron-bronze subject, one must know that bronze and iron comparison can not be based on the improvement in unit quality of weapons, but total quantity. I read in several sources that, if iron was preferred instead of bronze , it was mainly because iron is very cheap and sources are plentiful everywhere, but zinc in bronze is rare and expensive. Some types of bronze cast is quite stronger than iron. Or there is nothing like, bronze technology is simple and iron technology is very complicated. After the development of simple method of iron forging,(you can melt iron even with just a big fire on a windy hill) everybody around immidiately turned their arms to iron mainly NOT because so they became able to produce stronger weapons, but they became able to produce much cheaper weapons ,so much more weapons with the same budget, which meant to have much more crowded armies.Schytians or anybody else should be just maniacs to insist on bronze weapons in years closer than 1000s b.c. They would vanish in a few days instead of conquering big areas. Last edited by erlikhan; 15th December 2004 at 11:27 AM.

16th December 2004, 12:19 AM	#15
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Well I didn't mean to provacate and even thanked for the apologizes, and I am sure I am not the one to carry the discussion to offense and signs of general hatred. Moghuls came to the stage of history in 8th century and just as a record of existence, not any significant effect on politics, out of today's Mongolia to north, and that was 500 years after Turkic Huns invading and conquering China, 300 years after Attila in Europe, and 1-2 centuries after Gokturks ruling from Caspian sea to whole China including Mongolia, even having capitol Otuken established in central Mongolia of today( like Huns as well). Moghuls became a big power even 100-120 years after Seljuks defeated Byzance in 1071 Malazgirt and entered Anadolu. And ancient Persian weaponry still so developed and strong in the age of Turks ? Of course not. That is one of the reasons why Arabs easily conquered Persia by 1 single battle, and later Turks ruled there from 10th to 19th century. Well, if some obvious feelings mix into any kind of theories so much, I am sure neither I nor you will cause nobody to need to lock topics anymore, but definitely will cause time waste and pollution Jeff, as I told, the Schytian-1500 b.c. information was certainly from Azerbaijan museum's definition for their samples. I am not an expert or especially interested in Schytians myself. My interest mainly aroused after I acquired this weapons. I remember even that I wrote in the forum that I was happy to see the museum's definition dating older, as I was assuming my weapons dating to 900-1000 before. Mines are from North Azerbaijan - Dagestan region. I am sure about it. And that area was ruled and established by Schytians for centuries like Ukraine, and unlike Palestine and Syria, which were occupied for short time. I am almost sure about it. Then 1-do they belong to Schytians and closer time or 2- if older and if not Schytian , to whom do they belong? The long sword is 90 cms. Who lived in that area and needed to produce such weapons before 900s b.c.? Any information? 10th century b.c. for iron work in Ukraine can be logical. What I said was just; iron working didn't require huge technological level which can't be reached by any community in the region, after once learning its clues, and no tribe would keep victorious, or even just independent if they used bronze weapons against their iron using neighbors. And I know horse riding started much earlier, but I said "mounted riding", and training, developing stronger horses, with which, horsemen became able to sit and control the horse better from the front part of its back, instead of the rear part. You can see that difference from Asyrian wall decorations. In 1000s, riders sit onto the back part, and in 700s, closer to the front shoulder, like today. Before that change, horsemen were not beneficiary in wars . Horses were preferred mainly to ride war charriots. Even camels were better than horses in a battle before these developments. And, if you can give any link to pictures of well preserved samples of bronze or iron swords of Schytians, -and other tribes around before christ, especially Hittites and Asyrians, I will be grateful to you. regards Last edited by erlikhan; 16th December 2004 at 11:32 AM.

10th December 2004, 01:27 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	What is your definition of Yataghan vs. Karakulak? My understanding that the latter is just Turkish "black ear" and refers to the form of the hilt. I was always told that Karakulak was a "nickname" for Yataghan.

10th December 2004, 04:03 PM	#4
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	One possibility is that the form survived among one or more of the nomadic Turkic tribes that superceded (or arose from) the Scythians. Since archeology on the steppes is slim at best, it might just a matter of no "missing links" having yet been found. As the Turks moved south of the Black Sea and sort of entered into the consciousness of the West, the yatagan "appeared." All theory, of course. What is the earliest date at which a yatagan form (other than these Scythian examples) is known?

11th December 2004, 09:23 AM	#6
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	TVV welcome to the Forum... Zdrasti , priyatno mi e ... I have a feeling you will be a very good asset to this team ... I was born a few miles north of you in Romania ...

14th December 2004, 03:32 PM	#9
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Yannis, the material is bronze as I told. About being fake or not, as many other, my basic criteria is who brings and offers it to market. I also understand your point of view but , about Schytian artifacts, if you search as" luristan" you will find many. They were nomads and warriors, having a superior bronze casting technology. They were also the first community to train horses enough to be used efficiently in wars starting mounted riding. First bronze, then iron working of nomads were always superior in any age(in general all kinds of metal, gold, silver etc. too), as strong,educated horses and efficient weapons were the things they needed to have whatever they wanted. As far as I know, they conquered and ruled today's Ukraine, Caucasia and Persia for several centuries, later forming a union till Egypt in 8th century b.c. So they have conquered not all, but much of the developed lands of their time . About the date they belong to, some sources say 8-9th centuries b.c., and I knew like that till short time ago, but at that age, it had been more than 500 years since Hittites found iron working, and all near east was using iron instead of bronze, since it was much cheaper and easier to work. It doesnt seem logical for anybody to prefer expensive and difficult bronze swords at that age (but bronze continued to be used in helmets and shields, I dont know why). . And, I learned the date 1500 b.c from the site of Azerbaijan national museum . They have samples like mines. They have dated their sample to b.c. 1500. Ariel had given its link in the previous forum. I dont remember it now. He can help us but I am unable to insist on the date as I am not an expert myself. And one more sign about being fake or not, you can see many samples being sold in respectful auctions (not cyber. Real auctions). I can give you some links if you wish. Most have even much better conditions and sure much higher prices, compared to these ones. (Not only the Schytian ones, also Middle European ones, which was certainly not a civilized land in that age). Bronze stands against corrosion of natural effects under soil uncomparably better than iron. Thats why clean bronze age samples are more than much later's iron weapons of Roman, even Middle age times. But again, my judgement about being original or fake depends on just my feelings and reference books or auctions. The exact result can be taken only by carbon 14 test, nothing else i guess.

14th December 2004, 11:38 PM	#10
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	www.hermann-historica-ohg.de . This is the site of a German antiques auction company. You can see the better samples of the same type, and middle european bronze swords, belonging to another nomadic tribe, Kelts. Most of the existing bronze age weapon samples belong to 2 main cultures as far as I have seen till now. Schytian. Caucassia,Ukraine,Persia and Iraq. Name in the literature is Luristan culture. Kelt . Middle Europe. Austria, Germany, Swiss, perhaps eastern France. Literature name is Hallstad culture. Why samples of those two are seen much more, is perhaps that they were nomads , where not only noble soldiers, but all males were warriors living a tough life and needed to carry weapons to be strong enough to stay alive. I have seen pictures of Hittite or Babylonian ones too, some even having cuneiform inscriptions on them but samples belonging to those civilizations are more rare (maybe because of the this theory) and very expensive.

15th December 2004, 06:42 PM	#13
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	1. Even if Azerbaijan museum says so we dont have to believe it. I prefer to believe historical sources and we cannot find Scythians at that age. 2. Quality of weapons is not the only reason of victory. 4. Turkish tribes used mainly Mogol tactics and Persian weaponry to establish. 3. Iron melts at 1100 C and bronze at 700 C or less. The difference is very big, specially when you have to reach theese temperatures with fire from wood. It is another level of technology, thats why we speek about "bronze age" and "iron age" P.S. I wanted to write 1453 in the other topic, not 1943. I dont like flames but I cannot stay quite when AFTER my apologies I read offensive and provocate posts. I understand why Andrew locked the other topic and I hope he will not lock this one too

15th December 2004, 06:43 PM	#14
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Interesting discussion, I also have to wonder about the attribution of these weapons to the Scythians. As mentioned there is no written history left by the Scythians, but, Herodotus discusses them in his 4th book. Archeological evidence is also shedding some light. The Scythians occupied the area of modern Ukraine from around 700-200 BC. They probably originated from just east of the Don river. The Scythians displaced the Cimmerians (Conan the barbarian) from the Ukraine, and were replaced themselves by the Sarmatians. The first evidence of horse riding is found in the Ukraine and dates to 4350 BC. lt predates the Scythians. Throughout the Ukraine Iron tools start to replace bronze in 900 BC. It is true the Scythians ruled to the boarder of Egypt, but this lasted for only 28 years. This also occured in the 7 th century BC. The weapons that started this thread do not look like the Scythian weapons that have been dug up in the Ukraine. There is a slight similarity of the 2nd picture with the Scythian akinakers. To my knowledge these do not have the ears seen. The primary weapon of the Scythians was the composite bow (Scythian is derived from an Irainian word for shooter or archer). Hope this helps, Jeff

16th December 2004, 01:44 AM	#16
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Erlikhan, Great information, my post was only reguarding the museums claim that these bronze swords where Scythian. Number 2 I think is Persian and I haven't a clue about the other, as bronze weapons are way out of my league. I will post some pictures to show what I mean. Next to hockey and sabers, horses are my other passion. The mounting of the rider over the withers (the front part of the back) is to shift his weight onto the front legs, this allows the horse to run faster freeing up the back legs where most of the driving force is derived. A jockey is able to do this even more by having short stirrups allowing him to shift all his weight off the back and move it forward infront of the horses point of balance. Modern riders will slow a horse by simply shifting their weight back onto the horses back. The forward position is therefore not for control but for speed and endurance. There where a number of horse cultures before the Scythians in the steppes and many migrated out. Scythians were a light cavalry using composite bows and throwing javalins. Mobility and speed was their trade mark, to great effect. The next big breakthrough was the development of stirrups by the Goths. This allowed the horse to perform as a elevated platform for lance, sword etc. and act as a shock force, thus developing the heavy cavalry. This developed around 400 AD. Here are a few examples of Scythian swords that I could find; Attached Images

16th December 2004, 01:46 AM	#17
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Here is a sword similar to one of yours dates to around 1500 BC. found in laristan. (same as yours) Hope this helps Jeff ed. I uploaded the wrong photo here is the correct one Attached Images Last edited by Jeff D; 16th December 2004 at 08:02 AM.

16th December 2004, 02:01 AM	#18
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,622	Jeff, this is exactly what I started to write: Scythians did not have stirrups and it would have been hard for them to use swords while mounted. However, I always associated the invention of the stirrups with the Huns, or perhaps even the Sarmathians, and not the Goths, but this is immaterial to the discussion at hand. It was later than 1500 B.C. by all means. Toa dd something more to the discussion, here is a picture of a Thracian mahaira, which in its essence is almost identical to the kopis, if not the same thing. Attached Images Last edited by TVV; 16th December 2004 at 02:57 AM.

16th December 2004, 03:11 AM	#19
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thanks TVV, I just did a quick google and it seem that the Huns most likely did invent the stirrup. Things have changed since I last read about the battle of Hadrianople where the Romans where rudely introduced to it. And to add a little more here is a Scythian hilt; Attached Images

16th December 2004, 05:49 AM	#20
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,622	Jeff, I believe the Goths were unlucky enough to be in the Huns' way on their migration to Central Europe, as they inhabited Eastern Europe above the Danube. It is quite likely that they acquired the stirrups from the Huns, and somewhere I cannot really remember now I read the Sarmathians came up with the stirrups first. In any case, the Scythians did not have knowledge of the stirrups. This does not solve the question about the origin of Erlikhan's bronze swords, particularly the long one with the eared pommell. Just because it is long, it does not necessarily mean that it was used on horseback.

16th December 2004, 08:07 AM	#21
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi TVV, I found these interesting swords thought to be Bactrian 1000BC. Note the ears on the larger one. Jeff Attached Images

16th December 2004, 05:39 PM	#22
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Erlikhan, I just found this one which is thought to be from Amlash. There is a fellow named John Piscopo who posts regularlly on the SFI site that could help you further http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdi...?s=&forumid=12 Jeff Attached Images

16th December 2004, 05:42 PM	#23
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,622	Great job digging this one out. The similarity with Erlikhan's long eared pommel sword is obvious. In order to avoid further confusion, could you please provide the source of this picture, and more specifically the reasons for the dating.

16th December 2004, 10:35 PM	#24
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jeff and TVV, thank you very much for the pictures. Amazing. Bactria is the other side of the Caspian sea, western middle Asia, which is far from Caucassia, and Luristan is today's western-southwestern Iran. I don't know the other place "Amlash". Almost completely same type weapons in a very large area, considered in that age's scales. Between 1500 - 1000 b.c., was there a single tribe ruling over the area or many tribes copied and used similar weapons perhaps because of limited development level of creativity or technical difficulties? In English,does "mounted" mean using "stirrup"? Or everything including saddles? I meant to define saddle especially by word" mounted". If you check John Keegan- "A history of warfare" book , there are wall pictures from Asyrians, first showing horsemen sitting back and without saddle in 850s , and 2nd picture dating to 650s, sitting front and both horse and camels are mounted with saddles. There is no stirrup.

19th December 2004, 08:18 PM	#25
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Sorry for the slow response, I have been busy. Here are some of the sights I found the swords on. Erlikhan, mounted only means on top of and thus has no inference on whether stirrups are used or not. http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/An...nd_Swords.html http://www.edgarlowen.com/a50ane.html http://www.theinterestingshop.com/pa...ntweapons1.htm Jeff

20th December 2004, 02:23 AM	#26
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Fascinating. The mahaira/copis I think to be a fairly Northern sword in its origins, and not Greek or Mediterranean, as commonly thought (nor am I certain of its close relation to the Egypto/Palestinian kopsh, which seems to be derived of the "broad axe"). The people of the Caucases region were known for metalworking and arms making, and I've read that they exported both finished arms and metal to Greece in the bronze age.........what I find interesting about these possible proto-eared-hilts is that the "ears" seem to actually be a tube, perhaps for a lanyard.