Yatagan with medieval (?) blade
 

I've bought it from Artzi years ago. I still find it very interesting and intriguing piece with an very extraordinary blade. I believe it 15th century. An interesting debate piece I think.

Any comments?

:p Faith moves mountains, they say ... also, why not ... :p

à +

Dom

:eek: :) :mad: :o :shrug:

Hi Valjhun,
I missed this, what a beauty! It is not at all surprising that something this unique could be traced to Artzi....he is truly the connoissuer of unusual and fascinating items.
I am curious what sort of attribution he placed on this when you acquired it, as I would expect his comments would be most pertinant.

I would presume the present mounts to be 18th century, and the blade, as you have noted would certainly be a great topic for debate. While in some regards the blade does have a degree of the look of the earlier blades ( I am not sure I would go as far as 15th century), the magificent chiseled motif on the back of the blade seems later.

I am not sure if you might have noticed the thread on the pandours, but I would submit that this might well be a piece that could be attributed to a unit of this or Frei Korps, irregular units of armed forces attached to various military throughout the 18th century. This blade profile seems very much like some of the yataghans and yataghan bladed weapons used by them.

The unusual motif in the application on the hilt seems perhaps inclined toward these types of weapon also, at least in my perspective at this point.

Best regards,
Jim

Unusual
 

Interesting motifs on the hilt, I have similar hilt motifs in silver on the unusual version of the Hudiedao that I present in my gallery images.
I do wonder on the nature of these as being purely decorative of having some symbolic meaning?

Gav

Hi! I do not believe that it was a pandour piece. I honestly think, that it is a shortened 15th to 16th century blade rehilted as yatagan. Holding it in hands, the blade seem very old indeed. I'll try to reinforce that theory with some more photos. There is a marking on the blade also. It doesn't seem like a pandours blade, as I've seen quite a lot of blades attributed to Treks' forces and none seems as thatone. The cracquelere on the ivory hilt suggests a 200-300 years old ivory.

I collect yataghans for years now and I've never seem one looking no nearly close to thatone. Hoped you Jim could tell me more about it. I'll post some new photos, the marking also. Thank you!

Here is the description from Artzi:

"This short and heavy Yataghan sword incorporates an early wide and heavy blade most probably early 18 C. or earlier, forged from pattern welded and twisted steel, 20 inches long and 1 3/4 inches wide. The grips are ivory and the handle mounts are steel, all engraved in a rather simple design. Total length 25 inches. Good condition. Scattered pitted spots on the blade. The handle steel mounts are probably later to the blade and handle and were added to reinforce the sword handle."

Hi Gav,
Great observation on this interesting linear motif, and it truly is amazing how widespread these simple symbols in similar arrangements are found. This is another reason I sense a certain European element to this piece. If I recall in earlier discussions, many of the huwiedao seem to have associations to Chinese martial artists, many of whom had considerable contact with various Europeans, and some other features seem somewhat European as well on a number of these.

I think in other context these simple symbols might have meaning, but in linear form on a backstrap it is more than likely motif. However, even in these applications, the implications remain.

Valjhun, thank you for adding Artzi's notes, which I am inclined to agree with.
It is great to hear of your collecting experience with yataghans, as frankly these are an extremely fascinating and complex sword form that seem to present more questions than answers! There seem to be so many paradoxes in identifying them.

Your experience is well represented in your note on the ivory, which suggests about two to three hundred years, exactly the time frame I was thinking of.
The blade clearly has been shortened, and seems of the type I have seen on European type yataghan blade swords, some in European officers swords of the pandour 'type' units, mostly Frei Korps, Grenzers and some still termed pandours. These were light units, often infantry, while von Trenck's and a number of others were pandours but mounted. Trenck was a hussar officer as were the commanders of some of the other similar units that succeeded Trenck.

The styling on the backstrap, as well as the heavy, almost mechanical, bolsters on the hilt, and especially the vestigial tunkou style bolster on the forte, all look European to me. At least they seem European trying to imitate Asiatic or Eastern appearance, much as the costumes and appearance of these irregular troops did, even to wearing scalplocks and exotic attire.
Yataghans were almost standard among the dismounted troops, while varying type sabres were used by horsemen and cavalry.

Charles Buttin noted that in fifty years of collecting, he had seen only the four or five examples pictured in the catalog of his collection (Rumilly, 1933), that could be attributed to von Trenck's troops. One of these pieces was sold at auction last year.
Since this particular subject is one very intriguing to me, I would very much like to know of other swords that could be attributed to Trencks forces.
I doubt that the yataghans used by the many other units following after disbandment of Trencks units could be identified, as they certainly were either actual Turkish or Balkan pieces...unless they were modified by European armourers as I sense this one might be.

In my opinion, the very fact that this even remotely might be something attributed to these notorious units is exciting indeed! That blade does in ways resemble the very early yataghan blades, but I think perhaps latter 17th century to earlier 18th , and I would look to your experience with these blades for better observations. Any details you would consider helpful would be great to better understand the earlier attribution.

All best regards,
Jim