Hi Manolo,
I cannot resist responding to this, especially you were asking the very same questions I was thinking about when I first started researching these most interesting sabres some ten years ago. I found similarity in the Assyrian sapara in Burton's "Book of the Sword" and later found these similarities discussed in an article published in Denmark in 1941, which described the apparant origins of these swords in Kurdish and Armenian regions. It noted the locations where examples were collected and established key provenance.
As noted by Ian, these were late arrivals among edged weapons of these regions, most likely in my opinion about 1820's -1840's. It is known that certain examples that have been previously owned by individuals in Europe, one that I conferred with a very prominant arms historian, had 'unusual' and undecipherable markings along the back of the blade. This may well have been interpretive representations possibly even of the ancient cuneiform seen on the early saparas? I have been inclined to suspect that these weapons were quite possibly atavistic or revival type weapons that were intended to allude to ancient ancestry rather than a progressively developed form, hence the lack of intermediate or proto examples. The malle perce tip blades seen on Tatar sabre forms and others certainly may have provided influence for these needle points. It is interesting that the flyssa evolved in Algerian regions somewhat concurrently and most likely from Ottoman forms of yataghan and adding the same needle point.
I think that Ariels discovery of these 'Black Sea yataghans' in a museum provenancing them to the very regions being considered in research done from the latter 19th c. was the most telling evidence of thier true origins. The development of the flyssa in North Africa and key similarities along with what appears to be one or very few examples the recurved Black Sea version seem to be interesting evidence that suggest possible associations between these sword forms.
I am glad you posted this because this is exactly the kind of thinking that I think is so important in our studies of these weapons. It isn't really a matter of being right or wrong, simply of learning together and trying to develop the best conclusions by examining and discussing evidence and clues. Clearly we have discussed these interesting swords for many years, and remain somewhat divided in opinions, but always enjoy 'reopening the case'
All the best,
Jim