[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Ariel,
Its funny to think back then in those late 1990s and all the research. I must admit, then, as always, I have been obsessive about finding out as much as I could on every weapon form I encountered. In fact, Tirri himself in his talk in Baltimore derided my obsessive manner in researching, which was of course because I openly challenged his North African attribution on these intriguing and unusual swords. As I mentioned, by that time I had been deeply researching these for nearly 8 years, and yes, there was limited data on them.

However despite our disagreement I have never put down his efforts and actually commended his book, which is a wonderful book for what it is. It is a great handbook for the grade of weapons which collectors could use for identification by comparing the photos so generously included.

It is true, as with the other authors mentioned, they worked with what they had and published. As Lebedynsky once told me, it takes courage to publish with the prospect of inevitable critics, and said basically, ignore them, just tell people what they need to know. I have always believed that authors place information they have to date, and know full well that rebuttals and new evidence will become known and expect (even encourage) these results.

In Tirri's book I must admit I do not recall that hypothesis being presented (at least in the book), though I'm sure he did have such theories. In the book the only two references were the Russian museum catalog (the khopesh entry) and a sales catalog from a London arms dealer. Actually that dealer, when I asked about the attribution noted openly that his descriptions of course were not always entirely accurate, in a perfectly gentlemanly and bold response.
That, to the best of my knowledge, was the entirety of the description and cited sources for this sword in his book. It has been well known that cites and sources were notably wanting in the book itself, and though not a 'scholarly' work, it serves well as an identification handbook.
I know also that he had several outstanding arms scholars consulting as he compiled the book, and often took exception to their opinions, following instead his own.

As noted, the similarities of these to the flyssa was known some time ago, and by Danish scholars (who seldom get 'their due' as mentioned, in the western theater of arms study). It was likely included in the interesting study by the Hungarian scholar (1896) of these unusual weapons through these Caucasian into Transcaucasian regions.
Like the flyssa itself, the life span of these was short (the earliest known reference to these is 1827) and the earliest known example with provenance I found was 1857. Jacobsen (1941) noted that these were often found in years relatively shortly later in out buildings etc.It seems likely they remained in some degree as traditionally recognized weapons, much as forms in many ethnological settings.

As I earlier noted, my thought is that these evolved in 'Black Sea' regions among the other variations with recurved blades and cleft pommels, and the horned effect had more to do with Persian influences (as with the blade character). As for the needle point, I have always wondered what the origin of this feature was with the flyssa, and I suspect that it may have more to do with Tatar influence. As per Zygulski, Lebedynsky, Ostrowski et al, the saber known as 'ordynka' often carried this feature. Again, the Ottoman tapestry probably brought diffusion of this notable feature.

I'm glad you noted the Zeibek 'T pommel' yataghans which bring to the fore the seeming affinity of these Pontic groups for variation of cleft or unusually shaped pommels, which again supports the regions of origin for this form being as noted, the Black Sea sphere.

Tony Tirri deserves credit for the reference he provided us, which as noted, is great for identification of weapons collectors often encounter, despite the few errors which are inevitable in any published work (including my own posts which are thankfully challenged and corrected).