New yataghan

Rivkin · 5th December 2005, 07:00 PM

Well, I don't think "amale mussa" or something like this would help us even if it would appear on the scabbard.

1. I don't know if I understood you correctly - there is a mark on the blade, and it is not in arabic ? You suspect it's in chechen ??? I can have it translated, but I am really puzzled by this fact.

2. IMHO: it's definitely not chechen, most likely not dagestanian. I've seen too few circassian kindjals to say anything (I heard many times about shapsugian wide kindjals, but never seen one). Definitely not armenian, and not osethian. Georgian ? There is however one thing - we can make our judgement based on XIX century styles, but I don't think we have an extensive knowledge of earlier kindjals (I don't remember any pre XIX century kindjals in Astvatsaturjan). It may be that earlier niello was indeed more primitive than super-elaborate XIX century styles.

I would really like to see this mark you refer to.

5th December 2005, 07:00 PM	#20
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Well, I don't think "amale mussa" or something like this would help us even if it would appear on the scabbard. 1. I don't know if I understood you correctly - there is a mark on the blade, and it is not in arabic ? You suspect it's in chechen ??? I can have it translated, but I am really puzzled by this fact. 2. IMHO: it's definitely not chechen, most likely not dagestanian. I've seen too few circassian kindjals to say anything (I heard many times about shapsugian wide kindjals, but never seen one). Definitely not armenian, and not osethian. Georgian ? There is however one thing - we can make our judgement based on XIX century styles, but I don't think we have an extensive knowledge of earlier kindjals (I don't remember any pre XIX century kindjals in Astvatsaturjan). It may be that earlier niello was indeed more primitive than super-elaborate XIX century styles. I would really like to see this mark you refer to.