Turkish Yatagan. Need help, translate the text.

[Gess]

Oh, SOLIMANs in Turkey many people ...
Of course not all "AGHA", but many ...

[TVV]

In my understanding, Agha in the Ottoman Empire was just a polite title, applied to pretty much every Muslim man of some age, not dissimilar to how we use "sir" nowadays. Most towns and villages probably had a Suliman Agha.
Regards,
Teodor

[Gess]

I totally agree with you.
My posts - this is a joke, a fantasy. To kill time until Zifir.
Regards

[Dom]

Originally Posted by TVV

In my understanding, Agha in the Ottoman Empire was just a polite title, applied to pretty much every Muslim man of some age, not dissimilar to how we use "sir" nowadays. Most towns and villages probably had a Suliman Agha.
Regards,
Teodor

you are correct Teodor
it's what happens in Egypt in nowadays, for instance
when we want to honor some one,
we give him the title of "Pacha" or "Bey"

now the question might be ; in XIX century,
what have been the habits into the Turkish civilian life ??

might be no "joke" with title the matter was too serious & sensitive ??

à +

Dom

[Zifir]

Hi,
There is only one or two things to add to Dom's transliteration. I think in the first line there is elif (a) missing so it's Salih Agha not Salih Gabin, this is of course my guessing. The word at the end of the line is Alemdar (a rank in janissary corps).

Of course Teodor is correct saying that in the second half of the nineteenth century the title Agha became something like "sir" in Ottoman language. But before the abolishing of the Janissary Corps not everyone was an agha, it was mainly a military title.

One last comment about the yataghan, it's interesting that our sword maker, who was a son of a janissary called Osman Alemdar, was still using this janissary title (Alemdar) for his father in 1850's, because Sultan Mahmud II banned the use of janissary titles after the abolishing of the Janissary Corps. This is expected of course, because in 1850's this did not matter much for the state anymore.

[Gess]

If you engage in serious debate, then we must look wider.
1. Owner wrote about himself on the blade. I do not think that he will assign a rank of "AGHA".
2. Yataghan obviously expensive. On the handle there were traces of gold, silver and frames for precious stones. Such nominal Yataghan could afford a rich, respectable man.
3. Year 1858! Turkey is involved in the war. Many weapons, not expensive . Who could spend a lot of money on such a subject?...
Regards,
Gess.

I was late with my post. Appeared respected Zifir and responded.
Please! Write to the final text, including all amendments.

P.S. Alemdar (a rank in janissary corps) - the standard-bearer?

[TVV]

Originally Posted by Gess

If you engage in serious debate, then we must look wider.
1. Owner wrote about himself on the blade. I do not think that he will assign a rank of "AGHA".

Actually, Agha was assigned quite often after the owner's name on blades. I am attaching a quick scan from Astvatsaturian's book on Turkish arms.

Originally Posted by Gess

2. Yataghan obviously expensive. On the handle there were traces of gold, silver and frames for precious stones. Such nominal Yataghan could afford a rich, respectable man.

Obviously whoever comissioned the yataghan was not poor, but it is common for Western Balkan yataghans of the 19th century to be richly decorated with walruss ivory hilts with corals ans semi-precious stones. This would not have been beyond the means of a large Muslim landowner, of which there were a few per village.

Originally Posted by Gess

3. Year 1858! Turkey is involved in the war. Many weapons, not expensive . Who could spend a lot of money on such a subject?...
Regards,
Gess. :

This is an interesting observation, as the yataghan looks to be from the Western Balkans. It may have belonged to an Ottoman irregular who participated in the war with Serbia and Montenegro. However, based on my observations on the weapons of Ottoman irregulars from the war of 1877-78, they certainly did not experience problems in equipping themselves with lavishly decorated arms, and sometimes even with the most modern weapons available, such as Winchester repeating rifles, etc. Unfortunately therefore, it is impossible to determine the rank of a weapon owner based on richness of decoration.

Gess, do not get me wrong - this is a very nice yataghan in great condition and most of us here would love to have it. I know I will. But without provenance, it is impossible to tell whether it belonged to a famous historical figure or just a common bashi-bazouk.

Best regards,
Teodor

[Zifir]

Originally Posted by Gess

If you engage in serious debate, then we must look wider.
1. Owner wrote about himself on the blade. I do not think that he will assign a rank of "AGHA".
2. Yataghan obviously expensive. On the handle there were traces of gold, silver and frames for precious stones. Such nominal Yataghan could afford a rich, respectable man.
3. Year 1858! Turkey is involved in the war. Many weapons, not expensive . Who could spend a lot of money on such a subject?...
Regards,
Gess.

I was late with my post. Appeared respected Zifir and responded.
Please! Write to the final text, including all amendments.

P.S. Alemdar (a rank in janissary corps) - the standard-bearer?

Yes, Alemdar (or sometimes bayrakdar) means standard-bearer.

[zalmoxis]

I noticed that the inlay on my yataghan looks exactly like the one in the books. Can somebody tell me what is the year? Some marks look similar with the ones in the book.
Thanks

[TVV]

Originally Posted by zalmoxis

I noticed that the inlay on my yataghan looks exactly like the one in the books. Can somebody tell me what is the year? Some marks look similar with the ones in the book.
Thanks

The numbers are 122, so if there was a 0 imitted at the end, that would be 1220 Hijri or 1805-1806 Gregorian.
Regards,
Teodor