Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Welcome to the forum, and thank you so very much for sharing the research and details you have already gained. Quite honestly this information on the SKAN work is most helpful so I've learned something here already.
This is area is by far not my specialty (as if I have one) but it has had my deep interest for many years. To try to gain some footing here I used probably one of the most valuable resources to date, which is by the very respected scholar on this topic, Kirill Rivkin,
" Arms and Armor of the Caucusus" , 2015.
This is an old blade indeed, and while it is suggested that those with the 'Passau wolf' are typically European imports marked as such for Caucasian use it is possible this may have been a Chechen or Daghestani product.
The Solingen blades with wolf similar are early 19th c. and on one of these with wolf are MN marks on either side of the wolf. (Rivkin fi.117)
On this the letters are without serifs and the crosses are absent.
* the Russian M1881 blades have a block ricasso.
These crosses are termed 'bees' and in group of four signify Jerusalem crosses from the Crusades.
Another blade more corresponding to the example you show is by W. Clauberg, Solingen maker of first half 19th c. On it is the Passau wolf with letters MH (as on yours) and the 'bees'.
I would be compelled to think yours is in this category early 19th c.
Too often people jump to the 'fake' term. There are so many mitigating factors and unknowns in weapons that such declarations without well supported proof or evidence against authenticity are in my opinion premature.
You well point out that the use of expensive material such as ivory, and in this elaborate type of metal work in a 'fake' would be rather specious.
Also, the '84' assay mark is something that would seem unusual on such an item.
The 84 is of course to signify genuine silver in the Russian zolotnick system. This system ceased in 1896 by decree of Czar Nicholas II who installed a different one.
This places your sword, as mounted, has a terminus ad quem of 1896, as per the Russian hallmark, which I doubt would exist on a 'fake', unless of course authentic mounts were used compositely, I think a tenuous proposition.
The styling of this shashka's mounts seems to be primarily Circassian, which was much favored by the Russian Imperial Convoy, as well as Russian nobles and high ranking officers, particularly those who actually served in the Caucusus. I would note that the combining of the 'skan'; the silver (hallmarked) and the niello (as applied to silver) suggest this shashka may have been made in St. Petersburg from c.1870s-1905 in this type case.
The use of heirloom blades was quite common in Russia, and this blade may well have been either captured, or perhaps given to a Russian officer in the Caucusus......possibly even from the Murid Wars of mid 19th c.
The use of ivory is more well known on kindjhal hilts, so perhaps the use of it here corresponds to favoring those popular weapons.
|
Thanks for the reply and welcome! I frequent the SBG forums but see there is clearly a high level of expertise floating around on these forums. I am also out of my element here, I generally collect Napoleonic swords only so this shashka is a bit out of place in my collection, but it was very different and unusual in an auction I was watching.
The markings apparently are a Solingen/Passau running wolf imitation, from this source. On pg 55
http://fond-adygi.ru/dmdocuments/%D0...HibnDKI2MRVvYg
The graphic used I also attached at the bottom along with the general Solingen running wolf graphic we have all seen.
I have been told in the Facebook group I have been communicating with that this is not a Circassian shashka but Georgian. It seems the Georgian's have a reputation for "fakes" currently. As I'm sure you know there is a plethora of fake shashka's on the market. I just don't see someone taking the immense amount of time and the craftsmanship to consider this "fake", it simply may be a family blade refitted even if in the modern era.
I've attached photos of the handle under a blacklight and under a 20x microscope. From everything I've read real ivory should fluoresce white the way it is. I am definitely not 100% about the ivory, it does not look like resin, however, nor have any of the qualities that make up fake ivory. I could be wrong here though, everyone seems inconclusive about it but most say it is not fake ivory even if they don't know what it is.
Attached is part of my display for eye candy
