Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 24th June 2007, 04:42 AM

Dear Janti,
First of all, many thanks for directing me to the Asya Eutykh' s site. This is the first time I heard about her. She is indeed astonishingly good! Her renditions of old weapons are by far the best I've ever seen. We have been treated on this and other sites to the works of contemporary Persian masters; they cannot even be mentioned in the same breath with her! She is an Artist; her reconstruction and reinterpretation of old Circassian art is beyond belief!
I am well aware of the history of North Caucasus and the tragic struggle and exile of the native peoples in the middle of the 19th century.
We are in complete agreement that Circassians were very prominent Mamelukes; although your assertion that they never served the Ottomans strikes me as strange: Ottomans were nominal owners of the entire East Black Sea lands ( Circassia included) up to the Kuban River until at least 1774 ( Kuchuk-Kaynarji agreement). Prior to that Kabarda was a vassal of the Crimean Khanate that in turn was a vassal of the Ottomans. They also served in the Persian military; this led some contemporary Persian nationalists assert that the Russians stole away Circassia from her rightful owner, Iran ( balderdash, of course). I am also surprised at your statement that Georgians and Armenians did not serve foreign powers: even Georgi Saakadze ( The Great Mouravi) served both Turkey and Iran, and Armenians constituted a significant portion of the Persian military together with other Caucasians, Tajiks and Turks ( yes, paradoxically

). Native Persians were always in the minority in their own armies, being mostly bureaucrats and merchants.
We are also in complete agreement that Kindjals and Shashkas were originally native Circassian weapons and were adopted later by the Daghestainis.
All this, however, does not answer my question: why do you view the 2 Kindjals shown on this site as Circassian? Astvatsaturyan in her book stes that true Circassian Kindjal are rare and mostly datedmid-late 19th century. They may be defined as Circassian either by a typical ornament or by a Circassian name of the master. To the best of my understanding, neither is present there.
I still think they are North Turkish; some attribute them to the Balkans. But Circassia?

24th June 2007, 04:42 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Dear Janti, First of all, many thanks for directing me to the Asya Eutykh' s site. This is the first time I heard about her. She is indeed astonishingly good! Her renditions of old weapons are by far the best I've ever seen. We have been treated on this and other sites to the works of contemporary Persian masters; they cannot even be mentioned in the same breath with her! She is an Artist; her reconstruction and reinterpretation of old Circassian art is beyond belief! I am well aware of the history of North Caucasus and the tragic struggle and exile of the native peoples in the middle of the 19th century. We are in complete agreement that Circassians were very prominent Mamelukes; although your assertion that they never served the Ottomans strikes me as strange: Ottomans were nominal owners of the entire East Black Sea lands ( Circassia included) up to the Kuban River until at least 1774 ( Kuchuk-Kaynarji agreement). Prior to that Kabarda was a vassal of the Crimean Khanate that in turn was a vassal of the Ottomans. They also served in the Persian military; this led some contemporary Persian nationalists assert that the Russians stole away Circassia from her rightful owner, Iran ( balderdash, of course). I am also surprised at your statement that Georgians and Armenians did not serve foreign powers: even Georgi Saakadze ( The Great Mouravi) served both Turkey and Iran, and Armenians constituted a significant portion of the Persian military together with other Caucasians, Tajiks and Turks ( yes, paradoxically ). Native Persians were always in the minority in their own armies, being mostly bureaucrats and merchants. We are also in complete agreement that Kindjals and Shashkas were originally native Circassian weapons and were adopted later by the Daghestainis. All this, however, does not answer my question: why do you view the 2 Kindjals shown on this site as Circassian? Astvatsaturyan in her book stes that true Circassian Kindjal are rare and mostly datedmid-late 19th century. They may be defined as Circassian either by a typical ornament or by a Circassian name of the master. To the best of my understanding, neither is present there. I still think they are North Turkish; some attribute them to the Balkans. But Circassia? Last edited by ariel; 24th June 2007 at 04:57 AM.