Shashka mostlikely Bukharan

ariel · 30th July 2011, 03:54 PM

Sorry for not jumping into fray earlier, but most of what I wanted to say was already said by other people.

I think the "shashka" in question resembles very much the Afghani examples, and not the Uzbeki ( Bukharan) ones. The configuration of the blade is different ( Uzbeki had what I, for wont of a better word, would call triangular, with wide base and gentle narrowing toward the tip), the rivets are not the Bukharan classic 2x1x2 pattern, the incisions on the bolster are very Afghani, kind of "torn stars", the terminal fitting on the scabbard is very long, again Afghani ( see the one I recently posted).

It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. I suspect, it is a duck. An Afghani duck:-)

That said, it is a very, very nice Afghani " pseudo-shashka" ( as per Lebedinsky), but perhaps not a primarily fighting example. Afghanis are kind of simple people, not given to artistic embellishments, and prefering their fighting weapons to be crudely and brutally functional. They fought non-stop for centuries and continued to fight long after everybody else enjoyed their yoghurt and melons. The two Afghani shashkas I have are wearing very long and massive blades, and the same is true of Gav's example. This one is more parade, ceremonial, court ( choose your definition), light, shortish etc.

So, my overall impression is that of a rich man's, ceremonial Afghani pseudo-shashka.

ariel · 30th July 2011, 04:47 PM

Sorry, but I just have noticed something. The photo of your handle, seen from above, with the tang etc.
Is it my impression, that the tang stops short of the "ears', so that there is an empty space between the end of the tang and the point where the cheeks touch each other and before they separate into ears?

If so, I would join Alex's suggestion that a re-hilting took place.

AJ1356 · 30th July 2011, 05:42 PM

Thanks Ariel, the tang does not go all the towards the end of the hilt, it goes about 80% up the hilt. The blade seems to have seen action, there are more than a handfull small nicks on the blade suggesting contact from another blade. After reading some of your posts I was thinking this would be the second evolution of Afghan shashkas. If in fact it was re-hilted then it makes it more interesting, to see what it might have been... one day I'd love to figure out what that symbol is.

ariel · 30th July 2011, 06:08 PM

Nicks on the blade do not unequivocally certify it as a battle weapon. Practice fencing, horseplay or just plain vandalism of the owner and his kids are likely to be equally responsible :-) Also, edge-to-edge contact was not frequent in oriental combat: they used shields for defence or just body movements.

The re-hilting made the sword virtually unsuitable for battle. I guess the original one was just like the usual pseudo-shashka, with long pommel, like in Gav's examples.

The material of the original one is anybody's guess.

AJ1356 · 30th July 2011, 06:27 PM

Good info, I have loearned lots about shashkas. Last month I had not even heard of them. I felt it might have been rehilted from the begining, but i thought it just might be how the shashkas are made. Either way I like the blade, it is well made, and balalnced.

Martin Lubojacky · 15th August 2011, 11:27 PM

My latest acquisition

Martin Lubojacky · 15th August 2011, 11:34 PM

Sorry for the mistake - let me continue: So if I understand it well, this should be common (without stones) Uzbeki sabre/shaska. Which type of wootz ?
Regards,
Martin

30th July 2011, 05:42 PM	#3
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 317	Thanks Ariel, the tang does not go all the towards the end of the hilt, it goes about 80% up the hilt. The blade seems to have seen action, there are more than a handfull small nicks on the blade suggesting contact from another blade. After reading some of your posts I was thinking this would be the second evolution of Afghan shashkas. If in fact it was re-hilted then it makes it more interesting, to see what it might have been... one day I'd love to figure out what that symbol is. Attached Images Last edited by AJ1356; 30th July 2011 at 05:52 PM.

15th August 2011, 11:34 PM	#7
Martin Lubojacky Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 843	Sorry for the mistake - let me continue: So if I understand it well, this should be common (without stones) Uzbeki sabre/shaska. Which type of wootz ? Regards, Martin Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30th July 2011, 03:54 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Sorry for not jumping into fray earlier, but most of what I wanted to say was already said by other people. I think the "shashka" in question resembles very much the Afghani examples, and not the Uzbeki ( Bukharan) ones. The configuration of the blade is different ( Uzbeki had what I, for wont of a better word, would call triangular, with wide base and gentle narrowing toward the tip), the rivets are not the Bukharan classic 2x1x2 pattern, the incisions on the bolster are very Afghani, kind of "torn stars", the terminal fitting on the scabbard is very long, again Afghani ( see the one I recently posted). It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. I suspect, it is a duck. An Afghani duck:-) That said, it is a very, very nice Afghani " pseudo-shashka" ( as per Lebedinsky), but perhaps not a primarily fighting example. Afghanis are kind of simple people, not given to artistic embellishments, and prefering their fighting weapons to be crudely and brutally functional. They fought non-stop for centuries and continued to fight long after everybody else enjoyed their yoghurt and melons. The two Afghani shashkas I have are wearing very long and massive blades, and the same is true of Gav's example. This one is more parade, ceremonial, court ( choose your definition), light, shortish etc. So, my overall impression is that of a rich man's, ceremonial Afghani pseudo-shashka.

30th July 2011, 04:47 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Sorry, but I just have noticed something. The photo of your handle, seen from above, with the tang etc. Is it my impression, that the tang stops short of the "ears', so that there is an empty space between the end of the tang and the point where the cheeks touch each other and before they separate into ears? If so, I would join Alex's suggestion that a re-hilting took place.

30th July 2011, 06:08 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Nicks on the blade do not unequivocally certify it as a battle weapon. Practice fencing, horseplay or just plain vandalism of the owner and his kids are likely to be equally responsible :-) Also, edge-to-edge contact was not frequent in oriental combat: they used shields for defence or just body movements. The re-hilting made the sword virtually unsuitable for battle. I guess the original one was just like the usual pseudo-shashka, with long pommel, like in Gav's examples. The material of the original one is anybody's guess.

30th July 2011, 06:27 PM	#5
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 317	Good info, I have loearned lots about shashkas. Last month I had not even heard of them. I felt it might have been rehilted from the begining, but i thought it just might be how the shashkas are made. Either way I like the blade, it is well made, and balalnced.

15th August 2011, 11:27 PM	#6
Martin Lubojacky Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 843	My latest acquisition