Vasily Vereshchagin "Indian poem"

ariel · 4th February 2016, 10:24 PM

David,
Over here we are dealing with historical ethnographic arms. In my opinion it it impossible to study Oriental arms without delving into history, religion, metaphysics, military clashes, etc, etc of that ancient, multicultural and turbulent area. This is the backbone of any serious study of Eastern weapons , with Elgood exemplifying this approach to the highest degree. Not for nothing his ( IMHO) masterpiece is titled "Hindu arms and ritual".

As a matter of fact this is exactly what you yourself mention repeatedly when Indonesian kris is discussed.

I was not trying to denigrate Vereshchagin's at all: in my opinion , he was just another good Orientalist painter.His uniqueness was in the military direction of his artistic efforts ( although Ingres odalisques may be preferred by others :-)))

I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post).

So, what kind of profound conclusions about Central Asian weapons should we reach from that painting ? Perhaps that Vereshchagin's sketch must have missed the detail and he might not have had a real Bukharan shashka in his studio.
Also, the above-quoted Indian article about Vereshchagin mentioned wrong British uniforms.

I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification.

In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example.

And this is the difference between art and science.

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 02:24 AM

Ariel,
Extremely well thought out and presented response to Davids comments!
I must admit that as a somewhat (perhaps a lot) romantic historian, I am inclined to overlook a lot of probably otherwise significant details in many works of art. Very unscientific I know, but I enjoy the sense the work sends me in appreciating the period or events.

If I am considering the detail of the work in a study or investigation then of course my research broadens to seeking corroborating evidence in other sources.

I don't think anyone who is in an art gallery usually has exactly the same perception or opinions on a work, but art is of course subjectively oriented.

If I am watching a movie, especially something of historical content, of course I will note there will be certain flaws in detail......but I will not sacrifice the enjoyment of the film for these. Most critics delight in finding these detail errors and herald their superior knowledge by making loud and pronounced denigration of such things, but 'in my opinion' this is very belittling to themselves. For some reason I always seem to enjoy the most, the movies that critics hate and tear to pieces!!!

Despite all the discussion , I know I really like the illustrations being posted here.......the philosophy uh......interesting.

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post).

I really like the researchers who like to nitpick. With them interesting debate.

I put in the topic image Bukhara shashka. And Ariel is definitely right remembering article Torben Flindt. But the world is not limited to one article, and may surprise you

1) It is not always Bukhara weapons (knifes and shashkas) to the handle rivets 5. Often they have been - 3:
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2634
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=6156
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2029

2) All certainly know that except Bukhara shashka there are Afghan shashka ( 3 rivets to the handle). It is likely that in the picture is just such a an Afghan shashka.

David · 5th February 2016, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification.

In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example.

And this is the difference between art and science.

Ariel, again you are missing my point. Again, these images were brought to our attention for an over all appreciation of this artist's work, i suppose due to their extraordinary attention to detail and accuracy. Please forgive all caps, but i guess i feel i need to drive this point home. NO ONE HAS PRESENTED THESE IMAGES AS EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING. Yet you first response to this thread by going off on a tangent on the incompetency of the Russian navy, something which had nothing to do with the material at hand. I can only interpret this as an attempt to get a rise out of Mahratt. From there you seem to do nothing but question the accuracy of Vereshchagin's work despite Mahratt's consistent pairing of actual photographs and the artists work for comparison of weaponry. Of course their is still no thesis being put forth that requires "proving" here. None of the painting have been presented to that end, only for our appreciation. But instead of appreciating the work, you commentary becomes "And if we are talking about India and Vereshchagin, we should not forget Edwin Lord Weeks, a superb American Orientalist painter who was his equal or better ( pure IMHO)."
Perhaps you should start your own similar thread on Weeks then if you find him to be the superior artist. Then we can all argue that Weeks isn't "historical fact" either. If someone were putting that thesis forth perhaps your continued ranting on this point would have some validity. However, once again, no one has presented ANY painting here as evidence in the court of war history.
These paintings do not need to be exact reproductions of historical fact or events to be valuable to us as weapons collectors or amateur historians. How about we try not arguing for argument sake. It adds nothing valuable to the conversation.

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 01:43 PM

Mahratt offers one of the most reasonable comments noting that writers or persons nitpicking in observations on art present great debate. It offers opportunity for those participating to either change or reinforce opinions and offers perspective for others who have not yet decided.

It is not necessary to add political or personal derisions nor negative notes, one should focus on positive support for their position. This is the strong approach, negative or sarcastic notes otherwise only make the person making them appear weak. We see this too much in political campaigns!

Regarding the accuracy of five rivets or three for example in Bukharen sabres, obviously there are never such hard and fast rules, and in recalling communications with Mr Flindt many years ago, I'm sure he would agree.
The preponderance of five, does not negate the possibility of three.
A fine point, but supports the need for additional research and corroboration with art in question.

ariel · 5th February 2016, 10:06 PM

Jim,
I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 10:28 PM

I have already said that our knowledge is not limited to items that we have. The world is much more diverse than we imagine.

And even if you do not pay attention to Bukhara items with 3 rivets on the handle, and focus on the Afghan shashkas (not true to call them -. Psevdoshashka It is not an imitation of something, but an independent weapon as Bukhara shashkas), it is easy to be convinced, that Afghan shashkas are different pommels hilt from one another. And that Afghan shashkas sometimes wore in his belt (as a shashka to the picture Vereshchagin).

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

Right, thanks for the reminder Ariel, the Afghan 'pseudo shashka' (as Iaroslav terms them) are indeed in a scabbard, I did entirely miss that.
Interesting note on the Bukharen sabres, I have been told a number of times these had nothing to do with the shashka, but that is hardly a talking point, and not worthy of additional debate.
There are so few examples of these Bukharen sabres, as you know, and the only literature on them (as far as I know) is the article by Torben Flindt.

Since Bukhara is essentially in the same region as 'Uzbekistan' and 'Afghanistan' and the Afghan 'shashka' has the cleft and three rivets, it is possible that these cross influenced........as Torben Flindt told me in a letter....."as you have realized Jim, weapons have no geographic borders".
In this we were trying to determine whether a 'shashka' was Uzbek or Afghan, a vaguely defined comparison.

I have to say it is good to be reacquainted with these topics as it has many years since these researches, and good memories. You have far more current experience with these, so thank you for pointing out these salient details.

Again, very little point in debating an artistically depicted hilt, or whether these are termed shashka or not. But it is fun isn't it?

Clearly it would seem so.

ariel · 5th February 2016, 10:39 PM

David,
You are perfectly entitled to enjoying the images.
I am perfectly entitled to use the same topic to address a totally different point: art as historical evidence. One does not negate another.

You seem to find animosity ( or frank Russophobia) in my remarks. Let me assure you: there was none. Taking account of historical backgrounds is part and parcel of any discussion of historical weapons.

I do not intend to initiate a topic dedicated to pictures of Edwin Lord Weeks. I do not think it would add anything to the discussion. I prefer him artistically, but am not interested in using his pictures for any martial analysis. By the same token, no Delacroix and no Gerome.

You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above.

Personally, I do not think this discussion is going anywhere.

With best wishes.

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above.

Do not focus on the Afghan shashka. Afghan shashka was brought, as a possible example.
The main thing else. I have to repeat:

1) It is not always Bukhara weapons (knifes and shashkas) to the handle rivets 5. Often they have been - 3:
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2634
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=6156
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2029

2) Interesting fact - known Bukhara shashka not only with 5 rivet and 3 rivet , but with 4 rivets on the handle.

ariel · 6th February 2016, 02:08 AM

Yes, there were Bukharan " shashkas" with 4 rivets. But they were an exception while the 5 riveted hilt was the "hallmark", as I wrote. Never 3 in a row. Vereshchagin just erred. Not a big deal.

The term " pseudo-shashka" is from Lebedinski. You can argue with him . It is used for convenience. And Bukharan are even less "shashkas", if you want to be precise:-)))

Still, the sword under the sash in the painting has nothing to do with with Afghani "pseudo-shashkas": see my note to Jim.

4th February 2016, 10:24 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	David, Over here we are dealing with historical ethnographic arms. In my opinion it it impossible to study Oriental arms without delving into history, religion, metaphysics, military clashes, etc, etc of that ancient, multicultural and turbulent area. This is the backbone of any serious study of Eastern weapons , with Elgood exemplifying this approach to the highest degree. Not for nothing his ( IMHO) masterpiece is titled "Hindu arms and ritual". As a matter of fact this is exactly what you yourself mention repeatedly when Indonesian kris is discussed. I was not trying to denigrate Vereshchagin's at all: in my opinion , he was just another good Orientalist painter.His uniqueness was in the military direction of his artistic efforts ( although Ingres odalisques may be preferred by others :-))) I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post). So, what kind of profound conclusions about Central Asian weapons should we reach from that painting ? Perhaps that Vereshchagin's sketch must have missed the detail and he might not have had a real Bukharan shashka in his studio. Also, the above-quoted Indian article about Vereshchagin mentioned wrong British uniforms. I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification. In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example. And this is the difference between art and science. Last edited by ariel; 5th February 2016 at 01:04 AM.

5th February 2016, 10:28 PM	#7
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	I have already said that our knowledge is not limited to items that we have. The world is much more diverse than we imagine. And even if you do not pay attention to Bukhara items with 3 rivets on the handle, and focus on the Afghan shashkas (not true to call them -. Psevdoshashka It is not an imitation of something, but an independent weapon as Bukhara shashkas), it is easy to be convinced, that Afghan shashkas are different pommels hilt from one another. And that Afghan shashkas sometimes wore in his belt (as a shashka to the picture Vereshchagin). Attached Images Last edited by mahratt; 5th February 2016 at 11:06 PM.

5th February 2016, 02:24 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Ariel, Extremely well thought out and presented response to Davids comments! I must admit that as a somewhat (perhaps a lot) romantic historian, I am inclined to overlook a lot of probably otherwise significant details in many works of art. Very unscientific I know, but I enjoy the sense the work sends me in appreciating the period or events. If I am considering the detail of the work in a study or investigation then of course my research broadens to seeking corroborating evidence in other sources. I don't think anyone who is in an art gallery usually has exactly the same perception or opinions on a work, but art is of course subjectively oriented. If I am watching a movie, especially something of historical content, of course I will note there will be certain flaws in detail......but I will not sacrifice the enjoyment of the film for these. Most critics delight in finding these detail errors and herald their superior knowledge by making loud and pronounced denigration of such things, but 'in my opinion' this is very belittling to themselves. For some reason I always seem to enjoy the most, the movies that critics hate and tear to pieces!!! Despite all the discussion , I know I really like the illustrations being posted here.......the philosophy uh......interesting.

5th February 2016, 01:43 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Mahratt offers one of the most reasonable comments noting that writers or persons nitpicking in observations on art present great debate. It offers opportunity for those participating to either change or reinforce opinions and offers perspective for others who have not yet decided. It is not necessary to add political or personal derisions nor negative notes, one should focus on positive support for their position. This is the strong approach, negative or sarcastic notes otherwise only make the person making them appear weak. We see this too much in political campaigns! Regarding the accuracy of five rivets or three for example in Bukharen sabres, obviously there are never such hard and fast rules, and in recalling communications with Mr Flindt many years ago, I'm sure he would agree. The preponderance of five, does not negate the possibility of three. A fine point, but supports the need for additional research and corroboration with art in question.

5th February 2016, 10:06 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

5th February 2016, 10:39 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	David, You are perfectly entitled to enjoying the images. I am perfectly entitled to use the same topic to address a totally different point: art as historical evidence. One does not negate another. You seem to find animosity ( or frank Russophobia) in my remarks. Let me assure you: there was none. Taking account of historical backgrounds is part and parcel of any discussion of historical weapons. I do not intend to initiate a topic dedicated to pictures of Edwin Lord Weeks. I do not think it would add anything to the discussion. I prefer him artistically, but am not interested in using his pictures for any martial analysis. By the same token, no Delacroix and no Gerome. You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above. Personally, I do not think this discussion is going anywhere. With best wishes.

6th February 2016, 02:08 AM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yes, there were Bukharan " shashkas" with 4 rivets. But they were an exception while the 5 riveted hilt was the "hallmark", as I wrote. Never 3 in a row. Vereshchagin just erred. Not a big deal. The term " pseudo-shashka" is from Lebedinski. You can argue with him . It is used for convenience. And Bukharan are even less "shashkas", if you want to be precise:-))) Still, the sword under the sash in the painting has nothing to do with with Afghani "pseudo-shashkas": see my note to Jim.