New/Modern Uzbek Pchak

mariusgmioc · 11th February 2020, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

I agree, this knife was made to look in Uzbek style. The only blade is not of Uzbek form, and this only feature makes it non-ethnographic.

Marius, would you agree if the blade be of proper pchak form it'd be ethnographic knife?

Here's another blade from the same source but in distinctively Uzbek pchak shape, the rest is identical. Granted, this blade would make a better match with the scabbard, making it a modern ethnographic pchak. With the present knife, its a hybrid of hunting blade in pchak fittings.

Tim, thanks for posting your knife. similar pattern and form indeed.

I also collect modern knives but I do not appreciate modern "ethnic" knives fitted with blades mass produced somewhere else.

But this is how I see things with modern made knives, and should not influence you too much.

After all, even in the past blades were mass produced in one country, then fitted in an ethnic sword in other country. And you can find this almost evrywhere: Indian firangi swords; Turkish shamshirs with Persian blades; Scottish broadswords with "Adria Farara" German blades; native American knives with English Sheffield blades; Moroccan koumyia knives with French blades; etc.

ALEX · 12th February 2020, 07:44 AM

Good point, Marius, Totally agree with you.

Here's another vintage/modern Uzbek knife produced in Shahrihon region.

Kwiatek, please correct me if I am wrong, the inscriptions on the blade and scabbard read 'Shahrihon', right? I think the inscription on the scabbard was also done by not native Arabic speaker.

kwiatek · 21st February 2020, 09:53 PM

Yes it says Shahr-i Khan (Shahrikhon in modern Uzbek). It is spelt correctly on the scabbard and incorrectly on the blade. Again, that kind of mistake might indicate it was made relatively recently. It’s not about the Arabic language per se but about the form of the Arabic alphabet that was used for writing Uzbek and other Turkic languages in Central Asia until the 1920s, when it was replaced with Cyrillic.

ariel · 21st February 2020, 10:13 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Identical words in Uzbek and Tajik sound somewhat different: Master in Uzbek- Usta, in Tajik -Usto. Same with Kard and Kord.

kwiatek · 21st February 2020, 10:22 PM

Yes, correct. That’s a question of pronunciation not spelling though. There is an actual spelling mistake in the way Shahrikhon/Shahrikhan is spelt on the blade - it’s spelt wrong kind of letter h. It’s شهرخان as spelt on the scabbard, not شحرخان as spelt on the blade

ALEX · 23rd February 2020, 03:19 PM

Kwiatek,
Many thanks for your help, as always!

Marius,
Here is photo of the subject set with two knifes produced by the same workshop. One is of general 'hunting/European' form and another is of typical Uzbek pchak design. These knifes were produced in Uzbekistan, including the blades. Of course, they are mass produced, just like they were in the past... the smith forges the blades en mass, another 'Usto' carves handles, another makes scabbards and put all together... So technically, these knifes can qualify as ethnographic, but I am still unsure and must agree that variations of non-traditional damascus patterns and different blade forms set them apart from the traditional 'norm'. According to the master, this is "to show his artistic genius by blending modern and traditional", this is a common cultural trend, and certainly not to deceive or fake the original, and this makes it a 'good art' to me.

Bob A · 23rd February 2020, 04:03 PM

I agree that it' "good art" as well as ethnographic; however, it seems to me that there is still a quantum leap between the culture that created the kards we've seen and collected, and the current culture and its exemplars.

Much of the "draw" of ethnological edged weaponry, for me at least, is in the connection between what was, and is no more, and myself, looking back.

The idea that objects are a nexus which creates a link between disparate individuals over a distance of space and time is, of course, magical thinking. Yet it it exists, and is undeniably a powerful force. I've chafed at the reality that an old pocketknife, for example, can attract the attention of enough individuals that its value to this group is increased a hundredfold because it was once held by Lord Byron, rather than some nameless Greek gentleman.

12th February 2020, 07:44 AM	#2
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Good point, Marius, Totally agree with you. Here's another vintage/modern Uzbek knife produced in Shahrihon region. Kwiatek, please correct me if I am wrong, the inscriptions on the blade and scabbard read 'Shahrihon', right? I think the inscription on the scabbard was also done by not native Arabic speaker. Attached Images

23rd February 2020, 03:19 PM	#6
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Kwiatek, Many thanks for your help, as always! Marius, Here is photo of the subject set with two knifes produced by the same workshop. One is of general 'hunting/European' form and another is of typical Uzbek pchak design. These knifes were produced in Uzbekistan, including the blades. Of course, they are mass produced, just like they were in the past... the smith forges the blades en mass, another 'Usto' carves handles, another makes scabbards and put all together... So technically, these knifes can qualify as ethnographic, but I am still unsure and must agree that variations of non-traditional damascus patterns and different blade forms set them apart from the traditional 'norm'. According to the master, this is "to show his artistic genius by blending modern and traditional", this is a common cultural trend, and certainly not to deceive or fake the original, and this makes it a 'good art' to me. Attached Images

21st February 2020, 09:53 PM	#3
kwiatek Member Join Date: May 2019 Posts: 156	Yes it says Shahr-i Khan (Shahrikhon in modern Uzbek). It is spelt correctly on the scabbard and incorrectly on the blade. Again, that kind of mistake might indicate it was made relatively recently. It’s not about the Arabic language per se but about the form of the Arabic alphabet that was used for writing Uzbek and other Turkic languages in Central Asia until the 1920s, when it was replaced with Cyrillic.

21st February 2020, 10:13 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Please correct me if I am wrong. Identical words in Uzbek and Tajik sound somewhat different: Master in Uzbek- Usta, in Tajik -Usto. Same with Kard and Kord.

21st February 2020, 10:22 PM	#5
kwiatek Member Join Date: May 2019 Posts: 156	Yes, correct. That’s a question of pronunciation not spelling though. There is an actual spelling mistake in the way Shahrikhon/Shahrikhan is spelt on the blade - it’s spelt wrong kind of letter h. It’s شهرخان as spelt on the scabbard, not شحرخان as spelt on the blade

23rd February 2020, 04:03 PM	#7
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 436	I agree that it' "good art" as well as ethnographic; however, it seems to me that there is still a quantum leap between the culture that created the kards we've seen and collected, and the current culture and its exemplars. Much of the "draw" of ethnological edged weaponry, for me at least, is in the connection between what was, and is no more, and myself, looking back. The idea that objects are a nexus which creates a link between disparate individuals over a distance of space and time is, of course, magical thinking. Yet it it exists, and is undeniably a powerful force. I've chafed at the reality that an old pocketknife, for example, can attract the attention of enough individuals that its value to this group is increased a hundredfold because it was once held by Lord Byron, rather than some nameless Greek gentleman.