SHASHKA for Comment and ID

Ren Ren · 20th February 2020, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Also, the hilt is significantly wider than the blade which I consider a clear indication they were matched together in a later marriage...

It is quite possible. Traces of soldering between the blade and the hilt indicate repair.

ariel · 21st February 2020, 01:24 AM

I could not find anything similar in any of Rivkin’s books, in any edition of Astvatsaturyan’s book, or in a book ( album, essentially) of the Russian Ethnographic Museum.
It is possible that the latter does not show the entire exhibition or of the storage.
If so, I would appreciate seeing a picture with the label and/or provenance.
It should be mentioned that quite a lot of examples presented in their album are grossly mislabeled. I remember a discussion on the Russian Forum about it with multiple concerns. The publisher/editor agreed with the reaction but had 2 explanations: publishing team had no time for any review and they had to use museum labels. Pretty flimsy, isn’t it ?

Assay chamber stamps used initials of the inspector, a symbol ( female head or a coat of arms of a city where it was assayed) and the purity of silver. I am unaware of any official stamps with Cyrillic “AC” and no other official information required by law from the imperial assay inspectors. АС cannot be an abbreviation of Assaying Chamber: Russians did not call it as such in English. In Russian it was Probirnaya Palata.

I am certain you are unlikely to argue that the vastly different styles of decoration of the handle, suspension element/chape and throat indicate haphazard assembly.

The “ edge down” mode of suspension is also not Caucasian.

In summary, I see nothing Caucasian in the final product, and the “dog breakfast” of parts ( including conceivably even the blade, with which you hesitantly agree) do not give me any faith in the authenticity of this chimera of a shashka.

ariel · 21st February 2020, 04:12 AM

Kahnjar1:
What is a “bitser” ( allegedly correct identification of a scabbard)?
I am unaware of this word.

kahnjar1 · 21st February 2020, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Kahnjar1:
What is a “bitser” ( allegedly correct identification of a scabbard)?
I am unaware of this word.

Your original comment regarding the scabbard stated that it appeared to be made up of several non matching components and was covered with non original fabric, to which I agree. The slang term "bitser" means literally something made up of non matching parts (a bit of this and a bit of that). Perhaps not used in the USA but commonly used here, to describe anything put together from mixed parts. Also applied to dogs etc. of uncertain mixed breed lineage.
We learn something new each day....

ariel · 21st February 2020, 09:59 PM

Thanks. Will use it next time I go Down Under in a geographical sense of the word, not the funeral one:-)

Ren Ren · 21st February 2020, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

.
In summary, I see nothing Caucasian in the final product, and the “dog breakfast” of parts ( including conceivably even the blade, with which you hesitantly agree) do not give me any faith in the authenticity of this chimera of a shashka.

Chimera - this is when in Brooklyn an Indian blade of the beginning of the 20th century is attached to an Polish hilt of the late 18th century

In this case, we see:
1) the hilt - the Caucasus, the 19th century
2) the blade - the Caucasus, the 19th century
3) the details of the scabbard - the Caucasus, the 19th - beginning of the 20th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I could not find anything similar in any of Rivkin’s books, in any edition of Astvatsaturyan’s book, or in a book ( album, essentially) of the Russian Ethnographic Museum.

The lack of similar items in books is a very weak argument. If I took it into account, I would have to admit the absence of Vietnam and Laos weapons in nature. And since Indochina’s weapons are the subject of my main interest, I know for sure that this is not so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Assay chamber stamps used initials of the inspector, a symbol ( female head or a coat of arms of a city where it was assayed) and the purity of silver. I am unaware of any official stamps with Cyrillic “AC” and no other official information required by law from the imperial assay inspectors. АС cannot be an abbreviation of Assaying Chamber: Russians did not call it as such in English. In Russian it was Probirnaya Palata.

I don’t understand where the assumption came from, that the letters AC can be an abbreviation of the Assay Chamber in English. It can only be a personal mark of the assay inspector. The set of characters you listed has become mandatory in the Russian Empire since the 1880s. Earlier in the Caucasus, much simpler rules applied. Which, moreover, did not apply to the item produced for the local market - silver made by the masters of Dagestan for customers in Dagestan does not have assay marks.

ariel · 22nd February 2020, 05:50 AM

You have mentioned seeing “exactly the same” hilt in the collection of Russian Ethnographic Museum in SPb. I just wanted to see it myself hoping you might have a picture of it. If not, I understand.

“ AC” cannot be an abbreviation of the imperial Assay Chamber, because in Russian the words defining those institutions are different and could not be abbreviated as “AC”, and imperial assaying stamps had officially defined elements.The handle could have been made by a private Russian jeweler, but somewhere outside the Caucasus: there are shashkas made in Russian workshops from as far as S. Petersburg and some places in the Ukraine. I have one like that.
Imperial assaying stamps in the Caucasus date not to 1880s, but to 1804 ( see Astvatsaturyan). She has a list of Caucasian and Russian/Ukrainian assaying stamps( see “Caucasian weapons” 2nd edition, pp. 412-415) with names and initials of the chief assayers of those offices. There is no AC mark among them.

There is no doubt that what was presented here for discussion is a shashka, but the only unquestionably Caucasian details are 2 scabbard elements. The implied mode of wearing it ( edge down) is absolutely not Caucasian. The origin of the blade may be Caucasian, Russian or Turkish, but quite likely not originally belonging to the same hilt.
In short, IMHO it is a composed weapon, a chimera, or a “ bitser” :-) with final assembly of an unknown age ( 21st century not excluded).

I have presented my arguments and am ready to see a refutations of them that are based on material facts. Perhaps, I am wrong, in which case I am ready to change my analysis: learning something new is what this Forum is for.

One can find perfectly legitimate reason to acquire this shashka for his collection and it is not for me to criticize this decision. My point is that I personally do not like it and would not wish to own it.

Overall, we seem to have diametrically opposite opinions. Both of us are entitled to our own ones. We are just not entitled to our own facts.

Ren Ren · 22nd February 2020, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You have mentioned seeing “exactly the same” hilt in the collection of Russian Ethnographic Museum in SPb. I just wanted to see it myself hoping you might have a picture of it. If not, I understand.

You can see an object with a similar hilt in Особая кладовая/ Treasury of the Russian Ethnographic Museum. Access there is limited for ordinary visitors, but is open to specially organized groups - scientists, students, collectors. I hope you understand that it is forbidden to take pictures there.

ariel · 22nd February 2020, 06:29 AM

I understand. Regretfully, I am an "ordinary visitor" and we cannot put images of both hilts side by side to compare their decorations.

I looked at the images of the scabbard cover of the discussion object: the material seems to be a tarpaulin or some other impregnated fabric which is incompatible with old Caucasian origin. Also, it is perfectly intact, without any signs of age-related wear and tear. I have to conclude that it is a modern creation. Would you agree?

kahnjar1 · 22nd February 2020, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I understand. Regretfully, I am an "ordinary visitor" and we cannot put images of both hilts side by side to compare their decorations.

I looked at the images of the scabbard cover of the discussion object: the material seems to be a tarpaulin or some other impregnated fabric which is incompatible with old Caucasian origin. Also, it is perfectly intact, without any signs of age-related wear and tear. I have to conclude that it is a modern creation. Would you agree?

Hi ariel,
As I have already stated the scabbard cover appears/is a replacement so there is no argument there. I have in fact removed the covering which which came away very easily, and reveals bare wood. I will likely leave it like this, as it is better than an incorrect dress. It also showed that the suspension ring, throat and the drag were in fact fitted wrong way up. So the blade would in fact have been suspended edge UP as it should be for Caucasian Shashka.
As stated before, my interest is not the scabbard, which may or may not be original to the blade, but the actual sword itself.
Stu

mariusgmioc · 22nd February 2020, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Chimera - this is when in Brooklyn an Indian blade of the beginning of the 20th century is attached to an Polish hilt of the late 18th century

In this case, we see:
1) the hilt - the Caucasus, the 19th century
2) the blade - the Caucasus, the 19th century
3) the details of the scabbard - the Caucasus, the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. .

The hilt is most likely from the Caucasus.

However, I do not believe the blade is Caucasian. And even if it is, it isn't a shaska blade.

And I don't consider you can make a shashka by simply attaching a shashka hilt to a blade.

On top of all that has been said, the fitting of the blade within the scabbard is definitely not Caucasian. The Caucasian shashkas go into the scabbard to at least two thirds of the hilt length, leaving out only the hook of the hilt.

So, my oppinion is this is not a shashka, but marriage (an unhappy marriage in my oppinion) that was not even made in the Caucasus area.

Of course, everybody is free to believe what they want, but this is what I believe...

Kubur · 22nd February 2020, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

The lack of similar items in books is a very weak argument. If I took it into account, I would have to admit the absence of Vietnam and Laos weapons in nature. And since Indochina’s weapons are the subject of my main interest, I know for sure that this is not so.

I agree 100%

But i found in Elgood a blade very similar, he says "blade form frequently found on Arab swords in Syria and Arabia".

I think your sword was shortened at the ricasso.

This sword is really nice!

21st February 2020, 01:24 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I could not find anything similar in any of Rivkin’s books, in any edition of Astvatsaturyan’s book, or in a book ( album, essentially) of the Russian Ethnographic Museum. It is possible that the latter does not show the entire exhibition or of the storage. If so, I would appreciate seeing a picture with the label and/or provenance. It should be mentioned that quite a lot of examples presented in their album are grossly mislabeled. I remember a discussion on the Russian Forum about it with multiple concerns. The publisher/editor agreed with the reaction but had 2 explanations: publishing team had no time for any review and they had to use museum labels. Pretty flimsy, isn’t it ? Assay chamber stamps used initials of the inspector, a symbol ( female head or a coat of arms of a city where it was assayed) and the purity of silver. I am unaware of any official stamps with Cyrillic “AC” and no other official information required by law from the imperial assay inspectors. АС cannot be an abbreviation of Assaying Chamber: Russians did not call it as such in English. In Russian it was Probirnaya Palata. I am certain you are unlikely to argue that the vastly different styles of decoration of the handle, suspension element/chape and throat indicate haphazard assembly. The “ edge down” mode of suspension is also not Caucasian. In summary, I see nothing Caucasian in the final product, and the “dog breakfast” of parts ( including conceivably even the blade, with which you hesitantly agree) do not give me any faith in the authenticity of this chimera of a shashka. Last edited by ariel; 21st February 2020 at 04:07 AM.

22nd February 2020, 05:50 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	You have mentioned seeing “exactly the same” hilt in the collection of Russian Ethnographic Museum in SPb. I just wanted to see it myself hoping you might have a picture of it. If not, I understand. “ AC” cannot be an abbreviation of the imperial Assay Chamber, because in Russian the words defining those institutions are different and could not be abbreviated as “AC”, and imperial assaying stamps had officially defined elements.The handle could have been made by a private Russian jeweler, but somewhere outside the Caucasus: there are shashkas made in Russian workshops from as far as S. Petersburg and some places in the Ukraine. I have one like that. Imperial assaying stamps in the Caucasus date not to 1880s, but to 1804 ( see Astvatsaturyan). She has a list of Caucasian and Russian/Ukrainian assaying stamps( see “Caucasian weapons” 2nd edition, pp. 412-415) with names and initials of the chief assayers of those offices. There is no AC mark among them. There is no doubt that what was presented here for discussion is a shashka, but the only unquestionably Caucasian details are 2 scabbard elements. The implied mode of wearing it ( edge down) is absolutely not Caucasian. The origin of the blade may be Caucasian, Russian or Turkish, but quite likely not originally belonging to the same hilt. In short, IMHO it is a composed weapon, a chimera, or a “ bitser” :-) with final assembly of an unknown age ( 21st century not excluded). I have presented my arguments and am ready to see a refutations of them that are based on material facts. Perhaps, I am wrong, in which case I am ready to change my analysis: learning something new is what this Forum is for. One can find perfectly legitimate reason to acquire this shashka for his collection and it is not for me to criticize this decision. My point is that I personally do not like it and would not wish to own it. Overall, we seem to have diametrically opposite opinions. Both of us are entitled to our own ones. We are just not entitled to our own facts. Last edited by ariel; 22nd February 2020 at 06:27 AM.

21st February 2020, 04:12 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Kahnjar1: What is a “bitser” ( allegedly correct identification of a scabbard)? I am unaware of this word.

21st February 2020, 09:59 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Thanks. Will use it next time I go Down Under in a geographical sense of the word, not the funeral one:-)

22nd February 2020, 06:29 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I understand. Regretfully, I am an "ordinary visitor" and we cannot put images of both hilts side by side to compare their decorations. I looked at the images of the scabbard cover of the discussion object: the material seems to be a tarpaulin or some other impregnated fabric which is incompatible with old Caucasian origin. Also, it is perfectly intact, without any signs of age-related wear and tear. I have to conclude that it is a modern creation. Would you agree?