Several paintings by Vereshchagin devoted to the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878.

Well said David!!! The art needs to be either appreciated for its aesthetic depictions as intended or analyzed as to the components included in its content, but that is left to the person who is observing it. The opinions expressed should be just that, and held as such.

You bet Estcrh! and of course this detail is quite familiar. After viewing and consulting on the cuera in Arizona I travelled to Santa Fe where I viewed these fantastic paintings. I was with one of the men who was instrumental in bringing these hides back to Santa Fe, and who gave me key understanding of the detail in these paintings. I was also in touch with Peter Bleed, Professor of Anthropology in Nebraska who had been at the sites of this battle there. The scale mantle was a different item found near El Paso if I recall, but was part of the research scope and I believe handled by Donald Larocca of the Met in New York.
It was a fantastic project!

Afghan

Absolutely amazing art!! and beautiful pieces, especially that Bukharen sabre (always recognized by the 5 rivet pattern in the grip among other features).
Thank you again for sharing all of these Mahratt. I wish I had walls so I could have copies of many of these up. The adventure sensation they convey must have been much like what those intrepid travelers must have felt as they trekked through these Central Asian regions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:-)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dear Ariel. We're not talking about the alleged errors Vereshchagin,that you are trying to find. We are talking about specific subjects from Bukhara :)
You first said that the Bukhara items were only 5 rivets, referring to article Torben Flindt. Now, do you agree that it was and 4 rivets.

Let me remind you. I have already shown here in the topic Bukhara weapon with 3 rivets :)

Of course, you can deny the obvious .....

Please pay attention: I am specifically mentioning Bukharan shashkas. Not P'chaks. If you have an example of a shashka with 3 rivets, please show it.

I'll do better. This is a quote (citation) from Torben Flint.

One man once told me: "My friend, read books and articles attentively. Not only see the pictures. "

I think this is a good recommendation.

Flindt describes there general structure of all Bukharan handles. No argument about kards and bichaks.
I am asking specifically about "shashkas" . All his examples and all I have seen or handled have 5 ( rarely 4, if the grip is narrower than usual).
Can you show an example of a "shashka" with 3 rivets?
I am intrigued.

I'm sorry. Where in the quotation from Torben Flindt which I posted,, you see mention of Kard and Pichok? I specifically placed the piece of text that no one had any doubt as to the correctness of citations Torben Flindt in this fragment writes exclusively about Bukhara shashkas. Or I confuse? In the English word "sword" can mean "knife" ??? My English is bad. And I do not know it.....

In post 59 only part of what Torben wrote about the hilts is shown. Here is it all.

Thank you, Jens.
Do I understand correctly that the phrase Torben Flindt "3-5 of rivets on the hilts" refers not only to knifes (Kard and Bichok), but also to Bukhara shashkas?

Torben writes about the swords when he mentions the 3-5 rivets. When it comes to the Bukharan daggers he writes: 'The same materials and manner of fitting them are found on Bukharan daggers of the bytshak and karud types.' So here he doesn't give the number of rivets, but my guess is, that had the number of rivets been different on the daggers he would have mentioned it.

Thank you so much. I am glad that I have correctly understood the article Torben Flindt.

Jens,
This passage in Flindt's article is very confusing, and I read it differently.

According to Flindt, it is the large size of the rivets that is the " Bukharan characteristics"

If so, the upper handle with 3 large rivets ( Afghani pseudo-shashka) must be Bukharan, whereas the two lower ones ( both Bukharan shashkas) with 5 small rivets are not Bukharan at all :-)

My point remains the same: can somebody show an example of a Bukharan "shashka" with 3 rivets? I have yet to see one.

This passage in Flindt's article is not confusing. It just need to read carefully. Torben Flindt says that Bukhara swords (shashkas) on the handle rivets 3-5. This means that the Bukharan shahshkas on the handle can be from 3 to 5 rivets. Yes, in most cases on the hilt of Bukhara 5 rivets (thanks for your example). Sometimes there are 4 rivets (I showed it). And there Bukhara shashkas with 3 rivets on the handle.This writes Torben Flindt and Vereshchagin, who painted them in the 19th century..

I trust Torben Flindt, who studied Bukhara checkers and Vereshchagin, who painted them in the 19th century.

But surely you can have your opinion.

Yes you are right Ariel, Torben mentioned the big rivets, and if he did so, that is what he meant.
I knew Torben very well years ago, and he was very presice when he was writing, so when he wrote 'big rivets' he ment that.
When Torben started to collect Bukhara weapons, he went out there to study the weapons and the art, so I suppose that he would have known about the big rivets, or he would not have mentioned them.
For some reason or other we newer discussed the Bukhara weapons, but only the Indian ones.

And many Bukharian checkers with 5 rivets on the handle really large rivets, as he wrote Torben Flindt.

But, as we have seen, we met and small rivets.

But it does not say that Torben Flindt made a mistake in his article.

Sorry, but this is a circular argument: " Vereshchagin's depiction of a Bukharan shashka with 3 rivets is historically correct because Vereshchagin painted a Bukharan shashka with 3 rivets"


And thank you for bringing yet more examples of Bukharan shashkas, all with 5 rivets.

Any examples of a 3-riveted one in your collection of images?

I am glad to help you. I put the picture with 5 rivets, because:
1) are the most widespread Bukhara shashkas
2) on these drafts rivets - large, such as described by Torben Flindt.

There is no lasting circle. There is an example in the picture Vereshchagin, confirming the words Torben Flindt.
Torben Flindt says that on the handles of Bukhara shashkas from 3 to 5 rivets. Do you think that Torben Flindt made a mistake? I am very interested to hear your opinion on this issue.

Of course, I know that you are very good expert and collector. But in this matter trust more Torben Flindt. I'm sorry for this insolence.

Unfortunately, in my collection of Bukhara Shashkas with 3 rivets not. Like you, for 2 of my Bukhara shashkas 5 rivets on the handle (probably the most common option).
But thank you very much Artzi Yarom for his "bank" (reserve) the image^

http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=3912

Now I hope you are happy? Or will you continue to not believe Torben Flindt?

I do not see anything "confusing" about this particular passage.
The question is not whether anyone has a picture of a Bukharan three rivet shashka/sword, the question is....can a Bukharan shashka have small iron rivets. Was Flindt naming the only chatacteristics or just some of several possible Bukharan styles of riveting. Can the Bukharan shashka/sword be identified by shape/style alone or are large rivets the only indicator that a shashka/sword is Bukharan.

This is just like the one you yourself rejected on the Russian forum because the handle is a replacement.

1) 1) You have put a photo of the Afghan shashka. What for?

2) Artzi Yarom writes nothing about replacing the handle of the shashka. You suspect that it introduces all the confusion?

"This rare shashqa style saber is coming from Central Asia or Afghanistan. Blade 29 1/2 inches, slightly up rising, hollow ground cross section inlaid with gold decoration on both faces and on the spine. Wood grips and brass bolster. Total length 35 inches. Later wood scabbard with leather cover and chased brass grip. Very Good condition. Minor wood chips on the handle and later solder repairs on the bolsters. The attribution to Central Asia and /or Afghanistan is derived from the shape of the handle, very similar to Karud / Pesh Kabz daggers from the same area. A very rare saber".

3) If you did not accept my example, here's another example:

By the way, it seems to me that it is better to put not only one photo where you can see the details only under a microscope. If you just put here more photo, it would be clear that in Bukhara, this shashka is not relevant.

Re: shashka with agate handle.
Flindt specifically states the rivets on wooden and horn handles. Agate doesn't seem to relate here.

Trying to work past the school yard antics here are some facts about the rivets and hilt materials.

My sabre hilt from my gallery has already been presented above, 5 large rivets.

My turquoise pichoq set with sheaths and baldric, 2 small rivets.

The named and dated pair of pichoq shown in my gallery that interlock are two small rivets.

The large Rhino hilt Karud has 3 small rivets.

Another pichoq has five small rivets which is a lot for such a small knife.

One Mahratt now has, I think 4 or 5 small rivets from memory.

I've personally seen turquoise and silver, timber, ivory, both walrus and Elephant, jade or agate, and various horn types too.

It all comes down to the makers I am sure...for timber sabre grip slabs I only recall large rivet types, for other materials smaller iron pins...such large
rivets would look very out of place on a full silver and turquoise hilt...of those I have had, it seems timber had more rivets...it might have something to do with securing the burl like timber...to be sure to be sure, or perhaps an unknown thought process behind that aspect?

Ariel, the three rivet shashka type hilt you have presented with the engraved bolster is in my opinion Afghanistan, Herat to Kabul, influenced from the Central Asian regions further north.

Gavin

Gavin,
Of course the 3-riveted handle belongs to the Afghani pseudoshashka.
I showed it only for the size of the rivets, to compare with 5 small rivets on the Bukharan examples. I thought I made it clear. If not, I am sorry. Hope it is clear now.

Now back to Bukhara shashka. Maybe you do not know that there Bukhara shashkas with a handle made of precious stone. Such shashka have, for example, in the collection of Henry Moser.