Compared to the one I shared, yours is a piece of art :D

That's also what I think, but these cheap and bad examples are so small in numbers when compared to the majority... This seems interesting to me, for they "should" have been produced more than the rest (or am I wrong? I have seen many European blades, "gurda" marked ones or pieces with wonderful fullers. But these cheap and easy ones are harder to find :shrug:

Ok, I am still trying to figure this out, what identifies these as Caucasian and not Afghan??

Estrch, I believe that Ariel's comments reflect what he laid out earlier in this thread and were summarized in the table in post #71. Ian

Thanks Ian, I forgot about the bolster.

Allow me slight correction. Instead of Russia, should be - Russian Federation. Word Russia invites geographical and cultural error. Part of Caucasus presently governed within Russian Federation, culturally belong to Caucasian cultural oikumene (ekumene). Particulary Circassian, Vainakh, Avar, Kumik cultural worlds among others. When discussing ethnographic arms of Caucasus it is imperative to make this kind of distinction. In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.

Allow me to point out that though there are plenty of incorrectly attributed Circassian shashkas online, there are distinct type of Georgian shashka (noteworthy it was not called shashka in Georgian ) and other Georgian types of swords, which shared fundamental features of guardless sabers.

Circassian shashka in my opinion is brilliant weapon, a crowning specimen of special type of swords that emerged and underwent development in Caucasus region. There is a definite genealogical line of these kind of weapons. Shahska does not stand totally apart.

Vakhtang,
Glad to finally see you here.
This forum definitely needs people of your expertise.

As well as Ottomans, all Turks, Central Asia, India, Japan, China, Caucasians - all of them borrowed local and outside traditions. Russians.... :)

Let me and myself get involved in the topic.The word shashka is derived from Kabardino Circassian sa`sh ho which means a long knife.For homeland is considered the Caucasus region.The most extensive studies on the subject conducted by Russian researchers.Most earliest reference to such use blades are excavations of graves from the 13th century in the Caucasus region.It is also interesting to note that such a form of long edged weapon are used at all the neighboring regions of the Caucasus (Including Georgia).During the Caucasian wars,the cossacks have find exclusive advantage of light and convenient blade used by local peoples.Begins phasing using the shashka and kinjals in Cossack troops.The command of the Russian Imperial Army began to deploy this type of weapon in the Cossack regiments.Eventually, thanks to the Russians this weapon becomes extremely popular in the world.

All true.

Caucasian weapons ( Shashka and kindjal) were initially individually acquired by neighboring Cossacks and later by Russian officers serving in the Caucasus, most actively during the Murid Wars.

Then both started to be manufactured in St. Petersburg and various other cities in Russia and Ukraine, using classical Caucasian forms and decorations.

Then they were modified to become regulation weapons of the Russian imperial army, having very little in common with the Caucasian originals but preserving their original names.

A similar story happened with Caucasian clothes: from occasional individual acquisition to mass fashion statement : even Russian Tsars had their official portraits painted wearing full Caucasian garb, from hats to weapons in minute detail.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.

Certainly, people all over the world adopted some details of their neighbours’
weaponry ( “ weapons do not know borders” principle), but such a massive transformation has no precedent in the “vanquished-to-victors” direction.

It is as if British high society, royalty included, would have started wearing Indian saris and Zulu loinclothes and the British military officially adopted khandas and katars.

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.

[QUOTE=ariel]All true.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.[QUOTE]

Mughals in India, turks in Iran&Transoxiana, turks in India sultanates in 12-15th

Everything is easier. Russia was not colonial empire and did not destroy local cultures - all of them still live. But I agree, russian = eclectic . When you are criticizing Russian you are criticizing 190 different nations. Please, don't do it with so many people :-)

I am talking about a dominant culture and governmental lmperial policies. No offense to any particular people was meant.
If you have a better alternative explanation I would love to hear it and may even agree.

[QUOTE=Mercenary]I fail to see any analogy: could you elaborate please?

Mameluke swords in Europe in 19th. Didn't Europeans have their own weapons? The same Russians in Caucasus. Russian army was equiped with modern weapons as any other European army. What is "absense of their own tradition" in 19th (!!!) for army of European style? Where were British, French or Austrian own "native" weapons in 19th?
In the case of shashka or any others Caucasian things that was just a fashion the same as some British adopted tulwars. In the case of French and British it was "a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions" too? I am not sure. For a more developed states to borrow some of the native curious items is normal.

[QUOTE=ariel]Mughal - tulwar, jamdhar, khapwa, elephant, dress, lifestyle of rajas and sultans.
Turks-afghans in India in 12-15th - jamdhar, elephant, dress, lifestyle of rajas.
Turks in Iran - language (!), town lifestyle, ALL PERSIAN CULTURE.

In origin shashka was the Caucasian weapon. But who glorified it? That is way all we know "Russian shashka".

I am choosing not to participate in a discussion that will be viewed by some as personal confrontation.

There are many other people on this Forum with enough knowledge to address factual errors and inconsistencies.

I elect to pass on this occasion.

Best wishes.

There was not any confrontation. But in any way thank you very much for discussion.

Many answers to your arguments can be found in the recent Elgood's book about Jodhpur weapons.
I got it almost 2 weeks ago, and am reading it slowly and attentively. It is a monumental contribution with exhaustive analysis of historical sources and impeccable argumentation. Good half of the first volume consists of academic chapters of the highest caliber and the analysis of individual objects is largely unexpected . I learned a lot. Get it and read slowly and carefully. This is not your standard regurgitation of Egerton, Stone or Rawson. Every page opens new and original vistas. One needs to digest virtually every sentence. You too will learn more about Indian history and militaria than you could even imagine.

Enjoy!

Many thanks. I'll do.

I rather agree with much of this. Although I lack literature at the moment (in storage) I am under the impression that the final destruction of the Circassians by the mid 19th C. saw the beginnings of the widespread appropriation many aspects of of the Circassian and wider Transcaucasian material culture by the Russian military and upper classes. Would love to see more discussion of this, maybe even as a new thread, although I lack the knowledge or references to start such a thread at the moment. (Apologies if such a thread already exists here). I would add that the appropriation of Caucasian stylistic elements does rather echo the 'orientalist' obsessions in their various waves in Western Europe, see for example the fashion for 'Zouave' uniforms in the mid 19th C.

Jon makes a good point about taking the present sociocultural discussion to a new thread. Please note the title of this thread and the original purpose for starting it. Discussion has strayed way off topic recently.

Ian

I agree. Adoption and migration of weapons is a very interesting topic.

. One can discuss India ( Mughal vs. Rajputs vs. South vs. Iran etc), Turkey, Arabs, SE Asia, nomads, Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe and ad infinitum.

Kirill Rivkin's book on the evolution of sabers is invaluable in this regard.

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

The blade looks almost European industrially-produced one with its very wide fuller. Also, there is a very " Afghani" outgrowth on the very top of its handle. North- East Afghanistan is a Tajik/Uzbek territory and a mix of styles would be expected.
But overall, a very interesting example that I would love to have on my wall. Congratulations!

Five rivets is a classic, as we have learned from a chapter on Bukharan weapons in the Elgood's monograph, but I have a nagging uncertainty: this chapter is talking about 5 large rivets, and those would be safer in a not very brittle materiel of the handle. Wood ( the most popular materiel for the " bukharan" ones) would be eminently suitable for 5 large rivets, but rather infrequent brittle stone, walrus or ivory ones might be problematic and 3 rivets only might be safer. Even then, we see multiple examples of Caucasian kindjals with walrus or bone handles and a centrally-located rivet that have a transverse crack in the middle: organic materiels tends to dry and shrink. This has nothing to do with your example: just passing musings.

Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

Actually the monograph on Bukharen weapons was by Torben Flindt and appeared in Robert Elgood's 1979 "Islamic Arms and Armour" compendium.
In discussions I recall from some years ago with Mr. Flindt he noted the difficulties in classifying examples of these Bukharen sabres as distinctly Uzbek (Bukharen) or Afghan. I had found an example which had the fluted silver scabbard mount extending from tip to approx. center characteristically Afghan (often on paluoar scabbards).

I would point out here that in my findings it was generally held that these Uzbek/Afghan sabres are not generally considered part of the variety of Caucasian or later Cossack sabres termed 'shashka' (in Russian). While obviously the influence certainly is probable given the exposure to these swords and the diffusion of certain elements such as the cleft pommel etc.. they are not effectively considered shashkas. I well ran up against this with my acquisition, which was described as 'Uzbek shashka'. ...hence the discussions that ensued about correct term.

In any case, the are wonderfully attractive and intriguing swords, with colorful history and extremely hard to find. ….this is an amazing example!

Dear Jim. You're absolutely right. "Shashka" is a particularly Russian sword and term., using it for non-Russian swords of similar construction could not be entirely correct. I agree, this example is better described as "Central Asian sword". Thank you for pointing that out and the reference.
As you know, the weapons were outlawed in Uzbekistan by Soviets and many were destroyed or stripped of fittings and hidden. I believe this is one of survived examples that was later discovered somewhere in the basement under the floor. An interesting find indeed. Thanks again!

Thanks very much Alex, and interesting notes on the hiding away of many of these weapons in the later times as Soviet rule took over in these regions. This in my thinking, adds so much to the intrigue of these swords, much in the same way as so many Scottish basket hilts were hidden away in the 18th c.
In those instances it seems that dirks were often permitted as they retained clear utility uses, and I wonder if such was the same in these Central Asian cases.

Getting back to the sword itself, I agree that this deeply curved blade with pronounced yelman seems early, and I would be comfortable in suggesting latter 18th c. The yelman was of course typical in Central Asia from much earlier Turkic sabres, and its purpose was in adding impetus to slashing cuts. The clipped tip character of the sharp point seems in accord with European cavalry sabres of the late 18thc. but of course the reinforced point reflects that well known on Indian daggers much earlier.

As Ariel has pointed out, the capstan appearing element on the pommel is a very 'Afghan' associated item, and of course India in these times extended well into what is now Afghanistan. As Mr. Flindt mentioned in our talks, weapons have no geographic boundaries, an axiom I have never forgotten.

ALEX, this is a typical item for Bukhara. There is no Afghan influence in it. Karud and Peshkabz , the mounting of the handles of whichs is similar to the mounting of the handle of an item of this type, were widespreadboth in Afghanistan and in Central Asia.
The blade has nothing to do with Europe. Such blades were made in Bukhara. Known blades of almost identical form with yours, on the same Uzbek objects, forged from Damascus.
Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.) And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is :) At least because the Caucasus at that time was already part of the Russian Empire and the shashkas were in service with Russian officers.
The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas".

But of course, the right of everyone to believe the schemes, which some participants drew here, considering themselves to be great experts in the field of "shashkas" :)

Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented.

While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s.
My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion.
As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '. :) As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'.
These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages.


Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.

This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia.
Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada".

"Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.)

These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps.

"The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas"."



Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates.

As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter.

"And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is ."

For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-))

I see some lack of logic in this phrase. None of the listed items (Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec) has ever been called a "shashka" by anyone. However, the Bukhara (Central Asian) shashkas are called the term "shashka" from the 1870s. Your personal understanding of how to call these subjects, based on the works of Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt, is solely your personal opinion.

Please tell us how long the Bukharian shashkas appeared before the "Russian invasion"? Maybe you have accurate information? :) And why then do you not insist on calling the Bukhara checkers the “ethnic name” that they were called in Central Asia? Why do you need to use the English word "sword"? (In this case, the names of Indian weapons, distorted by the British, for some reason do not bother you :))
(And, by the way, why in this topic tell about the "Circassians", expelled from their land? Have you forgotten that at that time it was a common practice of fighting warlike nations? Likewise, Indians of North America were expelled from their land by settlers from Europe, who called themselves Americans. Moreover, settlers from Europe systematically destroyed the Indians and drove them to the reservation).
Russian researchers called the Bukhara shashkas the term "shashka" precisely because of the similarity with similar weapons in the Caucasus. Here you are absolutely right. And I don’t quite understand why you so ardently defend Lebedinsky’s term “pseudoshashka”, which he used at the end of the 20th century, when 100 years before him Bukhara shashkas were called “shashkas” without any “pseudo” :)

The fact that there is one article about the weapons of Central Asia of the respected Torben Flindt, which is based on the Danish collections, does not mean that everything that is written in this article is absolutely true ("verum in ultima instantia"). It only says that there are no more serious works on this topic.
I would really ask you to refrain from insulting attacks on Russian researchers. Although, as they say? "Attack is the best form of defence" ;)

You are amazingly insightful regarding Google Translit :) Thank you for explaining to the forum participants the moment, where I did not correct the error, the automatic translation of Google Translit.

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

Teodor,
Thank you for the reference! I do not have access to my books right now and the reference is very helpful.

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

Dmitry, thanks again!
Based on this, do you think this blade could be Damascus, wootz or mechanical? I know this is a difficult guess. The blade is heavily patinated and I did not sense wootz based on how it feels. Cleaning it would require some serious sandpapering:) I am debating on polishing or leaving it as is. What do you think?

I am very happy if I could help you with this question! Unfortunately, there is no evidence that shashkas in Central Asia appeared in the 17th century. I personally know the references in historical documents about the Bukhara shashkas only from the beginning of the 19th century ... Although, I suppose that they are known from the end of the 18th century.

If someone knows about the earlier mention of these weapons in Central Asia, it would be very interesting.

And more photos of the similar Bukhara shashka

Although Bukhara shashkas are known with wootz blades, but shashkas with blades of exactly the same shape, like your shashka, I only know from Damascus mechanical.....

Of the four Bukhara shashkas of this form, which are known to me (not counting your shashka), 2 are made of Damascus mechanical.