Unusual Shashka

[JT88]

Good morning everyone, I have an unusual shashka here that I am trying to figure out. I believe the blade is an 1881 model but the fittings are very unusual. I've taken it to another group and many have said fake, but from what I can discern the ivory is authentic marine ivory. There is also aging/patina within the wire on the handle which would be incredibly difficult to do in a modern setting.

The group said the running wolf is in line with late 19th century West Georgian stamps.

The leather is clearly at least semi-new, it has some aging to it, but I'd say no more than 20 years.

I question if this is an older blade with modern fittings to be "faked" why use authentic ivory? It could still be considered a prized piece refitted with a family blade I suppose.

The style is called Skan, shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skan%27
A Georgian/Russian type of jewelry.

The 84 stamps mean the fittings are supposedly silver; however, I have not had the blade long enough to see any of the usual silver patina that comes with age. I do have my doubts about it being silver.

Thanks for the look!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by JT88

Good morning everyone, I have an unusual shashka here that I am trying to figure out. I believe the blade is an 1881 model but the fittings are very unusual. I've taken it to another group and many have said fake, but from what I can discern the ivory is authentic marine ivory. There is also aging/patina within the wire on the handle which would be incredibly difficult to do in a modern setting.

The group said the running wolf is in line with late 19th century West Georgian stamps.

The leather is clearly at least semi-new, it has some aging to it, but I'd say no more than 20 years.

I question if this is an older blade with modern fittings to be "faked" why use authentic ivory? It could still be considered a prized piece refitted with a family blade I suppose.

The style is called Skan, shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skan%27
A Georgian/Russian type of jewelry.

The 84 stamps mean the fittings are supposedly silver; however, I have not had the blade long enough to see any of the usual silver patina that comes with age. I do have my doubts about it being silver.

Thanks for the look!

Welcome to the forum, and thank you so very much for sharing the research and details you have already gained. Quite honestly this information on the SKAN work is most helpful so I've learned something here already.

This is area is by far not my specialty (as if I have one) but it has had my deep interest for many years. To try to gain some footing here I used probably one of the most valuable resources to date, which is by the very respected scholar on this topic, Kirill Rivkin,
" Arms and Armor of the Caucusus" , 2015.

This is an old blade indeed, and while it is suggested that those with the 'Passau wolf' are typically European imports marked as such for Caucasian use it is possible this may have been a Chechen or Daghestani product.
The Solingen blades with wolf similar are early 19th c. and on one of these with wolf are MN marks on either side of the wolf. (Rivkin fi.117)
On this the letters are without serifs and the crosses are absent.
* the Russian M1881 blades have a block ricasso.

These crosses are termed 'bees' and in group of four signify Jerusalem crosses from the Crusades.

Another blade more corresponding to the example you show is by W. Clauberg, Solingen maker of first half 19th c. On it is the Passau wolf with letters MH (as on yours) and the 'bees'.
I would be compelled to think yours is in this category early 19th c.

Too often people jump to the 'fake' term. There are so many mitigating factors and unknowns in weapons that such declarations without well supported proof or evidence against authenticity are in my opinion premature.

You well point out that the use of expensive material such as ivory, and in this elaborate type of metal work in a 'fake' would be rather specious.
Also, the '84' assay mark is something that would seem unusual on such an item.
The 84 is of course to signify genuine silver in the Russian zolotnick system. This system ceased in 1896 by decree of Czar Nicholas II who installed a different one.
This places your sword, as mounted, has a terminus ad quem of 1896, as per the Russian hallmark, which I doubt would exist on a 'fake', unless of course authentic mounts were used compositely, I think a tenuous proposition.

The styling of this shashka's mounts seems to be primarily Circassian, which was much favored by the Russian Imperial Convoy, as well as Russian nobles and high ranking officers, particularly those who actually served in the Caucusus. I would note that the combining of the 'skan'; the silver (hallmarked) and the niello (as applied to silver) suggest this shashka may have been made in St. Petersburg from c.1870s-1905 in this type case.

The use of heirloom blades was quite common in Russia, and this blade may well have been either captured, or perhaps given to a Russian officer in the Caucusus......possibly even from the Murid Wars of mid 19th c.
The use of ivory is more well known on kindjhal hilts, so perhaps the use of it here corresponds to favoring those popular weapons.

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Welcome to the forum, and thank you so very much for sharing the research and details you have already gained. Quite honestly this information on the SKAN work is most helpful so I've learned something here already.

This is area is by far not my specialty (as if I have one) but it has had my deep interest for many years. To try to gain some footing here I used probably one of the most valuable resources to date, which is by the very respected scholar on this topic, Kirill Rivkin,
" Arms and Armor of the Caucusus" , 2015.

This is an old blade indeed, and while it is suggested that those with the 'Passau wolf' are typically European imports marked as such for Caucasian use it is possible this may have been a Chechen or Daghestani product.
The Solingen blades with wolf similar are early 19th c. and on one of these with wolf are MN marks on either side of the wolf. (Rivkin fi.117)
On this the letters are without serifs and the crosses are absent.
* the Russian M1881 blades have a block ricasso.

These crosses are termed 'bees' and in group of four signify Jerusalem crosses from the Crusades.

Another blade more corresponding to the example you show is by W. Clauberg, Solingen maker of first half 19th c. On it is the Passau wolf with letters MH (as on yours) and the 'bees'.
I would be compelled to think yours is in this category early 19th c.

Too often people jump to the 'fake' term. There are so many mitigating factors and unknowns in weapons that such declarations without well supported proof or evidence against authenticity are in my opinion premature.

You well point out that the use of expensive material such as ivory, and in this elaborate type of metal work in a 'fake' would be rather specious.
Also, the '84' assay mark is something that would seem unusual on such an item.
The 84 is of course to signify genuine silver in the Russian zolotnick system. This system ceased in 1896 by decree of Czar Nicholas II who installed a different one.
This places your sword, as mounted, has a terminus ad quem of 1896, as per the Russian hallmark, which I doubt would exist on a 'fake', unless of course authentic mounts were used compositely, I think a tenuous proposition.

The styling of this shashka's mounts seems to be primarily Circassian, which was much favored by the Russian Imperial Convoy, as well as Russian nobles and high ranking officers, particularly those who actually served in the Caucusus. I would note that the combining of the 'skan'; the silver (hallmarked) and the niello (as applied to silver) suggest this shashka may have been made in St. Petersburg from c.1870s-1905 in this type case.

The use of heirloom blades was quite common in Russia, and this blade may well have been either captured, or perhaps given to a Russian officer in the Caucusus......possibly even from the Murid Wars of mid 19th c.
The use of ivory is more well known on kindjhal hilts, so perhaps the use of it here corresponds to favoring those popular weapons.

Thanks for the reply and welcome! I frequent the SBG forums but see there is clearly a high level of expertise floating around on these forums. I am also out of my element here, I generally collect Napoleonic swords only so this shashka is a bit out of place in my collection, but it was very different and unusual in an auction I was watching.

The markings apparently are a Solingen/Passau running wolf imitation, from this source. On pg 55 http://fond-adygi.ru/dmdocuments/%D0...HibnDKI2MRVvYg

The graphic used I also attached at the bottom along with the general Solingen running wolf graphic we have all seen.

I have been told in the Facebook group I have been communicating with that this is not a Circassian shashka but Georgian. It seems the Georgian's have a reputation for "fakes" currently. As I'm sure you know there is a plethora of fake shashka's on the market. I just don't see someone taking the immense amount of time and the craftsmanship to consider this "fake", it simply may be a family blade refitted even if in the modern era.

I've attached photos of the handle under a blacklight and under a 20x microscope. From everything I've read real ivory should fluoresce white the way it is. I am definitely not 100% about the ivory, it does not look like resin, however, nor have any of the qualities that make up fake ivory. I could be wrong here though, everyone seems inconclusive about it but most say it is not fake ivory even if they don't know what it is.

Attached is part of my display for eye candy

[Jim McDougall]

As you say, it would seem that this impression of the 'Passau wolf' is quite specifically done and corresponds to the choppy 'Picasso' like examples of Passau and Solingen over centuries. The plate you show is of course from Wagner, 1967 and is misleading as it suggests a chronological evolution of this mark. These varied widely in execution and did not have such development but were simply interpretations by the workmen who applied them.

While the 'wolf' basically went out of use in Solingen (it had been gone from Passau for centuries) by the 18th century. At some point with the European imports of blades into the Caucusus, they began copying the European marks as symbolic of quality. The wolf was applied on the blades from Chechnya and somewhat Daghestan later, but usually the renderings were more realistic (as seen on the plate from the Russian book) ...........while the examples that lent more toward the choppy stylized form were termed 'ters maymal' . This is VERY loosely interpreted in Chechen as 'screaming monkey'.

As far as I have known, there are few examples of 'Georgian' shashka. These regions with Tiflis (now Tblisi) were more of a 'United Nations' it seems, with heavy trade and traffic from surrounding regions. There were strong commercial activities there which included production of all manner of weapons, many of the craftsmen were Armenians and other nationalities.
This suggestion of 'Georgian' is in my opinion a suggestion that it is made in Tblisi (modern).

The one thing I am troubled by on this item is the hilt material, which I cannot say for certain is ivory (I dont know enough of that material).
I have always thought that ivory tended to yellow, like bone, in time.

Absolutely WONDERFUL sword display!!

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

As you say, it would seem that this impression of the 'Passau wolf' is quite specifically done and corresponds to the choppy 'Picasso' like examples of Passau and Solingen over centuries. The plate you show is of course from Wagner, 1967 and is misleading as it suggests a chronological evolution of this mark. These varied widely in execution and did not have such development but were simply interpretations by the workmen who applied them.

While the 'wolf' basically went out of use in Solingen (it had been gone from Passau for centuries) by the 18th century. At some point with the European imports of blades into the Caucusus, they began copying the European marks as symbolic of quality. The wolf was applied on the blades from Chechnya and somewhat Daghestan later, but usually the renderings were more realistic (as seen on the plate from the Russian book) ...........while the examples that lent more toward the choppy stylized form were termed 'ters maymal' . This is VERY loosely interpreted in Chechen as 'screaming monkey'.

As far as I have known, there are few examples of 'Georgian' shashka. These regions with Tiflis (now Tblisi) were more of a 'United Nations' it seems, with heavy trade and traffic from surrounding regions. There were strong commercial activities there which included production of all manner of weapons, many of the craftsmen were Armenians and other nationalities.
This suggestion of 'Georgian' is in my opinion a suggestion that it is made in Tblisi (modern).

The one thing I am troubled by on this item is the hilt material, which I cannot say for certain is ivory (I dont know enough of that material).
I have always thought that ivory tended to yellow, like bone, in time.

Absolutely WONDERFUL sword display!!

Great info about Passau/Solingen, I knew it was always a loose interpretation.

The Wolf mark is exactly the same as what is published in that Russian book, which lends it to being 19th century. The leader of the FB group thinks the blade resembles the 1881 model, but I am not sure of that myself.

The material has thoroughly confused me, a buddy of mine who's looked at it thinks it is likely either marine Ivory (possibly walrus) or mammoth, as mammoth at one point was in great supply. Ivory is new to me, I've been trying to figure it out obviously but hopefully, someone with some real experience with ivory can elucidate what better to look for.

Thank you! It has steadily grown over the past couple of years, currently, I have two on the list in my sights, an Ames 1852 Civil War era US Naval Officers sword, and most of all (has been on my list for quite some time) a French First Empire Mamelouk sabre. Just recently missed a chance to grab a stellar example because I was too slow, ugh!

[Jim McDougall]

As always, the best thing about being confronted with a conundrum like this, is is exciting to research to learn about areas one is not familiar with. The 'ivory' material used here, from my cursory research, I think is very likely to be narwhal, which seems to have the bright white color and different from elephant, mammoth or other tusk material.

With regard to this blade, while it does have the feel of one of the Russian regulation sabers such as the M1881, as I mentioned, I see no evidence of the block ricasso which is consistent on these patterns.
It seems that there was a predominance of European blade imports into the Caucusus, up to the 1850s. While the Chechens were actively producing blades, after the 1850s the Daghestanis began producing their own if I have understood correctly.

The markings on the imported European blades became prevalently copied on the blades produced in the Caucusus; with blades out of Styria using the well known dentated arcs known as 'sickle' marks (in thier parlance the Chechens called these 'gurda' =good blade).
The running wolf, which came from Solingen blades, was copied, but in more realistic form, though the stick figure choppy ones seem to have been copied as well....these termed 'ters maymal' =screaming monkey (?).

In the attached illustrations it does seem the two letters on either side of the running wolf do appear on examples of Solingen blades FROM Solingen (one by W. Clauberg) but I would point out that almost invariably, the running wolf is upside down within surrounding letters or words on German blades.

Note on your blade, the letters AND wolf are upright. This tells us that this is NOT a European blade, and I would suspect a Daghestani product which in which the wolf and letters are duplicated.
Those crosses in the inscription I noted were called 'bees'. These are copies of strange number system used in Styria termed 'antler numbers' with dots and connecting lines, so these are likely copied from Styrian blades.

So rather than a heirloom blade, I would suggest this is possibly a Dahestan made blade in the manner of the Russian regulation form, but made without ricasso as in Caucasian manner. The markings added for 'quality' impression.

The styling of the mounts are as noted 'Circassian' using the Russian skan method of metal work. It is likely these mounts are indeed vintage and silver (84) and used in remounting the shashka in composite.
While this MAY have been done in Georgia as Russian military was indeed present there, I still believe this is likely something fashioned using older components and for a ranking Russian officer.

This is in my opinion FAR from being a commercial fake, and probably a dress shashka for a Russian officer, who was quite likely with notable service in Georgia or Caucasian regions. With the leather of scabbard relatively new its hard to say whether the assembly was done early and scabbard redone or other.

Naturally I am far from having expertise in this field, but from the past several days of research these are opinions I have formed.