Question marks on a supposedly Russian Yataghan with Shashka grip and “bulat” blade?

mariusgmioc · 23rd November 2020, 10:34 AM

Regarding the sword in the original photo, I see no indication pointing towards Russian origin.

Why "yataghan" and why not "sousun pattah"... and...

... why Russian and not Indian?!

The scabbard looks very Indian to me.
Also the blade looks very Indian as I have seen almost identical sousun pattah blades with the classic tulwar hilt (see Kubur's example).
So I suspect the blade was re-hilted... just to confuse us.

Regarding Anosov's claims that he re-discovered the technology of antique wootz, I find them to be at least partially unfounded.
I believe that while he did some research, he only re-discovered some of the basics of the process of crucible steel production. The rest were false claims as he was seeking fame and glory.
But this is only MY PERSONAL OPPINION, and I would like to be contradicted with substantial evidence.

However, to some degree, pretty much the same applies to Verhoeven and Pendray. While they documented well and beyond any doubt the process of producing wootz, they failed to reproduce the watering patterns of the antique wootz. Much closer came some modern wootz makers like Zaqro Nonikashvili and Ivan Kirpichev. However, none of them have consistent results.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

23rd November 2020, 10:34 AM	#12
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	Regarding the sword in the original photo, I see no indication pointing towards Russian origin. Why "yataghan" and why not "sousun pattah"... and... ... why Russian and not Indian?! The scabbard looks very Indian to me. Also the blade looks very Indian as I have seen almost identical sousun pattah blades with the classic tulwar hilt (see Kubur's example). So I suspect the blade was re-hilted... just to confuse us. Regarding Anosov's claims that he re-discovered the technology of antique wootz, I find them to be at least partially unfounded. I believe that while he did some research, he only re-discovered some of the basics of the process of crucible steel production. The rest were false claims as he was seeking fame and glory. But this is only MY PERSONAL OPPINION, and I would like to be contradicted with substantial evidence. However, to some degree, pretty much the same applies to Verhoeven and Pendray. While they documented well and beyond any doubt the process of producing wootz, they failed to reproduce the watering patterns of the antique wootz. Much closer came some modern wootz makers like Zaqro Nonikashvili and Ivan Kirpichev. However, none of them have consistent results.