An unusual Shaska

[harrywagner]

This just arrived. I've had time to measure and photograph it, but not much else. LOA: 40.25", LOB: 35". It is my first Shaska. It is one of the edged weapons on my "must have" list. I took a risk buying it. I don’t know much about these. I do know that you don’t often see them with cross-guards. Or at least I don’t. The hilt is bifurcated and I believe horn, but could also be wood. The blade is stamped on the spine with what looks like a makers mark. It appears to be a “V” and a dot. I keep thinking I see a pattern in the steel, but am not certain. No scabbard. The seller thought it was 19c Ottoman. I'm hoping someone here can help determine it's origin.

All comments welcome and appreciated. TIA!

Harry

[TVV]

I believe the seller was correct. The guard was taken from a late 19th century Ottoman military pattern, and the crescent on the pommel is certainly consistent with an Ottoman use as well. There seems to have been a lot of variation and leeway in 19th century military patterns in the Empire and it is a topic I am not familiar with at all. There is a book on Ottoman military sword patterns by Branko Bogdanovic, but it is in Russian and not easily available from major online book retailers.

Teodor

[Jim McDougall]

Wow! Harry, good call!!
While of course this is not a 'shashka' per se', It certainly is an anomaly which is likely in the spectrum of variants as Ottoman forces were being 'westernized' as well as the possibility of this being aligned with the Caucasian and Balkan forces of the Ottomans.

The clefted pommel with the characteristic shashka profile as well as the blade, which seems compellingly like East European (often Hungarian) forms which also were often seen on shashkas, suggest possible association in Janissary units (?) or those using Caucasian forces.

As Teodor well notes, the guard, though incongruent, looks like an Ottoman military type.

There have been numbers of these unusual hybrids coming from Ottoman ranks, and one other type I think of is the sabre which for all intents and purposes like a kilij or pala with a stirrup type knuckleguard, and these were 19th century as well.

Excellent example !!!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Wow! Harry, good call!!
While of course this is not a 'shashka' per se', It certainly is an anomaly which is likely in the spectrum of variants as Ottoman forces were being 'westernized' as well as the possibility of this being aligned with the Caucasian and Balkan forces of the Ottomans.

Jim, I see no reason why this would (not) be a shashka, the Circassians used shashka and were heavily involved with the Ottoman forces and later the New Turkish governmant forces following their exile from Russia, they are mentioned quite frequently along with a few other ethnic groups including the Zeybek as irregular forces used in military campaigns during the 1800s and into the 1900s. This sword could have been an attempt to display alignment/allegiance with the Ottoman/Turkish forces by a Circassian.

On the other hand....it could have also been a war trophy captured during one of the militry conflicts between the Ottomans/Turkish forces and the Russians that was later Ottomanized a bit by its new Ottoman/Turkish owner with the addition of a guard and cresent.

There are some examples of Ottoman mounted shashkas that I have seen, it would have been helpful if Harrys new sword had come with a scabbard as well.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, I see no reason why this would be a shashka, the Circassians used shashka and were heavily involved with the Ottoman forces and later the New Turkish governmant forces following their exile from Russia, they are mentioned quite frequently along with a few other ethnic groups including the Zeybek as irregular forces used in military campaigns during the 1800s and into the 1900s. This sword could have been an attempt to display alignment/allegiance with the Ottoman/Turkish forces by a Circassian.

On the other hand....it could have also been a war trophy captured during one of the militry conflicts between the Ottomans/Turkish forces and the Russians that was latter Ottomanized a bit by its new Ottoman/Turkish owner with the addition of a guard and cresent.

There are some examples of Ottoman mounted shashkas that I have seen, it would have been helpful if Harrys new sword had come with a scabbard as well.

Estcrh, thanks for the great insight and for the agreement with my observation about the Caucasians (Circassians) in Ottoman service.
As I had noted, "it is not a shashka per se'" thus NOT actually a shashka but a weapon composite using the general form plus crossguard.
Agree, a scabbard always is helpful when evaluating these kinds of composite items...but this one still very intriguing.

[ariel]

There is a long ( and often pretty vicious) argument about the origins of shashka. The blade is relatively simple: early Circassian blades were mostly European, very light, but later Daghestani ones could be quite heavy.
But the origin of the eared guard-less handle is still a mystery.
My guess is that it stems from the Turkish yataghan ( pure IMHO)

If so, re-fitting Caucasian shashka with an Ottoman crossguard might not have been such an unnatural idea for the owner and exiled Circassians ( muhadjirs) seem to be a natural group for the mix of an old and the new traditions.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

There is a long ( and often pretty vicious) argument about the origins of shashka. The blade is relatively simple: early Circassian blades were mostly European, very light, but later Daghestani ones could be quite heavy.
But the origin of the eared guard-less handle is still a mystery.
My guess is that it stems from the Turkish yataghan ( pure IMHO)

If so, re-fitting Caucasian shashka with an Ottoman crossguard might not have been such an unnatural idea for the owner and exiled Circassians ( muhadjirs) seem to be a natural group for the mix of an old and the new traditions.

Thank you Ariel, that is most interesting perspective regarding the application of the crossguard on this example, and might explain this 'hybrid' case.
The idea of cleft pommel swords with heavy yataghan type blades were known as well in European units of the late 18th into 19th c which were attuned to the 'pandour' unit concept.
That of course simply notes the instance as an analogy concerning cleft pommel swords, which are indeed not always shashkas.

As you well note here, while unusual, this example could be a melding of old and new traditions and this may have been a shashka after all.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Estcrh, thanks for the great insight and for the agreement with my observation about the Caucasians (Circassians) in Ottoman service.
As I had noted, "it is not a shashka per se'" thus NOT actually a shashka but a weapon composite using the general form plus crossguard.
Agree, a scabbard always is helpful when evaluating these kinds of composite items...but this one still very intriguing.

Jim, my mistake in not checking what I wrote before posting, it should have read "I see no reason why this would NOT be a shashka". This sword comes at a good time as I have been searching for shashka with Ottoman scabbards and Harry comes up with an Ottoman fitted shashka sword. While thousands of Circassians ended up in the Ottoman empire and kept using shashka,I have not found many examples of shashka scabbards with an Ottoman influence and Harrys shashka is the first sword I have seen with an Ottoman influence.

Here is an example of a shashka with Ottoman type mounts.

[arsendaday]

Harry, I was bidding on this one myself, but it got too expensive for me. I was really curious about this one as well and its good that a member of this forum got it so we can discuss it here. For all it's similarities to a Caucasian shashka it was never one. I am basing my opinion on the outer side of the handle: as it can bee seen it has a little bump just before the cross-guard and no shashka Caucasian or Russian has that. This bump is not added, because the blade tang has the same form. In most Caucasian and early Russian shashkas the outer edge of the handle is flat and continues almost seamlessly into the blade. Some of them have a handle that is slightly larger than the blade, but still there are no bumps or protrusions on them. The later Russian and Soviet shashka handles have three parts and put together they are a bit larger than the blade but still follow the same outline. IMHO this sword was thought and made this way and not modified. I think this was an experiment to incorporate a crossguard to a shashka type sword for the protection, as the Russians did with their Dragoon shashkas. Below are the photos of a
1. Caucasian shashka handle (Silver)
2. Russian shashka handle
3. Russian Dragoon shashka handle (with a guard)

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Estcrh, I was pretty sure we were on the same page
Outstanding illustrations (as always) and incredible details.
With these Ottoman scabbards it seems I once knew the terms describing them (the distinct little 'springs' in the gap) but darned if I can find the notes.
It really is interesting to see the kinds of variations in weaponry the diversity of ethnicity in Ottoman forces brought.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

With these Ottoman scabbards it seems I once knew the terms describing them (the distinct little 'springs' in the gap) but darned if I can find the notes.

Jim, I seem to remember a particular term as well, but "with characteristic Ottoman metal spiral stitched scabbard" works. This shashka appears to be another example.

[arsendaday]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, my mistake in not checking what I wrote before posting, it should have read "I see no reason why this would NOT be a shashka". This sword comes at a good time as I have been searching for shashka with Ottoman scabbards and Harry comes up with an Ottoman fitted shashka sword. While thousands of Circassians ended up in the Ottoman empire and kept using shashka,I have not found many examples of shashka scabbards with an Ottoman influence and Harrys shashka is the first sword I have seen with an Ottoman influence.

Here is an example of a shashka with Ottoman type mounts.

Nice photos Estcrh! While they may not be a lot of Ottoman Shashkas surviving today, they were actually being made in Ottoman Turkey at some point. And considering the fame and usefullnes of shashkas it is no surprise that Ottomans were considering them for their own use. (As Russians did, and eventually ended up replacing all their bladed weapons with modified shashkas) So I think your examples and this sword also are the result of those experiments. But for some reason or another (the main one being the German military influence) the Ottoman army started using the Western European sword types instead.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

On the other hand....it could have also been a war trophy captured during one of the militry conflicts between the Ottomans/Turkish forces and the Russians that was later Ottomanized a bit by its new Ottoman/Turkish owner with the addition of a guard and cresent.

There are some examples of Ottoman mounted shashkas that I have seen, it would have been helpful if Harrys new sword had come with a scabbard as well.

I totally agree with Estrech, it's a shashka converted to Ottoman military with a guard. The Turkish guy was lazy, normaly they keept the blade and change the whole thing...
Harry, the mark is a number v., 70 could be anything, regiment number or inventory number...
Best,
Kubur

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by ariel

There is a long ( and often pretty vicious) argument about the origins of shashka. The blade is relatively simple: early Circassian blades were mostly European, very light, but later Daghestani ones could be quite heavy.

One of the first things I noticed when I unpacked it was how light it is. It must have been a formidable weapon; strong and firm but light as a feather. Between a bathroom scale and a food scale I can probably determine its weight, if that would help. Let me know, and thanks to all for the help.

[harrywagner]

Harry, the mark is a number v., 70 could be anything, regiment number or inventory number...
Best,
Kubur

Hi Kubur. Thanks! I was hoping someone here would know what that was. I would have never associated the mark with a number. What language is that? Thanks to you and others for the help!

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by arsendaday

Harry, I was bidding on this one myself...

Sorry about that! I will take it as a good sign that another collector was also interested enough to bid on it. You may get another chance at this one. I am an old geezer and plan to sell my collection, a few items a month, after I retire. Thanks much for your help!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by arsendaday

Harry, I was bidding on this one myself, but it got too expensive for me. I was really curious about this one as well and its good that a member of this forum got it so we can discuss it here. For all it's similarities to a Caucasian shashka it was never one. I am basing my opinion on the outer side of the handle: as it can bee seen it has a little bump just before the cross-guard and no shashka Caucasian or Russian has that. This bump is not added, because the blade tang has the same form. In most Caucasian and early Russian shashkas the outer edge of the handle is flat and continues almost seamlessly into the blade. Some of them have a handle that is slightly larger than the blade, but still there are no bumps or protrusions on them. The later Russian and Soviet shashka handles have three parts and put together they are a bit larger than the blade but still follow the same outline. IMHO this sword was thought and made this way and not modified. I think this was an experiment to incorporate a crossguard to a shashka type sword for the protection, as the Russians did with their Dragoon shashkas. Below are the photos of a
1. Caucasian shashka handle (Silver)
2. Russian shashka handle
3. Russian Dragoon shashka handle (with a guard)

Arsendaday,
VERY well observed!! and that did not even register as I viewed these pictures!
That unusual 'flare which sweeps outward to correspond to the guard is also congruent with the tang suggesting of course that the blade and hilt was an intended match, rather than a reworked shashka.
As you have well noted, on Caucasian shashkas this feature of the tang is not really normal.......nor why would it be?

This of course lends to the idea that perhaps this could be a prototype or one off form intended for ethnically oriented units in Ottoman forces, and that would make this a particularly exciting sword .

Earlier I had noted a certain type of sabre with an Ottoman style (pistol grip) in the style of the familiar kilij/pala, but with a fully intended stirrup type knuckleguard in European style.
I will try to get an illustration but I have been told these were apparently specifically for Ottoman forces in Hungarian context. These have occurred in notable numbers over the years, so we know they were an actual form so intended for this type of dissemination.

Kubur, good note on the 'V' marking, which as you suggest could be a regimental or 'rack' number. Could this be such a number related to one of these prototype situations where a select number of these were produced?

Harry, getting old enough to retire does not mean you're an old geezer!!
I stopped collecting just before retiring but still fascinated with studying the weapons I have and those others find, as you have done here.
This sword is a great example of the importance of keeping our studies going....so great job!!!

Estcrh......Im gonna find that term!!! its drivin me nuts.

[Jim McDougall]

In my post #3, I mentioned unusual sabres with Ottoman grips which had a European style guard and knucklebow, which seemed pertinent here as we consider these rather hybridized forms. This one Gav had some time ago and the photo is of this form. It seems to have had Hungarian associations as well of course as Ottoman influence, and I wonder if perhaps these might have been involved with Ottoman forces, perhaps in Balkans .

There is a sabre with the pistol grip hilt and crossguard with elliptical langet/quillon block with alternating quillons but no knuckleguard which is attributed (noted probably in reference) to Hungarian light cavalry early 19th to mid. ("Edged Weapons: Sabers of the Habsburg Empire 16th-2th c" Konopisky& Moudry, 1991, Prague, pp.68-69), but this only suggests that pistol grip hilts were not unknown in Hungarian context

Returning to the 'shashka' type example in discussion, it is tempting to suggest the cleft may be related to Ottoman yataghans, but the hilt and cleft features are more of Caucasian shashka style.

It seems quite possible for this example attached here to possibly be aligned with Ottoman presence in Balkans (the blade here has the familiar sun and moon inscribed as on Hungarian forms).
With the wide influences of the Ottoman Empire diffused through these many countries and regions it is a challenge to determine just what classification to set on these hybrids.

* Gavin Nugent photo

[arsendaday]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In my post #3, I mentioned unusual sabres with Ottoman grips which had a European style guard and knucklebow, which seemed pertinent here as we consider these rather hybridized forms. This one Gav had some time ago and the photo is of this form. It seems to have had Hungarian associations as well of course as Ottoman influence, and I wonder if perhaps these might have been involved with Ottoman forces, perhaps in Balkans .

There is a sabre with the pistol grip hilt and crossguard with elliptical langet/quillon block with alternating quillons but no knuckleguard which is attributed (noted probably in reference) to Hungarian light cavalry early 19th to mid. ("Edged Weapons: Sabers of the Habsburg Empire 16th-2th c" Konopisky& Moudry, 1991, Prague, pp.68-69), but this only suggests that pistol grip hilts were not unknown in Hungarian context

Returning to the 'shashka' type example in discussion, it is tempting to suggest the cleft may be related to Ottoman yataghans, but the hilt and cleft features are more of Caucasian shashka style.

It seems quite possible for this example attached here to possibly be aligned with Ottoman presence in Balkans (the blade here has the familiar sun and moon inscribed as on Hungarian forms).
With the wide influences of the Ottoman Empire diffused through these many countries and regions it is a challenge to determine just what classification to set on these hybrids.

* Gavin Nugent photo

I think at some point a fighter who is used to a certain type of handle/hilt and is given a totally different weapon to fight with, (due to switching sides or alliances, or acquiring a blade in the battle) will take his weapon to a weapon-smith and have it modified. And the weapon-smith being a local would have to modify what he has a and try to make it into what the client wants. This photo in my opinion is exactly such example. The cross guard only looks like a European one, but it is very obvious that this is a modified version of a regular Middle-Eastern cross-guard. And the smith did not add anything on an existing guard, but just made the cross-guard the way he knew how and just made the guards longer and curved them. Even the tip of one of the guards is typical Middle-Eastern.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by arsendaday

For all it's similarities to a Caucasian shashka it was never one. I am basing my opinion on the outer side of the handle: as it can bee seen it has a little bump just before the cross-guard and no shashka Caucasian or Russian has that. This bump is not added, because the blade tang has the same form.

I have placed red arrows showing the area I think you are talking about. You made an astute observasion. So the question is...would you still consider this to be a shashka? There are several thoughts on how this sword ended up being created, an Ottoman sword maker creating a shashka for Circassian troops but adding an Ottoman embelishment is one way I can think of. The other is that this was a kilij that was altered with the addition of a shashka hilt.

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by estcrh

The other is that this was a kilij that was altered with the addition of a shashka hilt.

Isn't the blade all wrong for a Kilij? Am I wrong to think that the blade defines the knife?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by harrywagner

Isn't the blade all wrong for a Kilij? Am I wrong to think that the blade defines the knife?

Harry, sometimes blades were around a lot longer than the hilt. For example, a blade may have first been used in a Persian shamshir and later in an Ottoman kilij, in my opinion you have to look at what the person who put the blade and hilt togther intended the sword to be.

Your sword is an unusual example, the maker could have easily made it to look like a kilij but instead used a shashka hilt which suggests to me that it could have been intended for use by a Circassian of the Ottoman/Turkish forces, maybe a later period military sword much like the later period military kilij, one of several possibilities.

[arsendaday]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I have placed red arrows showing the area I think you are talking about. You made an astute observasion. So the question is...would you still consider this to be a shashka? There are several thoughts on how this sword ended up being created, an Ottoman sword maker creating a shashka for Circassian troops but adding an Ottoman embelishment is one way I can think of. The other is that this was a kilij that was altered with the addition of a shashka hilt.

That is exactly what I meant. BTW Your second guess is more possible. The Circassians were a stubborn bunch (no offence meant, using the word as a compliment) and I don't think any one of them would agree to have "Shashka" with a guard. And the blade, despite of all it's similarities to a shashka blade is different nonetheless. Since I think that this blade was initially meant to have a crossguard (not sure about the hilt) one had to order it made this way. And for sure that ONE wasn't a Circassian. (After all only a shashka is a shashka, and everything else is not)

If this is not an experimental weapon altogether, than I think the handle/hilt is a later addition. One of the reasons it could have happened, as you said, the original (kilij type) handle broke and since the smith, who was fixing the sword (not necessarily the one that made it initially), did not have enough tang to put a kilij handle, just replaced the handle and put something that would work just as fine with a shorter tang.

P.S. The reason I think that the handle/hilt has been replaced, is quality of the crescents on it. They differ a lot from the quality of the workmanship of the cross-guard. I think the original handle had crescents on it, which were lost as well, and that the (new)owner just wanted to have them.

[Jim McDougall]

Conversely, in this conundrum, are the number of kilij (pistol grip Ottoman style) swords which have the crossguard removed, and seem to have been worn or used in this way. I cannot offhand recall the dates, but we have discussed them here, and I think some have been seen in references.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Conversely, in this conundrum, are the number of kilij (pistol grip Ottoman style) swords which have the crossguard removed, and seem to have been worn or used in this way. I cannot offhand recall the dates, but we have discussed them here, and I think some have been seen in references.

Jim, is this what you were referring to?

[Jim McDougall]

Yes!!! ) Well done!
While some of these are the intended form as in the Indian short sword and dagger hilts, some of these seem to be Ottoman hilts sans guard, and left that way by intention.
Thank you so much.
Your skills at finding these illustrations are uncanny, and superb

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Estcrh......Im gonna find that term!!! its drivin me nuts.

Jim, is this it

wire stitched in the traditional "Steps of Allah" style