Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[Jon MB]

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

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.

[Ian]

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

[ariel]

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.

[ALEX]

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?

[ariel]

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.

[ALEX]

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?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ALEX

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?

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"

[Jim McDougall]

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!

[ALEX]

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!

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ALEX

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?

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

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by TVV

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

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by mahratt

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.