Shashka translation please.

[Gavin Nugent]

I too have a few tiny qualms about certain aspects mainly the velvet over the original scabbard timbers and a couple of other small points of interest.

It is most certainly not the first Shashka that I have seen with velvet though, some have been replacements as I know this one is, others have looked to have genuine age and wear of near 100 years. Although replaced it too does show good age and is expertly done and fitted, the entire folded and stitched seam to the rear sits within the grooved scabbard timber and is drawn very tight and follows the curves and rise to the throat perfectly.

Secondly the Shashka was mounted in European style when I received it, the central fittings only being placed "upside down" to the inside of the curve, the decoration on the throat and drag being originally as they are now. Although this style of mounting not unheard of as seen in Millers and other places, showing a number of Dagestan Shashkas being mounted in this manner, my immeadiate thoughts were that having the two suspension fittings like this meant it would be in sabre style and it would be mounted only to the right side of an individual for a left hander. Knowing the velvet is a 1960's replacement I though that perhaps the chap carrying out the task in Italy did not note how it came apart and put it back together in the European style.....
I spent well over an hours moving these fittings as they are super tight, milimetre by milimetre I moved each fitting with great effort to present them how I think they should really be. Of cource, if there is a genuine plausible explanation as to why they should be left in Europoean style I am all ears but generally speaking this sits better with me now.

I'll gather some images of the hilt and fittings side by side after I clean some of the highlights on the hilt. Currently the hilt looks darker where silver should shine, this will show the same workmanship throughout.

Originally Posted by ariel

Third, the upper scabbard fitting is strange: half Kubachi, half plain silver ( Turkish fashion). I have a suspicion that the front panel with Kubachi work was cut off the original and attached to a new base.

With regards to this, anything is possible in the world, when you compare the suspenion image to the throat image there is a difference to the finish but the drag is the same construction as the throat...perhaps the suspension fitting was finished in this manner of overlap to better support the sword, if it was not, the fitting may tear... Could you please present images or references about this statement for my further study on this sword for forward them by PM or email.

The hallmarks still fasinate me as does the script. There must be someone here who can read the script fully to place it in better context and likewise the hallmark. Ward has made a great start where I could not...any takers?

Thanks

Gav

[Zifir]

hi,
ward is right, the first word is erzurum, the second line is Amel-i Kevork (swordmaker Kevork) Maybe I misspelled it but it's an Armenian name for sure.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Zifir

hi,
ward is right, the first word is erzurum, the second line is Amel-i Kevork (swordmaker Kevork) Maybe I misspelled it but it's an Armenian name for sure.

Ward, Zifhir,

I am very grateful for the translation.

This certainly raises a few more questions, especially the Armenian context as the blade shows etching to the forte that I have seen specifically on Armenian knives....this translation conclusion makes me think a lot more about what I have here and more so how it all came to be historically, further insight is appreciated.

I may also explore the content I removed in post number 3, this was based around Armenian Shashka embellishment being similar to Dagestan...can't remember where I read it off the top of my head...
It was also about the name Erzurum and despite the treaties in place within Erzurum and the city being very diverse in culture, how Christian and Muslim craftsmen interacted in instances such as this instance appears to be, more so during the later age that this Shashka appears to be of....or for the uninitiated like me... was this of no concern to many despite certain instances pre 1900, I ask as I beleive this piece is approx 1910???
There are some sensitive aspects to this side of investigation so I will tread cautiously and where other threads have gone astray, ask those conributing to just consider the sword and aspects attached to it, not specific events to err on the side of sensitivity..

Lots of questions I know but Shashka really are not being explored within these pages very often I think it would be interesting to note some of this "cross pollenation" as I do not speak the tongue or even know to any extent the of written languages across these regions...this is proving to be interesting.

I have again been reading Miller's book and clearly see on page 237, figure 151 a Dagestan Shashka with the same coloured velvet, certainly another aspect to ponder...Was this one recovered in direct style and materail found originally on this Shashka??? Maybe???

I'll get those better images to compare stortly too.

Best regards guys

Gav

[Gavin Nugent]

Images as promised.

To me there is no differences in the fittings style or quality, I am happy to discuss this though.

Thoughts and observations welcome as are any ponderous thoughts, speculations or qualms.

Gav

[CHILLA]

Originally Posted by freebooter

Ward, Zifhir,

I am very grateful for the translation.

This certainly raises a few more questions, especially the Armenian context as the blade shows etching to the forte that I have seen specifically on Armenian knives....this translation conclusion makes me think a lot more about what I have here and more so how it all came to be historically, further insight is appreciated.

I may also explore the content I removed in post number 3, this was based around Armenian Shashka embellishment being similar to Dagestan...can't remember where I read it off the top of my head...
It was also about the name Erzurum and despite the treaties in place within Erzurum and the city being very diverse in culture, how Christian and Muslim craftsmen interacted in instances such as this instance appears to be, more so during the later age that this Shashka appears to be of....or for the uninitiated like me... was this of no concern to many despite certain instances pre 1900, I ask as I beleive this piece is approx 1910???
There are some sensitive aspects to this side of investigation so I will tread cautiously and where other threads have gone astray, ask those conributing to just consider the sword and aspects attached to it, not specific events to err on the side of sensitivity..

Lots of questions I know but Shashka really are not being explored within these pages very often I think it would be interesting to note some of this "cross pollenation" as I do not speak the tongue or even know to any extent the of written languages across these regions...this is proving to be interesting.

I have again been reading Miller's book and clearly see on page 237, figure 151 a Dagestan Shashka with the same coloured velvet, certainly another aspect to ponder...Was this one recovered in direct style and materail found originally on this Shashka??? Maybe???

I'll get those better images to compare stortly too.

Best regards guys

Gav

Hi,

With all my respects for all comments, I should say that the script in Arab we should read as: AMAL KURU ,ERDURUM! So it couldn't be KEURK or KEVORK ,Bcause of age,this shashka was made from 1900-1917 and for sure in Wladikavkaz by Dagestanian maker,but the blade Could be Chechen also.

Thank you !)

[Zifir]

Hi,
I must respectfully insist that my reading of the script is correct. The word after amal is (kef-ye-vav-re-kaf) كيورق which can be read as Kevork. That word cannot be read as Kuru for several reasons. Firstly, in Ottoman Turkish grammar there is a rule, "thick" wovels are used with "thick" consonants. Since U is a thick wovel, it should be used with a thick consonant kaf ق not with kef ك . Thus, kuru should have been written as قورو Secondly, in all the scripts the word amal (made by) is followed by swordmaker's name, not by a place name or an adjective such as kuru (by the way, kuru means "dry"). Finally and most importantly, there is a ye ي after kef ك and there is a kaf ق at the end of the word. The reason why some people mistake it for vav و is that in hand writing sometimes a litte tail is added at the end of the letter instead of putting two dots at the top!

I am not an expert in workmanship or material of swords. I also know that a script is only a script, it can be tempered, it may lie, it might be added later. But I think guessing scripts from the workmanship might be somehow a problematic method.

cheers,

[ward]

Im betting Zifir is a native speaker I said get his opinion at the beginning. The name doesn't matter it could be added later. Chilla is right its Daghestan work for sure. Velvet sure doesn't matter its probably been replaced twice anyway.
The work and the blade are not Armnenian and not Turkish that is for sure. I think its important to look at what cant be changed in this situation not what can

[CHILLA]

Originally Posted by Zifir

Hi,
I must respectfully insist that my reading of the script is correct. The word after amal is (kef-ye-vav-re-kaf) كيورق which can be read as Kevork. That word cannot be read as Kuru for several reasons. Firstly, in Ottoman Turkish grammar there is a rule, "thick" wovels are used with "thick" consonants. Since U is a thick wovel, it should be used with a thick consonant kaf ق not with kef ك . Thus, kuru should have been written as قورو Secondly, in all the scripts the word amal (made by) is followed by swordmaker's name, not by a place name or an adjective such as kuru (by the way, kuru means "dry"). Finally and most importantly, there is a ye ي after kef ك and there is a kaf ق at the end of the word. The reason why some people mistake it for vav و is that in hand writing sometimes a litte tail is added at the end of the letter instead of putting two dots at the top!

I am not an expert in workmanship or material of swords. I also know that a script is only a script, it can be tempered, it may lie, it might be added later. But I think guessing scripts from the workmanship might be somehow a problematic method.

cheers,

Dear Zifir ,

Thank you for your grammar lesson! But I said only ,what is written on the silver mount. If we speak about Geurk Eliarov he was very Famous as Sword maker ,here we can see the script only on the mount and with all my repspect it is KURU قورو not كيورق and i should say that we discuss about Caucasian Item,not OTTOMAN-TURKISH ,not ARAB, and of corse translation of Turkish language or arab language couldn't be use for the NAME ,Bcause the NAME KURU is Caucasian name and regionally we can say from DAGHESTAN .If you still insist that is "DRY" ,so I can say that in Chechnya and Dagestan we have the Names like :SAID (transl. Happy), ASHAB,SAHAB or MUSLIM etc. If we read AMAL MUSLIM or AMAL ASHAB, we shoud translate only AMAL (made) by MUSLIM .Of corse it was very usefull to write in ARABIC language like amal KEURK,amal SAID-ALI etc.
So thank you again. My opinion the same is KURU and the mounts was made by Dagestanian maker ,about the sword for the moment we can only guess from which area of Caucasus is it.

Best regards,
Chilla