Shashka translation please.

Gavin Nugent · 22nd February 2010, 07:00 AM

Another piece from my personal collections, a nice pre revolution? Dagestani Shashka? Perhaps Chechen?

The blade has all the qualities Isa Askhabov notes, being feather light, vine flexible and razor sharp. I can easily get 40cms of flex out of the blade.

I hope those versed in other toungues, could please help with a translation of script found on the back of this Shashka throat fitting.

Complete sword images to follow when better lighting becomes available, for now though, these should suffice to offer a better point of origin if needed.

Thanks in advance.

Gav

ward · 22nd February 2010, 07:22 AM

Interesting its Daghestan (Kubachi) work but signed work of Kuru or something like that.
But it also says Erzerum (Turkish city) and the hallmarks are Ottoman not Russian.
If you dont want to get surprised I wouldnt be flexing that blade any 40 degrees either not even 10

Gavin Nugent · 22nd February 2010, 08:24 AM

Thank you and interesting as you note Ward. The details you provide offer some intrigue to the origins of how it all came to be.

Can you be more specific as to the maker/origins of the hallmark despite the distortion?

I'll be careful too but the 80cms blade is supple where the Central Asian Shashka I have with the trade blade is rigid....

In support of what you have offered, the round hallmark I thought was Ottoman when comparing those in Emma Asvatsaturyan's work, though comparing line drawings and a slightly distorted stamp is difficult and most she presents would predate this sword.

These points that you note about the city, signature and hallmarks all point to Turkey and would be more consistant with placing this Shashka in Turkish borders rather than Degestan.

Ponderous though, the Kubachi work of Dagestan seems prominent through out...do the motifs within the chased design and those floral designs to the rear support each other as Dagestan?

Could the marks read Kuru of Erzerum, perhaps being a craftsman who moved his trade to the Degastan regions......

Gav

ward · 22nd February 2010, 08:57 PM

Get somebody out here who speaks Turkish to be sure but if it was of Erzerum it would be spelled different. This just reads Erzerum.

Its Dagestan work for sure maybe made in Turkey but probably not, I think made up in Caucausus with the Turkish name and city just added later. Silvermakrs were probaly done when it was brought to Turkey.Simplest solution is usually the right one. Check with a Turkish speaking guy tho

ariel · 22nd February 2010, 10:03 PM

I have my qualms
First, I'd like to see the entire shashka: are the rings on the concave or the convex side of the scabbard? I.e., was it assembled as a shashka or as a saber?
Second, the use of velvet is not typical for Caucasian weapons. Kindjals,- occasionally, but not shashkas.
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.
Fourth, while I cannot see well the details on the photo, there seems to be a subtle difference in the ornamentation of the handle vs. scabbard. The idea is the same which is not surprising, since the patterns were quite formalized. But the tendrils on the scabbard are more delicate and better executed.
I think, you get my drift....

Gavin Nugent · 23rd February 2010, 02:19 AM

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.

Quote:

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

Gavin Nugent · 2nd March 2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I have my qualms
First, I'd like to see the entire shashka: are the rings on the concave or the convex side of the scabbard? I.e., was it assembled as a shashka or as a saber?
Second, the use of velvet is not typical for Caucasian weapons. Kindjals,- occasionally, but not shashkas.
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.
Fourth, while I cannot see well the details on the photo, there seems to be a subtle difference in the ornamentation of the handle vs. scabbard. The idea is the same which is not surprising, since the patterns were quite formalized. But the tendrils on the scabbard are more delicate and better executed.
I think, you get my drift....

Ariel, any further input further to these comments? I know these weapons are a passion of yours...I thought you might have followed up sooner.

Based on these comments above and other information Zifir was kind enough to support and elaborate with on Ward's initial translation, I am looking at options of how it came to be...though there are many possibilities.

To me, it is safe to say a Dagestan Shashka, made by or at least the silverwork made by an Armenian sword maker named Kevork in, though possibly just from Erzurum. Most likely fully assembled by Kevork or even modified as Ariel suggests is possible without further feedback on the images supplied...but with the text "sword maker" accompanying his name I think it could safely be said he assembled the sword.

Based on the high probability of the sword maker being Armenian, to me this would support the blade that also appears to be Armenian in manufacture being used in its construction.

For those knowing the geographical trade routes and boundries of the region this sword has come from, do you think Kevork was making his living in Erzurum and exporting to Dagestan or perhaps in Tiflis whilst noting his name and place of birth in the signiture and exporting to Dagestan as many Shashka were or perhaps others ideas on the matter...I look forward to hearing them.

Thoughts and further input welcome on these seldom discussed weapons.

Gav

22nd February 2010, 07:00 AM	#1
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Shashka translation please. Another piece from my personal collections, a nice pre revolution? Dagestani Shashka? Perhaps Chechen? The blade has all the qualities Isa Askhabov notes, being feather light, vine flexible and razor sharp. I can easily get 40cms of flex out of the blade. I hope those versed in other toungues, could please help with a translation of script found on the back of this Shashka throat fitting. Complete sword images to follow when better lighting becomes available, for now though, these should suffice to offer a better point of origin if needed. Thanks in advance. Gav Attached Images Last edited by freebooter; 22nd February 2010 at 07:09 AM. Reason: Additions

22nd February 2010, 08:24 AM	#3
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Interesting aspects. Thank you and interesting as you note Ward. The details you provide offer some intrigue to the origins of how it all came to be. Can you be more specific as to the maker/origins of the hallmark despite the distortion? I'll be careful too but the 80cms blade is supple where the Central Asian Shashka I have with the trade blade is rigid.... In support of what you have offered, the round hallmark I thought was Ottoman when comparing those in Emma Asvatsaturyan's work, though comparing line drawings and a slightly distorted stamp is difficult and most she presents would predate this sword. These points that you note about the city, signature and hallmarks all point to Turkey and would be more consistant with placing this Shashka in Turkish borders rather than Degestan. Ponderous though, the Kubachi work of Dagestan seems prominent through out...do the motifs within the chased design and those floral designs to the rear support each other as Dagestan? Could the marks read Kuru of Erzerum, perhaps being a craftsman who moved his trade to the Degastan regions...... Gav Last edited by freebooter; 22nd February 2010 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Removing religious conversation

22nd February 2010, 07:22 AM	#2
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Interesting its Daghestan (Kubachi) work but signed work of Kuru or something like that. But it also says Erzerum (Turkish city) and the hallmarks are Ottoman not Russian. If you dont want to get surprised I wouldnt be flexing that blade any 40 degrees either not even 10

22nd February 2010, 08:57 PM	#4
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Get somebody out here who speaks Turkish to be sure but if it was of Erzerum it would be spelled different. This just reads Erzerum. Its Dagestan work for sure maybe made in Turkey but probably not, I think made up in Caucausus with the Turkish name and city just added later. Silvermakrs were probaly done when it was brought to Turkey.Simplest solution is usually the right one. Check with a Turkish speaking guy tho

22nd February 2010, 10:03 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have my qualms First, I'd like to see the entire shashka: are the rings on the concave or the convex side of the scabbard? I.e., was it assembled as a shashka or as a saber? Second, the use of velvet is not typical for Caucasian weapons. Kindjals,- occasionally, but not shashkas. 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. Fourth, while I cannot see well the details on the photo, there seems to be a subtle difference in the ornamentation of the handle vs. scabbard. The idea is the same which is not surprising, since the patterns were quite formalized. But the tendrils on the scabbard are more delicate and better executed. I think, you get my drift....