Vasily Vereshchagin "Indian poem" - Page 2

mahratt · 3rd February 2016, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

Simple question. Do you think from 1872 until 1875 (ie three years) that has changed dramatically: the shape of the British soldiers, the British guns or Sikhs-namdhari?

We all understand that the picture - this is not the photo report from the event. But valuable that Vereshchagin adhered even small details in his paintings.

David · 3rd February 2016, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

Nothing wrong with it artistically : Rembrandt never witnessed the return of the Prodigal Son, Moses did not have horns and Sistine Chapel is not a documentary account of the Creation of Adam and the Last Judgement.

Once and for all: works of art are not historical facts. In the best possible case they provide us with a glimpse of contemporaneous view of material objects, in the worst one they are malicious distortions of truth. The greatest majority of them are somewhere in between. But no court on Earth would accept them as evidence.

Ariel, i feel like you are being contrary just for the sake of it here. You are comparing works of classical artists such as Rembrandt that depict biblical themes from two millenniums past to these HISTORICAL paintings that are based, if not on the personal account and sketches of the artist, then upon direct accounts received by him within a few years of their occurrence. Certainly you can concede that the accuracy of Vereshchagin's work regarding the weapons, dress and even the details of the events depicted in his paintings carries more weight and historical correctness than, say, Rembrandt's depiction of the blinding of Samson with a keris blade.

Yes, painting is not documentary photography, we all know that. Many of these paintings might therefore have added drama of light and perhaps an over saturation of color. But what does that mean regarding our use of them in our study of the weapons and armor used in the conflicts that are depicted in Vereshchagin's paintings? What inaccuracies do you find there? If you can't be specific i think you are just nitpicking for no other purpose but to argue.

Jim McDougall · 3rd February 2016, 05:51 PM

As I noted, this discussion, which has been primarily the topic of the Russian artist Vereshchagin's work, has been most interesting.
Actually I agree heartily with Mahratt as well as David, that essentially works of art (and typically that often includes photographs) must be gauged carefully in their veracity as historical evidence.

It is well known that art itself, is intended to elicit temporal and emotional reaction from the viewer, which is why artists often employed varying degree of license in their portrayals of historical events and situations.
In the many references I have read through on the subject of 'historical detection', the best by far is "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection". James Davidson and Mark Lytle, N.Y. 1982, and is remarkable.

In reviewing this book as I write this, I wanted to select a notable comment which addresses our subject of the use of art in studying history, but it is overwhelming as each page is full of compelling perspective on this.

While the methods of 'detection' apply outside art itself to narratives, records, and all manner of historic detail, the references to artists themselves are most telling.

I once did extensive research involving the identification of a Spanish 'cuera', the leather armor of the Spanish colonial soldiers in the frontiers of New Spain. In trying to locate an example of one of these, only two were found....however an unusual example which looked more like an early Roman armor was found in Arizona.
This was remarkable in that not only did two other cuera still exist, this one was of entirely different form than previously known.

The true identification of this curious anomaly in Spanish leather was found in paintings on hide, which incredibly had been discovered in Switzerland though painted in New Mexico in the 1720s. These had been sent there by a Jesuit priest to his family in about 1758. Through many efforts by local historians in New Mexico, these were finally returned there in the 1980s.

In this painting, which was painted by local Pueblos of a tragic battle in Nebraska involving the massacre of a Spanish contingent from Santa Fe, many of the allied Indian warriors accompanying the Spaniards were wearing this type leather armor. It was the only known depiction of such a form, and had been unknown and in Europe since 1758. Therefore, the only references on Spanish colonial weapons and armor did not include this type.
Further, this piece acquired in the late 19th century was only ever shown in a remote private museum in Arizona, whose owner died and the holdings were kept in storage until finally dispersed in an estate sale a number of years ago.
It was captioned, 'old conquistador leather armor' only and in deplorable condition, with little other note.

We used these paintings (known as the Segesser hides), along with considerable research into contemporary narratives and accounts, as well as examining the known corpus of material on Spanish colonial material culture to collect facts. We also confirmed the existence of the only other two cuera (one in the Smithsonian dated c.1820 and one in the Armeria Real dated c1770, both in storage).....and considered their forms as we examined the details of our example.

We were finally able to determine that our cuera was from the 1690s period and produced by Indian artisans with Spanish advisors using the cuir boulli method (contrary to rawhide in the other examples) and apparently used by these Pueblo Indians loyal to the Spaniards in those times and it would appear primarily in the Santa Fe regions.

In this way, with considerable corroboration, we were able to indeed use a work of art, contemporary to the events depicted, by Indian painters being directed by survivors and fashions and forms in use contemporarily there, to identify this rare item of leather armor, the only one of its kind.

This anecdotal case (I apologize for the length) is to emphasize that of course artwork is valuable in historical study, but any reasonable historian will advance with caution and engage in considerable supportive study in applying its place in any study.

Aside from those caveats, I thing it is quite possible to enjoy art for what it is, and greatly respect each artist for their talents and skills. In so many cases, the nuances and symbolism within these works can become history themselves!!! (look at "The DaVinci Code"

!!).

estcrh · 3rd February 2016, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Perhaps. But he could witness events of 1872 no better than those of 1858: he wasn't there for either:-)

I believe that Vereshchagin responded to this by stating that British tactics (tying captives to cannon and executing them in this vicious manner) would have happened whether he actually saw it or not. In other words he was just using this particular painting as an way to bring attention to what he saw as the brutality of British justice in India, he did the same with his painting depicting the execution of members of the Nihilist movement in St Petersburg, political commentary is not always about realism, it is about making people think.

Jim McDougall · 3rd February 2016, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

I believe that Vereshchagin responded to this by stating that British tactics (tying captives to cannon and executing them in this vicious manner) would have happened whether he actually saw it or not. In other words he was just using this particular painting as an way to bring attention to what he saw as the brutality of British justice in India, he did the same with his painting depicting the execution of members of the Nihilist movement in St Petersburg, political commentary is not always about realism, it is about making people think.

Well said Estcrh!! and a LOT less words than it took me

ariel · 3rd February 2016, 09:16 PM

David and I seem to have difference of opinion: he calls my comments nitpicking , whereas I view them as an attempt to define strict parameters of proof. Epistemology is one of the main logical and philosophical branches.

I cannot agree with Estcrh on the appropriateness of Vereshchaging's counter argument: the fact that something could have happened doesn't mean that it did happen.

Jim's story is very instructive: an old image prompted long and careful examination of facts before its veracity was established. Artistic images by themselves carry an aura of factual uncertainty, especially if they are motivated by political considerations.

And, BTW, I just found out ( thank you, Wikipedia!) that the brutal Brits, blowing up people from the cannons, actually learned this practice from the ........Moghuls:-) Apparently, physical annihilation of the body prevented reincarnation.

mahratt · 3rd February 2016, 09:52 PM

Hints on political considerations seem strange, given that Vereshchagin showed the same and cruelty of the Russian justice system:

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

I believe that Vereshchagin responded to this by stating that British tactics (tying captives to cannon and executing them in this vicious manner) would have happened whether he actually saw it or not. In other words he was just using this particular painting as an way to bring attention to what he saw as the brutality of British justice in India, he did the same with his painting depicting the execution of members of the Nihilist movement in St Petersburg, political commentary is not always about realism, it is about making people think.

Wikipedia seems to me, is not the most serious source. Maybe you can find a reliable source? It is interesting to know the facts proving that Blowing from guns (Devil wind) the British took over from Moghuls .

Jim McDougall · 3rd February 2016, 10:13 PM

I really don't think any of us here as reasonable historians are quite that far apart in our views that art and for that matter most sources of data and record of historical events may not always be entirely accurate. While it seems clear that the main issue is trying to establish the motivations and perspective which might lead to any inaccuracy or deliberate nuance or 'spin' on the source, obviously these are opinions, and should be accepted as such.

I try to make it clear when I am presenting material that my comments are my opinion or view, not necessarily a matter of irreproachable fact. The only time I can assert otherwise is if I actually witnessed the event.

Ironically, as most law enforcement and investigative authorities will tell you, even eye witnesses are often not entirely accurate, thus they rely on cross investigation to compare details.

Ariel, thank you for your comment on my story, which indeed I meant in that very way, to be instructive.

A note regarding Wikipedia, which I confess to using a great deal. It is what I refer to as a 'benchmark' source, presenting material on a topic and hopefully with cited sources. From here the research BEGINS as these are checked and cross checked with others as networking through the materials moves forward.
Actually, art and Wikipedia in this sense have this in common!

Actually the Wikipedia entry concerning the ghastly practice of execution by tying to cannon muzzle and firing seems well covered, and the pages of cited references and extensive bibliography have well set the path for any residual research. It does seem the practice certainly was not British alone just as most cases of these kinds of grim circumstance are not restricted to any particular nationality or other denomination.

David · 4th February 2016, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

David and I seem to have difference of opinion: he calls my comments nitpicking , whereas I view them as an attempt to define strict parameters of proof. Epistemology is one of the main logical and philosophical branches.

Well Ariel, i guess will need to establish what, exactly, we are attempting to "prove" here. Let's put this question into context. As far as i can tell Mahratt did not present any point or question to "prove" in this thread, merely it is a presentation of Vereshchagin's paintings for our viewing. After a short note the content of the works shared turned to depictions of weaponry during war time. This is the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum. While we do, from time to time discuss weapons in the context of historical events (it's unavoidable really) our main concern of discussion here is are the weapons themselves, not necessarily the accuracy of the hows and whys of the battles they were used in or the politics of war that surround them. This is not a forum about military strategies per se. And after all, we all know that histories are written by the victors and the actual truth about any particular battle or war is often open to debate. We are here to discuss the weapons themselves, not who was right or wrong in using them or whether the Brits thought up the brutal execution by cannon themselves or got the idea from the Moghuls. We can bruise an awful lot of nationalistic egos here if we focus our arguments on who was right or wrong or most brutal or whose nation was disgraced in which battle or which country had notoriously bad generals. Let's discuss the cannon itself...or the sword or dagger or knife, etc., not the politics of its uses.
So i ask again, what inaccuracies do you find do you find in Vereshchagin's depiction of the weapons and armor in these paintings? What do you think needs to be "proved" here or what misinformation about these weapons do you believe Vereshchagin's work put forth? I certainly don't see any of his figures inaccurately using a keris or some other culturally incorrect weapon in these paintings, do you?

estcrh · 4th February 2016, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

We used these paintings (known as the Segesser hides), along with considerable research into contemporary narratives and accounts, as well as examining the known corpus of material on Spanish colonial material culture to collect facts.

Jim, thanks for this info, I was aware of the scale armor mentioned but not these paintings, here are two links, one with more info and one with zoomable images of the Segesser hides.

http://media.museumofnewmexico.org/e...ail&eventID=37
http://www.nmhistorymuseum.org/hides/

mahratt · 4th February 2016, 07:33 AM

Several paintings by Vereshchagin devoted to the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878.

Jim McDougall · 4th February 2016, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Well Ariel, i guess will need to establish what, exactly, we are attempting to "prove" here. Let's put this question into context. As far as i can tell Mahratt did not present any point or question to "prove" in this thread, merely it is a presentation of Vereshchagin's paintings for our viewing. After a short note the content of the works shared turned to depictions of weaponry during war time. This is the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum. While we do, from time to time discuss weapons in the context of historical events (it's unavoidable really) our main concern of discussion here is are the weapons themselves, not necessarily the accuracy of the hows and whys of the battles they were used in or the politics of war that surround them. This is not a forum about military strategies per se. And after all, we all know that histories are written by the victors and the actual truth about any particular battle or war is often open to debate. We are here to discuss the weapons themselves, not who was right or wrong in using them or whether the Brits thought up the brutal execution by cannon themselves or got the idea from the Moghuls. We can bruise an awful lot of nationalistic egos here if we focus our arguments on who was right or wrong or most brutal or whose nation was disgraced in which battle or which country had notoriously bad generals. Let's discuss the cannon itself...or the sword or dagger or knife, etc., not the politics of its uses.
So i ask again, what inaccuracies do you find do you find in Vereshchagin's depiction of the weapons and armor in these paintings? What do you think needs to be "proved" here or what misinformation about these weapons do you believe Vereshchagin's work put forth? I certainly don't see any of his figures inaccurately using a keris or some other culturally incorrect weapon in these paintings, do you?

Well said David!!! The art needs to be either appreciated for its aesthetic depictions as intended or analyzed as to the components included in its content, but that is left to the person who is observing it. The opinions expressed should be just that, and held as such.

Jim McDougall · 4th February 2016, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, thanks for this info, I was aware of the scale armor mentioned but not these paintings, here are two links, one with more info and one with zoomable images of the Segesser hides.

http://media.museumofnewmexico.org/e...ail&eventID=37
http://www.nmhistorymuseum.org/hides/

You bet Estcrh! and of course this detail is quite familiar. After viewing and consulting on the cuera in Arizona I travelled to Santa Fe where I viewed these fantastic paintings. I was with one of the men who was instrumental in bringing these hides back to Santa Fe, and who gave me key understanding of the detail in these paintings. I was also in touch with Peter Bleed, Professor of Anthropology in Nebraska who had been at the sites of this battle there. The scale mantle was a different item found near El Paso if I recall, but was part of the research scope and I believe handled by Donald Larocca of the Met in New York.
It was a fantastic project!

mahratt · 4th February 2016, 10:01 PM

Afghan

Jim McDougall · 4th February 2016, 10:46 PM

Absolutely amazing art!! and beautiful pieces, especially that Bukharen sabre (always recognized by the 5 rivet pattern in the grip among other features).
Thank you again for sharing all of these Mahratt. I wish I had walls so I could have copies of many of these up. The adventure sensation they convey must have been much like what those intrepid travelers must have felt as they trekked through these Central Asian regions.

ariel · 4th February 2016, 11:24 PM

David,
Over here we are dealing with historical ethnographic arms. In my opinion it it impossible to study Oriental arms without delving into history, religion, metaphysics, military clashes, etc, etc of that ancient, multicultural and turbulent area. This is the backbone of any serious study of Eastern weapons , with Elgood exemplifying this approach to the highest degree. Not for nothing his ( IMHO) masterpiece is titled "Hindu arms and ritual".

As a matter of fact this is exactly what you yourself mention repeatedly when Indonesian kris is discussed.

I was not trying to denigrate Vereshchagin's at all: in my opinion , he was just another good Orientalist painter.His uniqueness was in the military direction of his artistic efforts ( although Ingres odalisques may be preferred by others :-)))

I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post).

So, what kind of profound conclusions about Central Asian weapons should we reach from that painting ? Perhaps that Vereshchagin's sketch must have missed the detail and he might not have had a real Bukharan shashka in his studio.
Also, the above-quoted Indian article about Vereshchagin mentioned wrong British uniforms.

I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification.

In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example.

And this is the difference between art and science.

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 03:24 AM

Ariel,
Extremely well thought out and presented response to Davids comments!
I must admit that as a somewhat (perhaps a lot) romantic historian, I am inclined to overlook a lot of probably otherwise significant details in many works of art. Very unscientific I know, but I enjoy the sense the work sends me in appreciating the period or events.

If I am considering the detail of the work in a study or investigation then of course my research broadens to seeking corroborating evidence in other sources.

I don't think anyone who is in an art gallery usually has exactly the same perception or opinions on a work, but art is of course subjectively oriented.

If I am watching a movie, especially something of historical content, of course I will note there will be certain flaws in detail......but I will not sacrifice the enjoyment of the film for these. Most critics delight in finding these detail errors and herald their superior knowledge by making loud and pronounced denigration of such things, but 'in my opinion' this is very belittling to themselves. For some reason I always seem to enjoy the most, the movies that critics hate and tear to pieces!!!

Despite all the discussion , I know I really like the illustrations being posted here.......the philosophy uh......interesting.

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post).

I really like the researchers who like to nitpick. With them interesting debate.

I put in the topic image Bukhara shashka. And Ariel is definitely right remembering article Torben Flindt. But the world is not limited to one article, and may surprise you

1) It is not always Bukhara weapons (knifes and shashkas) to the handle rivets 5. Often they have been - 3:
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2634
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=6156
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2029

2) All certainly know that except Bukhara shashka there are Afghan shashka ( 3 rivets to the handle). It is likely that in the picture is just such a an Afghan shashka.

David · 5th February 2016, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification.

In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example.

And this is the difference between art and science.

Ariel, again you are missing my point. Again, these images were brought to our attention for an over all appreciation of this artist's work, i suppose due to their extraordinary attention to detail and accuracy. Please forgive all caps, but i guess i feel i need to drive this point home. NO ONE HAS PRESENTED THESE IMAGES AS EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING. Yet you first response to this thread by going off on a tangent on the incompetency of the Russian navy, something which had nothing to do with the material at hand. I can only interpret this as an attempt to get a rise out of Mahratt. From there you seem to do nothing but question the accuracy of Vereshchagin's work despite Mahratt's consistent pairing of actual photographs and the artists work for comparison of weaponry. Of course their is still no thesis being put forth that requires "proving" here. None of the painting have been presented to that end, only for our appreciation. But instead of appreciating the work, you commentary becomes "And if we are talking about India and Vereshchagin, we should not forget Edwin Lord Weeks, a superb American Orientalist painter who was his equal or better ( pure IMHO)."
Perhaps you should start your own similar thread on Weeks then if you find him to be the superior artist. Then we can all argue that Weeks isn't "historical fact" either. If someone were putting that thesis forth perhaps your continued ranting on this point would have some validity. However, once again, no one has presented ANY painting here as evidence in the court of war history.
These paintings do not need to be exact reproductions of historical fact or events to be valuable to us as weapons collectors or amateur historians. How about we try not arguing for argument sake. It adds nothing valuable to the conversation.

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 02:43 PM

Mahratt offers one of the most reasonable comments noting that writers or persons nitpicking in observations on art present great debate. It offers opportunity for those participating to either change or reinforce opinions and offers perspective for others who have not yet decided.

It is not necessary to add political or personal derisions nor negative notes, one should focus on positive support for their position. This is the strong approach, negative or sarcastic notes otherwise only make the person making them appear weak. We see this too much in political campaigns!

Regarding the accuracy of five rivets or three for example in Bukharen sabres, obviously there are never such hard and fast rules, and in recalling communications with Mr Flindt many years ago, I'm sure he would agree.
The preponderance of five, does not negate the possibility of three.
A fine point, but supports the need for additional research and corroboration with art in question.

ariel · 5th February 2016, 11:06 PM

Jim,
I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 11:28 PM

I have already said that our knowledge is not limited to items that we have. The world is much more diverse than we imagine.

And even if you do not pay attention to Bukhara items with 3 rivets on the handle, and focus on the Afghan shashkas (not true to call them -. Psevdoshashka It is not an imitation of something, but an independent weapon as Bukhara shashkas), it is easy to be convinced, that Afghan shashkas are different pommels hilt from one another. And that Afghan shashkas sometimes wore in his belt (as a shashka to the picture Vereshchagin).

Jim McDougall · 5th February 2016, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

Right, thanks for the reminder Ariel, the Afghan 'pseudo shashka' (as Iaroslav terms them) are indeed in a scabbard, I did entirely miss that.
Interesting note on the Bukharen sabres, I have been told a number of times these had nothing to do with the shashka, but that is hardly a talking point, and not worthy of additional debate.
There are so few examples of these Bukharen sabres, as you know, and the only literature on them (as far as I know) is the article by Torben Flindt.

Since Bukhara is essentially in the same region as 'Uzbekistan' and 'Afghanistan' and the Afghan 'shashka' has the cleft and three rivets, it is possible that these cross influenced........as Torben Flindt told me in a letter....."as you have realized Jim, weapons have no geographic borders".
In this we were trying to determine whether a 'shashka' was Uzbek or Afghan, a vaguely defined comparison.

I have to say it is good to be reacquainted with these topics as it has many years since these researches, and good memories. You have far more current experience with these, so thank you for pointing out these salient details.

Again, very little point in debating an artistically depicted hilt, or whether these are termed shashka or not. But it is fun isn't it?

Clearly it would seem so.

ariel · 5th February 2016, 11:39 PM

David,
You are perfectly entitled to enjoying the images.
I am perfectly entitled to use the same topic to address a totally different point: art as historical evidence. One does not negate another.

You seem to find animosity ( or frank Russophobia) in my remarks. Let me assure you: there was none. Taking account of historical backgrounds is part and parcel of any discussion of historical weapons.

I do not intend to initiate a topic dedicated to pictures of Edwin Lord Weeks. I do not think it would add anything to the discussion. I prefer him artistically, but am not interested in using his pictures for any martial analysis. By the same token, no Delacroix and no Gerome.

You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above.

Personally, I do not think this discussion is going anywhere.

With best wishes.

mahratt · 5th February 2016, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above.

Do not focus on the Afghan shashka. Afghan shashka was brought, as a possible example.
The main thing else. I have to repeat:

1) It is not always Bukhara weapons (knifes and shashkas) to the handle rivets 5. Often they have been - 3:
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2634
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=6156
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2029

2) Interesting fact - known Bukhara shashka not only with 5 rivet and 3 rivet , but with 4 rivets on the handle.

ariel · 6th February 2016, 03:08 AM

Yes, there were Bukharan " shashkas" with 4 rivets. But they were an exception while the 5 riveted hilt was the "hallmark", as I wrote. Never 3 in a row. Vereshchagin just erred. Not a big deal.

The term " pseudo-shashka" is from Lebedinski. You can argue with him . It is used for convenience. And Bukharan are even less "shashkas", if you want to be precise:-)))

Still, the sword under the sash in the painting has nothing to do with with Afghani "pseudo-shashkas": see my note to Jim.

mahratt · 6th February 2016, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Yes, there were Bukharan " shashkas" with 4 rivets. But they were an exception while the 5 riveted hilt was the "hallmark", as I wrote. Never 3 in a row. Vereshchagin just erred. Not a big deal.

Dear Ariel. We're not talking about the alleged errors Vereshchagin,that you are trying to find. We are talking about specific subjects from Bukhara

You first said that the Bukhara items were only 5 rivets, referring to article Torben Flindt. Now, do you agree that it was and 4 rivets.

Let me remind you. I have already shown here in the topic Bukhara weapon with 3 rivets

Of course, you can deny the obvious .....

ariel · 6th February 2016, 11:20 AM

Please pay attention: I am specifically mentioning Bukharan shashkas. Not P'chaks. If you have an example of a shashka with 3 rivets, please show it.

mahratt · 6th February 2016, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Please pay attention: I am specifically mentioning Bukharan shashkas. Not P'chaks. If you have an example of a shashka with 3 rivets, please show it.

I'll do better. This is a quote (citation) from Torben Flint.

One man once told me: "My friend, read books and articles attentively. Not only see the pictures. "

I think this is a good recommendation.

ariel · 6th February 2016, 03:32 PM

Flindt describes there general structure of all Bukharan handles. No argument about kards and bichaks.
I am asking specifically about "shashkas" . All his examples and all I have seen or handled have 5 ( rarely 4, if the grip is narrower than usual).
Can you show an example of a "shashka" with 3 rivets?
I am intrigued.

4th February 2016, 07:33 AM	#41
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Several paintings by Vereshchagin devoted to the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878. Attached Images

4th February 2016, 10:01 PM	#44
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Afghan Attached Images

4th February 2016, 11:24 PM	#46
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	David, Over here we are dealing with historical ethnographic arms. In my opinion it it impossible to study Oriental arms without delving into history, religion, metaphysics, military clashes, etc, etc of that ancient, multicultural and turbulent area. This is the backbone of any serious study of Eastern weapons , with Elgood exemplifying this approach to the highest degree. Not for nothing his ( IMHO) masterpiece is titled "Hindu arms and ritual". As a matter of fact this is exactly what you yourself mention repeatedly when Indonesian kris is discussed. I was not trying to denigrate Vereshchagin's at all: in my opinion , he was just another good Orientalist painter.His uniqueness was in the military direction of his artistic efforts ( although Ingres odalisques may be preferred by others :-))) I was not looking for any factual inconsistencies in his works, but there must be some. Straight from the top of my head, look at the set of pics just above my response, where the supposed Afghani man carries a typical Bukharan shashka the handle of which has only 3 rivets placed in a line. The hallmark of Bukharan Shashkas is 5 rivets, placed in a 2-1-2 arrangement ( see pic in the same post). So, what kind of profound conclusions about Central Asian weapons should we reach from that painting ? Perhaps that Vereshchagin's sketch must have missed the detail and he might not have had a real Bukharan shashka in his studio. Also, the above-quoted Indian article about Vereshchagin mentioned wrong British uniforms. I am sure that careful review of his paintings by real " Where is Elmo?" aficionados might disclose more factual errors. So what? He was just an artist, for crying out loud ! Artists are not, and should not, be held to strict scientific standards. But by the same token, their images cannot be used as evidences without proper verification. In contrast, Elgood shows temple carving of warriors with D-guarded swords: 11-12th century! This might overthrow the entire idea of European impact on Hindu weapons! However, Elgood, being a scientist, downplayed the significance of art and suggested waiting for an actual example. And this is the difference between art and science. Last edited by ariel; 5th February 2016 at 02:04 AM.

5th February 2016, 11:28 PM	#52
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	I have already said that our knowledge is not limited to items that we have. The world is much more diverse than we imagine. And even if you do not pay attention to Bukhara items with 3 rivets on the handle, and focus on the Afghan shashkas (not true to call them -. Psevdoshashka It is not an imitation of something, but an independent weapon as Bukhara shashkas), it is easy to be convinced, that Afghan shashkas are different pommels hilt from one another. And that Afghan shashkas sometimes wore in his belt (as a shashka to the picture Vereshchagin). Attached Images Last edited by mahratt; 6th February 2016 at 12:06 AM.

3rd February 2016, 05:51 PM	#33
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,946	As I noted, this discussion, which has been primarily the topic of the Russian artist Vereshchagin's work, has been most interesting. Actually I agree heartily with Mahratt as well as David, that essentially works of art (and typically that often includes photographs) must be gauged carefully in their veracity as historical evidence. It is well known that art itself, is intended to elicit temporal and emotional reaction from the viewer, which is why artists often employed varying degree of license in their portrayals of historical events and situations. In the many references I have read through on the subject of 'historical detection', the best by far is "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection". James Davidson and Mark Lytle, N.Y. 1982, and is remarkable. In reviewing this book as I write this, I wanted to select a notable comment which addresses our subject of the use of art in studying history, but it is overwhelming as each page is full of compelling perspective on this. While the methods of 'detection' apply outside art itself to narratives, records, and all manner of historic detail, the references to artists themselves are most telling. I once did extensive research involving the identification of a Spanish 'cuera', the leather armor of the Spanish colonial soldiers in the frontiers of New Spain. In trying to locate an example of one of these, only two were found....however an unusual example which looked more like an early Roman armor was found in Arizona. This was remarkable in that not only did two other cuera still exist, this one was of entirely different form than previously known. The true identification of this curious anomaly in Spanish leather was found in paintings on hide, which incredibly had been discovered in Switzerland though painted in New Mexico in the 1720s. These had been sent there by a Jesuit priest to his family in about 1758. Through many efforts by local historians in New Mexico, these were finally returned there in the 1980s. In this painting, which was painted by local Pueblos of a tragic battle in Nebraska involving the massacre of a Spanish contingent from Santa Fe, many of the allied Indian warriors accompanying the Spaniards were wearing this type leather armor. It was the only known depiction of such a form, and had been unknown and in Europe since 1758. Therefore, the only references on Spanish colonial weapons and armor did not include this type. Further, this piece acquired in the late 19th century was only ever shown in a remote private museum in Arizona, whose owner died and the holdings were kept in storage until finally dispersed in an estate sale a number of years ago. It was captioned, 'old conquistador leather armor' only and in deplorable condition, with little other note. We used these paintings (known as the Segesser hides), along with considerable research into contemporary narratives and accounts, as well as examining the known corpus of material on Spanish colonial material culture to collect facts. We also confirmed the existence of the only other two cuera (one in the Smithsonian dated c.1820 and one in the Armeria Real dated c1770, both in storage).....and considered their forms as we examined the details of our example. We were finally able to determine that our cuera was from the 1690s period and produced by Indian artisans with Spanish advisors using the cuir boulli method (contrary to rawhide in the other examples) and apparently used by these Pueblo Indians loyal to the Spaniards in those times and it would appear primarily in the Santa Fe regions. In this way, with considerable corroboration, we were able to indeed use a work of art, contemporary to the events depicted, by Indian painters being directed by survivors and fashions and forms in use contemporarily there, to identify this rare item of leather armor, the only one of its kind. This anecdotal case (I apologize for the length) is to emphasize that of course artwork is valuable in historical study, but any reasonable historian will advance with caution and engage in considerable supportive study in applying its place in any study. Aside from those caveats, I thing it is quite possible to enjoy art for what it is, and greatly respect each artist for their talents and skills. In so many cases, the nuances and symbolism within these works can become history themselves!!! (look at "The DaVinci Code" !!).

3rd February 2016, 09:16 PM	#36
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	David and I seem to have difference of opinion: he calls my comments nitpicking , whereas I view them as an attempt to define strict parameters of proof. Epistemology is one of the main logical and philosophical branches. I cannot agree with Estcrh on the appropriateness of Vereshchaging's counter argument: the fact that something could have happened doesn't mean that it did happen. Jim's story is very instructive: an old image prompted long and careful examination of facts before its veracity was established. Artistic images by themselves carry an aura of factual uncertainty, especially if they are motivated by political considerations. And, BTW, I just found out ( thank you, Wikipedia!) that the brutal Brits, blowing up people from the cannons, actually learned this practice from the ........Moghuls:-) Apparently, physical annihilation of the body prevented reincarnation.

3rd February 2016, 10:13 PM	#38
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,946	I really don't think any of us here as reasonable historians are quite that far apart in our views that art and for that matter most sources of data and record of historical events may not always be entirely accurate. While it seems clear that the main issue is trying to establish the motivations and perspective which might lead to any inaccuracy or deliberate nuance or 'spin' on the source, obviously these are opinions, and should be accepted as such. I try to make it clear when I am presenting material that my comments are my opinion or view, not necessarily a matter of irreproachable fact. The only time I can assert otherwise is if I actually witnessed the event. Ironically, as most law enforcement and investigative authorities will tell you, even eye witnesses are often not entirely accurate, thus they rely on cross investigation to compare details. Ariel, thank you for your comment on my story, which indeed I meant in that very way, to be instructive. A note regarding Wikipedia, which I confess to using a great deal. It is what I refer to as a 'benchmark' source, presenting material on a topic and hopefully with cited sources. From here the research BEGINS as these are checked and cross checked with others as networking through the materials moves forward. Actually, art and Wikipedia in this sense have this in common! Actually the Wikipedia entry concerning the ghastly practice of execution by tying to cannon muzzle and firing seems well covered, and the pages of cited references and extensive bibliography have well set the path for any residual research. It does seem the practice certainly was not British alone just as most cases of these kinds of grim circumstance are not restricted to any particular nationality or other denomination.

4th February 2016, 10:46 PM	#45
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,946	Absolutely amazing art!! and beautiful pieces, especially that Bukharen sabre (always recognized by the 5 rivet pattern in the grip among other features). Thank you again for sharing all of these Mahratt. I wish I had walls so I could have copies of many of these up. The adventure sensation they convey must have been much like what those intrepid travelers must have felt as they trekked through these Central Asian regions.

5th February 2016, 03:24 AM	#47
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,946	Ariel, Extremely well thought out and presented response to Davids comments! I must admit that as a somewhat (perhaps a lot) romantic historian, I am inclined to overlook a lot of probably otherwise significant details in many works of art. Very unscientific I know, but I enjoy the sense the work sends me in appreciating the period or events. If I am considering the detail of the work in a study or investigation then of course my research broadens to seeking corroborating evidence in other sources. I don't think anyone who is in an art gallery usually has exactly the same perception or opinions on a work, but art is of course subjectively oriented. If I am watching a movie, especially something of historical content, of course I will note there will be certain flaws in detail......but I will not sacrifice the enjoyment of the film for these. Most critics delight in finding these detail errors and herald their superior knowledge by making loud and pronounced denigration of such things, but 'in my opinion' this is very belittling to themselves. For some reason I always seem to enjoy the most, the movies that critics hate and tear to pieces!!! Despite all the discussion , I know I really like the illustrations being posted here.......the philosophy uh......interesting.

5th February 2016, 02:43 PM	#50
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,946	Mahratt offers one of the most reasonable comments noting that writers or persons nitpicking in observations on art present great debate. It offers opportunity for those participating to either change or reinforce opinions and offers perspective for others who have not yet decided. It is not necessary to add political or personal derisions nor negative notes, one should focus on positive support for their position. This is the strong approach, negative or sarcastic notes otherwise only make the person making them appear weak. We see this too much in political campaigns! Regarding the accuracy of five rivets or three for example in Bukharen sabres, obviously there are never such hard and fast rules, and in recalling communications with Mr Flindt many years ago, I'm sure he would agree. The preponderance of five, does not negate the possibility of three. A fine point, but supports the need for additional research and corroboration with art in question.

5th February 2016, 11:06 PM	#51
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, I am sure you noticed two salient points re. Bukharan shashka: first, their pommels are cardinally different from the eared ones of Afghani " pseudo shashkas", and second, they were worn tucked under the sash, not suspended from the belt:-)

5th February 2016, 11:39 PM	#54
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	David, You are perfectly entitled to enjoying the images. I am perfectly entitled to use the same topic to address a totally different point: art as historical evidence. One does not negate another. You seem to find animosity ( or frank Russophobia) in my remarks. Let me assure you: there was none. Taking account of historical backgrounds is part and parcel of any discussion of historical weapons. I do not intend to initiate a topic dedicated to pictures of Edwin Lord Weeks. I do not think it would add anything to the discussion. I prefer him artistically, but am not interested in using his pictures for any martial analysis. By the same token, no Delacroix and no Gerome. You asked for actual examples of inconsistencies in V's pictures . I presented one. It is of interest that the picture of the "Afghani" was bolstered with a photograph of a Bukharan shashka, but it was quickly replaced with that of an Afghani pseudoshashka when the imprecision of the original image was pointed out. For details, please see my note to Jim above. Personally, I do not think this discussion is going anywhere. With best wishes.

6th February 2016, 03:08 AM	#56
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yes, there were Bukharan " shashkas" with 4 rivets. But they were an exception while the 5 riveted hilt was the "hallmark", as I wrote. Never 3 in a row. Vereshchagin just erred. Not a big deal. The term " pseudo-shashka" is from Lebedinski. You can argue with him . It is used for convenience. And Bukharan are even less "shashkas", if you want to be precise:-))) Still, the sword under the sash in the painting has nothing to do with with Afghani "pseudo-shashkas": see my note to Jim.

6th February 2016, 11:20 AM	#58
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Please pay attention: I am specifically mentioning Bukharan shashkas. Not P'chaks. If you have an example of a shashka with 3 rivets, please show it.

6th February 2016, 03:32 PM	#60
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Flindt describes there general structure of all Bukharan handles. No argument about kards and bichaks. I am asking specifically about "shashkas" . All his examples and all I have seen or handled have 5 ( rarely 4, if the grip is narrower than usual). Can you show an example of a "shashka" with 3 rivets? I am intrigued.