Mysterious sword from Elgood's book

ariel · 18th May 2006, 03:29 AM

"Hindu arms and ritual", p.243:
"Chirkas:sword, specifically a Circassian sword. Used by the Uzbeks. Babur Nama, p.65"
The Circassian sword used by the Uzbeks and other Central Asians is what Lebedynsky calls a "pseudo-shashka". It is believed, indeed, to derive from the Russian Cossack Shashkas that came to the area in the mid-1800s, as a result of the Russian invasion of Khiva, Bukhara etc. and the Russians, indeed, took it from North Caucasians.
However, reference to Babur Nama clearly antedates it.
Uzbeks, Turkic people, or their differently named predecessors invaded Caucasus in 13th century with Subedai and Jebe, a reconnaissance force of Chingiz Khan. Could they bring their Shashka-like weapons to Circassia? If so, why do they name their weapon Chircas?
Is it possible that Shashka made a "full circle": from Central Asia to the Caucasus and back?

ham · 18th May 2006, 05:33 AM

Ariel,

Before you get any further down that flowery path- Elgood's not talking about a shashka. Read the Baburname, it's a completely different type of sword.

Ham

ariel · 18th May 2006, 07:23 AM

My point is that there was a Circassian sword used by Uzbeks at the time of Babur Nama. No matter what it looked like, this implies connection between the two cultures.

Rivkin · 18th May 2006, 08:06 AM

Fugh, I can offer some educated guesses:

1. Cherkes means "eagle" in some version of osethian language. It is remotely possible that "cherkes" is taken directly from alanic.

I have not reade baburname, so I'll just fire it all away:

2. While circassian presence in India was probably non-existant since mamluk operations in India were mostly concluded before 1290, i.e. before massive use of circassians, circassian presence was extremely powerful in XVIth-XVIIth century Iran. There was a fight between Qizilbash - warriors whose both parents were turkoman and those whose mother was georgian or circassian. Tahmasp patronized to "caucasians", then Ismail patronized to Qizilbash, than Abbas I was the leader of georgian faction, with people like Allaverdi Khan installed. This is one of the reasons it is hard for georgians to make a patriotic story about those times - all those who rampaged the country and send the entire eastern kartli population into fedarin area of iran where at least 50% georgian, including the shah.

Circassian slave women were a little bit harder to get, but still available (famous story about first persian in england actually being a circassian from abbas' court).

3. When Timur rampaged through Circassia, he could have used his usual practise of sending "worthy" artisans to Samarkand, while killing the rest. It is quite possible that circassian sword makers were among the relocated.

ariel · 18th May 2006, 04:02 PM

Kirill, I like the hypothesis #3 very much.
Of course, every conqueror moved the best artisans to his own land, and that always was a major source of cultural exchange between weapon traditions. And the times fit: about 150 years between Timur and his grandson Babur.
Good thinking!

ham · 18th May 2006, 05:52 PM

History is not always that extreme, gentlemen.

Trade is a component that cannot be left out of the discussion.

Astvatsaturyan states that the skill of Circassian armourers was already well-known in Russia and that several were invited to the capital to set up shop by the Tsar in the early 17th century (which apparently, they did.) They were not dragged there. Incidentally, when Timur brought artesans back to Central Asia, they were PAID and well at that, for their work. Few artists produce great work without compensation, or on threat of death. Economically, it's a weak program and your average conqueror knew this.
The Qajar shahs were known for driving a hard bargain with their armourers and jewelers-- but they always paid.

In addition, a weapon, or any object, will be known by the name of a people either because it was actually made by them or because the form was copied from them-- it was a variety of branding.

Circassian sword= BSA (British Small Arms-- famous for motorcycles but originally an arms mfg. plant)

or

Circassian sword=Dutch oven

Ham

ariel · 18th May 2006, 11:05 PM

Ham,
I do not have a copy of "Baburname" handy; can you check yours and post here the exact description of the Circassian sword from there? That will be very useful, especially if it does not sound like a Shashka.As to the migrating and well-paid artsans, people rarely migrated ouside the tribe and on their own volition in those times. Usually, the whole tribe tried to escape the invaders or the coqueror moved prisoners of war/artisans into his land. There they became a part of local population but brought new techniques and patterns. Sure, they were paid, but at least the first generation was home-sick....
Of course, Circas (whatever it was) was a "trademark", just like Karabela, Ordynka and Ormianka in Poland, Mameluke in Europe etc, but, just like those, it must have reflected some original tradition and pattern.

Rivkin · 23rd October 2006, 07:55 AM

I have looked through Babur-Name and the sword appears to be circassian made, i.e. chirkas - "circassian blade".
Interestingly enough Babur wears "kalmyk mail" - Chelebi, who traveled in Caucasus 100 year later mentions that kalmyk in Dagestan make very good mail; before him mail-makers in Dagestan are mentioned by almost every arab geographer of the area, however they mention that these are specifically people living in a "mail makers city" (Minorsky believed it is Kubachi, since Kubachi translates as "mailers").

It seems that these are indeed results of trade, however Kartli king had send Timur a few mails and according to some, albeit much later documents Timur replied back saying that he liked the mail very much.
Shah Abbad also had quite a peculiar taste - according to russian ambassador Andrey Zvenigorodsky when the latter was shown Shah's armour Shah told him that "Helmets from bulat and armour we make in our country, good and beutiful bulat we get from India, and the good armour we get from Circassia".
Citation is given from Veselovsky "Pamyatniki diplomaticheskiv i torgovyh otnoshenii Moskovskoi Rusi i Persii". So it seems that Abbas' armour was made you know where

.

Philip · 23rd October 2006, 08:49 AM

Gentlemen:
Unfortunately Elgood's glossary doesn't illustrate an example of this "chirkas", but do you have in mind the sabers without any type of guard, with a knife-like handle with no pommel cap which has become associated with the emirate of Bukhara? Note the 2 examples in T. Flindt's "Some Nineteenth Century Arms from Bukhara" in Elgood (ed), ISLAMIC ARMS AND ARMOUR, Scolar Press 1979.

I have made note of the design of these two, plus the several in the Moser collection catalogued by E. Rohrer in "Die Waffen aus Turkestan" in JAHRBUCH DES BERNISCHEN HISTORISCHEN MUSEUMS IN BERN, xxvii. Jahrgang (Bern: K. J. Wyss, 1946), two or three in the Museum of Oriental Cultures in Moscow, plus several which I have owned and others in private collections, and can come to this conclusion:

This Central Asian saber is not likely to be derived from or related to the Caucasus shashka. I enumerate the following points:

1. The "szabla bukharska" generally has a blade whose width expands just before it meets the handle. (sometimes the effect is subtle because of repeated sharpening, but even in such cases the change in width is apparent when you compare the edge and spine contours) Occasionally, the edge widens out to a short blunted area or "ricasso", a feature seen on many Indian talwars and Afghan puluoar blades. The shashka's curve or contour at the edge tends to maintain a more constant relationship to that of the spine, and a prominent ricasso is generally absent.

2. Bukharska tips are generally more acute than the more deeply radiused edge at the average shashka's point.

3. The hilt of a shaskha is invariably "cleft" with a deep V notch between two "ears" at the pommel. Bukharska hilts are solid and don't expand into these big ears.

4. The mouth of the bukharska scabbard never swallows the hilt of the sword like the majority of shashka scabbards do. The slightly wedge-shaped "nose" of the blade bolster nests in a shallow V shaped cutout in the mouth of the scabbard.

If you look at the closest weapon that incorporates all 4 of the above features which are characteristic of these Turkestan sabers, you come up with ..... the Persian pesh kabz. Imagine that you can inject a curved bladed pesh kabz with steroids, and massage it just a little bit, and you can see how these sabers could come about.

5. Another thing comes to mind: Shashkas for the most part seem to be universally long, the blades generally over 31 inches (unless damaged and re tipped). I have noted a large proportion of bukharskas that tend to be on the short side, well under 30 inches. The shashka is of course a horseman's weapon, so length is important. The peoples of Turkestan had cavalry forces too, but in states such as Bukhara, Samarqand, and Khiva, the rulers fielded infantry forces as well. Admittedly, we do not have complete information yet about the use of these sabers; Herr Rohrer states that the exact manner of attaching the scabbard to the wearer's body was not known. So, further research is needed.

Anyway, this is my two cents' worth of theory, based on empirical observations of weapons design and construction, not on etymology or history. Someone else can surely use data from the other two fields, as has been done in previous posts, to argue something else. That's the fun of this business, isn't it?

Rivkin · 23rd October 2006, 11:21 PM

I think Baburname can not offer us anything new on Shashka/Buchara sabre relationship, something we I think will discuss many more times

.

What I was trying to do by my post if first of all bring examples of trade relationships in the region and how armour and weapons from one place would get to the other place.
The second thing was something I have been trying to do for a very long time - with Ottoman empire we destinguish between Syrian, Balkan, Trabzon, Anatolian styles, not even to mention the whole african aspect. With tiny Georgia we see the differences between the west and the east, between Imerethi and Tbilisi.
But when it comes to colossal Persian Empire all we see in museums is "persian shamshir, XVIIIth century", or "Zand sword" or "Safavid sword", or may be something with such vague as Aryan. I think we need to put extra effort to be way more precise than this. Where it was made ? Is it characteristic for a certain part of Persia or for a certain tribe ?
And here is a good example - if we believe in the source we can reasonably state that the armour of Shah Abbas was made in Circassia. While it is no part of Persia, it nevertheless makes our knowledge of Persian armour more specific. Hopefully one day we will be able to identify weapons and patterns specific for Azeris, Kurds, Georgians, Armenian swordmakers, Arabs and so on and so on.

ariel · 24th October 2006, 03:09 AM

Check on this thread: BI posted pics of Bukharan "shashkas" as described by Phillip
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=911
And I posted an "Afghani shashka" that has some of the above characteristics as well
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2695
I completely agree with Rivkin: we tend to lump all Persian or Central Asian swords together.
But just look at garden variety Afghani Khyber knives: there are several variants of handles obviously coming from different areas/tribes. I would not encorage anybody to go there these days for a field research tour

But we should keep it in mind.

Philip · 24th October 2006, 09:55 AM

Dear Ariel and Rivkin
You guys are both so correct -- under the umbrella of an entity such as "Qajar Iran" are different peoples with distinct cultural differences. Everybody thinks of "Persia" as being nothing but native Farsi-speaking "Aryans". But you have Kurds, Baluchs, various other tribal groups, plus the folks from Meshhed who are part descended from Mongols. The material culture, including the arms they made or used, must have had subtle differences. I sense this from costume and carpet design, so why not weapons? Yes, we need more research.

Do either of you have Manouchehr's new book on Persian arms? Does it address such points about cultural subtypes within Persia? I haven't ordered my copy yet, I hope it's a good book and worth the money. I respect your opinions so please tell me.

Thanks for posting pics of the "Afghani shashkas". I had not included those in my exposition, I focused only on bukharskas. But interesting to see that the afghanskas do have the ricasso at the forte, but their pommel ears are split just as on the Caucasian models.

ariel · 28th October 2006, 02:30 AM

Here is an Afghani/Uzbeki Shashka that just ended.
We have seen them before , but here is just another example: Repetitio mater studiorum est ( repetition is a mother of learning)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=018

Zifir · 28th October 2006, 02:53 AM

I saw this sword a while ago in a turkish auction site. The seller was claiming that this was not a shashka but a janissary sword. And saying that the grip still had the waxed ribbon which was used to prevent the slipping of the weapon from user's hand. Any opinions?

Philip · 28th October 2006, 06:53 AM

No, I don't think this is a "janissary sword". The hilt form is a classic Caucasian-style shashka. The plain horn is a simple type used by the commoners, not the chieftains. Also, this style of plain horn grip was officially adopted by the Russians on their "Caucasian pattern" enlisted man's shashka, Model 1904 (see Eugene Mollo, RUSSIAN MILITARY SWORDS 1801-1917, London: Historical Research Unit 1969, p. 39, also see A. N. Kulinsky, RUSSKOYE KHOLODNOYE ORUZHIYE: VOENNYKH, MORSKICH, I GRAZHDANSKICH CHINOV, 1800-1917g, St Petersburg, Magik Press 1994, pp 88-89).

However, the blade on this example doesn't match the 1904 regulation. It appears to be a military saber blade of common type from some Western country. Without dimensions and notes on markings, it's difficult to place it in terms of country or unit. From its style it looks 19th cent, thru early 20th. The slender profile, broad fuller, and prominent ricasso are key identifying characteristics as European/British/American, factory made of common military style.

Zifir · 29th October 2006, 02:17 AM

Philip, thank you for the comments. Unfortunately I forgot to note down the measurements of the sword when I saved these pictures. His claim for it being a 'janissary' sword did not convince me, but you may never know. So I wanted to take some expert opinion. I have not seen the waxed ribbon thing before, which specifically attacted my attention to this piece.

Philip · 29th October 2006, 08:03 AM

Zifir,
This ribbon seems to be one of many similar solutions to the problem of the handle slipping in a sweaty or bloody hand. The braided cord winding on the handles of Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese sabers, a similar thing on the hilts of the Burmese "dha", and various types of leather or rawhide winding on the handles of medieval European swords are all related to this.

I have a heavy Turkish chopping knife used by butchers or farmers, the handle is forged like a tubular extension of the blade itself. It is wrapped with a ribbon to improve the grip, and in this case, the material appears to be raw hide.

18th May 2006, 03:29 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mysterious sword from Elgood's book "Hindu arms and ritual", p.243: "Chirkas:sword, specifically a Circassian sword. Used by the Uzbeks. Babur Nama, p.65" The Circassian sword used by the Uzbeks and other Central Asians is what Lebedynsky calls a "pseudo-shashka". It is believed, indeed, to derive from the Russian Cossack Shashkas that came to the area in the mid-1800s, as a result of the Russian invasion of Khiva, Bukhara etc. and the Russians, indeed, took it from North Caucasians. However, reference to Babur Nama clearly antedates it. Uzbeks, Turkic people, or their differently named predecessors invaded Caucasus in 13th century with Subedai and Jebe, a reconnaissance force of Chingiz Khan. Could they bring their Shashka-like weapons to Circassia? If so, why do they name their weapon Chircas? Is it possible that Shashka made a "full circle": from Central Asia to the Caucasus and back?

23rd October 2006, 07:55 AM	#8
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I have looked through Babur-Name and the sword appears to be circassian made, i.e. chirkas - "circassian blade". Interestingly enough Babur wears "kalmyk mail" - Chelebi, who traveled in Caucasus 100 year later mentions that kalmyk in Dagestan make very good mail; before him mail-makers in Dagestan are mentioned by almost every arab geographer of the area, however they mention that these are specifically people living in a "mail makers city" (Minorsky believed it is Kubachi, since Kubachi translates as "mailers"). It seems that these are indeed results of trade, however Kartli king had send Timur a few mails and according to some, albeit much later documents Timur replied back saying that he liked the mail very much. Shah Abbad also had quite a peculiar taste - according to russian ambassador Andrey Zvenigorodsky when the latter was shown Shah's armour Shah told him that "Helmets from bulat and armour we make in our country, good and beutiful bulat we get from India, and the good armour we get from Circassia". Citation is given from Veselovsky "Pamyatniki diplomaticheskiv i torgovyh otnoshenii Moskovskoi Rusi i Persii". So it seems that Abbas' armour was made you know where . Last edited by Rivkin; 23rd October 2006 at 08:17 AM.

23rd October 2006, 08:49 AM	#9
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	my thoughts on central asian "shashka-like" sabers Gentlemen: Unfortunately Elgood's glossary doesn't illustrate an example of this "chirkas", but do you have in mind the sabers without any type of guard, with a knife-like handle with no pommel cap which has become associated with the emirate of Bukhara? Note the 2 examples in T. Flindt's "Some Nineteenth Century Arms from Bukhara" in Elgood (ed), ISLAMIC ARMS AND ARMOUR, Scolar Press 1979. I have made note of the design of these two, plus the several in the Moser collection catalogued by E. Rohrer in "Die Waffen aus Turkestan" in JAHRBUCH DES BERNISCHEN HISTORISCHEN MUSEUMS IN BERN, xxvii. Jahrgang (Bern: K. J. Wyss, 1946), two or three in the Museum of Oriental Cultures in Moscow, plus several which I have owned and others in private collections, and can come to this conclusion: This Central Asian saber is not likely to be derived from or related to the Caucasus shashka. I enumerate the following points: 1. The "szabla bukharska" generally has a blade whose width expands just before it meets the handle. (sometimes the effect is subtle because of repeated sharpening, but even in such cases the change in width is apparent when you compare the edge and spine contours) Occasionally, the edge widens out to a short blunted area or "ricasso", a feature seen on many Indian talwars and Afghan puluoar blades. The shashka's curve or contour at the edge tends to maintain a more constant relationship to that of the spine, and a prominent ricasso is generally absent. 2. Bukharska tips are generally more acute than the more deeply radiused edge at the average shashka's point. 3. The hilt of a shaskha is invariably "cleft" with a deep V notch between two "ears" at the pommel. Bukharska hilts are solid and don't expand into these big ears. 4. The mouth of the bukharska scabbard never swallows the hilt of the sword like the majority of shashka scabbards do. The slightly wedge-shaped "nose" of the blade bolster nests in a shallow V shaped cutout in the mouth of the scabbard. If you look at the closest weapon that incorporates all 4 of the above features which are characteristic of these Turkestan sabers, you come up with ..... the Persian pesh kabz. Imagine that you can inject a curved bladed pesh kabz with steroids, and massage it just a little bit, and you can see how these sabers could come about. 5. Another thing comes to mind: Shashkas for the most part seem to be universally long, the blades generally over 31 inches (unless damaged and re tipped). I have noted a large proportion of bukharskas that tend to be on the short side, well under 30 inches. The shashka is of course a horseman's weapon, so length is important. The peoples of Turkestan had cavalry forces too, but in states such as Bukhara, Samarqand, and Khiva, the rulers fielded infantry forces as well. Admittedly, we do not have complete information yet about the use of these sabers; Herr Rohrer states that the exact manner of attaching the scabbard to the wearer's body was not known. So, further research is needed. Anyway, this is my two cents' worth of theory, based on empirical observations of weapons design and construction, not on etymology or history. Someone else can surely use data from the other two fields, as has been done in previous posts, to argue something else. That's the fun of this business, isn't it? Last edited by Philip; 23rd October 2006 at 08:59 PM.

24th October 2006, 09:55 AM	#12
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	differentiating the arms of sub-groups within an empire Dear Ariel and Rivkin You guys are both so correct -- under the umbrella of an entity such as "Qajar Iran" are different peoples with distinct cultural differences. Everybody thinks of "Persia" as being nothing but native Farsi-speaking "Aryans". But you have Kurds, Baluchs, various other tribal groups, plus the folks from Meshhed who are part descended from Mongols. The material culture, including the arms they made or used, must have had subtle differences. I sense this from costume and carpet design, so why not weapons? Yes, we need more research. Do either of you have Manouchehr's new book on Persian arms? Does it address such points about cultural subtypes within Persia? I haven't ordered my copy yet, I hope it's a good book and worth the money. I respect your opinions so please tell me. Thanks for posting pics of the "Afghani shashkas". I had not included those in my exposition, I focused only on bukharskas. But interesting to see that the afghanskas do have the ricasso at the forte, but their pommel ears are split just as on the Caucasian models.

28th October 2006, 02:53 AM	#14
Zifir Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Istanbul Posts: 228	I saw this sword a while ago in a turkish auction site. The seller was claiming that this was not a shashka but a janissary sword. And saying that the grip still had the waxed ribbon which was used to prevent the slipping of the weapon from user's hand. Any opinions? Attached Images

18th May 2006, 05:33 AM	#2
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Ariel, Before you get any further down that flowery path- Elgood's not talking about a shashka. Read the Baburname, it's a completely different type of sword. Ham

18th May 2006, 07:23 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	My point is that there was a Circassian sword used by Uzbeks at the time of Babur Nama. No matter what it looked like, this implies connection between the two cultures.

18th May 2006, 08:06 AM	#4
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Fugh, I can offer some educated guesses: 1. Cherkes means "eagle" in some version of osethian language. It is remotely possible that "cherkes" is taken directly from alanic. I have not reade baburname, so I'll just fire it all away: 2. While circassian presence in India was probably non-existant since mamluk operations in India were mostly concluded before 1290, i.e. before massive use of circassians, circassian presence was extremely powerful in XVIth-XVIIth century Iran. There was a fight between Qizilbash - warriors whose both parents were turkoman and those whose mother was georgian or circassian. Tahmasp patronized to "caucasians", then Ismail patronized to Qizilbash, than Abbas I was the leader of georgian faction, with people like Allaverdi Khan installed. This is one of the reasons it is hard for georgians to make a patriotic story about those times - all those who rampaged the country and send the entire eastern kartli population into fedarin area of iran where at least 50% georgian, including the shah. Circassian slave women were a little bit harder to get, but still available (famous story about first persian in england actually being a circassian from abbas' court). 3. When Timur rampaged through Circassia, he could have used his usual practise of sending "worthy" artisans to Samarkand, while killing the rest. It is quite possible that circassian sword makers were among the relocated.

18th May 2006, 04:02 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Kirill, I like the hypothesis #3 very much. Of course, every conqueror moved the best artisans to his own land, and that always was a major source of cultural exchange between weapon traditions. And the times fit: about 150 years between Timur and his grandson Babur. Good thinking!

18th May 2006, 05:52 PM	#6
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	History is not always that extreme, gentlemen. Trade is a component that cannot be left out of the discussion. Astvatsaturyan states that the skill of Circassian armourers was already well-known in Russia and that several were invited to the capital to set up shop by the Tsar in the early 17th century (which apparently, they did.) They were not dragged there. Incidentally, when Timur brought artesans back to Central Asia, they were PAID and well at that, for their work. Few artists produce great work without compensation, or on threat of death. Economically, it's a weak program and your average conqueror knew this. The Qajar shahs were known for driving a hard bargain with their armourers and jewelers-- but they always paid. In addition, a weapon, or any object, will be known by the name of a people either because it was actually made by them or because the form was copied from them-- it was a variety of branding. Circassian sword= BSA (British Small Arms-- famous for motorcycles but originally an arms mfg. plant) or Circassian sword=Dutch oven Ham

18th May 2006, 11:05 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Ham, I do not have a copy of "Baburname" handy; can you check yours and post here the exact description of the Circassian sword from there? That will be very useful, especially if it does not sound like a Shashka.As to the migrating and well-paid artsans, people rarely migrated ouside the tribe and on their own volition in those times. Usually, the whole tribe tried to escape the invaders or the coqueror moved prisoners of war/artisans into his land. There they became a part of local population but brought new techniques and patterns. Sure, they were paid, but at least the first generation was home-sick.... Of course, Circas (whatever it was) was a "trademark", just like Karabela, Ordynka and Ormianka in Poland, Mameluke in Europe etc, but, just like those, it must have reflected some original tradition and pattern.

23rd October 2006, 11:21 PM	#10
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I think Baburname can not offer us anything new on Shashka/Buchara sabre relationship, something we I think will discuss many more times . What I was trying to do by my post if first of all bring examples of trade relationships in the region and how armour and weapons from one place would get to the other place. The second thing was something I have been trying to do for a very long time - with Ottoman empire we destinguish between Syrian, Balkan, Trabzon, Anatolian styles, not even to mention the whole african aspect. With tiny Georgia we see the differences between the west and the east, between Imerethi and Tbilisi. But when it comes to colossal Persian Empire all we see in museums is "persian shamshir, XVIIIth century", or "Zand sword" or "Safavid sword", or may be something with such vague as Aryan. I think we need to put extra effort to be way more precise than this. Where it was made ? Is it characteristic for a certain part of Persia or for a certain tribe ? And here is a good example - if we believe in the source we can reasonably state that the armour of Shah Abbas was made in Circassia. While it is no part of Persia, it nevertheless makes our knowledge of Persian armour more specific. Hopefully one day we will be able to identify weapons and patterns specific for Azeris, Kurds, Georgians, Armenian swordmakers, Arabs and so on and so on.

24th October 2006, 03:09 AM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Check on this thread: BI posted pics of Bukharan "shashkas" as described by Phillip http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=911 And I posted an "Afghani shashka" that has some of the above characteristics as well http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2695 I completely agree with Rivkin: we tend to lump all Persian or Central Asian swords together. But just look at garden variety Afghani Khyber knives: there are several variants of handles obviously coming from different areas/tribes. I would not encorage anybody to go there these days for a field research tour But we should keep it in mind.

28th October 2006, 02:30 AM	#13
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Here is an Afghani/Uzbeki Shashka that just ended. We have seen them before , but here is just another example: Repetitio mater studiorum est ( repetition is a mother of learning) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=018

28th October 2006, 06:53 AM	#15
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	looks like a shaskha to me... No, I don't think this is a "janissary sword". The hilt form is a classic Caucasian-style shashka. The plain horn is a simple type used by the commoners, not the chieftains. Also, this style of plain horn grip was officially adopted by the Russians on their "Caucasian pattern" enlisted man's shashka, Model 1904 (see Eugene Mollo, RUSSIAN MILITARY SWORDS 1801-1917, London: Historical Research Unit 1969, p. 39, also see A. N. Kulinsky, RUSSKOYE KHOLODNOYE ORUZHIYE: VOENNYKH, MORSKICH, I GRAZHDANSKICH CHINOV, 1800-1917g, St Petersburg, Magik Press 1994, pp 88-89). However, the blade on this example doesn't match the 1904 regulation. It appears to be a military saber blade of common type from some Western country. Without dimensions and notes on markings, it's difficult to place it in terms of country or unit. From its style it looks 19th cent, thru early 20th. The slender profile, broad fuller, and prominent ricasso are key identifying characteristics as European/British/American, factory made of common military style.

29th October 2006, 02:17 AM	#16
Zifir Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Istanbul Posts: 228	Philip, thank you for the comments. Unfortunately I forgot to note down the measurements of the sword when I saved these pictures. His claim for it being a 'janissary' sword did not convince me, but you may never know. So I wanted to take some expert opinion. I have not seen the waxed ribbon thing before, which specifically attacted my attention to this piece.

29th October 2006, 08:03 AM	#17
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	waxed ribbon Zifir, This ribbon seems to be one of many similar solutions to the problem of the handle slipping in a sweaty or bloody hand. The braided cord winding on the handles of Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese sabers, a similar thing on the hilts of the Burmese "dha", and various types of leather or rawhide winding on the handles of medieval European swords are all related to this. I have a heavy Turkish chopping knife used by butchers or farmers, the handle is forged like a tubular extension of the blade itself. It is wrapped with a ribbon to improve the grip, and in this case, the material appears to be raw hide.