[ariel]

You have mentioned seeing “exactly the same” hilt in the collection of Russian Ethnographic Museum in SPb. I just wanted to see it myself hoping you might have a picture of it. If not, I understand.

“ AC” cannot be an abbreviation of the imperial Assay Chamber, because in Russian the words defining those institutions are different and could not be abbreviated as “AC”, and imperial assaying stamps had officially defined elements.The handle could have been made by a private Russian jeweler, but somewhere outside the Caucasus: there are shashkas made in Russian workshops from as far as S. Petersburg and some places in the Ukraine. I have one like that.
Imperial assaying stamps in the Caucasus date not to 1880s, but to 1804 ( see Astvatsaturyan). She has a list of Caucasian and Russian/Ukrainian assaying stamps( see “Caucasian weapons” 2nd edition, pp. 412-415) with names and initials of the chief assayers of those offices. There is no AC mark among them.

There is no doubt that what was presented here for discussion is a shashka, but the only unquestionably Caucasian details are 2 scabbard elements. The implied mode of wearing it ( edge down) is absolutely not Caucasian. The origin of the blade may be Caucasian, Russian or Turkish, but quite likely not originally belonging to the same hilt.
In short, IMHO it is a composed weapon, a chimera, or a “ bitser” :-) with final assembly of an unknown age ( 21st century not excluded).

I have presented my arguments and am ready to see a refutations of them that are based on material facts. Perhaps, I am wrong, in which case I am ready to change my analysis: learning something new is what this Forum is for.

One can find perfectly legitimate reason to acquire this shashka for his collection and it is not for me to criticize this decision. My point is that I personally do not like it and would not wish to own it.

Overall, we seem to have diametrically opposite opinions. Both of us are entitled to our own ones. We are just not entitled to our own facts.