Shashka??? Or what ????

estcrh · 29th March 2016, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Before continuing the discussion maybe it would be better to clarify WHAT IDENTFIES A SWORD?! Is it the blade? Is it the hilt? Is it both?

It depends, Ottoman kilij can have many types of blades and still be recognizable.

ALEX · 30th March 2016, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

It depends, Ottoman kilij can have many types of blades and still be recognizable.

This is true. the last sword I'd call Ottoman shamshir, not because of Kilij type hilt but because of shamshir type blade

Jim McDougall · 30th March 2016, 05:59 AM

Thank you Ariel, we are entirely on the same page. I also agree that this sabre is a genuinely produced of the period sword fully intended for use, and probably Afghan regions 19th c.
I am really curious about that starburst device on the hilt, and wish I could find the images of the embossed metalwork on what I think was a Kubachi hilted shashka with that incorporated in the context. I have seen Daghestani shaskas with small silver devices emplaced in the same location with the suggestion these were awards or similar devices.

I also remain curious on that finger nock at the base of the grip and feel sure I have seen similar on other sabres, but again cannot place yet.

On the terms for these weapon forms, indeed these are pretty much locked into our glossaries of arms with these European versions of what was contrived to be the proper names for them. Probably one of the most bizarre and fanciful examples (fortunately used only in romanticized narratives or novels) is the term 'scimitar .

Alex, agreed on that last image, in fact it seems examples I have seen with the Ottoman 'pistol grip' hilt and distinct shamshir blades were indeed termed 'Ottoman shamshirs'......thus properly qualifying the shamshir with that denomination.

David R · 30th March 2016, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I also remain curious on that finger nock at the base of the grip and feel sure I have seen similar on other sabres, but again cannot place yet.

It appears on Sassanid hilts, as illustrated below, and crops up on early Shamshirs. The Armouries Leeds has a nice one on display.

Jim McDougall · 30th March 2016, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David R

It appears on Sassanid hilts, as illustrated below, and crops up on early Shamshirs. The Armouries Leeds has a nice one on display.

Beautifully caught David!!! Thank you so much

I knew I had seen it and thought perhaps on shamshirs but could not place it. I had totally forgotten these key Sassanid swords.

estcrh · 30th March 2016, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

This is true. the last sword I'd call Ottoman shamshir, not because of Kilij type hilt but because of shamshir type blade

Both terms would be correct, it is an Ottoman kilij and Ottoman shamshir.

The pulwar is another example, they can have several different blade types but the hilt identifies them.

mariusgmioc · 30th March 2016, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

It depends, Ottoman kilij can have many types of blades and still be recognizable.

I beg to differ.

I have seen many authors making the very same confusion and identifying a sword exclusively by its hilt.

And yes, the hilt can be used for defining/identifying a sword, but when the blade is not very characteristic and cannot be identified as such.

In this case, the Ottoman Kilij is characterized primarily by the presence of the yelman and in lesser measure by the reinforced T-shaped spine extending along about two thirds of the blade and the fuller which the Shamshir lacks. Also the archetypal Kilij has a specific shape with a very shallow curvature (or no curvature at all) for the portion of the blade near the hilt, and a very deep curvature closer to the tip like the one in your second photo.

Of course there are blades that display mixed characteristics (as you may encounter "Shamshirs" having fullers or even an yelman) and cannot be accurately identified. In such cases allocating a specific name other than the generic terms of "sword" or "sabre" would be rather inaccurate and misleading, but it is not the case with the Ottoman Shamshir in your photo.

If however, you are Turkish, then the term Kilij (more accurately Kilic) will become also accurate, but only for you, because in Turkish, Kilic, literally means sword... any sword. But then, in the same line of thought, you would be correct calling "Kilic" even a Japanese Katana or an Italian Rapier.

ariel · 30th March 2016, 10:05 AM

There was a special term for Turkish sabers with pistol handles and shamshir blades: kilij ajemi .

The terminal "c" in some European versions of transcribing Turkish word "kilij" in fact much have a diacritical mark, indicating its pronunciation as "ch" or "dzh" . Correctly, it is Ç. Thus, Kilich, KiliÇ and kilij are the same word with identical pronunciation but different Latin letters used.

Sometimes it is simply difficult to phonetize foreign sounds precisely: Russian X is Kh, and Щ in English uses 4 letters: SHCH. Thus, Khrushchev:-) And what is correct: Czar or Tsar? Woody Allen pondered on it once and New York Times crosswords treacherously use both spellings to frustrate you. Bastards that they are:-)))

estcrh · 30th March 2016, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I beg to differ.

I have seen many authors making the very same confusion and identifying a sword exclusively by its hilt.

And yes, the hilt can be used for defining/identifying a sword, but when the blade is not very characteristic and cannot be identified as such.

In this case, the Ottoman Kilij is characterized primarily by the presence of the yelman and in lesser measure by the reinforced T-shaped spine extending along about two thirds of the blade and the fuller which the Shamshir lacks. Also the archetypal Kilij has a specific shape with a very shallow curvature (or no curvature at all) for the portion of the blade near the hilt, and a very deep curvature closer to the tip like the one in your second photo.

Of course there are blades that display mixed characteristics (as you may encounter "Shamshirs" having fullers or even an yelman) and cannot be accurately identified. In such cases allocating a specific name other than the generic terms of "sword" or "sabre" would be rather inaccurate and misleading, but it is not the case with the Ottoman Shamshir in your photo.

If however, you are Turkish, then the term Kilij (more accurately Kilic) will become also accurate, but only for you, because in Turkish, Kilic, literally means sword... any sword. But then, in the same line of thought, you would be correct calling "Kilic" even a Japanese Katana or an Italian Rapier.

That is your interpretation of the subject but it is not necessarily correct for other people, expecially English speaking collectors / dealers. Kilij has come to mean any Ottoman pistol grip sword whether it has a yelman or not, straight blade or highly curved blade, T spine or shamshir blade etc.

The same goes for shashka, if it looks like a shashka it is called "shashka", if it can be further identified such as Bukhara, Circassian, Afghan, Russian then that is added to the description.

kronckew · 30th March 2016, 11:42 AM

how about a russian klych shashka. note the scabbard ring placement...

estcrh · 30th March 2016, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

how about a russian klych shashka. note the scabbard ring placement...

How authentic is this one? It is a cheap modern replica that is currently being sold online.

Links to items currently for sale are not allowed. Robert

Quote:

This is a modern replica of a traditional cossack shashka sword made in Volgograd (former Stalingrad), Russia. The weight of this shashka is 700g The blade is 65G carbon steel hardened to 54 HRC Blade thickness is 6 mm, width 35mm The shashka has a nutwood riveted handle with three metal studs. Sheath is made of wood wrapped in leather. All decorative metal elements are made of brass. Blade length is 850 mm, handle - 17cm. Full tang, without any welded or sawed parts.

kronckew · 30th March 2016, 01:56 PM

[QUOTE=estcrh]How authentic is this one? It is a cheap modern replica that is currently being sold online.

Link removed. Robert
yes, that's the one, not posted as an antique, just to add another transliteration of kilij/kilic in klych. this one IS cheap but looks fairly well made.
video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihbG...ature=youtu.be

might buy one to play with. can't afford an antique that i could be brutal with...

ALEX · 30th March 2016, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

... Kilij has come to mean any Ottoman pistol grip sword whether it has a yelman or not, straight blade or highly curved blade, T spine or shamshir blade etc...

I do not know how this came about. surely, some collectors have their ways and terminology "preferences"

, but traditionally, Kilij signifies the blade with yelman, not any blade with pistol grip. There are Indian blades with yelman and tulwar-type hilts that can be called Kilij-type blades because of specific blade profile, regardless of the grip. Likewise, there are Kilijes with other, not pistol hilt types. It is profile of the blade that makes it a Kilij to begin with.

estcrh · 30th March 2016, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

It is profile of the blade that makes it a Kilij to begin with.

Alex, according to who?

ALEX · 30th March 2016, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex, according to who?

about every knowledgeable collector i know, and all decent books I read.
They all could be wrong, of course. Please substantiate your argument.

By the way, in Oriental Arms sample above, it states "shamshir blade in Turkish fittings". The Kilij/Shamshir title may refer to "Kilij" as a word for sword in Turkish language, as in other similar descriptions. but I have not seen anything saying any blade with pistol grip is a Kilij.

We had similar argument before about "Saif" as any sword with Arab hilt

Word Saif means sword in Arabic, just as Kilij is sword in Turkish. What this has to do with the hilt type?

estcrh · 30th March 2016, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

about every knowledgeable collector i know, and all decent books I read.
They all could be wrong, of course. Please substantiate your argument.

By the way, in Oriental Arms sample above, it states "shamshir blade in Turkish fittings". The Kilij/Shamshir title may refer to "Kilij" as a word for sword in Turkish language, as in other similar descriptions. but I have not seen anything saying any blade with pistol grip is a Kilij.

http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s1072_full.html

30th March 2016, 11:42 AM	#10
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,239	how about a russian klych shashka. note the scabbard ring placement... Attached Images

30th March 2016, 01:56 PM	#12
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,239	[QUOTE=estcrh]How authentic is this one? It is a cheap modern replica that is currently being sold online. Link removed. Robert yes, that's the one, not posted as an antique, just to add another transliteration of kilij/kilic in klych. this one IS cheap but looks fairly well made. video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihbG...ature=youtu.be might buy one to play with. can't afford an antique that i could be brutal with... Last edited by Robert; 30th March 2016 at 06:49 PM.

30th March 2016, 05:59 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Thank you Ariel, we are entirely on the same page. I also agree that this sabre is a genuinely produced of the period sword fully intended for use, and probably Afghan regions 19th c. I am really curious about that starburst device on the hilt, and wish I could find the images of the embossed metalwork on what I think was a Kubachi hilted shashka with that incorporated in the context. I have seen Daghestani shaskas with small silver devices emplaced in the same location with the suggestion these were awards or similar devices. I also remain curious on that finger nock at the base of the grip and feel sure I have seen similar on other sabres, but again cannot place yet. On the terms for these weapon forms, indeed these are pretty much locked into our glossaries of arms with these European versions of what was contrived to be the proper names for them. Probably one of the most bizarre and fanciful examples (fortunately used only in romanticized narratives or novels) is the term 'scimitar . Alex, agreed on that last image, in fact it seems examples I have seen with the Ottoman 'pistol grip' hilt and distinct shamshir blades were indeed termed 'Ottoman shamshirs'......thus properly qualifying the shamshir with that denomination.

30th March 2016, 10:05 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	There was a special term for Turkish sabers with pistol handles and shamshir blades: kilij ajemi . The terminal "c" in some European versions of transcribing Turkish word "kilij" in fact much have a diacritical mark, indicating its pronunciation as "ch" or "dzh" . Correctly, it is Ç. Thus, Kilich, KiliÇ and kilij are the same word with identical pronunciation but different Latin letters used. Sometimes it is simply difficult to phonetize foreign sounds precisely: Russian X is Kh, and Щ in English uses 4 letters: SHCH. Thus, Khrushchev:-) And what is correct: Czar or Tsar? Woody Allen pondered on it once and New York Times crosswords treacherously use both spellings to frustrate you. Bastards that they are:-)))