Bukharan (?) saber: another "pseudoshashka:-)

ariel · 2nd August 2016, 10:27 PM

Ibrahiim and Miguel,
Thanks for your feedbacks!
Would love to hear from more Forumites.
Not often can one get his hands on a legitimate " bukharan" shashka:-)
It is worth a good professional discussion.

Gavin Nugent · 3rd August 2016, 01:31 AM

Ariel,

I've passed this sword by a couple of times now, passed for the very reason that I think it has been monkey'd with, being either, in the day, or for later bazaar trade (My thoughts are with the later for the hilt change). You may also recall a similar one seen here in Australia 12-18 months ago...which I thought was "more" correct ... It also had similar characteristics that distracted me.

Personally, I do think Mahratt is on point with his assessment.
I personally feel that this sword is, and always was, from the Afghan/Scind regions. See the blade type in this post;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...43&postcount=8

Function; is valid as a weapon. Form; not of Bukhara, much further to the south east IMHO.

Gavin

ariel · 3rd August 2016, 03:04 AM

Gavin,
From the very beginning I mentioned that "Bukhara" was a convenient general term in this case, and that the scabbard with eyelets was quite Afghani. I know about hilt repair. Doesn't bother me very much.
One needs to remember that current designations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan , Afghanistan etc, meant nothing in the 19 century.
It is just "Central Asia", Khanates pattern, might have been made south of Panj River. The entire North Afghanistan is a Tajik/ Uzbek territory anyway, Remember Northern Alliance?

As you have said it is a fighting sword , with repairs and a very old scabbard made for this blade.
I do not care very much about how lavish, pretty and intact they are, I like mine to be of a " sergeant" grade at the most, with a whiff of stale blood:-) In short, - weapons, not "museum grade" wall decorations.

This one Is right up my alley:-)

mahratt · 3rd August 2016, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

with a very old scabbard

I'm sorry to disappoint the new owner of the sword. However, the scabbard of the sword can not be called a "very old". Note the leather "loop" (1), for which the scabbard should be hanging on a belt (I think it is clear that the chain - it's just a decorative element) (photo 1). Such attachment is not typical either for Central Asia (photo 2), nor for Afghanistan (photo 3). This "leather loop" - useful for a small knife, but not for a large sword ...

Although I will be glad if someone can tell me really old scabbard for the sword of the Central Asia with such a "leather loop"

mahratt · 3rd August 2016, 05:17 AM

I forgot to say. "Chain" in the scabbard - this is one more "brand" of modern masters from Kabul

Here we see the old Afghan shashka with new modern scabbard with a chain.

3rd August 2016, 05:17 AM	#5
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	I forgot to say. "Chain" in the scabbard - this is one more "brand" of modern masters from Kabul Here we see the old Afghan shashka with new modern scabbard with a chain. Attached Images

2nd August 2016, 10:27 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Ibrahiim and Miguel, Thanks for your feedbacks! Would love to hear from more Forumites. Not often can one get his hands on a legitimate " bukharan" shashka:-) It is worth a good professional discussion.

3rd August 2016, 01:31 AM	#2
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Ariel, I've passed this sword by a couple of times now, passed for the very reason that I think it has been monkey'd with, being either, in the day, or for later bazaar trade (My thoughts are with the later for the hilt change). You may also recall a similar one seen here in Australia 12-18 months ago...which I thought was "more" correct ... It also had similar characteristics that distracted me. Personally, I do think Mahratt is on point with his assessment. I personally feel that this sword is, and always was, from the Afghan/Scind regions. See the blade type in this post; http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...43&postcount=8 Function; is valid as a weapon. Form; not of Bukhara, much further to the south east IMHO. Gavin

3rd August 2016, 03:04 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Gavin, From the very beginning I mentioned that "Bukhara" was a convenient general term in this case, and that the scabbard with eyelets was quite Afghani. I know about hilt repair. Doesn't bother me very much. One needs to remember that current designations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan , Afghanistan etc, meant nothing in the 19 century. It is just "Central Asia", Khanates pattern, might have been made south of Panj River. The entire North Afghanistan is a Tajik/ Uzbek territory anyway, Remember Northern Alliance? As you have said it is a fighting sword , with repairs and a very old scabbard made for this blade. I do not care very much about how lavish, pretty and intact they are, I like mine to be of a " sergeant" grade at the most, with a whiff of stale blood:-) In short, - weapons, not "museum grade" wall decorations. This one Is right up my alley:-)