Shashka??? Or what ????

[ariel]

From Czerny's auction. Ended not sold.

Wooden grips, nielloed fitting on the eared pommel, "indian" ricasso, fullers resemble Afghan work.


I am lost...
Where from, how old?

[David R]

My bet is Central Asia, Bukhara or thereabouts!

[ALEX]

I also think it is Indian/Afghani.

[estcrh]

The point of the blade reminds me of some pulwar I have seen.

A shasqua
dating: circa 1900
Strong, single-and false-edged blade with double groove and tang; grip featuring wooden grip scales and silver, partially carved and nielloed mounts. The sword knot shaped as a wooden barrel.
Provenance: Provenance: Caucasia

Dimensions: dimensions: length 97 cm.

[David R]

From my files.

[ariel]

David,
I do not think so.
Yours is a classical "Bukharan" saber of a shashka-like form with 5 rivets ( we discussed them already).
The one from Czerny's is a totally different animal, IMHO. Much closed to the Afghani "pseudo-shashka".

P.S.


A friend of mine from Belarus sent me pics of that sword published on another auction. Here we can see the upper part of the blade with the "box-like" system of fullers.
AFAIK, this is very typical of Afghani blades.

[TVV]

It is rare, but not completely uncommon for Afghan blades to have traveled West. Here is an example of such a blade, with a shashka hilt, in clearly Ottoman scabbard:

http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17990&highlight=shashka

Teodor

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
Here is an Afghani Pulwar with identical fullering.


I checked Askhabov, Astvatsaturyan and Rivkin's books as well as my own Caucasian Shashkas and there are no similar examples.
Moreover, look at the handle: the "cheeks" are separated by wide distance covered with a strap. This is absolutely incompatible with Caucasian examples, but identical to Afghani pesh kabzes, chooras and pseudo-shashkas.

The only strange thing is the "dimple" next to the bolster for the index finger and ( perhaps) rather short pommel.

But the more I look at it, the stronger I feel for the Afghani origin.

[ariel]

Teodor,
I re-read your topic re. Afghani blade in Caucasian mounts.
I guess there might be examples of Afghani blades traveling West. Caucasian mercenaries ( Georgians, Armenians and Circassians) constituted the backbone of Shah Abbas' cavalry and fought in Afghanistan and India. There is a sword in the Hermitage collection consisting of a Khanda blade and Georgian handle.

But the construction of the handle on the Czerny's example absolutely excludes Gaucasian origin and is strongly tilted toward Afghanistan.

[Jim McDougall]

I must admit , especially with Ariel not having an exact bead on this thing, that it is quite subtly an anomaly which seems to fall between the cracks on many counts.
Between his knowledge on the weaponry of these regions and the sources he notes not able to define it, any precise classification seems unlikely.

I do agree however that this does seem N. Indian, that is from Afghan regions, and the expected hybridization which comes from these and Central Asian areas.

While of course the hilt is fashioned to look like a shashka, the structure is quite different. The distinctive 'cleft' is achieved by using what appears to be a metal block 'sandwiched' between the grip plates and clearly profiled to match that curious forefinger nock at the base of the grips.

There is no metal bolster at the base of the grip as known to be typical on the 'pseudo-shashkas' of Afghanistan, and while this has the 'feel' it does not correspond to typical Bukharen sabres (as posted by David), which indeed 'usually' have five grip rivets.

The blade as well pointed out, does seem remarkably similar to similar seen on other Afghan swords. That blockish fuller type effect seems to recall some of the Persian trade blades, which I have seen with a kind of wrap around fuller near the forte.

One feature not yet addressed is the curious starburst device on the pommel area of the grip, and if memory serves, that resembles something like this in Kubachi type embossed silver hilts and in that same hilt location. I cannot yet find images, but it does seem that such devices were often placed on Caucasian (usually Daghestani) hilts with some award or other significance.

What makes that so intriguing is that here is a distinct Caucasian affectation added to a hilt designed to approximate a Caucasian shashka, with a clearly N.Indian/Afghan blade( the ricasso), but the entire assembly is constructed quite unlike the various forms mentioned overall.

[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?

In my understanding it is the blade that primarily identifies a sword (and when I say sword I mean it in its broadest sense, including sabres), then secondarily comes the hilt. More exactly, have a look at the Czerny's last auction (no. 57) at lot no. 2. Is that a Shamshir or a Tulwar?! In my oppinion it is clearly a shamshir because of the typical geometry of the blade. If you think it is a tulwar because of the hilt... well then think twice after having a look at lot no. 8 which also has the very same rounded pommel Tulwar hilt, yet is undoubtedly a Sousson Patah. To get a better grasp of it, you can also have a look at lot no. 11 which is a Khanda, despite the same Tulwar type hilt.

In the case in the opening of this thread neither the blade, nor the hilt bear the characteristics of a shashka namely a moderate, rather constant curvature along the whole length of the blade, a rather constant width of the blade, a full length fuller/fullers and an arched point (similar to the Kissaki of the Japanese swords but without any clear separation line between the point and the rest of the blade). To better understand what I mean, please have a look at lots no. 200-202 of the same Czerny auction that illustrate rather typical Shashkas.

In my opinion the sabre you were inquiring about is an imitation of a Shashka that would be most accurately described as a sabre, and it remained unsold for a good reason!

PS: I bought many blades from Czerny's as they are one of the leading auction houses dealing weapons.

[estcrh]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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?

In my understanding it is the blade that primarily identifies a sword (and when I say sword I mean it in its broadest sense, including sabres), then secondarily comes the hilt. More exactly, have a look at the Czerny's last auction (no. 57) at lot no. 2. Is that a Shamshir or a Tulwar?! In my oppinion it is clearly a shamshir because of the typical geometry of the blade. If you think it is a tulwar because of the hilt... well then think twice after having a look at lot no. 8 which also has the very same rounded pommel Tulwar hilt, yet is undoubtedly a Sousson Patah. To get a better grasp of it, you can also have a look at lot no. 11 which is a Khanda, despite the same Tulwar type hilt.

In the case in the opening of this thread neither the blade, nor the hilt bear the characteristics of a shashka namely a moderate, rather constant curvature along the whole length of the blade, a rather constant width of the blade, a full length fuller/fullers and an arched point (similar to the Kissaki of the Japanese swords but without any clear separation line between the point and the rest of the blade). To better understand what I mean, please have a look at lots no. 200-202 of the same Czerny auction that illustrate rather typical Shashkas.

In my opinion the sabre you were inquiring about is an imitation of a Shashka that would be most accurately described as a sabre, and it remained unsold for a good reason!

PS: I bought many blades from Czerny's as they are one of the leading auction houses dealing weapons.

A good question.
Naturally in its true sense, the term 'sword' describes obviously the assemblage of the hilt, guard(s) and of course blade. In many cases where the sword is scabbarded it is assumed as part of the descriptive term, though in many cases the note sword with scabbard is used.

These often spiraling discussions on terms for types of swords, the elements, features and all manner of nomenclature are often though interesting, simply further confusing to most.
The reason being that in most instances, the rule is: it depends!

It seems there is a kind of inherent obsession among many collectors that an item must be specifically categorized and dated. The idea of extra words in classifying and qualifying and item is often abhorrent, especially with sellers who seem to consider that it compromises the piece.

In this case, indeed the term sabre qualifies what it indeed is.......a shashka itself also falls into the sabre spectrum.......but its name is far more exciting and the fact that this sabre is clearly intended to recall shashka form adds to the intrigue.
A better description, "A sabre of North India with shashka style hilt".

Actually, many references are known to avoid concentration on blades in swords described in certain degree because blades were often, if not typically varied widely as they were trade or other foreign examples. The hilts were considered a matter of local affectation and usually followed their preferences. Obviously there are exceptions and variations to all of this...

Thus, it depends!

If all else fails in classifying or categorizing a weapon, describe it in words attending to its features, components or whatever is most applicable.

A hilt might be a solid piece, such as a shashka, but how to describe the top part features? is it a pommel? or part of the grips?

The blade is always the blade but when the hilt is absent.....it is not a sword.
When a hilt only exists, it is a hilt, not a sword.
When they are together, no matter if homogenous or not, it is a sword.

But if the parts are not homogenous, it then becomes the dreaded 'composite' sword. However, in ethnographic situations, many swords use other than native blades. In India, the well known 'firangi' phenomenon exists, which means it is an Indian sword (hilt) with a foreign blade. Otherwise, the traditional term for these type swords are 'khanda'. But is the 'khanda' the old Indian form, or the post contact European influenced Hindu basket hilt?

As far as the 'tulwars' go. These are instantly perceived as the familiar disc pommel form known as Indo-Persian. However, in Mughal courts things Persian prevailed in many cases, and there were Persian shamshirs. What did they call them? Tulwars...it is an Indian term for sword.

In Northern India, specifically what is now Afghanistan, the sword (sabre) known as paluoar is typically regarded as THE Afghan sword . Actually, it is a form of tulwar, with likely Deccani ancestry but favored in regions of North India (before Afghanistan was recognized) and is regarded as a form of tulwar. The term 'paluoar' is according to earlier discussions not familiar to locals and not used.

In the Sudan, the broadswords known to us as kaskara, to the locals are known simply as sa'if, the Arabian word for sword (not specified). In years of research I found that the term kaskara is not known anywhere in the Sudan, and only used by western collectors and writers.

This goes to the so called 'nimcha' of Morocco, the multi quilloned guard sabre, which curiously Stone identifies as Algerian. In Morocco, these are termed sa'if, and have nothing to do with the 'nimcha' term. They are Arabian sabres which in around mid 17th century became known in Moroccan context, it seems to English merchants.

We could probably talk for days on the misnomers, collectors terms, transliterations, semantics errors and all manner of the difficulties with the proper describing and terms of weapons and nomenclature!!
But maybe a book, then a movie!!? :)

[ariel]

Jim,
I cannot agree more. This is a saber-like weapon assimilating influences from multiple sources. However, this is not a modern composite stuff. Somebody somewhere some time created it as it is and as a serious weapon.
My question was what is the most likely place and the most likely time of its manufacture. Having seen the unobstructed view if the box-like fullering together with the construction of the handle, I vote for Afghanistan, 19th century.

Your point of misapplication of the "name game" is well taken. While it is important to dig out the original (native) names of the weapons, we might do well to remember that many names with deep roots in the Western glossaries are just figments of European imagination and poor transliteration: no native Afghani of the 19th century would use "Khyber Knife", "Salawar Yataghan", " Karud" or "Pulwar". We use them as a form of a stenographic "quick-and-dirty" moniker to let us know what we are dealing with, but they are completely artificial and foreign for a native owner.

Not for nothing did Elgood and Hales limit the use of presumably "native" names in their recent books.

And BTW many genuine Caucasian shashkas carried strongly curved Persian shamshir and European saber blades. Also, not to forget that most of the earliest Circassian shashkas carried European trade saber blades rather than locally-made ones.

[ALEX]

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]

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.

[estcrh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[David R]

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.

[estcrh]

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

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.

[ALEX]

... 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]

It is profile of the blade that makes it a Kilij to begin with.
Alex, according to who?

[ALEX]

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]

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

[ALEX]

Good, this is a Turkish\Ottoman shamshir that someone called Kilij. Do you have more reliable references, not on-line ads?

[estcrh]

Good, this is a Turkish\Ottoman shamshir that someone called Kilij. Do you have more reliable references, not on-line ads?Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

[mariusgmioc]

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar (see for example lots 1, 2, 4-11 of Czerny's last auction; pay spacial attention to lots 7, 8 and 11). ;)

www.czernys.com/auctions_view.php?asta=57

[estcrh]

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar.We are talking about kilij not tulwar. You and Alex can believe whatever you want, Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani is a well known author and authority on this subject, maybe you and Alex know something he does not?? This particular kilij is in Weapons of Warriors - Famous Antique Swords of the Near East.

[mariusgmioc]

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.

[estcrh]

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

You and Alex should stop embarassing yourselves, your opinions are not the only ones on this subject.

[ALEX]

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.

[mariusgmioc]

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.

[estcrh]

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.Both you and Alex do not appear to want to learn anything, I am simply pointing out that there are differing opinions on this subject, who can prove which opinion in correct. Terms do change over time and the internet has a lot to do with this, search engines need tag words in order to bring up text and images. Many collectors and dealers have used certain tag words and these are now part of the way certain weapons are described online, other people choose another method. What a weapon is called in its native country and language often has nothing to do with what it is called by English speaking collectors and dealers.

[kronckew]

[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=ihbGRkyU3f8&feature=youtu.be

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

[estcrh]

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword With some swords that is usually the case, with others as I have pointed out that is not always the case, there are exceptions.

[estcrh]

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.
Alex, you are very knowledgable and I respect your opinion but sometimes you need to be more objective. As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

[mariusgmioc]

As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ariel]

The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.


Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-)

One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles). Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet. Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle. Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles. And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles.



On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade.

And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud" mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle.




I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-)))

[mariusgmioc]

The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.


Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-)

One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles

... but they still remain Jambias...

, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles).

... but they still remain Kerises, whether Javanese or Buginese...

Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet.

... still remain Shamshirs... well, with the exception when they are sporting a Turkish hilt when they become Kilij... acording to some...

... Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle.

... because the Karabela doesn't sport a characteristic blade (as they were fitted with Turkish Kilij blades, Russian sabre blades, German sabre blades, etc...

Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles.

... yet remain Yataghans whether sporting large ear-shaped Balkanic bone hilts or sleek silver Greek hilts...

And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles.



On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade.

And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud"

... apparently Karud is an artificially created name, probably derived from the Persian Kard, an it is unknown to the people where that knife originates from...

mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle.

... since the Choora is a particular type pf Pesh-kabz, he same way the Pala is a particular type of Kilij, sporting a wider blade...


I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-)))

But that's the beauty of it, don't you think?! Debate, confrontation of ideas and exposing logical arguments are the source of wisdom and progress... and are more important even than reaching a compromise.
:)
PS: I interposed some comments to your examples, in your posting.

[Jim McDougall]

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.


In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.

Your statement does however seem perplexing as I am wondering how the dilemma of 'absolute truth' can be arrived at in discussing an entirely subjective phenomenon which is inherently varied through so many variables and circumstances.

I am in accord with your observation, 'discussing' does provide opportunities for learning , but would add as long as the participants are willing to keep open minds in evaluating exchanged data and views. Often only elements of one presentation might present acceptable alternative, while others might be more comprehensive with proper support. When dealing with opinions it becomes far more difficult, especially when regard for others engaged is less than pertinent.

I would offer here the words of Mr. Philip Rawson, who you might find as of standing as an acceptable authority,

"...with regard to the names here adopted for the different types of sword it must be said at once that they are to a large extent ARBITRARY. There prevails amongst ALL the authorities such an extraordinary confusion of nomenclature that I have been obliged to adopt a system based on a rough statistical estimate of the frequency of recorded applications. Some of the names could be said to mean 'sword' in general, if regard were paid to their every occurrence."

Here Rawson further notes that due to the fact that hilts are "...classified on basis of local distribution", therefore he uses the blades primarily in his classification.
"The Indian Sword", Philip Rawson, Copenhagen, 1967, p.vi. intro.

G,N. Pant in his "Indian Arms and Armour", Lahore, 1980, differs entirely with Rawson and notes numerous conflicts in terms etc. most notably using hilts to determine his classifications and terminology .

So it is throughout the corpus of literature on Indian arms as well as with similar confusion (as well noted by Rawson, op.cit) on many if not most ethnographic forms. Some weapons have many terms applied. I recall working on Indonesian weapon terminology, and was told by a well known author that in many cases the 'name of a weapon varied almost by villages.

In my post (#13), I noted the key words, 'it depends'....... and it seems that most authorities and seasoned collectors and scholars would agree, to the point of consensus, that this is the case with terminology.....there are no 'rules' which may be considered definitive.
Perhaps while holding to your own definitions, you might recognize that this dilemma is something most of us who have been studying these subjects many years well realize, and use qualifying measures rather than restrictive to refer to items in question.

[mariusgmioc]

In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.


Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt. :eek:

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it... :rolleyes:

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying! ;)

[kronckew]

...I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.
...


the classic example is the spanish 'falcata', a made-up name from the mid 19c used by a historian to differentiate it from the classic greek kopis, which it was a variant used in greek colonies, of course. the name stuck and we are stuck with it now too.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

[A.alnakkas]

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

Thank you!

(PS: the locals are right... Until you find out they use modern terms)

[Jim McDougall]

Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt. :eek:

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it... :rolleyes:

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying! ;)


Well that explains a lot, you are a mechanical engineer! and clearly your world does rely on pretty much rigid rules and axioms as deviations would produce I am sure often undesirable if not disastrous results.

In the more literary subjectivity of terms used descriptively, there is a wide berth for the application of names for things which again, I noted as very much depending on the circumstances. I must admit feeling a bit of frustration at times over the many years of researching arms when I could not really put an item in one box or another in classification.
Even Oakeshott, who was a foremost arms historian known for his classifications of medieval swords spoke anxiously on how often a type so and so though superceded by the next type was often clouded into its previous as well as following type as the forms were maintained longer in certain areas.

Again, it comes down to describing an item as best as you can, with the most apparent designator accompanied by any mitigating or variant possibilities . It is not always neat or concise, but any responsible cataloguer or scholar will do so to avoid misperception or misrepresentation.

As most here know, I am seldom shy about using extra words, and often I do so to avoid just those kinds of misunderstanding, as well as trying to be as accurate as possible in what I try to describe. Actually I rather like learning more on the various terms used in descriptions for certain items and collect that data as part of the history of each form. These instances are often intriguing stories in their own right.
That however is the historian in me, while clearly maddening to those more analytical or involved in typology and classification.

Knonckew, thank you for that bit of information on the falcata! I did not know this, and that is pretty interesting !!! :)
These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

You are right on the fact that we indeed should always endeavor to keep learning, as we always say, more research to follow.

[ariel]

Amusingly, an almost identical argument is conducted as we speak in the thread
"Default Kalis / Kris / Keris Sundang / Solot / Sulok / Suluk"

The same ethnic variability of names, the same overlays of European terminology, the same confusions in spelling/ transliteration , the same firmly held beliefs... :-)))

There are two major schools of Classical Latin in Russia, Moscow and St. Petersburg, and for a couple of centuries they are conducting vicious warfare about proper pronunciation of letter "c" in certain words: as "ts" or as "k". Since native speakers of Roman Latin have all joined the Choire Invisible two millennia ago, final resolution of that momentous clash of the titans is not in the cards in any foreseeable future.

Come to think of it, our arguments are not that much different:-)
However, if we stop being obstinate and open our eyes and ears to the arguments of our opponents, this game becomes a lot of fun and we can learn, - not a whole lot, - at least something new.

[estcrh]

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

[Helleri]

I lean towards Shashqa. Seems to fit the general form.
[Edit: Scrolled back and saw that where this was mentioned, it wasn't regarding a different specimen but that same sword up for auction at a different time and place...So the following digression is moot.]
I know it was mentioned that something typical to see would be the double fuller being enclosed (box like). I am not sure that it isn't. We can't fully see the area that would let us know about that as it is covered by the leather. but if you look closely. It looks to me at least like grooves of the fullers could connect there.

[ariel]

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

[Helleri]

Yeah I re-read that and edited accordingly. Misread it the firs time.

[mariusgmioc]

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

:) You might have realised by now that I have a rather rigid approach and I don't like it as it doesn't fit precisely into the archetypal Shashka cathegory. However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

[mariusgmioc]

Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

:D

[Helleri]

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

:D
Metalworks and ceramics were traded between India and states all long that coast down as far as Mombasa on the sea route of the silk road. But Oman and Yemen are smack dab next to each other...Usually the name of a knife often turns out to just be what a knife is called or some defining feature of the knife in the native tongue.

It's entirely possible that Yemeni Jambiya and Omani Khanjar are simply the same knife. But perhaps Yemen had the port worth visiting on the sea route of the silk road so they may have ended up adopting the Indian word for it?

It could also be a simple longstanding mis-classification. Someone labeling things for some museum or private collection could have simply got it wrong. And for lack of a better idea from successive peers it stuck and fell into how we reference things as a misnomer.

In any case I think it's safe to say that objectively, they are the same thing, and should both just be called Jambiya (Omani-Jambiya and Yemeni-Jambiya).

[ariel]

It is even simpler than that: Yemen on the Western border of the peninsula was purely Arabic and a purely Arab name was used: janb= thigh, side.
Oman on the Eastern border had significant Persian influence, and they used Persian name.

Scabbard rings notwithstanding:-)))

In this business rigidity does not help: Mughal Sossun Pata carried an Indian very much yataghan-like blade and tulwar handle. But I have a sword with a tulwar handle and a genuine Ottoman yataghan blade. Is it still Sossun Pata or not? :-)

Or: some old Tulwars had a cup-like pommel with a central baluster and a classical curved blade. They brought the entire pattern to Northern Sumatra and it stayed there . Only the locals manufacturing it call it Piso Podang. What should it be called now?

Or: Southern Indians combined basket handle with a straight European blade and called it Firangi. A tad North an identical sword utilizing locally-made straight blade was called Sukhela or Dhup in different areas. Are we talking about 3 different swords?

Or: Russians adopted Caucasian Shashka , a guardless saber, as their official military regulation weapon. Bit later on, they added a D-guard to it and continued to call it Shashka. Are we going to argue with the Russian Department of War?

Weapons travel, acquire different owners, mutate, add or subtract features, are called by different names etc. We are dealing with products of centuries-long processes. Rigidly sticking to a moniker or a description mentioned in one or another glossary impoverishes our understanding of history.

[mariusgmioc]

Are we going to argue with the Russian Department of War?


God forbid NO, we are definitely not going to argue with the Russian Department of War! :eek:

And your examples... wow... what a mess with the names!

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

;)

[Jim McDougall]

God forbid NO, we are definitely not going to argue with the Russian Department of War! :eek:

And your examples... wow... what a mess with the names!

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

;)


Outstanding Mariusmioc!! I think we have all gotten the picture in this ongoing conundrum. It has never been easy to accept these frustrating aspects of studying these weapons, but your willingness to join in compromise in dealing with these terminology issues is exemplary.

Excellent observations by everyone on this sword, and for me I remain with Ariel in that this is a soundly produced weapon in tribute toward the shashka.

[Iain]

There was a time I attempted a classification study on takouba. Didn't take long to find the folly in it. Trying to classify swords that cross linguistic and ethnic boundaries, not to mention use imported blades and are exported across ethnic lines means you can find 3 different words for every style, blade type etc. Over the years I've found my interest in labels less and less. Really they tell you very little for the most part and are quite often nonsensical. Case in point calling swords from the Arab speaking parts of Sudan kaskara.

I understand the want to classify and neatly categorize with specific names, but either I've gotten lazy with time or just come to realize it's not a particularly useful exercise in the long run. :) An Oakeshott style typology I find tends to be just as useful with no bickering about local terminology an a description of physical characteristics that are generally agreed.

Or maybe I'm just a burnt out cynic after to many years reading through colonial era African language dictionaries and not finding what I wanted! :D

[ariel]

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

;)

Glad to be of help!


Best wishes,
Ariel

[Jim McDougall]

:) However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.


Well noted, indeed there is a vast spectrum of collectors, scholars and enthusiasts who might focus on a particular form, field, or any number of specialized topics in arms. When I first began (many, many moons ago:)) I was determined to collect British cavalry swords, and each progressive pattern. Once that had been accomplished, it became variants, various makers of set patterns etc.
Eventually I discovered the greatest thrill and most intriguing were the anomalies, and the research and detective work of trying to determine their placement and history.

With these ethnographic weapons, the anomalies are by far the most exciting as discovering the clues and influences which led to their distinctive variation often leads us to fascinating insights in the history surrounding them.
While many are pleased with assembling certain forms, and following the set style and pattern of each......there are those adventurous sorts who venture far outside the box, and bring together the weapon itself and the history around it. I count myself in that group, but without the others in their subsequent groups, it is pretty much an insurmountable task as we all compliment each other in our respective approaches.

Iain, who notes his studies in the field of North African swords, emphasis on takouba, is most modest in the achievements he has made. He has accepted that rigid classification as with some forms is unrealistic, but has accomplished very workable methods of cataloguing the wide range of these weapons. Briggs (1965) made a valiant effort at classifying these swords regionally, however while a benchmark in degree, most of the typology has proven largely inaccurate.

It is amazing how the discussion of a weapon can bring about such interaction and philosophical perspective on the many facets of arms study, and well illustrates how important these studies really are.

[ariel]

Highly recommend to find topics by CharlesS: he made his life passion to collect unusual weapons, transitions from one well-defined pattern to another.
His examples are mind-blowing! It is like observing Darwinian evolution at high speed.

The stuff I learned from his examples, - about evolution of particular weapons as well as about general approach to the history of weapons, - taught me more about collecting than many books.

Our hobby is orders of magnitude more complex and exciting than even Stone's Glossary:-)

One definitely needs to know the basics, but it is the occasional unique examples that illuminate the field like a sudden lightning. The learning never stops.

[estcrh]

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names.I agree with you on this and some other things you have said. I do not make up the names being used, I just make note of them, I wanted to point out that there is a significant group of people that do identify certain select bladed weapons by the hilt with kilij, pulwar and tulwar among these.

Whether you say a sword is a tulwar hilted shamshir or a tulwar with a shamshir blade it is still the same sword and most collectors will know what is being described either way. As far a tulwar hilts go, some blades are so radically different that have a completely seperate name, khanda, karach and sossun patah are examples.