Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[Ian]

Let's try something different!

A recent thread (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21742) got sidetracked into a discussion of the terminology of shashka (pseudo-shashka, Buchara shashka, Afghan shashka, etc.) that did not advance our understanding of these swords. The debate about which name is correct, whether these are truly shashka, and so on became a circular discussion of yes it is, no it's not.

I am inviting the participants of that discussion and all others wishing to contribute to a serious rethinking of the question: what is a shashka, and what are the distinct sub-types that fall under that name?

The approach to be used here is a typological one, similar to that used by Ewart Oekeshott in his classical description of medieval swords. This method looks at how the weapon is constructed as it relates to its function. Decorative elements may help to define sub-types within a broad class.

You are being asked to look at these swords with a blank mind--no prior concepts of what they are or where they are from, starting with a completely blank sheet of paper. Then start building a new and logical concept of what a shashka is and is not. For those of you who have been discussing these weapons for a long time this may be difficult. In support of the arguments you present, there should be pictures posted here to illustrate the point(s) you are making.

Here are the questions that you are being invited to address:

1. What defines a shashka? Answers should focus exclusively on the essential elements of a shashka as a cutting sword--blade shape and length, hilt shape and length, whether a guard may be present, etc. You decide the essential elements.

2. What are the clearly identifiable sub-types? Again, this needs to be based on the structure of the sword. You should avoid discussing where you think the sword is from, just focus on the swords themselves and how they may be similar or different in their structure. At this point you may consider decorative elements also if this helps to define specific sub-types.

3. Define the sub-types in neutral terms, such as Type A, B, C ..., based on their clearly defined structural characteristics. Avoid defining more than a small number of sub-types.

4. Having defined these name-neutral sub-types of shashka, indicate the "common names" that have been applied to each sub-type.

Participation in this thread requires particular attention to the following Forum Rules.

Treat all opinions with respect
Avoid sarcasm and attempts at humor
No baiting of other participants
As a Moderator with super powers I reserve the right to edit posts that are off topic or do not follow the Forum Rules closely. Corrective actions will be prompt and without further warning.

[If this sounds like an assignment for a University paper it's probably because I'm a retired professor ;)]

[mahratt]

First we need to recall the definition of the word «shashka». E.G. Astvatsaturian offers this description: «A shashka is a kind of sabre…» it has a shorter blade and there is no guard. «A grip is the most original part of a shashka and makes it different from a sabre. A solid grip covers a tang; if the grip consists of two halves, these halves cover the tang from two sides and get sealed by rivets. A grip usually has an oval cross-section… A pommel is large, slightly elongated and rounded up. There is a wedge-shaped cutout on top of the pommel - forked head. The base of the grip is extended to the width of the blade… The grip has no cross guard for protection… The grip is crafted so as to be almost entirely enclosed by a scabbard» Stone believes that a shashka – «It is the national sword of the Circassians…», and further quotes Rockstuhl: «The shashka ordinarily has a straight blade, or one very slightly curved towards the point, and the hilts without any guard whatsoever… When the arms is sheathed the hilt enters the wooden scabbard covered with leather, if desired, as far as the pommel. The latter is divided into two straight wings like a Trapizond yatagan. ...to many of the swords have fine old blades from Persia...» K. Rivkin gives the following description of a shashka: «A shashka is a light, relatively short (60-90 cm) slashing weapon of a very simple structure. … There’s no guard on a shashka, … A grip is made of a horn, expensive grips are made of walrus tusks … there are splitting forked head on the end… A shashka was usually worn on a shoulder or waist baldrick with an edge up. Such way of wearing a weapon was known a long time before shashkas appeared… in the Ottoman Empire. … A grip of the Caucasian shashka is almost fully enclosed by a scabbard».

All these authors say about the Caucasian shashka, as other shashkas they were not familiar ((K. Rivkin wrote in the book is about the Caucasian weapon).

Under the above-mentioned definition of checkers match:

1) Caucasian shashka
2) Afghan shashka
3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka)
4) Russian shashka (Cossack)

Sorry for my bad English ...

[Ian]

Mahratt, that is an excellent start to defining a shashka! Thank you for the prompt reply.

[mahratt]

Mahratt, that is an excellent start to defining a shashka! Thank you for the prompt reply.


Thank you for the nice words :)

[Jim McDougall]

Allow me to second that Mahratt!! Nicely on point.

[mahratt]

I think no one doubts that the "Bukhara" shashka developed independently, regardless of the Caucasus.

Russian (Cossack) shashka is derived from the Caucasian shashkas (or vice versa). There are serious studies (they have not yet completed) and we do not know who came before. But it is not important. It is important that they have their own identity (in the decor, for example)

Afghan shashka is not a copy of the Russian shashkas. If someone borrows something - then items will be very similar. For example, the installation of the handle of the Caucasian and Russian shashkas - the same. Afghan shashka - individual. So we can not say that it copies a Russian shashka.

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

[mariusgmioc]

Afghan shashka is not a copy of the Russian shashkas. If someone borrows something - then items will be very similar. For example, the installation of the handle of the Caucasian and Russian shashkas - the same. Afghan shashka - individual. So we can not say that it copies a Russian shashka.

OK, it is not a copy of the Caucasian Shashka, but wasn't inspired by it?!

Or did it appear absolutely independent from the Caucasian Shashka?!

How do Afghan people call it?!

:shrug:

[mariusgmioc]

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

:cool:

[Kubur]

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

:cool:

yes i agree and some kattara too up to West African mandingo swords...
Should have chronological and geographical frames

[mariusgmioc]

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan and Bukahara Shashkas?! :shrug:

[ariel]

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

[mahratt]

Visual comparison:

[mahratt]

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:
Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

[ariel]

First we need to recall the definition of the word «shashka». E.G. Astvatsaturian offers this description: «A shashka is a kind of sabre…» it has a shorter blade and there is no guard. «A grip is the most original part of a shashka and makes it different from a sabre. A solid grip covers a tang; if the grip consists of two halves, these halves cover the tang from two sides and get sealed by rivets. A grip usually has an oval cross-section… A pommel is large, slightly elongated and rounded up. There is a wedge-shaped cutout on top of the pommel - forked head. The base of the grip is extended to the width of the blade… The grip has no cross guard for protection… The grip is crafted so as to be almost entirely enclosed by a scabbard» .

Well, here is a "Turkish shashka", down to a forked pommel and up-curving blade.

[ariel]

g.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.






There is a difference between "thinking big" and "thinking mile wide and inch deep."

I try to do my best not to belong to the latter group.

[kronckew]

ariel, your submissions do NOT have the "wedge-shaped cutout on top of the pommel - forked head"*. turkish ones propbably count as turkey once ruled over parts of the caucasian areas.

*-as in my pommel:

[mahratt]

Well, here is a "Turkish shashka", down to a forked pommel and up-curving blade.

Perfectly. If you show online now 10 such "Turkish shashkas" - it will be possible to discuss it. And so - this is an isolated object, which is called - "chimera".

[ariel]

Should have chronological and geographical frames


Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)

[kronckew]

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

[ariel]

Perfectly. If you show online now 10 such "Turkish shashkas" - it will be possible to discuss it. And so - this is an isolated object, which is called - "chimera".

Just get the catalogue of Zagreb collection by Dora Boskovic: multiple examples with straight and up-curved blades.

Anything that does not agree with the thesis of shashka being an " international weapon" is now an exception and a chimera...

This discussion becomes an uncomfortable mix of hilarious and embarrassing....

[mahratt]

Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)
You inconsiderate. In the description of shashkas said that the shashka - a kind of saber.

Now compare Russian (army), Caucasus and Afghan shashkas.

Someone sees a copy? :)

[mahratt]

Just get the catalogue of Zagreb collection by Dora Boskovic: multiple examples with straight and up-curved blades.

Anything that does not agree with the thesis of shashka being an "international weapon" is now an exception and a chimera...

This discussion becomes an uncomfortable mix of hilarious and embarrassing....
You could not demonstrate examples? Not everyone here has a catalog of Zagreb. And they all want to see examples of which you speak. Those examples that I remember very different from what you put in the position of number 15.

[Jim McDougall]

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.



Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

Jim, that's what I call - overdo to the point of absurdity.


Indeed it is :) but good to have some levity, these intense 'discussions' can sometimes be trying. The point is well taken though, sometimes the fact of a sabre without a guard as a key factor does not qualify it immediately as being a 'shashka'.
So then, do we turn to the notable cleft in the pommel?
As seen with the Turkish sabre with yataghan hilt, the blade is clearly a sabre, not recurved or deep bellied as with the true yataghan blade form.
The hilt does not have the same cleft character, it is more eared. But we see the point made.

It is interesting to see the number of other guardless sabres in the world, and of course obviously NOT in the shashka realm.

It seems clearly that we are off to a good start, and everyone thinking quite largely!!! as would be expected here.

I think personally that one of the biggest obstacles in weapons classification is the incessant need to categorize into arbitrary groupings, without some sort of accurate qualification. As we have seen, the term 'psuedo' fails as a prefix, where in the case of Afghan or Uzbek sabres, the term(s) of Caucasian shashka form might serve better.

Since these were in proximity or somewhat in the geographical context of areas of Caucasian influence, then that description seems reasonable.
It is well established that the Russian and via them, Caucasian influences might have filtered into these regions with their presence there.

In the cases of other guardless sabres such as katanas et al, obviously in far reaching areas without notable contact with indigenous areas or ethnicities of the shashka, that term or dominator clearly fails.
In many cases though, other prefixes noting similarities or key features similar to other swords in their proximities, such as the dhas of SE Asia, Chinese dao and others might work as required.

[Jim McDougall]

Yikes! Just saw al these other posts which came up while I was beating the heck out of my keyboard!!!
This is gonna be a wild ride, but fascinating:)
You guys are amazing, and it is exciting to see this much scope and knowledge come together in such dynamics.

[mahratt]

Jim, I think, we can speak of a "groupings" when we have a lot of examples. Individual "the only ones"that emerge in different countries are the exception that proves the rule.

[Ian]

Gentlemen, please take a time out and read the instructions again. Any reference to sub-types and decorative features is pointless unless you can define a shashka, regardless of geographic origins.

As many of you rightly point out, there are swords from all over the world that fall into the category of curved sabers without a guard--it would define the vast majority of dha/daab/daav for example. This is a commonly encountered weapon in many different cultures. So please bring some light into what defines the shashka. Mahratt provided several prior attempts by other authors in his very first reply to this question. Do one of these capture the essence of this definition? If not, why not?

[ariel]

Ian,
One cannot define a shashka outside of its geographic and ethnic origin. It is originally a Circassian weapon that spread into Daghestan, Chechnia and partly into Transcaucasia.
It went to the Ottoman Empire with Circassian exiles, muhadjirs, and there are well documented examples manufactured there.
Other than those two areas there were no examples of a true Caucasian pattern in other cultures, societies etc.

Attempts are made to ascribe the so-called Beduin sabre ( Negev, Sinai) to simplified version of Caucasian shashkas brought to the area my the above muhadjirs. The problem with it resides with the existence of almost exact copies of the "Beduin" examples among Croatian Kraisniks, votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage.

At the end of 19th century Russian government established a Cossack Brigade in Iran under the tutelage of Russian officers. The Iranian recruits were armed with Russian military sabers 1881 pattern and we still see "Russian Military Shashkas" with Persian numbering on e-bay. Those have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian tradition.

In the 19th century Russians occupied Central Asian Khanates and had close ties with the Afghani military ( see. P. Hopkirk " The Great Game"). That , most likely, was reflected in military Afghani pseudoshashkas , that combined both local ( eg integral bolster etc) and Cossack elements inherited by them from their Caucasian foes ( suspension system, forked pommel, - both " Caucasian" but not quite).

The other Central Asian guardless sabers ( including Bukharan) were not military, but truly indigenous weapons, and as such were not modified according to foreign influences. Khanates had no regular armies and consequently no regulation weapons. Individual masters followed old traditions and had no incentive or reason to copy weapons of the occupier.


We recently encountered yet another fascinating pattern: "Indian pseudoshashka" with tunkou and D-guard but no quillons. I do not know where to place it. I may only cautiously suspect that it also has derivative features of a Khyber, but may be very wrong.


Thus, if we want to discuss Shashkas, we are obligated to limit ourselves to the Caucasian examples and their locally-produced ethnic copies ( Ottoman Muhadjirs).

We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".

The rest of guardless sabers, from Ottoman yataghans to Bukharan sabers, Khybers, Parangs etc have nothing to do with Caucasian tradition and the term shashka should not be allowed to touch them:-)

There cannot be such thing as French Katana, Japanese Jambia , Congolese Sgian Dubh or Vietnamese Kattara.

Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be.

[mahratt]

Very, very many words :)

By the logic of Ariel - only Persian Shamshir - real Shamshir. Shamshir in the Balkans - is psevdoshamshir))))

Shashka - this concept is not associated with a particular ethnic region.

[ariel]

No, laddie, it is "checkers" :-)))))))))))))

[mahratt]

No, laddie, it is "checkers" :-)))))))))))))

An oldie, I'm sorry)))) It is - Google Translate. I do not think that you're so - brake)))

[Andreas]

Hello,
A couple of questions, please. Is it correct that shashka is an Adyghe word, meaning big knife? If so, is the word to be found also in related languages? Also, what is the earliest known mention of the term with the meaning of a guardless sabre?
Thanks,
Andreas

[Kubur]

Ariel, I mostly agree. 90%

I fully agree with 2 main points.



We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".


Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be.

I just disagree with



votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage.


We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".
.

The Tunisian examples are not even shashka like. They are short swords one edge, more like the khyber knife. To the opposite the shashka are the swords of the steppic horsemen to quote Lebedinski. You know better than me the difference between a sabre and a short sword. And for me the Bukharan pseudo shashka can be connected to the shashka because of their central Asian origin.

Kubur

[mahratt]

I explain why must not talk about the "shashka" in the context of the ethnic region. Shashka (with all its attributes) has been in the whole of the Russian army (cavalry). On the whole territory of Russia. These weapons, which I quoted in the post number 13 - all of it has always been called"shashka" :)

[Jim McDougall]

Hello,
A couple of questions, please. Is it correct that shashka is an Adyghe word, meaning big knife? If so, is the word to be found also in related languages? Also, what is the earliest known mention of the term with the meaning of a guardless sabre?
Thanks,
Andreas


I believe Philip Tom said in 2001 that it was a Circassian word, but I'm no linguist and perhaps the Adaghe aspect might fall into the dialectic mix. I think Ariel is far more the one to address this as he and Kirill Rivkin have spent many years looking into these things on the Caucusus.

Mahratt, what is 'checkers' ? I think there might be translation error.

[mahratt]

Hello,
A couple of questions, please. Is it correct that shashka is an Adyghe word, meaning big knife? If so, is the word to be found also in related languages? Also, what is the earliest known mention of the term with the meaning of a guardless sabre?
Thanks,
Andreas

I'll be glad to see this information, if show me a page from Adyghe dictionary. Now it is a matter of controversy among people who explore in Russian weapons.


Mahratt, what is 'checkers' ? I think there might be translation error.

Jim - my laziness and Google Translate))) Of course I meant "shashka"

The Tunisian examples are not even shashka like. They are short swords one edge, more like the khyber knife. To the opposite the shashka are the swords of the steppic horsemen to quote Lebedinski. You know better than me the difference between a sabre and a short sword. And for me the Bukharan pseudo shashka can be connected to the shashka because of their central Asian origin.
Kubur

Kubur, why "pseudo"?)))

It seemed to me that I demonstrated that the Afghan shashkas - are all signs of "shashkas". At the same time they do not copy the Russian shashkas. In contrast to the complete resemblance Caucasian and Russian (Cossack) shashkas (there really was borrowing)

[ariel]

I just disagree with



The Tunisian examples are not even shashka like. They are short swords one edge, more like the khyber knife. To the opposite the shashka are the swords of the steppic horsemen to quote Lebedinski. You know better than me the difference between a sabre and a short sword. And for me the Bukharan pseudo shashka can be connected to the shashka because of their central Asian origin.

Kubur



Of course they are not! I thought I made it clear, but obviously did not.
They are just very crude heavy blades with the handles eerily resembling those of the Beduin. No more. But because Beduin sabers had no guards, it was occasionally assumed ( my fault, too....) that Palestinian beduins crudely copied Circassian shashkas brought there by the exiled Shapsughs. There are quite a lot if Circassians in Israel and Jordan.

Circassian shashka was not of Central Asian origin. It would require reams of paper to address this narrow issue. I can only suggest getting Kirill Rivkin's book.

Just one small point: nomads, Alans including, had real sabers, with crossguards.

[Andreas]

[QUOTE=mahratt]I'll be glad to see this information, if show me a page from Adyghe dictionary. Now it is a matter of controversy among people who explore in Russian weapons.



Well, it's written in Cyrillic since 1936, but before Arabic was used, see https://archive.org/details/adictionarycirc01loewgoog

[mahratt]

Well, it's written in Cyrillic since 1936, but before Arabic was used, see https://archive.org/details/adictionarycirc01loewgoog

I think we all know, that shashka appeared earlier 1936) But when appeared the word "sa-shko" - the big question)

Speaking seriously, the first time the word "sa-shko" referred to in 1860, as the Circassian word.

But an interesting fact. The British spy in the Caucasus - Edmund Spenser, describing the armed indigenous wrote to "sabre," and not "shashka." And this is despite the fact that on the flyleaf of the first volume of his book 1839 edition depicts mountaineer with his shashka on his belt.

Although maybe I was inattentive?

Nevertheless. It is possible that the term "Sa-shko" has the same origin as "kangaroo";) I hope you know the story of the origin of the name))))

[Andreas]

Nevertheless. It is possible that the term "Sa-shko" has the same origin as "kangaroo";) I hope you know the story of the origin of the name))))

I do, do you mean that the term is not an indigenous one to describe this particular sword, but coined by foreigners?

[ariel]

Andreas,

Why do you think it was coined by foreigners?

You meant mistranscribed?

[mahratt]

I do, do you mean that the term is not an indigenous one to describe this particular sword, but coined by foreigners?

Quite possible. I'm not affirm. But in 1860, the term is used Russian author.

[Andreas]

Andreas,

Why do you think it was coined by foreigners?

You meant mistranscribed?

Ariel, I assumed that Mahratt was referring to the myth that Kangaroo is a term issuing from a misunderstanding, ie that when Cook and Banks asked the locals what is that hopping creature, they answered Kangaroo or “I don’t understand you”. This has since been disproved, Kangaroo is a legit local name for this marsupial. I was actually asking Mahratt if he thought that the term for the sword under discussion derives from a similar misunderstanding, as he seems to be suggesting, at least as a possibility.

[mahratt]

I was actually asking Mahratt if he thought that the term for the sword under discussion derives from a similar misunderstanding, as he seems to be suggesting, at least as a possibility.

Andreas,
The problem lies in the fact that the Circassian , Adyghe and Kabardian languages dictionaries have appeared after "shashka" was actively used, and Caucasians and Russian.

The fact that appeared a shashka in the Caucasus rather late (it can not be called a very old weapon). And there is a version what the "shashkas" appeared in the Caucasus after the campaign Nadir Shah in the mid-18th century. It - version. But this version is a good explanation of the existence of "shashkas" in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

[mahratt]

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan Shashkas?! :shrug:

Afghan Shashkas:

[mahratt]

Can somebody please post some photos of Bukahara Shashkas?! :shrug:

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

[mariusgmioc]

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

Thank you very much for the photos!

As I am just a novice in the field, I didn't even know these varieties existed!

And they look quite Shashkas to me! Whether they culturally belong to the Caucasian family or not, I believe they qualify for being called Shashkas.

Even if they appeared relatively recently as immitations of the Russian army issued Shashkas, I believe they still need consideration. After all that's how many other weapons appeared, by first copying, then adapting a weapon from a neighbouring nation, from a conquering or even from a conquered army.

Very interesting thread! :) :)

[Kubur]

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

[mariusgmioc]

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

From what I see, the Afghan ones seem to have a somehow longer pommel and broader tip.

[mahratt]

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

I am glad that you agree that it is - shashkas. ;)

I show the most well-known examples:

[mahratt]

Biryuza jewelry in a special technique is only found on the "Bukhara" shashkas. On the Afghan shashkas biryuza - not.

Even if there are shashkas of "Bukhara" with "bolster", it - indistinct (small), when compared with the Afghan shashkas.

"Bukhara" shashka:

[ariel]

Marius,

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.

But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them.
Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally.

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers . This is why they are pseudo-shashkas. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))

[ariel]

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

[mahratt]

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.


Parangs, some Indian examples , daabs - no many signs of shashka. This it has already been mentioned by other participants of the forum. Why do all the time to talk about them? You have no serious arguments? :)


But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them.
Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally.


Please place photo Bedouin "shashka" and "Bukhara" shashka. It will be interesting. And remember that you wrote about "Bedouin shashkas" above.


Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

On what basis? Because you so want?


It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers. This is why they are pseudo-shashkas.


You can prove it? You say general words (without proof).


Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

Perhaps you do not know, but with 1870's "Bukhara" shashka described in Russian historical sources, namely, as a "shashka" ;)

They did not know that Ariel does not think so;)

[mahratt]

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?
I had no doubt that the Ariel say about it. He's so predictable. :)

That is why I wrote in the post number 50, "well-known examples" ;)

Quantity rivets is not so important. Significantly: form handle, "bolster" size, inlaid with turquoise or not and other.

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right :p ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana. :shrug:

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

[mahratt]

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right :p ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana. :shrug:

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

Unfortunately, even the locals do not know, as in Afghanistan, and Bukhara called these shashkas. I found in Russian ethnographic work the traditional name for "Bukhara" shashka. But now, in Central Asia, no one calls this name Bukhara shashka.

Moreover, seeing the sword in the photo, all say that it is - "Shamshir". Do you agree? In Central Asia 100-150 years ago this sword called "Kilidg" (Kilic). But we'll call this the sword - "Shamshir".

[ariel]

The solution to this conundrum is simple: Uzbeki belongs to the Turcik group of languages. Thus, sword is kilij, or ( locally) Klych, and knife is P'chak.
Tajiks are ethnic Persians. For them, sword is shamshir, and knife is kord.

[mahratt]

The solution to this conundrum is simple: Uzbeki belongs to the Turcik group of languages. Thus, sword is kilij, or ( locally) Klych, and knife is P'chak.
Tajiks are ethnic Persians. For them, sword is shamshir, and knife is kord.

There is no mystery. I have talked about is that now we all call this sabre - "Shamshir". It does not matter, as he was called Uzbek. Also with shashkas, which we are discussing.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right :p ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana. :shrug:

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.



Actually I find this tedious and personal interaction between Ariel and Mahratt far less than entertaining......actually extremely disappointing, as it cobbles the entire meter of this discussion. Both of them are in my opinion brilliant scholars on these arms, and far above these kinds of personal jabs and bickering which they have constantly engaged in on just about every thread in which they are both present.

Having said that, despite their antics, the information that is filtered in within the sarcasm and snide remarks is indeed of course useful.
Absolutely we do not need to agree on things, but we must remember, it is not just about us and our personal egos or vanity, it is about trying to learn and those others out there looking to us to also gain knowledge.

Getting to topic, the local or regional terms for these swords are as far as I know, unrecorded in western parlance . As Ariel has well noted, it seems reasonable to presume that terms for sword and knife would be used in accord with the dialect of whatever regional tribe or ethnic group was discussing or describing them.

It is the western need to classify and categorize which has bred the lists of transliterated and semantically incongruent 'collectors terms' which have been so desperately and inconclusively debated ad nauseum for generations. The one purpose these terms has served has been to offer common ground in description of forms for viable discussion in a general semantics sense.

For me, it is best to cross reference and descriptively qualify a weapon so that the variations and possible alternate options can be recorded for further research and categorization .

[Ian]

I am going to try to summarize what I think has been said here in this, at times, unruly thread. As Jim noted, among the noise and disagreement there seems to be some common ground--or at least some points of substance that we can address, perhaps freeing us from some of the deeply entrenched positions that several have staked out.

I am seeing consensus that the broad typology of the shashka is in the class of swords we loosely call "sabers," which are primarily single-edged, fairly narrow blades (width should be specified) that may be straight or curved (but not recurved), and within that broad group the shashka belongs to those that have a guardless hilt (along with other notable swords such as certain katana, dha, parang, etc.). All of these weapons share the common function of being primarily slashing or cutting swords. [So far, so good--I hope.]

The next point of agreement seems to be the Circassian origin of these swords in the early 19th C. The Circassian shashka I have termed Type I (and here we need to define the essential characteristics of the Type I shashka).

Through diffusion within the Caucuses and eventually into Russia, the Circassian shashka becomes known as the Caucasian shashka and the Russian/Cossack shashka. These I have labeled Type Ia. So far I have not heard how these shashka differ from Type I, and perhaps they don't, but this point needs to be clarified.

The Russian version of Type Ia seems to have influenced neighboring areas resulting in them producing their own versions of the shashka. These I have termed "Shashka Variants" and they include examples from Afghanistan, from the Usbeks, Tajiks, etc. That these variations share much in common with the basic shashka model (Types I, Ia) is apparent from the pictures shown here and elsewhere on this web site. However, there are differences in decoration and minor stuctural changes that separate some of these from Type I, Ia shashka, and these differences are sufficient to label then Type Ib. I have not given the variants a Type II designation because the basic structure and function of the swords remain essentially true to the fundamental design of the shashka.

All of this is summed up in the accompanying chart. This is just how I have interpreted the data presented here. I want to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't favor one person's ideas over another's. This is simply where you comments have led me.

I know that passionate opinions are held by many of you. Please keep things on track and refrain from personal comments that might inflame those passions.

Ian.

[mariusgmioc]

I am going to try to summarize what I think has been said here in this, at times, unruly thread. As Jim noted, among the noise and disagreement there seems to be some common ground--or at least some points of substance that we can address, perhaps freeing us from some of the deeply entrenched positions that several have staked out.

I am seeing consensus that the broad typology of the shashka is in the class of swords we loosely call "sabers," which are primarily single-edged, fairly narrow blades (width should be specified) that may be straight or curved (but not recurved), and within that broad group the shashka belongs to those that have a guardless hilt (along with other notable swords such as certain katana, dha, parang, etc.). All of these weapons share the common function of being primarily slashing or cutting swords. [So far, so good--I hope.]

The next point of agreement seems to be the Circassian origin of these swords in the early 19th C. The Circassian shashka I have termed Type I (and here we need to define the essential characteristics of the Type I shashka).

Through diffusion within the Caucuses and eventually into Russia, the Circassian shashka becomes known as the Caucasian shashka and the Russian/Cossack shashka. These I have labeled Type Ia. So far I have not heard how these shashka differ from Type I, and perhaps they don't, but this point needs to be clarified.

The Russian version of Type Ia seems to have influenced neighboring areas resulting in them producing their own versions of the shashka. These I have termed "Shashka Variants" and they include examples from Afghanistan, from the Usbeks, Tajiks, etc. That these variations share much in common with the basic shashka model (Types I, Ia) is apparent from the pictures shown here and elsewhere on this web site. However, there are differences in decoration and minor stuctural changes that separate some of these from Type I, Ia shashka, and these differences are sufficient to label then Type Ib. I have not given the variants a Type II designation because the basic structure and function of the swords remain essentially true to the fundamental design of the shashka.

All of this is summed up in the accompanying chart. This is just how I have interpreted the data presented here. I want to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't favor one person's ideas over another's. This is simply where you comments have led me.

I know that passionate opinions are held by many of you. Please keep things on track and refrain from personal comments that might inflame those passions.

Ian.

Excellent summary!

I would remove the Katana from the list of guardless sabres, as they, in their majority, have a guard (tsuba). I used it as an extreme example for the dramatic effect
:o

And I was wondering whether the Caucasian ones didn't have more varieties. Like Georgian vs. Daghestani or Cossak?! But would be Cossak considered Caucasian or Russian?! :shrug:

[Ian]

Thanks marius. You are right. Most katana do have a small tsuba and I will make that change to avoid confusion.


Excellent summary!

I would remove the Katana from the list of guardless sabres, as they, in their majority, have a guard (tsuba). I used it as an extreme example for the dramatic effect
:o

And I was wondering whether the Caucasian ones didn't have more varieties. Like Georgian vs. Daghestani or Cossak?! But would be Cossak considered Caucasian or Russian?! :shrug:

[A. G. Maisey]

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

[Kubur]

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

Of course, if you talk about the shashka, the tree should start with the shashka.
I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.
Plus why the Russian is not under the Caucasian??

[mariusgmioc]

I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.


Albeit I sometimes feel like a dinosaur... :p :D

[Gavin Nugent]

What defines a Shashka; It is a sabre, unique to the Caucasian regions, and as far south and to include Turkey, and later adopted in to Russia.

What is a sabre; A curved, single handed, single edged sword, historically derived from and used from horseback. Not hand and a half, not two handed or longer, a grip for single handed use. Note, not all Shashka have their hilt engulfed by the scabbard throat either.

Qualities of a Shashka; I do not have my notes to reference, so I do not know who first wrote about the qualities of the Shashka, but, the most desirable Shashka, should be feather light, vine supple and razor sharp...very few swords anywhere in the world have all of these qualities.

I do not believe there are any sub-types of Shashka, only different cultural appearances throughout the regions of the Caucasus mountains and northern Turkey.
Russian adopted arms and terms of military regulation type, of the form or later types, should fall within modern Military cold arms, not Ethnographic arms.
Swords in discussion beyond the Caucasus Mountains and Northern Turkey should not be classified as Shashka.

To quote Mahratt's categories;

1) Caucasian shashka
2) Afghan shashka
3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka)
4) Russian shashka (Cossack)

I do not believe #s 2 & 3 exist as Shashka, nor a sub classification, but sabres in their own right. Type 4 I have noted in my opening text.

Type 2 exists with some common features and sits sheathed in a similar manner , but do not share Shashka "qualities" or linage. Perhaps visually inspired from a Caucasian Shashka but, but certainly not developed from and there really is not any development, more regression than anything when compared to a Shashka.
Personally, I feel these are only sabres, unique to their specific regions. These sabre all carry bolsters like their knives and Salawar, and have little to no grace in the hand.

Type 3. My Bukhara sabre, now so often seen in these pages, is not in my opinion, a sub class of the Shashka. The blade is not very supple but is sharp, it is somewhat light but not as balanced as a Shashka. It is single handed but not of a Shashka style grip despite it having small ears... It is more akin to the Pesh Kabz. It wears a grip strap like a Turkish sword or Pesh Kabz, has grip slabs like a Pesh Kabz or North Indian Karud (check the detail), is much thicker in cross section than a true Shashka hilt too. Also, the tang protrudes through the grip strap and is riveted in 5 places, not the traditional 2 places seen on Shashka.

Mahratt makes an observation about the hilt style being unique, and in a way it is but there are other non related arms such as the Sinai Bedouin sabre that is often mistaken as a Shashka in profile, and no doubt other forms that do not come straight to mind.

Dah should also be removed from this discussion, they are so far off the Shashka trails.

Gavin

[ariel]

I could not agree more.
Lumping Caucasian shashka with a Bukharan ( Uzbek) saber is irrational: there are far too many differences, and there are no potential common ancestors or influence points.
Afghani saber was dubbed " pseudoshashka" not for nothing: it adopted several features of the Caucasian model through ( most likely) Russian Cossacks sent to Central Asia after the conquest of the Khanates. Thus it is a "shashka" only in its 6th degree of separation:-)

Katana, Daab and Parang were mentioned by me tongue in cheek, just to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that just being a guardless saber qualifies any weapon as shashka.

In the evening I shall try to post a detailed comparison chart.

[ariel]

Just for general information:
From top to bottom: Sardinian Leppas, Saber of Croatian Kraisniks, Beduin saber.

They have nothing in common with each other and all look like long-lost twins of the Bukharan " pseudoshashka'

This is just a classic case of parallel development, whereby unsophisticated village knifemakers fashioned simple ergonomic handles with primitive pommels and handstops.

[ariel]

Comparison of features: Cauc. Bukh. Afgh. Mil. Khyber


Blade:
Wide at the root, narrows toward
the tip NO YES NO YES
Scabbard:
Suspended edge up YES NO YES NO
Tucked under the belt NO YES NO YES
Handle:
Eared YES NO YES NO
# of rivets 2-3 4-5 3 3-5
Bolster NO Variable YES YES
Grip strap NO YES Variable YES
Small, rounded pommel YES +/-none Large +/- none




From there I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.


If anybody wants to offer modifications, you are more than welcome.

Just I am not sure about the weight: the proverb about shashka being light, fast etc ( see Gavin's entry) referred to the earliest examples carried by Circassians. We know very, very few true Circassian samples, the majority of the 19th century examples are from Daghestan, Chechnya and Georgia proper ( Tiflis) Those were not as massive as Afghani military "pseudoshashkas", but still had quite a mass to them. Many used European cavalry blades


PS, I can't seem to format the table properly. Anybody can help?

[Ian]

It is a couple of days since Ariel posted his typology of shashka and his conclusion that the Caucasian shashka and Afghan military variant shared many features in common, while the Bukhara guardless saber shares many common features with the Khyber variant. There has been no response to his classification, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees but I'm not hearing any major dissent either.

Ariel's analysis shows two distinct "patterns" and has been very well documented in his table that I have redrawn below with some regrouping to list a "Type A" and "Type B" of the swords that are variously called shashkas or shashka variants.

This is exactly the sort of typological classification I was hoping this thread would arrive at.

Ian.

[Gavin Nugent]

Well done Ian, it greatly helps Ariel's post visually...buy I feel, there is no distinct accuracy within these forms discussed, only general rules of thumb, the chart cannot be considered accurate or ever large enough to cover all variants of these weapons.

Some points for now;

Ear will need to be defined as there are varying degree of ears as there 2 distinctly different Bukhara sabre styles, those with no ears and those with Yataghan like ears. Number of rivets can run from none to 5.
There are Caucasian Shashka with no rivets too.

I do not consider Afghan Sabres to have large pommels vs Caucasian sabres, they have long pommel though and note that these hilts are largely cylindrical not oval as a Caucasian Shashka typically is.

Buhkaran sabres are hung in many fashions, including blade up and not always under a belt.

Khyber are not always tucked under a belt, many have suspension and are blade up in either suspension.

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
Thanks for providing individual details.
I looked at the most frequent features, seen on > 90% of all of the above varieties. Of course, there always going to be exceptions.


I am unaware of Bukharan sabers with yataghan ears.

I do maintain that Afghani pommels are significantly bigger than the Caucasian ones, but this is immaterial: both of them are much bigger than the Bukharan and khybers that are merely minor widenings over the grip.

Yes, there are Caucasian shashkas ( older ones) with no rivets, but their handles were made of a single piece of walrus ivory, i.e. totally different technique , abandoned by the middle of 19 century. Cossack and Russian military shashkas that (IMHO!) gave inspiration to the end of 19 century Afghani ones all had 2 "slabs" and consequently had rivets.

The location of suspension rings on the Caucasian and the Afghani scabbards is very specific and identical: the upper one on the back surface, and the lower one on the top. Khybers were always worn under the belt, unless we want to go back to the discredited idea of calling Afghani short sabers with D-guard and European blades " regulation khybers":-)))

The number of rivets and their size on the Bukharan handles dependent largely on the material of the handle: wood ( most frequent) and horn ( second most frequent) were sturdy and could tolerate 5 large ones . Fragile materials ( ivory) usually had 3 or maximum 4 thin rivets. I do not know about highly decorated ones, but suspect the number of rivets did not exceed 3 for fear of spoiling the effect of embellishment.

[ariel]

Ian,
Many thanks for re-arranging the table.

[Ian]

Ariel, you're welcome and thank you again for presenting these broad descriptions of two types of shashka/shashka variants. This should help our readers who are less familiar with these swords.

Gavin, thank you too for your clarifications of some of the complexities in trying to arrive at a general typology for these swords.

Ian,
Many thanks for re-arranging the table.

[estcrh]

I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.

Ariel, are you categorizing the Afghan shashka with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (along with the Russian shashka) or do you categorize it along with the Bukhara etc shashka as non-Caucasian / Circassian shashka type swords. I know you have been studying the different but similar variations for a long time and I would like to get your opinion or are you still trying to decide exactly how to categorize them.

[ariel]

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

I think that Bukharan saber has nothing to do genetically with the Caucasian/ Cossack examples. What unites them is just a superficial similarity, a consequence of parallel development. I would tentatively suggest that the Bukharan example and the Khyber ( as well as Khyber-like Turkmen and Uzbek bladed weapons) all stem from the same proto-group.

On the other hand, the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

[Gavin Nugent]

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

I think that Bukharan saber has nothing to do genetically with the Caucasian/ Cossack examples. What unites them is just a superficial similarity, a consequence of parallel development. I would tentatively suggest that the Bukharan example and the Khyber ( as well as Khyber-like Turkmen and Uzbek bladed weapons) all stem from the same proto-group.

On the other hand, the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

Ariel,

Firstly, I'd like to clarify my Yataghan reference in relation to Bukhara sabres of the form discussed. It is not any grip slab shape that I refer to but the distance and subtitles of how far the ears protrude beyond the grip straps on known Bukhara examples when so many are simply flush. The Bukhara typology can be drilled down in various degrees.

Central Asia, Caucasian mountains and China have all had a long long long history of guardless sabres and swords, there is nothing new here as history has taught us, and I do not ever recall ever hearing these ancient sword types referred to as Shashka. So with reference to history, and the centuries past, I wholeheartedly agree that the Bukahara sabres do not belong even as a subgroup of a relatively modern term "Shashka".

These long straight knife types from Bukhara, and shallow curved sabres, are far more Turkish Yataghan and Persian Shamshir in regards manufacture of the hilt, (not appearance) ... With reference to blades, but of course disregarding Kopis types, but with consideration to those known with straight blades, a Turkish connection through Persia is far more probable that any Shashka. Also consider that Bukhara is Persian and the pointers along the silk road routes. How a shallow curved blade also ended up in these hilt styles is easy to see when next to their small utility knives which has been touched on.

For consideration to Afghanistan sabres in question, A quick look will also see many of these straight bladed Yataghans, have but a long bolster and similar rivet structure seen on the Aghan "pseudo Shashka". These same Yataghan also carry the same "ear" types as these sabres too.
Note also, there are Khyber knives with pommel forms also seen on some Yataghan...just to muddy the waters some more :) ... And to simply ask, where do these clear visual and construction aspects of Turkish Yataghan leave leave the idea of trying to classify anything other than a Shashka from the Caucasian Mountains, as it as known, as being the only Shashka...it is a unique sabre unto itself in many ways.

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
I am glad we agree on the lack of relation between the Bukharan and the Caucasian examples and on the uniqueness of Shashka as a separate, Sui Generis, type of guardless sabers.

We have neither physical nor iconographic examples of Caucasian shashkas older than late 18th- early 19 century. Nobody knows whether this is due to their late appearance, to the multiple reuses or just losses of the old examples or simply to the lack of "iconographers". I discount here the so-called "parsunas" ( bastardized " person" ), rather primitive portraits of Cossack atamans of late 18 century, wearing fully-developed shashkas with typical Circassian pommel decorations simply because they were painted posthumously.

But let me offer a somewhat heretical idea: Caucasian shashka owes its genesis to Ottoman yataghans. Crimea was an outcropping of the Ottoman Empire, had documented yataghans early on and was supplying a lot of weapons to Circassians. In turn, Circassia, a vassal of the Crimean Khanate, was a secondary vassal of the Ottomans. Also, Georgian kingdoms were in an on-and-off state of war with Turkey and were often controlled by it . One can easily imagine that they could have adopted the eared handle ( simplifying it to the hilt, pun intended) and marrying it to their familiar saber blade, creating a cheap, simple and much more functional weapon. The adoption of such a "hybrid" might have been facilitated by the already present Western Georgian sabers without a guard ( see works of Vakhtang Kiziria)

As to the "eared" pommels of Afghani pseudoshashkas, they are just a narrow cleft ( very Caucasian) rather than widely spread Ottoman. And their suspension system is purely Caucasian/Cossack, not a "tucked-under-the-belt" Ottoman. Moreover, their appearance tightly follows Russian occupation of Central Asian Khanates and stationing of Cossack cavalry there. The Ottomans had only limited if any influence in Central Asia at that time.

At the end of the day, we can only hope that this issue will be specifically addressed by the Caucasian historians and ethnographers, and there are brilliant people there! Not much hope for the Afghani contribution, though....

[estcrh]

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.

[Andreas]

We have neither physical nor iconographic examples of Caucasian shashkas older than late 18th- early 19 century.

Buttin in his catalogue shows a shashka with a 16th century Genoese blade (No 646 below). He says that these Genoese blades were the most prized in the Caucasus, a fact which led to Syrian forgeries, but of a far lesser quality.
Andreas

[ariel]

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.


So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

[ariel]

Buttin in his catalogue shows a shashka with a 16th century Genoese blade (No 646 below). He says that these Genoese blades were the most prized in the Caucasus, a fact which led to Syrian forgeries, but of a far lesser quality.
Andreas

Andreas,

100% correct observation.
But old blades were mounted and remounted over and over again on Caucasian shashkas.

They were indeed highly valuable, and the term "gurda" was related to the Genoese "jaws" mark. Just like "ters maimal" ( screaming, or crazy, ape) defined a blade with the originally German ( (Passau) running wolf. Most were locally made and the variations of either mark fill large illustrations in the book by Astvatsaturyan.

~18th century German blades with elaborate depictions of "man in the moon" and arm with a sword coming from a cloud for some reason were locally called Abbas Mirza. Go figure:-))

Regretfully, there is not a single example of a 16-18 century blade mounted on contemporaneous handle, and the latter is what largely defines a shashka.

[Andreas]

But old blades were mounted and remounted over and over again on Caucasian shashkas.



Of course, as with swords everywhere. But if that is the case here, I wonder for what type of sword would a blade with these characteristics originally be intended for? (sorry but I don't have the time to translate right now)
Andreas

Buttin's description:
646. — SABRE DU CAUCASE (Chacheka), XVIle-XVIII, siècle. (Pl. XX).Belle lame du xvie siècle, légèrement cintrée et finissant en langue de carpe. Large de 0,03 au talon sur 17 cm. elle est à ce point, par un brusque rétrécissement au dos, ramenée à 0,027. Trois gouttières jusqu'à ce rétrécissement, puis ensuite deux jusqu'à 0,20 de la pointe. A partir de cette longueur, la lame devient à deux tranchants et n'a plus qu'une gouttière qui s'arrête à 0,10 de la pointe pour lui laisser toute sa force.Sur le côté droit le poinçon de Gênes, qui est la marque la plus estimée au Caucase.Aussi a-t-il été très copié par la contrefaçon syrienne, mais les lames génoises, surtout celles du xvie siècle, sont bien plus belles de qualité, ont les gouttières plus régulières et les intervalles qui les séparent sont plus étroits et finissent en arête vive. La pointe parfaitement calculée est assez en arrière pour permettre le coup d'estramaçon et en même temps assez aiguë pour permettre le coup de pointe, chose rare dans les chachekas. Poignée d'une seule pièce, en corne noire, sans garde, formant crosse en bec au pommeau pour retenir la main, et fendue en 2 lobes ou oreilles comme celle des yatagans, mais bien plus rapprochées. C'est la forme typique de la poignée de chacheka.Fourreau en chagrin vert, sans garniture et destiné à être passé dans la ceinture. La poignée y entre à demi.Arme ancienne, de conservation parfaite, et à laquelle la qualité incomparable de l'acier de sa lame donnerait aujourd'hui encore une grande valeur au Caucase.C'est une des meilleures lames de notre collection. Long. : 0,940. Lame : 0,810.

[Gavin Nugent]

Of course, as with swords everywhere. But if that is the case here, I wonder for what type of sword would a blade with these characteristics originally be intended for? (sorry but I don't have the time to translate right now)
Andreas

Buttin's description:
646. — SABRE DU CAUCASE (Chacheka), XVIle-XVIII, siècle. (Pl. XX).Belle lame du xvie siècle, légèrement cintrée et finissant en langue de carpe. Large de 0,03 au talon sur 17 cm. elle est à ce point, par un brusque rétrécissement au dos, ramenée à 0,027. Trois gouttières jusqu'à ce rétrécissement, puis ensuite deux jusqu'à 0,20 de la pointe. A partir de cette longueur, la lame devient à deux tranchants et n'a plus qu'une gouttière qui s'arrête à 0,10 de la pointe pour lui laisser toute sa force.Sur le côté droit le poinçon de Gênes, qui est la marque la plus estimée au Caucase.Aussi a-t-il été très copié par la contrefaçon syrienne, mais les lames génoises, surtout celles du xvie siècle, sont bien plus belles de qualité, ont les gouttières plus régulières et les intervalles qui les séparent sont plus étroits et finissent en arête vive. La pointe parfaitement calculée est assez en arrière pour permettre le coup d'estramaçon et en même temps assez aiguë pour permettre le coup de pointe, chose rare dans les chachekas. Poignée d'une seule pièce, en corne noire, sans garde, formant crosse en bec au pommeau pour retenir la main, et fendue en 2 lobes ou oreilles comme celle des yatagans, mais bien plus rapprochées. C'est la forme typique de la poignée de chacheka.Fourreau en chagrin vert, sans garniture et destiné à être passé dans la ceinture. La poignée y entre à demi.Arme ancienne, de conservation parfaite, et à laquelle la qualité incomparable de l'acier de sa lame donnerait aujourd'hui encore une grande valeur au Caucase.C'est une des meilleures lames de notre collection. Long. : 0,940. Lame : 0,810.

646. - SABRE CAUCASUS (Chacheka), seventeenth-eighteenth century. (Pl. XX) .Beautiful blade of the sixteenth century, slightly curved and ending in language carp. 0.03 off the heel of 17 cm. it is at this point, by a sudden narrowing of the back, reduced to 0.027. Three gutters until shrinkage, then two up to 0.20 of the tip. From this length, the blade is double-edged and has only one channel which stops at 0.10 tip to give him all his force.Sur the right punch of Genoa, which is the most esteemed brand has Caucase.Aussi he was very copied by Syrian infringement, but the Genoese blades, especially those of the sixteenth century are much more beautiful in quality, have more regular gutters and the intervals separate are narrower and end in sharp edge. The perfectly calculated tip is enough back to allow the kick-edged swords and even enough time for the acute point shot, rare in chachekas. Handle one piece, black horn, without warning, forming butt spout knob to hold his hand, and split into two lobes or ears like yataghans, but closer. This is the typical form of the handle chacheka.Fourreau green grief without trim and intended to be spent in the belt. The handle is in between old demi.Arme of perfect preservation, and to which the incomparable quality of its steel blade still give great value to Caucase.C'est the best blades of our collection. Long. : 0,940. Blade: 0,810.

[ariel]

Andreas,
Obviously, there were no shashkas in Europe; such blades were used for mass manufacture of garden variety sabers, with handguards and all.

But there was a whole industry in Italy, Germany and Styria producing blades for export to the Orient. And the final product was determined by the end user: the same blade could have become shashka in Caucasus, tulwar in India, nimcha in Morocco etc. They were hugely popular everywhere and the natives quickly caught the drift and started making imitations locally and even putting European marks on them.

[Andreas]

646. - SABRE CAUCASUS (Chacheka), seventeenth-eighteenth century. (Pl. XX) .Beautiful blade of the sixteenth century, slightly curved and ending in language carp. 0.03 off the heel of 17 cm. it is at this point, by a sudden narrowing of the back, reduced to 0.027. Three gutters until shrinkage, then two up to 0.20 of the tip. From this length, the blade is double-edged and has only one channel which stops at 0.10 tip to give him all his force.Sur the right punch of Genoa, which is the most esteemed brand has Caucase.Aussi he was very copied by Syrian infringement, but the Genoese blades, especially those of the sixteenth century are much more beautiful in quality, have more regular gutters and the intervals separate are narrower and end in sharp edge. The perfectly calculated tip is enough back to allow the kick-edged swords and even enough time for the acute point shot, rare in chachekas. Handle one piece, black horn, without warning, forming butt spout knob to hold his hand, and split into two lobes or ears like yataghans, but closer. This is the typical form of the handle chacheka.Fourreau green grief without trim and intended to be spent in the belt. The handle is in between old demi.Arme of perfect preservation, and to which the incomparable quality of its steel blade still give great value to Caucase.C'est the best blades of our collection. Long. : 0,940. Blade: 0,810.

Thank you Gavin, but automatic translation does have a tendency to produce a somewhat garbled result, to say the least... :)

[Andreas]

Andreas,
Obviously, there were no shashkas in Europe; such blades were used for mass manufacture of garden variety sabers, with handguards and all.

But there was a whole industry in Italy, Germany and Styria producing blades for export to the Orient. And the final product was determined by the end user: the same blade could have become shashka in Caucasus, tulwar in India, nimcha in Morocco etc. They were hugely popular everywhere and the natives quickly caught the drift and started making imitations locally and even putting European marks on them.

Sorry Ariel, I'm not familiar with the expression garden variety sabers :o
My point was, if such 15th - 18th century blades were exported to the Caucasus, what were they exported for if not for shashkas? It seems reasonable to assume that the type existed back then, and I'm saying this because I get the impression from this thread ( I might be wrong) that the shashka is a later development, end 18th-early 19th.
Andreas

[estcrh]

if such 15th - 18th century blades were exported to the Caucasus, what were they exported for if not for shashkas? When were they exported?

[ariel]

I hate to disagree with Buttin, but my gut is telling me that his dating was overly optimistic: I think that 17 or more likely 18 century at the latest would be more realistic. And again, finding even 16 century blade on a shashka does not mean that the entire "saber" was made as such in the 16 century.

Genoese colonies in Crimea and Abkhazia existed since 12-13 centuries. Documented import of blades was recorded in the 17-18 centuries.

What were the 17 century blades exported to Circassia used for? I do not know. And nobody does. Everybody would love to say " for shashkas", but there is not a single example of a shashka reliably or even tentatively attributed by the handle to anything earlier than the very end of 18 century. Caucasus was in the throes of uninterrupted wars for centuries; weapons were broken, lost, parts used and reused, combined and recombined.... One cannot find neither heads nor tails.

[Ian]

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry. The translation here is terrible. I have not spoken or written French for 50+ years but I do know that the last sentence should read, "It is one of our collection's best blades." No doubt your French is better than mine, so please favor us with a more meaningful translation.

On the issue of using former European blades in Caucasian shashkas, there are some gaps in logic when assuming that these were converted to shashkas in the 17th-18th C.

Basically, we don't know when these shashkas were made. The blades could have been repurposed, such that a guarded hilt was replaced by the guardless shashka hilt at a later time. High quality blades such as these would have been passed down within families and could have been updated/modified at any time.

Ian

[Andreas]

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry. The translation here is terrible. I have not spoken or written French for 50+ years but I do know that the last sentence should read, "It is one of our collection's best blades." No doubt your French is better than mine, so please favor us with a more meaningful translation.



Ian

The last sentence indeed translates as "It's one of the best blades of my collection", not a mean compliment I would say, coming from Buttin...
I will try to find time and translate the whole description tomorrow
Regards,
Andreas

[estcrh]

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))
Thanks, so basically three categories, Caucasian / Circassian (and Russian) shashkas, Afghan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka and Bukharan ?????.....what do you call these if not Bukharan shashka type sword????.....Bukharan sabre????

[ariel]

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

[estcrh]

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

I personally think that Bukharan should be "Bukharan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka" and the Afghan on should be "Afghan shashka", this would be closer to the actual identification from what I have been reading.......taking into account the generally accepted meaning of "pseudo" (not genuine, synonyms:bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived,) as in "we are talking about real shashka based on the Caucasian version and not the pseudo Bukharan kind" etc.

If the Bukharan sabre is not related to the Caucasian shashka and has been mis-identified as a shashka it should be noted for future interested parties.

[ariel]

double posting

[ariel]

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.

[estcrh]

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.I can not comment on "bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber" but as far as "karabala" goes this is based on the hilt as tulwar have a different hilt, same with "sosun pata" as yataghan have a different hilt. But I think you are mis-understanding my train of thought.

Pseudo implies something that is false or fake etc, this more accurately describes (in my opinion) the current widely accepted term "Bukharan shashka" which from your comments and research seems to fit the description of being pseudo shashka while as you say the Afghan shashka has come commonality with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka possibly making it a form of shashka in its own right.

I just think that the term "pseudo" is more suited to the Bukharan types of sabres that are currently widely described as "shashka". I know that an authority (Lebedinski) previously used "pseudo" to describe the Afghan variety but as has been stated here the Afghan shashka seem to be related in some way to the Caucasian / Circassian shashka while the Bukharan types are not related at all. This seems to make the Bukharan types more of a " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc" than the Afghan shashka with is a derivative of the original shashka so not as close to being "pseudo", at least this is how I see it.

[ariel]

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

[Roland_M]

A Shashka is a saber, which was first used by the Circassians (a Northwest Caucasian ethnic group).

In Circassians language "Shashka" means "long knife".

The Cossacks adopt the Shashka in the 19th century.


Roland

[estcrh]

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?Unfortunately you know that the Bukharan "shashka" is not related to shashka but what about the rest of the world??? So in the sense that the Bukharan is not actually a shashka I think "pseudo is more appropriately used than for the Afghan shashka which can at least semi-accurately be called a shashka.

I was thinking that using "pseudo" with Bukharan would be telling people who run into these types of swords that they are not actually shashka at all (you convinced me of this).

Lets say you wanted to divide / separate these three groups of swords into three categories as in three Pinterest boards. One for Caucasian / Circassian shashka, one for Afghan shashka and one for the Bukharan type of sabre that is currently being called "shashka". How would you get the point across that the Bukharan "shashka" is not actually a shashka at all, calling it a "Bukharan pseudo shashka might be helpful.

It really comes down to your own interpretation of "pseudo" and how it is best applied.

[Jim McDougall]

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?


I'm inclined to agree here Ariel. It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.

Personally I think the Afghan example of these sabres is most likely to have evolved from exposure to the Russian forces in these regions through the 19th century and I believe earlier (need to consult Hopkirk, "The Great Game" to be sure how early).
Russian forces clearly comprised Caucasian elements and officers often kept their heirloom forms as well as personal weapons in service. These thus were probably known to armourers in these regions.
It would seem that these locally produced shaska -style sabres would emulate the Caucasian forms.

The conundrum of the 'Uzbek' form seems to be rather so entwined with the Afghan of these shaska like sabres that even Flindt and Lebedynsky noted that typically it would be difficult to distinguish them from each other aside from instances where other qualifying features might enable that.

I cannot recall from Mollo, but it seems like the Russian 'shashka' which developed into a regulation form for Cossack units was around 1850s. These were quite different from Caucasian forms with the absence of guard being key visually. The use of the term shashka for other stirrup hilted swords in Mollo ("Russian Military Swords",) led (me at least) to presume the word was of Russian origin. It is not as has been revealed in discussion here.

The Bukharen sabre as noted, seems a localized development which seems to have evolved independently aside from the Russian influences which may have affected the Afghan versions of sabre.

It seems that many years back as I was looking into these, I had an article which dealt with some of the Steppes tribes in European areas back into the 6th century and these early periods. In an illustration it seemed that an Avar tribesman held a guardless sabre which almost had the kind of hilt shape of the Bukharen. In an admittedly tenuous and circumstantial suggestion, I wonder if these type sabres lingered as a loosely established form in these regions over that long a period.

Getting back to terminology and of course semantics, both the Bukharen and Afghan are effectively guardless sabres, however the Afghan may be considered shaska like, recalling the extant forms from the Caucusus.

[Andreas]

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry.

Ian

Ian, here is the translation, as promised. I hope it's satisfactory.
Andreas

646. - SABRE OF THE CAUCASUS (Shashka), seventeenth-eighteenth century. (Pl. XX).
Excellent sixteenth century blade, slightly curved and chisel-pointed. Width 0.03 at the shoulder for 17 cm , reduced from there to 0.027 by an abrupt narrowing of the back. Three fullers up to that point, then two up to 0.20 from the tip. From this length, the blade becomes double-edged and has only one fuller which stops at 0.10 from the tip so as to conserve the point all its strength.
On the right side the mark of Genoa , which is the most esteemed in the Caucasus . For that reason it was widely copied by Syrian forgers, but the Genoese blades, especially those of the sixteenth century, are of a much better quality, have more regular fullers and the spaces between them are narrower and end in a sharp edge. The perfectly designed point is inclined enough to allow cutting strokes and at the same time suitable for thrusting, which is rare with shashkas.
Single-piece black horn grip, without guard, the pommel beaked to support the hand, and split into two lobes or ears like those of yataghans, but with a narrower gap. This is the typical form of the shashka hilt.
Green shagreen scabbard without decoration and intended to be worn tucked under the belt. The hilt half-enters in the scabbard.
An old weapon, and in a perfect state of preservation, the incomparable quality of its blade’s steel, would still make it very valuable in the Caucasus today.
It is one of the best blades of our collection.
Length : 0,940. Blade: 0,810.

[estcrh]

It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.
Jim, I think that according to the commonly accepted meanings of "pseudo", Lebedynsky may have mis-applied the term in relation to the Afghan shashka. I personally think that based on Ariels assessment of both swords, "pseudo" is closer to correctly describing the Bukharan sword.

If we accept that the Bukharan "shashka" is NOT a "variation or development" but a non related sword that has falsely been called a shashka thus it becomes a "pseudo" shasha by default (to those that call it a shashka).

According to what Ariel has said, the Afghan shashka IS a "variation or development" of the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (as is the Russian shashka) then as you say it should NOT be classified as being "pseudo" any more then the Russian shashka would be called "pseudo".

[ariel]

Well, it depends how you look at it......


............. At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

Well, I hate quoting myself, but couldn't find a better way to respond:-))))))))))

[kronckew]

yes, semantics, but any noun is just a label agreed to by the group using it.

i think the germanic word 'ersatz' (verb ersetzen, to substitute) is more applicable as it's meaning is closer to ''substitute in place of' or 'alternate' rather than 'fake' as is 'pseudo'.

[Gavin Nugent]

I am all for study and collation of information, but why does a sword type need to be specifically put in a box with another and then fall under that swords name...

what's in a name?

What's with the name game?

Does this name game improve the character and pedigree of a sword, I think not!

Shall now the Sasanian guardless swords of the Neo Persian empire, whose lands that these swords being classified were once theirs, now be called Shashka too...

It's over complicating things...

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

[Gavin Nugent]

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

With consideration to the a large area that these swords are found in, it is and was a Persian speaking region, correct naming would make them a "Shamshir"...how muddy does that make the waters with names and what is generally accepted about the word shamshir and its accepted form.

With regards to this threads topic, and the mammal analagy, they are all Sabres (from a very long line of guardless sabres), they fall in to a category of all being without guards, they then fall in to a known locality within a specific time/period, for which specific cultural features are then noted...this does not then lead to the name game for clarity....however, if one must insist on a name, from a logical perspective, it is Shamshir....the name game does not help here.

Whilst it is generally agreed that the Caucasian sword of this type is called a Shashka (with no arguement from me), with consideration to the 25 something ethnic groups within this region, how many different names for the same swords would be found...IMHO, trying to make a name stick is often counter productive vs a simple classification of "type/ location/period/features".

Gavin

[estcrh]

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.Names are very important when it comes to internet search engines, without an item being "tagged" it may never be found. Like it or not, categorization is important, what name you use determines whether or not you can bring up the images you are looking for online.

[ariel]

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

[AJ1356]

OK, it is not a copy of the Caucasian Shashka, but wasn't inspired by it?!

Or did it appear absolutely independent from the Caucasian Shashka?!

How do Afghan people call it?!

:shrug:

I just started reading this post and have not read completely through yet. But, to answer your question, the current people of Afghanistan would refer to it as shamshir (shamshir meaning sword) now I am not sure about people in the north. However, in the home I was raised in there was a shashka and my grandmother, whose parents were from Samarqand would call it a shashqa. I remember it had an all steel hilt with no gaurd and was said to have been brought down from Samarqand when they migrated to Afghanistan.

[mariusgmioc]

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

Hello Ariel,

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356). So your examples about similar blades that developed independently are not that relevant since the Afghan Shashka did not develop independently from the Circasian one (like the Bauenwehr developed independently from the Khyber sword).

Then, why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date. Also this way there will be no possibility of confusion between the Afghan variety and the Bukharan sabre since the name will locate it geographically without the ambiguity related to the other proposed prefixes, like the "pseudo" (yes, it is a pseudo-shashka but from where?!)

Something like the same way we say Ottoman Shamshir and we then know we may have a classic shamshir blade with a typical Turkish/Ottoman pistol grip.

Am I missing something?

:shrug:

[estcrh]

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356)........................................... .........................why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date. If there is some certainty that the Afghan shashka is a shashka this would be a good name solution all around.

[ariel]

Guys,
Everybody is free to call it any way one wants. I based my view on its original roots ( with Cossack overlays coming later on), you suggest stressing its final incarnation, similar to AJ1356's grandmother. It is the matter from what angle we want to look at it. As long as we all know what we are talking about and understand its convoluted history.

[Ian]

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.
Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Caucasian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.
Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Circassian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

Hello Ian,

I believe the term "variant" associated with Shashka is creating significant ambiguity unless is followed by additional explanations.

For example. I can say: "I just acquired a variant Shashka."
What would one understand?! How clear and unambiguous this statement is?! Is it an Afghan or some other "variant" of Shashka I am refering to?!

When saying a "variant" Shashka I can refer to an Afghan Shashka, Bukharan Sabre/Shashka or I may very well refer to a Russian Shasahka as a "variant" that difers slightly from what I may consider the standard, in my case the Caucasian Shashka.

However, using the geographical locator serves perfectly in defining clearly and unambiguously the item.

Whether one considers the Bukharan sabre a "variant" of the Shashka or not, as soon as one hears "Bukharan Shashka," one knows exactly what it refers to. As opposed to the more generic "Bukharan Sabre" which leaves room for much more ambiguity as it can refer to a Shamshir originating from Bukhara, or with Bukharan mounts.

So, for the sake of clarity in communication, I believe we should use the terms that are most clear an unambiguous, whether culturally or historically correct or not (which at its turn can be subject to another endless debate).

Therefore, in the name of democracy, CLARITY and freedom of speech ;) , I will use:

1. SHASHKA - for all shashka-like sabers, namely
1.1. CIRCASIAN SHASHKA
1.2. CAUCASIAN SHASHKA
1.3. COSSACK SHASHKA
1.4. RUSSIAN SHASHKA
1.5. TURKISH SHASHKA
1.6. AFGHAN SHASHKA
1.7. BUKHARAN SHASHKA

:D

PS: I believe 1.1 and 1.2 refer to the same type or variant of weapon. :shrug:

[Ian]

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations. :)

[Ian]

Marius:

I understand and that is a perfectly legitimate and logical position. It also fits within the rubric of discussing shashkas and shashka variants.

Ian.

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations. :)

[ariel]

Marius:

I understand and that is a perfectly legitimate and logical position. It also fits within the rubric of discussing shashkas and shashka variants.

Ian.

Yes, it is, if we ignore the inconvenient fact that Bukharan saber has nothing to do with shashka from the developmental point of view.

If we go that way, Beduin sabres and Sardinian leppas ( see above) are also shashkas :-)))

[mariusgmioc]

Yes, it is, if we ignore the inconvenient fact that Bukharan saber has nothing to do with shashka from the developmental point of view.

If we go that way, Beduin sabres and Sardinian leppas ( see above) are also shashkas :-)))

What kind of Bukharan sabers are you referring to, because I know at least two types that have significantly different characteristics?! You mean the Bukharan shamshirs?! ;)

Does the "Beduin sabres" display the majority of characteristics that define a Shashka?!
Would the term "Beduin Shashka" be clearer and less ambiguous than "Beduin sabres?"
If one thinks so, then one is free to call them "Beduin Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

Does the "Sardinian Leppas" display the majority of characteristics that define a Shashka?!
Would the term "Sardinian Shashkas" be clearer and less ambiguous than "Sardinian Leppas?"
Like I said before, if one thinks so, then one is free to call them "Sardinian Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

:cool:

[ariel]

... one is free to call them "Beduin Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

...one is free to call them "Sardinian Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwN0X8YnWo

:-)))

[mariusgmioc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwN0X8YnWo

:-)))

Thanks! Brought back memories! I didn't even know they had a video.
:) :) :)

[ariel]

Glad you liked it. Enjoy!

[kamachate]

Hi all. Thanks for this useful thread. Here is a companion from me:

Yes, the word seshkho (сэшхо) is the Circassian word for "big blade", even in modern Circassian. "Se" practically means the "edge", and there are a series of words derived from it, such as: se+shkho (сэшхо) = big blade = checker, or, se+zii (сэжъый, шэжъый) = small blade = knife (these words are still in daily use).

However, and I think this is important, seshkho is not the only word for "sword" or "shashka" in Circassian. Seshkho, or "shashka" is the word for this type of blade, and the word for "saber" is "chate" (чатэ) in Circassian. "Chate" is again a single handed, single edged, curved or strait sword, but with a longer blade and bayonet-type tip, with small crossguards, which is to say, a Khevsurian sword or an "ordynka" or "Tatar style saber" :) But, the word "chate" "should" had been used for the double-edged and strait swords before the development of the sabers, for there is no other word for sword, or saber, or checker in Circassian (as far as I know :shrug: ). An other proof for this: Big kindjals (strait or curved, but longer than 60 cm) are called khamachate, literally kindjal-sword, which have nothing to do with the ordynka type :)

Older Circassian sagas (before 17th century - and especially the Nart sagas) never mention "shashkas", but frequently talk about the heroes or heroines, and their "chate"s and their wonderful features. This is quite reasonable if we all agree that "shashka" is a later invention, but is also a proof that it does not mean "sword" or "saber", a shashka (or seshkho) for a Circassian is just what it is, "a big blade".

About the "origin", I am quite sure that the word "shaska" derives from the Circassian word, but I can not be that sure about the "ethnic" :) origin of this weapon. As we know, the first and strong contacts between the Caucasian tribes and Russians began with the Circassians, and most features of the Caucasian culture are known to be "Circassian" to the Russians (today Georgian :) ). A very good example is the traditional and general Caucasian coat with cartridges, which is called "Cherkesska" in Russian. The Russians must have adapted the shashka from the Circassians with its original but deformed name, but the "invention" of this blade well may be a different story :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Thanks again for the thread.

[ariel]

True enough.
Prior to their conquest of the Caucasus there were multiple Cossack settlements adjacent to the Circassian borders. This was the earliest channel of penetration of Caucasian culture into the Russian areal. During and after the Russian-Caucasian wars in the 19 century there was a massive presence of the Russian military and bureaucracy there and the cultural dam was completely broken. Russian officers started to carry Caucasian weapons and dress like the natives.

It was an unusual occurrence: the vanquished imposed their culture upon the conquerors. Tsars started to have their official portraits painted while dressed in the Circassian garb and carrying kindjals and shashkas and both of these weapons became regulation weapons of the Russian military. Of course, mass production did not allow the artistic elements to be reproduced, but the idea remained , in case of shashka incorporating saber blade with minor curvature, guardless design and eared pommel. The final result was, IMHO, pretty ugly but both the construction and the name became very Russian.

The very presence of these elements on the Afghani pseudoshashkas betrays powerful Russian military influence upon the emerging army building in that country.

The "Uzbeki" example was just a parallel development. Conquered Khanates were not allowed to have organized military and there was no opportunity or need to adapt Russian weapons for mass production. They remained as occasional examples preserving their cultural military heritage owing nothing to the Russian influence.

[mariusgmioc]

Very interesting comments! Thank you Ariel and Kamachate! :)

[kamachate]

Good point, Ariel:

"It was an unusual occurrence: the vanquished imposed their culture upon the conquerors."

Maybe sometime we should talk about the Victorian perception of the "mountain warriors", or, "Noble Savages"... Even some English "sirs" were having photos or paintings in Circassian warrior costume, even with chainmail armours, which is really hard to carry if you are not really going to a war, and already was an "ancient" dressing during 1850's, preferred only by high level aristocracy :D :D

[ariel]

Suggest reading "Sabers of Paradise" by Leslie Blanch. It is a history of Russo-Caucasian wars. Marvelous book!

There is quite a lot there about Victorian British reactions to that war. Their sympathy toward Shamil was boundless, just as their hatred of the "Russian Bear". There were some unofficial channels between the Brits and Shamil but overall, the Brits did very little, if anything, to assist him.
He even wrote to Queen Victoria, offering his assistance in the Crimean war, but got no answer.

[ariel]

.... chainmail armours...was an "ancient" dressing during 1850's, preferred only by high level aristocracy :D :D

And Khevsurs. But those continued to live in the 15th century:-))

[kamachate]

Interestingly, Circassian noble classes (wearing chainmail shirts, helmets and carrying bow-quiver), including the royal guards of the Czar's convoy, are rarely depicted with "shashkas". Especially the highest ranks seem to prefer "ordinka" type sabres, instead of a regular and modest shashka. Shashkas seem to be preferred mostly by the free highlanders, and only after the Russian war, we see high ranks carrying very elaborately adorned shashkas. Maybe this can be the difference between a big blade (shashka) and a regular sabre (chate) to a Circassian. :shrug:

[estcrh]

Interestingly, Circassian noble classes (wearing chainmail shirts, helmets and carrying bow-quiver), including the royal guards of the Czar's convoy, are rarely depicted with "shashkas". Especially the highest ranks seem to prefer "ordinka" type sabres, instead of a regular and modest shashka. Shashkas seem to be preferred mostly by the free highlanders, and only after the Russian war, we see high ranks carrying very elaborately adorned shashkas. Maybe this can be the difference between a big blade (shashka) and a regular sabre (chate) to a Circassian. :shrug:

Plenty of shashka here, supposedly showing Circassians with an Ottoman official. It would be interesting to go through some of the old photos and see exactly what type of sword was preferred.

Group portrait of eight Circassian men in uniform, with another man, possibly an Ottoman official by Abdullah Frères, 1880.

[ariel]

These are muhajirs, the exiled Circassians on Sultan's service. Couple of them even wear Ottoman medals.

[ariel]

Caucasians serving in the Tsar's convoy wore garb likely approved by the Tsar himself and not contemporaneous with the real local one.
Some of the "misyurkas" ( flat, plate-like helmets with mail on the edges) were even made for them in Russia proper.
They had to look exotic, slightly wild and and archaic.

[kamachate]

Thank you both Estcrh and Ariel,
Yes, the photo is just what I meant, after the Russian-Caucasian war, and despite their position in the Ottoman court, one can not see any exaggerated fittings on the shashkas or the kindjals... modest weapons carried for the aim ;)
Since it is an other subject, and remembering that some other older threads had already discussed about it, here I add a photo with a "chate" (чатэ) = saber in Circassian (Tatar sabre or ordynka???) and other "regular" :D Circassian armory. To note again, the real Circassian word for the saber or sword is "chate", not "shashka" or "seshkho"

Ariel, maybe we can discuss about the plain, even flat misourkas later, for I think they were the original ones in the Caucasus, and the high and pointed ones were introduced sometime later with the impact of the European-Russian aristocracy.
Thanks again.

[ariel]

I think it was Gutowskl who was the first to advance the theory that the so-called " ordynkas" and " czeczugas" traditionally attributed to Crimean tatars were in fact Circassian. There are two tantalizing pieces of info: first, a brief note of a European traveler that Circassians first pierce their opponents and then slash them and the second one is the actual similar saber taken by Gustav Adolph from a Polish Hussar as well as 3 others, similar, (##65-67), 2 from Sweden, one from Dresden ( Gutowski, "Tartar Arms and Armour).All are originally from Poland that had sizeable populations of Crimean Tatars.

I am not so sure that sabers with bayonet tip ( dating back to The White River examples) are the true Jates. Yes, this was asserted by Kirill Rivkin, and I respect him immensely, but to my best knowledge there is no direct reference to these sabers being addressed as true Jate.

As to Misyurkas, again IMHO, they are a pretty old pattern encountered in Crimea AND Circassia. Whether they were introduced to Circassia through Circassian Mamluks, or through the Ottomans I do not know. But the common denominator is their name: Misr i.e. Egypt. They are the simplest of the local helmets, from almost flat through low to high.

We are diverging quite a bit.
The question was whether all Caucasian, Afghani and "Bukharan" guardless sabers can be equally defined as Shashkas or the name should be retained to the patterns clearly deriving from the Caucasian tradition ( directly or through intermediate steps). My opinion is that only the Caucasian ones are the true shashkas, the Afghani ones are influenced by them ( through Russian Cossacks) and are thus conveniently called " pseudoshashkas" and the Bukharan ones have nothing to do with them except for superficial similarities.

[estcrh]

My opinion is that only the Caucasian ones are the true shashkas, the Afghani ones are influenced by them ( through Russian Cossacks) and are thus conveniently called " pseudoshashkas" and the Bukharan ones have nothing to do with them except for superficial similarities.
My opinion based on what I have read here is that there are Caucasian /Circassian shashka with the Cossack and Russian ones being included in this group, then Afghan shashka as has been noted here they were influenced by the Caucasian shashka, then there are the non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shahska type swords, these come as noted from several regions / cultures....pseudo due to the fact that they are not actually shashka at all according to what I have read.

If the Cossack and Russian shashka are not considered to be pseudo then the Afghan shashka should not be either as they all were based on the original shashka while the Bukharan type have simply been misnamed as they have a similar appearance by coincidence.

[ariel]

Eric,
I think you are operating with wrong definitions of Cossack and Russian shashkas.

Cossack shashka is a misnomer: they were not CREATED by the Cossacks: they merely BELONGED to them. Their origin was North Caucasus, Circassians and related ethnic groups. Cossacks bought or captured them from the locals. These shashkas are purely Caucasian. Importantly Don, Terek and the rest of Cossach Hosts had no industry at all: at the most they might have had a village smith to shoe a horse or fix a broken axe. All "professionals" were Russian peasants who spent limited time in Cossack settlements and went back home. Engaging in any trade was considered a disgrace for a Cossack and the violators were beaten up and thrown out. Even in the Ukraine , the seat of the most developed Host, Ukrainian Zaporogian one, great majority of weapons were either imported or captured and the rare examples of locally-manufactured weapons were crude imitations of Persian and Turkish examples. See book by Denis Toichkin "The Cossack saber", the most detailed account of virtually all Ukrainian museum collections, lists of professions in Ukrainian towns, data on importation of steel etc, etc. An indispensable book. Elgood might have been proud of it.

The Russian shashka is a different kettle of fish: there were single examples made in St. Petersburg faithfully imitating Caucasian example. Jewelry creation, not a weapon. However, when we talk about "Russian shashka" we are talking about mass-produced regulation designs, borrowing guardless handle, eared pommel and slightly curved blade. This is what they got, with minor variations in the amount of brass, scabbard material etc.
A true "pseudoshashka":-)))

[ariel]

And a million $$ question: was there an old local weapon serving as a "prototype" or an "ancestor" for both Afghani and Uzbek shashka-like sabers?

Quite some time ago Mercenary posted on a Russian Forum a series of pictures from a book TARIKH-E JAHANGOSHAY-E NADERI written by a Nader Shah's secretary Mirza Mohammed Mehdi Esterbadi and published in 1757. It refers to the war between Persian and Afghani armies, comprising several battles.

Here are several examples: mostly Afghanis, but also some Persians hold guardless swords. It might be an artist's lack of accuracy, but there are clear depictions of shamshirs WITH guards. Moreover, there is a fragment showing 2 Persian horsemen, with empty scabbars on their sides: one traditional saber "edge down", another a typical shashka " edge up".

These pics open a Pandora box of questions:

-were there Persian but mainly Central Asian guardless sabers that we were not privileged to see in nature?
- if so, were they purely local or brought by other ethnoses? For example, Caucasian ( Circassian, Georgian, Armenian) mercenaries fought alonside Nader Shah troops. Even more, the same mercenaries constituted the bulk of Shah Abbas cavalry during his invasion of Aghanistan.

It is so tempting to suggest that shashka-like weapon came to Afghanistan and Central Asia straight from Caucasus. However, we should temper our enthusiasm until we figure it out better. There is, apparently, only one Caucasian shashka in the Kremlin Armoury allegedly documented to be of XVIII century. Nothing earlier. Thus, even if we believe the documentation, it is dated well after the reign of Nader Shah and a century and a half after Shah Abbas.


In any case, please see for yourself.

[ariel]

+1

[estcrh]

Ariel, these are great images showing armor and weapons.

[ariel]

Here are 2 examples of Afghani sabers, both with elman.
The one with the scabbard is mine.

The integral bolster, the chape and the top of the scabbard are distinctly Afghani. The top of the scabbard also has a slit, similar to what we see on Ottomas palas.

The other one is, of course, M D, Long's example.

Are they what we are talking about as a predecessor of the Afghani "pseudoshashka"? And, perhaps, even the Bukharan saber?

[ariel]

Strangely, both very much resemble the Algerean boarding cutlasses as shown in Elgood's book on Balkan weapons.

[estcrh]

Strangely, both very much resemble the Algerean boarding cutlasses as shown in Elgood's book on Balkan weapons.
Like these?

[ariel]

Yes.
The very same:-)

[estcrh]

Eric,
I think you are operating with wrong definitions of Cossack and Russian shashkas.

Cossack shashka is a misnomer: they were not CREATED by the Cossacks: they merely BELONGED to them. Their origin was North Caucasus, Circassians and related ethnic groups. Cossacks bought or captured them from the locals. These shashkas are purely Caucasian. Importantly Don, Terek and the rest of Cossach Hosts had no industry at all: at the most they might have had a village smith to shoe a horse or fix a broken axe. All "professionals" were Russian peasants who spent limited time in Cossack settlements and went back home. Engaging in any trade was considered a disgrace for a Cossack and the violators were beaten up and thrown out. Even in the Ukraine , the seat of the most developed Host, Ukrainian Zaporogian one, great majority of weapons were either imported or captured and the rare examples of locally-manufactured weapons were crude imitations of Persian and Turkish examples. See book by Denis Toichkin "The Cossack saber", the most detailed account of virtually all Ukrainian museum collections, lists of professions in Ukrainian towns, data on importation of steel etc, etc. An indispensable book. Elgood might have been proud of it.

The Russian shashka is a different kettle of fish: there were single examples made in St. Petersburg faithfully imitating Caucasian example. Jewelry creation, not a weapon. However, when we talk about "Russian shashka" we are talking about mass-produced regulation designs, borrowing guardless handle, eared pommel and slightly curved blade. This is what they got, with minor variations in the amount of brass, scabbard material etc.
A true "pseudoshashka":-)))

Very good information Ariel, unfortunately when you look online, there are Caucasian / Circassian shashka being described as Cossack, Georgian, Russian etc. Most with a few exceptions as you noted have simply been improperly described but just like the so called "Bukharan shashka" the descriptions are already out there so I have grouped these together in one category (for now). As you also noted, the mass produced Russian shashka should probably be in its own category, much like the Afghan shashka. In the English speaking world there are a lot of misconceptions about shashka which are slowly being revealed.

As for the term "pseudo", I use it for shashka like sabres that are not actually shashka based weapons and since it appears that the Russian and Afghan shashka have a common relation to actual shashka I do not see them as being "pseudo" based on my understanding of the word, but not everyone has the same understanding of the word. We will have to agree to disagree :D

[Andreas]

Hello Kamachate,
Your posts have been very interesting and informative. Searching in Loewe’s Dictionary of the Circassian Language (pub. 1854), I could find the following words for sword/sabre. Do you think you could comment on them?
Thanks,
Andreas

[estcrh]

So how would this be described? It looks like a "Russian" shashka to me.

[ariel]

Well, can I call i this one a "pseudoshashka"?:-)
It is a Russian made chimera of a regulation Russian saber blade with the all-silver handle and a .... handguard. The distal part of the handle is polygonal, which was never done by the Caucasian masters, the artistic engraving are alo not Caucasian. I can't say much about the pommel, because I can't even see whether it is eared ( presumably), but the suspension system is totally unknown an We can't even say whether it was worn edge up. There is a monogram of Ekaterina II on the handle and an inscription on the throat says something about Don settlement. There seems to be a assayer's mark, but I can't see the details ( place of manufacture).

Just as I said, this saber borrowed heavily from the Caucasian pattern, but the master deviated enormously from the classical pattern.

One can call it an old Russian idea of a shashka, but it's master either was not well acquainted with the real examples, or more likely decided to create something "different".

How to address it? Any which way one chooses. Russian shashka, Russian pseudoshashka, Russian free imitation of a shashka, Russian saber with eared pommel .... Anything else comes to mind? I am game.
It is in the same category as the Afghani one or the Russian regulation one.. Shashka but not quite:-)

Perhaps, its main value is the proof that even in the 18 century shashkas were extant in the Caucasus and served as an inspiration for the Russian jewelers. We did not get to see the originals, but the copies testify to their existence.

[estcrh]

Well, can I call i this one a "pseudoshashka"?:-)
I think this one qualifies.

[kamachate]

Hello Kamachate,
Your posts have been very interesting and informative. Searching in Loewe’s Dictionary of the Circassian Language (pub. 1854), I could find the following words for sword/sabre. Do you think you could comment on them?
Thanks,
Andreas

Dear Andreas, I know the dictionary. Although it is a good attempt for its era, it is rather an insufficient source for Circassian language (at least, today). Most words were just "found" during face to face conversations, and as noted in the preface, the common language between the researcher and the Circassians was "Turkish" (during that time, most Circassian translators were using Crimean Tatar dialect, rather than Turkish). The method of the researcher was to imitate or to show an object, then to ask what it is. ;) That's why, there are many words answered or "understood" wrong.
These people were mostly from different tribes of the Circassians, and sometimes, even Abazins (who talk a dialect of Aphazian, not Adyghe language). As a result, there are many misunderstandings (I am not mentioning the misspellings or wrong transcriptions, but I can give credit for this, I can never write the true transcription of the Circassian words :) .

About the subject, words given for Sword (Sabre) are all variants of seshkho (сэшхо) = shashka
seys-shooâ is directly referring to seshkho, and sesh-wey is the same word in genitive case.
The word written as tzéshwey is most probably s-seshkhoe(y), which means "my shashka" :D
The first correspondence for "sabre" above this is a little bit more correct, because "seshkhém" means "the shashka".
However, the second word given may explain the tragedy, because the word given as "pee-yoop sho" is not a noun, but a verb that any Circassian can understand: It means "cutting", or, literally, "it cuts" :D :D :D
Best

[estcrh]

Dear Andreas, I know the dictionary. Although it is a good attempt for its era, it is rather an insufficient source for Circassian language (at least, today). Most words were just "found" during face to face conversations, and as noted in the preface, the common language between the researcher and the Circassians was "Turkish" (during that time, most Circassian translators were using Crimean Tatar dialect, rather than Turkish). The method of the researcher was to imitate or to show an object, then to ask what it is. ;) That's why, there are many words answered or "understood" wrong.
These people were mostly from different tribes of the Circassians, and sometimes, even Abazins (who talk a dialect of Aphazian, not Adyghe language). As a result, there are many misunderstandings (I am not mentioning the misspellings or wrong transcriptions, but I can give credit for this, I can never write the true transcription of the Circassian words :) .

About the subject, words given for Sword (Sabre) are all variants of seshkho (сэшхо) = shashka
seys-shooâ is directly referring to seshkho, and sesh-wey is the same word in genitive case.
The word written as tzéshwey is most probably s-seshkhoe(y), which means "my shashka" :D
The first correspondence for "sabre" above this is a little bit more correct, because "seshkhém" means "the shashka".
However, the second word given may explain the tragedy, because the word given as "pee-yoop sho" is not a noun, but a verb that any Circassian can understand: It means "cutting", or, literally, "it cuts" :D :D :D
Best
Kamachate, you just explained why westerners decided on a certain name for a weapon even when there were other regional names, they just picked one that they were told and that they could pronounce and stuck with it. Now we scratch our heads trying to discover just why they used a certain name instead of another when there may be no rational explanation.

[kamachate]

Then, here is a pseudo shashka from me :)
The hilt is goat's horn. The iron expand of the blade goes until the end of the hilt, nearly have the shape of it. The places of the rivets can give a clue. The "ears" of the hilt are not as usual. :shrug: The fuller is strange, and one can note the strange curve where the fuller begins. The blade narrows after the fuller, and slightly expands after it, as if there is a kind of "yalman". I have never seen any parallels of this one :shrug:
Someone told me that this was "one of the earliest examples of shashkas", but I did not buy it (if only it was ) :D
Best.

[ariel]

I think you were right not buying it. Nothing "early"or "archaic", just rudimentary workmanship of a not very talented cutler , made for a very poor customer.

[Ian]

kamachate:

Thank you for the lesson in the Circassian language. Much appreciated and very interesting contribution to this discussion. It just goes to show how complicated and ultimately frustrating the "name game" can be for those of us who are outside the culture.

Ian

Dear Andreas, I know the dictionary. Although it is a good attempt for its era, it is rather an insufficient source for Circassian language (at least, today). Most words were just "found" during face to face conversations, and as noted in the preface, the common language between the researcher and the Circassians was "Turkish" (during that time, most Circassian translators were using Crimean Tatar dialect, rather than Turkish). The method of the researcher was to imitate or to show an object, then to ask what it is. ;) That's why, there are many words answered or "understood" wrong.
These people were mostly from different tribes of the Circassians, and sometimes, even Abazins (who talk a dialect of Aphazian, not Adyghe language). As a result, there are many misunderstandings (I am not mentioning the misspellings or wrong transcriptions, but I can give credit for this, I can never write the true transcription of the Circassian words :) .

About the subject, words given for Sword (Sabre) are all variants of seshkho (сэшхо) = shashka
seys-shooâ is directly referring to seshkho, and sesh-wey is the same word in genitive case.
The word written as tzéshwey is most probably s-seshkhoe(y), which means "my shashka" :D
The first correspondence for "sabre" above this is a little bit more correct, because "seshkhém" means "the shashka".
However, the second word given may explain the tragedy, because the word given as "pee-yoop sho" is not a noun, but a verb that any Circassian can understand: It means "cutting", or, literally, "it cuts" :D :D :D
Best

[Andreas]

Dear Andreas, I know the dictionary. Although it is a good attempt for its era, it is rather an insufficient source for Circassian language (at least, today). Most words were just "found" during face to face conversations, and as noted in the preface, the common language between the researcher and the Circassians was "Turkish" (during that time, most Circassian translators were using Crimean Tatar dialect, rather than Turkish). The method of the researcher was to imitate or to show an object, then to ask what it is. ;) That's why, there are many words answered or "understood" wrong.
These people were mostly from different tribes of the Circassians, and sometimes, even Abazins (who talk a dialect of Aphazian, not Adyghe language). As a result, there are many misunderstandings (I am not mentioning the misspellings or wrong transcriptions, but I can give credit for this, I can never write the true transcription of the Circassian words :) .

About the subject, words given for Sword (Sabre) are all variants of seshkho (сэшхо) = shashka
seys-shooâ is directly referring to seshkho, and sesh-wey is the same word in genitive case.
The word written as tzéshwey is most probably s-seshkhoe(y), which means "my shashka" :D
The first correspondence for "sabre" above this is a little bit more correct, because "seshkhém" means "the shashka".
However, the second word given may explain the tragedy, because the word given as "pee-yoop sho" is not a noun, but a verb that any Circassian can understand: It means "cutting", or, literally, "it cuts" :D :D :D
Best
Thank you very much for your answer.
Regards,
Andreas

[ariel]

Kamachate,
Thank you very much for yout lesson.
It is very funny and very sobering.
Unquestionably, that's how it went all over the world when curious Westerners compiled books on exotic arms using private translator-mediated conversations with the locals.

Hundreds of years later their readers passionately clash in pseudo-academic pseudo- linguistic battles : saif or nimcha? Kard or karud? Tulwar, pulwar, pulouar or just shamshir? We were so happy when the "oldest" name for the Khyber knife was found: Selaawa. Now I am wondering what that old toothless Afghani had in mind:-)

[estcrh]

Then, here is a pseudo shashka from me :)
The hilt is goat's horn. The iron expand of the blade goes until the end of the hilt, nearly have the shape of it. The places of the rivets can give a clue. The "ears" of the hilt are not as usual. :shrug: The fuller is strange, and one can note the strange curve where the fuller begins. The blade narrows after the fuller, and slightly expands after it, as if there is a kind of "yalman". I have never seen any parallels of this one :shrug:
Someone told me that this was "one of the earliest examples of shashkas", but I did not buy it (if only it was ) :D
Best.

Very crude and basic, this was probably a very easy sword to make and it did the job, here is another crude example....both Afghan???

[ariel]

Both Caucasian, IMHO.

[kamachate]

Very crude and basic, this was probably a very easy sword to make and it did the job, here is another crude example....both Afghan???

Compared to the one I shared, yours is a piece of art :D

[kamachate]

Both Caucasian, IMHO.
That's also what I think, but these cheap and bad examples are so small in numbers when compared to the majority... This seems interesting to me, for they "should" have been produced more than the rest (or am I wrong? I have seen many European blades, "gurda" marked ones or pieces with wonderful fullers. But these cheap and easy ones are harder to find :shrug:

[estcrh]

Both Caucasian, IMHO. Ok, I am still trying to figure this out, what identifies these as Caucasian and not Afghan??

[Ian]

Estrch, I believe that Ariel's comments reflect what he laid out earlier in this thread and were summarized in the table in post #71. Ian

Ok, I am still trying to figure this out, what identifies these as Caucasian and not Afghan??

[estcrh]

Estrch, I believe that Ariel's comments reflect what he laid out earlier in this thread and were summarized in the table in post #71. IanThanks Ian, I forgot about the bolster.

[Kiziria]

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

Allow me slight correction. Instead of Russia, should be - Russian Federation. Word Russia invites geographical and cultural error. Part of Caucasus presently governed within Russian Federation, culturally belong to Caucasian cultural oikumene (ekumene). Particulary Circassian, Vainakh, Avar, Kumik cultural worlds among others. When discussing ethnographic arms of Caucasus it is imperative to make this kind of distinction. In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.

[Kiziria]

Very good information Ariel, unfortunately when you look online, there are Caucasian / Circassian shashka being described as Cossack, Georgian, Russian etc. Most with a few exceptions as you noted have simply been improperly described :D

Allow me to point out that though there are plenty of incorrectly attributed Circassian shashkas online, there are distinct type of Georgian shashka (noteworthy it was not called shashka in Georgian ) and other Georgian types of swords, which shared fundamental features of guardless sabers.

Circassian shashka in my opinion is brilliant weapon, a crowning specimen of special type of swords that emerged and underwent development in Caucasus region. There is a definite genealogical line of these kind of weapons. Shahska does not stand totally apart.

[ariel]

Vakhtang,
Glad to finally see you here.
This forum definitely needs people of your expertise.

[Mercenary]

In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.
As well as Ottomans, all Turks, Central Asia, India, Japan, China, Caucasians - all of them borrowed local and outside traditions. Russians.... :)

[OsobistGB]

Let me and myself get involved in the topic.The word shashka is derived from Kabardino Circassian sa`sh ho which means a long knife.For homeland is considered the Caucasus region.The most extensive studies on the subject conducted by Russian researchers.Most earliest reference to such use blades are excavations of graves from the 13th century in the Caucasus region.It is also interesting to note that such a form of long edged weapon are used at all the neighboring regions of the Caucasus (Including Georgia).During the Caucasian wars,the cossacks have find exclusive advantage of light and convenient blade used by local peoples.Begins phasing using the shashka and kinjals in Cossack troops.The command of the Russian Imperial Army began to deploy this type of weapon in the Cossack regiments.Eventually, thanks to the Russians this weapon becomes extremely popular in the world.

[ariel]

All true.

Caucasian weapons ( Shashka and kindjal) were initially individually acquired by neighboring Cossacks and later by Russian officers serving in the Caucasus, most actively during the Murid Wars.

Then both started to be manufactured in St. Petersburg and various other cities in Russia and Ukraine, using classical Caucasian forms and decorations.

Then they were modified to become regulation weapons of the Russian imperial army, having very little in common with the Caucasian originals but preserving their original names.

A similar story happened with Caucasian clothes: from occasional individual acquisition to mass fashion statement : even Russian Tsars had their official portraits painted wearing full Caucasian garb, from hats to weapons in minute detail.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.

Certainly, people all over the world adopted some details of their neighbours’
weaponry ( “ weapons do not know borders” principle), but such a massive transformation has no precedent in the “vanquished-to-victors” direction.

It is as if British high society, royalty included, would have started wearing Indian saris and Zulu loinclothes and the British military officially adopted khandas and katars.

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.

[Mercenary]

[QUOTE=ariel]All true.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.[QUOTE]

Mughals in India, turks in Iran&Transoxiana, turks in India sultanates in 12-15th

[Mercenary]

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.
Everything is easier. Russia was not colonial empire and did not destroy local cultures - all of them still live. But I agree, russian = eclectic . When you are criticizing Russian you are criticizing 190 different nations. Please, don't do it with so many people :-)

[ariel]

I am talking about a dominant culture and governmental lmperial policies. No offense to any particular people was meant.
If you have a better alternative explanation I would love to hear it and may even agree.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=ariel]

Mughals in India, turks in Iran&Transoxiana, turks in India sultanates in 12-15th

I fail to see any analogy: could you elaborate please?

[Mercenary]

I am talking about a dominant culture and governmental lmperial policies. No offense to any particular people was meant.
If you have a better alternative explanation I would love to hear it and may even agree.
Mameluke swords in Europe in 19th. Didn't Europeans have their own weapons? The same Russians in Caucasus. Russian army was equiped with modern weapons as any other European army. What is "absense of their own tradition" in 19th (!!!) for army of European style? Where were British, French or Austrian own "native" weapons in 19th?
In the case of shashka or any others Caucasian things that was just a fashion the same as some British adopted tulwars. In the case of French and British it was "a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions" too? I am not sure. For a more developed states to borrow some of the native curious items is normal.

[Mercenary]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]

I fail to see any analogy: could you elaborate please?
Mughal - tulwar, jamdhar, khapwa, elephant, dress, lifestyle of rajas and sultans.
Turks-afghans in India in 12-15th - jamdhar, elephant, dress, lifestyle of rajas.
Turks in Iran - language (!), town lifestyle, ALL PERSIAN CULTURE.

In origin shashka was the Caucasian weapon. But who glorified it? That is way all we know "Russian shashka".

[ariel]

I am choosing not to participate in a discussion that will be viewed by some as personal confrontation.

There are many other people on this Forum with enough knowledge to address factual errors and inconsistencies.

I elect to pass on this occasion.

Best wishes.

[Mercenary]

I am choosing not to participate in a discussion that will be viewed by some as personal confrontation.

There are many other people on this Forum with enough knowledge to address factual errors and inconsistencies.

I elect to pass on this occasion.

Best wishes.
There was not any confrontation. But in any way thank you very much for discussion.

[ariel]

Many answers to your arguments can be found in the recent Elgood's book about Jodhpur weapons.
I got it almost 2 weeks ago, and am reading it slowly and attentively. It is a monumental contribution with exhaustive analysis of historical sources and impeccable argumentation. Good half of the first volume consists of academic chapters of the highest caliber and the analysis of individual objects is largely unexpected . I learned a lot. Get it and read slowly and carefully. This is not your standard regurgitation of Egerton, Stone or Rawson. Every page opens new and original vistas. One needs to digest virtually every sentence. You too will learn more about Indian history and militaria than you could even imagine.

Enjoy!

[Mercenary]

Many answers to your arguments can be found in the recent Elgood's book about Jodhpur weapons.
I got it almost 2 weeks ago, and am reading it slowly and attentively. It is a monumental contribution with exhaustive analysis of historical sources and impeccable argumentation. Good half of the first volume consists of academic chapters of the highest caliber and the analysis of individual objects is largely unexpected . I learned a lot. Get it and read slowly and carefully. This is not your standard regurgitation of Egerton, Stone or Rawson. Every page opens new and original vistas. One needs to digest virtually every sentence. You too will learn more about Indian history and militaria than you could even imagine.

Enjoy!
Many thanks. I'll do.

[Jon MB]

All true.

Caucasian weapons ( Shashka and kindjal) were initially individually acquired by neighboring Cossacks and later by Russian officers serving in the Caucasus, most actively during the Murid Wars.

Then both started to be manufactured in St. Petersburg and various other cities in Russia and Ukraine, using classical Caucasian forms and decorations.

Then they were modified to become regulation weapons of the Russian imperial army, having very little in common with the Caucasian originals but preserving their original names.

A similar story happened with Caucasian clothes: from occasional individual acquisition to mass fashion statement : even Russian Tsars had their official portraits painted wearing full Caucasian garb, from hats to weapons in minute detail.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.

Certainly, people all over the world adopted some details of their neighbours’
weaponry ( “ weapons do not know borders” principle), but such a massive transformation has no precedent in the “vanquished-to-victors” direction.

It is as if British high society, royalty included, would have started wearing Indian saris and Zulu loinclothes and the British military officially adopted khandas and katars.

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.

I rather agree with much of this. Although I lack literature at the moment (in storage) I am under the impression that the final destruction of the Circassians by the mid 19th C. saw the beginnings of the widespread appropriation many aspects of of the Circassian and wider Transcaucasian material culture by the Russian military and upper classes. Would love to see more discussion of this, maybe even as a new thread, although I lack the knowledge or references to start such a thread at the moment. (Apologies if such a thread already exists here). I would add that the appropriation of Caucasian stylistic elements does rather echo the 'orientalist' obsessions in their various waves in Western Europe, see for example the fashion for 'Zouave' uniforms in the mid 19th C.

[Ian]

Jon makes a good point about taking the present sociocultural discussion to a new thread. Please note the title of this thread and the original purpose for starting it. Discussion has strayed way off topic recently.

Ian

[ariel]

I agree. Adoption and migration of weapons is a very interesting topic.

. One can discuss India ( Mughal vs. Rajputs vs. South vs. Iran etc), Turkey, Arabs, SE Asia, nomads, Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe and ad infinitum.

Kirill Rivkin's book on the evolution of sabers is invaluable in this regard.

[ALEX]

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

[ariel]

The blade looks almost European industrially-produced one with its very wide fuller. Also, there is a very " Afghani" outgrowth on the very top of its handle. North- East Afghanistan is a Tajik/Uzbek territory and a mix of styles would be expected.
But overall, a very interesting example that I would love to have on my wall. Congratulations!

Five rivets is a classic, as we have learned from a chapter on Bukharan weapons in the Elgood's monograph, but I have a nagging uncertainty: this chapter is talking about 5 large rivets, and those would be safer in a not very brittle materiel of the handle. Wood ( the most popular materiel for the " bukharan" ones) would be eminently suitable for 5 large rivets, but rather infrequent brittle stone, walrus or ivory ones might be problematic and 3 rivets only might be safer. Even then, we see multiple examples of Caucasian kindjals with walrus or bone handles and a centrally-located rivet that have a transverse crack in the middle: organic materiels tends to dry and shrink. This has nothing to do with your example: just passing musings.

[ALEX]

Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

[Jim McDougall]

Actually the monograph on Bukharen weapons was by Torben Flindt and appeared in Robert Elgood's 1979 "Islamic Arms and Armour" compendium.
In discussions I recall from some years ago with Mr. Flindt he noted the difficulties in classifying examples of these Bukharen sabres as distinctly Uzbek (Bukharen) or Afghan. I had found an example which had the fluted silver scabbard mount extending from tip to approx. center characteristically Afghan (often on paluoar scabbards).

I would point out here that in my findings it was generally held that these Uzbek/Afghan sabres are not generally considered part of the variety of Caucasian or later Cossack sabres termed 'shashka' (in Russian). While obviously the influence certainly is probable given the exposure to these swords and the diffusion of certain elements such as the cleft pommel etc.. they are not effectively considered shashkas. I well ran up against this with my acquisition, which was described as 'Uzbek shashka'. ...hence the discussions that ensued about correct term.

In any case, the are wonderfully attractive and intriguing swords, with colorful history and extremely hard to find. ….this is an amazing example!

[ALEX]

Dear Jim. You're absolutely right. "Shashka" is a particularly Russian sword and term., using it for non-Russian swords of similar construction could not be entirely correct. I agree, this example is better described as "Central Asian sword". Thank you for pointing that out and the reference.
As you know, the weapons were outlawed in Uzbekistan by Soviets and many were destroyed or stripped of fittings and hidden. I believe this is one of survived examples that was later discovered somewhere in the basement under the floor. An interesting find indeed. Thanks again!

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Alex, and interesting notes on the hiding away of many of these weapons in the later times as Soviet rule took over in these regions. This in my thinking, adds so much to the intrigue of these swords, much in the same way as so many Scottish basket hilts were hidden away in the 18th c.
In those instances it seems that dirks were often permitted as they retained clear utility uses, and I wonder if such was the same in these Central Asian cases.

Getting back to the sword itself, I agree that this deeply curved blade with pronounced yelman seems early, and I would be comfortable in suggesting latter 18th c. The yelman was of course typical in Central Asia from much earlier Turkic sabres, and its purpose was in adding impetus to slashing cuts. The clipped tip character of the sharp point seems in accord with European cavalry sabres of the late 18thc. but of course the reinforced point reflects that well known on Indian daggers much earlier.

As Ariel has pointed out, the capstan appearing element on the pommel is a very 'Afghan' associated item, and of course India in these times extended well into what is now Afghanistan. As Mr. Flindt mentioned in our talks, weapons have no geographic boundaries, an axiom I have never forgotten.

[mahratt]

Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

ALEX, this is a typical item for Bukhara. There is no Afghan influence in it. Karud and Peshkabz , the mounting of the handles of whichs is similar to the mounting of the handle of an item of this type, were widespreadboth in Afghanistan and in Central Asia.
The blade has nothing to do with Europe. Such blades were made in Bukhara. Known blades of almost identical form with yours, on the same Uzbek objects, forged from Damascus.
Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.) And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is :) At least because the Caucasus at that time was already part of the Russian Empire and the shashkas were in service with Russian officers.
The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas".

But of course, the right of everyone to believe the schemes, which some participants drew here, considering themselves to be great experts in the field of "shashkas" :)

[Jim McDougall]

Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented.

While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s.
My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion.
As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '. :) As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'.
These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages.


Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.

[ariel]

This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia.
Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada".

"Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.)

These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps.

"The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas"."



Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates.

As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter.

"And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is ."

For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-))

[mahratt]

This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia.
Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada".

I see some lack of logic in this phrase. None of the listed items (Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec) has ever been called a "shashka" by anyone. However, the Bukhara (Central Asian) shashkas are called the term "shashka" from the 1870s. Your personal understanding of how to call these subjects, based on the works of Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt, is solely your personal opinion.


These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps.

Please tell us how long the Bukharian shashkas appeared before the "Russian invasion"? Maybe you have accurate information? :) And why then do you not insist on calling the Bukhara checkers the “ethnic name” that they were called in Central Asia? Why do you need to use the English word "sword"? (In this case, the names of Indian weapons, distorted by the British, for some reason do not bother you :))
(And, by the way, why in this topic tell about the "Circassians", expelled from their land? Have you forgotten that at that time it was a common practice of fighting warlike nations? Likewise, Indians of North America were expelled from their land by settlers from Europe, who called themselves Americans. Moreover, settlers from Europe systematically destroyed the Indians and drove them to the reservation).
Russian researchers called the Bukhara shashkas the term "shashka" precisely because of the similarity with similar weapons in the Caucasus. Here you are absolutely right. And I don’t quite understand why you so ardently defend Lebedinsky’s term “pseudoshashka”, which he used at the end of the 20th century, when 100 years before him Bukhara shashkas were called “shashkas” without any “pseudo” :)


Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates.
As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter.


The fact that there is one article about the weapons of Central Asia of the respected Torben Flindt, which is based on the Danish collections, does not mean that everything that is written in this article is absolutely true ("verum in ultima instantia"). It only says that there are no more serious works on this topic.
I would really ask you to refrain from insulting attacks on Russian researchers. Although, as they say? "Attack is the best form of defence" ;)


For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-))

You are amazingly insightful regarding Google Translit :) Thank you for explaining to the forum participants the moment, where I did not correct the error, the automatic translation of Google Translit.

[TVV]

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

[mahratt]

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

[ALEX]

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

Teodor,
Thank you for the reference! I do not have access to my books right now and the reference is very helpful.

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

[ALEX]

... Such blades were made in Bukhara. Known blades of almost identical form with yours, on the same Uzbek objects, forged from Damascus. ...


Dmitry, thanks again!
Based on this, do you think this blade could be Damascus, wootz or mechanical? I know this is a difficult guess. The blade is heavily patinated and I did not sense wootz based on how it feels. Cleaning it would require some serious sandpapering:) I am debating on polishing or leaving it as is. What do you think?

[mahratt]

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

I am very happy if I could help you with this question! Unfortunately, there is no evidence that shashkas in Central Asia appeared in the 17th century. I personally know the references in historical documents about the Bukhara shashkas only from the beginning of the 19th century ... Although, I suppose that they are known from the end of the 18th century.

If someone knows about the earlier mention of these weapons in Central Asia, it would be very interesting.

And more photos of the similar Bukhara shashka

[mahratt]

Dmitry, thanks again!
Based on this, do you think this blade could be Damascus, wootz or mechanical? I know this is a difficult guess. The blade is heavily patinated and I did not sense wootz based on how it feels. Cleaning it would require some serious sandpapering:) I am debating on polishing or leaving it as is. What do you think?

Although Bukhara shashkas are known with wootz blades, but shashkas with blades of exactly the same shape, like your shashka, I only know from Damascus mechanical.....

Of the four Bukhara shashkas of this form, which are known to me (not counting your shashka), 2 are made of Damascus mechanical.

[ALEX]

Dmitry,
Thank you very much for another great reference! Is there a dot on that blade, it looks like drilled circle, or perhaps an effect from the photo?

[ariel]

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly. Allow me to offer my purely “IMHO” defense of this unfortunate term.
I am in the opinion that it is an important and valid part of any research into origins of weapons. Name was and is an integral part of any subject and object.

Not for nothing Albert in his book on Indonesian weapons provides multiple names of virtually identical swords manufactured on different islands or even by different tribes living next to each other. Elgood compiles voluminous glossaries of Indian weapons painstakingly noticing that for example South Indian Firangi was called Dhup in Deccan and Asa Shamshir further north.
Correctly naming an object completes its description. Misnaming confuses it.
Stone put a picture of various Parang Naburs from Borneo. Only when we ( at least I) realized that a peculiar one in the array was not a Parang Nabur from Borneo, but a Minasbad from Bicol, were we able to separate them.

We had long and fruitless discussions about peculiar Khopesh-like swords from somewhere ( Algiers? Sudan?), but elucidation of its correct name, Laz Bichaq, solved the conundrum once and for all: Laz people, islamized Georgians, Trabzon area.

We still have swords without their genuine names and often resort to artificial monikers just for the sake of labeling them somehow. Bukharan or Afghani “ pseudoshashkas” had names given to them by their owners, but those were lost to us. Mercenary found old Persian pictures of a battle between Persian and Afghani armies with multiple examples of carefully drawn guarded and guardless swords. What were those “ guardless” ones? Who did they belong to? How old were they? What was their history?

We have names without objects. Many Persian and Indo-Persian sources mention Kalatchurri. What was it? What can it tell us about the evolution of sabers in that region?

We often use names given not by the original creators, but by the more powerful occupiers. We call long straight Algerean swords Flissas, but a chancy finding in a forgotten book clearly states that this was a French moniker, whereas the natives called them Khedama ( whether this is true or not is another question).

Some prefer to call Central Asian guardless sabers “ shashka”, a name appropriated by the Russians from yet another part of the world and having nothing to do with Central Asian traditions. Let’s not forget that the Russians were awfully promiscuous with this name: they officially called their regulation dragoon D-guarded sabers “shashka” as well.

Ignorance is forgivable as long as it is openly admitted as such. But insistence on it despite facts is unprofessional and plainly stupid. The Earth is not flat and a continuous belief in elephants standing on a turtle tells us everything about a believer and nothing about astrophysics.

Understanding real names is important: it completes the circle in our description of an object and gives us novel ways of looking at its origins and history.

Perhaps, I am so insistent on it because of my profession, medicine. Without precise definition of a pathological condition expressed as its name, we are incapable of treating it correctly. Superficial enumeration of just symptoms and signs condemns us to lump totally different disease processes into an amorphous mass and dooms the patient. The old “dropsy” may be a manifestation of liver cirrhosis, nephrotic syndrome, valvular heart defect, chronic lung disease, obstruction by a malignant tumor, thrombosis of blood vessels, protein malnutrition etc, etc. Without a precise name we cannot communicate and cannot treat the underlying condition.

You of course remember Brothers Grimms’ tale about Rumpelstilskin: know my name and you become my master.

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

[ariel]

BTW, Alex, nice finding at a flea market. A complex mix of Bukharan and Afghani features with a hint of a potentially European influence. I would love to put it on my wall.

After a flea bath, of course:-)

[mahratt]

Dmitry,
Thank you very much for another great reference! Is there a dot on that blade, it looks like drilled circle, or perhaps an effect from the photo?

Unfortunately, in departmental Russian museums (for example, at metallurgical plants) after 1945 it was customary to fix the weapon against the wall of the shop window .... This is a modern hole.

[mahratt]

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly...........

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

To pour something from one empty vessel into anothe...

I wonder if someone from the forum participants thought about how many peoples with different languages ​​live in the Caucasus? It would be naive to believe that they all called the shashkas - "shashka". For example, the Lezgins called the shashka - "tour", and the Kumyks - "sheshke". But no one is embarrassed that any shashka that is made in the Caucasus is simply called "shashka."

And, by the way, the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashkas is well known. Yes, knowledge of the ethnic name of the weapon is certainly valuable information. But just like all the shashkas from the Caucasus are called "shashkas" (regardless of their ethnic names), all the shashkas of Central Asia can and should be called "Bukhara or Central Asia shashkas."

[mahratt]

Alex, do not pay attention to speculation. This is a great item from Central Asia with all the features typical of Central Asia.

Blades of this form were typical of the 15th century sabers from the Golden Orda

[Jim McDougall]

Alex, thank you for the supportive words in post #197, re: the importance of focusing on the origin, history and development of sword forms. This is primarily my goal and has been in the many years I have studied. While that has been most of my life, I admit the excitement of learning never ends, and despite the common friction in discussion there are worthy bits of information that bolster knowledge.

Ariel, very well spoken on the 'name game', and I would clarify my comments by retracting the term 'irrelevant' which was entirely misplaced. You are completely correct, the local terms and dialectic variants are most important in understanding these weapon forms. This is most salient in research involving resources which may be written in these linguistic contexts, as it is important to determine exactly which form might be described. For example, very early sources in India describe the katar (without illustration) but we cannot be certain if the transverse grip dagger is what is meant.


In the case of tulwar; shamshir; kilij and turning to the word 'shashka' as in this discussion...…..these are primarily terms for ' SWORD....not otherwise specified', a phrase well pointed out by Lee years ago, which remains one of the best descriptions I personally have seen for these terms.


This also brings me to a most relevant note...….the term 'shashka' is indeed used to describe the Russian dragoon swords with stirrup hilts of the 19th c. This is much in the manner of the term tulwar, used to describe the British cavalry sabres used by natine units during the British Raj.


I believe that while using these kinds of general terms is indeed well placed in discussions for convenience and avoiding misunderstanding in the discourse, it is good to crossreference the terms otherwise in the manner of references such as dictionaries etc.

Good analogies illustrating that in Von Zonnefeld's work and Elgood's notes on Indian weaponry, both excellent works with these kinds of cross references giving profound dimension to understanding these forms.


With that I would say that writers and observers would understandably use the terms for weapon forms as known in their own language. I would not praise nor discount the viability of a resource based on nationality of the writer(s), and of course realize that any such work is subject to revision or elucidation as required.

In these cases the objective should always be objective and impersonal perspective which enhances the dimension of understanding of the topic.


Again returning to our thread topic, the shashka (and associated guardless sabre forms) it would fascinating to determine just how early these forms became known in the regions and contexts in which they are familiarly associated. As far as I have seen, the latter 18th century seems most likely obviously with a developmental period in years before.


Regarding the blade of the Bukharan sabre discussed, good illustration by Mahratt of the earlier form of this blade from the 15th c. (as decribed) which reflects influence for this blade. Tradition and commemoration is of course prevalent in these cultures, so the blade probably is in that manner though produced later of course.

Great discussion!!

[Jim McDougall]

In looking more at the example of the 15th c. blade shown in this Russian reference compared to the sabre similar to that in the discussion, we can see the atavistic condition that I had mentioned and which prevailed in various cultures' weapons. While in India, certain hilt forms such as the 'Indo-Persian' tulwar style (with disc pommel) continued from an indeterminate period of origin into modern times. The hilt form known as the 'khanda' (like tulwar, another broad term for sword) became altered in the late 16th-17th c. with more 'basket' type hilt after European contact.

In other cultures, the open hilt and guardless 'flyssa' (khedma) seems to have evolved c. early 19th c. and probably derived from early Ottoman yataghans with deep belly blades.
In the Transcaucusus, as previously noted, the Black Sea yataghan (Laz Bichagi as per Ariel's discovery) seems to have evolved around mid 19th c. or earlier from possible iconographic sources.
The so called 'Zanzibar' sword (Demmin 1877; Burton 1884) was discovered to be derived from the Moroccan dirk type weapon known as s'boula (Buttin, 1933). ….and is compellingly similar to the European baselard of earlier times.

These are among some of the examples of atavistic weapons which were apparently introduced much in a commemorative sense as with the Qajar 'revival' type arms in the 17th-18th c. A remarkable number of ethnographic forms are in this genre, with no chronological line of development from early times to modern examples.
The similarly 'sudden' appearance of the open hilted, guardless sabre of the Caucusus now known as the shashka may be among these 'atavistic' forms from 18th century in presuming these circumstances.


I am not aware of examples earlier than 18th c. however it does seem that open hilt swords were well known in Sassanian and other concurrent contexts in the 7th-8th c. (most of these were it seems straight blades). It also seems that the Avars also used similar weapons. Despite lack of evidence available to me (undoubtedly Russian sources will provide these) it seems possible these types of swords prevailed in Central Asian regions and surfaced in recorded observation as the 'shashka'.


This being the thesis of this thread, I would like to know the thoughts of other here toward my thoughts on these atavistic possibilities of the shashka as well as the guardless sabres of Bukhara. I would appeal to those with Russian resources to provide the local term in Bukharen regions for these sabres. There must be a term in local parlance just as the many others that have been thus far provided with other sword forms. I am unaware of any western sources who might have these Bukharen terms, so I am presuming that besides 'shashka' the local term used might have been noted by Russian observers.

[mahratt]

This being the thesis of this thread, I would like to know the thoughts of other here toward my thoughts on these atavistic possibilities of the shashka as well as the guardless sabres of Bukhara. I would appeal to those with Russian resources to provide the local term in Bukharen regions for these sabres. There must be a term in local parlance just as the many others that have been thus far provided with other sword forms. I am unaware of any western sources who might have these Bukharen terms, so I am presuming that besides 'shashka' the local term used might have been noted by Russian observers.

Dear Jim! With the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashka everything is very simple. She was called in Central Asia - "sop" or "schop".

[ariel]

Dear Jim! With the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashka everything is very simple. She was called in Central Asia - "sop" or "schop".

Reference, please.

[mahratt]

Reference, please.

Семенов А.А. Два слова о ковке среднеазиатского оружия / Живая старина. Спб., 1909

Semenov A.A. Two words about forging Central Asian weapons / Jivaja starina. Spb., 1909

Oddly enough - this is a Russian researcher;)

The same information in a private conversation was confirmed to me by an employee of one of the largest museums of Turkmenistan - Sopiyev Allanazar.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Mahratt……………it surely must be simple for those living in Bukhara and environs...…..so apparently they are not termed shashkas there :) I am not aware of anything on Bukharen arms aside from Torben's work, but as you say, that certainly does not mean it is the only work on them. As you have pointed out there are many dialects and languages in the diverse population in Central Asia....is this an exclusively Bukharen term or more broadly, Uzbek?

Thank you for the reference. I assumed it would be by a Russian researcher. I think, as I have noted, researchers by their nature work hard to find and present accurate information. They would not benefit by simply glossing over facts or key information, but they are subject to the laws of humanity..everyone makes misteakes :) Personally I welcome correction or more pertinant data as learning is what research is all about.


I recall studying some Central Asian swords in the 1941 Danish work by Triikman & Jacobsen, "Origins of the Shashka" and seeing some of the unusual edged weapons shown that were part of associated material. I tried to find one of the references listed which was Hungarian and of 1897. I finally got a limited extract from Lebedynsky and was puzzled by the term 'kardok' applied to some of them. Later, through a Hungarian contributor here, I learned that 'kardok' was again, a Hungarian term for sword, or perhaps more broadly, edged weapon.
The 1941 Danish work took some time to have translated by the Danish Arms & Armour Society.

The Laz Bichagi (Black Sea yataghan) was one of the curious swords listed in the work, and I found one like it in the book "Schwert Degen Sabel" (1962, Seifert). It as listed as a Kurdish/Armenian yataghan. In communication with Mt. Seifert of Germany many years back, he told me that his 'mentor', Mr. Holger Jacobsen, had told him that was what this sword was. Thus for years the appelation Kurdish/Armenian yataghan was tagged to these curious recurved swords. When examples were found with Georgian script, contacts in Georgia explained that indeed some of these were known in their regions.


It is very hard to get accurate information, and as I have explained, often takes many years of material which can be revised, updated or completely wrong. I know that I have always tried to keep my notes and material as current and updated as possible, and I think all researchers, without regard for nationality, do the same.


Thank you for the information you provide, and I am grateful to all who participate here in that same accord.

[ariel]

But just like all the shashkas from the Caucasus are called "shashkas" (regardless of their ethnic names), all the shashkas of Central Asia can and should be called "Bukhara or Central Asia shashkas."


...…..so apparently they are not termed shashkas there.... :-)

.... which is exactly what this discussion was all about.

So, was this "... tale full of sound and fury" worth it?

There are no tigers in Africa, and no shashkas in Central Asia.
End of story.

[Ian]

This thread has been watched recently for the resurfacing of personality issues and recurring testiness. I think Ariel has correctly opined that we have reached the end of this story. The thread is now closed.


Ian