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

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

Ariel, I mostly agree. 90%

I fully agree with 2 main points.

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

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" :)

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

[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

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))))

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

Andreas,

Why do you think it was coined by foreigners?

You meant mistranscribed?

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

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.

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.

Afghan Shashkas:

"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! :) :)

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.

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

I show the most well-known examples:

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:

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? :-)))

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?

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? :)

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

On what basis? Because you so want?

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

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;)

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.

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".

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.

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 .