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?

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.

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:-)

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.

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."

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

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

.... 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.

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