[ariel]

A very nice one!
Typical Afghani pseudo- shashka ( using Lebedynsky's careful definition).
Interesting that the blade has " indian ricasso". A lot of higher class Afghani blades were imported from India, so there is a pretty high possibility that this one was also Indian, likely NW part of it, Mughal territory. Elephant ivory also hints at Indian origin.


Why not "shashka"?

Because the prevailing " pro-Shashka" opinion is based on 2 assumptions:
1. Most available swords of that constructions can be attributed to the 19th century at the earliest.
2. Their presence in Afghanistan is attributed to the Russian Army ( cossacks)

There are some problems with it: Russian army went into Central Asian khanates only after ~1860. And, more importantly, they had military contacts with the Afghanis only in 20 century. Any attempt to rely on the writings of the 19 century Russian officers universally calling them "shashkas" is fruitless and frankly somewhat comical: of course, Russian officers, not being weapon historians, used the same word for them that reminded them of the official Russian name for Caucasian and by that time regulation Russian sabers for lower ranks.

However, similar guardless sabers were depicted in the manuscript about Nader Shah's war with the Afghans. And it seems that both sides were using them. Old Western Georgian churches ( 17 century) have frescoes of the financial donors, and they all carry shashkas. Caucasian warriors served prominently in Persian military as early as under Shah Abbas I, and went to Afghanistan several times under him and later, under Nader Shah. Could it be that the Afghans were so enthralled by the Caucasian guardless sabers that they adopted them? Possible.

But whether shashka-like sabers might have been influenced by the Georgian examples, the locals never called them by that name. British Lord Elphinstone traveled in Afghanistan in the very beginning of 19 century and mentioned the presence of guardless sabers that locally were called "shumsheers".

Importantly, the Afghani pattern has a feature clearly distinguishing it from the Caucasian example: the bolster, a typical feature of the purely Afghani weapon "selavah" ( what was called by the Brits a " Khyber knife").

The other feature, the "ears", was also used to tie the Afghani example with Caucasian and Russian shashkas. But the same feature can be seen on Afghani Ch'hurras, close relatives of the " selavah", and there the ears are not as big simply due to the smaller size of the Ch'hurra, a stabbing dagger.It is simply the result of using 2 separate pieces of materiel ( wood, horn, ivory) to cover the tang. The same “Earred” feature is an indelible mark of Ottoman yataghans, and Afghanistan and the Ottoman Empire enjoyes significant religios, cultural and trade relations.

Thus, in the most charitable way, the Afghani saber was a mix of a curved blade ( potentially reminding us of Caucasian shashkas but equally applicable to any existing saber, be it Indian, Arab, Turkish Persian or European) and purely Afghani handle.

But what about the lack of the handguard? Well, not only Caucasian shashkas were guardless, but also a bunch of weapons from other cultures. Turkish yataghan is just one example, but also a multitude of weapons from India. As a matter of fact, the Afghani selavah is also guardless.

This is why Lebedynsky, a professional weapon researcher, was very careful to name the Afghani guardless swords as "pseudo-shashkas". He justifiably preferred to warn his readers that they had much more complex and uncertain parentage.

It would be very interesting to talk to a bunch of old Afghanis and to spend days upon days in Afghani archives for the genuinely real local name. After all, the very word " research" is "re-search", "to search anew", to expand on a casual remark by Lord Elphinstone.

Regretfully, such an endeavor is impossible for obvious reasons now or in the foreseeable future .

Thus, for now it still remains a "pseudo-shashka".....