Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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?
