Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mahratt
Dear Jim!
We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka.
Maybe I'm wrong to say (excuse me my bad English) 
I meant that Lebedinsky knew little about the Afghan shashkas, which he called - "psevdoshashka". |
Hi Mahratt,
I think that's what all the fuss was about. The Afghan and Uzbek were indeed 'different', and the Bukharen sabre with very different hilt was of course obviously not of the same category. While most of his work in those times focused on the Caucasian and Russian versions of shashka, he did indeed have excellent knowledge on the full spectrum of swords he included in his writings.
The thing was, in those times, these were remarkably esoteric weapons, and there was so much disagreement and debate on the proper classifications of these. It was in these times that Torben Flindt very sagely told me, 'weapons have no geographic boundaries' !
I think the use of the 'psuedo' appellation was borne out of those particular frustrations and disagreements and knowing that any designation was bound to be challenged.