Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.
|
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?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
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.
|
Please place photo Bedouin "shashka" and "Bukhara" shashka. It will be interesting. And remember that you wrote about "Bedouin shashkas" above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.
|
On what basis? Because you so want?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
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.
|
You can prove it? You say general words (without proof).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.
|
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