Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.
|
Jim, I think that according to the commonly accepted meanings of "pseudo", Lebedynsky may have mis-applied the term in relation to the Afghan shashka. I personally think that based on Ariels assessment of both swords, "pseudo" is closer to correctly describing the Bukharan sword.
If we accept that the Bukharan "shashka" is NOT a "variation or development" but a non related sword that has falsely been called a shashka thus it becomes a "pseudo" shasha by default (to those that call it a shashka).
According to what Ariel has said, the Afghan shashka IS a "variation or development" of the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (as is the Russian shashka) then as you say it should NOT be classified as being "pseudo" any more then the Russian shashka would be called "pseudo".