Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

Jim McDougall · 10th January 2019, 04:21 PM

Alex, thank you for the supportive words in post #197, re: the importance of focusing on the origin, history and development of sword forms. This is primarily my goal and has been in the many years I have studied. While that has been most of my life, I admit the excitement of learning never ends, and despite the common friction in discussion there are worthy bits of information that bolster knowledge.

Ariel, very well spoken on the 'name game', and I would clarify my comments by retracting the term 'irrelevant' which was entirely misplaced. You are completely correct, the local terms and dialectic variants are most important in understanding these weapon forms. This is most salient in research involving resources which may be written in these linguistic contexts, as it is important to determine exactly which form might be described. For example, very early sources in India describe the katar (without illustration) but we cannot be certain if the transverse grip dagger is what is meant.

In the case of tulwar; shamshir; kilij and turning to the word 'shashka' as in this discussion...…..these are primarily terms for ' SWORD....not otherwise specified', a phrase well pointed out by Lee years ago, which remains one of the best descriptions I personally have seen for these terms.

This also brings me to a most relevant note...….the term 'shashka' is indeed used to describe the Russian dragoon swords with stirrup hilts of the 19th c. This is much in the manner of the term tulwar, used to describe the British cavalry sabres used by natine units during the British Raj.

I believe that while using these kinds of general terms is indeed well placed in discussions for convenience and avoiding misunderstanding in the discourse, it is good to crossreference the terms otherwise in the manner of references such as dictionaries etc.

Good analogies illustrating that in Von Zonnefeld's work and Elgood's notes on Indian weaponry, both excellent works with these kinds of cross references giving profound dimension to understanding these forms.

With that I would say that writers and observers would understandably use the terms for weapon forms as known in their own language. I would not praise nor discount the viability of a resource based on nationality of the writer(s), and of course realize that any such work is subject to revision or elucidation as required.

In these cases the objective should always be objective and impersonal perspective which enhances the dimension of understanding of the topic.

Again returning to our thread topic, the shashka (and associated guardless sabre forms) it would fascinating to determine just how early these forms became known in the regions and contexts in which they are familiarly associated. As far as I have seen, the latter 18th century seems most likely obviously with a developmental period in years before.

Regarding the blade of the Bukharan sabre discussed, good illustration by Mahratt of the earlier form of this blade from the 15th c. (as decribed) which reflects influence for this blade. Tradition and commemoration is of course prevalent in these cultures, so the blade probably is in that manner though produced later of course.

Great discussion!!

10th January 2019, 04:21 PM	#207
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,746	Alex, thank you for the supportive words in post #197, re: the importance of focusing on the origin, history and development of sword forms. This is primarily my goal and has been in the many years I have studied. While that has been most of my life, I admit the excitement of learning never ends, and despite the common friction in discussion there are worthy bits of information that bolster knowledge. Ariel, very well spoken on the 'name game', and I would clarify my comments by retracting the term 'irrelevant' which was entirely misplaced. You are completely correct, the local terms and dialectic variants are most important in understanding these weapon forms. This is most salient in research involving resources which may be written in these linguistic contexts, as it is important to determine exactly which form might be described. For example, very early sources in India describe the katar (without illustration) but we cannot be certain if the transverse grip dagger is what is meant. In the case of tulwar; shamshir; kilij and turning to the word 'shashka' as in this discussion...…..these are primarily terms for ' SWORD....not otherwise specified', a phrase well pointed out by Lee years ago, which remains one of the best descriptions I personally have seen for these terms. This also brings me to a most relevant note...….the term 'shashka' is indeed used to describe the Russian dragoon swords with stirrup hilts of the 19th c. This is much in the manner of the term tulwar, used to describe the British cavalry sabres used by natine units during the British Raj. I believe that while using these kinds of general terms is indeed well placed in discussions for convenience and avoiding misunderstanding in the discourse, it is good to crossreference the terms otherwise in the manner of references such as dictionaries etc. Good analogies illustrating that in Von Zonnefeld's work and Elgood's notes on Indian weaponry, both excellent works with these kinds of cross references giving profound dimension to understanding these forms. With that I would say that writers and observers would understandably use the terms for weapon forms as known in their own language. I would not praise nor discount the viability of a resource based on nationality of the writer(s), and of course realize that any such work is subject to revision or elucidation as required. In these cases the objective should always be objective and impersonal perspective which enhances the dimension of understanding of the topic. Again returning to our thread topic, the shashka (and associated guardless sabre forms) it would fascinating to determine just how early these forms became known in the regions and contexts in which they are familiarly associated. As far as I have seen, the latter 18th century seems most likely obviously with a developmental period in years before. Regarding the blade of the Bukharan sabre discussed, good illustration by Mahratt of the earlier form of this blade from the 15th c. (as decribed) which reflects influence for this blade. Tradition and commemoration is of course prevalent in these cultures, so the blade probably is in that manner though produced later of course. Great discussion!! Last edited by Jim McDougall; 10th January 2019 at 05:09 PM.