Shashka??? Or what ????

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Before continuing the discussion maybe it would be better to clarify WHAT IDENTFIES A SWORD?! Is it the blade? Is it the hilt? Is it both?

In my understanding it is the blade that primarily identifies a sword (and when I say sword I mean it in its broadest sense, including sabres), then secondarily comes the hilt. More exactly, have a look at the Czerny's last auction (no. 57) at lot no. 2. Is that a Shamshir or a Tulwar?! In my oppinion it is clearly a shamshir because of the typical geometry of the blade. If you think it is a tulwar because of the hilt... well then think twice after having a look at lot no. 8 which also has the very same rounded pommel Tulwar hilt, yet is undoubtedly a Sousson Patah. To get a better grasp of it, you can also have a look at lot no. 11 which is a Khanda, despite the same Tulwar type hilt.

In the case in the opening of this thread neither the blade, nor the hilt bear the characteristics of a shashka namely a moderate, rather constant curvature along the whole length of the blade, a rather constant width of the blade, a full length fuller/fullers and an arched point (similar to the Kissaki of the Japanese swords but without any clear separation line between the point and the rest of the blade). To better understand what I mean, please have a look at lots no. 200-202 of the same Czerny auction that illustrate rather typical Shashkas.

In my opinion the sabre you were inquiring about is an imitation of a Shashka that would be most accurately described as a sabre, and it remained unsold for a good reason!

PS: I bought many blades from Czerny's as they are one of the leading auction houses dealing weapons.

A good question.
Naturally in its true sense, the term 'sword' describes obviously the assemblage of the hilt, guard(s) and of course blade. In many cases where the sword is scabbarded it is assumed as part of the descriptive term, though in many cases the note sword with scabbard is used.

These often spiraling discussions on terms for types of swords, the elements, features and all manner of nomenclature are often though interesting, simply further confusing to most.
The reason being that in most instances, the rule is: it depends!

It seems there is a kind of inherent obsession among many collectors that an item must be specifically categorized and dated. The idea of extra words in classifying and qualifying and item is often abhorrent, especially with sellers who seem to consider that it compromises the piece.

In this case, indeed the term sabre qualifies what it indeed is.......a shashka itself also falls into the sabre spectrum.......but its name is far more exciting and the fact that this sabre is clearly intended to recall shashka form adds to the intrigue.
A better description, "A sabre of North India with shashka style hilt".

Actually, many references are known to avoid concentration on blades in swords described in certain degree because blades were often, if not typically varied widely as they were trade or other foreign examples. The hilts were considered a matter of local affectation and usually followed their preferences. Obviously there are exceptions and variations to all of this...

Thus, it depends!

If all else fails in classifying or categorizing a weapon, describe it in words attending to its features, components or whatever is most applicable.

A hilt might be a solid piece, such as a shashka, but how to describe the top part features? is it a pommel? or part of the grips?

The blade is always the blade but when the hilt is absent.....it is not a sword.
When a hilt only exists, it is a hilt, not a sword.
When they are together, no matter if homogenous or not, it is a sword.

But if the parts are not homogenous, it then becomes the dreaded 'composite' sword. However, in ethnographic situations, many swords use other than native blades. In India, the well known 'firangi' phenomenon exists, which means it is an Indian sword (hilt) with a foreign blade. Otherwise, the traditional term for these type swords are 'khanda'. But is the 'khanda' the old Indian form, or the post contact European influenced Hindu basket hilt?

As far as the 'tulwars' go. These are instantly perceived as the familiar disc pommel form known as Indo-Persian. However, in Mughal courts things Persian prevailed in many cases, and there were Persian shamshirs. What did they call them? Tulwars...it is an Indian term for sword.

In Northern India, specifically what is now Afghanistan, the sword (sabre) known as paluoar is typically regarded as THE Afghan sword . Actually, it is a form of tulwar, with likely Deccani ancestry but favored in regions of North India (before Afghanistan was recognized) and is regarded as a form of tulwar. The term 'paluoar' is according to earlier discussions not familiar to locals and not used.

In the Sudan, the broadswords known to us as kaskara, to the locals are known simply as sa'if, the Arabian word for sword (not specified). In years of research I found that the term kaskara is not known anywhere in the Sudan, and only used by western collectors and writers.

This goes to the so called 'nimcha' of Morocco, the multi quilloned guard sabre, which curiously Stone identifies as Algerian. In Morocco, these are termed sa'if, and have nothing to do with the 'nimcha' term. They are Arabian sabres which in around mid 17th century became known in Moroccan context, it seems to English merchants.

We could probably talk for days on the misnomers, collectors terms, transliterations, semantics errors and all manner of the difficulties with the proper describing and terms of weapons and nomenclature!!
But maybe a book, then a movie!!?