What is a KARUD?!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

[Ian]

Guys:

Instead of arguing with each other about semantics and getting all defensive and irritated, why don't you see what others have done to resolve issues of nomenclature in other aspects of sword descriptions? Ewart Oakeshott's widely accepted descriptions of medieval swords is an excellent example. Albert van Zonneveld took a different approach with the wide spectrum of Indonesian swords and knives.

Instead of arguing terminology, why not explore the typology of these weapons, looking for similarities that enable broad groups to be defined and then consider sub-groups? Oakeshott took a purely typographic approach to medieval swords and gave his main groupings Roman numerals, thus avoiding descriptive terms altogether.

Function is determined by how the weapon is put together, and what is not functional is essentially decorative. Sometimes we focus on the decorative aspects and lose sight of the functional. Typology as applied to Oakeshott's classification is mainly concerned with function.

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

This would be a YUUUUUUGE contribution to the field and would put to rest some of the arguing on these pages. You guys are smart and experienced in this area of weaponology. Should be easy-peasy for you.

Ian.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ian

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

Ian.

Ian,

That's what I'm talking about. There is a "shashka". And everyone knows features shashka. Within the concept of "shashka" can be distinguished: Caucasian shashka, Russian shashka (Cossack), Afghan shashka and Bukhara shashka. It's so logical.

"What's in a name? That we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." (с)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

Yes, I agree that many readers here may not know those authors if they are not involved with these fields of study. As I noted, Iaroslav Lebedynsky is an extremely well known author of arms references published in France.
Torben Flindt, wrote the seminal article "Some Nineteenth Century Arms from Bukhara" ( in "Islamic Arms and Armour" ed, Robert Elgood, 1979). This has been to date the single specific reference to edged weapons of these regions.

In searching our archives, a thread from 2001, ' Bukhara and Swords', I found a most appropriate passage noted by Philip Tom, one of our most notable scholars on these and Asian arms,
"...on shashkas, my fond hope is that some ethnically non specific term can be devised for use by collectors to describe these sabres, so that the language of one ethnic group isn't used to generally name similar looking weapons of different cultures".
-Philip Tom, Feb. 12, 2001

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.

PS Ian we crossed posts.......VERY WELL SAID!!!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.

Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom?

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom?

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

Perfect!

[mariusgmioc]

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

[mahratt]

Bravo, Marius! Exactly noticed

[Ian]

Gentlemen:

I have started a new thread to help move the discussion of shashka in a new direction. This thread has several requirements that should be read carefully before participating. It invites some different thinking to what has been expressed here.

The discussion here seems to have reached a point where no new information is being provided. Please transfer further discussion of these swords to the new thread.

Ian

[ariel]

Marius,
There is such thing as parallel development: weapons of similar appearance existing completely independently in different cultures .
Medieval European Bauernwehr or Langes Messer, or just Cord was a carbon copy of the Afghan Khyber, even though people in both localities were totally ignorant of each other's existence.
Shamshir and tulwar, on the other hand, owe their existence to the same proto-ancestor: nomadic saber. Over the centuries they have acquired some specific features ( indian ricasso, curvature ) and handles, but were still close enough to mix blades and handles with abandon. Figiel's examples testify to it.

The same is true about khanjars: some decorative differences in decoration, but close enough to share the moniker.

Not a miracle: the above examples all belong to the Indo-Persian areal: ie a mixture of both traditions, cultures and technologies.


In case of Central Asian guardless sabers one has to distinguish between two possibilities.

Central Asian Uzbeki ( Bukhara is within this tradition) examples owe their existence to a proto-family that included Khybers. We have discussed it somewhat in the thread on Indian "pseudoshashkas":

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21429

They have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian examples. In fact, somewhat similar Persian or Indo-Persian examples were shown in Figiel's collection catalogue.

The other subtype of was exactly the one addressed by Lebedinski in his book as "pseudoshashka": late 19th century Afghani guardless sabers, mostly with Mazar-i-Sharif arsenal marks ( just a stamp, origin in Mazar-i-Sharif not implied). Those were clearly influenced by Russian weapons, but preserved enough "ethnicity" to stand on their own, and be recognized immediately as coming from Afghanistan and not the Caucasus.

Neither example is a true shashka. Shashka is a peculiarly Caucasian weapon. Period.

The Afghani "military" examples are pseudo-shashkas because they imitated some Shashka features, and were clearly distinguishable as NOT Caucasian ( see Eric's dictionary entry explaining the meaning of pseudo)

The Central Asian examples have no relation whatsoever with the Caucasus, being a clear example of parallel development. We dub them "pseudoshashkas" simply because of their external similarity and for want of a better term. The minute some Central Asian researcher uncovers their true name, we will discard the "pseudoshashka" moniker in a second.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

Hi Marius,
Very well noted, and if you might briefly look at my post #48, you will see that I mentioned the likely reason for the 'psuedo' appellation in this case with the reference mentioned. I also noted that the reason that classification never became used elsewhere afterwards was because it was not in keeping with the proper use of the word as an adjustment and thus renders it a moot point.
However, as often the case, we 'seniors' such as Ariel and I sometimes use the term when referring to that particular reference by Iaroslav Lebedynsky from those researches nearly 20 years ago .

I would like to highly commend Ian's outstanding solution to bring the shashka discussion to its own table on another thread so as not to continue clouding the meter of this thread. Each of these topics have promising merit, so I hope you and others will join over there as I hope to as well.

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!