Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[ariel]

Marius,

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.

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.

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

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. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))

[ariel]

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

I had no doubt that the Ariel say about it. He's so predictable.

That is why I wrote in the post number 50, "well-known examples"

Quantity rivets is not so important. Significantly: form handle, "bolster" size, inlaid with turquoise or not and other.

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana.

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana.

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

Unfortunately, even the locals do not know, as in Afghanistan, and Bukhara called these shashkas. I found in Russian ethnographic work the traditional name for "Bukhara" shashka. But now, in Central Asia, no one calls this name Bukhara shashka.

Moreover, seeing the sword in the photo, all say that it is - "Shamshir". Do you agree? In Central Asia 100-150 years ago this sword called "Kilidg" (Kilic). But we'll call this the sword - "Shamshir".

[ariel]

The solution to this conundrum is simple: Uzbeki belongs to the Turcik group of languages. Thus, sword is kilij, or ( locally) Klych, and knife is P'chak.
Tajiks are ethnic Persians. For them, sword is shamshir, and knife is kord.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

The solution to this conundrum is simple: Uzbeki belongs to the Turcik group of languages. Thus, sword is kilij, or ( locally) Klych, and knife is P'chak.
Tajiks are ethnic Persians. For them, sword is shamshir, and knife is kord.

There is no mystery. I have talked about is that now we all call this sabre - "Shamshir". It does not matter, as he was called Uzbek. Also with shashkas, which we are discussing.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana.

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

Actually I find this tedious and personal interaction between Ariel and Mahratt far less than entertaining......actually extremely disappointing, as it cobbles the entire meter of this discussion. Both of them are in my opinion brilliant scholars on these arms, and far above these kinds of personal jabs and bickering which they have constantly engaged in on just about every thread in which they are both present.

Having said that, despite their antics, the information that is filtered in within the sarcasm and snide remarks is indeed of course useful.
Absolutely we do not need to agree on things, but we must remember, it is not just about us and our personal egos or vanity, it is about trying to learn and those others out there looking to us to also gain knowledge.

Getting to topic, the local or regional terms for these swords are as far as I know, unrecorded in western parlance . As Ariel has well noted, it seems reasonable to presume that terms for sword and knife would be used in accord with the dialect of whatever regional tribe or ethnic group was discussing or describing them.

It is the western need to classify and categorize which has bred the lists of transliterated and semantically incongruent 'collectors terms' which have been so desperately and inconclusively debated ad nauseum for generations. The one purpose these terms has served has been to offer common ground in description of forms for viable discussion in a general semantics sense.

For me, it is best to cross reference and descriptively qualify a weapon so that the variations and possible alternate options can be recorded for further research and categorization .

[Ian]

I am going to try to summarize what I think has been said here in this, at times, unruly thread. As Jim noted, among the noise and disagreement there seems to be some common ground--or at least some points of substance that we can address, perhaps freeing us from some of the deeply entrenched positions that several have staked out.

I am seeing consensus that the broad typology of the shashka is in the class of swords we loosely call "sabers," which are primarily single-edged, fairly narrow blades (width should be specified) that may be straight or curved (but not recurved), and within that broad group the shashka belongs to those that have a guardless hilt (along with other notable swords such as certain katana, dha, parang, etc.). All of these weapons share the common function of being primarily slashing or cutting swords. [So far, so good--I hope.]

The next point of agreement seems to be the Circassian origin of these swords in the early 19th C. The Circassian shashka I have termed Type I (and here we need to define the essential characteristics of the Type I shashka).

Through diffusion within the Caucuses and eventually into Russia, the Circassian shashka becomes known as the Caucasian shashka and the Russian/Cossack shashka. These I have labeled Type Ia. So far I have not heard how these shashka differ from Type I, and perhaps they don't, but this point needs to be clarified.

The Russian version of Type Ia seems to have influenced neighboring areas resulting in them producing their own versions of the shashka. These I have termed "Shashka Variants" and they include examples from Afghanistan, from the Usbeks, Tajiks, etc. That these variations share much in common with the basic shashka model (Types I, Ia) is apparent from the pictures shown here and elsewhere on this web site. However, there are differences in decoration and minor stuctural changes that separate some of these from Type I, Ia shashka, and these differences are sufficient to label then Type Ib. I have not given the variants a Type II designation because the basic structure and function of the swords remain essentially true to the fundamental design of the shashka.

All of this is summed up in the accompanying chart. This is just how I have interpreted the data presented here. I want to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't favor one person's ideas over another's. This is simply where you comments have led me.

I know that passionate opinions are held by many of you. Please keep things on track and refrain from personal comments that might inflame those passions.

Ian.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

I am going to try to summarize what I think has been said here in this, at times, unruly thread. As Jim noted, among the noise and disagreement there seems to be some common ground--or at least some points of substance that we can address, perhaps freeing us from some of the deeply entrenched positions that several have staked out.

I am seeing consensus that the broad typology of the shashka is in the class of swords we loosely call "sabers," which are primarily single-edged, fairly narrow blades (width should be specified) that may be straight or curved (but not recurved), and within that broad group the shashka belongs to those that have a guardless hilt (along with other notable swords such as certain katana, dha, parang, etc.). All of these weapons share the common function of being primarily slashing or cutting swords. [So far, so good--I hope.]

The next point of agreement seems to be the Circassian origin of these swords in the early 19th C. The Circassian shashka I have termed Type I (and here we need to define the essential characteristics of the Type I shashka).

Through diffusion within the Caucuses and eventually into Russia, the Circassian shashka becomes known as the Caucasian shashka and the Russian/Cossack shashka. These I have labeled Type Ia. So far I have not heard how these shashka differ from Type I, and perhaps they don't, but this point needs to be clarified.

The Russian version of Type Ia seems to have influenced neighboring areas resulting in them producing their own versions of the shashka. These I have termed "Shashka Variants" and they include examples from Afghanistan, from the Usbeks, Tajiks, etc. That these variations share much in common with the basic shashka model (Types I, Ia) is apparent from the pictures shown here and elsewhere on this web site. However, there are differences in decoration and minor stuctural changes that separate some of these from Type I, Ia shashka, and these differences are sufficient to label then Type Ib. I have not given the variants a Type II designation because the basic structure and function of the swords remain essentially true to the fundamental design of the shashka.

All of this is summed up in the accompanying chart. This is just how I have interpreted the data presented here. I want to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't favor one person's ideas over another's. This is simply where you comments have led me.

I know that passionate opinions are held by many of you. Please keep things on track and refrain from personal comments that might inflame those passions.

Ian.

Excellent summary!

I would remove the Katana from the list of guardless sabres, as they, in their majority, have a guard (tsuba). I used it as an extreme example for the dramatic effect


And I was wondering whether the Caucasian ones didn't have more varieties. Like Georgian vs. Daghestani or Cossak?! But would be Cossak considered Caucasian or Russian?!

[mahratt]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by ariel

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

On what basis? Because you so want?

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).

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