Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2019, 08:35 PM

Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented.

While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s.
My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion.
As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '.

As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'.
These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages.

Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

9th January 2019, 08:35 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,467	Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented. While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s. My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion. As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '. As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'. These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages. Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.