Shashka??? Or what ????

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Good, this is a Turkish\Ottoman shamshir that someone called Kilij. Do you have more reliable references, not on-line ads?

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar (see for example lots 1, 2, 4-11 of Czerny's last auction; pay spacial attention to lots 7, 8 and 11).

www.czernys.com/auctions_view.php?asta=57

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar.

We are talking about kilij not tulwar. You and Alex can believe whatever you want, Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani is a well known author and authority on this subject, maybe you and Alex know something he does not?? This particular kilij is in Weapons of Warriors - Famous Antique Swords of the Near East.

[mariusgmioc]

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

You and Alex should stop embarassing yourselves, your opinions are not the only ones on this subject.

[mariusgmioc]

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.

Both you and Alex do not appear to want to learn anything, I am simply pointing out that there are differing opinions on this subject, who can prove which opinion in correct. Terms do change over time and the internet has a lot to do with this, search engines need tag words in order to bring up text and images. Many collectors and dealers have used certain tag words and these are now part of the way certain weapons are described online, other people choose another method. What a weapon is called in its native country and language often has nothing to do with what it is called by English speaking collectors and dealers.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword

With some swords that is usually the case, with others as I have pointed out that is not always the case, there are exceptions.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.

Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

[Helleri]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

Metalworks and ceramics were traded between India and states all long that coast down as far as Mombasa on the sea route of the silk road. But Oman and Yemen are smack dab next to each other...Usually the name of a knife often turns out to just be what a knife is called or some defining feature of the knife in the native tongue.

It's entirely possible that Yemeni Jambiya and Omani Khanjar are simply the same knife. But perhaps Yemen had the port worth visiting on the sea route of the silk road so they may have ended up adopting the Indian word for it?

It could also be a simple longstanding mis-classification. Someone labeling things for some museum or private collection could have simply got it wrong. And for lack of a better idea from successive peers it stuck and fell into how we reference things as a misnomer.

In any case I think it's safe to say that objectively, they are the same thing, and should both just be called Jambiya (Omani-Jambiya and Yemeni-Jambiya).

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names.

I agree with you on this and some other things you have said. I do not make up the names being used, I just make note of them, I wanted to point out that there is a significant group of people that do identify certain select bladed weapons by the hilt with kilij, pulwar and tulwar among these.

Whether you say a sword is a tulwar hilted shamshir or a tulwar with a shamshir blade it is still the same sword and most collectors will know what is being described either way. As far a tulwar hilts go, some blades are so radically different that have a completely seperate name, khanda, karach and sossun patah are examples.

[Helleri]

I lean towards Shashqa. Seems to fit the general form.
[Edit: Scrolled back and saw that where this was mentioned, it wasn't regarding a different specimen but that same sword up for auction at a different time and place...So the following digression is moot.]
I know it was mentioned that something typical to see would be the double fuller being enclosed (box like). I am not sure that it isn't. We can't fully see the area that would let us know about that as it is covered by the leather. but if you look closely. It looks to me at least like grooves of the fullers could connect there.

[ariel]

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

[Helleri]

Yeah I re-read that and edited accordingly. Misread it the firs time.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

You might have realised by now that I have a rather rigid approach and I don't like it as it doesn't fit precisely into the archetypal Shashka cathegory. However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

Well noted, indeed there is a vast spectrum of collectors, scholars and enthusiasts who might focus on a particular form, field, or any number of specialized topics in arms. When I first began (many, many moons ago) I was determined to collect British cavalry swords, and each progressive pattern. Once that had been accomplished, it became variants, various makers of set patterns etc.
Eventually I discovered the greatest thrill and most intriguing were the anomalies, and the research and detective work of trying to determine their placement and history.

With these ethnographic weapons, the anomalies are by far the most exciting as discovering the clues and influences which led to their distinctive variation often leads us to fascinating insights in the history surrounding them.
While many are pleased with assembling certain forms, and following the set style and pattern of each......there are those adventurous sorts who venture far outside the box, and bring together the weapon itself and the history around it. I count myself in that group, but without the others in their subsequent groups, it is pretty much an insurmountable task as we all compliment each other in our respective approaches.

Iain, who notes his studies in the field of North African swords, emphasis on takouba, is most modest in the achievements he has made. He has accepted that rigid classification as with some forms is unrealistic, but has accomplished very workable methods of cataloguing the wide range of these weapons. Briggs (1965) made a valiant effort at classifying these swords regionally, however while a benchmark in degree, most of the typology has proven largely inaccurate.

It is amazing how the discussion of a weapon can bring about such interaction and philosophical perspective on the many facets of arms study, and well illustrates how important these studies really are.

[ariel]

Highly recommend to find topics by CharlesS: he made his life passion to collect unusual weapons, transitions from one well-defined pattern to another.
His examples are mind-blowing! It is like observing Darwinian evolution at high speed.

The stuff I learned from his examples, - about evolution of particular weapons as well as about general approach to the history of weapons, - taught me more about collecting than many books.

Our hobby is orders of magnitude more complex and exciting than even Stone's Glossary:-)

One definitely needs to know the basics, but it is the occasional unique examples that illuminate the field like a sudden lightning. The learning never stops.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.

Alex, you are very knowledgable and I respect your opinion but sometimes you need to be more objective. As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.

[ariel]

The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.


Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-)

One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles). Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet. Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle. Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles. And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles.



On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade.

And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud" mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle.




I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-)))

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.


Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-)

One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles

... but they still remain Jambias...

, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles).

... but they still remain Kerises, whether Javanese or Buginese...

Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet.

... still remain Shamshirs... well, with the exception when they are sporting a Turkish hilt when they become Kilij... acording to some...

... Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle.

... because the Karabela doesn't sport a characteristic blade (as they were fitted with Turkish Kilij blades, Russian sabre blades, German sabre blades, etc...

Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles.

... yet remain Yataghans whether sporting large ear-shaped Balkanic bone hilts or sleek silver Greek hilts...

And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles.



On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade.

And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud"

... apparently Karud is an artificially created name, probably derived from the Persian Kard, an it is unknown to the people where that knife originates from...

mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle.

... since the Choora is a particular type pf Pesh-kabz, he same way the Pala is a particular type of Kilij, sporting a wider blade...


I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-)))

But that's the beauty of it, don't you think?! Debate, confrontation of ideas and exposing logical arguments are the source of wisdom and progress... and are more important even than reaching a compromise.

PS: I interposed some comments to your examples, in your posting.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.

In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.

Your statement does however seem perplexing as I am wondering how the dilemma of 'absolute truth' can be arrived at in discussing an entirely subjective phenomenon which is inherently varied through so many variables and circumstances.

I am in accord with your observation, 'discussing' does provide opportunities for learning , but would add as long as the participants are willing to keep open minds in evaluating exchanged data and views. Often only elements of one presentation might present acceptable alternative, while others might be more comprehensive with proper support. When dealing with opinions it becomes far more difficult, especially when regard for others engaged is less than pertinent.

I would offer here the words of Mr. Philip Rawson, who you might find as of standing as an acceptable authority,

"...with regard to the names here adopted for the different types of sword it must be said at once that they are to a large extent ARBITRARY. There prevails amongst ALL the authorities such an extraordinary confusion of nomenclature that I have been obliged to adopt a system based on a rough statistical estimate of the frequency of recorded applications. Some of the names could be said to mean 'sword' in general, if regard were paid to their every occurrence."

Here Rawson further notes that due to the fact that hilts are "...classified on basis of local distribution", therefore he uses the blades primarily in his classification.
"The Indian Sword", Philip Rawson, Copenhagen, 1967, p.vi. intro.

G,N. Pant in his "Indian Arms and Armour", Lahore, 1980, differs entirely with Rawson and notes numerous conflicts in terms etc. most notably using hilts to determine his classifications and terminology .

So it is throughout the corpus of literature on Indian arms as well as with similar confusion (as well noted by Rawson, op.cit) on many if not most ethnographic forms. Some weapons have many terms applied. I recall working on Indonesian weapon terminology, and was told by a well known author that in many cases the 'name of a weapon varied almost by villages.

In my post (#13), I noted the key words, 'it depends'....... and it seems that most authorities and seasoned collectors and scholars would agree, to the point of consensus, that this is the case with terminology.....there are no 'rules' which may be considered definitive.
Perhaps while holding to your own definitions, you might recognize that this dilemma is something most of us who have been studying these subjects many years well realize, and use qualifying measures rather than restrictive to refer to items in question.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.

Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt.

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it...

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying!

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

...I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.
...

the classic example is the spanish 'falcata', a made-up name from the mid 19c used by a historian to differentiate it from the classic greek kopis, which it was a variant used in greek colonies, of course. the name stuck and we are stuck with it now too.

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yes Jim, I saw your reply at post #11 and as I fully agreed with it, I had nothing to add or ague against.

However, I continued to support my logic and asked for the logical explanation of the opposing idea, so I could learn something new, as I failed to see any consistent logic in naming the very same blade shamshir whether it bears a Persian or Indian hilt, and Kilij when it bears a Turkish hilt. And I simply find hard to accept the idea that a sword bears a name or another simply because somebody called it this way.

Now the rest of your comment (that I didn't quote) sheds much light on this subject as it offers a completely diferent perspective of the inconsistencies I observed. However, as a mechanical engineer, I find difficult to accept that other criteria and not pure logic, may decide whether a blade is named one way or another, and names are not mathematical descriptors but words of convenience. So in the end a sword may bear a name when viewed from the tip of the blade, and another one, when viewed from the hilt.

Well, I guess I'll have to get over and live with it...

After all, we can't put everything into a clearly defined mathematical equation...

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying!

Well that explains a lot, you are a mechanical engineer! and clearly your world does rely on pretty much rigid rules and axioms as deviations would produce I am sure often undesirable if not disastrous results.

In the more literary subjectivity of terms used descriptively, there is a wide berth for the application of names for things which again, I noted as very much depending on the circumstances. I must admit feeling a bit of frustration at times over the many years of researching arms when I could not really put an item in one box or another in classification.
Even Oakeshott, who was a foremost arms historian known for his classifications of medieval swords spoke anxiously on how often a type so and so though superceded by the next type was often clouded into its previous as well as following type as the forms were maintained longer in certain areas.

Again, it comes down to describing an item as best as you can, with the most apparent designator accompanied by any mitigating or variant possibilities . It is not always neat or concise, but any responsible cataloguer or scholar will do so to avoid misperception or misrepresentation.

As most here know, I am seldom shy about using extra words, and often I do so to avoid just those kinds of misunderstanding, as well as trying to be as accurate as possible in what I try to describe. Actually I rather like learning more on the various terms used in descriptions for certain items and collect that data as part of the history of each form. These instances are often intriguing stories in their own right.
That however is the historian in me, while clearly maddening to those more analytical or involved in typology and classification.

Knonckew, thank you for that bit of information on the falcata! I did not know this, and that is pretty interesting !!!
These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

You are right on the fact that we indeed should always endeavor to keep learning, as we always say, more research to follow.