Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[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?!

[Ian]

Thanks marius. You are right. Most katana do have a small tsuba and I will make that change to avoid confusion.

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

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?!

[A. G. Maisey]

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

Of course, if you talk about the shashka, the tree should start with the shashka.
I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.
Plus why the Russian is not under the Caucasian??

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.

Albeit I sometimes feel like a dinosaur...