Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[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...

[Gavin Nugent]

What defines a Shashka; It is a sabre, unique to the Caucasian regions, and as far south and to include Turkey, and later adopted in to Russia.

What is a sabre; A curved, single handed, single edged sword, historically derived from and used from horseback. Not hand and a half, not two handed or longer, a grip for single handed use. Note, not all Shashka have their hilt engulfed by the scabbard throat either.

Qualities of a Shashka; I do not have my notes to reference, so I do not know who first wrote about the qualities of the Shashka, but, the most desirable Shashka, should be feather light, vine supple and razor sharp...very few swords anywhere in the world have all of these qualities.

I do not believe there are any sub-types of Shashka, only different cultural appearances throughout the regions of the Caucasus mountains and northern Turkey.
Russian adopted arms and terms of military regulation type, of the form or later types, should fall within modern Military cold arms, not Ethnographic arms.
Swords in discussion beyond the Caucasus Mountains and Northern Turkey should not be classified as Shashka.

To quote Mahratt's categories;

1) Caucasian shashka
2) Afghan shashka
3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka)
4) Russian shashka (Cossack)

I do not believe #s 2 & 3 exist as Shashka, nor a sub classification, but sabres in their own right. Type 4 I have noted in my opening text.

Type 2 exists with some common features and sits sheathed in a similar manner , but do not share Shashka "qualities" or linage. Perhaps visually inspired from a Caucasian Shashka but, but certainly not developed from and there really is not any development, more regression than anything when compared to a Shashka.
Personally, I feel these are only sabres, unique to their specific regions. These sabre all carry bolsters like their knives and Salawar, and have little to no grace in the hand.

Type 3. My Bukhara sabre, now so often seen in these pages, is not in my opinion, a sub class of the Shashka. The blade is not very supple but is sharp, it is somewhat light but not as balanced as a Shashka. It is single handed but not of a Shashka style grip despite it having small ears... It is more akin to the Pesh Kabz. It wears a grip strap like a Turkish sword or Pesh Kabz, has grip slabs like a Pesh Kabz or North Indian Karud (check the detail), is much thicker in cross section than a true Shashka hilt too. Also, the tang protrudes through the grip strap and is riveted in 5 places, not the traditional 2 places seen on Shashka.

Mahratt makes an observation about the hilt style being unique, and in a way it is but there are other non related arms such as the Sinai Bedouin sabre that is often mistaken as a Shashka in profile, and no doubt other forms that do not come straight to mind.

Dah should also be removed from this discussion, they are so far off the Shashka trails.

Gavin