Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[ariel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

Thanks, so basically three categories, Caucasian / Circassian (and Russian) shashkas, Afghan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka and Bukharan ?????.....what do you call these if not Bukharan shashka type sword????.....Bukharan sabre????

[ariel]

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

I personally think that Bukharan should be "Bukharan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka" and the Afghan on should be "Afghan shashka", this would be closer to the actual identification from what I have been reading.......taking into account the generally accepted meaning of "pseudo" (not genuine, synonyms:bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived,) as in "we are talking about real shashka based on the Caucasian version and not the pseudo Bukharan kind" etc.

If the Bukharan sabre is not related to the Caucasian shashka and has been mis-identified as a shashka it should be noted for future interested parties.

[ariel]

double posting

[ariel]

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.

I can not comment on "bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber" but as far as "karabala" goes this is based on the hilt as tulwar have a different hilt, same with "sosun pata" as yataghan have a different hilt. But I think you are mis-understanding my train of thought.

Pseudo implies something that is false or fake etc, this more accurately describes (in my opinion) the current widely accepted term "Bukharan shashka" which from your comments and research seems to fit the description of being pseudo shashka while as you say the Afghan shashka has come commonality with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka possibly making it a form of shashka in its own right.

I just think that the term "pseudo" is more suited to the Bukharan types of sabres that are currently widely described as "shashka". I know that an authority (Lebedinski) previously used "pseudo" to describe the Afghan variety but as has been stated here the Afghan shashka seem to be related in some way to the Caucasian / Circassian shashka while the Bukharan types are not related at all. This seems to make the Bukharan types more of a " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc" than the Afghan shashka with is a derivative of the original shashka so not as close to being "pseudo", at least this is how I see it.

[ariel]

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?