Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[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?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by 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?

Unfortunately you know that the Bukharan "shashka" is not related to shashka but what about the rest of the world??? So in the sense that the Bukharan is not actually a shashka I think "pseudo is more appropriately used than for the Afghan shashka which can at least semi-accurately be called a shashka.

I was thinking that using "pseudo" with Bukharan would be telling people who run into these types of swords that they are not actually shashka at all (you convinced me of this).

Lets say you wanted to divide / separate these three groups of swords into three categories as in three Pinterest boards. One for Caucasian / Circassian shashka, one for Afghan shashka and one for the Bukharan type of sabre that is currently being called "shashka". How would you get the point across that the Bukharan "shashka" is not actually a shashka at all, calling it a "Bukharan pseudo shashka might be helpful.

It really comes down to your own interpretation of "pseudo" and how it is best applied.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 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?

I'm inclined to agree here Ariel. It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.

Personally I think the Afghan example of these sabres is most likely to have evolved from exposure to the Russian forces in these regions through the 19th century and I believe earlier (need to consult Hopkirk, "The Great Game" to be sure how early).
Russian forces clearly comprised Caucasian elements and officers often kept their heirloom forms as well as personal weapons in service. These thus were probably known to armourers in these regions.
It would seem that these locally produced shaska -style sabres would emulate the Caucasian forms.

The conundrum of the 'Uzbek' form seems to be rather so entwined with the Afghan of these shaska like sabres that even Flindt and Lebedynsky noted that typically it would be difficult to distinguish them from each other aside from instances where other qualifying features might enable that.

I cannot recall from Mollo, but it seems like the Russian 'shashka' which developed into a regulation form for Cossack units was around 1850s. These were quite different from Caucasian forms with the absence of guard being key visually. The use of the term shashka for other stirrup hilted swords in Mollo ("Russian Military Swords",) led (me at least) to presume the word was of Russian origin. It is not as has been revealed in discussion here.

The Bukharen sabre as noted, seems a localized development which seems to have evolved independently aside from the Russian influences which may have affected the Afghan versions of sabre.

It seems that many years back as I was looking into these, I had an article which dealt with some of the Steppes tribes in European areas back into the 6th century and these early periods. In an illustration it seemed that an Avar tribesman held a guardless sabre which almost had the kind of hilt shape of the Bukharen. In an admittedly tenuous and circumstantial suggestion, I wonder if these type sabres lingered as a loosely established form in these regions over that long a period.

Getting back to terminology and of course semantics, both the Bukharen and Afghan are effectively guardless sabres, however the Afghan may be considered shaska like, recalling the extant forms from the Caucusus.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.

Jim, I think that according to the commonly accepted meanings of "pseudo", Lebedynsky may have mis-applied the term in relation to the Afghan shashka. I personally think that based on Ariels assessment of both swords, "pseudo" is closer to correctly describing the Bukharan sword.

If we accept that the Bukharan "shashka" is NOT a "variation or development" but a non related sword that has falsely been called a shashka thus it becomes a "pseudo" shasha by default (to those that call it a shashka).

According to what Ariel has said, the Afghan shashka IS a "variation or development" of the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (as is the Russian shashka) then as you say it should NOT be classified as being "pseudo" any more then the Russian shashka would be called "pseudo".

[ariel]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, it depends how you look at it......


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

Well, I hate quoting myself, but couldn't find a better way to respond:-))))))))))

[kronckew]

yes, semantics, but any noun is just a label agreed to by the group using it.

i think the germanic word 'ersatz' (verb ersetzen, to substitute) is more applicable as it's meaning is closer to ''substitute in place of' or 'alternate' rather than 'fake' as is 'pseudo'.

[Gavin Nugent]

I am all for study and collation of information, but why does a sword type need to be specifically put in a box with another and then fall under that swords name...

what's in a name?

What's with the name game?

Does this name game improve the character and pedigree of a sword, I think not!

Shall now the Sasanian guardless swords of the Neo Persian empire, whose lands that these swords being classified were once theirs, now be called Shashka too...

It's over complicating things...

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

With consideration to the a large area that these swords are found in, it is and was a Persian speaking region, correct naming would make them a "Shamshir"...how muddy does that make the waters with names and what is generally accepted about the word shamshir and its accepted form.

With regards to this threads topic, and the mammal analagy, they are all Sabres (from a very long line of guardless sabres), they fall in to a category of all being without guards, they then fall in to a known locality within a specific time/period, for which specific cultural features are then noted...this does not then lead to the name game for clarity....however, if one must insist on a name, from a logical perspective, it is Shamshir....the name game does not help here.

Whilst it is generally agreed that the Caucasian sword of this type is called a Shashka (with no arguement from me), with consideration to the 25 something ethnic groups within this region, how many different names for the same swords would be found...IMHO, trying to make a name stick is often counter productive vs a simple classification of "type/ location/period/features".

Gavin

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

Names are very important when it comes to internet search engines, without an item being "tagged" it may never be found. Like it or not, categorization is important, what name you use determines whether or not you can bring up the images you are looking for online.