Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

ariel · 17th August 2016, 10:55 AM

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 · 17th August 2016, 12:09 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th August 2016, 01:02 AM

Quote:

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.

ariel · 18th August 2016, 01:54 AM

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

mariusgmioc · 20th August 2016, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

Hello Ariel,

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356). So your examples about similar blades that developed independently are not that relevant since the Afghan Shashka did not develop independently from the Circasian one (like the Bauenwehr developed independently from the Khyber sword).

Then, why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date. Also this way there will be no possibility of confusion between the Afghan variety and the Bukharan sabre since the name will locate it geographically without the ambiguity related to the other proposed prefixes, like the "pseudo" (yes, it is a pseudo-shashka but from where?!)

Something like the same way we say Ottoman Shamshir and we then know we may have a classic shamshir blade with a typical Turkish/Ottoman pistol grip.

Am I missing something?

estcrh · 20th August 2016, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356)........................................... .........................why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date.

If there is some certainty that the Afghan shashka is a shashka this would be a good name solution all around.

ariel · 20th August 2016, 10:04 AM

Guys,
Everybody is free to call it any way one wants. I based my view on its original roots ( with Cossack overlays coming later on), you suggest stressing its final incarnation, similar to AJ1356's grandmother. It is the matter from what angle we want to look at it. As long as we all know what we are talking about and understand its convoluted history.

Ian · 20th August 2016, 12:58 PM

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:

A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Caucasian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

18th August 2016, 01:54 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-)) But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language, We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation. Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge). Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart. Attached Images

20th August 2016, 12:58 PM	#8
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,397	Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word *variant: A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.* Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?" If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Caucasian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential. To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here. If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion. In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords. Ian

17th August 2016, 10:55 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

20th August 2016, 10:04 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Guys, Everybody is free to call it any way one wants. I based my view on its original roots ( with Cossack overlays coming later on), you suggest stressing its final incarnation, similar to AJ1356's grandmother. It is the matter from what angle we want to look at it. As long as we all know what we are talking about and understand its convoluted history.