Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

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 Circassian 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

Hello Ian,

I believe the term "variant" associated with Shashka is creating significant ambiguity unless is followed by additional explanations.

For example. I can say: "I just acquired a variant Shashka."
What would one understand?! How clear and unambiguous this statement is?! Is it an Afghan or some other "variant" of Shashka I am refering to?!

When saying a "variant" Shashka I can refer to an Afghan Shashka, Bukharan Sabre/Shashka or I may very well refer to a Russian Shasahka as a "variant" that difers slightly from what I may consider the standard, in my case the Caucasian Shashka.

However, using the geographical locator serves perfectly in defining clearly and unambiguously the item.

Whether one considers the Bukharan sabre a "variant" of the Shashka or not, as soon as one hears "Bukharan Shashka," one knows exactly what it refers to. As opposed to the more generic "Bukharan Sabre" which leaves room for much more ambiguity as it can refer to a Shamshir originating from Bukhara, or with Bukharan mounts.

So, for the sake of clarity in communication, I believe we should use the terms that are most clear an unambiguous, whether culturally or historically correct or not (which at its turn can be subject to another endless debate).

Therefore, in the name of democracy, CLARITY and freedom of speech , I will use:

1. SHASHKA - for all shashka-like sabers, namely
1.1. CIRCASIAN SHASHKA
1.2. CAUCASIAN SHASHKA
1.3. COSSACK SHASHKA
1.4. RUSSIAN SHASHKA
1.5. TURKISH SHASHKA
1.6. AFGHAN SHASHKA
1.7. BUKHARAN SHASHKA



PS: I believe 1.1 and 1.2 refer to the same type or variant of weapon.

[Ian]

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations.

[Ian]

Marius:

I understand and that is a perfectly legitimate and logical position. It also fits within the rubric of discussing shashkas and shashka variants.

Ian.

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ian

Marius:

I understand and that is a perfectly legitimate and logical position. It also fits within the rubric of discussing shashkas and shashka variants.

Ian.

Yes, it is, if we ignore the inconvenient fact that Bukharan saber has nothing to do with shashka from the developmental point of view.

If we go that way, Beduin sabres and Sardinian leppas ( see above) are also shashkas :-)))

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Yes, it is, if we ignore the inconvenient fact that Bukharan saber has nothing to do with shashka from the developmental point of view.

If we go that way, Beduin sabres and Sardinian leppas ( see above) are also shashkas :-)))

What kind of Bukharan sabers are you referring to, because I know at least two types that have significantly different characteristics?! You mean the Bukharan shamshirs?!

Does the "Beduin sabres" display the majority of characteristics that define a Shashka?!
Would the term "Beduin Shashka" be clearer and less ambiguous than "Beduin sabres?"
If one thinks so, then one is free to call them "Beduin Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

Does the "Sardinian Leppas" display the majority of characteristics that define a Shashka?!
Would the term "Sardinian Shashkas" be clearer and less ambiguous than "Sardinian Leppas?"
Like I said before, if one thinks so, then one is free to call them "Sardinian Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

... one is free to call them "Beduin Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

...one is free to call them "Sardinian Shashkas" but run the risk of being missunderstood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwN0X8YnWo

:-)))