Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by TVV

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

Teodor,
Thank you for the reference! I do not have access to my books right now and the reference is very helpful.

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

I am very happy if I could help you with this question! Unfortunately, there is no evidence that shashkas in Central Asia appeared in the 17th century. I personally know the references in historical documents about the Bukhara shashkas only from the beginning of the 19th century ... Although, I suppose that they are known from the end of the 18th century.

If someone knows about the earlier mention of these weapons in Central Asia, it would be very interesting.

And more photos of the similar Bukhara shashka

[ariel]

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly. Allow me to offer my purely “IMHO” defense of this unfortunate term.
I am in the opinion that it is an important and valid part of any research into origins of weapons. Name was and is an integral part of any subject and object.

Not for nothing Albert in his book on Indonesian weapons provides multiple names of virtually identical swords manufactured on different islands or even by different tribes living next to each other. Elgood compiles voluminous glossaries of Indian weapons painstakingly noticing that for example South Indian Firangi was called Dhup in Deccan and Asa Shamshir further north.
Correctly naming an object completes its description. Misnaming confuses it.
Stone put a picture of various Parang Naburs from Borneo. Only when we ( at least I) realized that a peculiar one in the array was not a Parang Nabur from Borneo, but a Minasbad from Bicol, were we able to separate them.

We had long and fruitless discussions about peculiar Khopesh-like swords from somewhere ( Algiers? Sudan?), but elucidation of its correct name, Laz Bichaq, solved the conundrum once and for all: Laz people, islamized Georgians, Trabzon area.

We still have swords without their genuine names and often resort to artificial monikers just for the sake of labeling them somehow. Bukharan or Afghani “ pseudoshashkas” had names given to them by their owners, but those were lost to us. Mercenary found old Persian pictures of a battle between Persian and Afghani armies with multiple examples of carefully drawn guarded and guardless swords. What were those “ guardless” ones? Who did they belong to? How old were they? What was their history?

We have names without objects. Many Persian and Indo-Persian sources mention Kalatchurri. What was it? What can it tell us about the evolution of sabers in that region?

We often use names given not by the original creators, but by the more powerful occupiers. We call long straight Algerean swords Flissas, but a chancy finding in a forgotten book clearly states that this was a French moniker, whereas the natives called them Khedama ( whether this is true or not is another question).

Some prefer to call Central Asian guardless sabers “ shashka”, a name appropriated by the Russians from yet another part of the world and having nothing to do with Central Asian traditions. Let’s not forget that the Russians were awfully promiscuous with this name: they officially called their regulation dragoon D-guarded sabers “shashka” as well.

Ignorance is forgivable as long as it is openly admitted as such. But insistence on it despite facts is unprofessional and plainly stupid. The Earth is not flat and a continuous belief in elephants standing on a turtle tells us everything about a believer and nothing about astrophysics.

Understanding real names is important: it completes the circle in our description of an object and gives us novel ways of looking at its origins and history.

Perhaps, I am so insistent on it because of my profession, medicine. Without precise definition of a pathological condition expressed as its name, we are incapable of treating it correctly. Superficial enumeration of just symptoms and signs condemns us to lump totally different disease processes into an amorphous mass and dooms the patient. The old “dropsy” may be a manifestation of liver cirrhosis, nephrotic syndrome, valvular heart defect, chronic lung disease, obstruction by a malignant tumor, thrombosis of blood vessels, protein malnutrition etc, etc. Without a precise name we cannot communicate and cannot treat the underlying condition.

You of course remember Brothers Grimms’ tale about Rumpelstilskin: know my name and you become my master.

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

[ariel]

BTW, Alex, nice finding at a flea market. A complex mix of Bukharan and Afghani features with a hint of a potentially European influence. I would love to put it on my wall.

After a flea bath, of course:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly...........

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

To pour something from one empty vessel into anothe...

I wonder if someone from the forum participants thought about how many peoples with different languages ​​live in the Caucasus? It would be naive to believe that they all called the shashkas - "shashka". For example, the Lezgins called the shashka - "tour", and the Kumyks - "sheshke". But no one is embarrassed that any shashka that is made in the Caucasus is simply called "shashka."

And, by the way, the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashkas is well known. Yes, knowledge of the ethnic name of the weapon is certainly valuable information. But just like all the shashkas from the Caucasus are called "shashkas" (regardless of their ethnic names), all the shashkas of Central Asia can and should be called "Bukhara or Central Asia shashkas."

[mahratt]

Alex, do not pay attention to speculation. This is a great item from Central Asia with all the features typical of Central Asia.

Blades of this form were typical of the 15th century sabers from the Golden Orda

[Jim McDougall]

Alex, thank you for the supportive words in post #197, re: the importance of focusing on the origin, history and development of sword forms. This is primarily my goal and has been in the many years I have studied. While that has been most of my life, I admit the excitement of learning never ends, and despite the common friction in discussion there are worthy bits of information that bolster knowledge.

Ariel, very well spoken on the 'name game', and I would clarify my comments by retracting the term 'irrelevant' which was entirely misplaced. You are completely correct, the local terms and dialectic variants are most important in understanding these weapon forms. This is most salient in research involving resources which may be written in these linguistic contexts, as it is important to determine exactly which form might be described. For example, very early sources in India describe the katar (without illustration) but we cannot be certain if the transverse grip dagger is what is meant.


In the case of tulwar; shamshir; kilij and turning to the word 'shashka' as in this discussion...…..these are primarily terms for ' SWORD....not otherwise specified', a phrase well pointed out by Lee years ago, which remains one of the best descriptions I personally have seen for these terms.


This also brings me to a most relevant note...….the term 'shashka' is indeed used to describe the Russian dragoon swords with stirrup hilts of the 19th c. This is much in the manner of the term tulwar, used to describe the British cavalry sabres used by natine units during the British Raj.


I believe that while using these kinds of general terms is indeed well placed in discussions for convenience and avoiding misunderstanding in the discourse, it is good to crossreference the terms otherwise in the manner of references such as dictionaries etc.

Good analogies illustrating that in Von Zonnefeld's work and Elgood's notes on Indian weaponry, both excellent works with these kinds of cross references giving profound dimension to understanding these forms.


With that I would say that writers and observers would understandably use the terms for weapon forms as known in their own language. I would not praise nor discount the viability of a resource based on nationality of the writer(s), and of course realize that any such work is subject to revision or elucidation as required.

In these cases the objective should always be objective and impersonal perspective which enhances the dimension of understanding of the topic.


Again returning to our thread topic, the shashka (and associated guardless sabre forms) it would fascinating to determine just how early these forms became known in the regions and contexts in which they are familiarly associated. As far as I have seen, the latter 18th century seems most likely obviously with a developmental period in years before.


Regarding the blade of the Bukharan sabre discussed, good illustration by Mahratt of the earlier form of this blade from the 15th c. (as decribed) which reflects influence for this blade. Tradition and commemoration is of course prevalent in these cultures, so the blade probably is in that manner though produced later of course.

Great discussion!!