Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[mahratt]

I think no one doubts that the "Bukhara" shashka developed independently, regardless of the Caucasus.

Russian (Cossack) shashka is derived from the Caucasian shashkas (or vice versa). There are serious studies (they have not yet completed) and we do not know who came before. But it is not important. It is important that they have their own identity (in the decor, for example)

Afghan shashka is not a copy of the Russian shashkas. If someone borrows something - then items will be very similar. For example, the installation of the handle of the Caucasian and Russian shashkas - the same. Afghan shashka - individual. So we can not say that it copies a Russian shashka.

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

yes i agree and some kattara too up to West African mandingo swords...
Should have chronological and geographical frames

[mariusgmioc]

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan and Bukahara Shashkas?!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan Shashkas?!

Afghan Shashkas:

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Can somebody please post some photos of Bukahara Shashkas?!

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

Thank you very much for the photos!

As I am just a novice in the field, I didn't even know these varieties existed!

And they look quite Shashkas to me! Whether they culturally belong to the Caucasian family or not, I believe they qualify for being called Shashkas.

Even if they appeared relatively recently as immitations of the Russian army issued Shashkas, I believe they still need consideration. After all that's how many other weapons appeared, by first copying, then adapting a weapon from a neighbouring nation, from a conquering or even from a conquered army.

Very interesting thread!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mahratt

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Should have chronological and geographical frames

Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)

[kronckew]

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

[Kiziria]

Originally Posted by kronckew

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

Allow me slight correction. Instead of Russia, should be - Russian Federation. Word Russia invites geographical and cultural error. Part of Caucasus presently governed within Russian Federation, culturally belong to Caucasian cultural oikumene (ekumene). Particulary Circassian, Vainakh, Avar, Kumik cultural worlds among others. When discussing ethnographic arms of Caucasus it is imperative to make this kind of distinction. In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)

You inconsiderate. In the description of shashkas said that the shashka - a kind of saber.

Now compare Russian (army), Caucasus and Afghan shashkas.

Someone sees a copy?

[ariel]

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.

Originally Posted by ariel

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

g.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.

There is a difference between "thinking big" and "thinking mile wide and inch deep."

I try to do my best not to belong to the latter group.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.



Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

Jim, that's what I call - overdo to the point of absurdity.

Indeed it is but good to have some levity, these intense 'discussions' can sometimes be trying. The point is well taken though, sometimes the fact of a sabre without a guard as a key factor does not qualify it immediately as being a 'shashka'.
So then, do we turn to the notable cleft in the pommel?
As seen with the Turkish sabre with yataghan hilt, the blade is clearly a sabre, not recurved or deep bellied as with the true yataghan blade form.
The hilt does not have the same cleft character, it is more eared. But we see the point made.

It is interesting to see the number of other guardless sabres in the world, and of course obviously NOT in the shashka realm.

It seems clearly that we are off to a good start, and everyone thinking quite largely!!! as would be expected here.

I think personally that one of the biggest obstacles in weapons classification is the incessant need to categorize into arbitrary groupings, without some sort of accurate qualification. As we have seen, the term 'psuedo' fails as a prefix, where in the case of Afghan or Uzbek sabres, the term(s) of Caucasian shashka form might serve better.

Since these were in proximity or somewhat in the geographical context of areas of Caucasian influence, then that description seems reasonable.
It is well established that the Russian and via them, Caucasian influences might have filtered into these regions with their presence there.

In the cases of other guardless sabres such as katanas et al, obviously in far reaching areas without notable contact with indigenous areas or ethnicities of the shashka, that term or dominator clearly fails.
In many cases though, other prefixes noting similarities or key features similar to other swords in their proximities, such as the dhas of SE Asia, Chinese dao and others might work as required.

[Jim McDougall]

Yikes! Just saw al these other posts which came up while I was beating the heck out of my keyboard!!!
This is gonna be a wild ride, but fascinating
You guys are amazing, and it is exciting to see this much scope and knowledge come together in such dynamics.

[mahratt]

Jim, I think, we can speak of a "groupings" when we have a lot of examples. Individual "the only ones"that emerge in different countries are the exception that proves the rule.

[Ian]

Gentlemen, please take a time out and read the instructions again. Any reference to sub-types and decorative features is pointless unless you can define a shashka, regardless of geographic origins.

As many of you rightly point out, there are swords from all over the world that fall into the category of curved sabers without a guard--it would define the vast majority of dha/daab/daav for example. This is a commonly encountered weapon in many different cultures. So please bring some light into what defines the shashka. Mahratt provided several prior attempts by other authors in his very first reply to this question. Do one of these capture the essence of this definition? If not, why not?

[ariel]

Ian,
One cannot define a shashka outside of its geographic and ethnic origin. It is originally a Circassian weapon that spread into Daghestan, Chechnia and partly into Transcaucasia.
It went to the Ottoman Empire with Circassian exiles, muhadjirs, and there are well documented examples manufactured there.
Other than those two areas there were no examples of a true Caucasian pattern in other cultures, societies etc.

Attempts are made to ascribe the so-called Beduin sabre ( Negev, Sinai) to simplified version of Caucasian shashkas brought to the area my the above muhadjirs. The problem with it resides with the existence of almost exact copies of the "Beduin" examples among Croatian Kraisniks, votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage.

At the end of 19th century Russian government established a Cossack Brigade in Iran under the tutelage of Russian officers. The Iranian recruits were armed with Russian military sabers 1881 pattern and we still see "Russian Military Shashkas" with Persian numbering on e-bay. Those have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian tradition.

In the 19th century Russians occupied Central Asian Khanates and had close ties with the Afghani military ( see. P. Hopkirk " The Great Game"). That , most likely, was reflected in military Afghani pseudoshashkas , that combined both local ( eg integral bolster etc) and Cossack elements inherited by them from their Caucasian foes ( suspension system, forked pommel, - both " Caucasian" but not quite).

The other Central Asian guardless sabers ( including Bukharan) were not military, but truly indigenous weapons, and as such were not modified according to foreign influences. Khanates had no regular armies and consequently no regulation weapons. Individual masters followed old traditions and had no incentive or reason to copy weapons of the occupier.


We recently encountered yet another fascinating pattern: "Indian pseudoshashka" with tunkou and D-guard but no quillons. I do not know where to place it. I may only cautiously suspect that it also has derivative features of a Khyber, but may be very wrong.


Thus, if we want to discuss Shashkas, we are obligated to limit ourselves to the Caucasian examples and their locally-produced ethnic copies ( Ottoman Muhadjirs).

We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".

The rest of guardless sabers, from Ottoman yataghans to Bukharan sabers, Khybers, Parangs etc have nothing to do with Caucasian tradition and the term shashka should not be allowed to touch them:-)

There cannot be such thing as French Katana, Japanese Jambia , Congolese Sgian Dubh or Vietnamese Kattara.

Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Afghan shashka is not a copy of the Russian shashkas. If someone borrows something - then items will be very similar. For example, the installation of the handle of the Caucasian and Russian shashkas - the same. Afghan shashka - individual. So we can not say that it copies a Russian shashka.

OK, it is not a copy of the Caucasian Shashka, but wasn't inspired by it?!

Or did it appear absolutely independent from the Caucasian Shashka?!

How do Afghan people call it?!

[kronckew]

ariel, your submissions do NOT have the "wedge-shaped cutout on top of the pommel - forked head"*. turkish ones propbably count as turkey once ruled over parts of the caucasian areas.

*-as in my pommel:

[AJ1356]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

OK, it is not a copy of the Caucasian Shashka, but wasn't inspired by it?!

Or did it appear absolutely independent from the Caucasian Shashka?!

How do Afghan people call it?!

I just started reading this post and have not read completely through yet. But, to answer your question, the current people of Afghanistan would refer to it as shamshir (shamshir meaning sword) now I am not sure about people in the north. However, in the home I was raised in there was a shashka and my grandmother, whose parents were from Samarqand would call it a shashqa. I remember it had an all steel hilt with no gaurd and was said to have been brought down from Samarqand when they migrated to Afghanistan.

[mahratt]

Visual comparison: