Andreas,

Why do you think it was coined by foreigners?

You meant mistranscribed?

Quite possible. I'm not affirm. But in 1860, the term is used Russian author.

Ariel, I assumed that Mahratt was referring to the myth that Kangaroo is a term issuing from a misunderstanding, ie that when Cook and Banks asked the locals what is that hopping creature, they answered Kangaroo or “I don’t understand you”. This has since been disproved, Kangaroo is a legit local name for this marsupial. I was actually asking Mahratt if he thought that the term for the sword under discussion derives from a similar misunderstanding, as he seems to be suggesting, at least as a possibility.

Andreas,
The problem lies in the fact that the Circassian , Adyghe and Kabardian languages dictionaries have appeared after "shashka" was actively used, and Caucasians and Russian.

The fact that appeared a shashka in the Caucasus rather late (it can not be called a very old weapon). And there is a version what the "shashkas" appeared in the Caucasus after the campaign Nadir Shah in the mid-18th century. It - version. But this version is a good explanation of the existence of "shashkas" in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Afghan Shashkas:

"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! :) :)

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

From what I see, the Afghan ones seem to have a somehow longer pommel and broader tip.

I am glad that you agree that it is - shashkas. ;)

I show the most well-known examples:

Biryuza jewelry in a special technique is only found on the "Bukhara" shashkas. On the Afghan shashkas biryuza - not.

Even if there are shashkas of "Bukhara" with "bolster", it - indistinct (small), when compared with the Afghan shashkas.

"Bukhara" shashka:

Marius,

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.

But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them.
Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally.

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers . This is why they are pseudo-shashkas. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

Parangs, some Indian examples , daabs - no many signs of shashka. This it has already been mentioned by other participants of the forum. Why do all the time to talk about them? You have no serious arguments? :)

Please place photo Bedouin "shashka" and "Bukhara" shashka. It will be interesting. And remember that you wrote about "Bedouin shashkas" above.

On what basis? Because you so want?

You can prove it? You say general words (without proof).

Perhaps you do not know, but with 1870's "Bukhara" shashka described in Russian historical sources, namely, as a "shashka" ;)

They did not know that Ariel does not think so;)

I had no doubt that the Ariel say about it. He's so predictable. :)

That is why I wrote in the post number 50, "well-known examples" ;)

Quantity rivets is not so important. Significantly: form handle, "bolster" size, inlaid with turquoise or not and other.

Thank you Ariel and Mahratt for the quite entertaining and educating discussion. It seems your points of view are somehow irreconciliable (I hope I spelled it right :p ). But then it would be quite boring if we all agree on everything.

I also find it dificult to decide what argumets carry more weight. I fully agree that the Katana is a traditional Japanese sword (and I have a few), but does this mean that the series produced "Made in China" ones are not Katanas as well?! Well, while they definitely don't belong to Nihonto, they are still called Katana. :shrug:

Does anybody know how these swords are called in Afghanistan and Bukhara?

I guess it would be best to call them by the local name.

Unfortunately, even the locals do not know, as in Afghanistan, and Bukhara called these shashkas. I found in Russian ethnographic work the traditional name for "Bukhara" shashka. But now, in Central Asia, no one calls this name Bukhara shashka.

Moreover, seeing the sword in the photo, all say that it is - "Shamshir". Do you agree? In Central Asia 100-150 years ago this sword called "Kilidg" (Kilic). But we'll call this the sword - "Shamshir".

The solution to this conundrum is simple: Uzbeki belongs to the Turcik group of languages. Thus, sword is kilij, or ( locally) Klych, and knife is P'chak.
Tajiks are ethnic Persians. For them, sword is shamshir, and knife is kord.

There is no mystery. I have talked about is that now we all call this sabre - "Shamshir". It does not matter, as he was called Uzbek. Also with shashkas, which we are discussing.

Actually I find this tedious and personal interaction between Ariel and Mahratt far less than entertaining......actually extremely disappointing, as it cobbles the entire meter of this discussion. Both of them are in my opinion brilliant scholars on these arms, and far above these kinds of personal jabs and bickering which they have constantly engaged in on just about every thread in which they are both present.

Having said that, despite their antics, the information that is filtered in within the sarcasm and snide remarks is indeed of course useful.
Absolutely we do not need to agree on things, but we must remember, it is not just about us and our personal egos or vanity, it is about trying to learn and those others out there looking to us to also gain knowledge.

Getting to topic, the local or regional terms for these swords are as far as I know, unrecorded in western parlance . As Ariel has well noted, it seems reasonable to presume that terms for sword and knife would be used in accord with the dialect of whatever regional tribe or ethnic group was discussing or describing them.

It is the western need to classify and categorize which has bred the lists of transliterated and semantically incongruent 'collectors terms' which have been so desperately and inconclusively debated ad nauseum for generations. The one purpose these terms has served has been to offer common ground in description of forms for viable discussion in a general semantics sense.

For me, it is best to cross reference and descriptively qualify a weapon so that the variations and possible alternate options can be recorded for further research and categorization .

I am going to try to summarize what I think has been said here in this, at times, unruly thread. As Jim noted, among the noise and disagreement there seems to be some common ground--or at least some points of substance that we can address, perhaps freeing us from some of the deeply entrenched positions that several have staked out.

I am seeing consensus that the broad typology of the shashka is in the class of swords we loosely call "sabers," which are primarily single-edged, fairly narrow blades (width should be specified) that may be straight or curved (but not recurved), and within that broad group the shashka belongs to those that have a guardless hilt (along with other notable swords such as certain katana, dha, parang, etc.). All of these weapons share the common function of being primarily slashing or cutting swords. [So far, so good--I hope.]

The next point of agreement seems to be the Circassian origin of these swords in the early 19th C. The Circassian shashka I have termed Type I (and here we need to define the essential characteristics of the Type I shashka).

Through diffusion within the Caucuses and eventually into Russia, the Circassian shashka becomes known as the Caucasian shashka and the Russian/Cossack shashka. These I have labeled Type Ia. So far I have not heard how these shashka differ from Type I, and perhaps they don't, but this point needs to be clarified.

The Russian version of Type Ia seems to have influenced neighboring areas resulting in them producing their own versions of the shashka. These I have termed "Shashka Variants" and they include examples from Afghanistan, from the Usbeks, Tajiks, etc. That these variations share much in common with the basic shashka model (Types I, Ia) is apparent from the pictures shown here and elsewhere on this web site. However, there are differences in decoration and minor stuctural changes that separate some of these from Type I, Ia shashka, and these differences are sufficient to label then Type Ib. I have not given the variants a Type II designation because the basic structure and function of the swords remain essentially true to the fundamental design of the shashka.

All of this is summed up in the accompanying chart. This is just how I have interpreted the data presented here. I want to say that I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't favor one person's ideas over another's. This is simply where you comments have led me.

I know that passionate opinions are held by many of you. Please keep things on track and refrain from personal comments that might inflame those passions.

Ian.

Excellent summary!

I would remove the Katana from the list of guardless sabres, as they, in their majority, have a guard (tsuba). I used it as an extreme example for the dramatic effect
:o

And I was wondering whether the Caucasian ones didn't have more varieties. Like Georgian vs. Daghestani or Cossak?! But would be Cossak considered Caucasian or Russian?! :shrug:

Thanks marius. You are right. Most katana do have a small tsuba and I will make that change to avoid confusion.

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

Of course, if you talk about the shashka, the tree should start with the shashka.
I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.
Plus why the Russian is not under the Caucasian??

Albeit I sometimes feel like a dinosaur... :p :D

What defines a Shashka; It is a sabre, unique to the Caucasian regions, and as far south and to include Turkey, and later adopted in to Russia.

What is a sabre; A curved, single handed, single edged sword, historically derived from and used from horseback. Not hand and a half, not two handed or longer, a grip for single handed use. Note, not all Shashka have their hilt engulfed by the scabbard throat either.

Qualities of a Shashka; I do not have my notes to reference, so I do not know who first wrote about the qualities of the Shashka, but, the most desirable Shashka, should be feather light, vine supple and razor sharp...very few swords anywhere in the world have all of these qualities.

I do not believe there are any sub-types of Shashka, only different cultural appearances throughout the regions of the Caucasus mountains and northern Turkey.
Russian adopted arms and terms of military regulation type, of the form or later types, should fall within modern Military cold arms, not Ethnographic arms.
Swords in discussion beyond the Caucasus Mountains and Northern Turkey should not be classified as Shashka.

To quote Mahratt's categories;

1) Caucasian shashka
2) Afghan shashka
3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka)
4) Russian shashka (Cossack)

I do not believe #s 2 & 3 exist as Shashka, nor a sub classification, but sabres in their own right. Type 4 I have noted in my opening text.

Type 2 exists with some common features and sits sheathed in a similar manner , but do not share Shashka "qualities" or linage. Perhaps visually inspired from a Caucasian Shashka but, but certainly not developed from and there really is not any development, more regression than anything when compared to a Shashka.
Personally, I feel these are only sabres, unique to their specific regions. These sabre all carry bolsters like their knives and Salawar, and have little to no grace in the hand.

Type 3. My Bukhara sabre, now so often seen in these pages, is not in my opinion, a sub class of the Shashka. The blade is not very supple but is sharp, it is somewhat light but not as balanced as a Shashka. It is single handed but not of a Shashka style grip despite it having small ears... It is more akin to the Pesh Kabz. It wears a grip strap like a Turkish sword or Pesh Kabz, has grip slabs like a Pesh Kabz or North Indian Karud (check the detail), is much thicker in cross section than a true Shashka hilt too. Also, the tang protrudes through the grip strap and is riveted in 5 places, not the traditional 2 places seen on Shashka.

Mahratt makes an observation about the hilt style being unique, and in a way it is but there are other non related arms such as the Sinai Bedouin sabre that is often mistaken as a Shashka in profile, and no doubt other forms that do not come straight to mind.

Dah should also be removed from this discussion, they are so far off the Shashka trails.

Gavin

I could not agree more.
Lumping Caucasian shashka with a Bukharan ( Uzbek) saber is irrational: there are far too many differences, and there are no potential common ancestors or influence points.
Afghani saber was dubbed " pseudoshashka" not for nothing: it adopted several features of the Caucasian model through ( most likely) Russian Cossacks sent to Central Asia after the conquest of the Khanates. Thus it is a "shashka" only in its 6th degree of separation:-)

Katana, Daab and Parang were mentioned by me tongue in cheek, just to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that just being a guardless saber qualifies any weapon as shashka.

In the evening I shall try to post a detailed comparison chart.

Just for general information:
From top to bottom: Sardinian Leppas, Saber of Croatian Kraisniks, Beduin saber.

They have nothing in common with each other and all look like long-lost twins of the Bukharan " pseudoshashka'

This is just a classic case of parallel development, whereby unsophisticated village knifemakers fashioned simple ergonomic handles with primitive pommels and handstops.

Comparison of features: Cauc. Bukh. Afgh. Mil. Khyber


Blade:
Wide at the root, narrows toward
the tip NO YES NO YES
Scabbard:
Suspended edge up YES NO YES NO
Tucked under the belt NO YES NO YES
Handle:
Eared YES NO YES NO
# of rivets 2-3 4-5 3 3-5
Bolster NO Variable YES YES
Grip strap NO YES Variable YES
Small, rounded pommel YES +/-none Large +/- none




From there I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.


If anybody wants to offer modifications, you are more than welcome.

Just I am not sure about the weight: the proverb about shashka being light, fast etc ( see Gavin's entry) referred to the earliest examples carried by Circassians. We know very, very few true Circassian samples, the majority of the 19th century examples are from Daghestan, Chechnya and Georgia proper ( Tiflis) Those were not as massive as Afghani military "pseudoshashkas", but still had quite a mass to them. Many used European cavalry blades


PS, I can't seem to format the table properly. Anybody can help?

It is a couple of days since Ariel posted his typology of shashka and his conclusion that the Caucasian shashka and Afghan military variant shared many features in common, while the Bukhara guardless saber shares many common features with the Khyber variant. There has been no response to his classification, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees but I'm not hearing any major dissent either.

Ariel's analysis shows two distinct "patterns" and has been very well documented in his table that I have redrawn below with some regrouping to list a "Type A" and "Type B" of the swords that are variously called shashkas or shashka variants.

This is exactly the sort of typological classification I was hoping this thread would arrive at.

Ian.

Well done Ian, it greatly helps Ariel's post visually...buy I feel, there is no distinct accuracy within these forms discussed, only general rules of thumb, the chart cannot be considered accurate or ever large enough to cover all variants of these weapons.

Some points for now;

Ear will need to be defined as there are varying degree of ears as there 2 distinctly different Bukhara sabre styles, those with no ears and those with Yataghan like ears. Number of rivets can run from none to 5.
There are Caucasian Shashka with no rivets too.

I do not consider Afghan Sabres to have large pommels vs Caucasian sabres, they have long pommel though and note that these hilts are largely cylindrical not oval as a Caucasian Shashka typically is.

Buhkaran sabres are hung in many fashions, including blade up and not always under a belt.

Khyber are not always tucked under a belt, many have suspension and are blade up in either suspension.

Gavin

Gavin,
Thanks for providing individual details.
I looked at the most frequent features, seen on > 90% of all of the above varieties. Of course, there always going to be exceptions.


I am unaware of Bukharan sabers with yataghan ears.

I do maintain that Afghani pommels are significantly bigger than the Caucasian ones, but this is immaterial: both of them are much bigger than the Bukharan and khybers that are merely minor widenings over the grip.

Yes, there are Caucasian shashkas ( older ones) with no rivets, but their handles were made of a single piece of walrus ivory, i.e. totally different technique , abandoned by the middle of 19 century. Cossack and Russian military shashkas that (IMHO!) gave inspiration to the end of 19 century Afghani ones all had 2 "slabs" and consequently had rivets.

The location of suspension rings on the Caucasian and the Afghani scabbards is very specific and identical: the upper one on the back surface, and the lower one on the top. Khybers were always worn under the belt, unless we want to go back to the discredited idea of calling Afghani short sabers with D-guard and European blades " regulation khybers":-)))

The number of rivets and their size on the Bukharan handles dependent largely on the material of the handle: wood ( most frequent) and horn ( second most frequent) were sturdy and could tolerate 5 large ones . Fragile materials ( ivory) usually had 3 or maximum 4 thin rivets. I do not know about highly decorated ones, but suspect the number of rivets did not exceed 3 for fear of spoiling the effect of embellishment.

Ian,
Many thanks for re-arranging the table.

Ariel, you're welcome and thank you again for presenting these broad descriptions of two types of shashka/shashka variants. This should help our readers who are less familiar with these swords.

Gavin, thank you too for your clarifications of some of the complexities in trying to arrive at a general typology for these swords.

Ariel, are you categorizing the Afghan shashka with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (along with the Russian shashka) or do you categorize it along with the Bukhara etc shashka as non-Caucasian / Circassian shashka type swords. I know you have been studying the different but similar variations for a long time and I would like to get your opinion or are you still trying to decide exactly how to categorize them.

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

I think that Bukharan saber has nothing to do genetically with the Caucasian/ Cossack examples. What unites them is just a superficial similarity, a consequence of parallel development. I would tentatively suggest that the Bukharan example and the Khyber ( as well as Khyber-like Turkmen and Uzbek bladed weapons) all stem from the same proto-group.

On the other hand, the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

Ariel,

Firstly, I'd like to clarify my Yataghan reference in relation to Bukhara sabres of the form discussed. It is not any grip slab shape that I refer to but the distance and subtitles of how far the ears protrude beyond the grip straps on known Bukhara examples when so many are simply flush. The Bukhara typology can be drilled down in various degrees.

Central Asia, Caucasian mountains and China have all had a long long long history of guardless sabres and swords, there is nothing new here as history has taught us, and I do not ever recall ever hearing these ancient sword types referred to as Shashka. So with reference to history, and the centuries past, I wholeheartedly agree that the Bukahara sabres do not belong even as a subgroup of a relatively modern term "Shashka".

These long straight knife types from Bukhara, and shallow curved sabres, are far more Turkish Yataghan and Persian Shamshir in regards manufacture of the hilt, (not appearance) ... With reference to blades, but of course disregarding Kopis types, but with consideration to those known with straight blades, a Turkish connection through Persia is far more probable that any Shashka. Also consider that Bukhara is Persian and the pointers along the silk road routes. How a shallow curved blade also ended up in these hilt styles is easy to see when next to their small utility knives which has been touched on.

For consideration to Afghanistan sabres in question, A quick look will also see many of these straight bladed Yataghans, have but a long bolster and similar rivet structure seen on the Aghan "pseudo Shashka". These same Yataghan also carry the same "ear" types as these sabres too.
Note also, there are Khyber knives with pommel forms also seen on some Yataghan...just to muddy the waters some more :) ... And to simply ask, where do these clear visual and construction aspects of Turkish Yataghan leave leave the idea of trying to classify anything other than a Shashka from the Caucasian Mountains, as it as known, as being the only Shashka...it is a unique sabre unto itself in many ways.

Gavin

Gavin,
I am glad we agree on the lack of relation between the Bukharan and the Caucasian examples and on the uniqueness of Shashka as a separate, Sui Generis, type of guardless sabers.

We have neither physical nor iconographic examples of Caucasian shashkas older than late 18th- early 19 century. Nobody knows whether this is due to their late appearance, to the multiple reuses or just losses of the old examples or simply to the lack of "iconographers". I discount here the so-called "parsunas" ( bastardized " person" ), rather primitive portraits of Cossack atamans of late 18 century, wearing fully-developed shashkas with typical Circassian pommel decorations simply because they were painted posthumously.

But let me offer a somewhat heretical idea: Caucasian shashka owes its genesis to Ottoman yataghans. Crimea was an outcropping of the Ottoman Empire, had documented yataghans early on and was supplying a lot of weapons to Circassians. In turn, Circassia, a vassal of the Crimean Khanate, was a secondary vassal of the Ottomans. Also, Georgian kingdoms were in an on-and-off state of war with Turkey and were often controlled by it . One can easily imagine that they could have adopted the eared handle ( simplifying it to the hilt, pun intended) and marrying it to their familiar saber blade, creating a cheap, simple and much more functional weapon. The adoption of such a "hybrid" might have been facilitated by the already present Western Georgian sabers without a guard ( see works of Vakhtang Kiziria)

As to the "eared" pommels of Afghani pseudoshashkas, they are just a narrow cleft ( very Caucasian) rather than widely spread Ottoman. And their suspension system is purely Caucasian/Cossack, not a "tucked-under-the-belt" Ottoman. Moreover, their appearance tightly follows Russian occupation of Central Asian Khanates and stationing of Cossack cavalry there. The Ottomans had only limited if any influence in Central Asia at that time.

At the end of the day, we can only hope that this issue will be specifically addressed by the Caucasian historians and ethnographers, and there are brilliant people there! Not much hope for the Afghani contribution, though....

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.