Shashka??? Or what ????

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex you call it what you want, other people will do the same.

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar (see for example lots 1, 2, 4-11 of Czerny's last auction; pay spacial attention to lots 7, 8 and 11).

www.czernys.com/auctions_view.php?asta=57

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

This is a perfect example of the same confusion. Even the one who wrote the description concedes this is a Persian blade, yet he identifies it EXCLUSIVELY by its hilt.

If this line of thougt is correct, then whatever sword bears a characteristic Indian disc-shaped pommel, is a Tulwar.

We are talking about kilij not tulwar. You and Alex can believe whatever you want, Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani is a well known author and authority on this subject, maybe you and Alex know something he does not?? This particular kilij is in Weapons of Warriors - Famous Antique Swords of the Near East.

[mariusgmioc]

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

While I respect Dr. Khroasani's oppinion, I disagree with him on this one!

You and Alex should stop embarassing yourselves, your opinions are not the only ones on this subject.

[mariusgmioc]

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Disagreeing and debating a subject is not embarasment but learning. And none of us, including Dr. Khorasani is the holder of the absolute truth.

Both you and Alex do not appear to want to learn anything, I am simply pointing out that there are differing opinions on this subject, who can prove which opinion in correct. Terms do change over time and the internet has a lot to do with this, search engines need tag words in order to bring up text and images. Many collectors and dealers have used certain tag words and these are now part of the way certain weapons are described online, other people choose another method. What a weapon is called in its native country and language often has nothing to do with what it is called by English speaking collectors and dealers.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword

With some swords that is usually the case, with others as I have pointed out that is not always the case, there are exceptions.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

I believe it is the blade that should primarily define the type of the sword, and my previous example with the Tulwar hilt on many different swords clearly illustrates and substantiates my line of thought.

Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Then following this line of thinking there is no such thing as an "Omani khanjar", as all double edged single curved dagger blades from the same region should be jambiya while the all double edged recurved dagger blades should be khanjar.

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

[Helleri]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names... pretty much like the Caucasian Kindjal and Qama...

And there I am inconsistent with... MYSELF.

Ouch!

Metalworks and ceramics were traded between India and states all long that coast down as far as Mombasa on the sea route of the silk road. But Oman and Yemen are smack dab next to each other...Usually the name of a knife often turns out to just be what a knife is called or some defining feature of the knife in the native tongue.

It's entirely possible that Yemeni Jambiya and Omani Khanjar are simply the same knife. But perhaps Yemen had the port worth visiting on the sea route of the silk road so they may have ended up adopting the Indian word for it?

It could also be a simple longstanding mis-classification. Someone labeling things for some museum or private collection could have simply got it wrong. And for lack of a better idea from successive peers it stuck and fell into how we reference things as a misnomer.

In any case I think it's safe to say that objectively, they are the same thing, and should both just be called Jambiya (Omani-Jambiya and Yemeni-Jambiya).

[ariel]

It is even simpler than that: Yemen on the Western border of the peninsula was purely Arabic and a purely Arab name was used: janb= thigh, side.
Oman on the Eastern border had significant Persian influence, and they used Persian name.

Scabbard rings notwithstanding:-)))

In this business rigidity does not help: Mughal Sossun Pata carried an Indian very much yataghan-like blade and tulwar handle. But I have a sword with a tulwar handle and a genuine Ottoman yataghan blade. Is it still Sossun Pata or not? :-)

Or: some old Tulwars had a cup-like pommel with a central baluster and a classical curved blade. They brought the entire pattern to Northern Sumatra and it stayed there . Only the locals manufacturing it call it Piso Podang. What should it be called now?

Or: Southern Indians combined basket handle with a straight European blade and called it Firangi. A tad North an identical sword utilizing locally-made straight blade was called Sukhela or Dhup in different areas. Are we talking about 3 different swords?

Or: Russians adopted Caucasian Shashka , a guardless saber, as their official military regulation weapon. Bit later on, they added a D-guard to it and continued to call it Shashka. Are we going to argue with the Russian Department of War?

Weapons travel, acquire different owners, mutate, add or subtract features, are called by different names etc. We are dealing with products of centuries-long processes. Rigidly sticking to a moniker or a description mentioned in one or another glossary impoverishes our understanding of history.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Exactly, as the Omani Khanjar is practically the same weapon as the Yemeni Jambia... with a local touch. So to me they are the same weapon with two names.

I agree with you on this and some other things you have said. I do not make up the names being used, I just make note of them, I wanted to point out that there is a significant group of people that do identify certain select bladed weapons by the hilt with kilij, pulwar and tulwar among these.

Whether you say a sword is a tulwar hilted shamshir or a tulwar with a shamshir blade it is still the same sword and most collectors will know what is being described either way. As far a tulwar hilts go, some blades are so radically different that have a completely seperate name, khanda, karach and sossun patah are examples.

[Helleri]

I lean towards Shashqa. Seems to fit the general form.
[Edit: Scrolled back and saw that where this was mentioned, it wasn't regarding a different specimen but that same sword up for auction at a different time and place...So the following digression is moot.]
I know it was mentioned that something typical to see would be the double fuller being enclosed (box like). I am not sure that it isn't. We can't fully see the area that would let us know about that as it is covered by the leather. but if you look closely. It looks to me at least like grooves of the fullers could connect there.

[ariel]

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

[Helleri]

Yeah I re-read that and edited accordingly. Misread it the firs time.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Helleri,
Please see my post #6: it is the same sword, and the leather does not obstruct the view. The "box" is there.

I agree: it is very much Shashka-like, but it is not Caucasian.
It is kind of "homage" to shashka, but with a few local twists.

I do not share Mariusgmioc's opinion in post #11 that it was not sold for a good reason.
IMHO, it is a tremendously interesting and authentic sword in its own right, and I would love to have it in my collection. Regretfully, too expensive for me right now.
My guess is that people were repulsed by its non-standard appearance, but it is a plus in my estimation. To each his own.

You might have realised by now that I have a rather rigid approach and I don't like it as it doesn't fit precisely into the archetypal Shashka cathegory. However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

However, I assume there might be collectors at exactly the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking rare and exotic examples.

Well noted, indeed there is a vast spectrum of collectors, scholars and enthusiasts who might focus on a particular form, field, or any number of specialized topics in arms. When I first began (many, many moons ago) I was determined to collect British cavalry swords, and each progressive pattern. Once that had been accomplished, it became variants, various makers of set patterns etc.
Eventually I discovered the greatest thrill and most intriguing were the anomalies, and the research and detective work of trying to determine their placement and history.

With these ethnographic weapons, the anomalies are by far the most exciting as discovering the clues and influences which led to their distinctive variation often leads us to fascinating insights in the history surrounding them.
While many are pleased with assembling certain forms, and following the set style and pattern of each......there are those adventurous sorts who venture far outside the box, and bring together the weapon itself and the history around it. I count myself in that group, but without the others in their subsequent groups, it is pretty much an insurmountable task as we all compliment each other in our respective approaches.

Iain, who notes his studies in the field of North African swords, emphasis on takouba, is most modest in the achievements he has made. He has accepted that rigid classification as with some forms is unrealistic, but has accomplished very workable methods of cataloguing the wide range of these weapons. Briggs (1965) made a valiant effort at classifying these swords regionally, however while a benchmark in degree, most of the typology has proven largely inaccurate.

It is amazing how the discussion of a weapon can bring about such interaction and philosophical perspective on the many facets of arms study, and well illustrates how important these studies really are.

[ariel]

Highly recommend to find topics by CharlesS: he made his life passion to collect unusual weapons, transitions from one well-defined pattern to another.
His examples are mind-blowing! It is like observing Darwinian evolution at high speed.

The stuff I learned from his examples, - about evolution of particular weapons as well as about general approach to the history of weapons, - taught me more about collecting than many books.

Our hobby is orders of magnitude more complex and exciting than even Stone's Glossary:-)

One definitely needs to know the basics, but it is the occasional unique examples that illuminate the field like a sudden lightning. The learning never stops.