Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

ariel · 16th August 2016, 03:46 PM

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

16th August 2016, 03:46 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, it depends how you look at it. Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc" It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-) The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one. At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?