Shashka??? Or what ????

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

about every knowledgeable collector i know, and all decent books I read.
They all could be wrong, of course. Please substantiate your argument.

By the way, in Oriental Arms sample above, it states "shamshir blade in Turkish fittings". The Kilij/Shamshir title may refer to "Kilij" as a word for sword in Turkish language, as in other similar descriptions. but I have not seen anything saying any blade with pistol grip is a Kilij.

http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s1072_full.html

[ALEX]

Good, this is a Turkish\Ottoman shamshir that someone called Kilij. Do you have more reliable references, not on-line ads?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Good, this is a Turkish\Ottoman shamshir that someone called Kilij. Do you have more reliable references, not on-line ads?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

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

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, I am not calling anything because of what I want, please do not make such calls for others. on this note, I rest my case.

Alex, you are very knowledgable and I respect your opinion but sometimes you need to be more objective. As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

As with "saif" there are people who have a different opinion on the term "kilij", there are certain reasons that this has come about.

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.

[ariel]

The "blade vs. handle" question is a very old one. Not only individual opinions, but the entire schools of thought and countries took sides in this argument.


Polish school is perhaps the most famous one to put the handle on the pedestal:not only does it reflect the national character ( blades are often imported, taken as trophies etc, but they are mounted locally and the handles follow tribal and national fashion) , but in their opinion dictates the entire technique of sword-wielding. Tough to argue with that :-)

One can recall Yemeni jambias with identical blades but strictly local handles, and the amusing story by Gardner about changing attributions of krises ( same blade combined with different handles). Saudi, North Arabian and Persian "shamshirs" differ from each other by the angle of the pommel and ( less so) by the wire around the langet. Karabela is defined as such only when it sports an eagle-head handle. Yataghans can sport identical trade blades , but ethically-specific handles. And I am not even getting into a slew of Indonesian swords with similar blades but different handles.



On the other hand, Oakeshott's typology is based exclusively on the blade.

And Pesh Kabz differs from "Karud" mainly by the curvature of the blade, whereas "choora" differs from "karud" strictly by the handle.




I do not think we shall ever reach a compromise here :-)))

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.

Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!

Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!

For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.

And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.

In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.

Your statement does however seem perplexing as I am wondering how the dilemma of 'absolute truth' can be arrived at in discussing an entirely subjective phenomenon which is inherently varied through so many variables and circumstances.

I am in accord with your observation, 'discussing' does provide opportunities for learning , but would add as long as the participants are willing to keep open minds in evaluating exchanged data and views. Often only elements of one presentation might present acceptable alternative, while others might be more comprehensive with proper support. When dealing with opinions it becomes far more difficult, especially when regard for others engaged is less than pertinent.

I would offer here the words of Mr. Philip Rawson, who you might find as of standing as an acceptable authority,

"...with regard to the names here adopted for the different types of sword it must be said at once that they are to a large extent ARBITRARY. There prevails amongst ALL the authorities such an extraordinary confusion of nomenclature that I have been obliged to adopt a system based on a rough statistical estimate of the frequency of recorded applications. Some of the names could be said to mean 'sword' in general, if regard were paid to their every occurrence."

Here Rawson further notes that due to the fact that hilts are "...classified on basis of local distribution", therefore he uses the blades primarily in his classification.
"The Indian Sword", Philip Rawson, Copenhagen, 1967, p.vi. intro.

G,N. Pant in his "Indian Arms and Armour", Lahore, 1980, differs entirely with Rawson and notes numerous conflicts in terms etc. most notably using hilts to determine his classifications and terminology .

So it is throughout the corpus of literature on Indian arms as well as with similar confusion (as well noted by Rawson, op.cit) on many if not most ethnographic forms. Some weapons have many terms applied. I recall working on Indonesian weapon terminology, and was told by a well known author that in many cases the 'name of a weapon varied almost by villages.

In my post (#13), I noted the key words, 'it depends'....... and it seems that most authorities and seasoned collectors and scholars would agree, to the point of consensus, that this is the case with terminology.....there are no 'rules' which may be considered definitive.
Perhaps while holding to your own definitions, you might recognize that this dilemma is something most of us who have been studying these subjects many years well realize, and use qualifying measures rather than restrictive to refer to items in question.