Shashka??? Or what ????

estcrh · 31st March 2016, 03:58 AM

Quote:

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 · 31st March 2016, 09:38 AM

Quote:

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 · 31st March 2016, 10:42 AM

Quote:

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 · 31st March 2016, 11:30 AM

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.

mariusgmioc · 31st March 2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Are we going to argue with the Russian Department of War?

God forbid NO, we are definitely not going to argue with the Russian Department of War!

And your examples... wow... what a mess with the names!

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

Jim McDougall · 31st March 2016, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

God forbid NO, we are definitely not going to argue with the Russian Department of War!

And your examples... wow... what a mess with the names!

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

Outstanding Mariusmioc!! I think we have all gotten the picture in this ongoing conundrum. It has never been easy to accept these frustrating aspects of studying these weapons, but your willingness to join in compromise in dealing with these terminology issues is exemplary.

Excellent observations by everyone on this sword, and for me I remain with Ariel in that this is a soundly produced weapon in tribute toward the shashka.

Iain · 31st March 2016, 06:36 PM

There was a time I attempted a classification study on takouba. Didn't take long to find the folly in it. Trying to classify swords that cross linguistic and ethnic boundaries, not to mention use imported blades and are exported across ethnic lines means you can find 3 different words for every style, blade type etc. Over the years I've found my interest in labels less and less. Really they tell you very little for the most part and are quite often nonsensical. Case in point calling swords from the Arab speaking parts of Sudan kaskara.

I understand the want to classify and neatly categorize with specific names, but either I've gotten lazy with time or just come to realize it's not a particularly useful exercise in the long run.

An Oakeshott style typology I find tends to be just as useful with no bickering about local terminology an a description of physical characteristics that are generally agreed.

Or maybe I'm just a burnt out cynic after to many years reading through colonial era African language dictionaries and not finding what I wanted!

ariel · 31st March 2016, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

The good part is that I may have gotten the picture... I guess...

Glad to be of help!

Best wishes,
Ariel

estcrh · 31st March 2016, 11:09 PM

Quote:

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.

31st March 2016, 11:30 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

31st March 2016, 06:36 PM	#7
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,708	There was a time I attempted a classification study on takouba. Didn't take long to find the folly in it. Trying to classify swords that cross linguistic and ethnic boundaries, not to mention use imported blades and are exported across ethnic lines means you can find 3 different words for every style, blade type etc. Over the years I've found my interest in labels less and less. Really they tell you very little for the most part and are quite often nonsensical. Case in point calling swords from the Arab speaking parts of Sudan kaskara. I understand the want to classify and neatly categorize with specific names, but either I've gotten lazy with time or just come to realize it's not a particularly useful exercise in the long run. An Oakeshott style typology I find tends to be just as useful with no bickering about local terminology an a description of physical characteristics that are generally agreed. Or maybe I'm just a burnt out cynic after to many years reading through colonial era African language dictionaries and not finding what I wanted!