Shashka??? Or what ????

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

31st March 2016, 11:30 AM	#1
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	#4
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!