|
|
|
8th August 2016, 05:09 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
Quote:
Indeed it is  but good to have some levity, these intense 'discussions' can sometimes be trying. The point is well taken though, sometimes the fact of a sabre without a guard as a key factor does not qualify it immediately as being a 'shashka'.So then, do we turn to the notable cleft in the pommel? As seen with the Turkish sabre with yataghan hilt, the blade is clearly a sabre, not recurved or deep bellied as with the true yataghan blade form. The hilt does not have the same cleft character, it is more eared. But we see the point made. It is interesting to see the number of other guardless sabres in the world, and of course obviously NOT in the shashka realm. It seems clearly that we are off to a good start, and everyone thinking quite largely!!! as would be expected here. I think personally that one of the biggest obstacles in weapons classification is the incessant need to categorize into arbitrary groupings, without some sort of accurate qualification. As we have seen, the term 'psuedo' fails as a prefix, where in the case of Afghan or Uzbek sabres, the term(s) of Caucasian shashka form might serve better. Since these were in proximity or somewhat in the geographical context of areas of Caucasian influence, then that description seems reasonable. It is well established that the Russian and via them, Caucasian influences might have filtered into these regions with their presence there. In the cases of other guardless sabres such as katanas et al, obviously in far reaching areas without notable contact with indigenous areas or ethnicities of the shashka, that term or dominator clearly fails. In many cases though, other prefixes noting similarities or key features similar to other swords in their proximities, such as the dhas of SE Asia, Chinese dao and others might work as required. |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 05:13 PM
|
#2 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
Yikes! Just saw al these other posts which came up while I was beating the heck out of my keyboard!!!
This is gonna be a wild ride, but fascinating You guys are amazing, and it is exciting to see this much scope and knowledge come together in such dynamics. |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 05:16 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
Jim, I think, we can speak of a "groupings" when we have a lot of examples. Individual "the only ones"that emerge in different countries are the exception that proves the rule.
|
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 05:23 PM
|
#4 |
|
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,361
|
Gentlemen, please take a time out and read the instructions again. Any reference to sub-types and decorative features is pointless unless you can define a shashka, regardless of geographic origins.
As many of you rightly point out, there are swords from all over the world that fall into the category of curved sabers without a guard--it would define the vast majority of dha/daab/daav for example. This is a commonly encountered weapon in many different cultures. So please bring some light into what defines the shashka. Mahratt provided several prior attempts by other authors in his very first reply to this question. Do one of these capture the essence of this definition? If not, why not? |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 06:55 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Ian,
One cannot define a shashka outside of its geographic and ethnic origin. It is originally a Circassian weapon that spread into Daghestan, Chechnia and partly into Transcaucasia. It went to the Ottoman Empire with Circassian exiles, muhadjirs, and there are well documented examples manufactured there. Other than those two areas there were no examples of a true Caucasian pattern in other cultures, societies etc. Attempts are made to ascribe the so-called Beduin sabre ( Negev, Sinai) to simplified version of Caucasian shashkas brought to the area my the above muhadjirs. The problem with it resides with the existence of almost exact copies of the "Beduin" examples among Croatian Kraisniks, votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage. At the end of 19th century Russian government established a Cossack Brigade in Iran under the tutelage of Russian officers. The Iranian recruits were armed with Russian military sabers 1881 pattern and we still see "Russian Military Shashkas" with Persian numbering on e-bay. Those have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian tradition. In the 19th century Russians occupied Central Asian Khanates and had close ties with the Afghani military ( see. P. Hopkirk " The Great Game"). That , most likely, was reflected in military Afghani pseudoshashkas , that combined both local ( eg integral bolster etc) and Cossack elements inherited by them from their Caucasian foes ( suspension system, forked pommel, - both " Caucasian" but not quite). The other Central Asian guardless sabers ( including Bukharan) were not military, but truly indigenous weapons, and as such were not modified according to foreign influences. Khanates had no regular armies and consequently no regulation weapons. Individual masters followed old traditions and had no incentive or reason to copy weapons of the occupier. We recently encountered yet another fascinating pattern: "Indian pseudoshashka" with tunkou and D-guard but no quillons. I do not know where to place it. I may only cautiously suspect that it also has derivative features of a Khyber, but may be very wrong. Thus, if we want to discuss Shashkas, we are obligated to limit ourselves to the Caucasian examples and their locally-produced ethnic copies ( Ottoman Muhadjirs). We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas". The rest of guardless sabers, from Ottoman yataghans to Bukharan sabers, Khybers, Parangs etc have nothing to do with Caucasian tradition and the term shashka should not be allowed to touch them:-) There cannot be such thing as French Katana, Japanese Jambia , Congolese Sgian Dubh or Vietnamese Kattara. Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be. Last edited by ariel; 8th August 2016 at 07:11 PM. |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:10 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
Very, very many words
By the logic of Ariel - only Persian Shamshir - real Shamshir. Shamshir in the Balkans - is psevdoshamshir)))) Shashka - this concept is not associated with a particular ethnic region. |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:12 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
No, laddie, it is "checkers" :-)))))))))))))
|
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:21 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:23 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ionian Islands, Greece
Posts: 96
|
Hello,
A couple of questions, please. Is it correct that shashka is an Adyghe word, meaning big knife? If so, is the word to be found also in related languages? Also, what is the earliest known mention of the term with the meaning of a guardless sabre? Thanks, Andreas |
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:27 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
Quote:
I believe Philip Tom said in 2001 that it was a Circassian word, but I'm no linguist and perhaps the Adaghe aspect might fall into the dialectic mix. I think Ariel is far more the one to address this as he and Kirill Rivkin have spent many years looking into these things on the Caucusus. Mahratt, what is 'checkers' ? I think there might be translation error. |
|
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:31 PM
|
#11 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It seemed to me that I demonstrated that the Afghan shashkas - are all signs of "shashkas". At the same time they do not copy the Russian shashkas. In contrast to the complete resemblance Caucasian and Russian (Cossack) shashkas (there really was borrowing) |
|||
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:27 PM
|
#12 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
I explain why must not talk about the "shashka" in the context of the ethnic region. Shashka (with all its attributes) has been in the whole of the Russian army (cavalry). On the whole territory of Russia. These weapons, which I quoted in the post number 13 - all of it has always been called"shashka"
|
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 07:26 PM
|
#13 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
Ariel, I mostly agree. 90%
I fully agree with 2 main points. Quote:
Quote:
Kubur |
||
|
|
|
8th August 2016, 08:09 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
Of course they are not! I thought I made it clear, but obviously did not. They are just very crude heavy blades with the handles eerily resembling those of the Beduin. No more. But because Beduin sabers had no guards, it was occasionally assumed ( my fault, too....) that Palestinian beduins crudely copied Circassian shashkas brought there by the exiled Shapsughs. There are quite a lot if Circassians in Israel and Jordan. Circassian shashka was not of Central Asian origin. It would require reams of paper to address this narrow issue. I can only suggest getting Kirill Rivkin's book. Just one small point: nomads, Alans including, had real sabers, with crossguards. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
