Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[ariel]

Comparison of features: Cauc. Bukh. Afgh. Mil. Khyber


Blade:
Wide at the root, narrows toward
the tip NO YES NO YES
Scabbard:
Suspended edge up YES NO YES NO
Tucked under the belt NO YES NO YES
Handle:
Eared YES NO YES NO
# of rivets 2-3 4-5 3 3-5
Bolster NO Variable YES YES
Grip strap NO YES Variable YES
Small, rounded pommel YES +/-none Large +/- none




From there I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.


If anybody wants to offer modifications, you are more than welcome.

Just I am not sure about the weight: the proverb about shashka being light, fast etc ( see Gavin's entry) referred to the earliest examples carried by Circassians. We know very, very few true Circassian samples, the majority of the 19th century examples are from Daghestan, Chechnya and Georgia proper ( Tiflis) Those were not as massive as Afghani military "pseudoshashkas", but still had quite a mass to them. Many used European cavalry blades


PS, I can't seem to format the table properly. Anybody can help?

[Ian]

It is a couple of days since Ariel posted his typology of shashka and his conclusion that the Caucasian shashka and Afghan military variant shared many features in common, while the Bukhara guardless saber shares many common features with the Khyber variant. There has been no response to his classification, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees but I'm not hearing any major dissent either.

Ariel's analysis shows two distinct "patterns" and has been very well documented in his table that I have redrawn below with some regrouping to list a "Type A" and "Type B" of the swords that are variously called shashkas or shashka variants.

This is exactly the sort of typological classification I was hoping this thread would arrive at.

Ian.

[Gavin Nugent]

Well done Ian, it greatly helps Ariel's post visually...buy I feel, there is no distinct accuracy within these forms discussed, only general rules of thumb, the chart cannot be considered accurate or ever large enough to cover all variants of these weapons.

Some points for now;

Ear will need to be defined as there are varying degree of ears as there 2 distinctly different Bukhara sabre styles, those with no ears and those with Yataghan like ears. Number of rivets can run from none to 5.
There are Caucasian Shashka with no rivets too.

I do not consider Afghan Sabres to have large pommels vs Caucasian sabres, they have long pommel though and note that these hilts are largely cylindrical not oval as a Caucasian Shashka typically is.

Buhkaran sabres are hung in many fashions, including blade up and not always under a belt.

Khyber are not always tucked under a belt, many have suspension and are blade up in either suspension.

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
Thanks for providing individual details.
I looked at the most frequent features, seen on > 90% of all of the above varieties. Of course, there always going to be exceptions.


I am unaware of Bukharan sabers with yataghan ears.

I do maintain that Afghani pommels are significantly bigger than the Caucasian ones, but this is immaterial: both of them are much bigger than the Bukharan and khybers that are merely minor widenings over the grip.

Yes, there are Caucasian shashkas ( older ones) with no rivets, but their handles were made of a single piece of walrus ivory, i.e. totally different technique , abandoned by the middle of 19 century. Cossack and Russian military shashkas that (IMHO!) gave inspiration to the end of 19 century Afghani ones all had 2 "slabs" and consequently had rivets.

The location of suspension rings on the Caucasian and the Afghani scabbards is very specific and identical: the upper one on the back surface, and the lower one on the top. Khybers were always worn under the belt, unless we want to go back to the discredited idea of calling Afghani short sabers with D-guard and European blades " regulation khybers":-)))

The number of rivets and their size on the Bukharan handles dependent largely on the material of the handle: wood ( most frequent) and horn ( second most frequent) were sturdy and could tolerate 5 large ones . Fragile materials ( ivory) usually had 3 or maximum 4 thin rivets. I do not know about highly decorated ones, but suspect the number of rivets did not exceed 3 for fear of spoiling the effect of embellishment.

[ariel]

Ian,
Many thanks for re-arranging the table.

[Ian]

Ariel, you're welcome and thank you again for presenting these broad descriptions of two types of shashka/shashka variants. This should help our readers who are less familiar with these swords.

Gavin, thank you too for your clarifications of some of the complexities in trying to arrive at a general typology for these swords.

Originally Posted by ariel

Ian,
Many thanks for re-arranging the table.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.

Ariel, are you categorizing the Afghan shashka with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (along with the Russian shashka) or do you categorize it along with the Bukhara etc shashka as non-Caucasian / Circassian shashka type swords. I know you have been studying the different but similar variations for a long time and I would like to get your opinion or are you still trying to decide exactly how to categorize them.

[ariel]

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

I think that Bukharan saber has nothing to do genetically with the Caucasian/ Cossack examples. What unites them is just a superficial similarity, a consequence of parallel development. I would tentatively suggest that the Bukharan example and the Khyber ( as well as Khyber-like Turkmen and Uzbek bladed weapons) all stem from the same proto-group.

On the other hand, the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

I think that Bukharan saber has nothing to do genetically with the Caucasian/ Cossack examples. What unites them is just a superficial similarity, a consequence of parallel development. I would tentatively suggest that the Bukharan example and the Khyber ( as well as Khyber-like Turkmen and Uzbek bladed weapons) all stem from the same proto-group.

On the other hand, the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

Ariel,

Firstly, I'd like to clarify my Yataghan reference in relation to Bukhara sabres of the form discussed. It is not any grip slab shape that I refer to but the distance and subtitles of how far the ears protrude beyond the grip straps on known Bukhara examples when so many are simply flush. The Bukhara typology can be drilled down in various degrees.

Central Asia, Caucasian mountains and China have all had a long long long history of guardless sabres and swords, there is nothing new here as history has taught us, and I do not ever recall ever hearing these ancient sword types referred to as Shashka. So with reference to history, and the centuries past, I wholeheartedly agree that the Bukahara sabres do not belong even as a subgroup of a relatively modern term "Shashka".

These long straight knife types from Bukhara, and shallow curved sabres, are far more Turkish Yataghan and Persian Shamshir in regards manufacture of the hilt, (not appearance) ... With reference to blades, but of course disregarding Kopis types, but with consideration to those known with straight blades, a Turkish connection through Persia is far more probable that any Shashka. Also consider that Bukhara is Persian and the pointers along the silk road routes. How a shallow curved blade also ended up in these hilt styles is easy to see when next to their small utility knives which has been touched on.

For consideration to Afghanistan sabres in question, A quick look will also see many of these straight bladed Yataghans, have but a long bolster and similar rivet structure seen on the Aghan "pseudo Shashka". These same Yataghan also carry the same "ear" types as these sabres too.
Note also, there are Khyber knives with pommel forms also seen on some Yataghan...just to muddy the waters some more ... And to simply ask, where do these clear visual and construction aspects of Turkish Yataghan leave leave the idea of trying to classify anything other than a Shashka from the Caucasian Mountains, as it as known, as being the only Shashka...it is a unique sabre unto itself in many ways.

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
I am glad we agree on the lack of relation between the Bukharan and the Caucasian examples and on the uniqueness of Shashka as a separate, Sui Generis, type of guardless sabers.

We have neither physical nor iconographic examples of Caucasian shashkas older than late 18th- early 19 century. Nobody knows whether this is due to their late appearance, to the multiple reuses or just losses of the old examples or simply to the lack of "iconographers". I discount here the so-called "parsunas" ( bastardized " person" ), rather primitive portraits of Cossack atamans of late 18 century, wearing fully-developed shashkas with typical Circassian pommel decorations simply because they were painted posthumously.

But let me offer a somewhat heretical idea: Caucasian shashka owes its genesis to Ottoman yataghans. Crimea was an outcropping of the Ottoman Empire, had documented yataghans early on and was supplying a lot of weapons to Circassians. In turn, Circassia, a vassal of the Crimean Khanate, was a secondary vassal of the Ottomans. Also, Georgian kingdoms were in an on-and-off state of war with Turkey and were often controlled by it . One can easily imagine that they could have adopted the eared handle ( simplifying it to the hilt, pun intended) and marrying it to their familiar saber blade, creating a cheap, simple and much more functional weapon. The adoption of such a "hybrid" might have been facilitated by the already present Western Georgian sabers without a guard ( see works of Vakhtang Kiziria)

As to the "eared" pommels of Afghani pseudoshashkas, they are just a narrow cleft ( very Caucasian) rather than widely spread Ottoman. And their suspension system is purely Caucasian/Cossack, not a "tucked-under-the-belt" Ottoman. Moreover, their appearance tightly follows Russian occupation of Central Asian Khanates and stationing of Cossack cavalry there. The Ottomans had only limited if any influence in Central Asia at that time.

At the end of the day, we can only hope that this issue will be specifically addressed by the Caucasian historians and ethnographers, and there are brilliant people there! Not much hope for the Afghani contribution, though....

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by ariel

We have neither physical nor iconographic examples of Caucasian shashkas older than late 18th- early 19 century.

Buttin in his catalogue shows a shashka with a 16th century Genoese blade (No 646 below). He says that these Genoese blades were the most prized in the Caucasus, a fact which led to Syrian forgeries, but of a far lesser quality.
Andreas

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Buttin in his catalogue shows a shashka with a 16th century Genoese blade (No 646 below). He says that these Genoese blades were the most prized in the Caucasus, a fact which led to Syrian forgeries, but of a far lesser quality.
Andreas

Andreas,

100% correct observation.
But old blades were mounted and remounted over and over again on Caucasian shashkas.

They were indeed highly valuable, and the term "gurda" was related to the Genoese "jaws" mark. Just like "ters maimal" ( screaming, or crazy, ape) defined a blade with the originally German ( (Passau) running wolf. Most were locally made and the variations of either mark fill large illustrations in the book by Astvatsaturyan.

~18th century German blades with elaborate depictions of "man in the moon" and arm with a sword coming from a cloud for some reason were locally called Abbas Mirza. Go figure:-))

Regretfully, there is not a single example of a 16-18 century blade mounted on contemporaneous handle, and the latter is what largely defines a shashka.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Eric,
I thought my summary was clear. Sorry if I was not more explicit.

the military Afghan " pseudoshashka" shares so much with the Caucasian/Cossack one, that denying the influence of the latter on the former would be incorrect. Whether the original, pre-Cossack Afghani guardless saber existed and how it looked, is a matter of conjecture.

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ariel I understand what you are saying. My question is related to categorization. Do you think the Afghan shashka and the Caucasian shashka are similar enough to be put in the same category or would you place the Afghan shashka in a category by itself.

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

Thanks, so basically three categories, Caucasian / Circassian (and Russian) shashkas, Afghan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka and Bukharan ?????.....what do you call these if not Bukharan shashka type sword????.....Bukharan sabre????

[ariel]

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)