Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[ariel]

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

Hello Ariel,

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356). So your examples about similar blades that developed independently are not that relevant since the Afghan Shashka did not develop independently from the Circasian one (like the Bauenwehr developed independently from the Khyber sword).

Then, why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date. Also this way there will be no possibility of confusion between the Afghan variety and the Bukharan sabre since the name will locate it geographically without the ambiguity related to the other proposed prefixes, like the "pseudo" (yes, it is a pseudo-shashka but from where?!)

Something like the same way we say Ottoman Shamshir and we then know we may have a classic shamshir blade with a typical Turkish/Ottoman pistol grip.

Am I missing something?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356)........................................... .........................why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date.

If there is some certainty that the Afghan shashka is a shashka this would be a good name solution all around.

[ariel]

Guys,
Everybody is free to call it any way one wants. I based my view on its original roots ( with Cossack overlays coming later on), you suggest stressing its final incarnation, similar to AJ1356's grandmother. It is the matter from what angle we want to look at it. As long as we all know what we are talking about and understand its convoluted history.

[Ian]

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:

A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Caucasian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:

A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Circassian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

Hello Ian,

I believe the term "variant" associated with Shashka is creating significant ambiguity unless is followed by additional explanations.

For example. I can say: "I just acquired a variant Shashka."
What would one understand?! How clear and unambiguous this statement is?! Is it an Afghan or some other "variant" of Shashka I am refering to?!

When saying a "variant" Shashka I can refer to an Afghan Shashka, Bukharan Sabre/Shashka or I may very well refer to a Russian Shasahka as a "variant" that difers slightly from what I may consider the standard, in my case the Caucasian Shashka.

However, using the geographical locator serves perfectly in defining clearly and unambiguously the item.

Whether one considers the Bukharan sabre a "variant" of the Shashka or not, as soon as one hears "Bukharan Shashka," one knows exactly what it refers to. As opposed to the more generic "Bukharan Sabre" which leaves room for much more ambiguity as it can refer to a Shamshir originating from Bukhara, or with Bukharan mounts.

So, for the sake of clarity in communication, I believe we should use the terms that are most clear an unambiguous, whether culturally or historically correct or not (which at its turn can be subject to another endless debate).

Therefore, in the name of democracy, CLARITY and freedom of speech , I will use:

1. SHASHKA - for all shashka-like sabers, namely
1.1. CIRCASIAN SHASHKA
1.2. CAUCASIAN SHASHKA
1.3. COSSACK SHASHKA
1.4. RUSSIAN SHASHKA
1.5. TURKISH SHASHKA
1.6. AFGHAN SHASHKA
1.7. BUKHARAN SHASHKA



PS: I believe 1.1 and 1.2 refer to the same type or variant of weapon.

[Ian]

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian