Origin of yataghan, shashka etc

ariel · 24th December 2006, 06:07 AM

Quite a lot of swords and daggers have eared pommels: Yataghan, Shashka, European, ancient Persian etc.
The PhD dissertaion by Nakov ( Rivkin, thanks a lot!) offers an explanation. It is so simple, that I wonder why nobody (to my limited knowledge) suggested it before.
According to him, these sword just recapitulate the primitive "bone dagger"
http://www.art-pacific.com/artifacts...s/bneknife.htm
It was likely very widespread in the primitive societies due to the ease of its manufacture, good stabbing efficiency and remarkable convenience of the gripping, with the thumb on top. Later, separate blades ( stone, bronze, iron) utilized bone as a handle ( again, very easy fit) and thus the tradition was born!
I have thought about it many times, but never voiced it

No doubt, many others had the same idea but ... never published it.
It is so simple and obvious that it must be correct!

Flavio · 24th December 2006, 11:52 AM

As a prehistoric archaeologist i'm not so persuaded, because, if is true that in New Guinea there are a lot of these bone daggers, in the prehistoric Europe there aren't! Are usual to find awls, spatulas, and bigger awls to pierce leather all in bone but no daggers (and they could or couldn't show the epifisi - extremity- that recall the eared handle). Usually the prehistoric daggers are made of flint or obsidian. Unfortunatly in the majority of cases the handle is gone but in some sites, where the conditions are favourable (usually in lake sites) the handle is made of wood and in simple shape (never seen eared handle). It's also a conviction that all the objects that we can call weapons (like bow and arrows and daggers) untill the Copper age-Bronze age were used only as tools (or at least the main utilization was as tool, but no one knows if sporadically were used also as weapons). Only in the Bronze age (around 2000 b.c.) appear objects like swords (in the Copper age there are some daggers blades that probably were used as halberd) that is to say that only in these periods starts the production of real weapons (this is because the society in the Bronze age begins to be more and more complex). Also some stone objects called club heads (Neolithic age) seems to be some kind of prestige objects and of course the same is for the stone blades axe or adze (that are tools but could be used against a man).

Maybe it's too simplicistic but i think that the shape of yatagan, shashka and so on it's only another way to prevent that the sword slide from the hand. Also all the african weapons shows different shapes of the pommel, but functionly the idea is the same (think at the huge guradè-shotel pommel). And, at the end, also the cacatooa pommel in the kris prevent that the sword slide from hand.

As you say my two cents...

Rivkin · 24th December 2006, 01:59 PM

To be completely honest, I did not like Nakov's thesis, sorry. None of his advisors really knows the subject, nor did he work with Astvatsaturjan/Gorelik. It seems that his goal was to prove autochtonous, preferrably circassian, origin of basically all caucasian weapons. Which may or may not be the right thing to do.

Concerning yataghans and shashka descending from the "bones", I think everyone thought something like this, but as a continuation of bronze/iron age tradition to put "bone" like ends on dagger, which Gorelik shows many times in "Oruzhie Vostoka...", as far as I remember, he even talks about this as a general tradition with symbolism and so on. Such "eared" dagger has been going all around the place, ending up in medieval times as a european "eared" dagger, which existed also in early Ottoman territories/Caucasus (here I hope to be corrected by people specializing in this period).

The problem with Nakov's constant "flynt thingy/modern weapons" is ofcoarse the lack of anything in between. He somehow managed to talk about katars, katanas and bone daggers, but even proto-meotic/colchidic cultures are basically skipped.

P.S. Now, Kochkarev's thesis is raw power

.

ariel · 24th December 2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavio

As a prehistoric archaeologist i'm not so persuaded, because, if is true that in New Guinea there are a lot of these bone daggers, in the prehistoric Europe there aren't! Are usual to find awls, spatulas, and bigger awls to pierce leather all in bone but no daggers (and they could or couldn't show the epifisi - extremity- that recall the eared handle). Usually the prehistoric daggers are made of flint or obsidian. Unfortunatly in the majority of cases the handle is gone but in some sites, where the conditions are favourable (usually in lake sites) the handle is made of wood and in simple shape (never seen eared handle). It's also a conviction that all the objects that we can call weapons (like bow and arrows and daggers) untill the Copper age-Bronze age were used only as tools (or at least the main utilization was as tool, but no one knows if sporadically were used also as weapons). Only in the Bronze age (around 2000 b.c.) appear objects like swords (in the Copper age there are some daggers blades that probably were used as halberd) that is to say that only in these periods starts the production of real weapons (this is because the society in the Bronze age begins to be more and more complex). Also some stone objects called club heads (Neolithic age) seems to be some kind of prestige objects and of course the same is for the stone blades axe or adze (that are tools but could be used against a man).

Maybe it's too simplicistic but i think that the shape of yatagan, shashka and so on it's only another way to prevent that the sword slide from the hand. Also all the african weapons shows different shapes of the pommel, but functionly the idea is the same (think at the huge guradè-shotel pommel). And, at the end, also the cacatooa pommel in the kris prevent that the sword slide from hand.

As you say my two cents...

True enough.
However, the needles and other bone implements are composed of the cortical bone: quite sturdy. In contrast, the epiphyses are composed of cancellous bone, very brittle, with many septae and prone to breakage and decomposition. If true, the latest bone daggers in Asia/Europe must have been manufactured tens of thousands years ago. The New Guinea and similar daggers are at the most 100 years old. Not a miracle we see a lot of those but not something from the Caucasus/ Central Asia. Do we know of any "pre-historic" excavations in those areas?

ariel · 24th December 2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

To be completely honest, I did not like Nakov's thesis, sorry. None of his advisors really knows the subject, nor did he work with Astvatsaturjan/Gorelik. It seems that his goal was to prove autochtonous, preferrably circassian, origin of basically all caucasian weapons. Which may or may not be the right thing to do.

Concerning yataghans and shashka descending from the "bones", I think everyone thought something like this, but as a continuation of bronze/iron age tradition to put "bone" like ends on dagger, which Gorelik shows many times in "Oruzhie Vostoka...", as far as I remember, he even talks about this as a general tradition with symbolism and so on. Such "eared" dagger has been going all around the place, ending up in medieval times as a european "eared" dagger, which existed also in early Ottoman territories/Caucasus (here I hope to be corrected by people specializing in this period).
The problem with Nakov's constant "flynt thingy/modern weapons" is ofcoarse the lack of anything in between. He somehow managed to talk about katars, katanas and bone daggers, but even proto-meotic/colchidic cultures are basically skipped.

P.S. Now, Kochkarev's thesis is raw power

.

Agree: it is a rather weak dissertation. He used very small number of weapons ( only one actual shashka and another one was Russian military, a couple of broken knives etc). His main thrust was the usage: how the weapons were constructed for actual draw, handling etc. A good chunk of the dissertation are his personal impressions, stories how he almost sprained this wrist, how he made a bone dagger in half an hour etc. The guy worked in a very poor environment ( Nalchik aint't no Harvard!). However, I liked his impertinence, how he tried to compensate for the lack of resources with imagination, how he used meager material.
I would give him a credit for that. He must be a nice kid.

Jim McDougall · 25th December 2006, 10:19 PM

It seems I have heard this theory before some years ago with regard to the yataghan hilt, associated to the shape of a sheeps thigh bone or something to that effect. I cannot recall exactly whether the association had to do with the actual shape and recalling the extremely ancient use of animal bones as weapons or whether it might have been the root of a local or colloquial term referring to the distinct hilt shape.
I do very much like the idea that there is an increasing degree of interest in the possibilities of often ancient symbolism or inherent ancestry in certain shapes and decoration or markings that occur on traditional weapons. There are many vestigial features that are seen on weapons that reflect the very basic origins from which they descend. For example, on early Chinese weapons, the bronze cast weapons often included ribs on the hilt grip which reflected the lashings that originally held wood or horn grips to the tang section. This is of course one rudimentary analogy, but there are many other similar instances.

I have not read the Nakov paper, but it sounds very interesting, and I agree with Ariel, we should always give an author credit for thier work, regardless of any inherent flaws or difficulties. I think that errors or flaws can be corrected respectfully in constructive criticism, and that when this course is followed, all parties come out ahead and knowledge is advanced.

It seems that the 'eared' hilts have descended loosely from the early bronze age weapons from Luristan c.10th c. BC and it is unclear exactly what might have inspired that particular feature. Perhaps the distinct anthromorphic hilt forms with stylized outstretched arms may have had some association as they became less recognizable in form?

As always....more research to be done!

Jim

ariel · 26th December 2006, 05:30 AM

Thait "theory" is purely intutiive and we shall never find a a written evidence of it's correctness, After all, can we really hope to interview a Cro-Magnon human to ask him where he got his inspiration from?
This is a pure speculation, but it is so logical and intuitive, that one is just drawn to it.
I like the impertinence of youth

24th December 2006, 06:07 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Origin of yataghan, shashka etc Quite a lot of swords and daggers have eared pommels: Yataghan, Shashka, European, ancient Persian etc. The PhD dissertaion by Nakov ( Rivkin, thanks a lot!) offers an explanation. It is so simple, that I wonder why nobody (to my limited knowledge) suggested it before. According to him, these sword just recapitulate the primitive "bone dagger" http://www.art-pacific.com/artifacts...s/bneknife.htm It was likely very widespread in the primitive societies due to the ease of its manufacture, good stabbing efficiency and remarkable convenience of the gripping, with the thumb on top. Later, separate blades ( stone, bronze, iron) utilized bone as a handle ( again, very easy fit) and thus the tradition was born! I have thought about it many times, but never voiced it No doubt, many others had the same idea but ... never published it. It is so simple and obvious that it must be correct!

24th December 2006, 11:52 AM	#2
Flavio Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Italia Posts: 1,243	As a prehistoric archaeologist i'm not so persuaded, because, if is true that in New Guinea there are a lot of these bone daggers, in the prehistoric Europe there aren't! Are usual to find awls, spatulas, and bigger awls to pierce leather all in bone but no daggers (and they could or couldn't show the epifisi - extremity- that recall the eared handle). Usually the prehistoric daggers are made of flint or obsidian. Unfortunatly in the majority of cases the handle is gone but in some sites, where the conditions are favourable (usually in lake sites) the handle is made of wood and in simple shape (never seen eared handle). It's also a conviction that all the objects that we can call weapons (like bow and arrows and daggers) untill the Copper age-Bronze age were used only as tools (or at least the main utilization was as tool, but no one knows if sporadically were used also as weapons). Only in the Bronze age (around 2000 b.c.) appear objects like swords (in the Copper age there are some daggers blades that probably were used as halberd) that is to say that only in these periods starts the production of real weapons (this is because the society in the Bronze age begins to be more and more complex). Also some stone objects called club heads (Neolithic age) seems to be some kind of prestige objects and of course the same is for the stone blades axe or adze (that are tools but could be used against a man). Maybe it's too simplicistic but i think that the shape of yatagan, shashka and so on it's only another way to prevent that the sword slide from the hand. Also all the african weapons shows different shapes of the pommel, but functionly the idea is the same (think at the huge guradè-shotel pommel). And, at the end, also the cacatooa pommel in the kris prevent that the sword slide from hand. As you say my two cents... Last edited by Flavio; 24th December 2006 at 12:12 PM.

24th December 2006, 01:59 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	To be completely honest, I did not like Nakov's thesis, sorry. None of his advisors really knows the subject, nor did he work with Astvatsaturjan/Gorelik. It seems that his goal was to prove autochtonous, preferrably circassian, origin of basically all caucasian weapons. Which may or may not be the right thing to do. Concerning yataghans and shashka descending from the "bones", I think everyone thought something like this, but as a continuation of bronze/iron age tradition to put "bone" like ends on dagger, which Gorelik shows many times in "Oruzhie Vostoka...", as far as I remember, he even talks about this as a general tradition with symbolism and so on. Such "eared" dagger has been going all around the place, ending up in medieval times as a european "eared" dagger, which existed also in early Ottoman territories/Caucasus (here I hope to be corrected by people specializing in this period). The problem with Nakov's constant "flynt thingy/modern weapons" is ofcoarse the lack of anything in between. He somehow managed to talk about katars, katanas and bone daggers, but even proto-meotic/colchidic cultures are basically skipped. P.S. Now, Kochkarev's thesis is raw power . Last edited by Rivkin; 24th December 2006 at 02:14 PM.

25th December 2006, 10:19 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	It seems I have heard this theory before some years ago with regard to the yataghan hilt, associated to the shape of a sheeps thigh bone or something to that effect. I cannot recall exactly whether the association had to do with the actual shape and recalling the extremely ancient use of animal bones as weapons or whether it might have been the root of a local or colloquial term referring to the distinct hilt shape. I do very much like the idea that there is an increasing degree of interest in the possibilities of often ancient symbolism or inherent ancestry in certain shapes and decoration or markings that occur on traditional weapons. There are many vestigial features that are seen on weapons that reflect the very basic origins from which they descend. For example, on early Chinese weapons, the bronze cast weapons often included ribs on the hilt grip which reflected the lashings that originally held wood or horn grips to the tang section. This is of course one rudimentary analogy, but there are many other similar instances. I have not read the Nakov paper, but it sounds very interesting, and I agree with Ariel, we should always give an author credit for thier work, regardless of any inherent flaws or difficulties. I think that errors or flaws can be corrected respectfully in constructive criticism, and that when this course is followed, all parties come out ahead and knowledge is advanced. It seems that the 'eared' hilts have descended loosely from the early bronze age weapons from Luristan c.10th c. BC and it is unclear exactly what might have inspired that particular feature. Perhaps the distinct anthromorphic hilt forms with stylized outstretched arms may have had some association as they became less recognizable in form? As always....more research to be done! Jim

26th December 2006, 05:30 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Thait "theory" is purely intutiive and we shall never find a a written evidence of it's correctness, After all, can we really hope to interview a Cro-Magnon human to ask him where he got his inspiration from? This is a pure speculation, but it is so logical and intuitive, that one is just drawn to it. I like the impertinence of youth