What is a KARUD?!

[mariusgmioc]

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

[mahratt]

Bravo, Marius! Exactly noticed

[Ian]

Gentlemen:

I have started a new thread to help move the discussion of shashka in a new direction. This thread has several requirements that should be read carefully before participating. It invites some different thinking to what has been expressed here.

The discussion here seems to have reached a point where no new information is being provided. Please transfer further discussion of these swords to the new thread.

Ian

[ariel]

Marius,
There is such thing as parallel development: weapons of similar appearance existing completely independently in different cultures .
Medieval European Bauernwehr or Langes Messer, or just Cord was a carbon copy of the Afghan Khyber, even though people in both localities were totally ignorant of each other's existence.
Shamshir and tulwar, on the other hand, owe their existence to the same proto-ancestor: nomadic saber. Over the centuries they have acquired some specific features ( indian ricasso, curvature ) and handles, but were still close enough to mix blades and handles with abandon. Figiel's examples testify to it.

The same is true about khanjars: some decorative differences in decoration, but close enough to share the moniker.

Not a miracle: the above examples all belong to the Indo-Persian areal: ie a mixture of both traditions, cultures and technologies.


In case of Central Asian guardless sabers one has to distinguish between two possibilities.

Central Asian Uzbeki ( Bukhara is within this tradition) examples owe their existence to a proto-family that included Khybers. We have discussed it somewhat in the thread on Indian "pseudoshashkas":

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21429

They have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian examples. In fact, somewhat similar Persian or Indo-Persian examples were shown in Figiel's collection catalogue.

The other subtype of was exactly the one addressed by Lebedinski in his book as "pseudoshashka": late 19th century Afghani guardless sabers, mostly with Mazar-i-Sharif arsenal marks ( just a stamp, origin in Mazar-i-Sharif not implied). Those were clearly influenced by Russian weapons, but preserved enough "ethnicity" to stand on their own, and be recognized immediately as coming from Afghanistan and not the Caucasus.

Neither example is a true shashka. Shashka is a peculiarly Caucasian weapon. Period.

The Afghani "military" examples are pseudo-shashkas because they imitated some Shashka features, and were clearly distinguishable as NOT Caucasian ( see Eric's dictionary entry explaining the meaning of pseudo)

The Central Asian examples have no relation whatsoever with the Caucasus, being a clear example of parallel development. We dub them "pseudoshashkas" simply because of their external similarity and for want of a better term. The minute some Central Asian researcher uncovers their true name, we will discard the "pseudoshashka" moniker in a second.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

Hi Marius,
Very well noted, and if you might briefly look at my post #48, you will see that I mentioned the likely reason for the 'psuedo' appellation in this case with the reference mentioned. I also noted that the reason that classification never became used elsewhere afterwards was because it was not in keeping with the proper use of the word as an adjustment and thus renders it a moot point.
However, as often the case, we 'seniors' such as Ariel and I sometimes use the term when referring to that particular reference by Iaroslav Lebedynsky from those researches nearly 20 years ago .

I would like to highly commend Ian's outstanding solution to bring the shashka discussion to its own table on another thread so as not to continue clouding the meter of this thread. Each of these topics have promising merit, so I hope you and others will join over there as I hope to as well.

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!

I just read through Ariel's very thorough explanation.......superb!!!
That is pretty much 'textbook'!
Now, we leave this thread to original topic, and the shashkas to that thread.

[mahratt]

Jim, Ariel read a lot of books. But after writing the books passes time. But science does not stand still. All the time there are new data. Or are old data that previously did not notice

[ariel]

I'd really love to know what new data have appeared to disprove my analysis.

And what old data did I miss.

One lives, one learns:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I'd really love to know what new data have appeared to disprove my analysis.

And what old data did I miss.

One lives, one learns:-)

Do not worry. Soon you'll know

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, Ariel read a lot of books. But after writing the books passes time. But science does not stand still. All the time there are new data. Or are old data that previously did not notice

Actually in the many years I have studied arms, I too have been through many books on virtually every field at one time or another. I have well known the earliest and often used references as well as the ongoing references which have been published in my own times as well as many of the authors who wrote them.
Quite true, the understanding of material in virtually every field does not 'stand still', but constantly expands as more research continues. That is what we are all doing here, and together.

The purpose of discussion is to share and compare information, with the very point being that making that material collectively known in one dynamic and comprehensive group, we can properly evaluate the entire corpus of data.

Personally I consider our threads and the interaction between participants to be 'discussions'.....NOT debates, which are typically heated exchanges whose purpose is to disqualify one side or the other. That kind of polarized exchange is completely useless in our combined efforts here especially when personal attacks ensue.
In discussion, if one disagrees or has more pertinent or updated information, then it is presented for all to better formulate and change or reinforce positions held.
Personal barbs do nothing but mute understanding and rational evaluation by amplifying emotion and rancor.

Having noted these views, I would like to thank everyone here who indeed do adhere to topics, courtesy and constructive DISCUSSION.
I learn every day from the valuable material and observations you guys place faithfully in these pages.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mahartt, I may be thrown of this forum, for what I will be saying - but I think you are more than arogant, and I do think you ought to give Jim and Ariel an exchuse.
Maybe in the future you should write on the Russian forums.

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!