Indian pseudoshashka

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

In coming to an almost full circle..I observe the style of sword in Shashka form sweeping in from the periphery of India, Turkey, Afghanistan, China Persia...and from far flung Russian form, Uzbekistan, and the Caucasus et al....

As a general comment I feel the entire blend of this style shrouded in the mists of time and though similarities abound no one form seems to have its nose in front... It appears that over the hundreds of years of flow, influence and design both from North Asian sectors and Chinese derivatives and in fact from all points of the compass with India at the centre that no one area can claim this weapon absolutely...We cannot rule out the early design flow of Turko/ Mongol style and the obvious tribal tectonic plate movement into Anatolia etc...The ear pommel Yatagan designs seem compelling with bolstered throats and where crossover copying is difficult to rule out.

The Shashka form; Below I have poured the entire shashka selection or close relatives into the same pot. My thought is that whilst there may be a common thread tying them all that in many cases this is virtually impossible to absolutely confirm but that as a general rule these weapons are similar though on the periphery and of the Shashka type.

More research is needed on the knuckle guard and pistol grip hilt although it is known that Shah Jehan designed his own Jade and Neophrite versions around the bird head theme on both swords and daggers. Meanwhile your comments are requested..

[Jim McDougall]

I have to say these are wonderful panoplies of this spectrum of amazing and exotic sword examples!
In reading through these discussions, I think it is important to remember that the word 'shashka' is simply a Russian word for sword, not otherwise specified, much in the way that the words tulwar in India; kilij in Turkey; and sa'if in Arabic are.
While these terms have become associated with specific forms in the glossaries of collectors, their use can often create semantics issues in narratives and discussions.

I would note here that while the feature known as tunkou, or the collar or sleeve at blade root of many edged weapons in Turkey, China and Central Asia is interesting as a key feature reflecting distinct influences between cultures, it is subordinate to trying to find connections with these curious sabres with knuckle guard and no other supporting cross guard.

As far as I have known, the 'tunkou' seems to have evolved in Altaic regions with nomadic steppes tribes sometime in the span of 6th-12th centuries. It seems most known exemplars are from 9th-10th ("Arms of the Yenesai Khirghiz 6-12th C", Y.S.Khudyakov, 1980, as cited in "The Mongol Warlords", David Nicolle, 1988).
In these cases these sleeves or collars were placed on the blade edge near the hilt, and according to Nicolle as others, typically are regarded as to offer more secure fit in scabbard. In other respects, it is thought to function as a sort of Indian ricasso to protect finger if over guard or perhaps drawing sword from scabbard.

It is interesting that this feature took a different placement with the Turkish application, being on the back of the blade and diagonally across seemingly as a seating for the crossguard and again to secure the hilt in scabbard.
On the Chinese examples by the 17th century, this feature again is seen.
Later it would seem that the feature became vestigially represented in koftgari on various weapons.

In "Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350" , David Nicolle, 1988, in example 37 A-D it is noted that asymmetrical guards occur on both edge and back of blade in swords of 9th-13th c. in regions of Kursk and Kiev in Ukraine. It is mentioned that such guards are seen in art of Afghan and Indian regions in depictions of arms.

It would seem that the influences of the arms of these various cultures and ethnic groups are profoundly confluenced over many centuries which would make specific or definitive assertions connecting these difficult at best.

With the curious examples of this thread with pistol grip, knuckle guard with recurved terminal at pommel and tunkou, it does seem they comprise a certain group of similar form. It seems there have been sabres of either shamshir or other sabre forms with the guard notably absent in Ottoman and sometimes it seems East European or 'Cossack' context, I believe Zaparozhian.

Given these possibilities, it seems to lend more compelling look toward Afghanistan and India's northern regions, further owing to the Central Asian and Russian denominators mentioned.

The recurve on the knuckle guard terminals of many northern Indian swords is often regarded as having been from Ottoman influence, just as the quillon terminals on many tulwars. The pistol grip form seems Ottoman as well.
To consider the open form of the shashka hilt, the Ottoman recurve on the guard and the Turkic tunkou of Central Asia to me seems a compelling confluence of features suggesting North India and Afghan regions for these sabres.

The images are an excavated sabre blade believed 9th century from Nishapur regions and the other an Altaic (S. Siberia) sabre of 10thc.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

[QUOTE=Jim McDougall]I have to say these are wonderful panoplies of this spectrum of amazing and exotic sword examples!
In reading through these discussions, I think it is important to remember that the word 'shashka' is simply a Russian word for sword, not otherwise specified, much in the way that the words tulwar in India; kilij in Turkey; and sa'if in Arabic are.
While these terms have become associated with specific forms in the glossaries of collectors, their use can often create semantics issues in narratives and discussions.

I would note here that while the feature known as tunkou, or the collar or sleeve at blade root of many edged weapons in Turkey, China and Central Asia is interesting as a key feature reflecting distinct influences between cultures, it is subordinate to trying to find connections with these curious sabres with knuckle guard and no other supporting cross guard.

As far as I have known, the 'tunkou' seems to have evolved in Altaic regions with nomadic steppes tribes sometime in the span of 6th-12th centuries. It seems most known exemplars are from 9th-10th ("Arms of the Yenesai Khirghiz 6-12th C", Y.S.Khudyakov, 1980, as cited in "The Mongol Warlords", David Nicolle, 1988).
In these cases these sleeves or collars were placed on the blade edge near the hilt, and according to Nicolle as others, typically are regarded as to offer more secure fit in scabbard. In other respects, it is thought to function as a sort of Indian ricasso to protect finger if over guard or perhaps drawing sword from scabbard.

It is interesting that this feature took a different placement with the Turkish application, being on the back of the blade and diagonally across seemingly as a seating for the crossguard and again to secure the hilt in scabbard.
On the Chinese examples by the 17th century, this feature again is seen.
Later it would seem that the feature became vestigially represented in koftgari on various weapons.

In "Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350" , David Nicolle, 1988, in example 37 A-D it is noted that asymmetrical guards occur on both edge and back of blade in swords of 9th-13th c. in regions of Kursk and Kiev in Ukraine. It is mentioned that such guards are seen in art of Afghan and Indian regions in depictions of arms.

It would seem that the influences of the arms of these various cultures and ethnic groups are profoundly confluenced over many centuries which would make specific or definitive assertions connecting these difficult at best.

With the curious examples of this thread with pistol grip, knuckle guard with recurved terminal at pommel and tunkou, it does seem they comprise a certain group of similar form. It seems there have been sabres of either shamshir or other sabre forms with the guard notably absent in Ottoman and sometimes it seems East European or 'Cossack' context, I believe Zaparozhian.

Given these possibilities, it seems to lend more compelling look toward Afghanistan and India's northern regions, further owing to the Central Asian and Russian denominators mentioned.

The recurve on the knuckle guard terminals of many northern Indian swords is often regarded as having been from Ottoman influence, just as the quillon terminals on many tulwars. The pistol grip form seems Ottoman as well.
To consider the open form of the shashka hilt, the Ottoman recurve on the guard and the Turkic tunkou of Central Asia to me seems a compelling confluence of features suggesting North India and Afghan regions for these sabres.

The images are an excavated sabre blade believed 9th century from Nishapur regions and the other an Altaic (S. Siberia) sabre of 10thc.[/QUOTE

Thank you very much Jim and your explanation of Tunkou is appreciated. I see a different way of engineering the knuckle guard in both examples below perhaps indicative of different regional methods of engineering the hilt/guard/Tunkou.

I thought when observing the references that it would be a good idea to have the Tunkou on the cutting edge "Chinese style" rather than the back blade since mounted it would act as a more secure fit and the safety factor of drawing swords at the gallop with a protective Tunkou would indeed save cut fingers (see red hilt Chinese sword below). Having the Tunkou on the cutting edge is probably the reason it is reversed so that more blade is covered..

I must say the knuckle guard is indeed difficult to source...as so many Indian weapons have it whilst other weapons in the same family do not...Tulvar springs to mind...I also assumed therefor that attaching a knuckle guard would be relatively easy though I puzzled at the lack of Shashka with knuckle guards ...

It seemed to me that we were looking at just that... A shashka form with knuckle guard and Tunkou.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all...I wonder what Forum makes of this? ...Said to be from Afghanistan...? Are we looking at Turko/Mongolian mounted cavalry aspects... with the Tunkou and Knuckle Guard...?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

It would seem logical in considering the bolstered throat arrangement that hurtling along at great speed on horseback some danger to the rider would be encountered on drawing or placing the sword back in the scabbard...to the hand and fingers. It may be why the design of the Tunkou appears on daggers...in Koftgari only (not the full Tunkou form) since the Warrior would almost never draw a dagger on horseback ... but would certainly draw the sword pictured above. Actually when imagining the draw; it is the thumb which assists the backblade out of the scabbard and of course the hand.

Secondly and I favour this;...the sword would fit much more tightly in the scabbard with this bolstering ...Thus the Tunkou as noted earlier has a dual purpose.

[kai]

Hello Ibrahiim,

It would seem logical in considering the bolstered throat arrangement that hurtling along at great speed on horseback some danger to the rider would be encountered on drawing or placing the sword back in the scabbard...to the hand and fingers. It may be why the design of the Tunkou appears on daggers...in Koftgari only (not the full Tunkou form) since the Warrior would almost never draw a dagger on horseback ... but would certainly draw the sword pictured above. Actually when imagining the draw; it is the thumb which assists the backblade out of the scabbard and of course the hand.

I don't see how this would assist the draw. (BTW, the thumb or rather the whole hand would be in a glove, at least in war time.)

Short of very unfavourable circumstances, one would expect the blade to be cleaned before it being returned into the scabbard...

Secondly and I favour this;...the sword would fit much more tightly in the scabbard with this bolstering ...Thus the Tunkou as noted earlier has a dual purpose.

This seems to be more of an issue of workmanship (regarding the scabbard) to me. The vast majority of cavalry swords never had this feature (or functionally similar ones).

Regards,
Kai

[Jim McDougall]

Ibrahiim,
The horsehead (in India termed 'hayamukhi') is a popular motif, it seems most often found on dagger hilts from Jaipur and Rajasthan (Pant,1980, C, CCXXIII, CCI ). While Rajput favor would be presumed, this form was also known to be used by Mughals in richly carved jade, nephrite and crystal.
A full length sword with horsehead hilt and ganga yumuni (chevron) blade is also found dated 1750 from Jaipur.

It seems that the crossing of well known dagger form hilts and longer or full length sword blades is not unusual, in fact the lighter profile of this hilt with the knuckleguard brings to mind the Indian bichwa and chilanum.

The presence of the tunkou on this is notable, and would seem indeed to recall Central Asian and perhaps Ottoman influence. We have seen that the tunkou feature is well diffused through Turkic spheres, it is not as commonly seen in this style in Afghanistan and India, though similar koftgari applications are of course known.

The tunkou it seems according to scholars such as David Nicolle and Philip Tom, was indeed most likely intended for securing the sword in its scabbard. In the case of numbers of Chinese sword and others with the feature on the edge rather than back near the guard, it is presumed to have acted as an added ricasso for finger protection.

In most cases, swords without the tunkou seem to rely on the langet for placement and securing the sword in its scabbard.

This particular horsehead sword does seem to resemble those bring discussed with knuckleguard and recurved terminal as well as tunkou, and I would be inclined to agree with North India, Afghan regions.

[kai]

Hello Ibrahiim,

Thanks, that's a good find! Link?

Said to be from Afghanistan...? Are we looking at Turko/Mongolian mounted cavalry aspects... with the Tunkou and Knuckle Guard...?

The 2 examples from the other thread are too short to be cavalry swords.

Regards,
Kai

[ariel]

Ibrahiim,
With all due respect it seems to me that you are "lumping" different and unrelated weapons into one happy family.

This may be a necessary and inavoidable step at the beginning of any scientific inquiry, but it should be followed by a more advanced stage, I.e. "splitting".

Regretfully, we do not have actual examples of Caucasian shashkas dating to before the very beginning of 19th century. Iconographically, there are portraits of Cossack chieftains dating to the 18th century with fully developed Circassian shashkas ( to the point of that there are Russian "patriots" claiming that shashka was an originally Cossack weapon, an that Caucasians just stole the idea from them). Similarly, I am unaware of any "Bukharan" examples before the 19th century. This is not dissimilar to our ignorance of Turkish weapons prior to Mehmet II. In that part of the world weapons were actually used non-stop, the idea of museum conservation was unheard of and nobody cared enough to leave a detailed treatise with illustrations and historical analysis.

Thus, the genealogy of shashka-like sabers can only be observed "... Through a glass darkly".....

[Jim McDougall]

I have long very much admired the scholars among us who have had the tenacity and endurance to deeply study the complex histories of Central Asia, the Caucusus and the Steppes into China. Even those descriptive areas cannot possibly approach the incredible anthropological and cultural elements comprehensively.

I agree with Ibrahiim in observing the futility of trying to find distinct connection between this number of weapons having certain degree of similarity and often subtle influences and from such broad sources ethnically as well as geographically over long periods of time.

The genealogy analogy is well placed, as I personally discovered in the years I tried to accomplish my own. While often dead ends and misperceptions plagued the search, it helped to place all possibilities together in order to comprehensively keep them in perspective.

While the tunkou element is a subject unto itself, and I brought what I could discover in my earlier post......the subject of these swords as a form remains quite clouded. By collectively putting our research and ideas together however, who knows what me might discover!!!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by ariel

Ibrahiim,
With all due respect it seems to me that you are "lumping" different and unrelated weapons into one happy family.

This may be a necessary and inavoidable step at the beginning of any scientific inquiry, but it should be followed by a more advanced stage, I.e. "splitting".

Regretfully, we do not have actual examples of Caucasian shashkas dating to before the very beginning of 19th century. Iconographically, there are portraits of Cossack chieftains dating to the 18th century with fully developed Circassian shashkas ( to the point of that there are Russian "patriots" claiming that shashka was an originally Cossack weapon, an that Caucasians just stole the idea from them). Similarly, I am unaware of any "Bukharan" examples before the 19th century. This is not dissimilar to our ignorance of Turkish weapons prior to Mehmet II. In that part of the world weapons were actually used non-stop, the idea of museum conservation was unheard of and nobody cared enough to leave a detailed treatise with illustrations and historical analysis.

Thus, the genealogy of shashka-like sabers can only be observed "... Through a glass darkly".....

Salaams Ariel, Thank you for your post in which you describe the situation of my posts as being .."Through a glass darkly"... which I am sure you will agree is a far better state than "looking through mud" at a subject long ignored.
I am glad you noted my lumping all the possibilities together which is exactly what my aim was ..and since we are at the beginning (almost) on this quite peculiar form I did indeed deliberately group as many of the variants together and it can be seen what is potentially link-able and more importantly what is not. It also serves I hope, to illustrate to other readers how diverse this form may be...and in grouping together form from different points of the compass it may be seen what a vast subject this is...