What is a KARUD?!

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=ariel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ariel, your use of "pseudo-shashka" is a perfect example of "categorization" This is certainly not how the people who used these would have described them but for categorizion purposes it is a very good description. I will eventually have a "Pseudo-shashka" or "Shashka (pseudo)" Pinterest board, I will use your discription in order to inform people that while these are similar in appearance to Caucasian / Circassian shashka they are a completely separate type.
Y
There seems to be here a lack of understanding about picking the best term to use for categorization as opposed to the most historically accurate term.[/QUOT

Actually, this is not my invention: it belongs to Iaroslav Lebedinski.
He knew full well that it had nothing to do with real shashka, but used it as a stenographic term.

It is in a way like Karud: does not exist as such, but is awfully convenient for quick chat.

Ariel is quite right, and it was Lebedynsky who first coined and used the term ("Les Armes Traditionelles de l' Europe", Paris, 1996) and it seems it derived from difficulties determining whether 'shaska -like' sabres from Afghanistan or Uzbekistan were actually of the Caucasian group. As I recall, in trying to determine one of these cases around 15 years ago, it remained hard to say, even in discussion with Torben Flindt and Prof. Lebedynsky.
It seemed agreed that these were in fact NOT of the Caucasian group as with the 'Bukharen sabres'.
The use of the 'psuedo' addition as far as I have known was never used again in this parlance with shashkas, but Ariel recalls it just as I do from those research days of some time ago.

PS, I would very much disagree with Lebedynsky ' not knowing very much about shashkas etc.!! When I first communicated with him back in the early 90s it was in research on Cossack and Caucasian shashkas, on which he had written a book. He is a prolific author who has written an incredible number of books on these and many arms topics, often influenced by his Ukrainian ancestry and pronounced study on these arms. I recall research on the Zaporozhian Cossacks he assisted me with many years back.

Mahratt, of course the word 'shashka' is as I have understood, a Russian term for 'sword', and many stirrup hilted sabres of the Russian army are equally called shashka ("Russian Military Swords" 1801-1917" Eugene Mollo, 1969).
While these Afghan sabres have the cleft pommel and overall similarity TO the Caucasian forms, most authorities I believe generally hold them to be outside the 'shashka' and Caucasian scope.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Mahratt, of course the word 'shashka' is as I have understood, a Russian term for 'sword', and many stirrup hilted sabres of the Russian army are equally called shashka ("Russian Military Swords" 1801-1917" Eugene Mollo, 1969).
While these Afghan sabres have the cleft pommel and overall similarity TO the Caucasian forms, most authorities I believe generally hold them to be outside the 'shashka' and Caucasian scope.

Dear Jim!

We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka.

Maybe I'm wrong to say (excuse me my bad English)
I meant that Lebedinsky knew little about the Afghan shashkas, which he called - "psevdoshashka".

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Jim!

We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka.

Maybe I'm wrong to say (excuse me my bad English)
I meant that Lebedinsky knew little about the Afghan shashkas, which he called - "psevdoshashka".

Hi Mahratt,
I think that's what all the fuss was about. The Afghan and Uzbek were indeed 'different', and the Bukharen sabre with very different hilt was of course obviously not of the same category. While most of his work in those times focused on the Caucasian and Russian versions of shashka, he did indeed have excellent knowledge on the full spectrum of swords he included in his writings.
The thing was, in those times, these were remarkably esoteric weapons, and there was so much disagreement and debate on the proper classifications of these. It was in these times that Torben Flindt very sagely told me, 'weapons have no geographic boundaries' !
I think the use of the 'psuedo' appellation was borne out of those particular frustrations and disagreements and knowing that any designation was bound to be challenged.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Mahratt,
I think that's what all the fuss was about. The Afghan and Uzbek were indeed 'different', and the Bukharen sabre with very different hilt was of course obviously not of the same category. While most of his work in those times focused on the Caucasian and Russian versions of shashka, he did indeed have excellent knowledge on the full spectrum of swords he included in his writings.
The thing was, in those times, these were remarkably esoteric weapons, and there was so much disagreement and debate on the proper classifications of these. It was in these times that Torben Flindt very sagely told me, 'weapons have no geographic boundaries' !
I think the use of the 'psuedo' appellation was borne out of those particular frustrations and disagreements and knowing that any designation was bound to be challenged.

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

[Ian]

Guys:

Instead of arguing with each other about semantics and getting all defensive and irritated, why don't you see what others have done to resolve issues of nomenclature in other aspects of sword descriptions? Ewart Oakeshott's widely accepted descriptions of medieval swords is an excellent example. Albert van Zonneveld took a different approach with the wide spectrum of Indonesian swords and knives.

Instead of arguing terminology, why not explore the typology of these weapons, looking for similarities that enable broad groups to be defined and then consider sub-groups? Oakeshott took a purely typographic approach to medieval swords and gave his main groupings Roman numerals, thus avoiding descriptive terms altogether.

Function is determined by how the weapon is put together, and what is not functional is essentially decorative. Sometimes we focus on the decorative aspects and lose sight of the functional. Typology as applied to Oakeshott's classification is mainly concerned with function.

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

This would be a YUUUUUUGE contribution to the field and would put to rest some of the arguing on these pages. You guys are smart and experienced in this area of weaponology. Should be easy-peasy for you.

Ian.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ian

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

Ian.

Ian,

That's what I'm talking about. There is a "shashka". And everyone knows features shashka. Within the concept of "shashka" can be distinguished: Caucasian shashka, Russian shashka (Cossack), Afghan shashka and Bukhara shashka. It's so logical.

"What's in a name? That we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." (с)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

Yes, I agree that many readers here may not know those authors if they are not involved with these fields of study. As I noted, Iaroslav Lebedynsky is an extremely well known author of arms references published in France.
Torben Flindt, wrote the seminal article "Some Nineteenth Century Arms from Bukhara" ( in "Islamic Arms and Armour" ed, Robert Elgood, 1979). This has been to date the single specific reference to edged weapons of these regions.

In searching our archives, a thread from 2001, ' Bukhara and Swords', I found a most appropriate passage noted by Philip Tom, one of our most notable scholars on these and Asian arms,
"...on shashkas, my fond hope is that some ethnically non specific term can be devised for use by collectors to describe these sabres, so that the language of one ethnic group isn't used to generally name similar looking weapons of different cultures".
-Philip Tom, Feb. 12, 2001

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.

PS Ian we crossed posts.......VERY WELL SAID!!!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.

Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom?

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom?

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

Perfect!