What is a KARUD?!

ariel · 8th August 2016, 03:16 PM

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.

8th August 2016, 03:16 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.