Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

If those are Shashkas, then my Japanese Katana is also a shashka!

yes i agree and some kattara too up to West African mandingo swords...
Should have chronological and geographical frames

[mariusgmioc]

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan and Bukahara Shashkas?!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Can somebody please post some photos of Afghan Shashkas?!

Afghan Shashkas:

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Can somebody please post some photos of Bukahara Shashkas?!

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

Thank you very much for the photos!

As I am just a novice in the field, I didn't even know these varieties existed!

And they look quite Shashkas to me! Whether they culturally belong to the Caucasian family or not, I believe they qualify for being called Shashkas.

Even if they appeared relatively recently as immitations of the Russian army issued Shashkas, I believe they still need consideration. After all that's how many other weapons appeared, by first copying, then adapting a weapon from a neighbouring nation, from a conquering or even from a conquered army.

Very interesting thread!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mahratt

"Bukahara" Shashkas:

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Kubur

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

From what I see, the Afghan ones seem to have a somehow longer pommel and broader tip.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

What is the difference between Afghan Shashkas & Bukaharan Shashkas?
I don't see any...

I am glad that you agree that it is - shashkas.

I show the most well-known examples:

[ariel]

Marius,

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.

But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them.
Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally.

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers . This is why they are pseudo-shashkas. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Should have chronological and geographical frames

Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)

[kronckew]

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

[Kiziria]

Originally Posted by kronckew

caucasus mountains range thru Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Iran.

Allow me slight correction. Instead of Russia, should be - Russian Federation. Word Russia invites geographical and cultural error. Part of Caucasus presently governed within Russian Federation, culturally belong to Caucasian cultural oikumene (ekumene). Particulary Circassian, Vainakh, Avar, Kumik cultural worlds among others. When discussing ethnographic arms of Caucasus it is imperative to make this kind of distinction. In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Kiziria

In aspects of warfare and weaponry Russian presence was that of a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions.

As well as Ottomans, all Turks, Central Asia, India, Japan, China, Caucasians - all of them borrowed local and outside traditions. Russians....

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Exactly true!
Otherwise we may start discussing Scottish Sgian Dubh bringing Caucasian Kindjals, Moroccan Genoui and some Congo daggers as examples. The blades are straight, so what more do we need?:-)

You inconsiderate. In the description of shashkas said that the shashka - a kind of saber.

Now compare Russian (army), Caucasus and Afghan shashkas.

Someone sees a copy?

[ariel]

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

That is what happens when a definition is taken out of context: the cardinal word missing in the above comment is "Caucasian". All the rest of guardless sabers from all over the world are not Shashkas by definition.

Just like there is only one true Katana: the Japanese one. We all know Indonesian and Filippine WW2 imitations, but would not dare call them true katanas: pseudo-katanas at the most.

Rivkin, Astvatsaturyan and Stone were very well familiar with other guardless sabers. They just thought about the topic bit more carefully:-)

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.

Originally Posted by ariel

Gentlemen,
Enjoy shashkas from the Indonesian archipelago:

Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

g.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.

There is a difference between "thinking big" and "thinking mile wide and inch deep."

I try to do my best not to belong to the latter group.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Rivkin and Astvatsaturyan wrote a book about the Caucasus weapons. Stone did not know the Afghan shashkas. Yes, and "Bukhara"shashkas Stone is not written. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Try to think big. Beyond the clichés.



Reread again signs of checkers from my post.

Jim, that's what I call - overdo to the point of absurdity.

Indeed it is but good to have some levity, these intense 'discussions' can sometimes be trying. The point is well taken though, sometimes the fact of a sabre without a guard as a key factor does not qualify it immediately as being a 'shashka'.
So then, do we turn to the notable cleft in the pommel?
As seen with the Turkish sabre with yataghan hilt, the blade is clearly a sabre, not recurved or deep bellied as with the true yataghan blade form.
The hilt does not have the same cleft character, it is more eared. But we see the point made.

It is interesting to see the number of other guardless sabres in the world, and of course obviously NOT in the shashka realm.

It seems clearly that we are off to a good start, and everyone thinking quite largely!!! as would be expected here.

I think personally that one of the biggest obstacles in weapons classification is the incessant need to categorize into arbitrary groupings, without some sort of accurate qualification. As we have seen, the term 'psuedo' fails as a prefix, where in the case of Afghan or Uzbek sabres, the term(s) of Caucasian shashka form might serve better.

Since these were in proximity or somewhat in the geographical context of areas of Caucasian influence, then that description seems reasonable.
It is well established that the Russian and via them, Caucasian influences might have filtered into these regions with their presence there.

In the cases of other guardless sabres such as katanas et al, obviously in far reaching areas without notable contact with indigenous areas or ethnicities of the shashka, that term or dominator clearly fails.
In many cases though, other prefixes noting similarities or key features similar to other swords in their proximities, such as the dhas of SE Asia, Chinese dao and others might work as required.

[Jim McDougall]

Yikes! Just saw al these other posts which came up while I was beating the heck out of my keyboard!!!
This is gonna be a wild ride, but fascinating
You guys are amazing, and it is exciting to see this much scope and knowledge come together in such dynamics.

[mahratt]

Jim, I think, we can speak of a "groupings" when we have a lot of examples. Individual "the only ones"that emerge in different countries are the exception that proves the rule.

[Ian]

Gentlemen, please take a time out and read the instructions again. Any reference to sub-types and decorative features is pointless unless you can define a shashka, regardless of geographic origins.

As many of you rightly point out, there are swords from all over the world that fall into the category of curved sabers without a guard--it would define the vast majority of dha/daab/daav for example. This is a commonly encountered weapon in many different cultures. So please bring some light into what defines the shashka. Mahratt provided several prior attempts by other authors in his very first reply to this question. Do one of these capture the essence of this definition? If not, why not?

[ariel]

Ian,
One cannot define a shashka outside of its geographic and ethnic origin. It is originally a Circassian weapon that spread into Daghestan, Chechnia and partly into Transcaucasia.
It went to the Ottoman Empire with Circassian exiles, muhadjirs, and there are well documented examples manufactured there.
Other than those two areas there were no examples of a true Caucasian pattern in other cultures, societies etc.

Attempts are made to ascribe the so-called Beduin sabre ( Negev, Sinai) to simplified version of Caucasian shashkas brought to the area my the above muhadjirs. The problem with it resides with the existence of almost exact copies of the "Beduin" examples among Croatian Kraisniks, votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage.

At the end of 19th century Russian government established a Cossack Brigade in Iran under the tutelage of Russian officers. The Iranian recruits were armed with Russian military sabers 1881 pattern and we still see "Russian Military Shashkas" with Persian numbering on e-bay. Those have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian tradition.

In the 19th century Russians occupied Central Asian Khanates and had close ties with the Afghani military ( see. P. Hopkirk " The Great Game"). That , most likely, was reflected in military Afghani pseudoshashkas , that combined both local ( eg integral bolster etc) and Cossack elements inherited by them from their Caucasian foes ( suspension system, forked pommel, - both " Caucasian" but not quite).

The other Central Asian guardless sabers ( including Bukharan) were not military, but truly indigenous weapons, and as such were not modified according to foreign influences. Khanates had no regular armies and consequently no regulation weapons. Individual masters followed old traditions and had no incentive or reason to copy weapons of the occupier.


We recently encountered yet another fascinating pattern: "Indian pseudoshashka" with tunkou and D-guard but no quillons. I do not know where to place it. I may only cautiously suspect that it also has derivative features of a Khyber, but may be very wrong.


Thus, if we want to discuss Shashkas, we are obligated to limit ourselves to the Caucasian examples and their locally-produced ethnic copies ( Ottoman Muhadjirs).

We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".

The rest of guardless sabers, from Ottoman yataghans to Bukharan sabers, Khybers, Parangs etc have nothing to do with Caucasian tradition and the term shashka should not be allowed to touch them:-)

There cannot be such thing as French Katana, Japanese Jambia , Congolese Sgian Dubh or Vietnamese Kattara.

Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be.

[mahratt]

Very, very many words

By the logic of Ariel - only Persian Shamshir - real Shamshir. Shamshir in the Balkans - is psevdoshamshir))))

Shashka - this concept is not associated with a particular ethnic region.

[Kubur]

Ariel, I mostly agree. 90%

I fully agree with 2 main points.

Originally Posted by ariel

We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".


Certain weapons around the world are inseparable from their ethnic roots and that is how it should be.

I just disagree with

Originally Posted by ariel

votive swords in the Sword Mosque in Qairuan, Tunisia and Sardinian Leppas. It forces one to suspect that the above "shashka-like" examples are just simple ergonomic sabers not reflecting any ethnic heritage.


We may legitimately discuss the degree of "Caucasian" influence ( through Russian cossacks) upon Afghani military examples of guardless sabers. That is why, IMHO, Lebedinski was correct in calling them "pseudoshashkas".
.

The Tunisian examples are not even shashka like. They are short swords one edge, more like the khyber knife. To the opposite the shashka are the swords of the steppic horsemen to quote Lebedinski. You know better than me the difference between a sabre and a short sword. And for me the Bukharan pseudo shashka can be connected to the shashka because of their central Asian origin.

Kubur