Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[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:

[mahratt]

Biryuza jewelry in a special technique is only found on the "Bukhara" shashkas. On the Afghan shashkas biryuza - not.

Even if there are shashkas of "Bukhara" with "bolster", it - indistinct (small), when compared with the Afghan shashkas.

"Bukhara" shashka:

[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]

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am confused: not so long ago Mahratt adamantly insisted that a painting by the Russian artist Vereshchagin showing a Bukharan guardless saber with 3 rivets was absolutely correct. Now he specifically differentiates Afghani and Bukharan examples according to the number of rivets, with 3 on Afghani and 5 on Bukharan ( exactly what I was saying according to Flindt and personal experience, and what he so vehemently objected to).

Does he have some new data, or did he read some old ones? Or was it just argument for the sake of the argument?

I had no doubt that the Ariel say about it. He's so predictable.

That is why I wrote in the post number 50, "well-known examples"

Quantity rivets is not so important. Significantly: form handle, "bolster" size, inlaid with turquoise or not and other.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

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

Parangs, some Indian examples , daabs - no many signs of shashka. This it has already been mentioned by other participants of the forum. Why do all the time to talk about them? You have no serious arguments?

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

Please place photo Bedouin "shashka" and "Bukhara" shashka. It will be interesting. And remember that you wrote about "Bedouin shashkas" above.

Originally Posted by ariel

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

On what basis? Because you so want?

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

You can prove it? You say general words (without proof).

Originally Posted by ariel

Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

Perhaps you do not know, but with 1870's "Bukhara" shashka described in Russian historical sources, namely, as a "shashka"

They did not know that Ariel does not think so

[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....

[OsobistGB]

Let me and myself get involved in the topic.The word shashka is derived from Kabardino Circassian sa`sh ho which means a long knife.For homeland is considered the Caucasus region.The most extensive studies on the subject conducted by Russian researchers.Most earliest reference to such use blades are excavations of graves from the 13th century in the Caucasus region.It is also interesting to note that such a form of long edged weapon are used at all the neighboring regions of the Caucasus (Including Georgia).During the Caucasian wars,the cossacks have find exclusive advantage of light and convenient blade used by local peoples.Begins phasing using the shashka and kinjals in Cossack troops.The command of the Russian Imperial Army began to deploy this type of weapon in the Cossack regiments.Eventually, thanks to the Russians this weapon becomes extremely popular in the world.

[ariel]

All true.

Caucasian weapons ( Shashka and kindjal) were initially individually acquired by neighboring Cossacks and later by Russian officers serving in the Caucasus, most actively during the Murid Wars.

Then both started to be manufactured in St. Petersburg and various other cities in Russia and Ukraine, using classical Caucasian forms and decorations.

Then they were modified to become regulation weapons of the Russian imperial army, having very little in common with the Caucasian originals but preserving their original names.

A similar story happened with Caucasian clothes: from occasional individual acquisition to mass fashion statement : even Russian Tsars had their official portraits painted wearing full Caucasian garb, from hats to weapons in minute detail.

I know of no other example where military victors so fully adopted external accoutrements of the vanquished.

Certainly, people all over the world adopted some details of their neighbours’
weaponry ( “ weapons do not know borders” principle), but such a massive transformation has no precedent in the “vanquished-to-victors” direction.

It is as if British high society, royalty included, would have started wearing Indian saris and Zulu loinclothes and the British military officially adopted khandas and katars.

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.

[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?