Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

ariel · 9th January 2019, 04:23 PM

The blade looks almost European industrially-produced one with its very wide fuller. Also, there is a very " Afghani" outgrowth on the very top of its handle. North- East Afghanistan is a Tajik/Uzbek territory and a mix of styles would be expected.
But overall, a very interesting example that I would love to have on my wall. Congratulations!

Five rivets is a classic, as we have learned from a chapter on Bukharan weapons in the Elgood's monograph, but I have a nagging uncertainty: this chapter is talking about 5 large rivets, and those would be safer in a not very brittle materiel of the handle. Wood ( the most popular materiel for the " bukharan" ones) would be eminently suitable for 5 large rivets, but rather infrequent brittle stone, walrus or ivory ones might be problematic and 3 rivets only might be safer. Even then, we see multiple examples of Caucasian kindjals with walrus or bone handles and a centrally-located rivet that have a transverse crack in the middle: organic materiels tends to dry and shrink. This has nothing to do with your example: just passing musings.

ALEX · 9th January 2019, 04:34 PM

Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

mahratt · 9th January 2019, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

ALEX, this is a typical item for Bukhara. There is no Afghan influence in it. Karud and Peshkabz , the mounting of the handles of whichs is similar to the mounting of the handle of an item of this type, were widespreadboth in Afghanistan and in Central Asia.
The blade has nothing to do with Europe. Such blades were made in Bukhara. Known blades of almost identical form with yours, on the same Uzbek objects, forged from Damascus.
Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.) And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is

At least because the Caucasus at that time was already part of the Russian Empire and the shashkas were in service with Russian officers.
The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas".

But of course, the right of everyone to believe the schemes, which some participants drew here, considering themselves to be great experts in the field of "shashkas"

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2019, 08:35 PM

Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented.

While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s.
My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion.
As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '.

As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'.
These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages.

Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.

ariel · 9th January 2019, 10:02 PM

This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia.
Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada".

"Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.)

These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps.

"The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information.
By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas"."

Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates.

As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter.

"And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is ."

For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-))

mahratt · 10th January 2019, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia.
Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada".

I see some lack of logic in this phrase. None of the listed items (Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec) has ever been called a "shashka" by anyone. However, the Bukhara (Central Asian) shashkas are called the term "shashka" from the 1870s. Your personal understanding of how to call these subjects, based on the works of Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt, is solely your personal opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps.

Please tell us how long the Bukharian shashkas appeared before the "Russian invasion"? Maybe you have accurate information?

And why then do you not insist on calling the Bukhara checkers the “ethnic name” that they were called in Central Asia? Why do you need to use the English word "sword"? (In this case, the names of Indian weapons, distorted by the British, for some reason do not bother you

)
(And, by the way, why in this topic tell about the "Circassians", expelled from their land? Have you forgotten that at that time it was a common practice of fighting warlike nations? Likewise, Indians of North America were expelled from their land by settlers from Europe, who called themselves Americans. Moreover, settlers from Europe systematically destroyed the Indians and drove them to the reservation).
Russian researchers called the Bukhara shashkas the term "shashka" precisely because of the similarity with similar weapons in the Caucasus. Here you are absolutely right. And I don’t quite understand why you so ardently defend Lebedinsky’s term “pseudoshashka”, which he used at the end of the 20th century, when 100 years before him Bukhara shashkas were called “shashkas” without any “pseudo”

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates.
As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter.

The fact that there is one article about the weapons of Central Asia of the respected Torben Flindt, which is based on the Danish collections, does not mean that everything that is written in this article is absolutely true ("verum in ultima instantia"). It only says that there are no more serious works on this topic.
I would really ask you to refrain from insulting attacks on Russian researchers. Although, as they say? "Attack is the best form of defence"

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-))

You are amazingly insightful regarding Google Translit

Thank you for explaining to the forum participants the moment, where I did not correct the error, the automatic translation of Google Translit.

ALEX · 10th January 2019, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

... Such blades were made in Bukhara. Known blades of almost identical form with yours, on the same Uzbek objects, forged from Damascus. ...

Dmitry, thanks again!
Based on this, do you think this blade could be Damascus, wootz or mechanical? I know this is a difficult guess. The blade is heavily patinated and I did not sense wootz based on how it feels. Cleaning it would require some serious sandpapering

I am debating on polishing or leaving it as is. What do you think?

mahratt · 10th January 2019, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dmitry, thanks again!
Based on this, do you think this blade could be Damascus, wootz or mechanical? I know this is a difficult guess. The blade is heavily patinated and I did not sense wootz based on how it feels. Cleaning it would require some serious sandpapering

I am debating on polishing or leaving it as is. What do you think?

Although Bukhara shashkas are known with wootz blades, but shashkas with blades of exactly the same shape, like your shashka, I only know from Damascus mechanical.....

Of the four Bukhara shashkas of this form, which are known to me (not counting your shashka), 2 are made of Damascus mechanical.

ALEX · 10th January 2019, 09:00 AM

Dmitry,
Thank you very much for another great reference! Is there a dot on that blade, it looks like drilled circle, or perhaps an effect from the photo?

mahratt · 10th January 2019, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dmitry,
Thank you very much for another great reference! Is there a dot on that blade, it looks like drilled circle, or perhaps an effect from the photo?

Unfortunately, in departmental Russian museums (for example, at metallurgical plants) after 1945 it was customary to fix the weapon against the wall of the shop window .... This is a modern hole.

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2019, 04:52 PM

Actually the monograph on Bukharen weapons was by Torben Flindt and appeared in Robert Elgood's 1979 "Islamic Arms and Armour" compendium.
In discussions I recall from some years ago with Mr. Flindt he noted the difficulties in classifying examples of these Bukharen sabres as distinctly Uzbek (Bukharen) or Afghan. I had found an example which had the fluted silver scabbard mount extending from tip to approx. center characteristically Afghan (often on paluoar scabbards).

I would point out here that in my findings it was generally held that these Uzbek/Afghan sabres are not generally considered part of the variety of Caucasian or later Cossack sabres termed 'shashka' (in Russian). While obviously the influence certainly is probable given the exposure to these swords and the diffusion of certain elements such as the cleft pommel etc.. they are not effectively considered shashkas. I well ran up against this with my acquisition, which was described as 'Uzbek shashka'. ...hence the discussions that ensued about correct term.

In any case, the are wonderfully attractive and intriguing swords, with colorful history and extremely hard to find. ….this is an amazing example!

ALEX · 9th January 2019, 05:24 PM

Dear Jim. You're absolutely right. "Shashka" is a particularly Russian sword and term., using it for non-Russian swords of similar construction could not be entirely correct. I agree, this example is better described as "Central Asian sword". Thank you for pointing that out and the reference.
As you know, the weapons were outlawed in Uzbekistan by Soviets and many were destroyed or stripped of fittings and hidden. I believe this is one of survived examples that was later discovered somewhere in the basement under the floor. An interesting find indeed. Thanks again!

Jim McDougall · 9th January 2019, 06:53 PM

Thanks very much Alex, and interesting notes on the hiding away of many of these weapons in the later times as Soviet rule took over in these regions. This in my thinking, adds so much to the intrigue of these swords, much in the same way as so many Scottish basket hilts were hidden away in the 18th c.
In those instances it seems that dirks were often permitted as they retained clear utility uses, and I wonder if such was the same in these Central Asian cases.

Getting back to the sword itself, I agree that this deeply curved blade with pronounced yelman seems early, and I would be comfortable in suggesting latter 18th c. The yelman was of course typical in Central Asia from much earlier Turkic sabres, and its purpose was in adding impetus to slashing cuts. The clipped tip character of the sharp point seems in accord with European cavalry sabres of the late 18thc. but of course the reinforced point reflects that well known on Indian daggers much earlier.

As Ariel has pointed out, the capstan appearing element on the pommel is a very 'Afghan' associated item, and of course India in these times extended well into what is now Afghanistan. As Mr. Flindt mentioned in our talks, weapons have no geographic boundaries, an axiom I have never forgotten.

9th January 2019, 10:02 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	This is just a guardless saber, the examples of which can be seen in a variety of places, from Sardinia and Negev to India and Indonesia. Each one of them had its own history, ethnic origin, mythology and name. To call them all "shashka" is akin to calling Indian Dhup, Omani Kattara and Turkish mec an "espada". "Now about the terminology. Such subjects were first described by Russian military and ethnographers in the 1870s. Russian researchers called them then "shashka". (This is confirmed by numerous written sources of the time.) These swords were in existence well before Russian invasion and occupation of Central Asia, so the credit goes to the original owners and not to the invaders. Russians called and still call these weapons " shashkas" through appropriation of the name given to this weapon by conquered Circassians who were exiled from their ancestral land, and we would be ill-advised to follow in their steps. "The fact that the respected Torben Flindt, following even the more respected Ole Olufsen, calls this weapon "saber" is only a lack of information. By the way, in modern Russian literature on weapons such subjects are is always called "shashkas"." Well, I would not be bold enough to grade people as just "respected" or " even more respected", but snickering categorization of the groundbreaking chapter by Torben Flindt as " lack of information" would be laughable, had it not been grossly misinformed and utterly disrespectful. There is not a single book, chapter or paper written by modern or old Russian authors on the subject of Central Asian weapons. Perhaps, with the exception of an article by Botyakov and Yanborisov on bladed weapons of Turkmen tribes, that is not even addressing examples from Central Asian khanates. As to the " authority" of modern Russian literature on Oriental weapons, it is produced largely by the authors who cannot read in any other language and who had not written anything comparable to Flindt's chapter. "And probably, it is the Russians who know better what a checker is ." For those of you not fluent in Russian, the name of the Caucasian saber " shashka" is homophonic with the Russian name for a game of checkers ( shashki). Google Translator could not catch a difference and neither did the author:-)) Last edited by ariel; 10th January 2019 at 12:27 AM.

9th January 2019, 04:23 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The blade looks almost European industrially-produced one with its very wide fuller. Also, there is a very " Afghani" outgrowth on the very top of its handle. North- East Afghanistan is a Tajik/Uzbek territory and a mix of styles would be expected. But overall, a very interesting example that I would love to have on my wall. Congratulations! Five rivets is a classic, as we have learned from a chapter on Bukharan weapons in the Elgood's monograph, but I have a nagging uncertainty: this chapter is talking about 5 large rivets, and those would be safer in a not very brittle materiel of the handle. Wood ( the most popular materiel for the " bukharan" ones) would be eminently suitable for 5 large rivets, but rather infrequent brittle stone, walrus or ivory ones might be problematic and 3 rivets only might be safer. Even then, we see multiple examples of Caucasian kindjals with walrus or bone handles and a centrally-located rivet that have a transverse crack in the middle: organic materiels tends to dry and shrink. This has nothing to do with your example: just passing musings.

9th January 2019, 04:34 PM	#2
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Thank you, Ariel. I had the same thoughts about European and also Afghani looks, and how unusual the blade is. You're right about various territorial style mixes, although I do not think it is industrial European blade... but could it be?

9th January 2019, 08:35 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	Mahratt is right on one point, this is a distinctly Bukharen form sabre particularly by the type of hilt. The reason I brought up the Uzbek (or Afghan) sword I had is because the hilt was remarkably similar to the shashkas of the Caucasus. This similarity was brought up by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in his work described as a 'pseudo-shashka' which of course was not necessarily a workable term but the case was well presented. While I do not consider myself a great expert on shashkas, I have had the good fortune of knowing a good number of people who are, and who have kindly helped me in the time I have studied their history since the early 1990s. My mention of the term as applied to these Bukharen sabres was merely added as an aside regarding these swords as included in a thread on shashkas, so as to better qualify their inclusion. As always, the name game is largely irrelevant except for purposes of specious debate, but Shakespeare's words always say it best, 'a rose by any other name...etc. '. As for weapons being classified and described I think we can very well expect the writers to use the terms in their own language for their wording. These instances and often transliteration in continued repitition have given us many terms which we regard as 'collectors terms'. These have been the basis for countless colorful debates on these pages. Good input on the blade, and well pointed out at the influences European blades apparently may have had in degree with Bukharen sword makers.

10th January 2019, 09:00 AM	#9
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Dmitry, Thank you very much for another great reference! Is there a dot on that blade, it looks like drilled circle, or perhaps an effect from the photo?

9th January 2019, 04:52 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	Actually the monograph on Bukharen weapons was by Torben Flindt and appeared in Robert Elgood's 1979 "Islamic Arms and Armour" compendium. In discussions I recall from some years ago with Mr. Flindt he noted the difficulties in classifying examples of these Bukharen sabres as distinctly Uzbek (Bukharen) or Afghan. I had found an example which had the fluted silver scabbard mount extending from tip to approx. center characteristically Afghan (often on paluoar scabbards). I would point out here that in my findings it was generally held that these Uzbek/Afghan sabres are not generally considered part of the variety of Caucasian or later Cossack sabres termed 'shashka' (in Russian). While obviously the influence certainly is probable given the exposure to these swords and the diffusion of certain elements such as the cleft pommel etc.. they are not effectively considered shashkas. I well ran up against this with my acquisition, which was described as 'Uzbek shashka'. ...hence the discussions that ensued about correct term. In any case, the are wonderfully attractive and intriguing swords, with colorful history and extremely hard to find. ….this is an amazing example!

9th January 2019, 05:24 PM	#12
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Dear Jim. You're absolutely right. "Shashka" is a particularly Russian sword and term., using it for non-Russian swords of similar construction could not be entirely correct. I agree, this example is better described as "Central Asian sword". Thank you for pointing that out and the reference. As you know, the weapons were outlawed in Uzbekistan by Soviets and many were destroyed or stripped of fittings and hidden. I believe this is one of survived examples that was later discovered somewhere in the basement under the floor. An interesting find indeed. Thanks again!

9th January 2019, 06:53 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	Thanks very much Alex, and interesting notes on the hiding away of many of these weapons in the later times as Soviet rule took over in these regions. This in my thinking, adds so much to the intrigue of these swords, much in the same way as so many Scottish basket hilts were hidden away in the 18th c. In those instances it seems that dirks were often permitted as they retained clear utility uses, and I wonder if such was the same in these Central Asian cases. Getting back to the sword itself, I agree that this deeply curved blade with pronounced yelman seems early, and I would be comfortable in suggesting latter 18th c. The yelman was of course typical in Central Asia from much earlier Turkic sabres, and its purpose was in adding impetus to slashing cuts. The clipped tip character of the sharp point seems in accord with European cavalry sabres of the late 18thc. but of course the reinforced point reflects that well known on Indian daggers much earlier. As Ariel has pointed out, the capstan appearing element on the pommel is a very 'Afghan' associated item, and of course India in these times extended well into what is now Afghanistan. As Mr. Flindt mentioned in our talks, weapons have no geographic boundaries, an axiom I have never forgotten.