What is a KARUD?!

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I only point out what is available as far as references go, here is an example. While you may have your own thoughts as to what "recurved" means, when it comes to dagger blades it is a common term for a double curved blade, Runjeet uses the term "recurved" to describe a double curved blade. Artzi uses "recurving" to describe a double curved blade as well.

As for "khanjar", for many people it describes a recurved dagger as opposed to a single curved dagger.

It appears that what was originally a mistake, it has become to be accepted as it is. Wouldn't be neither the first, nor the biggest.

But why shall we continue propagating it? Why shouldn't we straighten things up?

Have a look at Ariel's message and have a nice weekend!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.

Ariel, what I have been discussing is the use of certain terms by Western collectors, dealers etc. This often has nothing to do with the terms used by local inhabitants. These Western terms are simply a means to categorize weapons (and armor) which can be easily identified by various traits.

These include kard, karud, pesh kabz, choora, khyber knife, khanjar, jambiya, khanjarli, chilanum, bichwa etc.

When someone insists that their choice of terms is the "correct" term they are not understanding the difference between historical accuracy and Western catagorization, there is often a big difference.

I do not speak Persian, Turkish, Arabic or any other language besides English, but I do know that just because current residents of these countries use or do not use a certain term does not necessarily mean that people who lived a hundred or more years ago used or did not use the same terms and I could really care less as far as catagorization goes.

These is no need to get angry or upset when someone decides to use a specific desctiptive term that they do not choose to use, no one is forcing anyone to use the same term but the reality is that different terms do exist and are used, there is usually no absolute right ot wrong.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

It appears that what was originally a mistake, it has become to be accepted as it is. Wouldn't be neither the first, nor the biggest.

But why shall we continue propagating it? Why shouldn't we straighten things up?

Have a look at Ariel's message and have a nice weekend!

What makes it a mistake, no one is propagating anything, it is a commonly accepted description and it has been for as long as I can remember.

Anyone who wants to think of a single curved bladed dagger and a double curved dagger as being the same thing is free to do so, I and many others do not think they are the same and we place them in different categories.

[ariel]

Eric,
Perhaps I misunderstood the aim and the meaning of the above argument. So let me explain myself.

Sometimes it is appropriate and respectful to use the native term because it had meaning for the original owners: Janbia for the Yemeni Arabs because it was worn on the side, shibria for the Syrian-Palestinian Arabs because it was of a size of hand span, Laz Bichaq because it immediately terminated arguments about its ethnic roots etc. etc.


And if in some cases we need a special term for our own internal use, then the use of stenographic definitions like "Karud" instead of " Pesh Kabz with straight blade" is also fine with me , irrespective of its historic veracity. This is why for example I continue to use "pseudo-shashka" for some Central Asian long bladed weapons because it right away defines their appearance. Please believe me, I know they have nothing to do with Caucasian " Sesh Huo " or how else we transcribe it:-)

As long as we understand the difference between the two approaches and do not create "pretender" entities.

Classifications and names are created to give us common road posts, not to confuse us.
There was a Viennese philosophical school of semasiology: they maintained that most problems in the world stemmed from different meanings people had for the same phenomena. They might have been partially correct:-)

If other people disagree with me, I am fully open to changing my stance.

[Jim McDougall]

Marius, I must say I admire your zeal in your approach in the study and investigation of ethnographic weapons in pro active participation in threads and discussions!
In the case of what we 'seniors' have come to regard as 'the name game' however, the discussion of most of these linguistic, transliterated or otherwise multiple errored terms usually becomes specious fodder for veiled arguments(=debates).

There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references.

Though it would be great to have a sort of 'thesaurus' with a compendium of these many terms, it would be highly improbable as there are as many names for these as there are variations of all, and the task becomes almost infinite.

As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct.
As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

From a scholarly point of view however, it is certainly prudent, if not advisable to learn which terms are flawed linguistically, and if possible, the correct or alternate terms. The reason for this is that in the study of weapons historically, it is important to understand which terms might have been used at a certain time, in certain regions, for a certain form. This may be complicated ethnographically as often, numerous languages may be used there.
When we are investigating a weapon without advantage of some sort of depiction, we must rely on descriptions, and terms, and there is the rub.

With that, I hope I can emphasize, in these kinds of matters.....nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.......and both often in many cases.
There is absolutely no reason for argument or debate in discussing subjects as dynamic and subjective as with these terms, and the weapons they are used to refer to.
It is more important to view instances of use, period, locations etc. as variants and to place them comprehensively as cross referenced as possible.
Perhaps we might find some resolution together toward that 'thesaurus'!!! (if that is the right term ).....maybe I should say dictionary???

[ariel]

Agree.
Literally a minute ago I have learned from Lotfi that term Shibriya that IMMO ( In My Mistaken Opinion) was limited to Arabic daggers of a very specific contour coming from Northern Arabia ( Syria-Palestine). Apparently the same name is used for the daggers of a different configuration coming from Aravia Proper, and the term refers strictly to their size, and not their origin or configuration.

If possible, we really must classify weapons by their specific name, but it is possible only in limited circumstances. Indonesian weapons of absolutely identical appearance carry different names not only on different islands, but in different valleys of the same island. And, as Jim noticed, the overlays of poor transliterations by different European informers further created non-existent entities and masked the real ones. Is choora, churra, ch'hurra, chooree, churay the same dagger or 5 different ones? And what did the Afghanis meant by this name: a short dagger from the Khyber Pass or the massive "Salawar Yataghan":-)

This is not limited to exotic locations and days of yore: even now the same English word pronounced by the locals in different US States will be transcribed differently by a foreign observer. And if there are more than one of them, we will have a list longer than the Constitution:-))

Still, this "name game" may be a lot of fun on occasion. Just let's not go to the extremes with it: every convoluted and sophisticated argument in favor of a specific name is easily destroyed by a single example from the left field:-)

Cheers!

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim and Ariel,

Thank you very much for your opinions, with which I couldn't agree more!

As I said before, sometimes the debate itself is more important than reaching a conclusion, and even more so so when a clear cut conclusion is nowhere in sight.

Between black and white there are thousands shades of grey.

Have a nice weekend!

[ariel]

Have to correct myself: instead of "list longer than the Constitution" it should read " longer than "Fifty Shades of Grey":-)

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by ariel

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.


In Persia, khanjar is always double edged dagger, and pesh Kabz is always single edged. In Aravia proper , what is called khanjar in Oman ( Eastern part of the peninsula, under significant Persian influence) is called Janbia in Yemen ( purely Arabic Western part of the same peninsula). Balkan localities used the same term, -khanjar or hancer, - to designate what we call Yataghans. Caucasians used the word Khanjali ( modified Khanjar) for their straight daggers, and it was further simplified to Kindjal (likely) by the Russians.

Bichaq, pichaq, pichok, p'chak are just dialectic variants of the same Turcik word for "knife" , whereas Kard and Kord are just Persian and Tajik words for the same "knife". In practice, Uzbeki P'chak and Tajik Kord are physically indistinguishable despite passionate mutual dislike between these two ethnicities. There are more differences within each designation due to what village it was produced in, than between the two of them.

Karud ( Pesh Kabz with straight blade) is just one of the phonetic renditions of the Persian word Kard as heard by the Europeans: it was also recorded in the literature as Kared and Karde. And Choora ( a local analog of the"Karud" that is endemic to Eastern Afghanistan/Northwestern Pakistan, Khyber Pass) is the same "knife" , only stemming from Hindi language.

The bottom line, 90% of all short bladed weapons in the Indo-Persian areal are called just "knife", and the fancy differences we so passionately argue about are due to the ethnic roots of their owners: Hindi, Turcik or Persian.

The same eating implement to cut steaks or spread butter on a toast will be called messer in Germany, nozh in Russia, knife in England, couteau in France and sakin in Israel. These days all of them are likely to be cheaply mass produced in China or Brazil.

Is it worth arguing or writing articles about?


Cheer up! :-))))))))))

Very well put.
Regards
Miguel

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

And if in some cases we need a special term for our own internal use, then the use of stenographic definitions like "Karud" instead of " Pesh Kabz with straight blade" is also fine with me , irrespective of its historic veracity. This is why for example I continue to use "pseudo-shashka" for some Central Asian long bladed weapons because it right away defines their appearance. Please believe me, I know they have nothing to do with Caucasian " Sesh Huo " or how else we transcribe it:-)

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.

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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references .................................................. .......................................

As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct.

As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

Jim, you have distilled the argument down to its basic roots. While not all people will use the same terms we all individually decide what terms are appropriate and we can also decide to change the terms we have previously used when we find a term we think is more accurate or appropriate.

[mahratt]

In fact, "psevdoshashka" is not the correct term. Correct to say - "Afghan shashka". We're talking "Bukhara shashka". "Pseudo" - is something unfinished. Afghan shashka - shashka by all indications.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mahratt

In fact, "psevdoshashka" is not the correct term. Correct to say - "Afghan shashka". We're talking "Bukhara shashka". "Pseudo" - is something unfinished. Afghan shashka - shashka by all indications.

Actually "pseudo" means that something is not authentic etc, such as these types of shashka are not real Caucasian shashka...etc.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=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.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Actually "pseudo" means that something is not authentic etc, such as these types of shashka are not real Caucasian shashka...etc.

Ок. But we do not say "psevdocaucasian shashka" Lebedinsky coined the term "psevdoshashka", knowing very little about those items. Meanwhile, Afghan shashka - a shashka on all grounds.

"The double standard"? We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka. It does not bother anyone Afghan shashka we seek to be called -" psevdoshashka". Where is the logic?

One might think that there is no term "Karud" or use the term "psevdoshashka", remaining at the beginning - the mid-20th century. Can "hide one's head in the sand". And it is possible to generalize the available data, to think (and not only use books Lebedinsky and Stone) and deal with complex issues.

Good read other people's books. But it is even better think independently.

[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.

[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 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)

[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!

[mariusgmioc]

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

[mahratt]

Bravo, Marius! Exactly noticed

[Ian]

Gentlemen:

I have started a new thread to help move the discussion of shashka in a new direction. This thread has several requirements that should be read carefully before participating. It invites some different thinking to what has been expressed here.

The discussion here seems to have reached a point where no new information is being provided. Please transfer further discussion of these swords to the new thread.

Ian

[ariel]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

Hi Marius,
Very well noted, and if you might briefly look at my post #48, you will see that I mentioned the likely reason for the 'psuedo' appellation in this case with the reference mentioned. I also noted that the reason that classification never became used elsewhere afterwards was because it was not in keeping with the proper use of the word as an adjustment and thus renders it a moot point.
However, as often the case, we 'seniors' such as Ariel and I sometimes use the term when referring to that particular reference by Iaroslav Lebedynsky from those researches nearly 20 years ago .

I would like to highly commend Ian's outstanding solution to bring the shashka discussion to its own table on another thread so as not to continue clouding the meter of this thread. Each of these topics have promising merit, so I hope you and others will join over there as I hope to as well.

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate!