Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[Ian]

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry. The translation here is terrible. I have not spoken or written French for 50+ years but I do know that the last sentence should read, "It is one of our collection's best blades." No doubt your French is better than mine, so please favor us with a more meaningful translation.

On the issue of using former European blades in Caucasian shashkas, there are some gaps in logic when assuming that these were converted to shashkas in the 17th-18th C.

Basically, we don't know when these shashkas were made. The blades could have been repurposed, such that a guarded hilt was replaced by the guardless shashka hilt at a later time. High quality blades such as these would have been passed down within families and could have been updated/modified at any time.

Ian

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Ian

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry. The translation here is terrible. I have not spoken or written French for 50+ years but I do know that the last sentence should read, "It is one of our collection's best blades." No doubt your French is better than mine, so please favor us with a more meaningful translation.



Ian

The last sentence indeed translates as "It's one of the best blades of my collection", not a mean compliment I would say, coming from Buttin...
I will try to find time and translate the whole description tomorrow
Regards,
Andreas

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

So THAT was the question!
Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ironically, IMHO, the much-despised term "pseeudoshashka" applied by Lebedinski to the Afghani military examples may carry a significant grain of truth. It carries so many elements borrowed from the real Caucasian one, that a grudging use of " shashka", qualified by "pseudo" is ( again, IMHO) fully appropriate.

In contrast, we cannot call Bukharan pattern " shashka" under any circumstances: it is a totally different animal. Just like parangs and kattaras:_))))

Thanks, so basically three categories, Caucasian / Circassian (and Russian) shashkas, Afghan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka and Bukharan ?????.....what do you call these if not Bukharan shashka type sword????.....Bukharan sabre????

[ariel]

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Agree with first 2.
For want of a better word, Bukharan is just a generic "saber". Until, of course, we learn its true local name:-)

I personally think that Bukharan should be "Bukharan non Caucasian / Circassian pseudo shashka" and the Afghan on should be "Afghan shashka", this would be closer to the actual identification from what I have been reading.......taking into account the generally accepted meaning of "pseudo" (not genuine, synonyms:bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived,) as in "we are talking about real shashka based on the Caucasian version and not the pseudo Bukharan kind" etc.

If the Bukharan sabre is not related to the Caucasian shashka and has been mis-identified as a shashka it should be noted for future interested parties.

[ariel]

double posting

[ariel]

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, in this case tulwar is a pseudo karabela, bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber , and Sosun Pata is a pseudo yataghan . Or vice versa:-)

Superficial similarity is not a ground for mutual classification.

IMHO.

I can not comment on "bauernwehr is a pseudo khyber" but as far as "karabala" goes this is based on the hilt as tulwar have a different hilt, same with "sosun pata" as yataghan have a different hilt. But I think you are mis-understanding my train of thought.

Pseudo implies something that is false or fake etc, this more accurately describes (in my opinion) the current widely accepted term "Bukharan shashka" which from your comments and research seems to fit the description of being pseudo shashka while as you say the Afghan shashka has come commonality with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka possibly making it a form of shashka in its own right.

I just think that the term "pseudo" is more suited to the Bukharan types of sabres that are currently widely described as "shashka". I know that an authority (Lebedinski) previously used "pseudo" to describe the Afghan variety but as has been stated here the Afghan shashka seem to be related in some way to the Caucasian / Circassian shashka while the Bukharan types are not related at all. This seems to make the Bukharan types more of a " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc" than the Afghan shashka with is a derivative of the original shashka so not as close to being "pseudo", at least this is how I see it.

[ariel]

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

[Roland_M]

A Shashka is a saber, which was first used by the Circassians (a Northwest Caucasian ethnic group).

In Circassians language "Shashka" means "long knife".

The Cossacks adopt the Shashka in the 19th century.


Roland

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

Unfortunately you know that the Bukharan "shashka" is not related to shashka but what about the rest of the world??? So in the sense that the Bukharan is not actually a shashka I think "pseudo is more appropriately used than for the Afghan shashka which can at least semi-accurately be called a shashka.

I was thinking that using "pseudo" with Bukharan would be telling people who run into these types of swords that they are not actually shashka at all (you convinced me of this).

Lets say you wanted to divide / separate these three groups of swords into three categories as in three Pinterest boards. One for Caucasian / Circassian shashka, one for Afghan shashka and one for the Bukharan type of sabre that is currently being called "shashka". How would you get the point across that the Bukharan "shashka" is not actually a shashka at all, calling it a "Bukharan pseudo shashka might be helpful.

It really comes down to your own interpretation of "pseudo" and how it is best applied.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

I'm inclined to agree here Ariel. It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.

Personally I think the Afghan example of these sabres is most likely to have evolved from exposure to the Russian forces in these regions through the 19th century and I believe earlier (need to consult Hopkirk, "The Great Game" to be sure how early).
Russian forces clearly comprised Caucasian elements and officers often kept their heirloom forms as well as personal weapons in service. These thus were probably known to armourers in these regions.
It would seem that these locally produced shaska -style sabres would emulate the Caucasian forms.

The conundrum of the 'Uzbek' form seems to be rather so entwined with the Afghan of these shaska like sabres that even Flindt and Lebedynsky noted that typically it would be difficult to distinguish them from each other aside from instances where other qualifying features might enable that.

I cannot recall from Mollo, but it seems like the Russian 'shashka' which developed into a regulation form for Cossack units was around 1850s. These were quite different from Caucasian forms with the absence of guard being key visually. The use of the term shashka for other stirrup hilted swords in Mollo ("Russian Military Swords",) led (me at least) to presume the word was of Russian origin. It is not as has been revealed in discussion here.

The Bukharen sabre as noted, seems a localized development which seems to have evolved independently aside from the Russian influences which may have affected the Afghan versions of sabre.

It seems that many years back as I was looking into these, I had an article which dealt with some of the Steppes tribes in European areas back into the 6th century and these early periods. In an illustration it seemed that an Avar tribesman held a guardless sabre which almost had the kind of hilt shape of the Bukharen. In an admittedly tenuous and circumstantial suggestion, I wonder if these type sabres lingered as a loosely established form in these regions over that long a period.

Getting back to terminology and of course semantics, both the Bukharen and Afghan are effectively guardless sabres, however the Afghan may be considered shaska like, recalling the extant forms from the Caucusus.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Ian

Andreas, Please take time to translate the Bouttin entry.

Ian

Ian, here is the translation, as promised. I hope it's satisfactory.
Andreas

646. - SABRE OF THE CAUCASUS (Shashka), seventeenth-eighteenth century. (Pl. XX).
Excellent sixteenth century blade, slightly curved and chisel-pointed. Width 0.03 at the shoulder for 17 cm , reduced from there to 0.027 by an abrupt narrowing of the back. Three fullers up to that point, then two up to 0.20 from the tip. From this length, the blade becomes double-edged and has only one fuller which stops at 0.10 from the tip so as to conserve the point all its strength.
On the right side the mark of Genoa , which is the most esteemed in the Caucasus . For that reason it was widely copied by Syrian forgers, but the Genoese blades, especially those of the sixteenth century, are of a much better quality, have more regular fullers and the spaces between them are narrower and end in a sharp edge. The perfectly designed point is inclined enough to allow cutting strokes and at the same time suitable for thrusting, which is rare with shashkas.
Single-piece black horn grip, without guard, the pommel beaked to support the hand, and split into two lobes or ears like those of yataghans, but with a narrower gap. This is the typical form of the shashka hilt.
Green shagreen scabbard without decoration and intended to be worn tucked under the belt. The hilt half-enters in the scabbard.
An old weapon, and in a perfect state of preservation, the incomparable quality of its blade’s steel, would still make it very valuable in the Caucasus today.
It is one of the best blades of our collection.
Length : 0,940. Blade: 0,810.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It seems that the use of the term 'psuedo' toward the classification of a weapon as we know was with Lebedynsky back in the 90s with it used for the Afghan 'shashka'.
As far as I have known he abandoned the term afterwards, and cannot recall if he ever used it again when we discussed these weapons otherwise.
The use of the term 'psuedo' again, as far as I know, has not occurred in any other reference in classifying any weapon which is a variation or development from another form.

Jim, I think that according to the commonly accepted meanings of "pseudo", Lebedynsky may have mis-applied the term in relation to the Afghan shashka. I personally think that based on Ariels assessment of both swords, "pseudo" is closer to correctly describing the Bukharan sword.

If we accept that the Bukharan "shashka" is NOT a "variation or development" but a non related sword that has falsely been called a shashka thus it becomes a "pseudo" shasha by default (to those that call it a shashka).

According to what Ariel has said, the Afghan shashka IS a "variation or development" of the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (as is the Russian shashka) then as you say it should NOT be classified as being "pseudo" any more then the Russian shashka would be called "pseudo".

[ariel]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, it depends how you look at it......


............. At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

Well, I hate quoting myself, but couldn't find a better way to respond:-))))))))))

[kronckew]

yes, semantics, but any noun is just a label agreed to by the group using it.

i think the germanic word 'ersatz' (verb ersetzen, to substitute) is more applicable as it's meaning is closer to ''substitute in place of' or 'alternate' rather than 'fake' as is 'pseudo'.

[Gavin Nugent]

I am all for study and collation of information, but why does a sword type need to be specifically put in a box with another and then fall under that swords name...

what's in a name?

What's with the name game?

Does this name game improve the character and pedigree of a sword, I think not!

Shall now the Sasanian guardless swords of the Neo Persian empire, whose lands that these swords being classified were once theirs, now be called Shashka too...

It's over complicating things...

Gavin

[ariel]

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

With consideration to the a large area that these swords are found in, it is and was a Persian speaking region, correct naming would make them a "Shamshir"...how muddy does that make the waters with names and what is generally accepted about the word shamshir and its accepted form.

With regards to this threads topic, and the mammal analagy, they are all Sabres (from a very long line of guardless sabres), they fall in to a category of all being without guards, they then fall in to a known locality within a specific time/period, for which specific cultural features are then noted...this does not then lead to the name game for clarity....however, if one must insist on a name, from a logical perspective, it is Shamshir....the name game does not help here.

Whilst it is generally agreed that the Caucasian sword of this type is called a Shashka (with no arguement from me), with consideration to the 25 something ethnic groups within this region, how many different names for the same swords would be found...IMHO, trying to make a name stick is often counter productive vs a simple classification of "type/ location/period/features".

Gavin

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Gavin,
Yes and no.
Correct naming gives us immediate idea of he origin, of belonging to a particular family and separating from visually similar objects.
Dolphins and bats are classified together as mammals, even though they look like fishes or birds.

Names are very important when it comes to internet search engines, without an item being "tagged" it may never be found. Like it or not, categorization is important, what name you use determines whether or not you can bring up the images you are looking for online.

[ariel]

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

[AJ1356]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

OK, it is not a copy of the Caucasian Shashka, but wasn't inspired by it?!

Or did it appear absolutely independent from the Caucasian Shashka?!

How do Afghan people call it?!

I just started reading this post and have not read completely through yet. But, to answer your question, the current people of Afghanistan would refer to it as shamshir (shamshir meaning sword) now I am not sure about people in the north. However, in the home I was raised in there was a shashka and my grandmother, whose parents were from Samarqand would call it a shashqa. I remember it had an all steel hilt with no gaurd and was said to have been brought down from Samarqand when they migrated to Afghanistan.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Seems to me that we are once again moving into the morass of name game:-))

But in addition of search engines we are talking about a common language,
We can make it misleading or informative, we can in a single word give a general idea of "what we are talking about", we can attribute weapon's origin or its place of habitation.

Or we can invent a new, wrong, name, and create a non-existing entity ( Karud becoming a "not-Pesh Kabz) Or assign a name belonging to a different class of objects altogether and lose the specificity of the object in question ( Kris is a small Flamberge).

Here is an example of parallel development I was talking about: a Central-European Kord or Bauernwehr flanked by two Afghani Khybers. The blades are virtually interchangeable, but the origins and the dating cannot be farther apart.

Hello Ariel,

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356). So your examples about similar blades that developed independently are not that relevant since the Afghan Shashka did not develop independently from the Circasian one (like the Bauenwehr developed independently from the Khyber sword).

Then, why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date. Also this way there will be no possibility of confusion between the Afghan variety and the Bukharan sabre since the name will locate it geographically without the ambiguity related to the other proposed prefixes, like the "pseudo" (yes, it is a pseudo-shashka but from where?!)

Something like the same way we say Ottoman Shamshir and we then know we may have a classic shamshir blade with a typical Turkish/Ottoman pistol grip.

Am I missing something?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yet, after reading all these arguments it seems that the Afghan Shashka is indeed related, to the original Circasian shashka, as it was inspired by it, albeit at a later time (see also the posting of AJ1356)........................................... .........................why not call it simply "Afghan Shashka?" This way it will be clear that while being a Shashka, as it has if not all, most the features of the Shashka, it is a particular variety, adopted by the Afghans at a latter date.

If there is some certainty that the Afghan shashka is a shashka this would be a good name solution all around.

[ariel]

Guys,
Everybody is free to call it any way one wants. I based my view on its original roots ( with Cossack overlays coming later on), you suggest stressing its final incarnation, similar to AJ1356's grandmother. It is the matter from what angle we want to look at it. As long as we all know what we are talking about and understand its convoluted history.

[Ian]

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:

A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Caucasian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

Guys, back in post #75 of this thread I offered a term "shashka variant" to describe the "Afghasn shaska" and other non-standard shashkas. For the sake of clarity, here is one online definition of the word variant:

A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Is this not exactly what we are discussing with the "Afghan shashka?"

If a particular culture has come in contact with the Circassian shashka or its recognized descendants, the Circassian or Russian shashkas, then it must be assumed that such contact influenced the development of a shashka variant within that culture. There is no way one can exclude such an influence, therefore such contact must be assumed to be influential.

To use a term such as "pseudo" implies that that the variant so described is a "false" version of the original. It also insists that there is a "true" version to which all shashka must adhere. These are not neutral terms but imply a bias on the part of the observer that is purely subjective and motivated by reasons other than logic. Personal biases can be rationalized but do not withstand critical objective thinking. And that is what I think has happened here.

If one steps back and uses a neutral term such as "variant," then the emotionally charged term "pseudo" is no longer necessary and a more objective view is possible. If you look at the above definition of "variant" I think you will agree that this term is accurate and that its use should defuse the situation, which, in turn, allows for reasoned discussion.

In all aspects of the "name game" removing emotional attachments to controversial terminology is key to communication IMO. And communication is necessary to better understand these swords.

Ian

Hello Ian,

I believe the term "variant" associated with Shashka is creating significant ambiguity unless is followed by additional explanations.

For example. I can say: "I just acquired a variant Shashka."
What would one understand?! How clear and unambiguous this statement is?! Is it an Afghan or some other "variant" of Shashka I am refering to?!

When saying a "variant" Shashka I can refer to an Afghan Shashka, Bukharan Sabre/Shashka or I may very well refer to a Russian Shasahka as a "variant" that difers slightly from what I may consider the standard, in my case the Caucasian Shashka.

However, using the geographical locator serves perfectly in defining clearly and unambiguously the item.

Whether one considers the Bukharan sabre a "variant" of the Shashka or not, as soon as one hears "Bukharan Shashka," one knows exactly what it refers to. As opposed to the more generic "Bukharan Sabre" which leaves room for much more ambiguity as it can refer to a Shamshir originating from Bukhara, or with Bukharan mounts.

So, for the sake of clarity in communication, I believe we should use the terms that are most clear an unambiguous, whether culturally or historically correct or not (which at its turn can be subject to another endless debate).

Therefore, in the name of democracy, CLARITY and freedom of speech , I will use:

1. SHASHKA - for all shashka-like sabers, namely
1.1. CIRCASIAN SHASHKA
1.2. CAUCASIAN SHASHKA
1.3. COSSACK SHASHKA
1.4. RUSSIAN SHASHKA
1.5. TURKISH SHASHKA
1.6. AFGHAN SHASHKA
1.7. BUKHARAN SHASHKA



PS: I believe 1.1 and 1.2 refer to the same type or variant of weapon.

[Ian]

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ian

Marius:

I was specifically referring to the Afghan variant and whether this should be considered within the overall umbrella of "shashka." As also the Bukharan guardless saber or Bukharan shsashka.

You obviously see all of these as "shashka" in broad terms, rather than variants derived from contact with Caucasian or other Russian shashkas. However, others here see things differently, and might choose to view the Afghan and Bukhara swords as shashka variants that differ from the traditional standard forms. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

In all of these naming exercises, if we can arrive at a consensus approach it helps everyone understand what is being discussed, especially when the terms used are not emotionally charged or dismissive of a particular point of view. That seems like a worthwhile outcome.

Ian

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations.

[Ian]

Marius:

I understand and that is a perfectly legitimate and logical position. It also fits within the rubric of discussing shashkas and shashka variants.

Ian.

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yes Ian, I agree, but my decision to stick to these names is based on clarity, rather than on other historical/cultural considerations.