Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Many answers to your arguments can be found in the recent Elgood's book about Jodhpur weapons.
I got it almost 2 weeks ago, and am reading it slowly and attentively. It is a monumental contribution with exhaustive analysis of historical sources and impeccable argumentation. Good half of the first volume consists of academic chapters of the highest caliber and the analysis of individual objects is largely unexpected . I learned a lot. Get it and read slowly and carefully. This is not your standard regurgitation of Egerton, Stone or Rawson. Every page opens new and original vistas. One needs to digest virtually every sentence. You too will learn more about Indian history and militaria than you could even imagine.

Enjoy!

Many thanks. I'll do.

[Jon MB]

Originally Posted by 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.

I rather agree with much of this. Although I lack literature at the moment (in storage) I am under the impression that the final destruction of the Circassians by the mid 19th C. saw the beginnings of the widespread appropriation many aspects of of the Circassian and wider Transcaucasian material culture by the Russian military and upper classes. Would love to see more discussion of this, maybe even as a new thread, although I lack the knowledge or references to start such a thread at the moment. (Apologies if such a thread already exists here). I would add that the appropriation of Caucasian stylistic elements does rather echo the 'orientalist' obsessions in their various waves in Western Europe, see for example the fashion for 'Zouave' uniforms in the mid 19th C.

[Ian]

Jon makes a good point about taking the present sociocultural discussion to a new thread. Please note the title of this thread and the original purpose for starting it. Discussion has strayed way off topic recently.

Ian

[ariel]

I agree. Adoption and migration of weapons is a very interesting topic.

. One can discuss India ( Mughal vs. Rajputs vs. South vs. Iran etc), Turkey, Arabs, SE Asia, nomads, Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe and ad infinitum.

Kirill Rivkin's book on the evolution of sabers is invaluable in this regard.

[ALEX]

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

[ariel]

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]

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?

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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.

[mahratt]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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”

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"

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.

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Here is an unusual Central Asian/Bukharan shashka. Although the blade is of a shamshir form with slightly raised Kilij-style yelman with double edged tip, the handle with 5 rivets and crossguardless design are typical Bukharan shashka features. I do not recall seeing relatively deeply curved blades with rudimentary yelman on known Bukharan swords of 19thC. Can this be an early example, like earlier than mid-late 19thC?

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by TVV

A somewhat similar blade is shown in "The Arts of the Muslim Knight" (The Furusiyya Collection book) under #59 in the chapter on swords, on a sword from Deccan dated to the 17th century. Your sword therefore has the potential to be quite early. Whatever the case, it is a nice and intriguing sword.

Teodor

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I think this is the stylization of the blade of the 17th century. And such blades most likely date back to the mid-19th century.

Dmitry

Teodor,
Thank you for the reference! I do not have access to my books right now and the reference is very helpful.

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

[ALEX]

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]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Dmitry,
Thank you for another good one, and your earlier post confirming Bukharan origin and history.

This further substantiates my original thoughts of this blade being of earlier Bukharan production. As for the "shashka" versus "saber/sword" terminology, I do not think is that important. These swords were likely called shashkas during Russian rule, but unlikely so during 17-18thC when produced and used in Bukharan khananate, so proper naming becomes a bit elusive. I am entirely with Jim. It is more rewarding to discuss the origin, form and its transition and regional and historical features, for which I am grateful.

I am very happy if I could help you with this question! Unfortunately, there is no evidence that shashkas in Central Asia appeared in the 17th century. I personally know the references in historical documents about the Bukhara shashkas only from the beginning of the 19th century ... Although, I suppose that they are known from the end of the 18th century.

If someone knows about the earlier mention of these weapons in Central Asia, it would be very interesting.

And more photos of the similar Bukhara shashka

[mahratt]

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]

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?

[ariel]

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly. Allow me to offer my purely “IMHO” defense of this unfortunate term.
I am in the opinion that it is an important and valid part of any research into origins of weapons. Name was and is an integral part of any subject and object.

Not for nothing Albert in his book on Indonesian weapons provides multiple names of virtually identical swords manufactured on different islands or even by different tribes living next to each other. Elgood compiles voluminous glossaries of Indian weapons painstakingly noticing that for example South Indian Firangi was called Dhup in Deccan and Asa Shamshir further north.
Correctly naming an object completes its description. Misnaming confuses it.
Stone put a picture of various Parang Naburs from Borneo. Only when we ( at least I) realized that a peculiar one in the array was not a Parang Nabur from Borneo, but a Minasbad from Bicol, were we able to separate them.

We had long and fruitless discussions about peculiar Khopesh-like swords from somewhere ( Algiers? Sudan?), but elucidation of its correct name, Laz Bichaq, solved the conundrum once and for all: Laz people, islamized Georgians, Trabzon area.

We still have swords without their genuine names and often resort to artificial monikers just for the sake of labeling them somehow. Bukharan or Afghani “ pseudoshashkas” had names given to them by their owners, but those were lost to us. Mercenary found old Persian pictures of a battle between Persian and Afghani armies with multiple examples of carefully drawn guarded and guardless swords. What were those “ guardless” ones? Who did they belong to? How old were they? What was their history?

We have names without objects. Many Persian and Indo-Persian sources mention Kalatchurri. What was it? What can it tell us about the evolution of sabers in that region?

We often use names given not by the original creators, but by the more powerful occupiers. We call long straight Algerean swords Flissas, but a chancy finding in a forgotten book clearly states that this was a French moniker, whereas the natives called them Khedama ( whether this is true or not is another question).

Some prefer to call Central Asian guardless sabers “ shashka”, a name appropriated by the Russians from yet another part of the world and having nothing to do with Central Asian traditions. Let’s not forget that the Russians were awfully promiscuous with this name: they officially called their regulation dragoon D-guarded sabers “shashka” as well.

Ignorance is forgivable as long as it is openly admitted as such. But insistence on it despite facts is unprofessional and plainly stupid. The Earth is not flat and a continuous belief in elephants standing on a turtle tells us everything about a believer and nothing about astrophysics.

Understanding real names is important: it completes the circle in our description of an object and gives us novel ways of looking at its origins and history.

Perhaps, I am so insistent on it because of my profession, medicine. Without precise definition of a pathological condition expressed as its name, we are incapable of treating it correctly. Superficial enumeration of just symptoms and signs condemns us to lump totally different disease processes into an amorphous mass and dooms the patient. The old “dropsy” may be a manifestation of liver cirrhosis, nephrotic syndrome, valvular heart defect, chronic lung disease, obstruction by a malignant tumor, thrombosis of blood vessels, protein malnutrition etc, etc. Without a precise name we cannot communicate and cannot treat the underlying condition.

You of course remember Brothers Grimms’ tale about Rumpelstilskin: know my name and you become my master.

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

[ariel]

BTW, Alex, nice finding at a flea market. A complex mix of Bukharan and Afghani features with a hint of a potentially European influence. I would love to put it on my wall.

After a flea bath, of course:-)

[mahratt]

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.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Alex and Jim,

We have discussed the issue of “ name game” repeatedly...........

Sorry for a long post, just pure IMHO.

To pour something from one empty vessel into anothe...

I wonder if someone from the forum participants thought about how many peoples with different languages ​​live in the Caucasus? It would be naive to believe that they all called the shashkas - "shashka". For example, the Lezgins called the shashka - "tour", and the Kumyks - "sheshke". But no one is embarrassed that any shashka that is made in the Caucasus is simply called "shashka."

And, by the way, the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashkas is well known. Yes, knowledge of the ethnic name of the weapon is certainly valuable information. But just like all the shashkas from the Caucasus are called "shashkas" (regardless of their ethnic names), all the shashkas of Central Asia can and should be called "Bukhara or Central Asia shashkas."

[mahratt]

Alex, do not pay attention to speculation. This is a great item from Central Asia with all the features typical of Central Asia.

Blades of this form were typical of the 15th century sabers from the Golden Orda

[Jim McDougall]

Alex, thank you for the supportive words in post #197, re: the importance of focusing on the origin, history and development of sword forms. This is primarily my goal and has been in the many years I have studied. While that has been most of my life, I admit the excitement of learning never ends, and despite the common friction in discussion there are worthy bits of information that bolster knowledge.

Ariel, very well spoken on the 'name game', and I would clarify my comments by retracting the term 'irrelevant' which was entirely misplaced. You are completely correct, the local terms and dialectic variants are most important in understanding these weapon forms. This is most salient in research involving resources which may be written in these linguistic contexts, as it is important to determine exactly which form might be described. For example, very early sources in India describe the katar (without illustration) but we cannot be certain if the transverse grip dagger is what is meant.


In the case of tulwar; shamshir; kilij and turning to the word 'shashka' as in this discussion...…..these are primarily terms for ' SWORD....not otherwise specified', a phrase well pointed out by Lee years ago, which remains one of the best descriptions I personally have seen for these terms.


This also brings me to a most relevant note...….the term 'shashka' is indeed used to describe the Russian dragoon swords with stirrup hilts of the 19th c. This is much in the manner of the term tulwar, used to describe the British cavalry sabres used by natine units during the British Raj.


I believe that while using these kinds of general terms is indeed well placed in discussions for convenience and avoiding misunderstanding in the discourse, it is good to crossreference the terms otherwise in the manner of references such as dictionaries etc.

Good analogies illustrating that in Von Zonnefeld's work and Elgood's notes on Indian weaponry, both excellent works with these kinds of cross references giving profound dimension to understanding these forms.


With that I would say that writers and observers would understandably use the terms for weapon forms as known in their own language. I would not praise nor discount the viability of a resource based on nationality of the writer(s), and of course realize that any such work is subject to revision or elucidation as required.

In these cases the objective should always be objective and impersonal perspective which enhances the dimension of understanding of the topic.


Again returning to our thread topic, the shashka (and associated guardless sabre forms) it would fascinating to determine just how early these forms became known in the regions and contexts in which they are familiarly associated. As far as I have seen, the latter 18th century seems most likely obviously with a developmental period in years before.


Regarding the blade of the Bukharan sabre discussed, good illustration by Mahratt of the earlier form of this blade from the 15th c. (as decribed) which reflects influence for this blade. Tradition and commemoration is of course prevalent in these cultures, so the blade probably is in that manner though produced later of course.

Great discussion!!

[Jim McDougall]

In looking more at the example of the 15th c. blade shown in this Russian reference compared to the sabre similar to that in the discussion, we can see the atavistic condition that I had mentioned and which prevailed in various cultures' weapons. While in India, certain hilt forms such as the 'Indo-Persian' tulwar style (with disc pommel) continued from an indeterminate period of origin into modern times. The hilt form known as the 'khanda' (like tulwar, another broad term for sword) became altered in the late 16th-17th c. with more 'basket' type hilt after European contact.

In other cultures, the open hilt and guardless 'flyssa' (khedma) seems to have evolved c. early 19th c. and probably derived from early Ottoman yataghans with deep belly blades.
In the Transcaucusus, as previously noted, the Black Sea yataghan (Laz Bichagi as per Ariel's discovery) seems to have evolved around mid 19th c. or earlier from possible iconographic sources.
The so called 'Zanzibar' sword (Demmin 1877; Burton 1884) was discovered to be derived from the Moroccan dirk type weapon known as s'boula (Buttin, 1933). ….and is compellingly similar to the European baselard of earlier times.

These are among some of the examples of atavistic weapons which were apparently introduced much in a commemorative sense as with the Qajar 'revival' type arms in the 17th-18th c. A remarkable number of ethnographic forms are in this genre, with no chronological line of development from early times to modern examples.
The similarly 'sudden' appearance of the open hilted, guardless sabre of the Caucusus now known as the shashka may be among these 'atavistic' forms from 18th century in presuming these circumstances.


I am not aware of examples earlier than 18th c. however it does seem that open hilt swords were well known in Sassanian and other concurrent contexts in the 7th-8th c. (most of these were it seems straight blades). It also seems that the Avars also used similar weapons. Despite lack of evidence available to me (undoubtedly Russian sources will provide these) it seems possible these types of swords prevailed in Central Asian regions and surfaced in recorded observation as the 'shashka'.


This being the thesis of this thread, I would like to know the thoughts of other here toward my thoughts on these atavistic possibilities of the shashka as well as the guardless sabres of Bukhara. I would appeal to those with Russian resources to provide the local term in Bukharen regions for these sabres. There must be a term in local parlance just as the many others that have been thus far provided with other sword forms. I am unaware of any western sources who might have these Bukharen terms, so I am presuming that besides 'shashka' the local term used might have been noted by Russian observers.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This being the thesis of this thread, I would like to know the thoughts of other here toward my thoughts on these atavistic possibilities of the shashka as well as the guardless sabres of Bukhara. I would appeal to those with Russian resources to provide the local term in Bukharen regions for these sabres. There must be a term in local parlance just as the many others that have been thus far provided with other sword forms. I am unaware of any western sources who might have these Bukharen terms, so I am presuming that besides 'shashka' the local term used might have been noted by Russian observers.

Dear Jim! With the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashka everything is very simple. She was called in Central Asia - "sop" or "schop".

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Jim! With the ethnic name of the Bukhara shashka everything is very simple. She was called in Central Asia - "sop" or "schop".

Reference, please.