Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

Kubur · 10th August 2016, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I don't think that we can include the word "parang" in this list.

"Parang" is a generic term that includes all sort of swords, choppers, jungle knives, machetes.

It is not a sabre.

Of course, if you talk about the shashka, the tree should start with the shashka.
I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.
Plus why the Russian is not under the Caucasian??

mariusgmioc · 10th August 2016, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

I don't put the dinosaurs in the Human tree.

Albeit I sometimes feel like a dinosaur...

Gavin Nugent · 10th August 2016, 12:16 PM

What defines a Shashka; It is a sabre, unique to the Caucasian regions, and as far south and to include Turkey, and later adopted in to Russia.

What is a sabre; A curved, single handed, single edged sword, historically derived from and used from horseback. Not hand and a half, not two handed or longer, a grip for single handed use. Note, not all Shashka have their hilt engulfed by the scabbard throat either.

Qualities of a Shashka; I do not have my notes to reference, so I do not know who first wrote about the qualities of the Shashka, but, the most desirable Shashka, should be feather light, vine supple and razor sharp...very few swords anywhere in the world have all of these qualities.

I do not believe there are any sub-types of Shashka, only different cultural appearances throughout the regions of the Caucasus mountains and northern Turkey.
Russian adopted arms and terms of military regulation type, of the form or later types, should fall within modern Military cold arms, not Ethnographic arms.
Swords in discussion beyond the Caucasus Mountains and Northern Turkey should not be classified as Shashka.

To quote Mahratt's categories;

1) Caucasian shashka
2) Afghan shashka
3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka)
4) Russian shashka (Cossack)

I do not believe #s 2 & 3 exist as Shashka, nor a sub classification, but sabres in their own right. Type 4 I have noted in my opening text.

Type 2 exists with some common features and sits sheathed in a similar manner , but do not share Shashka "qualities" or linage. Perhaps visually inspired from a Caucasian Shashka but, but certainly not developed from and there really is not any development, more regression than anything when compared to a Shashka.
Personally, I feel these are only sabres, unique to their specific regions. These sabre all carry bolsters like their knives and Salawar, and have little to no grace in the hand.

Type 3. My Bukhara sabre, now so often seen in these pages, is not in my opinion, a sub class of the Shashka. The blade is not very supple but is sharp, it is somewhat light but not as balanced as a Shashka. It is single handed but not of a Shashka style grip despite it having small ears... It is more akin to the Pesh Kabz. It wears a grip strap like a Turkish sword or Pesh Kabz, has grip slabs like a Pesh Kabz or North Indian Karud (check the detail), is much thicker in cross section than a true Shashka hilt too. Also, the tang protrudes through the grip strap and is riveted in 5 places, not the traditional 2 places seen on Shashka.

Mahratt makes an observation about the hilt style being unique, and in a way it is but there are other non related arms such as the Sinai Bedouin sabre that is often mistaken as a Shashka in profile, and no doubt other forms that do not come straight to mind.

Dah should also be removed from this discussion, they are so far off the Shashka trails.

Gavin

ariel · 10th August 2016, 01:36 PM

I could not agree more.
Lumping Caucasian shashka with a Bukharan ( Uzbek) saber is irrational: there are far too many differences, and there are no potential common ancestors or influence points.
Afghani saber was dubbed " pseudoshashka" not for nothing: it adopted several features of the Caucasian model through ( most likely) Russian Cossacks sent to Central Asia after the conquest of the Khanates. Thus it is a "shashka" only in its 6th degree of separation:-)

Katana, Daab and Parang were mentioned by me tongue in cheek, just to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that just being a guardless saber qualifies any weapon as shashka.

In the evening I shall try to post a detailed comparison chart.

ariel · 10th August 2016, 07:34 PM

Just for general information:
From top to bottom: Sardinian Leppas, Saber of Croatian Kraisniks, Beduin saber.

They have nothing in common with each other and all look like long-lost twins of the Bukharan " pseudoshashka'

This is just a classic case of parallel development, whereby unsophisticated village knifemakers fashioned simple ergonomic handles with primitive pommels and handstops.

ariel · 10th August 2016, 08:45 PM

Comparison of features: Cauc. Bukh. Afgh. Mil. Khyber

Blade:
Wide at the root, narrows toward
the tip NO YES NO YES
Scabbard:
Suspended edge up YES NO YES NO
Tucked under the belt NO YES NO YES
Handle:
Eared YES NO YES NO
# of rivets 2-3 4-5 3 3-5
Bolster NO Variable YES YES
Grip strap NO YES Variable YES
Small, rounded pommel YES +/-none Large +/- none

From there I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.

If anybody wants to offer modifications, you are more than welcome.

Just I am not sure about the weight: the proverb about shashka being light, fast etc ( see Gavin's entry) referred to the earliest examples carried by Circassians. We know very, very few true Circassian samples, the majority of the 19th century examples are from Daghestan, Chechnya and Georgia proper ( Tiflis) Those were not as massive as Afghani military "pseudoshashkas", but still had quite a mass to them. Many used European cavalry blades

PS, I can't seem to format the table properly. Anybody can help?

Ian · 13th August 2016, 02:57 AM

It is a couple of days since Ariel posted his typology of shashka and his conclusion that the Caucasian shashka and Afghan military variant shared many features in common, while the Bukhara guardless saber shares many common features with the Khyber variant. There has been no response to his classification, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees but I'm not hearing any major dissent either.

Ariel's analysis shows two distinct "patterns" and has been very well documented in his table that I have redrawn below with some regrouping to list a "Type A" and "Type B" of the swords that are variously called shashkas or shashka variants.

This is exactly the sort of typological classification I was hoping this thread would arrive at.

Ian.

estcrh · 14th August 2016, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern.

Ariel, are you categorizing the Afghan shashka with the Caucasian / Circassian shashka (along with the Russian shashka) or do you categorize it along with the Bukhara etc shashka as non-Caucasian / Circassian shashka type swords. I know you have been studying the different but similar variations for a long time and I would like to get your opinion or are you still trying to decide exactly how to categorize them.

10th August 2016, 07:34 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Just for general information: From top to bottom: Sardinian Leppas, Saber of Croatian Kraisniks, Beduin saber. They have nothing in common with each other and all look like long-lost twins of the Bukharan " pseudoshashka' This is just a classic case of parallel development, whereby unsophisticated village knifemakers fashioned simple ergonomic handles with primitive pommels and handstops. Attached Images

10th August 2016, 08:45 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Comparison of features: Cauc. Bukh. Afgh. Mil. Khyber Blade: Wide at the root, narrows toward the tip NO YES NO YES Scabbard: Suspended edge up YES NO YES NO Tucked under the belt NO YES NO YES Handle: Eared YES NO YES NO # of rivets 2-3 4-5 3 3-5 Bolster NO Variable YES YES Grip strap NO YES Variable YES Small, rounded pommel YES +/-none Large +/- none From there I conclude that Afghani military "pseudoshashka" shares quite a lot of features with the Caucasian one ( transmitted through the Cossacks), whereas Bukharan guardless saber shares a lot of features with Khyber and virtually none with the Caucasian pattern. If anybody wants to offer modifications, you are more than welcome. Just I am not sure about the weight: the proverb about shashka being light, fast etc ( see Gavin's entry) referred to the earliest examples carried by Circassians. We know very, very few true Circassian samples, the majority of the 19th century examples are from Daghestan, Chechnya and Georgia proper ( Tiflis) Those were not as massive as Afghani military "pseudoshashkas", but still had quite a mass to them. Many used European cavalry blades PS, I can't seem to format the table properly. Anybody can help? Last edited by ariel; 10th August 2016 at 09:01 PM.

13th August 2016, 02:57 AM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,453	It is a couple of days since Ariel posted his typology of shashka and his conclusion that the Caucasian shashka and Afghan military variant shared many features in common, while the Bukhara guardless saber shares many common features with the Khyber variant. There has been no response to his classification, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees but I'm not hearing any major dissent either. Ariel's analysis shows two distinct "patterns" and has been very well documented in his table that I have redrawn below with some regrouping to list a "Type A" and "Type B" of the swords that are variously called shashkas or shashka variants. This is exactly the sort of typological classification I was hoping this thread would arrive at. Ian. Attached Images

10th August 2016, 12:16 PM	#3
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	What defines a Shashka; It is a sabre, unique to the Caucasian regions, and as far south and to include Turkey, and later adopted in to Russia. What is a sabre; A curved, single handed, single edged sword, historically derived from and used from horseback. Not hand and a half, not two handed or longer, a grip for single handed use. Note, not all Shashka have their hilt engulfed by the scabbard throat either. Qualities of a Shashka; I do not have my notes to reference, so I do not know who first wrote about the qualities of the Shashka, but, the most desirable Shashka, should be feather light, vine supple and razor sharp...very few swords anywhere in the world have all of these qualities. I do not believe there are any sub-types of Shashka, only different cultural appearances throughout the regions of the Caucasus mountains and northern Turkey. Russian adopted arms and terms of military regulation type, of the form or later types, should fall within modern Military cold arms, not Ethnographic arms. Swords in discussion beyond the Caucasus Mountains and Northern Turkey should not be classified as Shashka. To quote Mahratt's categories; 1) Caucasian shashka 2) Afghan shashka 3) Bukhara shashka (and I think more correct to say - Central Asian shashka) 4) Russian shashka (Cossack) I do not believe #s 2 & 3 exist as Shashka, nor a sub classification, but sabres in their own right. Type 4 I have noted in my opening text. Type 2 exists with some common features and sits sheathed in a similar manner , but do not share Shashka "qualities" or linage. Perhaps visually inspired from a Caucasian Shashka but, but certainly not developed from and there really is not any development, more regression than anything when compared to a Shashka. Personally, I feel these are only sabres, unique to their specific regions. These sabre all carry bolsters like their knives and Salawar, and have little to no grace in the hand. Type 3. My Bukhara sabre, now so often seen in these pages, is not in my opinion, a sub class of the Shashka. The blade is not very supple but is sharp, it is somewhat light but not as balanced as a Shashka. It is single handed but not of a Shashka style grip despite it having small ears... It is more akin to the Pesh Kabz. It wears a grip strap like a Turkish sword or Pesh Kabz, has grip slabs like a Pesh Kabz or North Indian Karud (check the detail), is much thicker in cross section than a true Shashka hilt too. Also, the tang protrudes through the grip strap and is riveted in 5 places, not the traditional 2 places seen on Shashka. Mahratt makes an observation about the hilt style being unique, and in a way it is but there are other non related arms such as the Sinai Bedouin sabre that is often mistaken as a Shashka in profile, and no doubt other forms that do not come straight to mind. Dah should also be removed from this discussion, they are so far off the Shashka trails. Gavin

10th August 2016, 01:36 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I could not agree more. Lumping Caucasian shashka with a Bukharan ( Uzbek) saber is irrational: there are far too many differences, and there are no potential common ancestors or influence points. Afghani saber was dubbed " pseudoshashka" not for nothing: it adopted several features of the Caucasian model through ( most likely) Russian Cossacks sent to Central Asia after the conquest of the Khanates. Thus it is a "shashka" only in its 6th degree of separation:-) Katana, Daab and Parang were mentioned by me tongue in cheek, just to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that just being a guardless saber qualifies any weapon as shashka. In the evening I shall try to post a detailed comparison chart.