Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 22nd March 2012, 10:59 PM

I have a problem with the very concept of a "dancing sword".
I just cannot believe that in any warlike culture ( and Omanis certainly were warlike) anybody would spend money and effort to acquire a sword used only for occasional ceremonial/entertainment purpose. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would be considered as a dishonor for the fighter displaying his macho attributes ( that is what a sword dance is all about).
Dancing with swords is a time-honored tradition in many cultures ( Caucasus, for example), but it always involved real weapons. This was a display a masculinity, a sacral activity, and using a non-fighting blade would defeat the purpose. On top of that, swords were not cheap, and making a blade for occasional dancing only would be an awful waste of money. Dancing would not damage the real blade, thus, there was no reason to substitute it for a flimsy copy.
The elasticity of Omani kattaras is not an argument against it's fighting capabilities: witness Indian Urumi, the custom of Caucasian blademakers to sell their blades fit into a circular kitchen sieve, old German legends about the sword of Siegfried that bent like a sheave when carried on the shoulder etc.

Aravian fighting style did not have blade to blade contact, and mail was not used as a rule. Thus, light thin blade was more than sufficient for a slashing cut against an opponent who was wearing only fabric robes.

Per Elgood, the most valuable blades of the 19th century in Arabia were European Shinityan ( St. Etienne) and Majjar ( Magyar, Hungarian), both famous for their elasticity. No European blades of that time was known to bend under its own weight.

The development of specifically dancing swords was thus most likely related to the period when swordfighting became obsolete. Again, this would be similar to the Caucasian theatrical swords used by choreography troupes.

22nd March 2012, 10:59 PM	#19
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have a problem with the very concept of a "dancing sword". I just cannot believe that in any warlike culture ( and Omanis certainly were warlike) anybody would spend money and effort to acquire a sword used only for occasional ceremonial/entertainment purpose. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would be considered as a dishonor for the fighter displaying his macho attributes ( that is what a sword dance is all about). Dancing with swords is a time-honored tradition in many cultures ( Caucasus, for example), but it always involved real weapons. This was a display a masculinity, a sacral activity, and using a non-fighting blade would defeat the purpose. On top of that, swords were not cheap, and making a blade for occasional dancing only would be an awful waste of money. Dancing would not damage the real blade, thus, there was no reason to substitute it for a flimsy copy. The elasticity of Omani kattaras is not an argument against it's fighting capabilities: witness Indian Urumi, the custom of Caucasian blademakers to sell their blades fit into a circular kitchen sieve, old German legends about the sword of Siegfried that bent like a sheave when carried on the shoulder etc. Aravian fighting style did not have blade to blade contact, and mail was not used as a rule. Thus, light thin blade was more than sufficient for a slashing cut against an opponent who was wearing only fabric robes. Per Elgood, the most valuable blades of the 19th century in Arabia were European Shinityan ( St. Etienne) and Majjar ( Magyar, Hungarian), both famous for their elasticity. No European blades of that time was known to bend under its own weight. The development of specifically dancing swords was thus most likely related to the period when swordfighting became obsolete. Again, this would be similar to the Caucasian theatrical swords used by choreography troupes.