[Jim McDougall]

Over the years we have had some very spirited discussions concerning weapons which carry various degree of taxidermy in thier decoration, and naturally most find such displays appalling. Gratefully today many species are at least somewhat protected by law, although of course poaching remains a terrible problem in many regions. It does seem almost ironic that many items carry the substance of animal origin and are considered fully acceptable (though also these are under same legal perameters), such as the horn and ivory grips, leather scabbards and hilt wraps, shark and ray skin as examples. These things considered just give us some perspective, although such blatant displays such as intact claws and scaled hides do present 'barbaric displays'.

From the earliest times, man has sensed associations to many animals, from those he hunted to the other predators he feared. Instinctively the system of totemism began in the most basic of art, and eventually in man's decoration of himself as well as his weapons in crude and rudimentary manner, depicting or carrying items of such associations. Even in modern civilized societies, the handles of hunting weapons often carry staghorn.

In aboriginal and tribal societies these traditions have prevailed through the millennia, and even until our own times. As students of ethnographica we are all aware of the many situations and cultures where these totemistic and talismanic representations still occur, and in this case we turn to North Africa.
In the Sudan, folk religion and totemism are still well known, and I have had interesting discussions with several men who are from there, as well as some who have deeply studied and collected from these regions. I have been told that totemic symbolism was typically extremely important within tribes and the crocodile was extremely feared as well as revered. In Darfur many, if not most kaskaras carry strips of crocodile on thier grips.

During the Madhiya, many weapons were not only profusely decorated with the familiar thuluth script on thier blades, but carried in fully intact crocodile scabbards. I believe such dramatic symbolism was fully intended to appeal to tribal warriors possibly worn ceremonially either prior to or after warfare on such weapons, as I doubt such elaborate weaponry would be useful in combat.As a further possibility, there was considerable slaving activity in the southern regions, often finding 'recruits' for the Mahdist forces. It seems possible that the controlling figures in these activities might have worn such fearsome appearing, almost theatrically decorated weapons to project a morbidly fierce appearance that might proclaim thier power over life and death.

Although I know most of those familiar with tribal weaponry will typically write these off to the standard 'tourist' weapons, I personally do not think that such gruesome pieces would have appealed to the general tourist. I think most would have recoiled at these items, much in the same manner as the sentiments expressed here have evidenced.

Just my opinions gentlemen, and as an animal lover myself, I sense the same feelings over the tragic and appalling treatment of them. It is a sad matter of fact that history is what it is, and all we can do is try to learn from the tragedies of the past, and hopefully avoid perpetuating them.

The guardless type weapon seen here is similar to large dagger/shortsword type weapons seen in upper Nile regions near Dongola, and the blade motif also seems to parallel decoration seen from there. One example of Dongola type that I have seen carries stylized crocodile image incised into the blade in profile, further noting the importance of the crocodile in symbolic motif.

With all very best regards,
Jim