A koummya- and contexts

[Jim McDougall]

I have long been aware of these Moroccan daggers, which are apparently the North African version of the Arabian janbiyya or khanjhar, which as I understand are basically the same but with localized characteristics and called by these different terms accordingly.

In the years of discussions it seems most of these found these days are of the souvenir category from early 1900s well through the century, and if course are most attractive daggers well representing the desirable exotica often sought by westerners.

It seems generally held that these were primarily status oriented weapons worn accordingly and not typically used as daggers would be presumed to be. In most, especially older examples, they would be notably adequate of course.

I recently found this in a shop here in Texas. Apparently from the estate of a well traveled gentleman who acquired it along with some other items and curiosities in his time in Saudi Arabia. It seems that the hilt is not ivory but camel bone. It is quite sound and seems heavy, and I think likely from the 1920s.

While not sure of the date period, it seems 1920s would be reasonable.
With that, as I bought this, I thought of the Rif Wars (1920-26) and of course the famed Berber chief, Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni (1871-1925) better known as RAISULI.
He was quite notorious as a warrior as well as pirate, leader of the Jebala tribal confederacy, he was featured in the film "The Wind and the Lion" (1975) portrayed by Sean Connery.(Thanks Wayne!).

Though I am certainly not suggesting any connection to him, nor to the Berber tribes, in context, in these times the koummya would seem to have been in use in accord with the fashion of the times in Morocco. ...and if the date on this is from that period, then it has historical context.

The book in the photo is a 1925 biography by Rosita Forbes.

As always, I'd really appreciate comments and observations as you guys really know these. This is honestly the first Ive ever had in over 50 years of collecting and study!
Athough the blade is unmarked, that sort of disappointed me.....this dagger really 'called' to me, and felt like it might have stories to tell

[RobT]

Hi Jim McDougall,

I think your estimate of 1910-1920 is plausible. The French annexed part of Morocco in 1912 and then the Spanish annexed the rest in that same year. Both countries were heavily involved in Morocco before then.
Did you check under the ferrule for a maker’s mark? To my eye, the very sharp and clean grind lines on your blade make European machine manufacture likely.
The well done metal work on the sheath and hilt indicate that the dagger was made for an upscale market. Actually, the decoration on the sheath and the hilt metal work is also very regular and I wonder if these elements were not made in Europe and the decoration done with some sort of “mix and match” stamp set.
The fine blade notwithstanding, I don’t think this knife was made for or worn with any serious belief that it would have to be used in combat because the virtually nonexistent hilt quillons would do almost nothing to keep the user’s hand from sliding up the blade on impact.
I think there is one very interesting and probably important thing to note about koummya with European made blades (and perhaps dress as well). European trade blades abound in Africa from north to south but they are, in all cases that I am aware of, European blades (albeit sometimes modified) that have been hilted and sheathed by Africans. The European made koummya with its curved blade having a long edge on the concave side and a short edge on the convex side, was made in Europe to follow the African design exactly. It is amazing to me that we have no European blade smith records regarding this very singular blade.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Jim McDougall]

Rob thank you so much for answering on this! Actually your recent post with your example really inspired me to get this as in years past I have typically passed over examples of these with little notice.
Now my interest is entirely piqued in them!! and though my example has an unmarked blade it is as you kindly note, very well made. ...I was disappointed at no makers mark or other present.

There are no marks anywhere. You bring up a very good point on the fact that these blades do seem European made, and it seems it would be hard to reprofile extant blades from military swords etc. to this configuration.
Your observation on this type hilt suggesting non combative dress wear is well placed, and everything I have seen notes the dress wear as status oriented.

I agree on the blades. We seem to have all manner of records and notes on European blades makers for sword blades including those exported to colonial markets of course, but there are none for these.

Thank you again Rob!

[kahnjar1]

Re RobT.s comment above......the fact this has no quillons does not preclude it's use as a weapon. I have not seen ANY Koummya that have TRUE quillons. Some have a shaped grip but more often than not, are similar to the example shown by Jim. As far as being used as a weapon goes, I'm sure that they have been in the past (and possibly still are). I should add that there are many examples of tourist items being offered for sale on a well known website and it's just a case of the buyer being aware if a genuine old item is sought.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks for answering Stu, and well noted on these areas. What I have found interesting on these distinctively made blades is the cutting edge on the inside of curve. This was in my opinion for slashing cut, and in these kinds of uses would not require quillon or hand guard. Most janbiyyas I have seen are without notable guard elements.

As with most edged weapons which have become dress or ceremonially worn, just as court swords have become, most evolved in degree from fully combative forms, but have become less pragmatically designed and accordingly more decorated.
I think this is what Rob refers to, and as you point out, as I mentioned, it seems there are profound numbers of these which are pretty clearly 'souk' items offered. What attracted me on this one was its solid and hefty character and the well made blade.

One thing I was looking at is that the scabbard is decorated fully on both sides, where of course there are examples void of decoration on the inside. Is there any rule of thumb as to either of these instances pointing to souvenir vs. authentic traditionally worn?

[Marc M.]

Hi Jim
Congratulations on your first koumiya. I got to know koumiyas in the late 1990s when an exhibition on Morocco was taking place at the Africa Museum. The catalogue of the exhibition did not provide any information about these objects beyond 3 photos. Books about these knives are rare and expensive so knowledge about the koumiya was fairly non-existent. That changed somewhat with joining the forum, lots of info make that I found 3 reasonably good koumiya's, all already posted. What is decisive for me is the blade. With the right dimensions and especially the thickness of the blade, you are already well placed to make the distinction and the general shape and finish of the blade is also important. It is easier to hold it in your hand than to decide from a distance. In the case of a koumiya I try to bend the blade by hand, it stays crookedl, low quality and usually tourist grade, a good steel blade returns to the position before bending. Each of us will have a way of judging a blade.
Regards
Marc

[Pertinax]

An excerpt from the book Armes anciennes du Maroc - Bijoux de parade de Hans F. WAELTY, can be downloaded here:

https://www.armes-anciennes-du-maroc..._selection.pdf

[Jim McDougall]

Wonderful input Marc! thank you and for the kind words!
After a lifetime of collecting and studying arms and armor, it feels odd to be such a novice in these, but we all know collecting is very specialized.

As you note, there is very little specific literature on these in English, other than cursory remarks in captioned examples in comprehensive works and even the material in other languages is obscure and expensive.

This is why this forum is so essential and has become such a powerful resource for such data, and has become more so since inception over 25 years ago, the collective input of members such as you guys archived into massive resource.

A day without learning , is a day lost!
Thank you all again and looking forward to more on examples.

All the best
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Pertinax!! THANK YOU! just saw you added this, an absolutely excellent resource and online! My pocket book thanks you

Jim

[kahnjar1]

Jim....I note your comment above about the scabbard being decorated both sides......I can tell you that these knives were often worn by the Berber on a baldrick over the shoulder (see Page 7 of Pertinax book) rather than tucked in a belt or clothing, so both sides of the scabbard would be visible. This is why most have rings both sides of the scabbard neck. It would seem to me that if these were NOT used as a weapon, the Berber would not bother with them. The other thing is that IF they were not used, but rather worn as a status symbol, then the blades would be of low quality as they would not be visible.
Most blades seem to be of quite good, to very good quality, and feature the 1/3 2/3 double edge. Ideal as a stabbing weapon.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Understood Stu, and frankly I prefer that perspective
I have seen these with cords I presume woven of wool? and as you note over the shoulder. These really are very attractive daggers! In some of the examples Ive seen in some examples in earlier threads, the inside of the scabbard is 'blank', is there a distinction in those cases or simply a matter of makers preference?

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Understood Stu, and frankly I prefer that perspective
I have seen these with cords I presume woven of wool? and as you note over the shoulder. These really are very attractive daggers! In some of the examples Ive seen in some examples in earlier threads, the inside of the scabbard is 'blank', is there a distinction in those cases or simply a matter of makers preference?

Probably the latter but who would know.
Stu

[RobT]

Kahnjar 1,
Whether or not they fit the definition of “true” quillons, the typical projections at the base of a koummya serve to prevent the user’s hand from sliding up the hilt on a thrust. I am rather amazed that you have seen more examples that, like Jim’s, don’t have this feature than do because, of the 30 koummya in my collection, all have the necessary projections. I would also point out that the overwhelming majority of koummya examples posted on this forum, have these projections. This makes sense. The koummya is a cut and thrust weapon and the thrust is the most deadly as it results in quick death by internal bleeding or slow death by sepsis. No actual fighting knife or sword in the world that is intended for thrusting in actual combat lacks some way to prevent the user’s hand from sliding up the blade on impact.
As you noted, the koummya was worn on a baldric. The baldric was slung over the right shoulder and the blade was suspended at the left hip area (hence the name jambiya). However, the djellaba, the typical Moroccan male attire which was very loose fitting, would largely obscure any sheath and hilt decoration worn close to the body. Save for one example, all the koummya in my collection that have decoration on the “body” side are far more simply decorated than the side that is fully visible. The one example noted is very sparsely decorated on both sides and has other anomalies that make me suspect that it was made outside of the Moroccan culture.
I don’t think that the quality of European trade blades necessarily correlates with functional weapon status. Mechanized industrial methods would allow the Europeans to easily produce blades of higher quality than could be achieved by the African village blacksmith competition. If these more attractive European blades were offered at a price point reasonably close to those offered by the village blacksmiths, buyers would naturally choose them even though the functionality of the rest of the ensemble was questionable. This would be especially true if the buyer didn’t expect to have to use the weapon in combat. As an example from our own culture, how many SUVs are bought with any thought of taking them off road? Furthermore, how many of those SUVs are fitted with rims and low profile tires that would make it impossible to take them off road?

Jim McDougall,
I have seen baldrics of both wool and cotton. I suspect the wool ones are older but it may be that the cotton ones just wore out and were discarded as the knives made their way out of the culture.

Sincerely,
RobT

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by RobT

Kahnjar 1,
Whether or not they fit the definition of “true” quillons, the typical projections at the base of a koummya serve to prevent the user’s hand from sliding up the hilt on a thrust. I am rather amazed that you have seen more examples that, like Jim’s, don’t have this feature than do because, of the 30 koummya in my collection, all have the necessary projections. I would also point out that the overwhelming majority of koummya examples posted on this forum, have these projections. This makes sense. The koummya is a cut and thrust weapon and the thrust is the most deadly as it results in quick death by internal bleeding or slow death by sepsis. No actual fighting knife or sword in the world that is intended for thrusting in actual combat lacks some way to prevent the user’s hand from sliding up the blade on impact.
As you noted, the koummya was worn on a baldric. The baldric was slung over the right shoulder and the blade was suspended at the left hip area (hence the name jambiya). However, the djellaba, the typical Moroccan male attire which was very loose fitting, would largely obscure any sheath and hilt decoration worn close to the body. Save for one example, all the koummya in my collection that have decoration on the “body” side are far more simply decorated than the side that is fully visible. The one example noted is very sparsely decorated on both sides and has other anomalies that make me suspect that it was made outside of the Moroccan culture.
I don’t think that the quality of European trade blades necessarily correlates with functional weapon status. Mechanized industrial methods would allow the Europeans to easily produce blades of higher quality than could be achieved by the African village blacksmith competition. If these more attractive European blades were offered at a price point reasonably close to those offered by the village blacksmiths, buyers would naturally choose them even though the functionality of the rest of the ensemble was questionable. This would be especially true if the buyer didn’t expect to have to use the weapon in combat. As an example from our own culture, how many SUVs are bought with any thought of taking them off road? Furthermore, how many of those SUVs are fitted with rims and low profile tires that would make it impossible to take them off road?

Jim McDougall,
I have seen baldrics of both wool and cotton. I suspect the wool ones are older but it may be that the cotton ones just wore out and were discarded as the knives made their way out of the culture.

Sincerely,
RobT

You appear to say in your first post here that the koummya is not a useful fighting weapon, and yet above you say it is.
Your point is taken that those with no "quillons" are likely to do the user more harm than good. Yes I agree that many DO have the flaired grip but equally many do not, and YES some blades are of poor quality, but then many are also very good. So at least we seem to agree that the koummya is a fighting weapon and not just a piece of bling to be worn to impress.
Stu

[Marc M.]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

You appear to say in your first post here that the koummya is not a useful fighting weapon, and yet above you say it is.
Your point is taken that those with no "quillons" are likely to do the user more harm than good. Yes I agree that many DO have the flaired grip but equally many do not, and YES some blades are of poor quality, but then many are also very good. So at least we seem to agree that the koummya is a fighting weapon and not just a piece of bling to be worn to impress.
Stu

I agree that in the past the koumiya was a weapon and not just an ornament. As in many cultures, the richer the higher the quality of an object such as the koumiya. It doesn't help that the koumiya has been made for the tourist industry for many decades, often scabbard and handle are of a decent quality and usually with a negligible blade.

Regards
Marc

[Pertinax]

Khanjar in Oman and the Middle East, Jambiya in Yemen, Kummiya in Morocco are elements of the national male costume. In the past, men wore it every day, and today it is usually worn at most official and social events, such as national holidays and weddings.

In some countries, teenage boys receive their first dagger if they have been circumcised.

Daggers were a symbol of regional or tribal identification, thus becoming a distinctive sign of belonging to a certain ethnic group.

Regarding the identification and division of daggers into "tourist" and "combat" is a very complex question.

A simple example: two absolutely identical kummiyas are sold at the bazaar. One was bought by a local resident and began to wear it every day, and the second was bought by a tourist and taken to his country and placed in a collection. How to identify the kummiya in the collection in this case?

[werecow]

Originally Posted by RobT

No actual fighting knife or sword in the world that is intended for thrusting in actual combat lacks some way to prevent the user’s hand from sliding up the blade on impact.

Just because I like being a contrarian.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by werecow

Just because I like being a contrarian.

(Me too.)

Ah, but on that square section thrust only cane sword blade, it doesn't matter if your hand slides down, as the blade won't cut butter. It'd poke easily completely thru its fleshy target, so your hand wouldn't slide much.

I have a couple cane swords that DO have sharp-edged 'cutting' blades, but they're more like rapier blades, and wouldn't sever any limbs (or digits). Even those, the blade bends on impact rather than being stiff enough to enable your hand to slide down. The sharp bits are there to ensure a wide wound channel that will debilitate the victim quicker, and also can be used for annoying flic cuts to the face/hands/arms.

Koummiyah, and most jambiyah appear to be designed to be used edge down, like a Filipino ginunting, the big brother further east which is still issued and used by their marines in jungle encounters with the Moros. I've seen & posted Saudi's from the Asir regions dancing and play fighting with their own large dharia knives like that, point curving down, not up, like europeans would think. The koummiyahs just seem to more distinctly differentiate by having just a rudimentary short false edge on the outside of the curve.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by kronckew

(Me too.)

Ah, but on that square section thrust only cane sword blade, it doesn't matter if your hand slides down, as the blade won't cut butter. It'd poke easily completely thru its fleshy target, so your hand wouldn't slide much.

True, although as you note, they aren't all like that. I have this sword cane/measuring stick below (side note: it has marks for each centimeter and decimeter on the wood and measures exactly 1m), which has more of a dress sword or very light spadroon blade. It's not razor sharp and clearly isn't capable of heavy cutting, but it does have an edge.

Obviously, these are a bit of an exception, and I don't want to derail the thread.

[RobT]

kahnjar 1,
When I said that, “I don’t think this knife was made for or worn with any serious belief that it would have to be used in combat”, I was referring specifically to Jim McDougall’s example because of its lack of quillons (or quillion like projections if you will), not koummya in general. I maintain that any other examples without these projections were more for “show” than “go”. All of the koummya in my possession have these projections and I also maintain that the overwhelming majority of koummya shown on this forum have the necessary projections. I invite all interested forum members to search through past posts to confirm or refute this.

Marc M,
I find that those koummya I consider strictly tourist, feature low quality workmanship in both blade and dress. I think those ensembles with better to high quality dress and adequate quality blades are probably made for local sale to men who need on occasion to wear this culturally appropriate accessory but are rather sure they are not going to need to use it. Furthermore, I think that the manufacture of these formal attire koummya began in the 20th century and the dress of these items lack certain characteristics commonly found on 19th century ensembles. This is not to say that a more well to do man might not be willing to pay for a top quality blade to go with the fancy dress. Blades made in Europe would be a perfect fit for that market.

Pertinax,
For me, the answer to the question you pose lies in distinguishing between an item made for a tourist and an item bought by a tourist. Consider this example: A native New Yorker goes into a store and buys a pair of Levis for daily wear and a tourist from Paris goes into the same store and buys another pair of Levis as a souvenir. The Levis bought by the Parisian aren’t tourist Levis, they are just Levis that happened to have been bought by a tourist. Likewise, good quality, traditionally made koummya sold in a bazaar remain just that, whether they are bought by locals as part of their formal attire or bought by tourists as souvenirs. The merchant will sell his wares to anyone willing to pay.

werecow,
I think that kronckew’s point is well taken (pun shamelessly intended) but I also believe that the carrying of a sword cane speaks directly to the wearer’s expectation to have to actually fight with it. Nineteenth century sword canes are not infrequently seen at antique shows and in antique malls where they are often displayed unsheathed. Oftentimes, the cane shaft shows significant damage but the very slender blades, while in some cases rusty or stained, aren’t bent or kinked (at least as far as I can recall). I think this lack of damage indicates that they were seldom used. There are three factors that support this. First, anyone carrying a sword cane was likely well off because a poor person carrying one risked being stopped by the police who would confiscate the weapon (at the very least). In the 19th century, stop and search was entirely accepted and who was and who was not subjected to the procedure was largely dictated by economic status and race. Rich people, being of “the better sort” would be given a free pass. Thus, the gentleman armed with a sword cane would have an incredibly longer reach than would any lower class assailant armed with a non projectile concealable weapon. Secondly, 19th century society was strictly segregated by class and race. Other than those employed as support staff, poor people didn’t frequent the venues of the rich. Any poor person seen “hanging around out of place” could expect police scrutiny and, woe betide any such individual caught with a firearm. Thus street criminals, whose ranks consisted entirely of poor people, preyed on other poor people and did so in poor areas not frequented by the rich. Lastly, in the unlikely event an upperclass individual carrying a sword cane were to be attacked by a poor person, not only would the assailant be facing an opponent better armed than he, the commotion and delay caused by the intended victim’s resistance would increase the likelihood of apprehension. Given these last circumstances, unsheathing the sword cane would probably be enough to put the would be attacker to flight. Especially when you consider how life threatening a deep puncture wound would be to a poor person in the 19th century. I think sword canes were largely a matter of swagger and, if a well off person was in an area where he thought he was likely to be attacked, he had a revolver in his pocket.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Jim McDougall]

Guys thank you so much for the great input here on the koummya! As I have known little on these and their history and variation, I wanted to learn more on these aspects.
It seems the most common points of contention with ethnographic weapons are (1) is it a souvenir or 'tourist' example (2) how was it used, was it used? and here, with the koummya as a form, I pretty much expected these aspects to come into play.

Clearly everyone who has collected these, and with all the variations, has found many varied cases accordingly, so its fascinating to see these views all presented accordingly. Definitely a lot of perspective here, and much appreciated. !!!

[Pertinax]

In addition.

Thoughts out loud.

Ethnographic weapons are an addition to the national costume in peacetime, but during war the situation changes.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Pertinax

In addition.

Thoughts out loud.

Ethnographic weapons are an addition to the national costume in peacetime, but during war the situation changes.

Local arms fair??

[Pertinax]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Local arms fair??

Yemen, Houthis

[Jim McDougall]

Getting back to koummyas, well pointed out that ethnographic weapons in general indeed follow traditional styles and forms, and are worn as elements of status and fashion. With many forms, there has yet to be proven that they were ever intended for combat or use in defense.

The fact that a number of specific forms were ceremonial or associated as rite of passage elements for young men as they enter adulthood seems also well established. Naturally, as recalling many discussions over the years, these perspectives on certain weapon forms are often notably varied and typically not universally shared by the arms community. Such disparity in views is to be expected, and often brings interesting philosophically oriented discourse, as seen in much of this discourse.

One case in point in analogy is the flyssa of the Kabyles in Algeria. This form has remained indiginous to these tribes in Algeria, and the origin and development of the form has long been disputed but it seems agreed that it is a relatively recent one from early 19th c.
Naturally the question....was it used in combat has been an issue.
As far as I have seen, there are no viable records or accounts of these in use, nor manner of use.
Here it goes to the unusual but distinctive hilt, and terrible balance of the long examples (blade length seems varied).
It seems these fall mostly into the rite of passage category, as well as personal status weapon, and often the characteristic decoration is embellisged with certain individual symbols.

The point is..if the flyssa was actuallu used as a weapon, how so? The blade is long, unwieldy, needle point and poorly balanced.
If for thrusting, there is no guard whatsoever to stop the hand from sliding downward...if for slashing why the needle point etc.
So there again is the lack of guard elements conundrum. Would the back of the blade extending be deemed a stop for the hand?

[Changdao]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Getting back to koummyas, well pointed out that ethnographic weapons in general indeed follow traditional styles and forms, and are worn as elements of status and fashion. With many forms, there has yet to be proven that they were ever intended for combat or use in defense.

The fact that a number of specific forms were ceremonial or associated as rite of passage elements for young men as they enter adulthood seems also well established. Naturally, as recalling many discussions over the years, these perspectives on certain weapon forms are often notably varied and typically not universally shared by the arms community. Such disparity in views is to be expected, and often brings interesting philosophically oriented discourse, as seen in much of this discourse.

One case in point in analogy is the flyssa of the Kabyles in Algeria. This form has remained indiginous to these tribes in Algeria, and the origin and development of the form has long been disputed but it seems agreed that it is a relatively recent one from early 19th c.
Naturally the question....was it used in combat has been an issue.
As far as I have seen, there are no viable records or accounts of these in use, nor manner of use.
Here it goes to the unusual but distinctive hilt, and terrible balance of the long examples (blade length seems varied).
It seems these fall mostly into the rite of passage category, as well as personal status weapon, and often the characteristic decoration is embellisged with certain individual symbols.

The point is..if the flyssa was actuallu used as a weapon, how so? The blade is long, unwieldy, needle point and poorly balanced.
If for thrusting, there is no guard whatsoever to stop the hand from sliding downward...if for slashing why the needle point etc.
So there again is the lack of guard elements conundrum. Would the back of the blade extending be deemed a stop for the hand?

I don't doubt they were used in combat. Thrusts could be problematic due to the risks of the hand sliding up the blade, but it is not an issue if you don't thrust with it and just use it to cut. A chop with a flyssa would be quite devastating for an unarmoured targets, which were basically all of them in their context. "Balance" is a very relative word. Flyssas tend to have a point of balance quite up the blade, like many historical swords, which makes cuts with them more powerful. Sure, you can't really use it well like a contemporary military saber, but you can't use a Migration Era sword like a saber either.

Khyber knives have a similar weapon profile and yet British accounts are adamant in that the Afghans only used them for cutting, and those are safer to thrust with. Many yataghans suffer from the same and we know they were widely used for combat nonetheless.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Changdao, good points, but still have never seen any accounts recorded of them in use. The only one example I could find in period context was in the French Foreign Legion museum in France said to have been 'captured' in 1857 in campaigns. It was presumed taken from a household taken over.
I have seen several images of Kabyles posed with these, but in static pose.

My point was not to derail the thread, but by analogy show the question of whether an ethnographic weapon was actually used, as with the matters concerning the koummya.

Khyber knives and yataghans were pretty well documented as used in combat, in various sources and illustrations, but I have to see any such record of a flyssa. I would be most pleased to see any such illustration.

[Pertinax]

Camille Lacoste in her work " Sabres Kabyles" has conscientiously collected everything she could about the Kabyles and the fleece.

The main source of information is the book by Edouard Lapene «Vingt-six mois à Bougie», which he wrote in 1839, just nine years after the French landed in Sidi Fredj (Sidi Ferruch) in 1830.

Edouard Lapine, lieutenant colonel of artillery, a direct participant in the conquest and occupation of the Kabyle port city of Bejaia (French: Bougie), was the head of the garrison in Bougie from August 4, 1836.

So, everything revolves around the memoirs of Lapene.

And so we have (I apologize in advance for possible inaccuracies in the translation).

Application.

Lapene writes:
- This weapon... is very dangerous for thrusting", he adds:
- The Kabyles rarely use it for cutting, except when they want to cut off a head. In this case, they apply the retractor part from above and strongly pull the hand back while sawing.

C. Lacoste rightly notes:
- It is difficult to imagine how this double movement could be quickly performed in the heat of battle, either this use was intended for capital punishment, or the action was carried out by cunning, when the victim did not think or could not parry the blow.

I will add on my own behalf that in order to cut off the enemy's head, he must first be defeated in combat.

Further in various places Lapene writes:
- Both sides, however, sometimes approach each other with bladed weapons and advance on their enemy, with a rifle in one hand, a yataghan in the other, making the latter a very fast windmill and uttering loud cries.

- They also use the yataghan, a weapon very dangerous because of its shape and the sharp blows they deliver with it.

- Having risen very close, the Kabaile horsemen fire their rifles and take up the yataghan. This movement is done very quickly, their gun strap is very long and hangs below the weapon, after firing they throw the gun back, and can immediately draw their yataghan.

- In the attacks of November 7 and 8, 1835, yataghans crossed with our sabres and, despite the numerical superiority, we beat off the enemy and repelled his blow.

And that's basically it! There is no detailed description of the battle itself. In fact, it seems that this was almost the only face-to-face skirmish. The French had the advantage in weapons, these are more modern and rapid-fire guns, cannons with grapeshot and they hit the Kabyles from a distance, without engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

Personally, I have doubts that the fleece was mainly used only for stabbing. According to his testimony, the infantrymen "turned the mill" with the fleece. This is very similar to the technique of wielding a saber among the Cossacks and the peoples of the Caucasus, but after such manipulations a saber blow is delivered.

K. Lacoste gives an explanation for the "little knowledge" of the fleece:
- How could it happen that such an original weapon could be so ignored?

Before the French conquest, almost no one penetrated Kabylia from the outside. The conquerors founded several colonial outposts there, and only in exceptional cases dared to penetrate into the interior of the country.

Therefore, they knew nothing about the Kabyle people and things. Travelers avoided the region, whose inhabitants had a bad reputation.

Subsequently, they had to wait for the French conquest, which, having penetrated into the interior, discovered and made known the fleece. This is confirmed by Nicolas Bibesco " Kabyles du Djurdjura ":

- Elsewhere we have already said: that the Kabyles do not have national chronicles, when we want to study their history in ancient times, we have no other sources except little-known or partial chronicles of their enemies.

On this basis, it cannot be asserted that the flissa appeared at the beginning of the 19th century, at which time it became known to Europeans.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Changdao

I don't doubt they were used in combat. Thrusts could be problematic due to the risks of the hand sliding up the blade,

I doubt that. The flyssa's step between the blade and grip is no smaller than, say, the one for an Indonesian rencong, which is certainly a thrusting weapon. And they have an absolutely terrifying needle point that rivals any smallsword. I would be very surprised if these were not used for thrusting.

[Jim McDougall]

Pertinax, absolutely amazing! and thank you so much for taking the time to translate and compile this valuable information!

So it seems clear that even weapons which 'seem' inviable as combat weapons according to western standards, in actuality were indeed used and effectively.
To the koummya question, it does appear that even in the case of the absence of guard projections on the hilt (=vestigial quillons) these daggers remain usable combatively.

This truly is wonderful insight into the actual use of the flyssa, and in the study I did on them many years ago, the major block was that these resources were in French. Clearly I should have had them translated but in those days there were not as many such options.

I would suppose then on the koummya, that the 'souvenir' category would apply to those with less than substantial blades, and 'flimsier' character, as would be expected with many ethnographic forms in such character.