Is There a Specific Term For This Style Of Moroccan Dagger???

A.alnakkas · 5th August 2011, 08:57 PM

Hey Charles,

I generally call this type a Genoui, but am not 100% positive that this is its original name.

As for terminology currently used by collectors, I will argue that the majority of names are not used by their original native owners.

ariel · 5th August 2011, 09:39 PM

Could it be just a rich version of Khodmi?

CharlesS · 5th August 2011, 11:28 PM

Good point Ariel. I hadn't thought about that.

NovelsRus · 25th February 2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Could it be just a rich version of Khodmi?

Interesting points, all, and a beautiful dagger whatever its name may be.

On a related note, I've an odd koummya or possibly Persian Khanjar I'd like your opinions on. First, I was told it was indeed a koummya. When I pointed out that the pommel is all brass, no wood or rhino horn, the seller then said it was a Persian variant of the koummya, or, for lack of a better word, a Khanjar.
What does the board say? Pics below:

The metal appears to be brass (under all the grime), and the red setting stones and border is coral, allegedly. The grime I've cleaned, but the name....? I still don't know what this is. Any clues?

ariel · 6th August 2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

As for terminology currently used by collectors, I will argue that the majority of names are not used by their original native owners.

You might be right, but what's the alternative? There is very little ( or not at all) tradition of academic scholarship in the so-called " native" societies.

Had it not been for Stocklein, the swords of Topkapi would not have been decribed till 2001 ( Yucel's book). Pant's book on Indian weapons repeats assertions from Eggerton, Stone and Rawson. The Iranians waited for an expatriate Mr. Khorasani to publish a book on their traditional weapons. According to Khorasani, the very first attempt to catalogue Persian swords from Persian (!) museums was made by the Soviet art historian Romanovsky in the 1950's, and the best book on the subject was issued from Poland.
It took an Israeli (!) Daniel Ayalon to start academic studies of the Egyptian mamelukes, and African weapons would not have been academically known without Spring and some other European authors. Encyclopedia of Indonesian weapons? Van Zonneveld. Arabian weapons? Elgood and Jacob. The best book on Turkish weapons? Astvatsaturyan from Russia. Tibet? La Rocca. Ancient Central Asia? Gorelik from Russia. Best museum exhibition catalogues ? All from Europe. South Asian? Macao exhibition book with marvelous articles by some of the Forumites ( plus Japanese, Korean and Chinese chapters on their own weapons). Had it not been for the efforts of the European collectors like Moser, Eggerton and Stone we would not have known not only the correct name for a Salawar Yataghan, but even what it looks like.

Perhaps only the Japanese have demonstrated comparably-serious academic tradition of study of their own weapons.

I would be delighted to read books on Afghani, Sudanese, North African, Thai, Vietnamese, Ethiopian or a multitude of other weapons written by native authors and teaching us the inside view of their arms and armour. But meanwhile, the only sources of information come from the European researchers.

Thus, the wrong names.

Please feel free to write and publish an academic book on traditional Omani weaponry with all the correct names, and I shall be the first one to buy it and to rely on the original, "native", information.

With best wishes.

A.alnakkas · 6th August 2011, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You might be right, but what's the alternative? There is very little ( or not at all) tradition of academic scholarship in the so-called " native" societies.

Had it not been for Stocklein, the swords of Topkapi would not have been decribed till 2001 ( Yucel's book). Pant's book on Indian weapons repeats assertions from Eggerton, Stone and Rawson. The Iranians waited for an expatriate Mr. Khorasani to publish a book on their traditional weapons. According to Khorasani, the very first attempt to catalogue Persian swords from Persian (!) museums was made by the Soviet art historian Romanovsky in the 1950's, and the best book on the subject was issued from Poland.
It took an Israeli (!) Daniel Ayalon to start academic studies of the Egyptian mamelukes, and African weapons would not have been academically known without Spring and some other European authors. Encyclopedia of Indonesian weapons? Van Zonneveld. Arabian weapons? Elgood and Jacob. The best book on Turkish weapons? Astvatsaturyan from Russia. Tibet? La Rocca. Ancient Central Asia? Gorelik from Russia. Best museum exhibition catalogues ? All from Europe. South Asian? Macao exhibition book with marvelous articles by some of the Forumites ( plus Japanese, Korean and Chinese chapters on their own weapons). Had it not been for the efforts of the European collectors like Moser, Eggerton and Stone we would not have known not only the correct name for a Salawar Yataghan, but even what it looks like.

Perhaps only the Japanese have demonstrated comparably-serious academic tradition of study of their own weapons.

I would be delighted to read books on Afghani, Sudanese, North African, Thai, Vietnamese, Ethiopian or a multitude of other weapons written by native authors and teaching us the inside view of their arms and armour. But meanwhile, the only sources of information come from the European researchers.

Thus, the wrong names.

Please feel free to write and publish an academic book on traditional Omani weaponry with all the correct names, and I shall be the first one to buy it and to rely on the original, "native", information.

With best wishes.

I think for us collectors, trying to change the wrong names is counterproductive. I merely commented on why the natives do not know on the names we use to describe certain items

Though I will keep pointing it out if presented wrongly, for example, the name nimcha was presented wrongly by LP, he did correct it though (at first, it was presented as arabic, when in fact its persian. Thats a wrong info that needed to be corrected) So to me, as someone who knows arabic, I find it to be a positive thing to point out when non-arabic words are described as arabic, or when a certain name is flagged as "native" when in fact its not. This doesnt mean I have no respect for the effort of non-native researchers but a wrong info is just that, a wrong info. And when it exists in an academic paper, one needs to point out where are the wrong information. Even with something as irrelevant as weapon names :-)

PS: I have a project set to make an arabic site dealing with the arms and armour of the Islamic world. In it I will try to get information from native museums, elderly people, muslim collectors and ofcourse, non-native experts (many of them here)

Also, in a telephone discussion with Saqir alAnizi, we discussed how much info we had here was lost due to the art being transmitted orally rather then academically.

Question to you, Ariel, I would like 1 LOGICAL reason why a speaker of arabic should not point out a misconception about a certain word? The question is valid ofcourse, if we both look at this academically (or just simply wanting to know the truth behind the simplest things)

ariel · 6th August 2011, 02:57 AM

My comment was not a prescription for the future, but an attempt to explain the present state of knowledge in the area: all our info comes from the "external" sources and, as such, might be fraught with errors committed by the outsiders not fully aware of the local nuances.

Things, however, might not be that simple...For example, in my recent post on Afghani pulowars, AJ1356 mentioned that the local call them just Shamshirs. Well, that may be the correct name and early Europeans might have been fooled. On the other hand, they might have preserved the early name ( Pulowar) and the current one ( Shamshir) is just a generic simplification by the locals not exposed to these weapons for more than a century.

By all means, correct the errors and supply the original information!
As to the idea of developing a site, being an old-fashioned " reader", I would like your effort to culminate in a published book. Something to hold, leaf through, underline, curl in bed with :-)
Seriously, write a book! As I said before, sign me up for an early order :-)

A.alnakkas · 6th August 2011, 03:37 AM

"Things, however, might not be that simple...For example, in my recent post on Afghani pulowars, AJ1356 mentioned that the local call them just Shamshirs. Well, that may be the correct name and early Europeans might have been fooled. On the other hand, they might have preserved the early name ( Pulowar) and the current one ( Shamshir) is just a generic simplification by the locals not exposed to these weapons for more than a century."

That is a possible outcome. Personally I do not know the language there, but when it comes to arabic, I use deduction and research (Yes, I actually do research the terms such as nimcha or koummya etc) but an afghan or someone fimiliar with the language there can be the key to the answer. Does the word Pulwar makes sense to an afghani? is it derived from a mispelled/combination of certain words in afghanistan? Do the old people understand it? keep in mind, that the old people in the middle east may have lived in the time when swords were still in use.

Perhaps AJ can help out here.

Now to my view on external sources; I personally think that those who have worked on this field have done a phenomenal job in perserving a part of a culture which they have nothing to do with. Yes, the work is not flawless, but I think its flaws can be reduced alot by enthusiatic natives such as myself (or I am just a hopeful person :-P)

"By all means, correct the errors and supply the original information!
As to the idea of developing a site, being an old-fashioned " reader", I would like your effort to culminate in a published book. Something to hold, leaf through, underline, curl in bed with :-)
Seriously, write a book! As I said before, sign me up for an early order :-)"

It would be extremely arrogant of me to write a book. I am still a student, but my ability with the arabic language is enough to tell the difference between a foreign word and a native word. The foreign word could be used by arabs btw, but asking such questions (my case with the word Nimcha) can even add an insight to the history of the weapon.

Gavin Nugent · 6th August 2011, 04:27 PM

It is an interesting game trying to specifically name such a vast and long standing cultural cross pollination of influences over the centuries on so many weapons in so many countries. Very few weapons remained isolated, uninfluenced and carry their original name.

I cast my imagination back in to the days prior to the frequent use of firearms and think to myself did the knights and soldiers of the era care for such terms and at what point, if any, did they, if at all, become so finicky about what their weapon of choice was categorised as...I feel little care would be had to such fancy and as long as it was sharp and ready when needed.

It is more interesting to write about the aspects of the pieces in hand and look objectively at the influences within the pieces rather seek a catch phrase. Call it a dagger

One of my personal favorite references uses very simple terms, look at the headings used in Arts of the Muslim Knight.

Gav

Jim McDougall · 6th August 2011, 07:02 PM

What an interesting topic. I'm glad there has been recent attention to the disparity in terminology with many of the ethnographic weapons most collect and some study. There may be a few here who recall my 'kaskara' conundrum with posts from about ten years ago, which brought almost no discussion and even less from a number of authors mentioned, nor academics involved in museum capacities. Briggs used the term 'kaskara' and Reed later used in in his article on 'Darfur kaskaras' but also specified the term 'saif Kasallawi' for them. Last year we were fortunate to have Ed join us, and his outstanding work on Kasalla (written contemporary to Reed) revealed the reasons behind the 'Kasallawi' designation.
I was actually quite surprised by the disinterest in most scholars and authors I queried on the term 'kaskara' and its origins, it was simply 'the term used for these swords, with no questions asked. In talking with individuals from Sudan, Darfur and Eritrea ( I used to work with many ethnic groups) not a single one had ever heard the term..only sa'if was used, however one man from Sudan noted they were sometimes called 'cross'. Recent research has revealed some further data which has more fortunately.

The term nim'cha and its misuse has been brought up repeatedly in its reference to the Moroccan sa'if, and the term itself is, as noted, discussed somewhat in Elgood ("Arms and Armour of Arabia"). I was glad that Louis-Pierre (LPCA) joined us on the other thread thouroughly examining the use, and misuse as well as likely etymology of the term. Through the years he has shared considerable research he has done on these weapons, including the 'flyssa', another curious sword whose origins remain obscure and the term a French application from 19th century tranliteration if I recall.

On another concurrent thread, in another twist to the nimcha conundrum I brought up the obvious collectors term 'Zanzibar' nimcha, a compounded misnomer, also largely met with resounding thud. The only 'author' I have seen using this term has been Tirri, whose book is an outstanding handbook for collectors, thus the term serves well.

There are so many terms used by collectors which derive from the venerable works of the profoundly respected works of the earlier writers of the 19th into the 20th century that indeed it is counterproductive to try to reassert or correct proper terms. It must be remembered that in many, if not most cases, the populus at large in most cultural spheres does not know colloquial terms for certain weapons, though there are likely many instances where in familiar circumstances they may have been called by nicknames or the like.
For example, in todays military the heavy machine gun carried rather selectively by certain soldiers in a group is nicknamed 'the saw', while it is of course recognized as a machine gun, but with specific official designation.

The importance of finding the origins and proper use of terms used for these ethnographic weapons, whether in regional or former parlance, cannot be underestimated. For those researching and trying to discover the development chronologically of a particular weapon, it is key when investigating earlier contemporary narratives and accounts to know these things so that descriptions can be evaluated accordingly. One of the earliest accounts known of the 'kampilan' in the Philippines is described in the the 16th century death of Magellan. However, does this refer to the sword we know in todays collections, or another form?

It is important to have a working glossary where the weapons we discuss have a common parlance, but it remains an important element of research to make known these important addendums to these terms used. It is also important to make every effort to avoid 'pidgeonholing' in describing the many hybrids and variations which as we know exist profoundly with the weapons endemic to most cultures. In these cases I think that descriptions should be carefully qualified beyond the more generic terms to characterize the specifics also considered.

6th August 2011, 04:27 PM	#9
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Whats in a name... It is an interesting game trying to specifically name such a vast and long standing cultural cross pollination of influences over the centuries on so many weapons in so many countries. Very few weapons remained isolated, uninfluenced and carry their original name. I cast my imagination back in to the days prior to the frequent use of firearms and think to myself did the knights and soldiers of the era care for such terms and at what point, if any, did they, if at all, become so finicky about what their weapon of choice was categorised as...I feel little care would be had to such fancy and as long as it was sharp and ready when needed. It is more interesting to write about the aspects of the pieces in hand and look objectively at the influences within the pieces rather seek a catch phrase. Call it a dagger One of my personal favorite references uses very simple terms, look at the headings used in Arts of the Muslim Knight. Gav

5th August 2011, 08:57 PM	#1
A.alnakkas Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,340	Hey Charles, I generally call this type a Genoui, but am not 100% positive that this is its original name. As for terminology currently used by collectors, I will argue that the majority of names are not used by their original native owners.

5th August 2011, 09:39 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Could it be just a rich version of Khodmi?

5th August 2011, 11:28 PM	#3
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	Good point Ariel. I hadn't thought about that.

6th August 2011, 02:57 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	My comment was not a prescription for the future, but an attempt to explain the present state of knowledge in the area: all our info comes from the "external" sources and, as such, might be fraught with errors committed by the outsiders not fully aware of the local nuances. Things, however, might not be that simple...For example, in my recent post on Afghani pulowars, AJ1356 mentioned that the local call them just Shamshirs. Well, that may be the correct name and early Europeans might have been fooled. On the other hand, they might have preserved the early name ( Pulowar) and the current one ( Shamshir) is just a generic simplification by the locals not exposed to these weapons for more than a century. By all means, correct the errors and supply the original information! As to the idea of developing a site, being an old-fashioned " reader", I would like your effort to culminate in a published book. Something to hold, leaf through, underline, curl in bed with :-) Seriously, write a book! As I said before, sign me up for an early order :-)

6th August 2011, 03:37 AM	#8
A.alnakkas Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,340	"Things, however, might not be that simple...For example, in my recent post on Afghani pulowars, AJ1356 mentioned that the local call them just Shamshirs. Well, that may be the correct name and early Europeans might have been fooled. On the other hand, they might have preserved the early name ( Pulowar) and the current one ( Shamshir) is just a generic simplification by the locals not exposed to these weapons for more than a century." That is a possible outcome. Personally I do not know the language there, but when it comes to arabic, I use deduction and research (Yes, I actually do research the terms such as nimcha or koummya etc) but an afghan or someone fimiliar with the language there can be the key to the answer. Does the word Pulwar makes sense to an afghani? is it derived from a mispelled/combination of certain words in afghanistan? Do the old people understand it? keep in mind, that the old people in the middle east may have lived in the time when swords were still in use. Perhaps AJ can help out here. Now to my view on external sources; I personally think that those who have worked on this field have done a phenomenal job in perserving a part of a culture which they have nothing to do with. Yes, the work is not flawless, but I think its flaws can be reduced alot by enthusiatic natives such as myself (or I am just a hopeful person :-P) "By all means, correct the errors and supply the original information! As to the idea of developing a site, being an old-fashioned " reader", I would like your effort to culminate in a published book. Something to hold, leaf through, underline, curl in bed with :-) Seriously, write a book! As I said before, sign me up for an early order :-)" It would be extremely arrogant of me to write a book. I am still a student, but my ability with the arabic language is enough to tell the difference between a foreign word and a native word. The foreign word could be used by arabs btw, but asking such questions (my case with the word Nimcha) can even add an insight to the history of the weapon.

6th August 2011, 07:02 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,722	What an interesting topic. I'm glad there has been recent attention to the disparity in terminology with many of the ethnographic weapons most collect and some study. There may be a few here who recall my 'kaskara' conundrum with posts from about ten years ago, which brought almost no discussion and even less from a number of authors mentioned, nor academics involved in museum capacities. Briggs used the term 'kaskara' and Reed later used in in his article on 'Darfur kaskaras' but also specified the term 'saif Kasallawi' for them. Last year we were fortunate to have Ed join us, and his outstanding work on Kasalla (written contemporary to Reed) revealed the reasons behind the 'Kasallawi' designation. I was actually quite surprised by the disinterest in most scholars and authors I queried on the term 'kaskara' and its origins, it was simply 'the term used for these swords, with no questions asked. In talking with individuals from Sudan, Darfur and Eritrea ( I used to work with many ethnic groups) not a single one had ever heard the term..only sa'if was used, however one man from Sudan noted they were sometimes called 'cross'. Recent research has revealed some further data which has more fortunately. The term nim'cha and its misuse has been brought up repeatedly in its reference to the Moroccan sa'if, and the term itself is, as noted, discussed somewhat in Elgood ("Arms and Armour of Arabia"). I was glad that Louis-Pierre (LPCA) joined us on the other thread thouroughly examining the use, and misuse as well as likely etymology of the term. Through the years he has shared considerable research he has done on these weapons, including the 'flyssa', another curious sword whose origins remain obscure and the term a French application from 19th century tranliteration if I recall. On another concurrent thread, in another twist to the nimcha conundrum I brought up the obvious collectors term 'Zanzibar' nimcha, a compounded misnomer, also largely met with resounding thud. The only 'author' I have seen using this term has been Tirri, whose book is an outstanding handbook for collectors, thus the term serves well. There are so many terms used by collectors which derive from the venerable works of the profoundly respected works of the earlier writers of the 19th into the 20th century that indeed it is counterproductive to try to reassert or correct proper terms. It must be remembered that in many, if not most cases, the populus at large in most cultural spheres does not know colloquial terms for certain weapons, though there are likely many instances where in familiar circumstances they may have been called by nicknames or the like. For example, in todays military the heavy machine gun carried rather selectively by certain soldiers in a group is nicknamed 'the saw', while it is of course recognized as a machine gun, but with specific official designation. The importance of finding the origins and proper use of terms used for these ethnographic weapons, whether in regional or former parlance, cannot be underestimated. For those researching and trying to discover the development chronologically of a particular weapon, it is key when investigating earlier contemporary narratives and accounts to know these things so that descriptions can be evaluated accordingly. One of the earliest accounts known of the 'kampilan' in the Philippines is described in the the 16th century death of Magellan. However, does this refer to the sword we know in todays collections, or another form? It is important to have a working glossary where the weapons we discuss have a common parlance, but it remains an important element of research to make known these important addendums to these terms used. It is also important to make every effort to avoid 'pidgeonholing' in describing the many hybrids and variations which as we know exist profoundly with the weapons endemic to most cultures. In these cases I think that descriptions should be carefully qualified beyond the more generic terms to characterize the specifics also considered.