The Omani Battle Sword. Sayf Yamaani.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all ~ A full flex test has been carried out and the sword is declared stiff ... thus it is not a dancing sword blade refit ... but in fact a real Omani Battle Sword..

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams all ~ A full flex test has been carried out and the sword is declared stiff ... thus it is not a dancing sword blade refit ... but in fact a real Omani Battle Sword..

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

If this was purchased in 1990 why aren't you ascribing the same attribution of recent merger of parts as you've done with many blades of a similar nature fitted to the newer style hilt.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

If this was purchased in 1990 why aren't you ascribing the same attribution of recent merger of parts as you've done with many blades of a similar nature fitted to the newer style hilt.

Salaams Iain, Because I have looked long and hard at the components i.e. The Blade, The Hilt and the Scabbard and have decided that they are all correct for this style. Obviously the hilt needs little further discussion even though the quillons are broken off...The Scabbard is correct .... That leaves the blade.

There aren't any European marks on it like Solingen or other strikes and the 3 markings appear to be Islamic. The Lion, the circular stamp and the Star of Solomon being either makers, owners or locally applied. Even if the animal stamp/ engraving is after a European mark (perhaps the Passau wolf) it is clearly applied in Arabia.

Purchase date has nothing to do with age and so far as I can see this has little comparison to the dancing blade conundrum nor refits of that blade to other hilts...The entire business of dancing swords and hilt switching is almost totally unrelated to the Old Omani Battle Sword but naturally coming from Muttrah Souk it got my full attention from the fake/blade and hilt switchover angle. Quite literally in or up to about 1990 few people considered the older weapon and they could be got for almost nothing. It is only in the last few years that people have realised their worth even though their provenance has been wrongly attributed down the ages as 16th, 10th, Portuguese and recently of the Saladin type. At Forum I believe we have placed this weapon correctly from the first Imam of Oman period of 751 a.d. and unchanged until today.


I have had a bend test conducted by a very savvy technically excellent individual (I am in possession of the bend test diagrams) and am satisfied it is stiff in all respects.. even though it has 3 short fullers (some have fullers some don't) it is in my view an Omani Battle Blade and since I have probably handled more of these than any other person thus I think I have a good idea of what is and what is not correct for type; Its the real deal.

The only other blade of note that I know of cross fitted to an Old Omani Battle Hilt is the Solingen example clearly stamped SOLINGEN crossed with an Old Omani Battle Sword hilt in Muttrah by a known hilt switch workshop a few years ago.. but that is well recorded here by me on Forum and I even know the current owner. There is a blade at #36 which is peculiar in that it seems to be a battle blade on a dancing hilt and though interesting it is still under revue though as soon as I can get to Rostaq I will attempt to solve that mystery..

Regarding the sword here; I know the store from which this weapon came and although it closed some years ago I have photographs of it and the store owners owners who were well known. They had no reputation as hilt switchers. The owners of this weapon are also known to me.

Please advise if you think I am missing something here as amongst the Forums most esteemed members there are few with the expertise such as yours in this field and your knowledge is much admired.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Gavin Nugent]

I had previously submitted a very stiff fighting blade in what you describe as dancing sword dress but it was dismissed...
I have handled others too....

Are you now suggesting there is a known type because you have handled one....

Gavin

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I have no idea to which thread or post you refer but if you would like to quote the specific post I will answer your question and if required I will point to the reasons.

I cannot understand your second point for surely you know from handling scores of weapons exactly what the characteristic feeling is of a correct form for a certain mark. I have handled many Omani Battle Swords ... probably 50 by now including the museum exhibits in the UAE and Omani National Museums. I have personally been involved in putting together a collection of more than 20 such weapons for a private collector over the past 2 decades. One of my Omani Battle Swords is in the Tareq Rajeb Museum in Quwait. I still own a handful of them and am currently appraising one from Rostaq and another with a friend from a Pacific Island !

What part of familiarity and experience am I further supposed to exhibit? I have virtually rewritten this weapons history ... and placed its pedigree correctly as 751 ad but if there is something I have missed do feel free to comment with references and I will gladly look into it.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Iain, Because I have looked long and hard at the components i.e. The Blade, The Hilt and the Scabbard and have decided that they are all correct for this style. Obviously the hilt needs little further discussion even though the quillons are broken off...The Scabbard is correct .... That leaves the blade.

There aren't any European marks on it like Solingen or other strikes and the 3 markings appear to be Islamic. The Lion, the circular stamp and the Star of Solomon being either makers, owners or locally applied. Even if the animal stamp/ engraving is after a European mark (perhaps the Passau wolf) it is clearly applied in Arabia.

I don't have the blade in hand so I'll refrain from comments regarding the origin of the blade. Suffice to say I'd consider it a wolf and of a style I've seen before.

Purchase date has nothing to do with age and so far as I can see this has little comparison to the dancing blade conundrum nor refits of that blade to other hilts...The entire business of dancing swords and hilt switching is almost totally unrelated to the Old Omani Battle Sword but naturally coming from Muttrah Souk it got my full attention from the fake/blade and hilt switchover angle. Quite literally in 1990 few people considered the older weapon and they could be got for almost nothing..

It is only in the last few years that people have realised their worth even though their provenance has been wrongly attributed down the ages as 16th, 10th, Portuguese and recently of the Saladin type. At Forum I believe we have placed this weapon correctly from the first Imam of Oman period of 751 a.d. and unchanged until today.

As I've mentioned in the past, the attributions to the 16th century, typically in an auction house setting relate to the specific item up for sale and are, on a piece by piece basis quite potentially correct.

I've also mentioned I think you use the 751 date a bit too often - unless you are seriously suggesting this particular example dates to that period. Otherwise let's not go back down the rabbit hole regarding the dating of the form.

The only other blade of note that I know of cross fitted to an Old Omani Battle Hilt is the Solingen example clearly stamped SOLINGEN crossed with an Old Omani Battle Sword hilt in Muttrah by a known hilt switch workshop a few years ago.. but that is well recorded here by me on Forum and I even know the current owner. There is a blade at #36 which is peculiar in that it seems to be a battle blade on a dancing hilt and though interesting it is still under revue though as soon as I can get to Rostaq I will attempt to solve that mystery..

Regarding the sword here; I know the store from which this weapon came and although it closed some years ago I have photographs of it and its owners who were well known. They had no reputation as hilt switchers. The owners of this weapon are also known to me.

Please advise if you think I am missing something here as amongst the Forums most esteemed members there are few with the expertise such as yours in this field and your knowledge is much admired.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

It's always good when you know some of the background on a piece although unfortunately that doesn't preclude the parts having been assembled at a later date than the origin of either the hilt or the blade. Still, if a physical inspection of the piece has left you confident of the parts that's a good thing. As I mentioned above, I haven't had it in hand and thus won't comment on that aspect.

I'll bow out for the time being of the thread, I'd say a hunt around regarding the blade marks (particularly the wolf) will give you a pretty good idea of the age of this piece and I wish you all the best in tracking them down. the variety present on this blade is interesting and some may have been applied at differing times.

Cheers,
Iain

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

I don't have the blade in hand so I'll refrain from comments regarding the origin of the blade. Suffice to say I'd consider it a wolf and of a style I've seen before.



As I've mentioned in the past, the attributions to the 16th century, typically in an auction house setting relate to the specific item up for sale and are, on a piece by piece basis quite potentially correct.

I've also mentioned I think you use the 751 date a bit too often - unless you are seriously suggesting this particular example dates to that period. Otherwise let's not go back down the rabbit hole regarding the dating of the form.




It's always good when you know some of the background on a piece although unfortunately that doesn't preclude the parts having been assembled at a later date than the origin of either the hilt or the blade. Still, if a physical inspection of the piece has left you confident of the parts that's a good thing. As I mentioned above, I haven't had it in hand and thus won't comment on that aspect.

I'll bow out for the time being of the thread, I'd say a hunt around regarding the blade marks (particularly the wolf) will give you a pretty good idea of the age of this piece and I wish you all the best in tracking them down. the variety present on this blade is interesting and some may have been applied at differing times.

Cheers,
Iain

Salaams Iain ~ It is interesting that you have seen the animal style before and was one of the primary reasons I posted it... to see if anyone recognised this design...If you say you recognise this as a wolf.. then wolf it is.

Regarding design timeline ... I have seen the 16th C paperwork promulgated by various auction houses on swords of this type .. It never made any sense to me, therefor, I started researching and formatted a comparison with the Abbasiid as a baseline using the Topkapi sword. I have made a fair case to point the history at the first Imam period in Oman .. The probable birthdate ...at 751 ad. That is the design date but by no means the birthdate of all Omani Battle Swords.. The birthdate is a sliding scale between then and now.... or more likely then and a point in the 18th/19th Century. Swords were produced along this date line and like many other weapons in the region because they worked and were respected ... they froze in design.

Personally (though I cannot prove it) I think it is equivalent to an Heraldic/ Religio Symbolic Weapon and in itself quite unique. It is, I believe, the Ibaathi Sword. In a similar way the dancing sword is The Busaidi Sword. One marks a religious form... the other an entire dynasty.

There are still areas to explore not least an explanation as to where it was produced and the relevance to its nickname Sayf Yemaani (Hadramaut or perhaps the enclave in Izki near Nizwa called Yemen?)

The latest craze in Muscat is to suggest that this weapon is of Saladin provenance which is laughable and without proof.

Finally and again...thanks for the heads-up on the Wolf mark.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Hi Ibrahiim,

While I am well aware of your ideas regarding the source of the sword design, I think quoting the 751 date continuously does more harm than good. It gives the impression you are attributing these swords to that period. There is sadly, not a single provenanced example dating to that period among these weapons. While it may have roots in that period, it is a large leap to conclude it did not change at all during the centuries. I think it is quite possible some elements of the design due date back that far, but on the evidence available, i.e. not archaeological. It's difficult to extrapolate that much further.

I'd be interested as to what dating you would place on some of the examples you've shown. By that I mean the overall piece not just the blades which can perhaps be a older than the hilts in some cases.

All the best,
Iain

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

While I am well aware of your ideas regarding the source of the sword design, I think quoting the 751 date continuously does more harm than good. It gives the impression you are attributing these swords to that period. There is sadly, not a single provenanced example dating to that period among these weapons. While it may have roots in that period, it is a large leap to conclude it did not change at all during the centuries. I think it is quite possible some elements of the design due date back that far, but on the evidence available, i.e. not archaeological. It's difficult to extrapolate that much further.

I'd be interested as to what dating you would place on some of the examples you've shown. By that I mean the overall piece not just the blades which can perhaps be a older than the hilts in some cases.

All the best,
Iain

Salaams Iain, The design date of 751 AD marks just that... Note that there is not a single sword from the period Abbasiid save the few examples in the Topkapi and of the Umayyad dynasty prior to that ?... there are none at all. At no point have I suggested swords are present from that period but what I do say is the design did not change.

What may be an indicator on age is the appearance of blade inscriptions and stamps and perhaps the fullers which may not have been on the very early blades. Dots on the blade may be an earlier indicator. General wear is an indicator ... however none of these is very accurate. Some later editions have tubular grip whereas the proper grip is octagonal taken from the Abbasiid style etc etc. Generally because few Ethnographic Arms anywhere exist from much before 1600.. except rusted bits or remnants we tend to look at the brackets 1550 to 1850 or thereabouts. Thus existing Omani Battle Swords probably occur in that timeframe though of course with a design pedigree stretching back much further.

To show another example of design freeze simply look at three other examples of this (quote is backed up by the late Anthony North in his book Islamic Arms and Armour)... observe the freeze in the Abu Futtila, The Khanjar and since its inception in 1744 the Omani Dancing Sword. In Arabia unlike other parts of the world ... once a weapon was accepted, essentially, it did not change in design.

I conclude that the Old Omani Battle Sword was developed from the Abbasid see #1 for my comparison and that it is a Heraldic / Religious design .. The Omani Ibaathi Sword with the birthdate 751 AD and thenceforth essentially unchanged. It would of course be nice if someone were to dig up a grave with an original in it...but except for one known later example from a tomb in Jebel Akhdar there are none ... perhaps because the tradition of burying such artefacts with the dead was not the style here... in fact it was forbidden.

This is the Omani Ibaathi insignia weapon and was used in the "Funoon" before being superceded in 1744 by the Omani dancing sword to celebrate the pageant and for the Busaidi Dynasty. The Funoon goes back to the beginning of the Omani Ibaathi period marked by the selection of the first Imam Ibn Julanda in...wait for it...751 AD. The weapon didn't appear later out of fresh air... it had a purpose ... it was Heraldic. Everything about it is Islamic but more so the hilt which is nowhere else to be found in the Islamic world... why? Because it is Omani Ibaathi ... totally unique... and the major reason for its DESIGN FREEZE... and of course as the Old Omani Battle Sword.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

I ATTACH A NOTE; VERY BRIEF ON IMPORTANT DATES OF EARLY OCCUPATION OF OMAN.

After its conversion to Islam, Oman was ruled by Umayyads between 661–750, Abbasids between 750–931, 932–933 and 934–967, Qarmatians between 931–932 and 933–934, Buyids between 967–1053, and the Seljuks of Kirman between 1053–1154.