Another theoretical question: what are those Central African swords used for anyway?

[fearn]

Hi Tim and Tom,

I agree, especially with Tim's remarks about the isolation. I'm having issues with non-functional "bling" masquerading as a weapon. In some cases, those swords would be great weapons--not something to fence with, but more than adequate against an unarmored opponent. In other cases, they simply make me scratch my head.

Personally, I'd first figured that the Congo was actually pretty peaceful, given that they hadn't spent a lot of time optimizing their swords for war This is with the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Thais, Burmese, Indonesians, Phillipinos, etc for examples of blades optimized primarily for war and secondarily for decoration.

Finally, it occurred to me to look at what else the Congo men might have been carrying, and their spears and bows (two other understudied areas) are pretty functional. Personally, I'm beginning to suspect that the groups that depended most on their bows and spears might have had the weirder swords.

I'm thinking in almost evolutionary terms--if you rarely draw your sword as a weapon, it can be a great thing for flaunting your identity and status. If you have to use the thing on anything like a regular basis, functionality might win out. I'd suggest that this might be a good way of understanding the martial culture of the Congo and west African tribes. It might be more broadly applicable, come to think of it. Indonesia has all those gorgeous Keris, after all, and I'd hate to depend on one in the middle of a battle.

In general, I think there's something interesting about resource-poor cultures that make their weapons (at least to my eyes) over-decorative, in the sense that the shape might interfere with function to some extent. To me, this says that the makers of that weapon actually lived in a relatively peaceful place. Either that, or they weren't as resource poor as we think, and they could afford the "bling." However, if these blades are "bling," what were they fighting with?

Fun to think about, anyway.

Fearn

[Flavio]

Hello guys.

The problem that regards the use of the African weapons is very complex.
The fact that the Westerns call "weapons" some objects only because there are resemblances to the western white weapons it's a great mistake.
The object that for us are weapons for the owenrs have a turmoil of meanings (status symbol, ritual and cultual meaning, social meaning, economic meaning etc...).

I think that we can consider, with an high degree of certainty, non functional the object with copper or brass blade, but again we don'yt know the true meaning (ritual, cultual, social...).
For the "weapons" with an iron blade the true sense is a mystery. We can make hypothesis observing the general shape (more or less functional), the decoration (a functional object perhaps is less decorated, but also this is not sure), the presence of an handled (in order to understand if the blade were used like currency). The presence of one or more of these elements maybe could tell us the use of the object that we have for the hands.

In last it is not to forget that often the "weapons" have not had a single meaning and use!

[fearn]

Hi Flavio,

With a great deal of respect, I have to disagree with your mystification of african swords. After all, many cultures use swords and sword-like objects for dancing and other ceremonial uses, trade blades have been common for centuries (which is what these money knives are), and we're certainly now talking about swords as status symbols (see current-running threads), decorative objects (what most collectors do), and economic symbols (something I understand all too well as a postdoc). If you know any pagans, you're also aware that a knife or sword can be a religious object (athame or boline), even if it's razor sharp. We also have a whole fantasy knife industry (such as Gil Hibben's yearly productions) that produces objects are definitely knives and blur the boundaries between weapon and art piece.

Given all that, are African blades weird? Every explanation that's been put forward has a parallel in modern American culture, and certainly in other cultures. I have to wonder if we're making a mystery out of these blades because they often do look different (just as they often look like Ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian designs). Perhaps we're also making a mystery out of them because we can't now go live in the Congo or Angola and find out what these people believe. In any case, I suspect that these wonderful pieces are understandable, but that perhaps we need to see them differently.

It's a fun question, though, and I'm certainly enjoying the seeing people's collections.

Fearn

[tom hyle]

I do not believe there is any foundation for thinking of copper/brass blades as inrinsically nonfunctional. AFAIK they are used by some ethnic groups or cults who must not touch iron, some of them only at certain times. Of course, as has been said here, and as Conogre pointed out on another thread, there may be many features and powers of African swords that have much meaning and utility from the viewpoint of the African (religious/magical comes to mind), while seeming pointless or useless to an unknowing foreigner.

[Conogre]

There are also many other factors to consider that are rarely mentioned, such as the fact that many tribes within a tribal nation or group lacked at least some portion, if not all of the skill required to work metal, particularly iron and steel, thus pieces were often made by tribes other than those actually using them.....I've always been curious as to how the "smithing tribes" knew which features were to be incorporated into which weapons.
Another is that tribal home ranges were often extremely fluid over suprisingly short periods of time, with alliances changing according to the whim of the ruling tribal leaders and the fact that MANY tribes viewed, and still do, the only real solution to a war being complete genocide of the opposing faction, which necessitated finding ANY ally in a storm for the weaker peoples, ie "bodyguards".
Yet another is that may "tribes" are in actuality sub-groups, that are governed by a very strict caste system allowing certain pieces to be owned by specific ranks as a "badge of office" in one group while they may be the tribal weapon of choice within another.
Even more confusing is that in Africa, many peoples didn't bury weapons with the owners, feeling that if it didn't degrade it left the warrior weaponless in the afterlife (and thus often very angry) so that several styles of blades might be found in one group as they evolved and changed, with only the hilt being changed as required, along with the traditions of captured pieces often being retained by the victor because of the spirit or courage that went with it and just simple trading over much wider areas than were found in other locales.
I have to agree with Tom and others in feeling that FAR too much study was ignored for way too long to the point that the real information is simply lost forever to time, while I disagree with the concept of the Congo region being "peaceful", with the exact opposite actually being true on a scale that is actually incomprehsible to many westerners.
Lastly, there is the concept, also difficult to grasp by western minds, that many weapons were made to fight enemies from different planes of existance and the spirit world in battles that were every bit as life and death to them as battles with other tribes and forien invaders, with many throwing weapons coming to mind and NEVER used against earthly foes (I've seen estimates as high as 60% of the different forms)....many tribes actually have no word or concept for a "natural death", with the only causes being enemy humans, wild animals or physical accidents with ALL other deaths being the direct result of curses, witchcraft, demons and spirits with old age and illness included in one of the aforementioned.
In all, many African weapons may well end up being the least understood of any on earth in the end.
Mike

[Flavio]

Hello Fearn , maybe there is a problem of understending. I don’t think that african weapons are weird, but it’s completely wrong to think that a simple comparison could help us to understand the WHOLE meaning of an ethnographic weapon (or in general material culture) and in particolar is wrong to make comparison between a traditional society and industrialized societies like the western ones.
Also i think that to try to find comparison between ancient societies (as you say Ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian) and modern traditional societies it’s more wrong if is it possible (the time gap it’s too wide!). Ethnologistes go among traditional societies because the only way to understand the way of life of these groups it’s to try to know directly by them.

Tom, have you ever try to use a copper sword against an iron sword? The main function of a weapon is to cut, stick, stab in poor words to kill enemies. A fragile weapon is the worst choice for remain alive! So, as you say, in some tribe copper or brass (more frequently wood) knife, dagger, sword, axe, spear lost their main function to be used in ceremonies.

[Conogre]

Flavio, you seem to forget that up until the very recent past metal was indeed the "money" of Africa, with individuals using whatever was at hand or that they could afford IRREGARDLESS of what the enemy or other tribe was using.
If an enemy attacked with an iron tipped spear and all that you had was a copper knife or club, you used what you had.
You seem to be forgetting that almost every tribe had some sort of wooden throwing stick or club that was used both for hunting and fighting in addition to knives, swords, spears and bows and arrows.
If you look closely you'll find that there are small, slim wooden shields almost indistinguishable from Australian aboriginal pieces found throughout Africa, and that the sticks were often ignored in favor of the more elaborite weapons by anthroplogists, who often didn't even realize the import placed upon them by their owners or that they were indeed made by THAT tribe.
Genetic DNA evidence seems to indicate that the Australian Bushmen and the African Bushmen are among or ARE the oldest human groups remaining on the planet with some also feeling that the true Philippine and Indonesian negrito are not too distant from them themselves, lending strong support to the "wave" theory of human migration.
Mike

[Freddy]

Hi Fearn,

People always look for what's 'behind' an object of another culture. We, Europeans, have an urge to explain everything. This is the case with tribal masks or statues, but also with weaponry.

A lot of the different shapes we see in African weapons just evolved from other weapons. The best example is the throwing knife. These weapons were used in open country. I don't know if some of you ever had the pleasure of holding such a knife. Regardless of their strange shape, they are leathal when thrown.

But, as people migrated to areas which had more forests, their weapons evolved. Some sickle knives from the Congo area have a shape which can be retraced to the form of certain throwing knives.

On the other hand, even strangely shape knives can be functional. Look a the trumbash or mambele knife of the Mangbetu. I can assure you that you can use some of them when working in your garden.
In Medieval times, garden tools were also used in warfare in Europe. These were the weapons of the peasant who couldn't afford a sword. A large sickle mounted on a pole could do some damage to a knight on horse back.

As in every culture, some men were richer than others. The best way to show this, was through your weapons. These were adorned with copper, brass and ivory. Some became ceremonial, but the basic form was still functional.

And Fearn, as you requested : here's a picture of a very functional weapon : a trumbash or mambele



Freddy