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

[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

[Tim Simmons]

Hello all,this thread is just an invitation to show this non functional weapon called a scorpion,which you can just see in the detail picture.This comes from a large area incuding NE Nigeria,NW Cameroon.I was trying to hold these back but I am weak.Tim

[fearn]

Cool, an argument! Oops. I shouldn't be making trouble...

Anyway...

Hi Conogre,

I think the points about warfare are worth thinking about. I'm not sure whether you managed to contradict yourself or not, but I think one thing we can agree on is that if a weapon is frequently needed for fighting, it's design tend to reflect the realities of that use. In other words, it will be sharp, well-balanced for its good strokes, with a good handle, and well-tempered. I'd suggest that a lot of the swords we're talking about ably meet these criteria, as do war swords from around the world. The "weird" swords and knives I'm talking about are the ones that are short-handled, awkwardly weighted, etc. This doesn't include the throwing knives, but it does include many others.

I would also say that, "the western mind" is as much a myth as race is--in other words, if you pick some extreme examples (for instance a Swedish molecular biologist and a refugee in Kinshasa), you will see all sorts of differences. Constructing any theories out of these two points is a total waste of time, because it disregards all the other people in between these two extremes. When you look at all the intergradations, the differences disappear. Personally, I prefer "I don't know" to "the western mind can't comprehend" because it makes fewer assumptions about reality.

Hi Flavio,

To take one point: there have been trade routes across the Sahara for millenia, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the blades that look like ancient Greek and Roman designs were originally inspired by blades coming south through trade. They're good designs after all, especially in an area that preferred shorter swords. Obviously nothing can be proved, but it's worth thinking about.

Hi Freddy,

Thanks for pointing out the farm blades idea. However, it's not new to me. Personally, I keep wanting to buy a bank blade (aka a glaive--it's a long-handled version of the bill you've pictured). They're $26.95 at the local big-box hardware store. Since I don't have a use for such a tool, it would just be more clutter when I move in a few months. I also totally agree with you about the throwing knives. However, their design is pretty self-evident to anyone who has thrown a blade, and there are also good accounts of their use in battle and in the hunt.


Hi Conogre,

Since you brought up DNA, it's worth pointing out that there is more mitochondrial diversity within Africa than there is in the rest of the world combined. What does that mean about race and culture? Nothing. The absolute level of diversity within the human species pales compared to, say, the diversity seen in different populations of chimpanzees, to say nothing of truly diverse mammals such as wolves. While there's an enormous diversity of humans, most of the people who study such things attribute that diversity almost entirely to culture. Most of the remainder is on the biochemical level (i.e. lactose intolerance, sickle cell), and genetic markers for anything like our standard racial categories has turned out to be next to impossible to find.

Fearn

[Freddy]

Tim,

Why do you say your 'scorpion' is non-functional ? Perhaps because it has no sharp edgdes ? I once held one in my hands. It's quite heavy, no ? Perhaps it's just used as some kind of iron mace. Imagine what damage it would do if you used it to hit someone in the head.

By the way, let's start again. I'm sure Flavio also has something to show.

This is a classical Zande-throwing knife.

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Freddy,yes it is heavy and it could be used to inflict terrible wounds.I have one more, but I have to take a picture.Tim

[Flavio]

Hello Freddy
Let's leave apart the theoretical problems in which, I think, never we will be agree and let me show you my functional Bagirmi throwing blade

[ariel]

At the risk of being screamed at, I would still join the opinion that Central African bladed weapons are inefficient.
Yes, throwing knives are dangerous and being bashed over the head with a Mambele may be detrimental to your health. But so are just heavy sticks, stone axes and long bones (remember "2001"?)
Central Africans never developed a coherent system of swordfight (for better or for worse). To be effective, a sword shoud balance maximal damaging potential of a specific kind (stabbing and/or cutting) with the minimum of superfluous structures to assure maneurability.
Shamshir has it, rapier has it and katana has it in spades.
C.African weapons are so decorative, have such exaggerated features and so unwieldy that they just cannot compare! Perhaps, only Seme has some semblance of functionality.
These swords fulfilled a dual purpose: partly ceremonial and religious symbols (think Tibetan Phurba), partly weapons of war. I am not qualified to judge the former and respect any religious system that does not endorse murder, human sacrifice and cannibalism. Let them be... But as for the latter... Well, they just cannot cut the mustard!

[tom hyle]

AFAIK little is known of traditional C African martial arts in N America, but I am given to understand that the assumption that this indicates incompetence is a misimpression. Certainly many of the swords are very effective, when you consider that tempered martensite did not seem to be known in most of traditional Africa.
There are indeed whose handles, extreme flimsiness (though IMHO less of these than the EuroAmerican impression; maybe less of both; my small hilted Mongo sword does have a coned guard and pommel that are meant to fit within the hand) etc, even if we had no cultural information in the matter, which we do have, mark them as ceremonial. Swords, etc. were/are often rank markers in traditional African culture, and can have other ceremonial uses, as well. I think of the brass-handled dagger with the snake(s?) on the handle....
Yes, the main purpose of an edged weapon is usually to pierce or cut the enemy; to sever his muscles, tendons, and organs, and to let his blood out. Copper, bronze, brass, stone, and bone are perfectly up to the task; many many humans and bigger, tougher things, have been killed with them on a routine basis. The idea that your sword is for something more than that; that it is for blocking and clashing with other weapons, a thing the traditional sword-and-sheild figter usually avoids, is a culture-specific idea; it is not seen in all cultures, and is not terribly relevant to all fighting systems. That said, of course, brass is less strong and stiff than iron for a blade, and maybe even more expensive in traditional economy (?), but as has been said, people often have a lot more things driving their actions than maximizing material effectiveness; religious concerns and social displays come to mind, but an item can have aspects of those and still be a weapon, if you follow me. Look at brass and silver inlaid into blades; it serves no practical purpose, yet the chiselled cuts can be a place for a crack to start. Yet we see it all the time, on, I think, a lot of using blades. A far lesser unsturdiness than being brass, I admit, but just trying to make a point

[Conogre]

There are many good points coming out here and more than a few misinterpretations and misunderstandings as well.
Fearn, I'd like to take credit for the comments about western thinking, or, as Tom puts it, cultural bias, but unfortunately I'm only repeating concepts put forward by Christopher Spring, other African weapons authors (I only wish I could read German, Arabic or French, among others)many anthropologists and even David Attenbburrough.
When ariel brought up the point about more traditionally shaped weapons and African weapons, to me part of the reason jumps right out.....weapons along regular trade/conquest routes regularly came into contact with others and evolved in response to same, while much of Africa remained out of contact with "mainstream" societies and technologies for literally centuries, thus evolved according to entirely different pressures.
The same standards could be said about castles and fortresses as opposed to thatched huts and kraals, while in truth it's simply apples and oranges, each having evolved according to different pressures and basic ways of viewing things as well.
In many cases, these "inefficient weapons" gave surprisingly good accountings for themselves and the people using them when they came up against far superior technologies for decades, even a century at a minimum.....ask the French, Brittish, Belgians, Dutch, etc.
In parts of TODAY'S Africa, if a crocodile takes a child you DO NOT offend the powers that be by seeking retribution against the animal, and likewise, being stoned to death for witchcraft is VERY common over HUGE areas, just as examples of regional spirituality.
In a thread such as this it's impossible to address ALL of the factors in any depth, or even most of them, likewise time limits bibliographies, reference sites, resources and such.
Even when it comes down to essentials such as "murder, human sacrifice and cannibalism", mass murder and genocide are sadly still very common, as evidenced by Rwanda, and even Liberia .....I can't quote exact figures, but deaths rose into the thousands while 9 soldiers were sent in to observe (I edited out a considerable amount, trying to avoid current political issues, which limits pursuing that line of argument)
Those ungainly weapon forms, by the way, directly contribute to another matter recently discussed here, ie western machetes vs established tribal forms....often a coup, for example, can be made successful by importing many thousands of cheap machetes and putting them in the hands of people who have no hesitation about using them on each other as WEAPONS rather than expensive firearms or waiting while vast number of traditional forms are made, making it a simple matter of economy and convenience.
Anyone who has stood facing a mob, even though well armed with modern weaponry knows that a rabid mob mentality can be terrifying enough to be considered a weapon all by itself, and THAT'S based upon experience, not conjecture or reading.
Mike