The Tourist Item/Souvenier in arms antiquities

[Jim McDougall]

In a current thread on a koummya which was recently posted, it seems that these are almost invariably considered items of traditional form which are picked up by tourists and travelers in souks in Maghreb and other North African regions.

In many cases items are posted from India, Central Asia, Arabia, Africa, Indonesia. Malaysia, SE Asia etc. which are often summarily dismissed as 'tourist' in a pejorative manner, much to the disappointment of the hopeful poster.

Here there are many members who have travelled extensively and through exotic destinations where they have experienced first hand the bevy of these kinds of items hawked and sold in souks and various occasions.

I have often thought that in many cases, these are weapons of traditional form worn in manner of custom by native people, and with the idea of selling them to 'tourists' upon reasonable offer. In these cases it seemed to me these were actual examples of the form in effect, but willingly parted with.
In these cases, are these actual items of accoutrement intended as traditional examples and to be considered as viable ethnographic examples, or written off as just 'commercial junk' ? sold in souks.

In some cases, as the koummya mentioned, it is a souvenier but from the 19th c. and therefore an antique in its own right.

Possibly we might discuss these kinds of cases, and views as mentioned.
Also possibly we might post examples of modern types which while of this grade, still serve as ethnographic and cultural novelties.

[Battara]

I guess for me it is a problem of quality, use, and age.

Tourist quality I rate as low. However, if a piece is modern with high quality and still in use by a culture, i.e. the Omani khanjar for example, then I would not consider that tourist but a recent legitimate piece.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Battara

I guess for me it is a problem of quality, use, and age.

Tourist quality I rate as low. However, if a piece is modern with high quality and still in use by a culture, i.e. the Omani khanjar for example, then I would not consider that tourist but a recent legitimate piece.

I think we are on pretty much the same page Jose. The tourist stuff (produced in some volume for souks with cheap material) is of course pretty bad....but things that reflect some quality, and with actual weapon potential....may not reach earlier standards but still are ethnographically viable examples.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think we are on pretty much the same page Jose. The tourist stuff (produced in some volume for souks with cheap material) is of course pretty bad....but things that reflect some quality, and with actual weapon potential....may not reach earlier standards but still are ethnographically viable examples.

....but then who is the judge to say that an item is bad or good. One might argue that the modern made quality Khanjars shown on Ibrahiim's posts, though no doubt "Ethnographic" are also made for tourists, otherwise why would they be produced, unless for presentation. I may be quite wrong, but I would expect that the well-to-do of Oman and the region, would be more likely to wear a quality old piece handed down thru the generations.
Pics of everyday life in Yemen (particularly) show Khanjar/Jambiya worn by the locals, of a quality we collectors might term low.
I have in my collection a few middle eastern swords which one could only class as "Tribal manufacture" but though of low quality, they certainly are usable as a weapon and I for one would not like to get in the way of one being wielded in my direction.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Well said Stu, it is up to the person to decide whether the quality and character of the weapon is satisfactory. As I have noted I have never been in these kinds of places such as Oman, and I only know what I have learned from Ibrahiim regarding particulars on khanjars. I think you are tight though, the highly valued heirloom examples likely are worn by higher echelon men, while lesser grade are perhaps in more common environment.

Still I think these are of considerable quality in relation to what might be deemed 'tourist', even if with less ostentatious decoration and elements.

Even of lower quality are examples described as tribal or in some cultures 'village type' pieces which are sturdy, but not necesarily 'pretty' and as you note, ones which would be regarded seriously in adverse situations.

[Battara]

Yeah I would place tourist, or at least low quality, as that of not being well made to be not very functional, although there are pieces that are now only jewelry made of expensive materials, but would not qualify as functional.