![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,818
|
![]()
Yes I'd agree, I would guess Moroccan, it has a very Spanish Moorish look to it.
Gav |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,883
|
![]()
This 'old Arabian/Persian/Turkish/kindjhal/knife/dagger/sword' ( I love these eloquent and ever so accurate ebay descriptions!!!
![]() The crescents, and the use of turquoise and corals seem to suggest Ottoman occupied Maghreb, so this elaborate form koummya (?) might be from many places in a wide scope of the North African coast. This does seem to have some age, and the pierced design in the blade is most interesting, and recalls such affectations in early rapier blades. I have forgotten where I have seen the term 'Genouii' used as Ariel has noted, but it seems it was typically applied to imported European blades in North Africa (most often Italian- hence, Genoa=Genouii), but am not sure if it was used restrictively in any way. I am of course not suggesting this is in any way a rapier blade ![]() Best regards, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
Am I wrong? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,883
|
![]() Quote:
Best regards, Jim |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]()
poor quality Wire filigree & stone work of dubious "stone" I usauly think of 1950s or more recent when it occors in Nepali or Indian work,{or even Yemini for that matter after most of the Jewish silversmiths left.] is it different in North Africa?
Spiral |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 479
|
![]()
IMHO only the blade is old. The rest is a late 20th century bazaar fitting
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Spiral |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 247
|
![]()
Hi,
I see much of tis dagger, and i ve some on my collection...it is Moroccan ...probably early XX century with more old blade (probably from european sword or bayonet) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,883
|
![]()
I'm with Yannis, the blade does seem old, and I'm intrigued by that openwork. I'm still puzzled by the term 'genouii'.......can anybody offer any insight to where this term appears in reference to these daggers? I thought perhaps Buttin's work, but no luck there. Then thought possibly 'Alain Jacob's book but don't have access to a copy.
The modern attribution to the mounts seems right too. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Paris (FR*) Cairo (EG)
Posts: 1,142
|
![]()
on the handle I found a date 1349 --> 1930
![]() but, in my point of view it's the only thing arabic on that assembly since I'm turning in Maghreb it's the first time I saw a similar dagger ![]() à + Dom |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Madrid / Barcelona
Posts: 256
|
![]()
The blade is probably from an "albacete" dagger, that often featured that kind of decoration and these cutouts, normally filled with brass. There's been discussion about these daggers before, look for example HERE, or HERE. These were profusely made through the whole of the 19th c. and beggining of the 20th, so the date in the handle is perfectly coherent.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,883
|
![]()
Right on Marc! That would confirm the Moorish Spain influence imbued here that Gav suggested for the dagger overall.
This piece then would seem to at least reflect influence of the Albacete blades, whether or not the blade was actually made there. That openwork for placement of brass fill is most interesting, was it a feature distinct to Albacete only? My quest for the source of the 'genouii' term Ariel used in opening this post has played havoc with my insomnia! ![]() My friend has mentioned that the term 'djenoui' (also genoua; janwi) is a general reference in North Africa to imported blades, and is often applied to the form of koummya with straight blade termed s'boula in Morocco. The term carries further in Berber dialects to the Kabyles where it may even apply to the yataghan (also utagen;atayan;ajennwi; djenoui). Naturally the original reference to 'Genoa' for the early tradition of trade blades and weapons became broadened, as described. I just thought it might be interest to others collecting weapons from these regions. The term 'djenoui' then, seems to be applied generally in Berber regions to imported blades (or perhaps of foreign style) much in the sense that 'firangi' is applied to swords with foreign blades in India. The term itself does not differentiate between straight and curved blades, however in Morocco the 'sboula' =straight blade; the 'shula' = curved. I do not have my copy of Tirri handy, but perhaps he might have used the term in his captions on Maghreb daggers? All best regards, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,883
|
![]()
I found my copy of 'Tirri' and found a very similar straight blade dagger is shown in fig.12 on p.31, and is termed 'janwi'.
Further noted, "... the name 'janwi' is thought to be a corruption of 'Genoa'from where the straight form of blade was introduced". While I mentioned I had heard this or similar term before, it was as noted from my friend in Germany and predates the Tirri reference, and I was hoping to learn where the term used by Ariel had originated. I had forgotten what an outstanding resource this book is, and while there have been relatively minor criticisms (as always) this book is incredibly comprehensive, beautifully photographed, and a fantastic identification guide for collectors. The book I found the information in is: "Islamic Weapons:Maghreb to Moghul" , Anthony C. Tirri, 2003. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|