Micro-ethnic differences in weapons

[kamachate]

Originally Posted by ariel

...
First is the map of historical 15th century Georgia. Look at the coastal end: Samegrelo ( Megrelia) and Guria. Both are populated by people speaking the same language and belonging to the same religion ( Christian).
Both are small: Megrelia 3,800 sq. mi. ( or, to simplify, ~65x65 mi), Guria is tiny at 785 sq.mi. ( ~40x20 mi). Both had kindjals as their main weapons.
But here the differences start:
The upper one: Gurian kindlal is massive, wide, and has pretty rounded tip. Its blade is hollow-ground. It is a slashing weapon.
The lower one, Megrelian is rather small, narrow, having a very sharp tip, flat panel at the ricasso and a central rib for strengthening the blade : a stabber.

These features imply major differences in their actual use.
...

Dear Ariel an all, thank for the very useful topic. I will try to address my personal opinion, as someone interested in ancient warfare.
The first difference between the usages of the two qama/kindjals should be examined within the geography, as you have just mentioned. Generally, one would assume that the "peoples of the mountains" should carry larger weapons, and those on the coastal areas would have weapons of some more "regular" size. However, this is the very opposite when we consider Gurians and Megrelians. As far as I know, Guria was (nearly always) a part of the Ottoman Empire, or, the Georgian Kingdom, situated near the important trading centers of the Black Sea coast, and in close interaction with the local Greek population of Anatolia (Gurian kindjals are still being called as Greek Qamas in Anatolia). However, the Megrelians, especially after being pushed to the mountainous zone, had interaction with the tribes of the north-western Caucasus, mountain Circassians and Apkhazians. This would have effected the cultural process. Secondly, the "primary weapon" is an other issue. Guria was under permanent control of various centralized imperial powers, and was relatively a part of the "civilized" world. It is much more likely for them to have a single beast as a "daily" and "main" weapon, for it was probably not allowed - or not necessary - for any Gurian "commoner" to have other weapons of war, such as swords or fire ones. But I think this is not the case with the Megrelians, for they were in a relatively far geographical position to the central powers, and -through their interaction and/or quarrels with the independent tribes of the Caucasus- kindjal/qama was probably a secondary weapon for them in the "daily life": a stabbing instrument in the absence of the other ones. Is it not the case also for the Circassians? If the kindjal/qama was the primary weapon, so were are they? The archaeological record exhibit a series of war instruments from the northern part of the Caucasus, but kindjal or qama have a very little percentage among them.
This would lead us to the older kindjal/qama question, which rare people know or think over anymore: what is a "Shapsugh" kindjal, and what is the "Kabardian" one? We know nothing but the first one was broad and hefty, and the other one was narrow and elegant. But we also know that the Shapsugh live on the coastal areas, but the Kabardians inside.

Just wanted to share my mind , thanks again for the topic, waiting for more contributions.

BTW: Ariel, forgive me if I missed a point, but why do you think the second one is Megrelian, for I would bet it is a Circassian one, according to the decoration, of course, "as far as I can see"

[ariel]

Yes, the motives of decoration are Circassian but this is expected: Meghrelians belonged to the Circassian “group” in the esthetic sense. Please see Rivkin’s book with multiple examples of it. The distinctive feature of Meghrelian blades is the flat panel at the base of it.

I see your point re. “ flatlanders” vs. “ mountaineers”. But at least 2 independent papers ( one by a Georgian arms researcher Vakhtang Kiziria, another by a Russian museum worker from the staff of the Hermitage museum, if I am nor mistaken) carefully discuss the ethical dimensions: slashing or cutting wounds were not life-threatening whereas a stabbing one was. The use of the latter was frowned upon in the majority of Caucasian traditions and was limited against animals but was used very grudgingly against humans and only in extreme circumstances ( mortal enemies, horse thieves etc.)
Why were Meghrelians so very liberal with stabbing ? I do not understand it and could not find any decent explanation.

[ariel]

Here are papers by Kiziria and Sheremetjev I mentioned earlier.. I guess you can read Russian?

http://historical-weapons.com/ru/pos...dagger-fights/

http://historical-weapons.com/ru/to-...h-century-abs/