Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12th March 2017, 06:31 PM   #1
Kubur
Member
 
Kubur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
Default

I have a small problem now.
What are the differences between a sboula and a genoui?
I can't find genoui in the litterature, is it something from collectors only?
Kubur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 04:40 AM   #2
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubur
I have a small problem now.
What are the differences between a sboula and a genoui?
I can't find genoui in the litterature, is it something from collectors only?
Actually, as in so many cases of the 'name game' in ethnographic edged weapons, the term is actually 'djenoui' (or genouii; janwi) and is a loosely used colloquialism in primarily Berber (or Maghrebi) parlance for a straight bladed dagger. This has often been applied to the koummya with straight blade, or any similar North African dagger with straight blade (indeed most likely by collectors).

As these were often from repurposed European blades, and presumably recalling earlier imports from Genoan sources, thus 'Genouii' (=Genoan), obviously an explanation wide open to critique, but the one typically recalled in discussions here over the past 8-10 years.

The s'boula could be technically called this I suppose, but really it is a matter of semantics and local parlance. The term s'boula is associated with Moroccan edged weapon as discussed, where the genouii term is mostly a colloquial term for straight blade with far broader scope.

When we really get into these terms as far as local parlances, even the koummya is not known by that term locally....it is simply 'khanjhar', much the way sa'if is used for the so called 'nimcha' sword in Morocco.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 12:59 PM   #3
Kubur
Member
 
Kubur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
Default

Thank you very much Jim. I agree.
In the past, you or another member compared the Genoui to the Algerian khodmi or Bou Saada.
I make sense but then if the genoui and the s'bula are the same then it's confusing...
Here are some classic s'bula. I will post later the Tunisian ones that I mentionned at the begining...
Attached Images
   
Kubur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 06:38 PM   #4
TVV
Member
 
TVV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,660
Default

Jim brings up a good point: as collectors we have a need for classification, unlike the original users of the weapons. Therefore, we often get caught up in needless semantics discussions.

That being said, I believe the people who made and used these swords still made some differentiation - for example, to them a short dagger would not be the same as one with a 22 inches/55 cm blade, as the two would have served an entire different purpose. In various cultures, we see a similar trend of knives becoming longer to serve as a sort of a short sword: whether it is the yataghans in the Ottoman Empire, the bauerwehr (and in later times the hanger) in Europe, the Khyber knife in Afghanistan or the sboula, the concept is the same. Whether because of socio-economic restraints: a sword was an expensive weapon, and in many cultures restricted to only certain social classes, or simply because a full sized sword was impractical and something easier to carry around was necessary, long knives as side arms seem to have existed almost everywhere.

When looking at the picture of the warrior with the afedali musket, the sboula is thrust in his sash not dissimilar to how a yataghan would be thrust in the silyahlik, and while the gun is his main weapon, he probably wanted a side arm in case a hand to hand combat situation arose. So when looking at sboulas, I see them as that: a longer dagger for use in those situations where a normal sized dagger would not be enough, and where a full sized sword or sabre would be too much or simply unobtainable.

The janwi (djenoui, genoui) on the other hand seems to be of shorter, more regular dagger size proportions and hilted like a koummaya. Obviously, longer versions like the one Kubur posted from wodimi's site exist, and there are certainly shorter daggers with an H-shaped hilt. There is no clear line between the two sometimes, taking us back to Jim's post about the futility of trying to come up with a rigid classification system.

To sum it up, I use "sboula" to refer to a longer dagger (20 inches+ blade) with an H shaped hilt, and "genoui" to refer to a regular sized straight dagger with a koummaya type hilt, with the understanding that this terminology is imperfect and exceptions and in-between versions of both forms exist.

Teodor
TVV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 08:38 PM   #5
Kubur
Member
 
Kubur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
Default

Well Teodor I agree we like to put names on things.
But I'm not satisfied with the sbula with a H shaped hilt, neither completly satisfied by the Moroccan attribution. I agree that most of them are Moroccan but not only. If the genoui was inspired by the little Italian dagger, yes it should be under 40cm long. For the hilt I'm not sure...
Attached Images
 
Kubur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 11:28 PM   #6
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,191
Default

Thanks guys!
As has been noted, collectors have a need for classification. This is because the items being collected have to be identified and categorized as they are being placed in a static situation. Here the are to be viewed and admired as objects of interest from various perspectives. That being the case, Collectors strive to find the most accurate and descriptive terms possible.

However, these weapons while in use during their working lives are in most cases referred to by local terms or colloquial words and nicknames.Those actually using the weapons do not care what they are called. In the struggle to discover the proper terms for weapons, those inquiring often ended up with semantically incorrect words, transliterations, and completely misapplied in many cases. Welcome to the world of 'collectors terms', a glossary of names for weapons which may or may not have anything to do with what these weapons are really called.

In many cases, efforts to find correct terms are regarded by native people of the regions of the weapons involved find these queries and the very notion of such efforts curious and often almost laughable.

The term kaskara, case in point. About 20 years ago, I began trying to discover the origin of the word, noticing that the first mention using the word in western literature was Burton (1885) but interestingly he made no reference to the etymology of scope of the term. For many years after, I tried to find more on the word from museum officials, authors, major collectors and dealers. None had the slightest idea of where the term came from, nor considered it of any importance. I even asked a friend who was an archaeologist in Sudanese regions, and prominent collector of Sudanese arms who was in Sudan, to check with the university in Khartoum. They had no answer for why the name 'kaskara' nor where it came from.
In interviewing people who had come from Sudan, Darfur and Eritrea.....none had ever heard the word kaskara, and when showed a photo of them....simply said sa'if.
It was not until our own Iain completed landmark research on tribes of the Sahara that he found the source for the word in one of the dialects. The term somehow became linked to the broadswords, probably through Burton, and then soundly and forever placed in the 'collectors glossary' as these Sudanese broadswords.

This goes on with so many ethnographic examples it would be impossible to cover all the examples and instances here. Even in European and other weapons, the same phenomenon takes place.
The only problem with the disparity between collectors terms, locally termed and broader terms for specific weapons is when one is researching a type as far as its history or development, and relying on contemporary narratives and accounts. Here the danger is that one weapon may be the actual item described, but semantically the researcher does not which weapon it really is.

As for regional attribution, there is nothing holding a weapon type within one region or another, they move freely with those carrying them or trading them. The Moroccan attribution of the H hilt s'boula is from reliable observation (Buttin), published sources and photographic evidence.
These show a preponderance of that characteristic hilt, which suggests this is the area they are likely from.

If there are countless examples in area A, but one or several turn up in area B, a region some distance away.....we are compelled to believe area A is the indigenous area, though some have diffused to area B and probably elsewhere.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2017, 11:42 PM   #7
TVV
Member
 
TVV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,660
Default

Kubur, I believe you are correct. If we base the names on Buttin, then he refers to shorter (blade under 50 cm) versions as S'boula, regardless of hilt shape, and to longer ones as Sekkin.

Teodor
TVV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.