Yemeni sword

[Jim McDougall]

Motan, your observations and comments are well placed, and indeed have spurred the course of discussion here in valuable directions. That is exactly the point and purpose here, unlike debate, it is not about who is right or wrong. What is important is together determining the most viable and plausible solutions to questions concerning the items we examine.

I thank you for your kind words, but I must note that whatever knowledge I have gained on these topics have been through these same kinds if discussions , mostly on these very pages. The research I do personally is to add what I can to these discussions along with the amazing experience and knowledge of others here far better versed in these field than myself. The end result is the advancement of the corpus of data on many fields of study on arms to the benefit of all of us.

With that I note that your questions in your last entry are very well placed accordingly, and I would say that the swords of Arabia, just as many ethnographically oriented arms fields, are tremendously under researched.

Just as Robert Elgood wrote in his most important reference on Arabian arms and armour (1994), many of the arms of Arabia are indeed somewhat swathed in mystery. As Ibrahiim (who is situated in Oman) tells us, much of the general history and such details as weaponry etc. is based primarily on oral history rather than written accounts and records. Regions such as Oman were virtually restricted to the west until around 1970. Arabia has always been restricted to outsiders other than trade circumstances mostly with Muscat. Aden and regions in the west somewhat opened with the fall of Ottoman control.
With the paucity of information and references on Arabian arms in general, it is not surprising so little is soundly known on them. That is what we have been doing here (and these have been discussed here for at least 18 years I can account for) and why we are trying to find every remote reference and bit of field information we can find to bring to our discussions.

Regarding the Mamluks, it must be remembered that they were a kind of entity unto themselves, and their styles and material culture typically distinct from most other Islamic forms in decoration and motif. Also, they were notoriously conservative in their weaponry, maintaining virtually ancient forms far longer than in other spheres. It was Mamluk influence that was a key force with the kaskara broadswords, particularly those which were heavily etched in thuluth script, a notable Mamluk style.
Although many Islamic forms of arms and armour are considered 'revival' types, especially many in the scope of Persian influence, the Mamluk arms and armor are actually in their continuum.

With the variation of decoration on arms, there are numerous factors which may be at hand, such as of course regional circumstances, as well as changes in regime or other geopolitical situations. Often trade situations effect styles and fashion as influence from one area or cultural import is ceased or overtaken by another. There are also many ethnic factors such as increased influx of populous from other areas and so on.

These are some of the reasons it is so important to consider the history of periods of time in regions which the weapon in question may be from, as these factors may explain variation in the character of the weapon itself from others of similar form.

Actually we seldom reach conclusive resolution on these topics here, but continue discussion on them over years, always advancing our collective knowledge on them. We really never stop learning, most importantly here, we do it together.

A little axiom we have long had here, ' always more research to be done!'.

All very best regards
Jim

[Michael Blalock]

Here is another one to add to the list.

[Michael Blalock]

Yet another one. Unfortunately I did not see this until it was sold.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

PLEASE see http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000370.html for an interesting debate on these weapons.

At post 25 above I considered the blade stamp marks as Algerian and I still do ~ with the name of Ali bin alwafi bin Hassan on the cuff region . At the same time I consider these to be Bukharan weapons but cannot rule out that Jewish Smiths in Yemen may have made some of these as Micheal Blalock has indicated. However, I see no relation between these and Omani Swords.

See also post 7.

Below. It could be that the Algerian sword and gun marks are the same as the three dense black stamps on the sword.

[Jim McDougall]

I am really glad to see this topic brought back, as in such a fascinating and unresolved field of study as Arabian swords, too often a certain complacency seems to prevail.

Perhaps Elgood as he wrote in 1994, well described some conditions which seem to have been prevalent until those times. Fortunately those who have entered the field since have been diligent in trying to find answers and resolve some of these 'mysteries'.

Elgood wrote on page 15 ("Arms and Armour of Arabia"...., "...there are a number of Arab sword types that are loosely referred to as nimcha or saif, which are usually attributed to the Yemen by collectors and cataloguers on the basis that the weapons of the area are not well known and they are unlikely to be challenged on the attribution. There is no reliable published guide to the various types of Arab sword and some of the North African hilts are said to be Arabian".

He goes on to talk about the 'Hadramaut' type of sabres (2.8; 2.10) which he says were often produced in Hyderabad, India as there was a constant interaction with mercenary forces from there who went to and from India.
I have seen these, with repousse silverwork hilt of karabela style and distinctly Arab mounts remarkably like these with the (reluctantly described)"barber pole" spiral wrap on the scabbard. They had the hollow ground, European cavalry type blades, highly polished.

Hadhramaut is of course, collectively a region of 'the Yemen' in degree, and again, here we see the broad sweep of attributions which we see now being reconsidered. With what are most compelling observations concerning Bukhara and these swords with their influences in Yemen. As I consider the apparently Bukharen and Caucasian use of this 'spiral wrap ' affectation, it seems more likely that these swords were mounted in southern Arabia, and in the Yemeni sphere.
However, certain patterns, such as the 'wheel' design in the motif on some of the examples I saw may reflect India influence, but could well have simply been another nuanced device mixed into the overall motif in Yemen.

Although these 'Yemeni/Bukharen' swords do have the open and cuffed type hilt resembling the Omani sayfs (often formerly termed 'kattara'), they do seem to be an independent form which evolved in some limited religious and diplomatic channels between these regions. It is of course tempting to think that perhaps certain contact between Oman and Yemen might have brought certain affectations together concerning sword forms, but much more evidence is needed. Naturally the contact between Yemen and Zanzibar is well noted, so this well could have provided such conduit .

Regarding the markings on the example shown in #25, it is most interesting to consider the blade possibly having Algerian connections. Again, the contact between North Africa and Arabia is well established, so such possibility is of course quite plausible. The markings themselves seem to be exaggerated examples of such triple stamps from Italian context (often termed 'twig' marks) and often copied by native artisans. These seem much heavier of course, but may be elaboration in interpretation.
In conversations regarding North African swords over the years, it has been emphatically suggested to me that the sabres of Morocco (often termed 'nimcha' some years ago, were actually Arabian.

These same type hilts (with the distinct nock under pommel) are also found on these 'nimcha' termed 'Zanzibar' versions. I recall years back when many of these 'nimcha' (with ring or loop on guard, pictured below) were found in Yemen, and were said to be from Zanzibar.
As we recall, the Omani open hilt sayf was well represented in Zanzibar.

[Michael Blalock]

Period photo

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Thanks to Michael Blalock for the inclusion of more pictures showing the sword with a Yemeni tribal chief. It may not however detract from the general view that this is a Bukharan style . Yemeni Bukaran links are considerable in the religious field including architecture and religious linkages. The Yemen is perhaps the root birthplace of the Omani Battle Sword often called Sayf Yemaani...possibly made in Hadramaut… but a more direct link is more difficult to assume or prove.

I noted earlier the potential here for an Algerian blade and would add to that the likelihood of Yemeni Jewish involvement in the well crafted silver and the typical big architectural style in the hilt somewhat reflected in other weapon parts like the monumental, architectural crown at the end of the scabbard of Yemeni Daggers.

Trying to identify Mosque domes as linked to these weapons is impossible in my view... For example with say Iranian Mosque domes... but the Sayf Yemaani must pre date Islam in Iran if it did come to Oman in 700 to 752 AD as the Ibaathi battle Sword. The link between the Omani and Yemeni/ Bukharen sword shown here is in my opinion insufficiently explored...More research needed I suggest.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Michael Blalock

Period photo

Beautiful photos of Yemeni swords
There is of course absolutely no evidence of Bukharan influences.
This discussion was all made up on the forum based on nothing...