Need help with identifying Moroccan Koummya

RobT · 1st April 2024, 03:59 AM

Mark M,
Using the nature of the koummya lugs and suspension rings is my personal working hypothesis that I use to assess the age of a koummya. It is by no means etched in stone. I have provided an explanation below as to why I think the idea is tenable. The important thing to keep in mind is that a good koummya is a good koummya regardless of whether it was made in the 19th or 20th century. I certainly never let my supposition that a koummya was made in the 20th century keep me from buying it.

Sajen,
Thanks for the links you have provided. Good reading. I agree with you that the riveted ring koummya were never meant for daily use and below is my rationale for believing that they are 20th century or at the very earliest the very final years of the 19th century. I have one riveted ring version. It has a maker’s mark stamped on the blade. I don’t consider it cheap of flimsy in any way and, if I found another like it, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it.

I don’t base my hypothesis on time per se but rather on when I believe koummya ceased to be a daily part of male attire. The French had been a major military and economic force in Morocco since the mid 19th century. The Spanish had been likewise involved. It isn’t unreasonable to believe that neither European power wanted an armed native population. The French restrictions on wearing of the flyssa by the Kabyle is well documented. (Heck, When the Bourbons became the Spanish ruling house, they even tried to stop the Spanish from carrying navajas [as witnessed by Goya’s Por Una Navaja] and the Spanish were fellow Roman Catholics living right next door. Imagine what they thought about African Moslems carrying weapons.) The restrictions were probably not enforced with equal rigor in all places, with the places of heaviest foreign presence being the most strict and the hinterlands being the least. But even in areas of most strict enforcement the Europeans probably allowed weapons carry for special occasions (eg the wedding flyssa). In 1912, the French and Spanish annexed their respective parts of Morocco outright and I would bet that daily weapons carry by the natives was totally banned. It was then that special occasion carry would have become the only permissible option and the riveted baldric rings became practical.
Consider this: I have a mokume silver and copper pendant that I never take off. I have had it since 1986 and, in that time, the original silver bail wore through as did its replacement. I am on the third bail and have worn through two silver snake chains. The pendant weighs far less than an ounce. Imagine the wear on the lugs and rings of a koummya weighing about a pound and swinging like a pendulum from a baldric. How long would a brass rivet, at best 1/16” in diameter last in daily use? It is this suitability for daily wear that I base my assessment as to 19th vs 20th century.

Sincerely,
RobT

1st April 2024, 03:59 AM	#11
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 486	My Rationale Mark M, Using the nature of the koummya lugs and suspension rings is my personal working hypothesis that I use to assess the age of a koummya. It is by no means etched in stone. I have provided an explanation below as to why I think the idea is tenable. The important thing to keep in mind is that a good koummya is a good koummya regardless of whether it was made in the 19th or 20th century. I certainly never let my supposition that a koummya was made in the 20th century keep me from buying it. Sajen, Thanks for the links you have provided. Good reading. I agree with you that the riveted ring koummya were never meant for daily use and below is my rationale for believing that they are 20th century or at the very earliest the very final years of the 19th century. I have one riveted ring version. It has a maker’s mark stamped on the blade. I don’t consider it cheap of flimsy in any way and, if I found another like it, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it. I don’t base my hypothesis on time per se but rather on when I believe koummya ceased to be a daily part of male attire. The French had been a major military and economic force in Morocco since the mid 19th century. The Spanish had been likewise involved. It isn’t unreasonable to believe that neither European power wanted an armed native population. The French restrictions on wearing of the flyssa by the Kabyle is well documented. (Heck, When the Bourbons became the Spanish ruling house, they even tried to stop the Spanish from carrying navajas [as witnessed by Goya’s Por Una Navaja] and the Spanish were fellow Roman Catholics living right next door. Imagine what they thought about African Moslems carrying weapons.) The restrictions were probably not enforced with equal rigor in all places, with the places of heaviest foreign presence being the most strict and the hinterlands being the least. But even in areas of most strict enforcement the Europeans probably allowed weapons carry for special occasions (eg the wedding flyssa). In 1912, the French and Spanish annexed their respective parts of Morocco outright and I would bet that daily weapons carry by the natives was totally banned. It was then that special occasion carry would have become the only permissible option and the riveted baldric rings became practical. Consider this: I have a mokume silver and copper pendant that I never take off. I have had it since 1986 and, in that time, the original silver bail wore through as did its replacement. I am on the third bail and have worn through two silver snake chains. The pendant weighs far less than an ounce. Imagine the wear on the lugs and rings of a koummya weighing about a pound and swinging like a pendulum from a baldric. How long would a brass rivet, at best 1/16” in diameter last in daily use? It is this suitability for daily wear that I base my assessment as to 19th vs 20th century. Sincerely, RobT