A koummya- and contexts

[RobT]

kahnjar 1,
When I said that, “I don’t think this knife was made for or worn with any serious belief that it would have to be used in combat”, I was referring specifically to Jim McDougall’s example because of its lack of quillons (or quillion like projections if you will), not koummya in general. I maintain that any other examples without these projections were more for “show” than “go”. All of the koummya in my possession have these projections and I also maintain that the overwhelming majority of koummya shown on this forum have the necessary projections. I invite all interested forum members to search through past posts to confirm or refute this.

Marc M,
I find that those koummya I consider strictly tourist, feature low quality workmanship in both blade and dress. I think those ensembles with better to high quality dress and adequate quality blades are probably made for local sale to men who need on occasion to wear this culturally appropriate accessory but are rather sure they are not going to need to use it. Furthermore, I think that the manufacture of these formal attire koummya began in the 20th century and the dress of these items lack certain characteristics commonly found on 19th century ensembles. This is not to say that a more well to do man might not be willing to pay for a top quality blade to go with the fancy dress. Blades made in Europe would be a perfect fit for that market.

Pertinax,
For me, the answer to the question you pose lies in distinguishing between an item made for a tourist and an item bought by a tourist. Consider this example: A native New Yorker goes into a store and buys a pair of Levis for daily wear and a tourist from Paris goes into the same store and buys another pair of Levis as a souvenir. The Levis bought by the Parisian aren’t tourist Levis, they are just Levis that happened to have been bought by a tourist. Likewise, good quality, traditionally made koummya sold in a bazaar remain just that, whether they are bought by locals as part of their formal attire or bought by tourists as souvenirs. The merchant will sell his wares to anyone willing to pay.

werecow,
I think that kronckew’s point is well taken (pun shamelessly intended) but I also believe that the carrying of a sword cane speaks directly to the wearer’s expectation to have to actually fight with it. Nineteenth century sword canes are not infrequently seen at antique shows and in antique malls where they are often displayed unsheathed. Oftentimes, the cane shaft shows significant damage but the very slender blades, while in some cases rusty or stained, aren’t bent or kinked (at least as far as I can recall). I think this lack of damage indicates that they were seldom used. There are three factors that support this. First, anyone carrying a sword cane was likely well off because a poor person carrying one risked being stopped by the police who would confiscate the weapon (at the very least). In the 19th century, stop and search was entirely accepted and who was and who was not subjected to the procedure was largely dictated by economic status and race. Rich people, being of “the better sort” would be given a free pass. Thus, the gentleman armed with a sword cane would have an incredibly longer reach than would any lower class assailant armed with a non projectile concealable weapon. Secondly, 19th century society was strictly segregated by class and race. Other than those employed as support staff, poor people didn’t frequent the venues of the rich. Any poor person seen “hanging around out of place” could expect police scrutiny and, woe betide any such individual caught with a firearm. Thus street criminals, whose ranks consisted entirely of poor people, preyed on other poor people and did so in poor areas not frequented by the rich. Lastly, in the unlikely event an upperclass individual carrying a sword cane were to be attacked by a poor person, not only would the assailant be facing an opponent better armed than he, the commotion and delay caused by the intended victim’s resistance would increase the likelihood of apprehension. Given these last circumstances, unsheathing the sword cane would probably be enough to put the would be attacker to flight. Especially when you consider how life threatening a deep puncture wound would be to a poor person in the 19th century. I think sword canes were largely a matter of swagger and, if a well off person was in an area where he thought he was likely to be attacked, he had a revolver in his pocket.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Jim McDougall]

Guys thank you so much for the great input here on the koummya! As I have known little on these and their history and variation, I wanted to learn more on these aspects.
It seems the most common points of contention with ethnographic weapons are (1) is it a souvenir or 'tourist' example (2) how was it used, was it used? and here, with the koummya as a form, I pretty much expected these aspects to come into play.

Clearly everyone who has collected these, and with all the variations, has found many varied cases accordingly, so its fascinating to see these views all presented accordingly. Definitely a lot of perspective here, and much appreciated. !!!

[Pertinax]

In addition.

Thoughts out loud.

Ethnographic weapons are an addition to the national costume in peacetime, but during war the situation changes.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Pertinax

In addition.

Thoughts out loud.

Ethnographic weapons are an addition to the national costume in peacetime, but during war the situation changes.

Local arms fair??

[Pertinax]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Local arms fair??

Yemen, Houthis

[Jim McDougall]

Getting back to koummyas, well pointed out that ethnographic weapons in general indeed follow traditional styles and forms, and are worn as elements of status and fashion. With many forms, there has yet to be proven that they were ever intended for combat or use in defense.

The fact that a number of specific forms were ceremonial or associated as rite of passage elements for young men as they enter adulthood seems also well established. Naturally, as recalling many discussions over the years, these perspectives on certain weapon forms are often notably varied and typically not universally shared by the arms community. Such disparity in views is to be expected, and often brings interesting philosophically oriented discourse, as seen in much of this discourse.

One case in point in analogy is the flyssa of the Kabyles in Algeria. This form has remained indiginous to these tribes in Algeria, and the origin and development of the form has long been disputed but it seems agreed that it is a relatively recent one from early 19th c.
Naturally the question....was it used in combat has been an issue.
As far as I have seen, there are no viable records or accounts of these in use, nor manner of use.
Here it goes to the unusual but distinctive hilt, and terrible balance of the long examples (blade length seems varied).
It seems these fall mostly into the rite of passage category, as well as personal status weapon, and often the characteristic decoration is embellisged with certain individual symbols.

The point is..if the flyssa was actuallu used as a weapon, how so? The blade is long, unwieldy, needle point and poorly balanced.
If for thrusting, there is no guard whatsoever to stop the hand from sliding downward...if for slashing why the needle point etc.
So there again is the lack of guard elements conundrum. Would the back of the blade extending be deemed a stop for the hand?

[Changdao]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Getting back to koummyas, well pointed out that ethnographic weapons in general indeed follow traditional styles and forms, and are worn as elements of status and fashion. With many forms, there has yet to be proven that they were ever intended for combat or use in defense.

The fact that a number of specific forms were ceremonial or associated as rite of passage elements for young men as they enter adulthood seems also well established. Naturally, as recalling many discussions over the years, these perspectives on certain weapon forms are often notably varied and typically not universally shared by the arms community. Such disparity in views is to be expected, and often brings interesting philosophically oriented discourse, as seen in much of this discourse.

One case in point in analogy is the flyssa of the Kabyles in Algeria. This form has remained indiginous to these tribes in Algeria, and the origin and development of the form has long been disputed but it seems agreed that it is a relatively recent one from early 19th c.
Naturally the question....was it used in combat has been an issue.
As far as I have seen, there are no viable records or accounts of these in use, nor manner of use.
Here it goes to the unusual but distinctive hilt, and terrible balance of the long examples (blade length seems varied).
It seems these fall mostly into the rite of passage category, as well as personal status weapon, and often the characteristic decoration is embellisged with certain individual symbols.

The point is..if the flyssa was actuallu used as a weapon, how so? The blade is long, unwieldy, needle point and poorly balanced.
If for thrusting, there is no guard whatsoever to stop the hand from sliding downward...if for slashing why the needle point etc.
So there again is the lack of guard elements conundrum. Would the back of the blade extending be deemed a stop for the hand?

I don't doubt they were used in combat. Thrusts could be problematic due to the risks of the hand sliding up the blade, but it is not an issue if you don't thrust with it and just use it to cut. A chop with a flyssa would be quite devastating for an unarmoured targets, which were basically all of them in their context. "Balance" is a very relative word. Flyssas tend to have a point of balance quite up the blade, like many historical swords, which makes cuts with them more powerful. Sure, you can't really use it well like a contemporary military saber, but you can't use a Migration Era sword like a saber either.

Khyber knives have a similar weapon profile and yet British accounts are adamant in that the Afghans only used them for cutting, and those are safer to thrust with. Many yataghans suffer from the same and we know they were widely used for combat nonetheless.