Koummya vs Khanjar: Name Game? Maybe Not

[RobT]

Hi All,

In the Jim McDougall initiated thread A koummya- and contexts (http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=30588), Pertinax provided a link (https://www.armes-anciennes-du-maroc..._selection.pdf) to sample pages from Hans F. Waelty’s book Armes ancients du Maroc - Bijoux de parade. Although Jim McDougall’s thread is still active, I felt that the information provided in the Waelty sample is important enough to deserve its own thread as it not only sheds light on some of the issues raised in the McDougall thread but also directly addresses the ongoing koummya vs khanjar nomenclature debate.
I downloaded the Waelty sample PDF (which is in French) and used Google Translate to get an English version of each page. I then used the Waelty PDFs as photo and page templates to paste the English version onto (after having spent years in Type Houses in various capacities, I can do things like this).
To make a long story short, Waelty unequivocally presents the koummya and khanjar as two separate and distinct weapons. On page 13, He says that the khanjar was most likely only produced in northern Morocco. Also on that page, he goes on to describe the blade and sheath as “sickle-shaped and always strongly curved” which accounts for their “lion claw” nickname. The blade itself is described as “relatively short” and “single-edged, sharpened on its concave side, and features a deep fuller along its spine”. I can’t however agree with Waelty’s conclusion on page 16 that the deeply curved blade of the khanjar made it an ineffective weapon. While the sickle shaped blade may have precluded thrusting, it was perfectly suited for a hooking slash. If the saca tripas. was lethal enough in its gravity knife iteration to be outlawed by the Mexican authorities, I would imagine that a similar fixed blade knife form would be even more formidable. Photographs of khanjars are provided on pages 16, 17, and 23. Note that the bulbous hilts, short to nonexistent quillons, and large pommels on all the samples are well suited for the hooking slash the blade was shaped for.
On page 33, Waelty introduces the koummya and says, “this type of dagger was made exclusively in southern Morocco”. He describes the blade as “relatively slender” and always double edged at the tip. He goes on to say that there are always two ricassi with the shorter being on the concave side. Samples of various koummya styles are provided on pages 33 (a stamp), 38, 39 (a painting), 43, 45, and 48, Note that the hilt of every koummya features a slender grip section with flared quillons on one end and a flared pommel on the other. Perfect for locking the hand during the thrust, slash, or hook.
The name game plot thickens on page 10 however. At the top of the page, Waelty shows pictures of what he calls “kummia hybride” and says that, at the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20 century, the khanjar began to acquire koummya characteristics. Most importantly, he cites Buttin as calling these hybrids "mixed type" (see also pg 10, footnote 13). Logically, this means that Buttin (that most highly regarded Moroccan weapons expert) must have considered the koummya and the khanjar to be two separate weapons because you can’t have a mix with two of the same things. If Buttin and Waelty are correct, the koummya and khanjar, although always sharing some superficial similarities have only recently begun to truly combine. From the pictures on page 10, it would appear that the koummya blade has been grafted onto the khanjar hilt which results in a blade designed for thrusting and slashing paired with a hilt designed only for slashing. This was probably not too much of a problem because the hybridization began at a time when these weapons were becoming simply items of male attire.
Waelty provides a map showing the production areas for the khanjar and the various koummya as well as the s’boula and shula.

Sincerely,
RobT

PS: I have emailed Hans Waelty and asked if an English version of his book was being considered but have not received a response.

[Ian]

Rob, in this discussion of a koummya/khanjar dichotomy it may be worthwhile looking at the etymology of the two words. I think, from memory, that khanjar is a Persian word for a double-edged, curved dagger (1). And from there, the name was adopted and used throughout the Ottoman Empire (extending into the Middle East and Arab world), and by the Moghul Empire in India.

I don't know the derivation of koummya. The knife is, of course, a double-edged, slightly curved dagger found in Morocco and other parts of the Magrib. The term appears to apply just to a particular style of dagger that is relatively localised in manufacture. The term khanjar was used more widely in the Persian, Indo-Persian, Ottoman and Arab worlds to describe a range of double-edged, curved daggers.

I think one could consider the koummya as another regional type of khanjar that is found in the Magrib. That other types of khanjar might be found in the same area is not surprising. When we talk about a family of similar weapons, there are two schools of thought: the "lumpers" and the "splitters." The "lumpers" look at similarities that share a common theme and use; the "splitters" see subtle differences that may reflect national/ethnic/political distinctions, and believe these differences are important. For the most part, I'm an unashamed "lumper" who appreciates the subtle differences in style (and local passions about ownership), but in the final analysis these are essentially similar weapons.


(1) See Peter Dekker's page (https://www.mandarinmansion.com/glossary/khanjar) for a scholarly discussion.

[RobT]

an,

On page 13, Waelty begins his discussion of the Moroccan khanjar by saying that, although the word khanjar is applied to various daggers in a number of countries in the Moslem world, the Moroccan khanjar is separate and distinct from the others. Waelty then goes on to describe these differences (pgs 13-14). If, as you say, the Persian derived word refers to a double edged dagger, then the Moroccan version that Waelty describes differs very significantly as it is single edged.
It would appear that the origins of the word koummya are murky, as Waelty acknowledges (citing Delphy) on page 7, footnote 3. Also in that footnote, Waelty says, “Regarding the etymology of names in the context of stabbing and stabbing weapons, see Fischer (1899)”. I have repeatedly searched online for a convincing koummya etymology and the only thing I have found is an AI Overview that says the word “traces back to the Arabic word for dagger or knife, specifically referring to a curved blade dagger worn under the sleeve or up the sleeve. The term is also related to the Spanish word ‘gumia’ , which also derives from the Arabic koummya”.
As far as the loummya being a regional type of khanjar, one could just as correctly say it is a regional jambiya variant (which is how Stone classifies it in his glossary).
However. all of the above word origin discussion is is irrelevant as it applies to the matter at hand. What is germane is that, if Waelty and Buttin are to be believed, when the koummya and khanjar were worn in Morocco as weapons and everyday male attire, they were superficially similar but really completely different in form, use, and geographic origin. Furthermore, the hybridization of the two forms only happened (or perhaps was only possible) when they were ceasing to be likely to be used. This later appearing hybrid notwithstanding, in the context of Morocco (if Waelty and Buttin are correct), it is as improper to call a koummya a khanjar as it is to call a khanjar a koummya.

Sincerely,
RobT

[kahnjar1]

Maybe the word JAMBIYA (various spellings) should also be included here as this is also used to describe the knife/dagger type.
Stu

[Ian]

Stu,

I deliberately left the jambiya out of discussion so as not to further confuse the issue. Yes, this is another term used to describe a double-edged, curved dagger of the same general form as the khanjar and koummya.

Rob,

I understand where you are coming from. The two sources that you quote are of the opinion that the koummya is a different dagger than a khanjar. I respect their arguments but don't necessarily agree. The koummya is double-edged along the distal third or half of the blade and has two "ricassos" of different length. These features are structurally different from most daggers described as khanjars. However, for me, these are regional differences in style rather than a fundamentally different blade. That the locals gave it a different name is important culturally, but to me it is a khanjar variant. I do use the culturally appropriate term in writing about the Moroccan knife because that is how it has come to be called, and being a localised variant I think the local name is appropriate.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to look at the distinction between koumyya and khanjar. We collectors are always trying to classify and catalogue our items more precisely, when sometimes that's not particularly relevant. I'm not saying that is what's happening here, but often the "name game" leads nowhere.

[RobT]

an,

Please allow me this last statement because I think that, if Waelty and Buttin are correct, the distinction between the koummya and the khanjar in Morocco is important as it helps to explain why some more recently made daggers we call koummya bear Moroccan khanjar features. Most notably, these hybrid (per Waelty) or mixed (per Buttin) koummya show small to nonexistent quillons which are unsuited for the thrusting capabiity of the koummya blade but are perfectly fine for the hooking function of the Moroccan khanjar blade. The time frame for the first appearance of these hybrids coincides with the period that their actual use as weapons was becoming unlikely. Thus, those who preferred the look of the Moroccan khanjar hilt could make that choice (anyway, there is nothing to prevent a koummya blade from being used in a hooking manner). I would not discount this aesthetic choice (especially when it is backed by culture and tradition). For my part, although I have had many opportunities to purchase koummya with Moroccan khanjar style hilts, I have not had the slightest inclination to do so because I much prefer the traditional koummya hilt with its slender grip flanked by its flared pommel and quillons.
There is one other brief point I would like to make regarding the origin of this particular name game which, AFAIK, originated after reports from forum members to the effect of, “nobody in Morocco calls them koummya anymore”. I am partial to, and have a small number of stockman folding knives. I am willing to bet the ranch that, if I showed 100 New Yorkers an example of this type knife, not one of them would call it a stockman but I suspect that, if I did the same thing to 100 people in rural Montana, the results would be far different. So, do we know how large a sample of the Moroccan population these forum members asked and, just as importantly, where was the question asked? Was it urban or rural, north (khanjar country) or south (koummya country)?

Sincerely,
RobT

[gp]

Waelty:

https://www.armes-anciennes-du-maroc-bijoux-de-parade.website/

when clicking on enchantillon de lecture (scroll down), you get access to the details

[Jim McDougall]

This is truly a fascinating discussion Rob and thank you for opening it. I think you bring out most salient points, however I cannot add much to what you have already noted as far as this specific case. What I can say though is that there is some importance in awareness of these kinds of variables.

As a veteran of countless 'name game' frays here over the past 25+ years, I can wholeheartedly agree with Ian, in most cases this often seemingly specious exercise simply leads to unfortunate disagreements where really, nobody is wrong, nor right. There are so many variables, mistranslations, etc. that it becomes the conundrum syndrome to the Nth degree.

That does not eliminate however, the need to be aware of the glossary of terms which circulate, and record and reference the variations with cross references for the sake of semantics. In researching weapons, the search through accounts, narratives and the like might use a certain perhaps local term for a form, and without knowledge of the variant terms, important details might be lost.

The anecdotal evidence of these situations could fill at least one book, but if I may note one:
Years ago I tried to discover the source of the term 'KASKARA' for the Sudanese broadswords. Many years of searching, even through reaching out to authorities such as authors, museums even the University of Khartoum, yielded no results. I was stunned that despite awareness of these ubiquitous swords, nobody bothered to consider this! and most simply shrugged off the thought of the etymology of the word.

I knew the first known use of the word was in Burton (1884) but contrary to his copious footnotes and accuracy, PLUS being a linguist, he noted nothing.
I actually spoke to various tribal people from Sudan, showing them photos, none had EVER heard the word kaskara. They invariably called it sa'if, with the exception of one who called it 'cross'.

Reed (1985) used the term sa'if kasallawi (the location then of most production of these)as the widely used contemporary reference. It was not until Iain Norman, researching Saharan tribal languages, found the loan word that had presented the term kaskara into the collectors lexicon for Sudan.

What these discussions do, for those of us who wish to go deeper into the study of the cultures and history surrounding these ethnographic weapons, is present unmatched perspectives into our understanding of these areas.
I think the most important takeaway here is awareness, and use of cross referencing in our study on these weapon forms.

[Ian]

gp,

Thanks for posting access to this excellent thesis. It is very well illustrated and the French is fairly easy to navigate, even for someone with a few years of secondary school instruction in the language.

Rob, having read the Waelter reference provided by gp, I can see why you have come to the opinion that you have expressed so well here. Jim's comments are also well placed in this context. I feel much better informed about the koummya for having read the material presented here. For anyone wishing to understand the history and details of Moroccan weapons, I recommend Waelter as a good read.

[RobT]

Hi All,

I just translated the part in the Waelty sample that has to do with koummya and khanjar. He also has a sample that deals with firearms and I wonder if he has anything on swords in the complete book. In any event, it would be really good to have an English version of the book.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Ian]

Rob,

Attached is the Table of Contents for the Waelty book. As shown, it includes discussion of the Firearms of Morocco, plus Sabers (nimcha), and "Other Arms." Quite a comprehensive coverage. The link provided by gp allows reading of the whole book online, and also the ability to print it out. Unfortunately, I could not find a way to download a PDF copy of the whole book.

Ian.
.

[RobT]

Ian,

I clicked on the link gp provided. As far as I can see, it doesn’t give the entire book of 185 pages. Clicking on Echantilon de lecture only gives 39 pages (which makes sense because echantillon means sample in French). This is the sample I downloaded for this post. Since there is a “Contact” tab, I sent another email asking about the possibility of an English version but because my first email asking about this went unanswered, I’m not holding my breath about this one.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Ian]

Rob, you are correct. It is just a sample. I had scrolled to the end of the online link and found page 184, thinking that it was the whole book! But unfortunately it's just selections from throughout the book, as you note.

[corrado26]

I contacted the author yesterday, bought the book and had no difficulties to get an answer. Mr. Wälty speaks French and German:cool:

[corrado26]

I contacted the author yesterday, bought the book and had no difficulties to get an answer. Mr. Wälty speaks French and German:cool::D