Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

RobT · Yesterday, 03:21 AM

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.

Yesterday, 03:21 AM	#1
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 539	Koummya vs Khanjar: Name Game? Maybe Not 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.