I must agree with Jim. There is no evidence of such connection as the celts and the flyssa. I feel this is a subject which passes throught the european etnocentrism, which sees a relation father to son with some oriental and african weapons. The machaira and the khukri is one of this cases. I find materially impossible that the vandals, which invaded Spain in the 5th Century AC and for just a little time, which had steel or iron swords with designs very different from the bronze age weapons, could take a bronze age design, appropiated for this metal but not for steel, to North Africa, and there, North Africans could split this design in two to make a new weapon.
The first thing the vandals should had to do, is archaeology, as the bronze age and itīs weapons dissapeared hundreds years ago. Very unlikely. The second thing, is abandom their modern weapons to change them for this heavy and cumbersome ones. Also unlikely. Spain, or Hispania, was in the second Iron Age on that time (or maybe latter), the celts already assimilated in many senses to a new society with different weapons.
And then, how should this weapon could survive in North Africa and evolve in secrecy to, letīs say, the 18th Century without traces of archaeological, literary or iconographic evidence on the hands on the berbers, though they had a very relevant historical role from the 11th to the 14th Centuries at least, not to mention their pirate activities on the Mediterranean to more recent times? Also very unlikely. The answer in obvious. The flyssa is originated on more recent events, different from the vandal invassion. The resemblance with the bronze age sword split in two is merely coincidental, IMHO.
Regards
Gonzalo G
|