Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - On the Origins of the so-called Berber Sabres

Gonzalo G · 14th September 2009, 07:27 PM

Continuing with my post in home and not knowing if somebody made a response to my comments meanwhile, I would like to add some more
commentaries. First, the fact that Morocco was not a colony until the
20th Century. Of course, there were wars and temporal occupation of
some ports by spanish and portuguese. In the 15th Century the portuguese occupied four ports and the spanish one, but were defeated and expelled latter. The war of 1859-60 against Spain ended with a treaty by which the sultan of Morocco gave to the spaniards the coastal area in the north of the country. It was a war to spoil Morocco of the ports, not to colonize it, in the same way that Gibraltar is not a colony, but a military post. The Rif berbers were not subjugated until the decade of 1930´s (with great loses to the spaniards).

So, of what colonial weapons are we talking about when refering to the
berbers? To beging with, what is a colonial weapon? The answer seems
obvious, but is not. Anytime I see this concept (colonial weapon), is
associated with european colonization. Which seems to be another
ethnocentric misunderstanding. Why never a yataghan from Greece or the Balkans is called 'colonial'? Colonialism is not a phenomenon exclusive of the capitalist countries, as feudal Portugal and Spain demonstrates. And so the historians writte of greek or carthaginean colonies in Europe. This is not off-topic, since the concept must be clarified, as it is taken in loan from the social sciences and sometimes used too liberally.

I understand as colonial weapons, those made by the colonial powers,
specifically in the colonies, by the colonial settlers or by the 'natives' undertheir direction. Or made exclusively for colonial uses. This does not include the weapons not made specifically in this way, as the colonial powere manofactured their weapons in the metropolis for purposes not exusively or specifically related with the colonies, but with their general military needs. Brazil (remember the 'brazilian' sword?), is independent since 1822, and Spain had a little presence there, if any, since that was an area under the influence of the Great Britain, and before, a portuguese colony which was not allowed to commerce with anybody but Portugal. America had not ports of call, for the spaniards, except Cuba, since around 1820-22,
including the Dominicana Republic. The blade on the berber sabre from Teodor was made after the independence of this country from Spain,
which give us a time span for this weapon. The machete of Guanabacoa is another history.

The weapons made by the 'natives' using 'trade blades', or blades taken in war from the colonial enemy, are not 'colonial', in the same way the saifs made with 'trade blades' from the persians are not 'colonial', nor the firangis from India are.

Would it be causal that the european (most probably) painter whose work was mentioned by Ariel represented the berber sabre ALSO confused with an american sword? Not likely. Too much distance and the relative ignorance in Europe about the late evolution of the american weapons, makes it very unprobable (such a coincidence!). I think the swords from the spanish museum and the painting in Versailles are enough proof, since the curators also can be right about how to classify a sword, mainly if they are from a country which colonized the berber area of the Rif (well, on the other side, this is not a garantee, in this case). Those are hard evidences dreserving to be taked on account.

I insist. As there were european influences, so there were african influences over all the countries which enslaved african people. When they were taken, they came to stay, with all the cultural and racial implications this carries. Republica Dominicana and Haiti are in the same little island, only divided by a political frontier. Their culture is strongly black. Papa Doc used the vodoo to dominate his people in Haiti just decades ago. Also this are the cases of Cuba and Brazil. Berbers surely had also decorative influences from the territories to their south. And they were also enslavers and slave traders. Mutual influences could perfectly be developed. We know a just a few from them, as far as I can see.
Regards

Gonzalo G

14th September 2009, 07:27 PM	#35
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Continuing with my post in home and not knowing if somebody made a response to my comments meanwhile, I would like to add some more commentaries. First, the fact that Morocco was not a colony until the 20th Century. Of course, there were wars and temporal occupation of some ports by spanish and portuguese. In the 15th Century the portuguese occupied four ports and the spanish one, but were defeated and expelled latter. The war of 1859-60 against Spain ended with a treaty by which the sultan of Morocco gave to the spaniards the coastal area in the north of the country. It was a war to spoil Morocco of the ports, not to colonize it, in the same way that Gibraltar is not a colony, but a military post. The Rif berbers were not subjugated until the decade of 1930´s (with great loses to the spaniards). So, of what colonial weapons are we talking about when refering to the berbers? To beging with, what is a colonial weapon? The answer seems obvious, but is not. Anytime I see this concept (colonial weapon), is associated with european colonization. Which seems to be another ethnocentric misunderstanding. Why never a yataghan from Greece or the Balkans is called 'colonial'? Colonialism is not a phenomenon exclusive of the capitalist countries, as feudal Portugal and Spain demonstrates. And so the historians writte of greek or carthaginean colonies in Europe. This is not off-topic, since the concept must be clarified, as it is taken in loan from the social sciences and sometimes used too liberally. I understand as colonial weapons, those made by the colonial powers, specifically in the colonies, by the colonial settlers or by the 'natives' undertheir direction. Or made exclusively for colonial uses. This does not include the weapons not made specifically in this way, as the colonial powere manofactured their weapons in the metropolis for purposes not exusively or specifically related with the colonies, but with their general military needs. Brazil (remember the 'brazilian' sword?), is independent since 1822, and Spain had a little presence there, if any, since that was an area under the influence of the Great Britain, and before, a portuguese colony which was not allowed to commerce with anybody but Portugal. America had not ports of call, for the spaniards, except Cuba, since around 1820-22, including the Dominicana Republic. The blade on the berber sabre from Teodor was made after the independence of this country from Spain, which give us a time span for this weapon. The machete of Guanabacoa is another history. The weapons made by the 'natives' using 'trade blades', or blades taken in war from the colonial enemy, are not 'colonial', in the same way the saifs made with 'trade blades' from the persians are not 'colonial', nor the firangis from India are. Would it be causal that the european (most probably) painter whose work was mentioned by Ariel represented the berber sabre ALSO confused with an american sword? Not likely. Too much distance and the relative ignorance in Europe about the late evolution of the american weapons, makes it very unprobable (such a coincidence!). I think the swords from the spanish museum and the painting in Versailles are enough proof, since the curators also can be right about how to classify a sword, mainly if they are from a country which colonized the berber area of the Rif (well, on the other side, this is not a garantee, in this case). Those are hard evidences dreserving to be taked on account. I insist. As there were european influences, so there were african influences over all the countries which enslaved african people. When they were taken, they came to stay, with all the cultural and racial implications this carries. Republica Dominicana and Haiti are in the same little island, only divided by a political frontier. Their culture is strongly black. Papa Doc used the vodoo to dominate his people in Haiti just decades ago. Also this are the cases of Cuba and Brazil. Berbers surely had also decorative influences from the territories to their south. And they were also enslavers and slave traders. Mutual influences could perfectly be developed. We know a just a few from them, as far as I can see. Regards Gonzalo G