Gentlemen,
I'm not convinced. I see confirmation bias, and we all know that "correlation does not imply causality".
Mainly, why would the Manding, the inheritors of the high cultures of the Mali Empire, appropriate the culture of the Omanis, or the other way around? Basically, why wouldn't form follow function independently for both groups?
Also, opportunities for trade related interaction would be limited. The Manding were a land power that traded north and south. Anything to the East would have been to Darfur and then to Cairo via the 40 Day Road. The route East from Darfur across Kordofon to the Nile is water starved; ask Hicks in 1885. Pilgrims from the East would also follow the 40 Day route, but hit the Nile at about the 2nd-3rd cataract and cut across the desert to Suakin or other Red Sea ports then to Mecca.
The Omanis were a sea trading power with interests on the East African coast into the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and with India. Omani, or other Arab trade with East Africa or Cairo used the same Red Sea ports and cross the Eastern Desert to the Nile and down to Cairo. Also, the Omani's Zanzibar trade (slaves and ivory) was into Africa to the Lakes region. They made their money from taxes and fees and likely didn't make the treks themselves. Why would either Manding traders penetrate into Central Africa when their traded commodities (slaves, ivory & gold) were readily available hundreds on miles closer?
Also, neither the Omanis or Manding hilt styles influenced any of their neighbors.
Pallme (1837-39) travelling in Darfur noted that the people used swords with no guards, but the sheiks' swords have massive hilts of silver. A weak reed for any conclusion. I'm not aware that El Tounsy (1851) and other 19th Cent. travelers in West/Central Africa comment on Manding sword grips.
Regards,
Ed
|