I have a straight-bladed Omani sword. The blade is obviously locally-made and is marked with the "eylashes". It is flexible, but the tip can go off axis by no more than 2-3 inches. The blade is solid and battle - worthy.
My Argument against Ibrahim's theory is somewhat different: these swords were made at a time when swordfights were epidemic in the area. Thus, most if not all men owned battle swords.
Why on earth would they keep their fighting swords at home and acquire flimsy dancing implements to, - allegedly, - honor their ancestors. Too much money to burn?:-) Honoring ancestors with specially-made battle-worthless fakes? Makes no sense to me, unless there is something special in the Omani culture, and I have too much respect for them to suspect it.
Sword dances were widely popular in other cultures ( Caucasus, Ukraine, Cossack comes to mind right away), but those used real fighting blades. Otherwise, they would look like sissies. Was Oman a special case? I have great doubts about it: the laws of militant display are pretty standard all over the world.
No doubt that by now, when real swords are not practicable, lost, broken or sold to tourists for mucho dinero, the dancing ceremonies might employ flimsy substitutes ( same as modern Caucasian dancing troupes) . But 100-200 years ago? Sorry, but the theory looks totally illogical.
|