[Jim McDougall]

Actually these fascinating sabres with this characteristic type hilt and the guard system with downturned quillons are of an apparently broadly represented form which are from 'Arab' regions and cannot be classified to a specific one aside from based on individual merits of each example.

The plates in Buttin (1933) illustrate numerous examples of this spectrum of examples of these sabres, which are invariably captioned as Arab swords, sa'if, by him in his text. He has identified them with date ranges as early as end of 16th century and through 18th, but no specific identification toward a 'Zanzibar' attribution is made, and particularly not with reference to the noted 'ring' projection from the guard. This in my opinion is a European influenced element which appears to have derived from developing rapier guards in Italy, and has been added to the guard system which had already evolved from other Italian forms earlier (16th century as noted) .

In my opinion, the 'Zanzibar' attribution derived from probable misassociation from individuals who read text in the Buttin reference regarding actually items numbered 1032 and 1033 (plate XXXI). These were pogniards which had been classified in error by Burton (1884) to Zanzibar, following an earlier error by Demmin (1877). In actuality these were s'boula daggers from Morocco (as well known by Buttin from his many years there), and he well footnoted detail in his 1933 catalog. Unfortunately this detail toward the 'Zanzibar' issue with these daggers was footnoted on the same page as sa'if #1034 (plate XXXI) which coincidentally HAD the noted ring on the guard.....and directly below the text.

While such a simple and unfortunate proximity error could result in such a broadly noted assumption seems almost bizarre, but as can be seen, this is how arms lore becomes legion.

I think Ibrahiim well illustrated how one example with apparently distinct decorative motif can isolate in degree, and by singular merit, at least one of these sabres to likely Zanzibar provenance by using the comb's motif compared to the grip on the example.

As far as the broader spectrum of these hilts, I think that the Arab denominator and sa'if works best, and that examples should be classified based on specific qualifiers such as motif or any other distinguishing elements attributable to certain areas or cultures.

With note to the related etymological dispute over the term 'nimcha' which has become standard collectors nomenclature for these sabres as Moroccan, this has been well explained by Louis-Pierre some years ago as a dialectic variation essentially meaning 'small' or 'half' sword. This apparently may have come from, once again, association with the shorter, flared tip examples with these kinds of hilts (993.994.995, plate XXX) which were indeed of cutlass form, but are classified only as Arabian sa'if. While it is tempting of course to associate these with nautical weapons by the size and form of blade, this can only be a presumption unless otherwise proven (such as examples from Malta shown by Broadaxe in #16, which are of course likely from maritime use).

The 'dragonhead' terminals are traditionally regarded as of Ottoman influence. As noted the cord is typically associated with North African mounting affectation (i.e koummya and others).
The mark at blade forte seems to be more of a 'chop' mark which may emulate the well known European 'twig' type marks often seen on Italian and Styrian blades.