Thank you all for your responses, Ibrahiim, Kubur, estcrh sajen and Jim who really seems to be the scholar among us.
Kubur, thanks for your comments and because you seems to know the most about koummyas, I will go with your opinion - late 19th c +/- few decades.
I agree that the wear in the loops of rings are attest that the dagger has been carried for several years and it is a good sign of an authentic piece. It is hard with koummyas as hundreds thousands of tourist pieces were and are made starting quite early too (1920's??). Many are exact copies of original types and you can tell they are for "export" only by small details. Others are pure fantasy, with stones, bone and shapes not found in original types. To make things even more complicated, some are old, but primitive- what some people call "village type", so that even the quality of the blade is not always a good guide. Anyway, I bought it because it was an opportuntiy (cheap), but I like it and will keep it, at least for a while.
It is nice to have a well-crafted piece for once. My main area of interest are original ethnographic daggers from the Levant, but the majority of those have a "home-made" quality about them and are not a feast for the eye (see picture: South Syrian Bedouin dagger). The fact that the Levant, except for Damascus, has been quite poor in the 18th and 19th century may be the reason for the lack of serious dagger-making traditions.
Estcrh, I understand what you say. Koummyas are a bit too much bling for my taste too, but we know each other's views on the fighting value of daggers in general. I am in it first for the ethnographic value, and second for the esthetic value. Whenever I think of the fighting with (even large) daggers, I have to think about that famous scene in Indiana Jones..
|