Quote:
Originally Posted by colin henshaw
Thought I would comment on this topic as I was in fact resident in Muscat, Oman for some time in the early 1970s. I visited the souk in Muttrah several times and saw many of these swords for sale there, both the straight double edged type and the curved single edged pattern. Also displayed for sale were plenty of khanjars, Martini-Henrys, matchlocks etc. There can be no doubt these Omani/Zanzibari swords were intended for combat (in the historic period), and not solely for dancing purposes. Although there was likely also a display element involved, being a part of male costume. I can remember it being said these swords did not have guards to the hilts, being unnecessary because "Africans did not have swords", which of course points to slaving.
Chris Peers writes excellent books, as well as the one mentioned by TVV above, another publication of his is "Armies of the Nineteenth Century: Africa East Africa" Foundry Books 2003, and I attach an extract for information. [Moderators - hope this is acceptable, if not please delete]
There is a potential parallel with these straight Omani/Zanzibari swords and the swords of the Mende people of Sierra Leone, their swords also being without guards to the hilt and who also had involvement in slaving in the 19th century. This was the subject of a previous post and I attach an image of the sword type concerned.
|
Colin, thank you so much for coming in on this, and it definitely is most important that you also had experience in actually being in Oman, and first hand knowledge of the Mutrah souks.
What you add about those West African broadswords is very spot on, and I had known of these but did not connect them to those of East Africa and the obvious slaving denominator. Adding this to the information Teodor added really does present compelling evidence for use of these, and reasonable explanation for not needing a guard.
Aside from the Maasai having broadswords, indeed most tribes in Africa did not use swords in general.
The question that remains for me is wondering if it is possible that there were a number of examples of these conical hilt swords which were indeed a lighter, rebated group of weapons which were produced ONLY for performances. It seems there are numbers of these kinds of weapons in various circumstances for such purposes.
Is it possible that the confusion about the non viability of the conical hilt sword might apply to these lighter versions, and not the Mutrah assembled examples using the sturdy European blades?
I have recognized all along that any sword with a substantial blade as mounted weapon, despite its wear as a status symbol, could be used in its intended purpose.
This is of course notably the case with small swords, dress swords, court swords and the like.