Kattara for comments

[A.alnakkas]

Off topic question to Ibrahim (sorry TVV):

Do the Bani Ka'ab Tribesmen of Oman (particularly the Buraimi region) use the Kattara?

I know that the coastal people of Oman use shamshir's and sabers but always wondered what my distant relatives there use :P

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ibrahim,
I am sorry I overlooked this thread and your amazing and wonderfully detailed post!!! I am reading through your writing and cannot thank you enough for taking the time and care in writing this, and will respond in due course. Outstanding work!!!
All the very best,
Jim

[TVV]

Ibrahim,

No need to apologize, I have been following your thoughts on the evolution of Omani swords with great interest.

My personal thoughts on the adoption of the long Omani broadsword are similar to yours on the adoption of the short sword - I think the form may have entered the Omani aresenal through military contact with the Portuguese. The blade shape of a kattara to me is quite different than the blade shape on a takouba (especially when one considers older examples with a triangular blade) or even that on a kaskara, which has a pointed tip as opposed to the rounded tips on the Omani sword. Therefore an adoption through trophies taken from the Portuguese after the latter were ousted from Muscat seems to be a more logical and direct route than trade links with the African interior.

Further, if the origin of the long kattara was from European broadswords, this would explain why older European maker marks and symbols on sword blades retained an importance well into the 19th century, causing them to be reproduced locally.

As for the curved sabers, I think I read somewhere in Elgood's book that in the mid 19th century, a lot of Caucasian shashka blades made its way into Southern Arabia (connected perhaps to the Circassian diaspora?) and were quickly given local hilts. When I look at the blade on mine, it certainly could have been taken from a shashka.

Regards,
Teodor

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ibrahiim,
I have read through your magnificent treatise on the Omani short sword and its development, and can only say it is a wonderfully thorough analysis and description of early Islamic history, and in particular that which pertains to Oman. I must confess that it must be obvious that my knowledge in this field of study pales in comparison to what you have shown, and I am most grateful for your sharing of this information here. I also must admit that my notes comparing the earlier style of Omani hilt (Elgood, p.17, fig.2.13; 2.15)to the Nasrid form was entirely free association and suggesting the drooping quillon hilt form had similarity. I should have emphasized the speculation on my part.

I do often make such speculations in hopes of developing more discussion which might support or rebuke the case in point, and admit being caught entirely offguard here as the desired response is to comments of nearly two years ago Still, I am absolutely delighted and more than impressed!!

Please help me more clearly understand your reference to the 'Omani short battle sword', I am assuming you are referring to the downturned quillon hilt sword mentioned from Elgood in which I suggested possible Nasrid connection?
Also, I am unclear on which sword in Topkapi you are referring to as Abbasid of the 9th century. In checking "Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths" (the late Dr.Unsal Yucel, Istanbul, 2001) I could not isolate an example corresponding.
Whatever the case, I am very much in accord with your suggestions that the Omani swords were in most probability derived from the Abbasid swords as you well describe and support.

The focus of our discussion here was of course on the later version of the Omani kattara, which as agreed seems to have developed around the 17th century and probably does have distinct associations with the development of the Omani trade in Zanzibar which certainly diffused in Kenya and into trade routes in various networks which traversed the continent. Actually, I think most of our attention was directed to the cylindrical hilt without guard and its similarity to the guardless seme' swords of Kenya and the similar guardless hilts of Mandingo sabres in Mali. Naturally these are again visual comparisons, but placed compellingly by the prevalence of Omani trade on the East Coast of Africa.

It would seem that the profound introduction of trade blades, particularly from Solingen in about the time these 'long kattara' with cylindrical hilts developed, may have led to the simplification of the hilt. The swordplay you describe, using buckler and slashing cuts is well known in India, and in fact even well known in regions as remote as Khevsuria in the Caucusus, where the impressive leaps and parrying have indeed evolved in dancing type performances from genuine martial training. As always, these simple hilt forms could certainly have developed independantly, but the ever present trade routes described offer tempting support to think otherwise. I am inclined to think they evolved in Omani trade areas in Eastern Africa, where examples were acquired by traders moving westward and probably traded into tribal regions along the trade routes. Omani merchants as I understand, wore these proudly as marks of status, and such adorned weapons would certainly have appealed to the ranking chieftains in these trade contacts.

I would like to thank you again for placing this wonderfully written letter on this topic, and of course look forward to discussing further...for me this forum is about learning, and I have certainly enjoyed learning more from what you have added here.

With all very best regards,
Jim

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Ibrahiim,
I have read through your magnificent treatise on the Omani short sword and its development, and can only say it is a wonderfully thorough analysis and description of early Islamic history, and in particular that which pertains to Oman. I must confess that it must be obvious that my knowledge in this field of study pales in comparison to what you have shown, and I am most grateful for your sharing of this information here. I also must admit that my notes comparing the earlier style of Omani hilt (Elgood, p.17, fig.2.13; 2.15)to the Nasrid form was entirely free association and suggesting the drooping quillon hilt form had similarity. I should have emphasized the speculation on my part.

I do often make such speculations in hopes of developing more discussion which might support or rebuke the case in point, and admit being caught entirely offguard here as the desired response is to comments of nearly two years ago Still, I am absolutely delighted and more than impressed!!

Please help me more clearly understand your reference to the 'Omani short battle sword', I am assuming you are referring to the downturned quillon hilt sword mentioned from Elgood in which I suggested possible Nasrid connection?
Also, I am unclear on which sword in Topkapi you are referring to as Abbasid of the 9th century. In checking "Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths" (the late Dr.Unsal Yucel, Istanbul, 2001) I could not isolate an example corresponding.
Whatever the case, I am very much in accord with your suggestions that the Omani swords were in most probability derived from the Abbasid swords as you well describe and support.

The focus of our discussion here was of course on the later version of the Omani kattara, which as agreed seems to have developed around the 17th century and probably does have distinct associations with the development of the Omani trade in Zanzibar which certainly diffused in Kenya and into trade routes in various networks which traversed the continent. Actually, I think most of our attention was directed to the cylindrical hilt without guard and its similarity to the guardless seme' swords of Kenya and the similar guardless hilts of Mandingo sabres in Mali. Naturally these are again visual comparisons, but placed compellingly by the prevalence of Omani trade on the East Coast of Africa.

It would seem that the profound introduction of trade blades, particularly from Solingen in about the time these 'long kattara' with cylindrical hilts developed, may have led to the simplification of the hilt. The swordplay you describe, using buckler and slashing cuts is well known in India, and in fact even well known in regions as remote as Khevsuria in the Caucusus, where the impressive leaps and parrying have indeed evolved in dancing type performances from genuine martial training. As always, these simple hilt forms could certainly have developed independantly, but the ever present trade routes described offer tempting support to think otherwise. I am inclined to think they evolved in Omani trade areas in Eastern Africa, where examples were acquired by traders moving westward and probably traded into tribal regions along the trade routes. Omani merchants as I understand, wore these proudly as marks of status, and such adorned weapons would certainly have appealed to the ranking chieftains in these trade contacts.

I would like to thank you again for placing this wonderfully written letter on this topic, and of course look forward to discussing further...for me this forum is about learning, and I have certainly enjoyed learning more from what you have added here.

With all very best regards,
Jim

Salaams,
Thank you for your very detailed and inspiring reply. The reference for the Topkapi 9th Century Abbasid sword is ;

Medieval Swords and Helmets from Topkapi Museum - STLCC.edu
Medieval Swords and Weapons in the Topkapi Museum, Istanbul (Part 2). ... Kufic inscription on the blade of a Abbasid sword, 9th century. ...
users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/turk/TopkapiArms2.html - United States - Cached

~perhaps best found simply by typing into google search the string ..."Abbasid swords Topkapi museum images".

I think what is quite conclusive is the fact that this sword would have been in Oman with the Abbasid garrison during the 8th Century.

In referring to the Omani Short Battle Sword; yes absolutely it is the turned down quillon sword mentioned by Elgood. I simply cannot see any relationship between the two systems(Omani kattara long / Omani Short) and suspect that the short early version may even have been called something other than Kattara though I have no proof.
It does seem that Oman adopted the "Kattara Long" possibly in the 17th Century after seizing Zanzibar initially in 1652. Whether that was the end of the Omani Short has yet to be established but it must have heralded the changeover...perhaps slowly. The Kattara Long does apper to be African linked but to which sword perhaps a Zanzibar sword we havent yet identified? or a concoction mixed with the Sudani, Ethiopian, Yemeni however I do keep raising the flag on the "Terrs" Buckler shield which is African and said to be Rhino hide (though Im sure buffalo and even whale hide were used.) as it is a combination weapon system best used with the small shield.
Thank you very much again for your very encouraging reply.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by TVV

Ibrahim,

No need to apologize, I have been following your thoughts on the evolution of Omani swords with great interest.

My personal thoughts on the adoption of the long Omani broadsword are similar to yours on the adoption of the short sword - I think the form may have entered the Omani aresenal through military contact with the Portuguese. The blade shape of a kattara to me is quite different than the blade shape on a takouba (especially when one considers older examples with a triangular blade) or even that on a kaskara, which has a pointed tip as opposed to the rounded tips on the Omani sword. Therefore an adoption through trophies taken from the Portuguese after the latter were ousted from Muscat seems to be a more logical and direct route than trade links with the African interior.



Further, if the origin of the long kattara was from European broadswords, this would explain why older European maker marks and symbols on sword blades retained an importance well into the 19th century, causing them to be reproduced locally.

As for the curved sabers, I think I read somewhere in Elgood's book that in the mid 19th century, a lot of Caucasian shashka blades made its way into Southern Arabia (connected perhaps to the Circassian diaspora?) and were quickly given local hilts. When I look at the blade on mine, it certainly could have been taken from a shashka.

Regards,
Teodor

Salaams,
Thanks Teodor. The Portuguese were ejected in 1650 from Muscat and persued down the African coast as far as Mozambique and harrassed all over the Indian Ocean in Goa etc etc. Contrary to what people may think, they in fact, used Indian mercenaries as their soldiers on the ground and on their ships... Even a large Portuguese battleship had few Portuguese on board other than "the executives". Religiously they were somewhat biggotted and in no way shape or form would they have entertained an Islamic sword with an Islamic hilt in their arsenals... and in the same way the troopers were not muslims...but hindu. When the Portuguese sacked Sohar for example they slaughtered most of the inhabitants(including the Jewish community) They had a very huge bee in their bonnet about other religions in those days ! ...
While the Omani Short Sword was in use against them it certainly cannot have been introduced by them. The Omani Short, however, is compared favourably with the Abbasid 8th Century Sword. So that we are not confused between the two systems (it is better to think of them as systems since they are totally different and one employs a Buckler shield called a Terrs.) I have attached pictures. The Omani Short Battle Sword is if Im right, 8th Century, so it is no wonder it is shrouded in mystery as "Interior Oman" virtually closed to the outside world until the mid 20th Century ! The Omani Long Kattara on the other hand is generally viewed as being influenced by Zanzibar ~ the swords of Africa perhaps Zanzibari, Sudani and Ethiopian all perhaps adding to the design.
Your note about Shashka is interesting . I had never thought about that. I always thought they were just german imports but your idea is very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out !!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

... The Portuguese were ejected in 1650 from Muscat and persued down the African coast as far as Mozambique and harrassed all over the Indian Ocean in Goa etc etc. Contrary to what people may think, they in fact, used Indian mercenaries as their soldiers on the ground and on their ships... Even a large Portuguese battleship had few Portuguese on board other than "the executives". Religiously they were somewhat biggotted and in no way shape or form would they have entertained an Islamic sword with an Islamic hilt in their arsenals... and in the same way the troopers were not muslims...but hindu. When the Portuguese sacked Sohar for example they slaughtered most of the inhabitants (including the Jewish community) They had a very huge bee in their bonnet about other religions in those days ! ...

Salaams Ibrahiim
I would be too lazy to revue to the chronicles of the period to erase my strongest doubts raised by your sources quotations that (all) Portuguese battleships sailing in those waters were in general massively handled by Indian mercenaries except for a few “executives” aboard.
I will therefore make a bypass and, concentrating on the weapons business, could you tell on what sources or evidence you stirrup, to conclude that Portuguese would not entertain Islamic (or Hindu) weapons based on religious prejudice.
Not being a scholar or close to it, i have come across through time with more than one written episode in that, being a determined weapon of special attributes or circumstantially convenient, in no way would the Portuguese reject it. I wouldn’t recall what would be the behavior of other cultures and their creeds in similar circumstances, but this however is not the issue here.
BTW, i find the “bigot” adjective a bit less diplomatic , but i don’t think the Portuguese of such period will read you.
Without going too deep into the chronicles, we know that:
… As early as the reconquest period (XII-XIII century), Portuguese (Christians) admired the crossbow used by the North African Moors, a light easy loading weapon, although with a lower penetration power, the “Kaous Alaarab”, and adopted it for their own use.
…The fact that one of the most used swords by their local adversaries in Asian lands, the talwar, was rejected, is written in the chronicles that, on one hand, the Portuguese had a greater confidence in their own weapons (pass the presumption) and, on the other, for the extensively discussed reason that Indian swords had handles/grips too small to be handled by Europeans.
… When it comes to artillery, we come to the same situation. I have the privilege to have appreciated in loco a magnificent cannon in the Lisbon Military Museum. Such fire mouth, re-baptized by the Portuguese “The Shot of Diu”, is a bronze basilisk from the XVI century, with a 23 cms caliber, a length of 6,11 mts and a 20 tons weight. It was made for the Sultan Bahâdur Xâh of Gujarat. It has such a rather fascinating inscription engraved on it that, once translated by a local erudite friar, has escaped to be molten for the forging of a monument to the King Dom José I (1750-77).
This cannon, built in 1533, was captured and brought to Portugal in 1538 and placed in the Lisbon Royal castle. Later in the kingdom of Dom João IV (1640-56) was transferred to the tower of São Julião da Barra, a strategic defense post of the Lisbon estuary. This to say that, for certain, such charismatic weapon would see immediate destruction instead of its persisting utility, if religious prejudice towards the use of other cultures was so overwhelming to Portuguese.
I hope you don't mind my coming in with an empirical approach to this little part of your comprehensive treatises.

.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by fernando

Salaams Ibrahiim
I would be too lazy to revue to the chronicles of the period to erase my strongest doubts raised by your sources quotations that (all) Portuguese battleships sailing in those waters were in general massively handled by Indian mercenaries except for a few “executives” aboard.
I will therefore make a bypass and, concentrating on the weapons business, could you tell on what sources or evidence you stirrup, to conclude that Portuguese would not entertain Islamic (or Hindu) weapons based on religious prejudice.
Not being a scholar or close to it, i have come across through time with more than one written episode in that, being a determined weapon of special attributes or circumstantially convenient, in no way would the Portuguese reject it. I wouldn’t recall what would be the behavior of other cultures and their creeds in similar circumstances, but this however is not the issue here.
BTW, i find the “bigot” adjective a bit less diplomatic , but i don’t think the Portuguese of such period will read you.
Without going too deep into the chronicles, we know that:
… As early as the reconquest period (XII-XIII century), Portuguese (Christians) admired the crossbow used by the North African Moors, a light easy loading weapon, although with a lower penetration power, the “Kaous Alaarab”, and adopted it for their own use.
…The fact that one of the most used swords by their local adversaries in Asian lands, the talwar, was rejected, is written in the chronicles that, on one hand, the Portuguese had a greater confidence in their own weapons (pass the presumption) and, on the other, for the extensively discussed reason that Indian swords had handles/grips too small to be handled by Europeans.
… When it comes to artillery, we come to the same situation. I have the privilege to have appreciated in loco a magnificent cannon in the Lisbon Military Museum. Such fire mouth, re-baptized by the Portuguese “The Shot of Diu”, is a bronze basilisk from the XVI century, with a 23 cms caliber, a length of 6,11 mts and a 20 tons weight. It was made for the Sultan Bahâdur Xâh of Gujarat. It has such a rather fascinating inscription engraved on it that, once translated by a local erudite friar, has escaped to be molten for the forging of a monument to the King Dom José I (1750-77).
This cannon, built in 1533, was captured and brought to Portugal in 1538 and placed in the Lisbon Royal castle. Later in the kingdom of Dom João IV (1640-56) was transferred to the tower of São Julião da Barra, a strategic defense post of the Lisbon estuary. This to say that, for certain, such charismatic weapon would see immediate destruction instead of its persisting utility, if religious prejudice towards the use of other cultures was so overwhelming to Portuguese.
I hope you don't mind my coming in with an empirical approach to this little part of your comprehensive treatises.

.

Salaams,
Thank you for adding to this thread...Nice pictures of the cannon. What a funny name for a crossbow! Ha! I thank you also for a very well composed and superbly set out letter.

When it comes to choice of weapons I believe there is a finite mindshift between personal sword style and 20 ton cannon. I think the cannon would be a prize to be fought for and utilized thereafter by the winner. I have to say that was also the normal case on the battle field regarding blades / weapons of all natures .. winner takes all ! My previous letter was I recall vaguely trying to introduce the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean and I was dismissing the idea of the Omani Kattara being linked to them which we know it was not. The question as to Portuguese carrying non Potuguese arms is interesting and from the religious standpoint I maintain they did not which means I have to show very strong reasons why not. In addressing this point I must show very biased perhaps bigotted mindset of the Portuguese hierarchy which I will do..however what weapons their mercenaries carried I believe was normal... Indian Mercenaries carried Indian weapons etc I also need to show how Portuguese ships were crewed and why?

I draw your attention to the 3 reasons for the Portuguese being in the Indian Ocean 1. Gold and Silver 2. Spices 3. Mercenaries and Slaves.

History shows how much they at that time in the early renaissance disliked Muslims and how they hated Jews.

There is a peculiar irony in that the known preventive cure for malaria was "Jews Harp" but that most Portuguese explorers would not take it (therefor died) because of the name.

They had hoped to find the fabled land of Presbeteri Iohanis or Prester John said to be a Christian Kingdom somewhere in the region of the horn of Africa where it was hoped substantial numbers of Mercenaries could be hired to fight the Muslims. Myth, fable and stories of strange hordes charging through north Russia inspired the Portugues to link Ghengis Khans marauding armies to this African powerbase..thinking they too were Christians.

Most of the search teams deployed by the Portuguese died of malaria etc in their futile attempts to find the mythical nation. In the end they were able to hire Indian Hindu mercenaries although I know there were others such as Malibaris..

As an example of their outright cruelty witness what they did in Sohar, Oman. Sohar being a huge trading port was filled with Jews at that time in the early 1500s. The Portuguese slaughtered every prisoner after intense torture. The favourite method being removal of nose, ears, hands then the corpse was nailed up. ( except one old chap who showed them the way to Hormuz)

The Portuguese had mastered the art of torture, star chamber, the Inquisition and all but it was a hatred driven by religious bigotry which fueled their fire. Basically they were Fanatical Christian Bigots.

Its amazing what 600 years can do, however, and now I have a lot of really good Portuguese mates !

Notwithstanding the odd "spoil of war" 20 ton bronze cannon the Portuguese tended to stick to Portuguese weapons and I have had a few rapiers from that period but I see no reason why they would not allow their Mercenaries to carry Hindu weapons. My previous work may have rushed over that point.

Aboard a Portuguese Battle Ship there would have been the usual Portuguese command; Captain, Second Officer and Navigator, Gun Captains and a skeleton crew but the fighting contingent was largely Hindu mainly because Portugal was such a small country but it underlines one of the 3 basic reasons for exploitation in the Indian Ocean i.e. Mercenaries. I believe they also carried a religious person to inspire their requirements, torture techniques, Wrath of God, Inquisition and that sort of thing etc.

If I may add just a few additional examples of what one author called "the uncompromising attitudes of the Christian reconquista"
(Please do not take this personally after all a lot of nations have done things in history which were pretty terrible; but you did ask...so I should prove it)

Almeida had fought at the siege of Granada that ended in 1492, and he brought with him to the Indian Ocean the uncompromising attitudes of the Christian reconquista. He sacked Kilwa, which had four stone-throwing catapults for its defense, and deposed the sultan in favor of another more amenable to the Portuguese. Further up the coast, Mombasa had some 3700 men of military age and cannon that fired on the Portuguese as they entered the port. The Portuguese, in return, bombarded the town. A Spanish convert to Islam came out and told the Portuguese to leave, that the people of Mombasa were braver than those of Kilwa. That night, Almeida put the town to the torch and in the morning sacked it, killing some 1500 people and taking great quantities of cotton cloth, silk and gold-embroidered textiles as well as valuable carpets. The king of Mombasa wrote to the king of Malindi to warn him of what might befall him: “This is to inform you that a great lord has passed through the town, burning it and laying it waste. He came to the town in such strength and was of such cruelty, that he spared neither man nor woman, old nor young—nay, not even the smallest child…. Nor can I ascertain nor estimate what wealth they have taken from the town. I give you this news for your own safety.”

Vasco de Gama’s first voyage was an intelligence gathering one. He returned in 1502 at the head of a flotilla of twenty-five ships armed with the most powerful cannons in the Portuguese inventory and bombarded the city states all along the east African coast. His first encounter with shipping in the Indian Ocean was a vessel carrying 700 returning hajjis from Mecca to India. An Indian Muslim from Malabar, Merim, owned the ship. Disregarding pleas for mercy, de Gama burned the ship with all of its occupants, women and children included.

When the Portuguese arrived off the coast of Calicut, the Raja of Calicut, Manna Vikrama, sent an emissary, a Brahmin of high repute, to negotiate peace. The ambassador arrived on board the Portuguese flagship with his two sons and a nephew. De Gama cut off the hands, nose and ears of the ambassador, and had the three young men nailed to crosses.

The bombardment of Calicut began in earnest, wreaking havoc on that ancient city. He then turned his attention to the ships in anchor. He treated the captured Hindus the same way he had treated the Brahmin ambassador of the Raja, cutting off their hands, noses and ears and piling them up in heaps on board his ships. But the most sadistic treatment was reserved for captured Muslims. One Khwaja Muhammed, a noted merchant from Egypt was captured, beaten, his mouth stuffed with pig refuse, and then set afire. Such atrocities were repeated wherever the Portuguese went on the Indian coast.


Within a span of fifteen years, the Portuguese had destroyed the thriving city-states of East Africa, captured strategic naval posts all along the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea, occupied the entrances to both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and disrupted the trade that had flowed from India, Sumatra and China to West Asia and East Africa. Once thriving cities on the African seaboard became ghost towns. Violence, greed, enmity and ruthlessness took over trade and cooperation. Portuguese hatred of Muslims was unbounded. Wherever they landed, their first targets were the Muslims. The Inquisition was instituted in Goa against both Hindus and Muslims, and instructions were passed out by the Portuguese governor that no Muslim was to be hired, even though the territory of Goa had been a part of the Sultanate of Bijapur, and had a large number of Muslims in it.

Lastly an example of the crew make up on a Portuguese ship though I seem to remember somewhere reading about Battleship Crew Make up this example is trader ships but gives the idea ~

In all the ports controlled by the Portuguese, Albuquerque instituted the system of the cartaz, a trading licence authorizing a ship to carry cargo. Ships without a cartaz, which of course had to be purchased from the Portuguese port authorities, were fair game. This simple protection racket, plus customs duties and some outright piracy, raised the money to defray part of the cost of manning garrisons and maintaining the navy—as well as purchasing cotton textiles to trade for spices in the Moluccas and for gold and ivory in East Africa. The cartaz system enabled the Portuguese to exercise some control over trading networks that they could not dominate. In time, they raised further revenues by selling concessions for specific maritime trade routes to Asian shipowners. By the mid-16th century Asian merchants were shipping their goods on Portuguese ships and vice versa. And even the Portuguese ships were crewed by men from Arabia, Malabar, Gujarat, Malaysia and Indonesia, with perhaps one or two Portuguese officers. Pidgin Portuguese became the lingua franca of the Indian Ocean ports.

Regards Ibrahiim.

[fernando]

Hi Ibrahiim
If I have read with full attention your post #13, i should have guessed that, your reply to my two innocuous questions (actually one doubt and one question), could result in a reply far beyond the technicalities of historic weaponry and their periphery.
So it happened that, specially after you edited your post, i am faced with an authentic catharsis over the Portuguese atrocities during the 16th century.
You tell me not to take it personally but, to my eyes, the energy you transmit to this issue is hardly unpersonal.
I fail to see where the largest part of your post contents is intrinsic to the questions i have posed, as also they appear to be far distant from the scope of this venue and too close from its restrictions, namely religion and politics.
Assuming i have opened the door to such situation and before this discussion derails into a (more) unpleasant path, i will punish myself and unwillingly refrain from further commenting on your vast exposition.
Therefore i will render the points and suggest we drop this conversation.
Kind regards

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

Off topic question to Ibrahim (sorry TVV):

Do the Bani Ka'ab Tribesmen of Oman (particularly the Buraimi region) use the Kattara?

I know that the coastal people of Oman use shamshir's and sabers but always wondered what my distant relatives there use :P

Salaams,
I know many Beni Ka'ab here... They are a famous tribe and in particular were very active in retaining this part of the world as Omani in the early 50s. They dominate the mountains from Hatta to Wadi Dhank and their centre is the town of Mahada near us here about 25 kms North East. Yes indeed the Al Kaabi carry the Omani Long Sword "The Kattara."