Oman, Morocco or Zanzibar?

[Gavin Nugent]

I would like to offer these images of the same type of sabre.

Where once these swords were very rarely seen, the last 12 months alone has seen 4 that I know of on the market.

The suspension fitting on this example is similar to another seen and may also offer some insight to the origins.
All 4 examples I viewed had the single upper suspension mount only, 2 like this, 2 like Kurts.

I feel they could be from the Oman Persian Gulf regions.

Gav

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Stu and Kurt!

Gav, outstanding example that really does give us better perspective! Obviously this example has been static for some time without any attention and seems later, perhaps late 18th, into 19th by the condition of materials perhaps even later. The faceted shape of the mounts seem to me to resemble Ottoman type shamshir mounts some of which were hallmarked silver c.1870s and believed from Egypt.

I found this exact hilt ,discs and all but unable to see blade in Buttin (1933,#1004) shown as Arab, 17th century. After lookingh into hilts of a number of examples this form seems to have eminated from Ottoman forms, the earliest example found so far end of 16th century (Murad III, 1574-95) in an article by David Alexander. In the Anthony North article "A Late 15th Century Italian Sword (1975) it appears this particular hilt style including quillon system was around even late 15th century on a number of thier swords. It had apparantly become favored by Ottomans and would appear to have well permeated Ottoman, thus Arab, trade routes and regions inland.

With this it seems a traditional hilt form of Arab/Ottoman style which diffused widely through trade and remained traditionally quite late

All best regards,
JIm

[LPCA]

Hi guys,

The word nimcha or nimsha suits perfectly in its size (from Arabic nim = half, thus a short sabre as a cutlas).

But it is not a Moroccan nimcha.

It is a sabre of used offshore on the Arabic dhows. Made in Zanzibar, dependence of Oman, for the Arabian Peninsula.

Usually, the saïfs of Zanzibar has a rounded off guarding protecting knocks sliding on the flat of the blade, but it is not a law.

Louis-Pierre

[A.alnakkas]

Hi all,

I would like to point out that I have never heard the word "nim" in arabic nor is it used to describe "half"

The arabic word for "half" is nisf and accentrd, it would be nus. Unless nim is used in south arabia but i highly doubt it, the origin of the word scream non-arabic. Am thinking possibly barbary which was picked up by foreigners and then the name became the standard for this genre of swords.

I also never heard the term "nimcha" or "nimsha" before meeting foreign collectors. Arabs always address swords as saif which is arabic for sword :-)


Regards,

Abdullatif

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by LPCA

Hi guys,

The word nimcha or nimsha suits perfectly in its size (from Arabic nim = half, thus a short sabre as a cutlas).

But it is not a Moroccan nimcha.

It is a sabre of used offshore on the Arabic dhows. Made in Zanzibar, dependence of Oman, for the Arabian Peninsula.

Usually, the saïfs of Zanzibar has a rounded off guarding protecting knocks sliding on the flat of the blade, but it is not a law.

Louis-Pierre

Good morning Louis Pierre ,
It is a sabre of used offshore on the Arabic dhows. Made in Zanzibar, dependence of Oman, for the Arabian Peninsula.
I think this statement is correct.
Best
Kurt

[spiral]

What great proportions & craft work!

Spiral

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Louis-Pierre,
Its great to have you posting on this! and your work on these sa'if has been one of my best resources for research. It has been a long time ago, but represents some of the best research compiled on these swords to date outside the standard references, i.e. Elgood and Buttin.

I agree that this example with stout, short blade of hanger/cutlass type blade would suggest maritime use as you have well pointed out. The hilt form is really interesting and seems to derive, or at least compare to quillon arrangements and in degree, hilt styles of North Italy as early as the end of the 16th century. The earliest example of this style hilt seems to be found in a sword of stated North African style from the period of Murid III (1574-95), well placing it in the Ottoman sphere ("The Silver Dragon and the Golden Fish", David Alexander, p.235, fig. 7).

As appears in Buttin ("Catalogue de la Collection d'Armes: Europiennes et Orientales of Charles Buttin", 1933, #1004) the exact hilt style and motif is seen as well as apparantly in ivory, shown as 'Arab, 17th century". The interesting highly stylized and blockish quillon terminals are also present.

It appears that this hilt style must have become highly favored and like many ethnographic hilt forms, perpetuated over long periods. Even in cases where other hilt forms intercede, often revivalist inclinations result in returning to the much revered old styles. This makes it difficult of course in establishing reliable chronological development patterns in many of these sword forms.

The term nim'sha, as has often been pointed out, by its alluded etymology to an Arabic term referring to 'short sword', has often, actually most typically, been misapplied to most of these sa'if from the Maghrebi versions to many of these hilt forms which have full size blades, yet still called 'nimsha'. It seems that the term itself, like many of the terms referring to many sword forms (katar, kaskara, kilij, tulwar, paluouar et al) falls into the colloquial 'collectors' glossary, in which they have apparantly been derived from unclear misinterpretations or broad assumptions. Some of these seem purely contrived, such as with the fanciful term 'scimitar' which appears more the product of literary convention than any reliable etymology.

Returning to this sword, the reference to it being of Zanzibar production brings it in parallel to the familiar sa'ifs of similar hilt form, but with the extended 'D' type ring projecting from the crossguard, presents an interesting conundrum. I have yet been unable to find any reference that unequivocally designates these sa'if with open ringed crossguard extensions or traverse bar to Zanzibar. I have only heard this conjecturally aside from in "Islamic Weapons:Maghreb to Moghul" (A. Tirri, 2003) in which Tirri claims on p.79, "...in Zanzibar, documentary evidence identifies an extensive edged weapon manufacturing center during the 19th and early 20th centuries".
In the Buttin catalog (op. cit. examples 996-1004) of the entire array of these ringed guard sa'ifs are designated as "Arab' and to the 17th and 18th centuries. It is clearly noted that thier characteristic rings also derived from North Italian hilt systems.

Unfortunately Mr. Tirri does not cite the source for the 'documentary evidence' which would have been most helpful. Another dilemma involving 'Zanzibar' weapons are the 'H' shaped (baselard form) short swords termed 'Zanzibar swords' , which designation derives from Sir Richard Burton's 1885 "Book of the Sword". In this case Burton (p.166, fig.183) actually perpetuated an original error in Auguste Demmens 1877 reference where he misidentifies the weapon as a Zanzibar weapon (p.416, #100). Charles Buttin (op.cit, p.270) cites this error in detail, and clarifies that the weapon is in reality the Moroccan form known as s'boula and these seem to have traversed the trade routes via Sekkin and into Zanzibar.

The diffusion of these weapon forms through these trade routes, both maritime as well as trans-Saharan caravans in indisputable. The broad identification as 'Arab' is probably most applicable in most cases where sound provenance is not attainable in my opinion.

I would very much like to know if anyone knows of any documented evidence assigning the ring hilted sa'if form to Zanzibar in specific, and to thier production there. In the case of Muscat (this coastal region of Oman was the actual trade operation), thier connection to thier Sultanate in Zanzibar offers more tangible assessment of 'Zanzibar' to this cutlass as it is hard to say which location actually produced the weapons...both were ports of call receiving large quantities of trade blades.

As earlier mentioned, there are potential cases for Hyderabad in India, via the Malabar trade route also plied by these dhows. These type hilts are known in India as well, in what degree unclear, but it is known that here swords were produced for Hadhramaut in the Yemen. The so called Zanzibar sa'if, while unclear if actually produced in Zanzibar were indeed destined for Yemen, so it would appear these hilts may have been produced at several locations, while it remains certain that they were present throughout the Arab trade sphere.


All best regards,
Jim

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Louis-Pierre,
Its great to have you posting on this! and your work on these sa'if has been one of my best resources for research. It has been a long time ago, but represents some of the best research compiled on these swords to date outside the standard references, i.e. Elgood and Buttin.

I agree that this example with stout, short blade of hanger/cutlass type blade would suggest maritime use as you have well pointed out. The hilt form is really interesting and seems to derive, or at least compare to quillon arrangements and in degree, hilt styles of North Italy as early as the end of the 16th century. The earliest example of this style hilt seems to be found in a sword of stated North African style from the period of Murid III (1574-95), well placing it in the Ottoman sphere ("The Silver Dragon and the Golden Fish", David Alexander, p.235, fig. 7).

As appears in Buttin ("Catalogue de la Collection d'Armes: Europiennes et Orientales of Charles Buttin", 1933, #1004) the exact hilt style and motif is seen as well as apparantly in ivory, shown as 'Arab, 17th century". The interesting highly stylized and blockish quillon terminals are also present.

It appears that this hilt style must have become highly favored and like many ethnographic hilt forms, perpetuated over long periods. Even in cases where other hilt forms intercede, often revivalist inclinations result in returning to the much revered old styles. This makes it difficult of course in establishing reliable chronological development patterns in many of these sword forms.

The term nim'sha, as has often been pointed out, by its alluded etymology to an Arabic term referring to 'short sword', has often, actually most typically, been misapplied to most of these sa'if from the Maghrebi versions to many of these hilt forms which have full size blades, yet still called 'nimsha'. It seems that the term itself, like many of the terms referring to many sword forms (katar, kaskara, kilij, tulwar, paluouar et al) falls into the colloquial 'collectors' glossary, in which they have apparantly been derived from unclear misinterpretations or broad assumptions. Some of these seem purely contrived, such as with the fanciful term 'scimitar' which appears more the product of literary convention than any reliable etymology.

Returning to this sword, the reference to it being of Zanzibar production brings it in parallel to the familiar sa'ifs of similar hilt form, but with the extended 'D' type ring projecting from the crossguard, presents an interesting conundrum. I have yet been unable to find any reference that unequivocally designates these sa'if with open ringed crossguard extensions or traverse bar to Zanzibar. I have only heard this conjecturally aside from in "Islamic Weapons:Maghreb to Moghul" (A. Tirri, 2003) in which Tirri claims on p.79, "...in Zanzibar, documentary evidence identifies an extensive edged weapon manufacturing center during the 19th and early 20th centuries".
In the Buttin catalog (op. cit. examples 996-1004) of the entire array of these ringed guard sa'ifs are designated as "Arab' and to the 17th and 18th centuries. It is clearly noted that thier characteristic rings also derived from North Italian hilt systems.

Unfortunately Mr. Tirri does not cite the source for the 'documentary evidence' which would have been most helpful. Another dilemma involving 'Zanzibar' weapons are the 'H' shaped (baselard form) short swords termed 'Zanzibar swords' , which designation derives from Sir Richard Burton's 1885 "Book of the Sword". In this case Burton (p.166, fig.183) actually perpetuated an original error in Auguste Demmens 1877 reference where he misidentifies the weapon as a Zanzibar weapon (p.416, #100). Charles Buttin (op.cit, p.270) cites this error in detail, and clarifies that the weapon is in reality the Moroccan form known as s'boula and these seem to have traversed the trade routes via Sekkin and into Zanzibar.

The diffusion of these weapon forms through these trade routes, both maritime as well as trans-Saharan caravans in indisputable. The broad identification as 'Arab' is probably most applicable in most cases where sound provenance is not attainable in my opinion.

I would very much like to know if anyone knows of any documented evidence assigning the ring hilted sa'if form to Zanzibar in specific, and to thier production there. In the case of Muscat (this coastal region of Oman was the actual trade operation), thier connection to thier Sultanate in Zanzibar offers more tangible assessment of 'Zanzibar' to this cutlass as it is hard to say which location actually produced the weapons...both were ports of call receiving large quantities of trade blades.

As earlier mentioned, there are potential cases for Hyderabad in India, via the Malabar trade route also plied by these dhows. These type hilts are known in India as well, in what degree unclear, but it is known that here swords were produced for Hadhramaut in the Yemen. The so called Zanzibar sa'if, while unclear if actually produced in Zanzibar were indeed destined for Yemen, so it would appear these hilts may have been produced at several locations, while it remains certain that they were present throughout the Arab trade sphere.


All best regards,
Jim

Dear Jim ,
for your excellent explanations to illustrate
here is a copy of Buttin.
Thanks
Kurt

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Louis-Pierre,

Another dilemma involving 'Zanzibar' weapons are the 'H' shaped (baselard form) short swords termed 'Zanzibar swords' , which designation derives from Sir Richard Burton's 1885 "Book of the Sword". In this case Burton (p.166, fig.183) actually perpetuated an original error in Auguste Demmens 1877 reference where he misidentifies the weapon as a Zanzibar weapon (p.416, #100). Charles Buttin (op.cit, p.270) cites this error in detail, and clarifies that the weapon is in reality the Moroccan form known as s'boula and these seem to have traversed the trade routes via Sekkin and into Zanzibar.

All best regards,
Jim

This does not seem correct to me.
Certainly the blade on these is the same as we've seen on some Mooroccan genui (basically a seeminly European style multigrooved single edged dagger blade), however, the I/H shaped handles much more closely resemble those of jambiya (per se). This seems to argue for middle eastern, rather than north African.

Also, I think it is important that in one sense or another, and certainly to Europeans, all of these "nimcha" users were/are Arabs; These are swords of a mercantile and military elite, which has often been Arab even in non-Arab afrasian countries, and for instance, Zanzibar, Oman, and Yemen are all historically Arab places. It is important to remember that while we modernly mistake Saudi Arabia for Arabia, Saudi Arabia is a 20th century invention, and not a nation-state, but a petty kingdom (these are technical terms; a nation-state is a polity composed of a [n entire] nation, while a petty state is one composed of only a part of one. The other major division in this regard being multi-national states, or empires.)

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Louis-Pierre,
Its great to have you posting on this! and your work on these sa'if has been one of my best resources for research. It has been a long time ago, but represents some of the best research compiled on these swords to date outside the standard references, i.e. Elgood and Buttin.

I agree that this example with stout, short blade of hanger/cutlass type blade would suggest maritime use as you have well pointed out. The hilt form is really interesting and seems to derive, or at least compare to quillon arrangements and in degree, hilt styles of North Italy as early as the end of the 16th century. The earliest example of this style hilt seems to be found in a sword of stated North African style from the period of Murid III (1574-95), well placing it in the Ottoman sphere ("The Silver Dragon and the Golden Fish", David Alexander, p.235, fig. 7).

As appears in Buttin ("Catalogue de la Collection d'Armes: Europiennes et Orientales of Charles Buttin", 1933, #1004) the exact hilt style and motif is seen as well as apparantly in ivory, shown as 'Arab, 17th century". The interesting highly stylized and blockish quillon terminals are also present.

It appears that this hilt style must have become highly favored and like many ethnographic hilt forms, perpetuated over long periods. Even in cases where other hilt forms intercede, often revivalist inclinations result in returning to the much revered old styles. This makes it difficult of course in establishing reliable chronological development patterns in many of these sword forms.

The term nim'sha, as has often been pointed out, by its alluded etymology to an Arabic term referring to 'short sword', has often, actually most typically, been misapplied to most of these sa'if from the Maghrebi versions to many of these hilt forms which have full size blades, yet still called 'nimsha'. It seems that the term itself, like many of the terms referring to many sword forms (katar, kaskara, kilij, tulwar, paluouar et al) falls into the colloquial 'collectors' glossary, in which they have apparantly been derived from unclear misinterpretations or broad assumptions. Some of these seem purely contrived, such as with the fanciful term 'scimitar' which appears more the product of literary convention than any reliable etymology.

Returning to this sword, the reference to it being of Zanzibar production brings it in parallel to the familiar sa'ifs of similar hilt form, but with the extended 'D' type ring projecting from the crossguard, presents an interesting conundrum. I have yet been unable to find any reference that unequivocally designates these sa'if with open ringed crossguard extensions or traverse bar to Zanzibar. I have only heard this conjecturally aside from in "Islamic Weapons:Maghreb to Moghul" (A. Tirri, 2003) in which Tirri claims on p.79, "...in Zanzibar, documentary evidence identifies an extensive edged weapon manufacturing center during the 19th and early 20th centuries".
In the Buttin catalog (op. cit. examples 996-1004) of the entire array of these ringed guard sa'ifs are designated as "Arab' and to the 17th and 18th centuries. It is clearly noted that thier characteristic rings also derived from North Italian hilt systems.

Unfortunately Mr. Tirri does not cite the source for the 'documentary evidence' which would have been most helpful. Another dilemma involving 'Zanzibar' weapons are the 'H' shaped (baselard form) short swords termed 'Zanzibar swords' , which designation derives from Sir Richard Burton's 1885 "Book of the Sword". In this case Burton (p.166, fig.183) actually perpetuated an original error in Auguste Demmens 1877 reference where he misidentifies the weapon as a Zanzibar weapon (p.416, #100). Charles Buttin (op.cit, p.270) cites this error in detail, and clarifies that the weapon is in reality the Moroccan form known as s'boula and these seem to have traversed the trade routes via Sekkin and into Zanzibar.

The diffusion of these weapon forms through these trade routes, both maritime as well as trans-Saharan caravans in indisputable. The broad identification as 'Arab' is probably most applicable in most cases where sound provenance is not attainable in my opinion.

I would very much like to know if anyone knows of any documented evidence assigning the ring hilted sa'if form to Zanzibar in specific, and to thier production there. In the case of Muscat (this coastal region of Oman was the actual trade operation), thier connection to thier Sultanate in Zanzibar offers more tangible assessment of 'Zanzibar' to this cutlass as it is hard to say which location actually produced the weapons...both were ports of call receiving large quantities of trade blades.

As earlier mentioned, there are potential cases for Hyderabad in India, via the Malabar trade route also plied by these dhows. These type hilts are known in India as well, in what degree unclear, but it is known that here swords were produced for Hadhramaut in the Yemen. The so called Zanzibar sa'if, while unclear if actually produced in Zanzibar were indeed destined for Yemen, so it would appear these hilts may have been produced at several locations, while it remains certain that they were present throughout the Arab trade sphere.


All best regards,
Jim

Salaams Jim,
Writing to you from a hurricane battered Buraimi which has just torn its way through the Oasis... quite an event ! Our store sign board is 500 metres down the road !
I read with interest your letter and thought the question of Burton and his innaccuracies could be the result of his failure to be exact in a number of issues and as you know his tendency to write with himself at the centre and the debacle of his once friend and travelling colleague which ended in suicide etc etc... Burton is not my choice of historic personalities but with this in mind perhaps I have an alternative source of more believable information. (Burton was in my opinion also remiss about aspects of swords and weapons in Zanzibar) .

W H Ingrams wrote an excellent book about Zanzibar (Zanzibar: Its History and Its People by W. H. Ingrams ) where he was a political secretary etc in the early 1900s and it was one of his written sketches that pointed me in the direction of the Omani Funun as a possible and eventually successful lead on the Omani Kattara saga.

I just finished reading a Hammond Innes 60s copy of travels in the Yemen (Hadramaut) and Ingrams gets a mention there as well therefor I had to research this quite amazing gentlemans history which looks like this..and source ed in the Oxford University collection St Antonys College where apparently they hold 14 boxes of his official papers;

Reference code: GB165-0156
Title: William Harold Ingrams Collection
Name of creator: Ingrams, William Harold (1897-1973) Colonial Administrator, Author
Dates of creation of material: 1841-1872; 1915; 1930-1966
Level of description: Fonds
Extent: 14 boxes

Biographical history: INGRAMS, William Harold (1897-1973)
Born 3 February 1897, son of Revd. W.S. Ingrams. Educated at Shrewsbury School. Served European War, KSLI, 1914-1918. Asst District commissioner, Zanzibar in 1919; 2nd Asst Sec., 1925; Asst. Col. Sec., Mauritius, 1927; Acting Colonial Sec., Jan.-May & Aug. 1932-April 1933; Political Officer, Aden, 1934; British Resident Adviser at Mukalla, S. Arabia, 1937-1940; Acting Governor of Aden, 1940; Chief Sec. to Govt., Aden, 1940-1942; Resident Adviser Hadhramaut States and British Agent E. Aden Protectorate, 1942-1945; Asst. Sec. Allied Control Commission for Germany (British Element) 1945-1947; Chief Commander of Northern Territories, Gold Coast during 1947-1948; Mission to Gibraltar, 1949; to Hong Kong, 1950, to Uganda, 1956; Adviser on Overseas Information, CO, 1950-1954. Editor of “Commonwealth Challenge” and “If you ask me”, 1952-1966; Joint Research Dept, Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, 1966; retired in 1968. Married, 1930, Doreen Short (1906-1997): 2 daughters. Died 9 December 1973.

This is a phenomenal British Character and I promote his work and his Zanzibar book as a reference for this fine forum. W. H. INGRAMS.

Regards,

Ibrahiim al Balooshi.