Yemeni Sayfs? Omani Kattaras?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Salaams Ibrahiim,
The blade does NOT resemble that shown above. The single SHALLOW fuller more resembles that in Swedegreen's pic at #1 (top sword). The one in the above pic appears deep and narrow rather than broad and shallow.
Stu

Salaams, It would be an advantage to show the blade would it not? I mean deep and shallow, broad and narrow are hardly indicative when a picture would be highly beneficial.. Do you think it looks like this one (The long hilted Yemeni Sword ) ?
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams, It would be an advantage to show the blade would it not? I mean deep and shallow, broad and narrow are hardly indicative when a picture would be highly beneficial.. Do you think it looks like this one (The long hilted Yemeni Sword ) ?
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Here is a pic of the fuller. The blade is 41mm (1 5/8") wide at the hilt and 5mm (3/16") thick. Flexibility is as one would expect for a combat sword.
Regards Stu

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams. Well we are nearly there... can you show the entire blade so that normal Forum inspection may be made and so the length of the fuller and blade tip etc. can be viewed ?

I'm not sure what you are implying with your flexibility statement ...For example; Are you saying that because it's flexible it makes it a combat sword? or its lack of flexibility? How much flex does it have about 2inch or a more full 90 degrees? These are normally quite stiff blades with a few inches of flex not more.

Personally I think that this is a separate Yemeni breed and that it was a combat sword, however, I think we first have to decide what level of flexibility these swords have and in denoting what the essential blade parameters are before embarking on that equation. What you may have is a Red Sea blade stuck on a Yemeni Hilt.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams. Well we are nearly there... can you show the entire blade so that normal Forum inspection may be made and so the length of the fuller and blade tip etc. can be viewed ?

I'm not sure what you are implying with your flexibility statement ...For example; Are you saying that because it's flexible it makes it a combat sword? or its lack of flexibility? How much flex does it have about 2inch or a more full 90 degrees? These are normally quite stiff blades with a few inches of flex not more.

Personally I think that this is a separate Yemeni breed and that it was a combat sword, however, I think we first have to decide what level of flexibility these swords have and in denoting what the essential blade parameters are before embarking on that equation. What you may have is a Red Sea blade stuck on a Yemeni Hilt.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

The blade is, as I said, what one would expect from a "combat" blade---about 2"....certainly not something that would wave around in combat. Your comment about 90 degrees suggests to me something so flimsy that it would be next to useless for fighting.
Attached is a full length pic of the blade. The fuller tapers out to almost nothing about 2" back from the tip. As you can see, the tip of the double edged blade has probably been reshaped at some stage in its life, perhaps due to chipping. I am not sure if I should have this reshaped, or leave it as it is.
As an aside to the blade, I attach a further pic of the hilt. On investigation, I found that the silver collar had slipped up and was covering further hilt decoration. The blade now fits the scabbard correctly.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The blade is, as I said, what one would expect from a "combat" blade---about 2"....certainly not something that would wave around in combat. Your comment about 90 degrees suggests to me something so flimsy that it would be next to useless for fighting.
Attached is a full length pic of the blade. The fuller tapers out to almost nothing about 2" back from the tip. As you can see, the tip of the double edged blade has probably been reshaped at some stage in its life, perhaps due to chipping. I am not sure if I should have this reshaped, or leave it as it is.
As an aside to the blade, I attach a further pic of the hilt. On investigation, I found that the silver collar had slipped up and was covering further hilt decoration. The blade now fits the scabbard correctly.

Salaams kahnjar1 Yes you say that and whereas I agree completely that the stiff blade format we see here is a fighting blade in the same way that I agree the Omani Battle Sword is also...and conversely the Omani Sayf Dancing blade is not... I have to say that others will come in and say blade flexibility owes nothing to fighting prowess as a sword necessarily...

My example would be the owner of the Shotley Bridge factory who attended an exhibition with a blade furled up inside his top hat and astonished onlookers when he unleashed it before their very eyes! Having handled a lot of these swords I have to say that they are all in the region of stiff 2 inch or so flexibility and in the fighting sword frame...though I havent seen a shield ? presumably a buckler since these are spatulate tipped chopping action blades. I have to err caution however, since this is well outside my area of operations and nothing would surprise me ... Who knows? they could be another pageantry blade !

That said, the picture is pretty clear; This appears to be linked in style to the original broadswords in Military Museums in both Istanbul and Yemen. It is thus likely to be rooted in history to Ottoman, therefor Mamluke and Abbassiid weaponry. When this was manufactured is still open to conjecture but I suggest an 18/19th C ticket.

There is, I suggest, the likelihood of an indirect link with the style of hilt to the Omani Dancing Sayf and Omani Curved Kattara within the timeframe perhaps related to the advent of the Al Busaiidi Dynasty commencing in 1744. (or thereabouts) and caused by intensive trade between the two regions.

Note on silver collar: Not seen one of these on this style before... Do you think it belongs to the sword or the scabbard? I think the scabbard.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The blade is, as I said, what one would expect from a "combat" blade---about 2"....certainly not something that would wave around in combat. Your comment about 90 degrees suggests to me something so flimsy that it would be next to useless for fighting.
Attached is a full length pic of the blade. The fuller tapers out to almost nothing about 2" back from the tip. As you can see, the tip of the double edged blade has probably been reshaped at some stage in its life, perhaps due to chipping. I am not sure if I should have this reshaped, or leave it as it is.
As an aside to the blade, I attach a further pic of the hilt. On investigation, I found that the silver collar had slipped up and was covering further hilt decoration. The blade now fits the scabbard correctly.

Nice piece Stu! I really like how it looks. Just leave the tip as is - adds character. It is a great blade and the scabbard is really nice with the color that it adds to the piece.

Since I've never handled one of these, I'm rather curious how one would actually use it. You described the handle as being very slippery and impossible to grip without some covering. Even if it was covered, I would imagine the balance is pretty awkward due to the lack of a pommel? I don't mean any of this in a negative way I'm genuinely curious!

[kahnjar1]

Salaams Ibrahiim......Re the silver collar. Not likely to have been part of the scabbard as it is far too small to fit. It does however fit snugly onto the hilt.

Iain..... Your comment re the blade is noted and I intend to leave it as is.
The hilt is still an open book, but I believe that there was originally a leather?? covering of some sort. Even then the hilt would be quite thin to grip, BUT....we are perhaps missing something here.
I use as an example, 19th Century British Military Uniforms, which, for the 20th/21st c man are far too small to wear, or even in some cases to put on. Obviously the "modern" man is of bigger stature, so it would be reasonable to assume, also has much larger hands than the 19th c "version". That being the case, maybe the hilt is NOT too small after all. I do not have evidence of Arabian stature in the 19th c, but I do know that modern Asian races are considerably smaller than the average European, and have MUCH smaller hands.
Perhaps this is the answer??
Stu

[Iain]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Salaams Ibrahiim......Re the silver collar. Not likely to have been part of the scabbard as it is far too small to fit. It does however fit snugly onto the hilt.

Iain..... Your comment re the blade is noted and I intend to leave it as is.
The hilt is still an open book, but I believe that there was originally a leather?? covering of some sort. Even then the hilt would be quite thin to grip, BUT....we are perhaps missing something here.
I use as an example, 19th Century British Military Uniforms, which, for the 20th/21st c man are far too small to wear, or even in some cases to put on. Obviously the "modern" man is of bigger stature, so it would be reasonable to assume, also has much larger hands than the 19th c "version". That being the case, maybe the hilt is NOT too small after all. I do not have evidence of Arabian stature in the 19th c, but I do know that modern Asian races are considerably smaller than the average European, and have MUCH smaller hands.
Perhaps this is the answer??
Stu

Hi Stu,

Makes sense. I was wondering not just about the size but the balance. Perhaps its just a trick of the photos but the balance looks like it would be very forward of the guard? Of course I always figure that ethnographic weapons that feel awkward usually just means we don't know how to hold them right!
No doubt the users of the period had no issues!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Salaams Ibrahiim......Re the silver collar. Not likely to have been part of the scabbard as it is far too small to fit. It does however fit snugly onto the hilt.

Iain..... Your comment re the blade is noted and I intend to leave it as is.
The hilt is still an open book, but I believe that there was originally a leather?? covering of some sort. Even then the hilt would be quite thin to grip, BUT....we are perhaps missing something here.
I use as an example, 19th Century British Military Uniforms, which, for the 20th/21st c man are far too small to wear, or even in some cases to put on. Obviously the "modern" man is of bigger stature, so it would be reasonable to assume, also has much larger hands than the 19th c "version". That being the case, maybe the hilt is NOT too small after all. I do not have evidence of Arabian stature in the 19th c, but I do know that modern Asian races are considerably smaller than the average European, and have MUCH smaller hands.
Perhaps this is the answer??
Stu

Salaams Khanjar 1. I think the Omanis and Yemenis were very small except in the case of the big fishermen and those of African stock. There is even a region in Oman which was famous for giants. (Bahla)

In terms of a leather wrap I suggest that it could be done in such a way that it forms a conical grip..which may indicate the potential link as the origin of both the Omani long hilts.

There is no way that I can see the hilt remaining metal because Iron attracts evil... and the grip would be useless. Wrapped in leather; not a problem as the grip would be solid, firm, strengthen the hilt and cover the iron.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.