The Tourist Item/Souvenier in arms antiquities

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Hard to know where to start with this one... Locals don't usually shop in the souks of Oman for a Khanjar. How they buy a weapon is often done direct with the Khanjar maker. They don't often just buy a complete Khanjar but will look to match what they may already have to make an upgrade... so they could buy threequarters of a khanjar and have the workshop complete the upgrade with a part they want to be included...usually an old hilt worked onto a new scabbard. The entire Khanjar is interchangeable.

On The Omani Khanjar I spread the different sources around and enjoy the souk ...its great fun and the atmosphere is superb...Sometimes there is a bargain and a decent Khanjar presents itself. (Locals actually may purchase there for a cheaper weapon as a gift for a foreign visitor) There are some good quality accoutrements in souks thus its well worth having a look..and the Aladdin's cave syndrome is quite fun. Souks are quite likely to have a top class Khanjar shop somewhere in there so the whole story can change! My workshop is hidden away down a back lane miles from anywhere and that is normal here. People join whats up sites where anyone can load a Khanjar for sale...and where it is easy to see what is available ...There are always new threequarter complete Khanjars on those Like the one here....

[ariel]

My 2 cents worth is that there are as many collections as there are collectors.
Some collect beautiful and rich examples. Other are attracted to simple examples with a whiff of blood. Some collect works of modern masters, other demand irrefutable proof of 17 century. Some want strict classic authenticity, other spend months to acquire an unusual example mixing several traditions. I am sure that somewhere in Australia or Kazakhstan there is a sword lover who collects stamps with the images of swords.

The disappointment arrives when we are sold ( often fraudulently) not what we were intended to collect.

Other than that, I gladly join Chairman Mao: Let the thousand flowers bloom!

Collecting weapons is a form of insanity because there is no practical use of these pieces of iron/carbon alloys hanging on our walls. Collecting abject replicas and cheap imitations is as logical ( or illogical) as Fiegel’s quest of getting only wootz blades with “two kirks and a rose”.

Choose what tickles your fancy and go for it! What makes you a true collector is not what objects you acquire, but what do you want to learn from them.

[Jim McDougall]

These are amazing entries! and it is fantastic to see truly well seasoned people in specialized fields offering these kinds of insights into the always present spectrum of 'souvenier' and tourist type ethnographic weapons.

What Ariel has said strikes a resounding chord with me,
"...it is not what objects you acquire, but what you want to learn from them".

Years ago I realized I was far more interested in the learning than to actually buy and own weapons, and that I was really an arms historian rather than collector. What became apparent was that as guys posted thier acquisitions I could research them and learn from them, thereby advancing knowledge on the example and/or form and help the owner better enjoy the item.

The weapons do communicate with us in a sense, and that is the joy of understanding history through the weapons that were there.

This view of course does not work well with modern produced weapons as there is not really history imbued in them. However, as has been noted, everyone collects with different perspective and purpose. For those interested in learning about cultures and traditions, often even weapons crafted for tourists or examples for decoration etc. .....these can serve as interesting examples to illustrate aspects of them.

The case for the khanjhar as illustated by Ibrahiim is a great example of how traditional weapons still very much actively a part of everyday life in Oman are carefully selected and commissioned to be made for each individual. These are of course different than the examples made in a more general sense to be sold to visitors, but would seem to remain of worthy quality as the importance of the weapon form traditionally would be observed.
I am not sure if my assumption here would be correct, but seemed reasonable.

As a 'non-collector' and surely not a world traveler, I do not have special expertise in this topic, but find these views of those of you who are fascinating, so thank you all.

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by ariel

My 2 cents worth is that there are as many collections as there are collectors.
Some collect beautiful and rich examples. Other are attracted to simple examples with a whiff of blood. Some collect works of modern masters, other demand irrefutable proof of 17 century. Some want strict classic authenticity, other spend months to acquire an unusual example mixing several traditions. I am sure that somewhere in Australia or Kazakhstan there is a sword lover who collects stamps with the images of swords.

The disappointment arrives when we are sold ( often fraudulently) not what we were intended to collect.

Other than that, I gladly join Chairman Mao: Let the thousand flowers bloom!

Collecting weapons is a form of insanity because there is no practical use of these pieces of iron/carbon alloys hanging on our walls. Collecting abject replicas and cheap imitations is as logical ( or illogical) as Fiegel’s quest of getting only wootz blades with “two kirks and a rose”.

Choose what tickles your fancy and go for it! What makes you a true collector is not what objects you acquire, but what do you want to learn from them.

well said Ariel !

[Robert]

As posted by Bob A
Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army.

Looking closely at the bullet hole in the blade and scabbard and the way the damage is done I do not believe that this was caused by any pistol round of that era. Even if it was done at point blank range the rounds used for handguns at that time did not have the velocity needed to punch a hole through both scabbard and blade so precisely. It is too clean, round and shows very little spread from impact. It is MHO that this damage was most likely caused by a 30 cal. FMJ with a steel core round fired from a rifle.

Best,
Robert

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Robert

Looking closely at the bullet hole in the blade and scabbard and the way the damage is done I do not believe that this was caused by any pistol round of that era. Even if it was done at point blank range the rounds used for handguns at that time did not have the velocity needed to punch a hole through both scabbard and blade so precisely. It is too clean, round and shows very little spread from impact. It is MHO that this damage was most likely caused by a 30 cal. FMJ with a steel core round fired from a rifle.

Best,
Robert

Now thats some impressive forensics Robert!!! What you say seems very true, though I am far from being any expert on this kind of stuff. What I do know is that one of the biggest dilemmas in many campaigns and battles well into 19th century with guns was powder and the lack of quality that was usually an issue.

Even in the Sudan, natives firing muskets had such lousy powder (not to mention poor training) that many British troopers were hit numerous times and not seriously injured.


It does not seem far fetched that 'battle damage' might be so inflicted by creative sellers.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Now thats some impressive forensics Robert!!! What you say seems very true, though I am far from being any expert on this kind of stuff. What I do know is that one of the biggest dilemmas in many campaigns and battles well into 19th century with guns was powder and the lack of quality that was usually an issue.

Even in the Sudan, natives firing muskets had such lousy powder (not to mention poor training) that many British troopers were hit numerous times and not seriously injured.


It does not seem far fetched that 'battle damage' might be so inflicted by creative sellers.

Well, it's a real bullet hole. It seems premature to charge it to a creative faker. There's little question that the actual hole is far from recent.

The hole in the blade is the size of a .32 caliber bullet. The thickness of the metal in that part of the blade is about 0.065" to 0.075". (~1.6-1.8mm)

Reasonably modern smokeless powder was in use at the time, not black powder, nor were muskets in use, at least on the US side of the issue.

The .38 caliber revolver was the smallest handgun in use by the US Army at the ime; the Krag-Jorgenson rifle used a .30 caliber round, so if the barong was from the period, that might well have created the hole. (Good call, Rick!)

I have no information at this time regarding firearms available on the Filipino side of the fray. Friendly fire is always a possibility. It might be well to consider what the Spanish troop were using, as well. The Mauser C96 pistol was in use from its initial release in 1896, and was in use by the First Philippine Republic's forces. The 7.63x25 round used in these pistols was certainly potent enough to inflict the level of damage seen in the barong.

[Robert]

The Mauser C96 pistol was in use from its initial release in 1896, and was in use by the First Philippine Republic's forces. The 7.63x25 round used in these pistols was certainly potent enough to inflict the level of damage seen in the barong.

The model 1893 7X55 Mauser rifle used by the Spanish forces would also produce a hole as the one seen in this barong. It is late here (for me anyway) and I had forgotten about the broom handle Mauser pistols used by the Spanish. The main thing I was trying to explain is that it would take a higher velocity jacketed round to produce this type of damage. A slower round such as the 38 used by U.S. forces would have expanded much more upon impact, blown the wood of the scabbard apart and most likely either broken a large chunk out of the edge of the blade or put a good bend in it as it slid down the side.

Best,
Robert

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Robert

Looking closely at the bullet hole in the blade and scabbard and the way the damage is done I do not believe that this was caused by any pistol round of that era. Even if it was done at point blank range the rounds used for handguns at that time did not have the velocity needed to punch a hole through both scabbard and blade so precisely. It is too clean, round and shows very little spread from impact. It is MHO that this damage was most likely caused by a 30 cal. FMJ with a steel core round fired from a rifle.

Best,
Robert

Krag - Jorgenson?
A jacketed round.