Very Nice Nimcha

[CharlesS]

Is it possible that they are arsenal marks rather than maker's marks??? In other words, where they came from or belong vs. who made them. I realize, of course, that often the maker and the arsenal would be the same.

...just an idea.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Is it possible that they are arsenal marks rather than maker's marks??? In other words, where they came from or belong vs. who made them. I realize, of course, that of often the maker and the arsenal would be the same.

...just an idea.

I think we crossed posts Charles. As I indicated in my post just prior to yours, I believe these are likely 'arsenal' or more likely stamps having to do with administrative purpose such as already 'taxed' (?) or accounted for. The Ottomans were keen on these kinds of matters if I understand correctly.

These have nothing to do with makers marks or origins of the blades in my opinion. Makers stamps were at the forte (root) of the blade not in this location as seen on these Algerian received trade blades.

[fernando]

Dear Jim, may i extract a piece of your post to realize you are correcting my (more than) humble approach in that, arsenal marks are not makers marks; sure thing, as so i cared to mention both possibilities in my previous post. In any case, and playing positive, despite an arsenal stamp (stricto sensu) might not define the original blade provenance, it sure tracks the path it traversed to meet final assembly, a bit of info that helps building the sword history. On the other hand, i am perplex at the distinction you seem to make at the discussed stamps being, or not, located in the forte. I fear i don't follow you; both Charles's and Midelburgo's examples have them located in the blade forte; or do you define forte (first strong third) as a different location in the blade ?
All yours .


.

[Kubur]

Burgo post is very interesting, thank you

Yes you have maker marks, export / import marks and arsenals marks.
This one seems very deep for an arsenal mark, look at Irene arsenal marks they are just engravings... )II(

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Dear Jim, may i extract a piece of your post to realize you are correcting my (more than) humble approach in that, arsenal marks are not makers marks; sure thing, as so i cared to mention both possibilities in my previous post. In any case, and playing positive, despite an arsenal stamp (stricto sensu) might not define the original blade provenance, it sure tracks the path it traversed to meet final assembly, a bit of info that helps construct the sword history. On the other hand, i am perplex at the distinction you seem to make at the discussed stamps being, or not, located in the forte. I fear i don't follow you; both Charles's and Midelburgo's examples have them located in the blade forte; or do you define forte (first strong third) as a different location in the blade ?
All yours .


.

Fernando, I did not mean my comments, which I admit got a bit complicated, as any kind of correction but just as an observation on my own account.
Arsenal marks are not as you say, usually an origin for a blade, but where it 'arrived' at some point and was either held for and used in furbishing swords.
Very good point in these marks establishing a factor in the blade/sword history.
I think the forte thing is more a matter of my own perception, I always think of the forte as with makers marks, to be located near the center of the blade near the guard, sometimes even under the langet etc.
The block forte is often seen on European blades, and such marks are on this section of the blade.

These circular cartouches are situated unusually near the cutting edge of the blade but indeed in the upper section of the blade near the guard, which may broadly be regarded as part of the forte. Perhaps you are right, defining the forte might be regarded as the upper third of the blade...just always thought of it as the root near the guard.

[ArmsAndAntiques]

I had never seen the Italian connection with the early Nimcha hilts being attributed to an older Italian form, however the example Midelburgo posts shows what is clearly a derivative form of the crabclaw style Italian hilt in it's crossguard. The hilt itself is a variant on the 17th C. or earlier form with the sharp pommel and the flattened sides.

However the crossguard is the first time I've seen this form, and to me proves, or goes some way in doing so, that the cross-pollination between the European forms also extended to other types of hilt shapes and forms,especially at what would have been an early date. However, that isn't surprising considering the many European captured slaves that were forced into service among the Corsairs and Ottoman empire, I can imagine some of them that were forced into combat, or went willingly, would have their favorite forms interpreted through local types.

Excellent find and an important addition to the nimcha formology pantheon.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ArmsAndAntiques

I had never seen the Italian connection with the early Nimcha hilts being attributed to an older Italian form, however the example Midelburgo posts shows what is clearly a derivative form of the crabclaw style Italian hilt in it's crossguard. The hilt itself is a variant on the 17th C. or earlier form with the sharp pommel and the flattened sides.

However the crossguard is the first time I've seen this form, and to me proves, or goes some way in doing so, that the cross-pollination between the European forms also extended to other types of hilt shapes and forms,especially at what would have been an early date. However, that isn't surprising considering the many European captured slaves that were forced into service among the Corsairs and Ottoman empire, I can imagine some of them that were forced into combat, or went willingly, would have their favorite forms interpreted through local types.

Excellent find and an important addition to the nimcha formology pantheon.

Well noted, and goes again to the landmark article "A Late 15th Century Italian Sword" (1975) by the late Tony North. ….which clearly shows the type of hilts which indeed seems to have set the pace for these Arab hilts.
As also well noted, not only the Algerian corsairs et al, and essentially the Ottomans carried on a monumental commerce in slaving, and yes many did willingly go into their service. There were many cases, and notably some Dutch, along with others who even nominally converted to Islam and became corsairs themselves.
The complexity and scope of all these factors make it hard to determine just when and how these forms cross diffused, but in my view the early Italian forms profoundly influenced many ethnographic forms of edged weapons.

[TVV]

Are we absolutely certain that the crossguard on midelburgo's sword is Italian and not say, Iberian?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The date on this weapons scabbard says 1110 AH which is about 1689AD

AHMAD BIN ABDULLAH is on one line of text...the one nearest the hilt.

The other line I'm not sure about.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Here is a Nimcha not usually attributed to Somalia but it gives notice that these swords were all over the Zanzibar regional Hub and because that part of Somalia was a key regional trade player it is not surprising that such a weapon should appear. Naturally with pictures it is advisable to be cautious since what defines a nationally used sword or is it a photographers prop?

The hilt is clearly saying Nimcha ...and looks similar to Yemeni and Saudia variants although it rings a certain bell in the pommel top since the clear link to Bilao weapons of Somalia is there...in the three prong format...and it suggests an influence upon other Nimcha particularly Saudia style … perhaps giving the direction of influence...
At least we have here a potential spread through trade of this Greater Indian Ocean style or as Buttin probably coined them Arabian.
The picture describes the Somalian gentleman as being of VIP status..

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I always think of the forte as with makers marks, to be located near the center of the blade near the guard ... The block forte is often seen on European blades, and such marks are on this section of the blade...These circular cartouches are situated unusually near the cutting edge of the blade but indeed in the upper section of the blade near the guard, which may broadly be regarded as part of the forte. Perhaps you are right, defining the forte might be regarded as the upper third of the blade...just always thought of it as the root near the guard.

Dear Jim, i would not evolve into why different cultures find it more handy to use different spots of the forte area to stamp their marks; if either technical issues ... or aesthetical.
But going etymological and in actual fencing lexicon forte, a term we currently use over here in its full acceptation, comes from the Latin forte=strong, robust... and, for the case, undoubtedly means the strong first third of the sword.
Sorry ... if i am such a drag .

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Midelburgo in his post above at #22 makes a very interesting comparison and notes the Venetain stamp.

The Venetian Winged Lion.

On swords the wear is considerable . Here is one; on the upper hilt of a Venetian Naval Cutlass..

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I would like to focus on what and what is not the Forte since I see it has some confusion around it earlier . I think Cutlass style; Falchion and Nimcha etc. particularly the short seaborne weapons, are easily divided up blade wise into the standard package of three parts but on advancing into the realm of Rapiers it is probably another matter ..I wrote a developing guide into blades over on European about blades which I noted;

The Blade. Depending on which sword school we are looking at; could be divided into many more parts than the usual three:

1. The Foible. The part near the blade.
2. The Terzo. The mid section between Foible and Forte.
3. The Forte. The part nearest the hilt.

The Foible (Feeble) is considered the weakest section whilst the strongest is the Forte (Fortified or Strongest).

Some schools especially Rapier divide into as many as 12 parts for refined skewering techniques! whilst 6 or 9 sections is not unusual.

Thus a good excuse to advertise for input and to note the thread is still very much alive please see http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...tion+etymology