The Omani Battle Sword. Sayf Yamaani.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Iain, Because I have looked long and hard at the components i.e. The Blade, The Hilt and the Scabbard and have decided that they are all correct for this style. Obviously the hilt needs little further discussion even though the quillons are broken off...The Scabbard is correct .... That leaves the blade.

There aren't any European marks on it like Solingen or other strikes and the 3 markings appear to be Islamic. The Lion, the circular stamp and the Star of Solomon being either makers, owners or locally applied. Even if the animal stamp/ engraving is after a European mark (perhaps the Passau wolf) it is clearly applied in Arabia.

I don't have the blade in hand so I'll refrain from comments regarding the origin of the blade. Suffice to say I'd consider it a wolf and of a style I've seen before.

Purchase date has nothing to do with age and so far as I can see this has little comparison to the dancing blade conundrum nor refits of that blade to other hilts...The entire business of dancing swords and hilt switching is almost totally unrelated to the Old Omani Battle Sword but naturally coming from Muttrah Souk it got my full attention from the fake/blade and hilt switchover angle. Quite literally in 1990 few people considered the older weapon and they could be got for almost nothing..

It is only in the last few years that people have realised their worth even though their provenance has been wrongly attributed down the ages as 16th, 10th, Portuguese and recently of the Saladin type. At Forum I believe we have placed this weapon correctly from the first Imam of Oman period of 751 a.d. and unchanged until today.

As I've mentioned in the past, the attributions to the 16th century, typically in an auction house setting relate to the specific item up for sale and are, on a piece by piece basis quite potentially correct.

I've also mentioned I think you use the 751 date a bit too often - unless you are seriously suggesting this particular example dates to that period. Otherwise let's not go back down the rabbit hole regarding the dating of the form.

The only other blade of note that I know of cross fitted to an Old Omani Battle Hilt is the Solingen example clearly stamped SOLINGEN crossed with an Old Omani Battle Sword hilt in Muttrah by a known hilt switch workshop a few years ago.. but that is well recorded here by me on Forum and I even know the current owner. There is a blade at #36 which is peculiar in that it seems to be a battle blade on a dancing hilt and though interesting it is still under revue though as soon as I can get to Rostaq I will attempt to solve that mystery..

Regarding the sword here; I know the store from which this weapon came and although it closed some years ago I have photographs of it and its owners who were well known. They had no reputation as hilt switchers. The owners of this weapon are also known to me.

Please advise if you think I am missing something here as amongst the Forums most esteemed members there are few with the expertise such as yours in this field and your knowledge is much admired.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

It's always good when you know some of the background on a piece although unfortunately that doesn't preclude the parts having been assembled at a later date than the origin of either the hilt or the blade. Still, if a physical inspection of the piece has left you confident of the parts that's a good thing. As I mentioned above, I haven't had it in hand and thus won't comment on that aspect.

I'll bow out for the time being of the thread, I'd say a hunt around regarding the blade marks (particularly the wolf) will give you a pretty good idea of the age of this piece and I wish you all the best in tracking them down. the variety present on this blade is interesting and some may have been applied at differing times.

Cheers,
Iain

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

I don't have the blade in hand so I'll refrain from comments regarding the origin of the blade. Suffice to say I'd consider it a wolf and of a style I've seen before.



As I've mentioned in the past, the attributions to the 16th century, typically in an auction house setting relate to the specific item up for sale and are, on a piece by piece basis quite potentially correct.

I've also mentioned I think you use the 751 date a bit too often - unless you are seriously suggesting this particular example dates to that period. Otherwise let's not go back down the rabbit hole regarding the dating of the form.




It's always good when you know some of the background on a piece although unfortunately that doesn't preclude the parts having been assembled at a later date than the origin of either the hilt or the blade. Still, if a physical inspection of the piece has left you confident of the parts that's a good thing. As I mentioned above, I haven't had it in hand and thus won't comment on that aspect.

I'll bow out for the time being of the thread, I'd say a hunt around regarding the blade marks (particularly the wolf) will give you a pretty good idea of the age of this piece and I wish you all the best in tracking them down. the variety present on this blade is interesting and some may have been applied at differing times.

Cheers,
Iain

Salaams Iain ~ It is interesting that you have seen the animal style before and was one of the primary reasons I posted it... to see if anyone recognised this design...If you say you recognise this as a wolf.. then wolf it is.

Regarding design timeline ... I have seen the 16th C paperwork promulgated by various auction houses on swords of this type .. It never made any sense to me, therefor, I started researching and formatted a comparison with the Abbasiid as a baseline using the Topkapi sword. I have made a fair case to point the history at the first Imam period in Oman .. The probable birthdate ...at 751 ad. That is the design date but by no means the birthdate of all Omani Battle Swords.. The birthdate is a sliding scale between then and now.... or more likely then and a point in the 18th/19th Century. Swords were produced along this date line and like many other weapons in the region because they worked and were respected ... they froze in design.

Personally (though I cannot prove it) I think it is equivalent to an Heraldic/ Religio Symbolic Weapon and in itself quite unique. It is, I believe, the Ibaathi Sword. In a similar way the dancing sword is The Busaidi Sword. One marks a religious form... the other an entire dynasty.

There are still areas to explore not least an explanation as to where it was produced and the relevance to its nickname Sayf Yemaani (Hadramaut or perhaps the enclave in Izki near Nizwa called Yemen?)

The latest craze in Muscat is to suggest that this weapon is of Saladin provenance which is laughable and without proof.

Finally and again...thanks for the heads-up on the Wolf mark.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Hi Ibrahiim,

While I am well aware of your ideas regarding the source of the sword design, I think quoting the 751 date continuously does more harm than good. It gives the impression you are attributing these swords to that period. There is sadly, not a single provenanced example dating to that period among these weapons. While it may have roots in that period, it is a large leap to conclude it did not change at all during the centuries. I think it is quite possible some elements of the design due date back that far, but on the evidence available, i.e. not archaeological. It's difficult to extrapolate that much further.

I'd be interested as to what dating you would place on some of the examples you've shown. By that I mean the overall piece not just the blades which can perhaps be a older than the hilts in some cases.

All the best,
Iain

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

While I am well aware of your ideas regarding the source of the sword design, I think quoting the 751 date continuously does more harm than good. It gives the impression you are attributing these swords to that period. There is sadly, not a single provenanced example dating to that period among these weapons. While it may have roots in that period, it is a large leap to conclude it did not change at all during the centuries. I think it is quite possible some elements of the design due date back that far, but on the evidence available, i.e. not archaeological. It's difficult to extrapolate that much further.

I'd be interested as to what dating you would place on some of the examples you've shown. By that I mean the overall piece not just the blades which can perhaps be a older than the hilts in some cases.

All the best,
Iain

Salaams Iain, The design date of 751 AD marks just that... Note that there is not a single sword from the period Abbasiid save the few examples in the Topkapi and of the Umayyad dynasty prior to that ?... there are none at all. At no point have I suggested swords are present from that period but what I do say is the design did not change.

What may be an indicator on age is the appearance of blade inscriptions and stamps and perhaps the fullers which may not have been on the very early blades. Dots on the blade may be an earlier indicator. General wear is an indicator ... however none of these is very accurate. Some later editions have tubular grip whereas the proper grip is octagonal taken from the Abbasiid style etc etc. Generally because few Ethnographic Arms anywhere exist from much before 1600.. except rusted bits or remnants we tend to look at the brackets 1550 to 1850 or thereabouts. Thus existing Omani Battle Swords probably occur in that timeframe though of course with a design pedigree stretching back much further.

To show another example of design freeze simply look at three other examples of this (quote is backed up by the late Anthony North in his book Islamic Arms and Armour)... observe the freeze in the Abu Futtila, The Khanjar and since its inception in 1744 the Omani Dancing Sword. In Arabia unlike other parts of the world ... once a weapon was accepted, essentially, it did not change in design.

I conclude that the Old Omani Battle Sword was developed from the Abbasid see #1 for my comparison and that it is a Heraldic / Religious design .. The Omani Ibaathi Sword with the birthdate 751 AD and thenceforth essentially unchanged. It would of course be nice if someone were to dig up a grave with an original in it...but except for one known later example from a tomb in Jebel Akhdar there are none ... perhaps because the tradition of burying such artefacts with the dead was not the style here... in fact it was forbidden.

This is the Omani Ibaathi insignia weapon and was used in the "Funoon" before being superceded in 1744 by the Omani dancing sword to celebrate the pageant and for the Busaidi Dynasty. The Funoon goes back to the beginning of the Omani Ibaathi period marked by the selection of the first Imam Ibn Julanda in...wait for it...751 AD. The weapon didn't appear later out of fresh air... it had a purpose ... it was Heraldic. Everything about it is Islamic but more so the hilt which is nowhere else to be found in the Islamic world... why? Because it is Omani Ibaathi ... totally unique... and the major reason for its DESIGN FREEZE... and of course as the Old Omani Battle Sword.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

I ATTACH A NOTE; VERY BRIEF ON IMPORTANT DATES OF EARLY OCCUPATION OF OMAN.

After its conversion to Islam, Oman was ruled by Umayyads between 661–750, Abbasids between 750–931, 932–933 and 934–967, Qarmatians between 931–932 and 933–934, Buyids between 967–1053, and the Seljuks of Kirman between 1053–1154.

[Iain]

Hi Ibrahiim,

Without going into too much depth because this is mainly about how you are presenting your theory: I think your case could be stated more simply and perhaps with less potential for confusion.

This type of Omani sword has dated examples from as early as the ___ century. (I'm not sure what the earliest example with provenance is, perhaps the grave find you mentioned). Stylistically it likely takes influence from Abbasid designs, which were introduced into the region in the mid 8th century. The form closely resembles these early period swords and seems to have changed little from them. It has a tradition as a heraldic symbol within the Omani Ibaathi tradition which may account for the longevity of the form in Omani culture. Most extant examples likely date from the 17th to early 19th centuries.

I think in the absence of hard evidence, e.g. archaeology, dated examples etc. it's important to leave things just a little open ended. After all, it's impossible to be sure, although you've constructed a sound theory to explain this particular form.

Just intended as constructive comments and I hope you'll take them that way.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

Without going into too much depth because this is mainly about how you are presenting your theory: I think your case could be stated more simply and perhaps with less potential for confusion.

This type of Omani sword has dated examples from as early as the ___ century. (I'm not sure what the earliest example with provenance is, perhaps the grave find you mentioned). Stylistically it likely takes influence from Abbasid designs, which were introduced into the region in the mid 8th century. The form closely resembles these early period swords and seems to have changed little from them. It has a tradition as a heraldic symbol within the Omani Ibaathi tradition which may account for the longevity of the form in Omani culture. Most extant examples likely date from the 17th to early 19th centuries.

I think in the absence of hard evidence, e.g. archaeology, dated examples etc. it's important to leave things just a little open ended. After all, it's impossible to be sure, although you've constructed a sound theory to explain this particular form.

Just intended as constructive comments and I hope you'll take them that way.

Salaams ~ Im sure you are right. However, the discussion developed and developed and as each bit of the puzzle lined itself up a lot of the previous guesswork on dates seemed to disintegrate. What was a game changer was the Funoon... The Pageants... and further the fact that between Ibaathi Islam kicking in... and the end of Omans occupation by foreign powers it seemed we needed logic to deduce where in the phases of occupation did this weapon slide in? So here are the occupiers and a logical conclusion;

Umayyads between 661–750,
Abbasids between 750–931, 932–933 and 934–967,
Qarmatians between 931–932 and 933–934,
Buyids between 967–1053,
Seljuks of Kirman between 1053–1154.
Portugal about 1490... to 1650

The weapon is clearly Islamic in design (see #1 for its detailed comparison with the Abbasid at Topkapi) The finger, thus, points at that period..mid 8th C.

There is absolutely no way that it could be anything other than Ibaathi...in the same way that it couldn't be Portuguese..They hated each other. In fact I stress that it must have been used against the Abbasiids (actually garrisoned in Buraimi where I live..) because Oman had accepted The Ibaathi style and the Abbassiid were trying to batter it out of them! They hated each other also !

It seems that the date of the first Immam is key since the tie up to the Abbasid sword matches that time period and coupled with the Funoon it looks more likely. If I am right about the Heraldic/Religious nature of the sword then surely the date of the inception .. and the first Imam are underlined.

However, as you say we just dont know for sure. What we can do is continue peeling back the layers of uncertainty and hopefully one day someone will dig one up from the Mid 8thC.

I realise it is a quantum leap for people to see this sword across so many centuries and unchanged from the original mid 8thC design but that is my hypothesis.



Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams~So that members who have not been previously sent to sleep by my long missives at Kattara for Comment (Actually an excellent resource and well worth the effort to read up) I include from there my potted history of Oman so that all windows of possibility related to external influence on the Omani Battle Sword design can be explored. (I've done it but I may have missed something therefor please feel free to double check) Here it is...with some pointers added by me. Where these refer to important dates on swords etc I have underlined, bracketed and added red colour.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote. "In 751AD Ibadi Muslims, a moderate branch of the Kharijites, established an imamate in Oman. Despite interruptions, the Ibadi imamate survived until the mid-20th century. (It is this point in time that my hypothesis places the origin for the design of the Old Omani Battle Sword.)But Oman was nonetheless conquered by several foreign powers, having been controlled by the Qarmatians between 931–932 and then again between 933–934.Between 967 and 1053, Oman was part of the domain of the Iranian Buyyids, and between 1053 and 1154, Oman was part of the Great Seljuk empire.

In 1154, the indigenous Nabhani dynasty took control of Oman, and the Nabhani kings ruled Oman until 1470, with an interruption of 37 years between 1406 and 1444.

Muscat was taken by the Portuguese on 1 April 1515, and was held until 26 January 1650, although the Ottomans controlled Muscat between 1550–1551 and 1581–1588. In about the year 1600, Nabhani rule was temporarily restored to Oman, although that lasted only to 1624, when fifth imamate, which is also known as the Yarubid Imamate ensued.. The latter recaptured Muscat from the Portuguese in 1650 after a colonial presence on the northeastern coast of Oman dating to 1508. The Yarubid dynasty expanded, acquiring former Portuguese colonies in East Africa and engaging in the slave trade. By 1719 dynastic succession led to the nomination of Saif ibn Sultan II. His candidacy prompted a rivalry among the ulama and a civil war between the two major tribes, the Hinawi and the Ghafiri, with the Ghafiri supporting Saif ibn Sultan II. He assumed power in 1748 after the leaders of both factions had been killed in battle, but the rivalry continued, with the factionalization working in favor of the Iranians, who occupied Muscat and Sohar in 1743.

The Iranians had occupied the coast before—indeed the coast was often the possession of various empires. These empires brought order to the religious and ethnic diversity of the population of this cosmopolitan region. Yet the intervention on behalf of an unpopular dynasty brought about a revolt. The leader of the revolt, Ahmad ibn Said al Said, was elected sultan of Muscat upon the expulsion of the Persians. The position of Sultan of Muscat would remain in the possession of the Al Said clan even when the imamate of Oman remained out of reach.

The Al Said clan became a royal dynasty when Ahmad ibn Said Al Said was elected imam following the expulsion of the Iranians from Muscat in 1744. (At this point the flexible Omani Dancing Sword appeared designed specifically for pageant and march past and review of/by tribal infantry before the Ruler.)Like its predecessors, Al Said dynastic rule has been characterized by a history of internecine family struggle, fratricide, and usurpation. Apart from threats within the ruling family, there was the omnipresent challenge from the independent tribes of the interior who rejected the authority of the sultan, recognizing the imam as the sole legitimate leader and pressing, by resort to arms, for the restoration of the imamate.

Schisms within the ruling family were apparent before Ahmad ibn Said's death in 1783 and were later manifest with the division of the family into two main lines, the Sultan ibn Ahmad Al Said (r. 1792–1806) line controlling the maritime state, with nominal control over the entire country; and the Qais branch, with authority over the Al Batinah and Ar Rustaq areas. During the period of Sultan Said ibn Sultan Al Said's rule (1806–1856), Oman cultivated its East African colonies, profiting from the slave trade. As a regional commercial power in the 19th century, Oman held territories on the island of Zanzibar off the coast of East Africa, the area along the coast of East Africa known as Zanj including Mombasa and Dar es Salaam, and until 1958 in Gwadar (in present-day Pakistan) on the coast of the Arabian Sea. But when the British declared slavery illegal in the mid-19th century, the sultanate's fortunes reversed. The economy collapsed, and many Omani families migrated to Zanzibar. The population of Muscat fell from 55,000 to 8,000 between the 1850s and 1870s. Most of the overseas possessions were seized by the United Kingdom and by 1850 Oman was an isolated and poor area of the world.

Late 19th and early 20th centuries

When Sultan Sa'id bin Sultan Al-Busaid died in 1856, his sons quarreled over the succession. As a result of this struggle, the empire—through the mediation of the British Government under the Canning Award—was divided in 1861 into two separate principalities: Zanzibar (with its East African dependencies), and Muscat and Oman.

The death of Sa'id bin Sultan in 1856 prompted a further division: the descendants of the late sultan ruled Muscat and Oman (Thuwaini ibn Said Al-Busaid, r. 1856–1866) and Zanzibar (Mayid ibn Said Al-Busaid, r. 1856–1870); the Qais branch intermittently allied itself with the ulama to restore imamate legitimacy. In 1868 Azzam ibn Qais Al-Busaid (r. 1868–1871) emerged as self-declared imam. Although a significant number of Hinawi tribes recognized him as imam, the public neither elected him nor acclaimed him as such.

Imam Azzan understood that to unify the country a strong, central authority had to be established with control over the interior tribes of Oman. His rule was jeopardized by the British, who interpreted his policy of bringing the interior tribes under the central government as a move against their established order. In resorting to military means to unify Muscat and Oman, Imam Azzam alienated members of the Ghafiri tribes, who revolted in the 1870–1871 period. The British gave Imam Azzam's rival, Turki ibn Said Al-Busaid, financial and political support. Turki ibn Said succeeded in defeating the forces of Imam Azzam, who was killed in battle outside Matrah in January 1871.

Muscat and Oman was the object of Franco-British rivalry throughout the 18th century. During the 19th century, Muscat and Oman and the United Kingdom concluded several treaties of friendship and commerce. In 1908 the British entered into an agreement of friendship. Their traditional association was confirmed in 1951 through a new treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation by which the United Kingdom recognized the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman as a fully independent state.

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the sultan in Muscat faced rebellion by members of the Ibadi sect residing in the interior of Oman, centered around the town of Nizwa, who wanted to be ruled exclusively by their religious leader, the Imam of Oman. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam autonomous rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the nominal sovereignty of the sultan elsewhere.

The conflict flared up again in 1954, when the new imam led a sporadic 5-year rebellion against the sultan's efforts to extend government control into the interior. The insurgents were defeated in 1959 with British help. "The Buraimi Confrontation" and "The Jebel Akhdar Campaign". The sultan then terminated the Treaty of Seeb and eliminated the office of the Imam. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. Zanzibar paid an annual subsidy to Muscat and Oman until its independence in early 1964.

In 1964, a separatist revolt began in Dhofar province. Aided by Communist and leftist governments such as the former South Yemen (People's Democratic Republic of Yemen), the rebels formed the Dhofar Liberation Front, which later merged with the Marxist-dominated Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman and the Arab Gulf (PFLOAG). The PFLOAG's declared intention was to overthrow all traditional Persian Gulf régimes. In mid-1974, the Bahrain branch of the PFLOAG was established as a separate organisation and the Omani branch changed its name to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman (PFLO), while continuing the Dhofar Rebellion".Unquote

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.