19c Sudanese Sabre?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David R

Love these examples.

Thank you so much David!
Ive been sort of crazy on espada anchas most of my life, growing up in Southern Calif. they were around and saw them long before I knew what they were. I've done research on them for more years than I can say, and there are still far more questions than answers

[David R]

I can see it as being a very rewarding area of collection and research, to do with of a largely ignored part of American history! Please keep posting.

[ariel]

I think we have to distinguish between “attribution’ and “habitation”
The former indicates belonging to a certain ethnic military tradition, the latter to the place it was used.
We can see pulwars in Central Asian museums, British swords in Indian arsenals, Portugese, Spanish and French blades on Moroccan nimchas, one of the internet auctions recently sold a a classical Ottoman kilij with obviously latter engraved Sanskrit innscription on the blade. Egerton included Ottoman yataghan into the plate with Nepalese weapons ( likely, it might have been bought there).
How are we to attribute them? IMHO, we may desribe them as “ Moroccan nimcha with a repurposed French ( or other) blade’’, “ Ottoman kilij with ( later) usage in India “, etc.
It will be no different from “Afghani khyber made in India” or “South Indian sword with North Indian handle” etc.
Elgood taught us that a significant proportion of Indian swords were in fact repurposed and mixed creations of different parts and age The same likely appies to weapons from other parts of the world. Weapons traveled, had been repaired repeatedly, acquired new parts, all in different locations.
The only attributable part of Wayne’s sword is its Sudanese scabbard. The rest is a village blacksmith’s rendition of a “european” sword with uncertain atribution.
We can safely call it “ An impovised East African sword” ( simply because to its geographic proximity to Sudan) , but its accurate atribution is incredibly difficult and have a very high chance to be erroneous.

No critique or offence was intended, it was just an attempt to mark the boundaries of our ignorance. We see highly respectable and knowlegeable researchers and dealers dating their examples as “ 17-19th century” or “Likely Turkmeni- repaired Persian shamshir”. My minor quibbles are nothing in comparison.

[Jim McDougall]

Heres another saber with likely Sudanese association, having notable Ottoman styled hilt of pistol grip form. The blade is of shamshir form and the scabbard has what appears to be the Sudanese flared point as typically seen on those of kaskaras. The strap is of the type used also on kaskara.

[kronckew]

Interesting. I'm not particularly fond of the oversized pommel disk thingy, which I assume was to help balance the blade closer to the guard. Is the grip all metal?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Interesting. I'm not particularly fond of the oversized pommel disk thingy, which I assume was to help balance the blade closer to the guard. Is the grip all metal?

Or is this a hollow pommel, only for decor; can we even see crack in it ? So not a balance solution, i am afraid .

[Jim McDougall]

It is of brass alloy and seems quite hollow, this is certainly not a fighting weapon but entirely a parade or ceremonial accoutrement. In Sudan there were often variations of kaskara, some with multiple discs relative to the familiar pommel disc, which were hollow, in these cases filled with seeds for rattling.
This does not rattle, but the cross hatch styling recalls the embossed silver hilts in Darfur post Mahdiyya.

As Fernando has observed, clearly the oversize pommel has nothing to do with balance, however the blade on this is quite viable, I think the term is Turkish beyez or to that effect but cant recall.

While this is obviously not a fighting weapon, my point in adding it was to illustrate the kinds of assembled, composite, or amalgamated examples which often occur in ethnographic contexts. In many cases, despite a degree of synthetically standardized 'forms' such as the tulwar, yataghan, kaskara, and the long string of weapon names, these do not follow pattern books and may be variant in the interpretations depending on maker, regional preference, period and many factors.

By synthetic, I mean that many of these descriptive terms have been created by arms writers and collectors to establish the necessary descriptive terms that are essential for classification and categorizing. In many, perhaps even most cases, these are 'collectors terms' which are completely unknown to the native people of the regions where these weapon forms are deemed indiginous. To illustrate one case in point, years ago I tried to discover the origin of the term 'kaskara' for the Sudanese broadsword, but completely to no avail.
In every attempt to discover this etymology it was futile, even 'authorities' in the British museums, arms writers, even an archaeologist and authority on Sudanese history had no idea on this.

Even speaking with Sudanese people I knew from different tribal backgrounds who recognized the sword referred to it simply as sa'if. One called it a 'cross'. None had ever heard the term 'kaskara'. It seems that Burton (1884) was the first person to use the term, but atypically offered no etymology or explanation. Until Iain Norman with his extensive Saharan tribal research found it was a term from Baghirmi, the word remained unidentified.

This phenomenon is much the same with so many ethnographic weapons it would be impossible to cover here. The point is that 'kaskara' simply has become a collective term for these broadswords from Sudan, and part of the vernacular of arms collectors and scholars. Much as with the transposing error of Egerton (1885) who accidentally used the term katar to describe the transverse grip 'jamadhar', and again, use of that term entered the vernacular of arms collectors and writers.

It has been proven time and again that it would be pure folly to correct these terms in the glossaries of collectors and scholars at this point in time as what is important is to have a well known term to ensure the proper semantics in discussion by using the commonly known term.
In this same manner, when an example being discussed is being described and exceeds a specific classification, it is important to qualify the elements being noted.

With the Indian tulwar, this form remained in use for centuries nearly rigid in its construction, with often only minor variations in elements such as pommel disc, langets, quillon terminals and of course decoration, in the classification systems focused on the hilts. Then enter the situation with the blades, which when various types were joined with the almost standard (Indo-Persian) hilt, entered an entire new spectrum of classifications based on the blade forms. The same was with the khanda/firangi situation.

So then factor in the phenomenon of components from other cultural spheres, joined with these native hilts. During the British Raj, there are many examples of Indian tulwars mounted with British blades. With the khanda, one of these with foreign blade becomes instantly a'firangi', but what of the tulwars...obviously they are not firangi as that term is used only in the Deccani dialects.
In the northern regions where the tulwar predominates, the term tulwar (obviously covering far more area geographically) is a collective term for 'sword' (much as sa'if is used in Arabic) but seems to apply mostly to the familiar Indo-Persian hilts. However, in Mughal parlance the term shamshir was also used in instances. There are shamshir form hilts on tulwars, yet they are deemed tulwars.

I think that common sense and context prevails in the accurate description of particular examples. Obviously we often cannot know for certain where an example comes from when there is no reliable provenance. However to use, often by analogy, the comparisons which suggest possible influences can offer constructive clues for consideration.

I think well considered observations using whatever elements of an example which are recognizable, despite that example being outside the parameters of a given classification is expected, and inherently should be recognized as speculative. Like any empirical research, this is a process which is ongoing, and more specific identification may eventually be accomplished as other comparable examples surface.

In the case of our subject sword (OP), my objective (post #9) was to show a kaskara ( from Aug. 2015) with a blade bearing remarkably similar central panel inscription (presumably Amharic, =Ethiopian) with a lion (also assoc. with Ethiopia) .....and comparable to the motif on the blade of subject sword posted.

Clearly the scabbard resembles Sudanese work, but this lacks the 'flared tip' typically on Sudanese scabbard. It would seem that the Sudanese would prefer a broadsword, but if this blade was from a repurposed shotel, and knowing that Ethiopians also favored European hilt gurade sabers perhaps that might account for the hilt. True, we will not likely know the village and country this unknown blacksmith was from, but the nature of the hilt, blade and scabbard give us points of consideration.
Sudan and Ethiopia share a border....the kaskara, a Sudanese weapon, was well known in Ethiopia as well as Eritrea further east. Ethiopians had exposure to the D guard hilt and used them. The Sudanese, barring any unknown anomalies did not, nor did the Eritreans.
It seems doubtful that a weapon, blacksmith made, would be produced further southward in either interior or coastal East African regions yet carry the scabbard character.

That is my take..........given briefly as always