On the Origins of the so-called Berber Sabres

[Gonzalo G]

Interesting speculations. As I recall, Jim, when I identified that hilt as belonging to a Machete de Guanabacoa and refered to the article from José Luis Calvó, I did not mention that the machete were from Toledo. It must be pointed that the spanish mottos do not imply a spanish manofacture of the blade, but a spanish colonial presence. José Luis Calvó very clearly states that those blades used in the machetes of Guanabacoa were originally made in Germany and USA with spanish inscriptions, and latter they were made in Toledo as a reglamentary weapons of the spanish colonial army, but I think they were mounted probably in Cuba anyway. Guanabacoa is a village near from La Habana, with a strong african presence those days. This ethnic element is the common feature among this hilts discussed here, since this type of sabres are characterized mainly by the hilt, though there can be found blades with a reverse tip. It must be mentioned that the african presence is also strong in Brazil, a lot more than the spanish commerce in that ex-portuguese colony in the 19th Century.

But there are some distinctive differences among the above swords. One of them, very obvious, is the presence or absence of a guard, the latter a feature alien to the spanish swords. My own speculation: those swords were made with european blades, but not exclusively, and mounted with handles in a style which has a strong african flavor. The presence of spanish mottos could mean blades imported from or taken to the spanish. Other blades in the same type of swords, or customized variations in the blades and hilts (in the machetes of Guanabacoa, for example), could mean personal preferences or availability of blades from a specific origin. The same style of weapon can have blades from different origins, customized or not latter by the owner. The important thing here is the style of hilt with it´s guard, and in the case of the so called berber swords, the presence of the reverse point, which must be explained in terms of style or in terms of availability of specific blades with this characteristic. I believe the sword from Teodor has an european blade with a history, but it came in some way to non european hands and mounted or remounted in the actual style. It could be made for the American market and at the end not sold, used or exported there, but elsewhere. The spanish inscription does not mean a spanish manofacture.

Ariel´s reference is important. It gives the first substancial proof that the sword is, or could more probably be, north african. Another point: the machete of Guanabacoa is a reglamentary spanish military weapon. There is no evidence that the´berber sword´is. This brings me the idea that the latter is an opportunistic use of whatever available sabre blade mounted in a special local style, not specifically ´colonial´, but during the colonial wars.

Regards
Gonzalo G

[TVV]

Interesting points, Gonzalo, thank you for your response. I was hoping you will chime in, as your expertise on Central American and Spanish colonial weapons in general could be very helpful here.

If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that these swords, known until recently as "berber" due to a Tirri attribution, are not regimental. I fully agree, as they vary considerably in their shape and size. You also point out the African flavor of the hilt and scabbard decoration, which I also agree with, and this is not surprising considering the large African population in many of the New World colonies, especially in the Carribean.

I am wondering, could these sabres simply be sabres preferred by irregulars in the Spanish army, mostly of African descent, from the Carribean? My other sword with its motto obviously referring to the Dominican Republic would support this.

As for guard vs. no guard, I am not sure that the lack of a guard is necessarily unknown in Spanish long bladed weapons. For example, here is a Spanish colonial sword/machete from the sold section of Oriental Arms (I hope Artzi would not mind using his pictures as an example):

http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=3052

Note the similarities in hilt construction and the pointed tip.

Now, the Riffian sword in the Versailles painting is most intriguing, and I have no doubt that Ariel knew what he saw. However, a painting is a work of art, and I would prefer to see a picture of Riffian warriors with such swords, before I am convinced that this is indeed a Riffian weapon.

Regards,
Teodor

[M ELEY]

Dmitry, I love your Brazilian (until proven otherwise!) cutlass. It is similar, but superior to my example. Not to divert the subject away from the Berber sabers, but as far as the Brazilian goes, I don't think there is much question that they aren't at least Spanish colonial if not specific to the Brazilian region.

Jim, I had also seen that saber with Pedro II's coat-of-arms. It was spot-on. The only thing was the timeline...later period than I would have suspected, but then again, many of the Spanish broadswords were used over many centuries. I tried to track it down again to no avail.

Dmitry's sword has that distinctive snake design on the finial we've discussed before on espada. I just saw a nice espada for sale on a website with the same pattern, but because it was an active sale, I didn't list it here (I am assuming a sale item and an active auction are considered the same??).

The Brazil sabers seem to have two distinct types of blades- straight (or nearly straight) and the classic curved type. I'm wondering what these swords were ultimately used for? Horseman's sabers? Cutlass in the many coastal ports? The pattern obviously was repeated, yet not a "model" used by any military or militia, apparently. Not trying to offend anyone, but I'm having trouble envisioning anyone riding around in the jungle or pampas on horseback with these strapped to their side. True, horseman's sabers could be rather large, but the guard seems more cutlass-like (what, me biased ).
The folded stirrup on these seems to indicate one worn on the side, like the smaller espada. So...was it like an infantry-type sword? I'm just struggling trying to imagine HOW the sword was put to use in this environment if not as the classic ship-board pattern.

Teodor, you started this great topic (thank you!) with a picture of the sabers in Barcelona. I'm curious what that museum listed all these swords (the Brazil sword (?), the Berber sabers (?) and espada) as in their collection? Do you know? Thanks.

[TVV]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Teodor, you started this great topic (thank you!) with a picture of the sabers in Barcelona. I'm curious what that museum listed all these swords (the Brazil sword (?), the Berber sabers (?) and espada) as in their collection? Do you know? Thanks.

The picture was made by a friend of mine, who visited the Military Museum in Montjuic a year ago - I just noticed it recently among all the rest of the pictures. Unfortunately, he has not made any pictures of labels.

I will be going to Barcelona in a month. Unfortunately, I read that the museum was closed permanently in May of this year. Part of the collection may have been transferred to Girona, and if true, I will try to visit there as well, as I am also very curious to see how these swords are identified.

If one of the Spanish members is reading this, please let me know where all the weapons from the Barcelona Military Museum are to be found now.

Best regards,
Teodor

[Marc]

Well, I have to check, but IIRC the collection was indeed supposedly set to be moved to the Figueres Castle (in the province of Girona, but not in Girona city itself, just to clarify), bit I think it's still far from being actually on display there.
I'll confirm before you leave, though.

Best,

Marc

[TVV]

Originally Posted by Marc

Well, I have to check, but IIRC the collection was indeed supposedly set to be moved to the Figueres Castle (in the province of Girona, but not in Girona city itself, just to clarify), bit I think it's still far from being actually on display there.
I'll confirm before you leave, though.

Best,

Marc

Thanks a lot Marc.

[Gonzalo G]

Continuing with my post in home and not knowing if somebody made a response to my comments meanwhile, I would like to add some more
commentaries. First, the fact that Morocco was not a colony until the
20th Century. Of course, there were wars and temporal occupation of
some ports by spanish and portuguese. In the 15th Century the portuguese occupied four ports and the spanish one, but were defeated and expelled latter. The war of 1859-60 against Spain ended with a treaty by which the sultan of Morocco gave to the spaniards the coastal area in the north of the country. It was a war to spoil Morocco of the ports, not to colonize it, in the same way that Gibraltar is not a colony, but a military post. The Rif berbers were not subjugated until the decade of 1930´s (with great loses to the spaniards).

So, of what colonial weapons are we talking about when refering to the
berbers? To beging with, what is a colonial weapon? The answer seems
obvious, but is not. Anytime I see this concept (colonial weapon), is
associated with european colonization. Which seems to be another
ethnocentric misunderstanding. Why never a yataghan from Greece or the Balkans is called 'colonial'? Colonialism is not a phenomenon exclusive of the capitalist countries, as feudal Portugal and Spain demonstrates. And so the historians writte of greek or carthaginean colonies in Europe. This is not off-topic, since the concept must be clarified, as it is taken in loan from the social sciences and sometimes used too liberally.

I understand as colonial weapons, those made by the colonial powers,
specifically in the colonies, by the colonial settlers or by the 'natives' undertheir direction. Or made exclusively for colonial uses. This does not include the weapons not made specifically in this way, as the colonial powere manofactured their weapons in the metropolis for purposes not exusively or specifically related with the colonies, but with their general military needs. Brazil (remember the 'brazilian' sword?), is independent since 1822, and Spain had a little presence there, if any, since that was an area under the influence of the Great Britain, and before, a portuguese colony which was not allowed to commerce with anybody but Portugal. America had not ports of call, for the spaniards, except Cuba, since around 1820-22,
including the Dominicana Republic. The blade on the berber sabre from Teodor was made after the independence of this country from Spain,
which give us a time span for this weapon. The machete of Guanabacoa is another history.

The weapons made by the 'natives' using 'trade blades', or blades taken in war from the colonial enemy, are not 'colonial', in the same way the saifs made with 'trade blades' from the persians are not 'colonial', nor the firangis from India are.

Would it be causal that the european (most probably) painter whose work was mentioned by Ariel represented the berber sabre ALSO confused with an american sword? Not likely. Too much distance and the relative ignorance in Europe about the late evolution of the american weapons, makes it very unprobable (such a coincidence!). I think the swords from the spanish museum and the painting in Versailles are enough proof, since the curators also can be right about how to classify a sword, mainly if they are from a country which colonized the berber area of the Rif (well, on the other side, this is not a garantee, in this case). Those are hard evidences dreserving to be taked on account.

I insist. As there were european influences, so there were african influences over all the countries which enslaved african people. When they were taken, they came to stay, with all the cultural and racial implications this carries. Republica Dominicana and Haiti are in the same little island, only divided by a political frontier. Their culture is strongly black. Papa Doc used the vodoo to dominate his people in Haiti just decades ago. Also this are the cases of Cuba and Brazil. Berbers surely had also decorative influences from the territories to their south. And they were also enslavers and slave traders. Mutual influences could perfectly be developed. We know a just a few from them, as far as I can see.
Regards

Gonzalo G

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by TVV

As for guard vs. no guard, I am not sure that the lack of a guard is necessarily unknown in Spanish long bladed weapons. For example, here is a Spanish colonial sword/machete from the sold section of Oriental Arms (I hope Artzi would not mind using his pictures as an example):

http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=3052

Note the similarities in hilt construction and the pointed tip.

I just saw your post, Teodor. Yes, you have a point. I don´t ignore this features in the machete of Guanabacoa. You can see more like this here:

http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/34-Ultramar.pdf

Anyway, the history and details related with this weapon are not really known. Checking the manofacture of the blades, since I wrotte from memory my first post, shows the presence of Toledo blades on this machetes from the beginning. They could be used as blade of opportunity, or manofactured purposedly for this model, we don´t know. You have to take on account, also, that this machetes were not developed as weapons, but mainly as tools due to the dense vegetation on the island of Cuba. Maybe this is another factor to take on account in order to explain the absence of a guard. But I think this is not the case of the berber sabres, which clearly are a cavalry weapon used mainly fight.

Still, the absence of a guard is not a common feature in the spanish swords and this machete is precisely a proof of the validity of my arguments, though I can be mistaken. I believe this kind of weapon-tool was developed for the units called "Pardos" (because of their brown color, as they were blacks and half breed), but not exclusively, though the type of decoration which can be found in some blades seems very...un-spanish. As it can be understood, this machetes were originally designed and developed in Cuba, and apoved by the local authorities in the 1850´s decade, and latter adopted officially by the spanish army overseas in the 1890´s decade. I think the design originally has a strong african flavor, and at some point a guard was added in some variants. So, the construction of the handle and the absence of guard are not characteristically spanish.

Please check the spanish military weapons, and hardly you will find a machete (or any other sword) without guard and with this construction (if any). If you don´t understand spanish, there are plenty of illustrations in the articles from José Luis Calvó. You can save them and study the models of spanish military weapons which appear in this articles in PDF. At least, you will understand the name of the models and the dates.


On the other side, I am not expert in anything related with swords, just a student. But I studied history, and I like to relate swords, technology and history (including economic history or history of the economy) as different faces of the same phenomenon.

Please excuse my mistakes, but I am always is a hurry due lack of time online.
Regards

Gonzalo

[TVV]

Gonzalo,

All excellent points, as usual. I agree that the term "colonial" may have been used too freely here, something of which I am certainly guilty of.

I still do not see how a Balkan yataghan could be a colonial weapon though, because a colony implies a settlement or territory divided from the mother state by an obstacle, natural or other. The Ottoman Empire was contiguous, and its Balkan possessions under imemdiate control and access from the capital of Istanbul. I really do not see any similarities to the Spanish Empire here - maybe Tunis would have been a better analogy.

Another thing I need to point out is that in my opinion, the short length of these sabers, similar to that of a cutlass, would not make them great cavalry weapons. To me they seem much better suited for fighting on foot, or maybe even intended for a naval use.

I agree with the rest of your points. However, after re-reading your posts, I am still not sure what is your take on the origins of these sabres. I am sure you must have a hypothesis of your own, but to me it remains unclear.

Best regards and thank you for your participation,
Teodor

[TVV]

In an effort to bring yet another angle to the origin discussion of these swords, I am posting a comparison between the file work on the back of the tang on one of my "Berber" swords, and the hilt of an Albacete dagger, taken by Marcus back in 2006 while the Barcelona Military Museum still existed. The motif is similar.

Regards,
Teodor

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for posting that Teodor! another intriguing element that compels the Spanish colonial aspects of these swords, though suggesting thier origins may indeed have been in Spains colonies in the Maghreb before diffusion abroad.
While in discussions of earlier years I had also considered the absence of these sabres in Charles Buttin's works. I am wondering if perhaps because they seem to have been situated in regions farther west from the French areas he was of course in, maybe he did not encounter these and they were not enough in presence by then to have been largely noticeable. I would presume that by the time of his residency in Morocco these would have already become diffused to the west.
The fact that these sabres seem to be almost invariably identified in groupings in Latin America and other Spanish ports of call does not necessarily mean that thier origins could not have indeed been in Moroccan regions, the Tirri references being the instance supporting this.

[TVV]

Jim,

How reliable is Tirri as a reference? I am sure he is correct about many attributions, but then, according to his book, we should still be looking for the laz bicagi in Egypt. We have to be careful not to propagate false information.

Regards,
Teodor

[Jim McDougall]

Teodor you know you and I are very much on the same page regarding the Tirri 'references', and who can forget the BSY drama! However as with most of these kinds of books, subsequent research and findings can often either further refute or sometimes support entries . In the case of these sabres I personally have not held to Tirri's classification, but as with many cases there is a wide scope of qualification and things can often be in gray areas.
Overall the larger balance of his attributions are reliable, and very much so considering those who consulted in preparation of the book, however it seems the major problem is the lack of cited references and sources.

I definitely agree, that we as students of arms history should not propogate false information, but continue research to properly balance information at hand. If these are indeed with the origins in Morocco then we need to properly acknowledge that with new findings, but frankly at this point the jury is still out.
Conversely, with the Laz Bicagi case, a classic example of revision, reminding us to recheck data used from many of the references we consult. I once read "...the thing I like most about history, is how its always changing!".


All the best,
JIm

[ariel]

Can't find my copy of Spring's book on african weapons.
But the scabbard of the "berber" one has the same protrusion at the end as the ethiopian ones. Yes, Berbers are not Ethiopians, but heck of a lot closer to them geographically than the Brazilians:-)