mamluk heraldry 25203199

Mamlk Sultanic Heraldry and the Numismatic Evidence: A ReinterpretationAuthor(s): J. W. AllanSource: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1970), pp. 99-112Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25203199 .Accessed: 09/07/2013 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain andIreland.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.87.31.20 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:59:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION

By J. W. Allan

A few years ago Professor Balog, in the introduction to his book Coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria,1 suggested, on the basis of the numismatic evidence, a number of modifications3 to the principles of Mamluk heraldry proposed earlier by Mayer in his book Saracenic heraldry,9 particularly with regard to the use of composite blazons by the sultans, and their design. Balog's main conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows:

(a) The Mamluk sultans engraved their coats-of-arms on many of their coins.

(b) Besides simple charges true composite blazons occur on fulus, showing that not only the nobility but the sultans also had composite blazons, (c) All simple charges occurring

on issues of one and the same sultan are parts of his composite blazon, (d) Coins some times confirm the evidence for a sultan's blazon provided by other objects, and sometimes contradict it; in the latter case, the coin evidence should prevail, (e) Coins, in that they can be definitely attributed and the ownership of the blazons they carry can be proved without question, confirm Mayer's theory that the Mamluk blazon was hereditary.

It seems to me that the numismatic evidence is by no means as conclusive or explicit as Balog considered it to be. In the following paper I therefore propose to re-examine the numismatic evidence presented so clearly by Balog, and to suggest a different explanation for the use of devices on Mamluk coinage, which explanation I believe reconciles both the numismatic and other heraldic evidence more satisfactorily than the conclusions reached

by Balog. I do not propose to consider Balog's conclusions point by point?my specific objections to them will emerge as the general argument proceeds.

First of all, certain individual devices, the lion of Baybars, the fesse, the buqja, the "Gothic shield", the checker-board, and a particular use of bends need to be eliminated

from the discussion.

(a) The lion of Baybars (Fig. 1(a)). There is no doubt that Sultan Baybars had a lion as his blazon, that he put it on his buildings and coins as his personal emblem,4 and that the lion which appears on coins of his son, Baraka Q5n, is the same one?that, in other

words, Baraka Q3n took it over, or inherited it, from his father. For this reason Baybars and Baraka Q3n will be omitted from the following discussion, and any reference to the

Mamluk period, when concerned with the use of blazons on coins, should be taken to mean the Mamluk period from 678/1279 onwards. Dates given hereafter are Hijri, unless further qualified.

1 Paul Dalog, The coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria, Numismatic Studies No. 12, New York, 1964, henceforward referred to as Coinage. The numbers in brackets after particular coins mentioned in this article are the coin numbers in Coinage. Hoard numbers refer to the coins published by Balog in his article "A hoard of late Mamluk copper coins and observations on the metrology of the Mamluk fals'\ in Numismatic Chronicle, 7th series, II, 1962, 243-73. ? Coinage, 18-38.

* L. A. Mayer, Saracenic heraldry, Oxford, 1933, henceforward referred to as Sff. 4 Sacy, A. I. Sylvcstrede: (Translated by), "Trait6des monnoies musulmanes traduit de 1'arabe de Mafcrizi",

in Bibliothcque des arabisants francais, Icre serie, T.I, Cairo, 1905, 39. Maqrizi, al-Nuqudal-isldmiyya, called Shudhur al-'ukud ft dhikr al-nuqud, ed. Muhammad Bahr al-'UlQm, Najaf, 1967, 30. Also

M. Quatrcmere, Hlstoire des sultans mamlouks, Paris, 1837, II/l, 14-15, n. 12.

JRAS, 1970, 2. 10


100 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE! A RE1NTERPRETATION

(b) The fesse (Fig. 1(b)). Balog includes in his list of the various blazons used on coins the so-called fesse, a plain three-fielded shield recognized as the blazon of the MamlQk courier.6 He seems, however, to have been somewhat confused as to its definition and use.* It only appears in its true form on the coins of Sultan Lajln; in all the other cases which he lists (which include coins of almost every other sultan) he is using the term to describe a threefold division of the obverse or reverse of a coin often with inscriptions in some or all of the three parts. This may be, and in some cases certainly is, connected with the inscribed shield (see below), but in other cases seems to be no more than a convenient way

of dividing up the space on a coin or of dividing up the words of the inscription used. (c) The buqja (Fig. 1(d)). Equal confusion seems to be apparent in Balog's use of the

term buqja. Mayer7 showed that the rhomb is used in MamlQk heraldry to represent the buqja or napkin of the jamddr (master of the robes). A rhomb appears on the following

Mamluk coins: Cairo fulus of al-Na$ir Muhammad dated 720 and 721 (nos. 242, 243); Damascus fulus of the same sultan, dated 720 (no. 244); Damascus fulus of al-Musta'In bi'liah, dated 815 (no. 675-6); Aleppo undated dirhams of sultan Jaqmaq (842-57) (no. 747); Aleppo fulus of Jaqmaq dated 846 and 848(?) (no. 751); a Tripoli fals of Jaqmaq, incompletely dated 85- (no. 753); an Aleppo undated fals of sultan Khushqadam (865-72) (no. SS9). In the case of the fulus of al-NSsir Muhammad, the rhomb contains part of the date in words; the fulus of al-Musta*in bi'llah and the dirhams of Jaqmaq have the sultan's name, or part of it, in the rhomb; Khushqadam's/fl/j has the mint name in the rhomb; Jaqmaq's Aleppo fulus have a rosette in the rhomb, and his Tripoli fals may have a plain rhomb, though the coin is too damaged to allow this to be determined for certain.

Balog himself admits the difficulty of interpretation with regard to SS9?"the rhomboid on the reverse may represent a heraldic buqja or 'napkin*, or it may be a simple ornamental element". There seems to be no valid reason for assuming that the rest of the rhomboids are napkins if one cannot be sure of this one. Granted for the moment that many of the other devices on the coins are blazons, one would certainly expect to find napkins depicted, but common as they are on historical blazons, they are only occasionally found with ornaments or charges on them, and never with inscriptions. A much more likely interpreta tion of the rhombs would therefore seem to be that they are frames?convenient forms for dividing up the field of the coin or surrounding and marking off a particular feature. There are after all many other forms of frame used on Mamluk coins?circles, hexagrams, squares, tetralobes, triangles, interwoven triangles, eight-pointed stars, octograms, concave sided linear octolobes, spindle-shaped cartouches, and so on. Diamonds or rhombs can

surely be included in this same category. (d) Gothic shield (Fig. 1(c)). The "Gothic shield" appears on a copper issue of sultan

Hasan dated 762 (no. 373), but there is no reason for thinking it to be any more than a frame like those we have just mentioned. Mayer only mentions it in his book Saracenic heraldry as a variation shape for a shield; he never interprets it as a blazon in its own right. And, again, as with the rhomb, it has an inscription inside it. It can therefore be dismissed as a blazon. * J. Sauvaget, La poste aux chevaux dans Vempire des Mamelouks, Paris, 1941, 46-9; SH, 17. This was pointed out by G. Oman in his review of Balog's book in Annali dell* Istituto Italiano di

Numismatica, IX-XI, 1962^1, 310-12. 7 SH. 14-15.


MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRBTATION 101

(e) The checker-board (Fig. 1(f)). The checker-board is not perhaps such an obvious way of dividing up the field of a coin, nor is it a proper frame, but it appears at a time when most curious patterning is being used on copper coins, e.g. the crude cabling and zig-zagging of coins of Qaitbey (nos. 838-40 and in a lesser form nos. 846-8), and is also used in the unlikely heraldic position of background for a mihrdb on some of the coins of al-Ghuri (no. 898 and Hoard nos. 23 and 24). When it appears alone, therefore, with only the date in numbers within it, it is hard to attribute to it more than decorative significance.

(/") Bends (Fig. 1(e)). A coin design consisting of a field divided into three horizontal segments, the central one bendy, seems, at first, to be nearer the conventional conception of a Mamluk blazon. Bends on the lower field of a two-fielded shield seem to have been a family emblem of the Ham& branch of the AyyQbids, and a three-fielded shield is common from the mid 14th century onwards under the Mamluks. But no historical blazon of this type is known, and even if it were one surely would not expect, heraldically speaking, to find the words tfuriba bi-llama above and below the bends, as is the case with a coin of al-MansOr (no. 394). Bends are an elementary enough form of decoration, easy to draw, convenient for filling up unwanted blank space, and can be fairly compared with the cabling which appears on Cairo gold coins of Barsbay (nos. 703-12) and the crude cabling and zig-zagging which has been mentioned above. It seems unnecessary to try to credit them with heraldic significance.

Ignoring then these decorative features of the Mamluk coinage, let us turn to those devices which, at first sight at least, are more obviously blazonic. Such devices appear on

many of the copper coins struck in the Syrian mints from the time of al-N5sir Muhammad onwards (see Appendix), on the silver coinage of Damascus for the years 832-9 and 845 (nos. 721-5 and 746)?though the chalices on nos. 721-5 are difficult to take seriously as heraldic devices, being extremely small and insignificant?and on some Cairo copper coins of the sultans Khushqadam (865-72) (no. 797) and Muhammad (901-4) (nos. 859, 860,

Hoard 17, 18, and 19). Their use within the Mamluk Empire as a whole is thus not uniform.

A glance at the copper coin design charts in the Appendix shows that their use by any one individual mint is not uniform either, and that particular devices do not coincide, generally speaking, with particular reigns. For instance, if one compares designs and reigns in Damascus issues there are obvious irregularities, e.g. the fleur-de-lys used on 'All's coins

continues not only on the coins of his successor Hajji, but also on those of the first year, or perhaps two years, of the next sultan, Barquq; a fleur-de-lys chalice is introduced in the middle of BarqQq's second reign and disappears again in the middle of his son Fa raj's reign. And these irregularities are in Damascus, chief city of Syria and second only to

Cairo in the Mamluk Empire, where one would particularly expect logic and uniformity of design.

An analysis of the designs of the copper issues of the other Syrian mints shows that n these cases there was apparently no system of coin design in this context whatsoever.

Far from each sultan being represented by a single blazon uniformly used, most sultans are represented by any number of different ones. For instance, sultan al-Ashraf Sha'ban is represented at (lama by a fleur-de-lys, a lion, and a shark, while sultan Muhammad has a lion and sun, a cup, and a horse and qubba, and sultan Barquq has a lion, an eagle, a


102 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THB NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTBRPRETATION

waterwheel, and a composite blazon consisting of a cup, a crescent, and a pair of polo sticks. At Tripoli, on the other hand, coins of Sha'ban have a fleur-de-lys, a lion, a water

wheel, and a rosette, and those of Barquq, in addition to the lion and waterwheel, have a fleur-de-lys. (No Tripoli coins of Muhammad are known.)

Bearing this diversity in mind, it is extremely difficult to follow Balog in postulating composite blazons containing all the different emblems which appear on the coins of a particular sultan (see p. 99?Balog's conclusion (c)). With sultan Barquq for instance, in terms of what we know about composite blazons,8 it is hard to imagine a blazon on

which a pair of polo-sticks, a crescent, an ordinary cup, a fleur-de-lys chalice, a rosette, a fleur-de-lys, and two different types of lion all appeared. It might at this point be suggested that these devices were nevertheless sultanic blazons in the sense that since sultans were able to bestow offices and symbols of office, all symbols of office were therefore in a way theirs, and they therefore had a right to wear any amiral blazon they chose; but here again, the lack of uniformity, lack of system, and apparent sheer arbitrariness of the choice of design militates against such a sultanic attribution.

Granted then that these devices are not sultanic blazons, they must, if they really are blazons, be amiral ones. The only likely candidates for the ownership of these blazons among the many amirs holding government positions are, first, the governors of the provinces or towns in which the particular mints were situated and, secondly, the amirs appointed by the sultan to oversee the workings of the mint. A comparison of issues with governor

ships makes it clear that there is no connection between these two during the MamlQk period. For instance, during the years 781-4 the copper coinage design in Damascus is constant (nos. 501-3, 524, and 558), but there are two governors of Damascus during that

period, KumushbughS and Ishiqtamur,* whose amiral blazons differ from one another and from the device on the coins; similarly in Aleppo during the years 743-6 the copper coins (nos. 291-3) display a rosette, but there are three governors during the period? Tuquztamur, Altunbugha, and Yalbugha,10 none of whom had a rosette as their blazon.

With regard to the amirs delegated by the sultan to control the workings of the mint, the situation is not so clear-cut, for the simple reason that scarcely anything is known about such appointments. No detailed studies of the mint in the Mamluk period have ever been undertaken, and it is very difficult to say or even to hazard a guess as to the various people involved and the sort of decisions each was expected to take. Direct references in the sources to the control of the coinage are few. Maqriz! records that BarqQq's ustdddr

Mahmiid b. 4Ali issued coins and controlled the workings of the mint between 794-7.11 Ibn Furat says that Jarkas al-Khallli in 789 received orders, presumably from sultan Barquq, to strike coins with a particular design on them,12 and we know from MaqrizI that in 741, at Anas in Armenia, when money was struck in the name of al-N3$ir Muham

mad b. Qala'un, Shaykh Hasan b. y usayn was charged with minting it under the surveillance

SH, fig. p. 30. SH, 146 and 124-5. 10 SH, 235, 63-4, and 249-50. 11 Sacy, op. cit., 39; Maqrlzl, al-Nuqud al-islimiyya, Najaf, 1967 edition, 31. 11 L. A. Mayer, "Lead coins of Barquq**, in Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, III,

1933, 22, quoting Ibn Fur*t, MS. Vienna, IX, f. 3, lines 16 ff.


MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION 103

of the amir Shih&b al-Din Ahmad, who left Egypt for this purpose.18 But such references, interesting as they are, are far too few and widely spaced to build up even a rough outline of the way in which the activities of the mint were controlled.

Some sort of two-tier system of control does, however, seem to be indicated by the

designs of the coins issued under the Mamluk sultans. The gold and silver coins, the issue

of which the sultans, following centuries of regal precedent, would have undoubtedly controlled very closely, have a traditional combination of Qur'anic quotations, royal titles, and mint and date indications: they are, in other words, typically Islamic. This includes gold and silver coins minted in Syria. The copper coins, especially those from Syrian mints, have a distinctive and inferior design?a device or ornament on one side and a heavily abbreviated name on the other. This, plus their crude, clumsy and often apparently hasty execution, suggests a complete lack of royal interest in or control of their production.

But who the parties in control of the issue of copper coins were, if the sultan is for the most part to be ruled out, it is quite impossible to say. We know that in the Circassian period there was an amir entitled shddd dar al-{larbxi who was appointed to look after the Cairo mint at least: his actual responsibilities, either in Cairo or elsewhere, are unknown. It seems likely that during the Mamluk period the mints were farmed out to amirs?

Maqrizi records the fact for the reign of Baybars16 and also mentions Mahmud b. "All farming out the Cairo mint in Barquq's reign16?but our knowledge of the activities of the men to whom the mints were farmed out and the extent of their control or financial interests is equally non-existent.

Given this dearth of evidence we cannot rule out the possibility that the devices in question were the blazons of men such as these, but if we suppose that these devices were not their blazons the question naturally arises as to whether they were in fact blazons at all.

Iconographic analysis of the various devices shows that they may in fact be construed in

various other ways, some as age-old symbols of royal authority, some as decorative devices derived from the technical heraldic vocabulary of the Mamluk ruling class, some as no more than ornaments (cf. the indiscriminate use of blazons in Mamluk ceramic decoration).

A number of coins, for instance, show devices which, though they appear to be typical composite Mamluk blazons, are more probably corruptions of true composite blazons serving an altogether different purpose. Thus a bird and swan appear on Aleppo fulus of sultan ?aiih dated 755 (no. 338), a bird and crescent or bird and Mayer's emblem no. 26 on some fulus of al-Mansur Muhammad (no. 395), a lion and small bush on Hama/w/w* of Barquq (no. 597b), a chalice with crescent and polo-sticks on another issue of Hama in the same reign (no. 598), a lion and chalice on yet another Barquq issue, this time from

Aleppo (no. 595), the chalice, crescent, and polo-sticks again on a (?) Hama fals of Faraj (no. 659), and an unidentified copper coin (no. 905) has on the middle field an object

which might be construed as a cup, and on the upper field Mayer's emblem no. 35. A number of observations may be made about these coin designs. In the first place, no bird other

" Sauvaire, H., "Mattriaux pour servir a I'histoire de la numismatique et de la metrologie musulmanes", Journal Asiatique, scr. VII, vol. XIX, 306, quoting MaqrizI, Description d'Egypte, II, 306. 14 W. Popper, Egypt and Syria under the Circassian sultans, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955, 95. This was a military post in Cairo, not duplicated it seems in Damascus.

M. Quatremere, op. cit., I, pt. 1, 233. ? Sauvaire, op. cit., XV, 261, quoting MaqrizI, Tralti des famines, fol. 28 v., 29 v.


104 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDBNCB: A RBINTERPRETATION

than the eagle is found in Mamluk heraldry, and the eagle, except on pottery which is unreliable as evidence of heraldry proper, is always found displayed: the bird depicted in these coin devices is always in profile. Secondly, there is no historical blazon recorded in which two animals or two birds are shown together: the combination of an eagle and swan thus seems an unlikely one. Thirdly, although the device found on coins of both Barquq and Faraj is intrinsically more plausible as a blazon, the two outer fields of the coins' three-fielded division, as with the fesse central segment bendy, are filled with (Jluriba bi-Hamd or duriba bi-Halab, and the presence of such an inscription conflicts with what is known of the heraldic system. Furthermore not one of these devices is represented in

Mayer's Armorial Roll.

For these reasons it seems very unlikely that any of such combinations could be true blazons. But whereas the devices previously discussed (rhomb, "Gothic shield", etc.) seem to be framing devices unconnected with heraldic emblems, these by contrast do make use of heraldic motifs but misapply them. In other words, the designer of the coin was making use of the technical heraldic vocabulary of his day, but for symbolic or ornamental, not heraldic purposes.

Most of the remaining devices may be interpreted along these lines. The lion (Fig. 1(g)). The lion appears on coins of al-Ashraf Sha'ban, 'Ali, Barquq,

Faraj, al-Muzaffar Ahmad, Barsbay, Aynal, Qaytbay, and al-Z&hir Qgnsuh. It is, of course, a well-known royal and astrological symbol, and in an Ayyubid context is found on copper coins of ?alah al-Din17 and on the Harran Gate at Urfa, built between a.d. 1211 and 1220. It was also the emblem of sultan Baybars, as noted above, and no doubt it was this fact and its frequent appearance on Baybars's coins that led to its frequent adoption as a

numismatic symbol by later Mamluk coiners. The fleur-de-lys (Fig. 1(h)). The fleur-de-lys appears on coins of al-Na$ir Muhammad,

al-Muzaffar Hajji, al-Ashraf Sha'ban, *AH, al-?filih IJajjI, Barquq, and Faraj. In an Islamic context, in the pre-MamlQk period, it is found as a royal symbol of some sort in two monuments connected with NOT al-Din Mahmud b. Zangi,18 but it is also found at the end of the 12th century a.d. on coins of Bohemond III, Prince of Antioch (and possibly on coins of his son Bohemond IV), and on coins struck in Acre about the same time for Henri de Champagne.19 This Crusader use of the fleur-de-lys is particularly interesting, as in some instances pellets are used in the design, two or four in number, to which the

MamlQk designs with the same use of pellets must be directly even if distantly linked. This device can then be quite adequately explained as a symbol based on pre-Mamluk regal usage.

The rosette (Fig. l(i)). This is a common device on the MamlQk coins and again a symbol with a history: it is one of the oldest AyyQbid devices and was the badge of the

Rasulid sultans of Yemen, to judge by the notable group of metalwork made for them. Rosettes are also of course used in MamlQk decoration purely for decorative purposes, and this somewhat confuses their position as heraldic devices, but although we shall never know for certain what symbolism or decorative value the rosette or the related whirling 17 S. Lane-Poole, Catalogue of Oriental coins in the British Museum, IV, 1879, pi. Ill, no. 274, and p. 72. 11 In his madrasa in Damascus, and in the main mosque at Himj, see SH, 22. " G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de VOrient latins Paris, 1878, pi. HI, 1 A 2, and p. 52.


MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION 105

rosette (or waterwhecl) (Fig. l(p)) had for a particular coin designer, some overtones of authority and power might be fairly assumed.

The eagle (Fig. l(j)). This is found, displayed, on coins of al-Nasir Muhammad and Barquq, and as a walking bird on coins of al-$alih ?alih, al-Mansur Muhammad, and Qaytbay (see p. 104). The displayed double-headed eagle is found on coins of 'Imad al-Din Zengcs and Qujb ad-Din Muhammad, AtSbeks of Sinjar, and the Urtuqid ruler Nasir al-Din

Mahmud, in the late 12th and early 13th century,20 and was from a.d. 1261 onwards the emblem of the ruling family in Byzantium, the Palaeologi.21 It was used on Mamluk blazons both in single- and double-headed form. There is therefore no reason to doubt that when such a device appears on a Mamluk coin it symbolizes, at least in part, the idea of power, and in particular the power wielded by the Mamluk military class.

The lion and sun (Fig. l(k)) and the horseman (Fig. 1(1)). The lion and sun, found on a (lama issue of al-Mansur Muhammad, and the horseman, found on another Hama issue of the same sultan, also, quite apart from their decorative nature, reflect the idea of royalty or power. There is no other instance so far as I am aware of the use of the former

device in the Mamluk period, though the latter is found." Both these devices, however, appear on Saljflq coins of the early 7th/13th century, and the Mamluk coin designers may well have viewed them as emblems of a previous ruling house, and re-used them in this light.

The cup (Fig. l(m)) and the crescent (Fig. l(n)). The cup, symbol of office of the cup bearer, or sdqi, and the crescent, assuming it to be the horseshoe, i.e. the symbol of office

of the master of the stable, amir akhur, have a more obviously Mamluk origin than those devices listed above, but there is little more reason to suppose that they are true blazons than there was for the latter. The cup appears on coins of Kitbugha, al-Mansur Muham

mad, Barquq, Faraj, Barsbay, Jaqmaq, Temirbugha, and al-Ghuri. The cup on coins of Barsbay (nos. 721-5) has no shield and is so small and insignificant as to be almost in visible, while in the case of Barquq and Faraj it has a cuspidated rim (nos. 590-1, 647-9 and SS4)?Balog calls the object a fleur-de-lys chalice (which describes it well) and illustrates it with a picture of a small cup of the type in his own collection. There is, however, no example of such a chalice on a historical blazon and since once again the device has no shield it seems unlikely that it is any more than a decorative device, albeit with overtones of the ruling class. The other cups mentioned could be construed as blazons on the basis of their design, and it is quite impossible to prove conclusively that they are not. One can but say that the accumulated evidence so far makes it seem unlikely. The cup of Kitbugha is a special case which will be dealt with below. This crescent appears on an Aleppo issue of al-Ashraf Sha'ban (nos. 471-2) and on two issues of All, probably both from Tripoli (nos. 506-7), and is known from two historical blazons as well as numerous potsherds;23 but since on these coins it appears in the centre of a hexagram (in the case of nos. 471-2 itself within an ornamented dodecalobe) or a pair of tetralobes, neither of which is a

" S. Lane Poole, op. cit., Ill, 1877, nos. 619, 633, 346, 349, 351, for example. 11 For a brief history of the double-headed eagle as a royal symbol and coat-of-arms see I. BSnciia, "Elements d*art mone'taire bulgare au XIIIc siecle", Bulletin de Tlnstitut d%Archiologie Bulgare, XXV, 1962, 68.

For a list of the objects on which the horseman appears see SH, 18. "

SH, 25.


106 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRBTATION

recognizable form of shield, and since, particularly in the first case, it is an extremely small device, it would seem once again to be decorative, though obviously derived from the

Mamluk heraldic vocabulary. The fish (Fig. l(o)). The fish is found on a Hama" coin of al-Ashraf Sha'ban (no. 465).

Balog (23-4, 223) considers it to be a heraldic device since it is prominent, detached and stylized. It may be heraldic but Mayer dismisses fish as blazons,24 and in view of the pre ceding discussion it seems to be more likely that the fish is, like the cup and crescent, a non-heraldic device.

On the basis of the assembled evidence it is clear that the devices used on the MamlQk coins in question were not the blazons of the ruling sultans; it is also highly probable that

they were not blazons at all. Two exceptions to this general theory were noted above (sultans Baybars and Baraka Q5n), and two possible further exceptions must be mentioned here?sultans Kitbugha and Lajin. We know from al-Dhahabi that Kitbugha's blazon when he was an amir was a cup,25 and his Damascus copper issue (no. 161) has a cup upon it, assumed by Mayer to be the same blazon. It seems unlikely that this is mere coincidence?in this case the sultan's amiral blazon may well have been deliberately placed on his coins. In the case of Lajin, we find on his Damascus copper issue (no. 166) a three fielded round shield, a true fesse. Lajin's amiral blazon is not known?his presence in

Mayer's Armorial Roll is due to this coin device. But he is known to have been famed for swiftness as a royal courier,26 and since this is the blazon of the royal courier might we

very tentatively propose that Lajin's amiral emblem was indeed the fesse and that he followed Kitbugha in having his amiral blazon on some of his coins? The evidence offered previously seems to show conclusively, however, that this practice did not continue after

the reign of Lajin. Bearing these conclusions in mind, let us look at the blazons recorded by Mayer as belonging to particular sultans. The following sultans (post-Lajin) are in cluded in Mayer's Armorial Roll?al-Muzaffar Hajji, al-Ashraf Sha'ban, *AH, Isma'U, al-Muzaffar Ahmad, al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh, Aynal, Janbalaf, and al-Ghuri.27 Now if we exclude coins as evidence of blazons we must exclude al-Muzaffar Hajji, al-Ashraf Sha'ban, 'Ali, Isma'il, and al-Muzaffar Ahmad, since Mayer's only evidence was in fact numismatic.

The blazons attributed to the remaining four were all engraved while those men were amirs. Thus al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh's blazon is known from the Great Mosque at Damascus and was engraved in 808, in which year he was appointed Governor of Safad;2a AynaPs blazon on a minaret at Gaza was engraved when he was governor of Gaza in 835;" the two blazons of Jfinbal&t known are on pieces of metalwork dating from the time when he was Amir Dawdddr or Viceroy of Syria;30 al-GhQri*s blazon is known from a bowl made for him when he was Grand Chamberlain (hdjib al-hujjdb) in Aleppo.31 In other words, after

SH, 26. " Quoted by Mayer in SH, 144, and by Balog, 27. " Sauvaget, op. cit., 77, n. 300. " Al-Nasir Muhammad b. Qal&'On is also included in Mayer's Armorial Roll on the basis of a glass lamp

and two coins. Mayer himself stresses how tenuous the attribution of a blazon on the basis of objects is in the case of this sultan, and there seems to be no more reason for accepting the blazon on the lamp

he cites than that on any of the other objects. "57/, 201. "

SH, 88. 90 SH, 128-9.

"

SH, 179.


MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCB: A RE1NTERPRETATION 107

-..' ? o ? ' .'"' b c d

f 9 h

# # I i * . ?

/S\ /S\ /*ittV /^5^\ ^g/" ^^^ vL^ x-gj?

m ft ? |i Fio. I


108 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THB NUMISMATIC BVIDENCB: A REINTERPRBTATION

Lajin there is no record of a Mamluk using his arniral blazon after he had become sultan. Mayer, of course, was well aware of the inscribed shields which most of the MaralQk sultans used, and he describes their development in detail.98 Unfortunately, however, his inclusion of coins as evidence in his Armorial Roll blinded him to what appears to be the true situation?not only were these shields the prerogative of the sultan, but they were also used by the sultan to the exclusion of any other blazon or heraldic device. In other words when an amir rose to the position of sultan he abandoned his arniral blazon and adopted an inscribed shield with his sultanic titles upon it, thereby distinguishing himself from the other amirs who according to the Mamluk heraldic system might have the same arniral blazon. Kitbugha's and Lajin's reigns thus mark a transitional stage in the develop ment of the sultanic blazon, when the only precedents were the personal emblem of Baybars and the inherited emblem of Barak Qan, and the inscribed shield had not yet developed. It was presumably the multitude of like emblems within the Mamluk hierarchy that hastened the establishment of the inscribed shield as the exclusive emblem of the sultan. In the light of this, al-Dhahabi's statement about Kitbugha's blazon is of some interest.

He says: >-Jl ol^l

MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE*. A REINTERPRETATION 109

APPENDIX Table of Mamluk Copper Coin Designs

To enable the reader to see at a glance the changes in design which took place at any one mint, the coin designs in the tables below are described as briefly as possible, only the main identifying feature being mentioned. Inscriptions are mentioned only when there is no more obvious feature of the design by which the coin may be recognized. Consecutive identical coin designs are indicated by ditto marks. H. in the coin number column stands for Hoard.

Cairo Copper Coins

Reign Date Design Coin number

Hasan (755-62) 759 Linear dccalobe/Linear octogram 369 760 ? ? ? ? 370 761 ? ? ? ? 371 762 ? ? ? ? 372

Mubammad (762-4) 762 . 385 763 ? ? ? ? 386 764 ? ? ? ? 387

Sha'ban II (764-78) 764-70 . 437-43 773 ? ? ? ? 444

775-8 ., ? 445-8 AH (778-83) 779 ,. 496

781 ., 497 782 ? ? ? ? 498

Hftjjl II (783-4) 783 . 517 784 ? ? ? ? 518

Barquq (784-91) 785 ? ? ? ? 554 786 ? ? ? ? 555 791 ? ? ? ? 555a

BarqQq (792-801) 792-6 ? ? ? ? 578-82 798 ,, ? ? ? 583 799 ? ? ? ? 584

Barsbay (825-41) 83- Square in petal-shaped segments 730 AynSl (857-65) 85- Three-pointed circle SS7

863 Small knot in circle SS8 863 Arabesque knot 774

864 ? ? 775 Khushqadam (865-72) ?- Rosette 797 Qaytbay (873-901) 886 Ornamented cartouche 833/H.l

886 Checkerboard 834/H.2 891 Zigzags (in various forms) 838,839,840,

H.3, 4 ? Hexagram/Linear rhomboid 835 ? Hexagram/Hexagram 836 ? Hexagrams and wedges et alia H.5, 6, and 7

Muhammad (901-4) 902 Waterwheel (anti-clockwise) 859, H.17 902 Waterwheel (clockwise) H.18 902 Waterwheel (large clockwise) 860, H.19

al-GhQrl (906-22) 907 Hcxalobes with flowerets 893, H.20

Alexandria Copper Coins


Sha'ban II (764-78) 770 Linear decalobe/Linear octogram 449 773 ? ? ? ? 450 776 ? ? ? ,, 451

777 ? ? ,, ? 452,453 AH (778-83) ? Undulant circle/Linear octogram 499, 500

H&jjl II (783-4) 783 Linear decalobe/Linear octogram 522 784 ? ? ? ? 523 ?

. 521


110 IIAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION


Barquq (784-91) 784 Linear decalobe/Linear octogram 556 785 ,, ,, ,, ,, 557

Wiiinf79l-2) - ? ? ? ? 531 Barquq (792-801) ? Circle 586

Circle 587 Faraj (801-8 and 809-15) 803(7) Linear hexagram with trefoils 645

807 Linear decalobe/circle 646

Note: (a) nos. 499 and 500 are basically the same design as the coins of Sha'ban II, Hajji II, and BarqQq's first rcign?thc decalobe has decayed into an undulant circle.

Damascus Copper Coins


al-NA>ir Mubammad (709-41) 720 Lozenge 244 730 Rosette 261 732 ? 262 732 Middle segments cartouche 247 733 ? ? ? 248 734 ,, ,, ? 249 735 Inscription"

"

222 736 ? 223 737 ? 224 739 ? 225 741 ? 226

AbQ Bakr (741-2) 741 Hexagram with pellets 267 742 ? ? ? 268

Afcmad (742-3) 743 ? ? ? 272 743 ? ? ? SS2

IsmftH (743-6) 743 Inscription in dotted circle 287 744 ? ? ? ? 288 746 ? ? ? ? 289

Sha'ban I (746-7) 746 ? ? ? ? 303 747 , , 304

Hasan (748-52) 749 Twin'tetralobes " "

327 Masan (755-62) 756 Gothic shield 373

762 Segmented triangle 374 Muhammad (762-4) 762 ? ? 388

763 ? ? 389 764 ? ? 390

Sha'ban II (764-78) 770 3-segmented field 454 771 ? ? 455 771 ? ? 456 772(7) ., ? 457

All (778-83) 781 Fleur-de-lys 501 782 ? 502 783 ? 503

tfajjt II (783-4) 783 ? with pellets 524 BarqQq (784-91) 784 ? ? ? 558

786 Hexagram ? ? 559 787 ? ? ? 560 790 ? ? ? 561 790 Inscription in dotted circle 562

tfajji II (791-2) 791 Hexagram with pellets 532 792 ,, 533

BarqQq (792-801) 796 Dodecalobe" "

588 797 ? 589 798 Fleur-de-lys chalice 590

799 ? ? 591 Faraj (801-8 and 809-15) 801 ? ? 647

802 ? ? SS4 803 ? ? 648


MAMLOK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THB NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION 111


806 Fleur-de-lys chalice 649 810 Linear triangle 650

811 Central circle 651 al-MuzafTar Afemad (824) ? Lion passant 699

Note: (a) nos. 524 and 558 can be considered as having the same design as nos. 501-3, since the wording of the inscriptions is the same in both groups and the addition of pellets does not really change the design.

(b) nos. 532 and 533 are of the same design as nos. 559-561. (c) no. 327 has the same design as Tripoli no. 329.

Aleppo Copper Coins


al-Nflsir Mubammad (698-708 701 Hexagram and pellets 171 and 709-41) 710 Hexagram 238

710 Circular inscription 233 717 Rosette 260 ?

Inscription 228 ? Cable circle 236 ? Floral scroll circle 252

Isma'fl (743-6) 743 Rosette 291 744 ? 292 746 ? 293 746 3-segmentcd field 294

Hajjl I (747-8) ? Fleur-de-lys with pellets 314 $asan (748-52) ? 3-segmented field 328 $ftlib (752-5) 755 Eagle and swan 338 Sha'ban II (764-78) ? Spindle petals 468 ? Linear octolobe 469 ? Rosette 470 ? Crescent 471,472 Barquq (784-91) 786(7) Linear octogram 563

788 3-segmented field 564 789 ? ? 565

Barquq (792-801) 793(7) Fleur-de-lys 593 ? Inscription 592 ? Lion passant to right in middle segment 594 ? Lion passant to left and cup 595 Faraj (801-8) 802 Inscription 653

803 Fleur-de-lys 654 804 Rosette 655 ? Lion passant to left in middle segment 656

Jaqmaq (842-57) 846 and 848 (?) Rosette in lozenge 751

845 Hexagram 752 al-Mansur Uthmftn (857) ? Circle 757 Aynftl (857-65) ?- Hexalobe/Spindle cartouche 778 Khushqadam (865-72) 865 Rosette 800 ? Circle 798 ?

Hexagram and star 799 ? Rhomboid SS9

Note: (a) no. 563 is an Egyptian-style fats.

tfam& Copper Coins

Reign Date Design Coin number al-N&sir Mubammad (709-41) ? Inscription 229 ? Mibr&b and lamp 241 ? 3-segmented field and bends 250 ? Circle with 3-segmentcd field and bends 251


112 MAMLUK SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THE NUMISMATIC BVIDBNCE: A REINTERPRETATION


Ismail (743-6) 746 Square 296 ? Ornamented dodecalobe 295 tfajji I (747-8) ? ? ? 315 Muhammad (762-4) ? Cup/Lion and sun 392 ? Horse and qubbah 393 ?

Rosettes/3-segmented field and bends 394 Sha'ban II (764-78) 764 Fleur-de-lys 466

765 Triple horizontal line 467 ? Hexagram 460 ? Spoked twin circle 461 ? Ornaments/3-segmented field and bends 462 ? Lion passant to right 463 ? Lion passant to left 464 ? Shark 465 HSjjI II (783-4) ? Rosette with pellets 527

_ 258 BarqQq (784-801 799 Inscription

"

596 ? Lion passant to left in middle segment 597 ?

Composite device 598 ? Eagle 599 ? Waterwheel 600 ?

Inscription in halves 601 Faraj (801-8) ? Intersecting semi-circles 657 ? Circle 658 (Uncertain attribution) ? Chandelier (?) and chalice 905

Tripoli Copper Coins


al-Na$ir Muhammad (709-41) ? Inscription 217 726 Inscription 218 ? Inscription 227 741 Hexagram and pellets 240 ? Fleur-de-lys border 235 ? Hexagram 239 ? 3-segmented field and hexagram 253 ? Hexagram and rosette 259 ? Eagle with pellets and branch 264

Ismail (743-6) 744 Lion passant to right 297 Hasan (748-52) 750 Twin tetralobes 329 Sha'ban II (764-78) 776 Hexagram 473 ? Hexagram/Triquetra 474 ? Waterwheel and pellets 475 ? Rosette in wavy cable 476 ? Rosette in star/Hexagram 477 ?

. 478 ? Fleur-de-lys 479 ? Lion passant to left 480

AU (778-83) ? Fleur-de-lys 504 ? Lion passant to left 505 ? Crescent in hexagram 506 ? Octogram 508 Hajji II (783-4 and 791-2) ? Fleur-de-lys 525 Barquq (784-91 and 792-801) 789 Lion passant to left 602 ? Fleur-de-lys and 2 pellets 603 ?

Inscription 604 ? Arabesque knot 605 ? Waterwheel 606 Faraj (801-8) 804 Linear octogram 660 ? Inscription 661 ? Fleur-de-lys in ornamental circle 662 ? Square 663 Jaqmaq (842-57) ?- Concave-sided lozenge 753


Article Contentsp. [99]p. 100p. 101p. 102p. 103p. 104p. 105p. 106p. 107p. 108p. 109p. 110p. 111p. 112

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1970), pp. 99-272Volume InformationMamlk Sultanic Heraldry and the Numismatic Evidence: A Reinterpretation [pp. 99-112]A Piece of Scale Armour from Shaikhn Dher, Chrsada (Shaikhn Dher Studies, 1) [pp. 113-120]Tokharika [pp. 121-122]The Sequence of Menander's Drachmae [pp. 123-136]An Early Eighteenth-Century Persian Blue and White [pp. 137-141]A Sasanian Repository at Shahr-I Qmis [pp. 142-155]Appendix: The Sasanian Coin from Qmis [pp. 156-158]An Early Indian Hero-Stone and a Possible Western Source [pp. 159-164]The Sculptures of Bahrm II [pp. 165-171]Three Minarets in the Kirmn Region [pp. 172-180]Some Aspects of the Impact of Rome on Palestine [pp. 181-191]An Early Mesopotamian Link with India [pp. 192-194]Some Remarks on the Miniatures in the Society's "Jmi' Al-Tawrkh" [pp. 195-199]Copper Vehicle-Models in the Indus Civilization [pp. 200-202]R.A.S. MS 178: An Unrecorded Persian Painter [pp. 203-209]Overlay and "P'Ing-T'O" in T'Ang Silverwork [pp. 210-215]Reviews of BooksNear and Middle East, IslamReview: untitled [pp. 216-217]Review: untitled [pp. 217-218]Review: untitled [pp. 218-219]Review: untitled [pp. 219-221]

South AsiaReview: untitled [pp. 221-223]Review: untitled [pp. 223-224]Review: untitled [pp. 225-226]Review: untitled [pp. 226-227]Review: untitled [pp. 227-229]

ObituaryProfessor Dr. Ananiasz Zajczkowski [p. 230-230]

Anniversary Meeting [pp. 231-238]Back Matter

mamluk heraldry 25203199

Documents

numismatic evidence

use of composite blazons

use of devices

coin evidence

heraldic evidence

mamluk blazon

sultans blazon

terms conditions of