You are on page 1of 15

Mamlk Sultanic Heraldry and the Numismatic Evidence: A Reinterpretation Author(s): J. W.

Allan Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1970), pp. 99112 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

MAMLUK SULTANICHERALDRY 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 (a) The their design. Balog's sultans Mamluk main engraved conclusions their may coats-of-arms be briefly on summarized many of as follows: 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 theMamluk 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 heraldic so clearly evidence by Balog, more and to suggest than a different explanation reached

for the use of devices on Mamluk


numismatic and other

coinage, which explanation I believe reconciles both the


satisfactorily the conclusions

by Balog. I do not propose


objections First "Gothic from to them of all, will certain the

to consider Balog's conclusions


the general

point by point?my

specific

as emerge individual

shield", the discussion.

checker-board,

argument proceeds. the buqja, the fesse, the the lion of Baybars, devices, use of bends to be eliminated need and a particular

(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 in other the lion which appears on coins of his son, Baraka Q5n, is the same one?that, reason For or his father. this from inherited it took Baraka over, it, words, Baybars Q3n 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.
Studies No. sultans of Egypt and Syria, Numismatic 12, New Dalog, The coinage of the Mamluk in brackets after particular coins referred to as Coinage. The numbers York, 1964, henceforward in Coinage. Hoard numbers refer to the coins published in this article are the coin numbers mentioned on the metrology of copper coins and observations by Balog in his article "A hoard of late Mamluk 7th series, II, 1962, 243-73. the Mamluk fals'\ in Numismatic Chronicle, ? 18-38. * Coinage, referred to as Sff. L. A. Mayer, Saracenic heraldry, Oxford, 1933, henceforward 4 traduit de 1'arabe de Mafcrizi", I. A. (Translated by), "Trait6des monnoies musulmanes Sylvcstrede: Sacy, Icre serie, T.I, Cairo, in Bibliothcque des arabisants francais, 1905, 39. Maqrizi, al-Nuqudal-isldmiyya, Bahr al-'UlQm, Najaf, called Shudhur al-'ukud ft dhikr al-nuqud, ed. Muhammad 1967, 30. Also n. 12. M. Quatrcmere, Hlstoire des sultans mamlouks, Paris, 1837, II/l, 14-15, JRAS, 1970, 2. 10 1Paul

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

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 inMamlQk 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 case of the fulus of al-NSsir Muhammad, In the the rhomb contains (865-72) (no. SS9). part of the date inwords; thefulus 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; a plain on Jaqmaq's rhomb, Aleppo though may if one on as fulus the coin have is too a rosette damaged or for in the rhomb, and his Tripoli have fals may to allow this to be determined for certain.

Balog himself admits the difficulty of interpretation with regard to SS9?"the


the reverse element". are There a heraldic represent seems to be no valid cannot be sure of the coins they buqja reason this one. 'napkin*, or it may that assuming Granted for the moment certainly they are expect only

rhomboid

be a simple ornamental the rest of the rhomboids that many napkins of the to find

napkins other devices but common

are blazons, one would are on historical blazons,

occasionally

depicted, 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,
interwoven squares, tetralobes, triangles, sided linear octolobes, spindle-shaped triangles, cartouches, eight-pointed and so on. stars, Diamonds concave octograms, 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

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, This was pointed out by G. Oman in his review of Balog's 1962^1, 310-12. IX-XI, 7 Numismatica, 14-15. SH. Paris, 1941, 46-9; SH, 17. book in Annali dell* Istituto

right.

Italiano

di

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

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 itmore 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 theAyyQbids, 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
721-5 and (nos. heraldic devices, Hoard uniform. 746)?though being extremely 19). Their the chalices small use and on nos. 721-5 are difficult on some to take Cairo a whole seriously copper is thus as coins not insignificant?and the Mamluk

of the sultans Khushqadam


17, 18, and

(865-72)

(no. 797) and Muhammad


Empire

(901-4)
as

(nos. 859, 860,

within

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 number of no system of coin design in this context whatsoever.

Far from each sultan being represented by a single blazon uniformly used, most
are represented lion and by any different ones. For instance, sultan al-Ashraf

sultans
Sha'ban

is represented at (lama by a fleur-de-lys, a lion, and a shark, while sultan Muhammad


a sun, a cup, and a horse and qubba, and sultan Barquq has a lion, an eagle,

has
a

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

SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THBNUMISMATIC A REINTBRPRETATION 102 MAMLUK EVIDENCE:


waterwheel, sticks. and a composite blazon of a cup, a crescent, and a pair of polo consisting on the other a lion, a water coins of Sha'ban have a fleur-de-lys, hand, Tripoli, and a rosette, and to the lion and waterwheel, in addition those of Barquq, have (No Tripoli coins of Muhammad are known.)

At

wheel, a fleur-de-lys.

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

a pair

a fleur-de-lys

a fleur-de-lys, and two different types of lion all appeared. Itmight 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 themany amirs holding government positions are, first, the governors of the provinces
or by towns the in which sultan to oversee were mints situated the particular the workings of the mint. A secondly, of comparison and, the issues amirs with appointed 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 inArmenia, 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 itunder the surveillance
SH, fig. p. 30. 146 and 124-5. 10SH, SH, 235, 63-4, and 249-50. 11 1967 edition, 31. Najaf, al-Nuqud al-islimiyya, Sacy, op. cit., 39; Maqrlzl, 11L. "Lead coins of Barquq**, in Quarterly of the Department A. Mayer, of Antiquities f. lines 16 ff. Ibn MS. 3, IX, Vienna, 1933, 22, quoting Fur*t,

in Palestine,

III,

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

AND THENUMISMATIC SULTANIC HERALDRY A REINTERPRETATION MAMLOK EVIDENCE: 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 designs of sort of two-tier issued the coins system under of control the Mamluk however, does, sultans. The seem gold and to be silver indicated coins, by the 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 the men interests out the Cairo mint to whom is equally the mints non-existent. were in Barquq's farmed reign16?but out and the our extent knowledge of their of the activities or financial of control

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 Iconographic various other the question arises naturally of the various devices analysis some as age-old symbols as to whether that they were in fact blazons at all. shows of royal in fact be construed in they may some as decorative devices authority,

ways,

derived from the technical heraldic vocabulary of the Mamluk ruling class, some as no more than ornaments (cf. the indiscriminate use of blazons inMamluk 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
" et de la metrologie Sauvaire, H., "Mattriaux pour servir a I'histoire de la numismatique musulmanes", Journal Asiatique, scr. VII, vol. XIX, 306, quoting MaqrizI, Description d'Egypte, II, 306. and under the and Circassian Los Syria sultans, Berkeley Angeles, 1955, 95. This was Popper, Egypt a military post in Cairo, not duplicated it seems in Damascus. M. Quatremere, op. cit., I, pt. 1, 233. ? fol. 28 v., 29 v. Sauvaire, op. cit., XV, 261, quoting MaqrizI, Tralti des famines,

14 W.

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

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&hirQgnsuh. 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 laterMamluk coiners. The fleur-de-lys (Fig. 1(h)). The fleur-de-lys appears on coins of al-Na$ir Muhammad,
al-Muzaffar context, al-Ashraf Hajji, in the pre-MamlQk Sha'ban, period, *AH, al-?filih it is found as In an and Faraj. IJajjI, Barquq, a royal sort of some symbol Islamic 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 inAcre 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 inMamlQk 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
17S. Catalogue of Oriental coins in the British Museum, IV, 1879, pi. Ill, no. 274, and p. 72. 11 Lane-Poole, In his madrasa in Damascus, and in the main mosque at Himj, see SH, 22. " G. de VOrient latins Paris, 1878, pi. HI, 1A 2, and p. 52. Schlumberger, Numismatique

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

SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THENUMISMATIC MAMLOK A REINTERPRETATION EVIDENCE: 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 awalking 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 Itwas used on Mamluk blazons
both such and double-headed in singleon a Mamluk a device appears form. coin There is therefore at no least reason in part, to doubt the that when it symbolizes, 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, instance and the horseman, I am aware 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 so far as 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 mad, Barsbay there was Barquq, (nos. for Faraj, 721-5) the latter. Barsbay, has no The cup appears on coins Jaqmaq, Temirbugha, shield and is so small and and of Kitbugha, al-Ghuri. insignificant al-Mansur The as Muham of in cup on coins to be almost

visible, while in the case of Barquq and Faraj it has a cuspidated rim (nos. 590-1, 647-9 and calls the object a fleur-de-lys chalice (which describes it well) and illustrates SS4)?Balog 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. 11For a brief history of the double-headed eagle as a royal symbol and coat-of-arms "Elements d*art mone'taire bulgare au XIIIc siecle", Bulletin de Tlnstitut d%Archiologie 1962, 68. For a list of the objects on which the horseman appears see SH, 18. " SH, 25. see I. BSnciia, Bulgare, XXV,

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

A REINTERPRBTATION EVIDENCE: HERALDRY SULTANIC AND THENUMISMATIC 106 MAMLUK 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 this case the sultan's amiral blazon may well have been deliberately placed coincidence?in 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 al-Muzaffar exclude 'Ali, in Mayer's Armorial Roll?al-Muzaffar Shaykh, we must Hajji, Aynal, exclude al-Ashraf and Ahmad, al-Mu'ayyad coins as evidence of blazons and al-Muzaffar Ahmad, Janbalaf, al-Muzaffar only evidence Sha'ban, al-Ghuri.27 *AH, Isma'U, Now if we Sha'ban, numismatic.

Isma'il,

since Mayer's

Hajji, was

al-Ashraf in fact

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
26. " SH, in SH, 144, and by Balog, 27. Mayer " Quoted by op. cit., 77, n. 300. " Sauvaget, b. Qal&'On is also included inMayer's Armorial Roll on the basis of a glass lamp Al-Nasir Muhammad 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. 201. "57/, " 88. 90SH, 128-9. "SH, SH, 179.

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

A RE1NTERPRETATION 107 EVIDENCB: AND THENUMISMATIC HERALDRY SULTANIC MAMLOK

-..'

' ? .'"'

o
b dc

<?>
I

<s>

#
.? i *

/S\ ^g/"
m

/S\ ^^^
ft
Fio. I

/*ittV vL^
?

/^5^\ x-gj?
|i

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

HERALDRY AND THBNUMISMATIC BVIDENCB: SULTANIC A REINTERPRBTATION 108 MAMLUK 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. <?L "While amir he (Kitbugha) He says: >-Jl ol^l ^\ flll ^.IJ&> fC.l j &j olT, carried this coat of arms . . ., while king yellow banners*'. Mayer comments: "The fact that some of his coins displayed the cup clearly shows that the passage quoted should not be understood as if Kitbugha's sultanian banner were plain yellow cloth. Adh-Dhahabi wanted to specify the colour which was obviously different from that which Kitbugha used on his emirial banners, but he could not have meant that the emblem was
Coin evidence suppressed."33 to take al-Dhahabi's possible sultan he had a plain yellow al-Na?ir been Muhammad's reign would seem statement banner. onwards at to agree with Mayer. seem it does Nevertheless its face value, became i.e. when Kitbugha from conclusion, the sultan's old on

on the basis of the above Certainly, would not have the banner shown the use and

arniral blazon, and the transitional stage of Kitbugha


marked Conclusions: by the use The of plain yellow on the devices banners coins of despite Baybars as his

and Lajin's reigns may well have


of arniral his son blazons their coins. were personal on

emblems; Kitbugha's
when the sultan's old

reign and possibly


arniral blazon was

that of Lajin formed a period of experiment,


used sultanic blazon and was placed

some of his coins. The devices used on coins issued after the reign of Lajin are certainly derived from the Mamluk technical heraldic vocabulary, but were used as symbols of
power and authority, or simply as decoration, and may not be taken as evidence of Mamluk

sultanic heraldry. All the evidence suggests that the blazon of the ruling sultan from the end of Lajin's reign onwards consisted exclusively of an inscribed shield.
" " SH, 34-40, and L. A. Mayer, Kunst, 1925, 183 ff. SH, 44. "Das Schriftwappen der Mamlukensultane", Jahrbuch der asiatlschen

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

A REINTERPRETATION EVIDENCE*. 109 AND THENUMISMATIC HERALDRY SULTANIC MAMLOK APPENDIX


Table of Mamluk Copper Coin Designs at any one mint, the in design which took To enable the reader to see at a glance the changes place coin designs in the tables below are described as briefly as possible, only the main identifying feature being feature of the design by which mentioned. only when there is no more obvious Inscriptions are mentioned identical coin designs are indicated by ditto marks. H. in the coin the coin may be recognized. Consecutive number column stands for Hoard. Cairo Copper Date Reign Hasan (755-62) 759 760 761 762 Linear ? ? ? ? ? ? 496 ,. ? ? ? ? ? ? 781 ., ? ? 497 498 Coins Design Coinnumber dccalobe/Linear ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 775-8 ., AH (778-83) 779 782 octogram ? ? ? ? ? . ? ?445-8 369 370 371 372

Mubammad (762-4)
Sha'ban II (764-78)

762
763 764 764-70 773

385
386 387 437-43 444

Hftjjl II (783-4)
Barquq (784-91)

783
784 ? ? 554 ??785 786 791 792-6 798 799 8385863 863 ?886 886 891 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?578-82 ? ,, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? segments 730 Square in petal-shaped SS7 circle Three-pointed SS8 Small knot in circle knot 774 Arabesque 775 ? 864 ? 797 Rosette Ornamented cartouche 833/H.l Checkerboard 834/H.2 Zigzags (in various forms) rhomboid Hexagram/Linear 836 Hexagram/Hexagram and wedges et alia Hexagrams Waterwheel (anti-clockwise) H.18 Waterwheel (clockwise) Waterwheel 860, (large clockwise) Hcxalobes with flowerets 893, H.20 835

517
518 555 555a 583 584

BarqQq

(792-801)

Barsbay (825-41) AynSl (857-65)

(865-72) Khushqadam (873-901) Qaytbay

838,839,840, H.3, 4 H.5, 6, and 7 859, H.17 H.19

Muhammad

(901-4)

al-GhQrl

(906-22)

902 902 902 907

Alexandria DateReign Sha'ban II (764-78) 770 773 776 ? AH (778-83) 783 784

Copper Coins Design Coin number

H&jjl II (783-4)

Linear decalobe/Linear octogram ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ,, 777 ? ? ,, ? Undulant octogram circle/Linear Linear decalobe/Linear octogram ? ? ? ?

449 450 451 452,453 499, 500 522 ? 523 . 521

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

110

HERALDRY SULTANIC AND THENUMISMATIC A REINTERPRETATION EVIDENCE: IIAMLOK


Reign Date Design Coin number

Barquq (784-91)
Wiiinf79l-2)

784
? ? ? ? 531

Linear decalobe/Linearoctogram
785 ,, ,, ,, 557 ,,

556

Barquq (792-801)
Faraj (801-8 and 809-15)

Circle 586
803(7) 807 Circle Linear Linear 587 hexagram with decalobe/circle trefoils 646 645

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

II, Hajji

II, and BarqQq's

Damascus Reign al-NA>ir Mubammad (709-41) 720 730 732 732 733 734 735

Copper Coins Date Design Coin number

Lozenge 244 Rosette 261 ? Middle segments ? ? ,, ,, Inscription"

262 cartouche " 222 247 ? ? 248 249

736
737 739

223
224 225

? ?

741
AbQ Bakr (741-2) Afcmad (742-3) 741 742 743 743 743 744 746 746 749 756 762 762

?
with pellets 267 Hexagram ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? dotted circle 287 in Inscription ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 747 , 304 , " " 327 Twin'tetralobes shield 373 Gothic 374 triangle Segmented ? ? 389 763 ? ? 390 ? 764 ? ?

226
268 272 SS2 ? ? 288 289 303

IsmftH (743-6) Sha'ban Hasan Masan I (746-7) (748-52) (755-62) (762-4)

Muhammad

388

Sha'ban II (764-78)

770
771 771 772(7)

3-segmentedfield 454
? ? ., ? ? ? 457

455 456

All (778-83) tfajjt II


BarqQq (784-91)

(783-4)

781 782 783 783

?
?

784 786 787 790 790

Fleur-de-lys 501 ? ? 524 with pellets


Hexagram ? ? Inscription ? 559? ? ? ? ? ? in dotted circle

502 503
? 558 560 561 562

tfajji II (791-2) BarqQq(792-801)

791 796
797 798 801 ?

Hexagramwith pellets 532 792 ,, 533 " 588 Dodecalobe"


? Fleur-de-lys 799 ? ? 647 802 ? 803 ? 589 chalice 591 ? SS4 ? 648 ? 590

Faraj

(801-8

and 809-15)

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

AND THBNUMISMATIC HERALDRY EVIDENCE: A REINTERPRETATION 111 SULTANIC MAMLOK


Reign 806 810 811 ? Date Design chalice 649 Fleur-de-lys 650 Linear triangle circle 651 Central Lion passant 699 as nos. 501-3, since the wording of pellets does not really change Coin number

al-MuzafTar Afemad Note:

(824)

(a) nos. 524 and 558 can is of the inscriptions the design. (b) nos. 532 and 533 are (c) no. 327 has the same

as having the same design be considered the same in both groups and the addition of the same design as nos. design as Tripoli no. 329. 559-561.

Aleppo Copper Reign al-Nflsir Mubammad 701

Coins Date Design Coin 171 233 number

and 709-41)

(698-708

710
710 717 ? ?

Hexagram 238

Hexagram

and pellets

Circular inscription Rosette 260 228 Inscription Cable circle 236 ? Floral scroll circle

252 292 293

Isma'fl(743-6)

743
744 746 746

Rosette 291
? ? 3-segmentcd ? Fleur-de-lys 3-segmented field 294 with pellets field 328

Hajjl I (747-8) (748-52) $asan

? ? ? ? ?

314

$ftlib (752-5)
Sha'ban

755

II (764-78)

Eagle and swan 338

Barquq

(784-91)

786(7) 788 793(7) ? ? ?

Barquq

(792-801)

Faraj (801-8)

802
803 804 ?

468 Spindle petals Linear octolobe 469 Rosette 470 Crescent 471,472 Linear octogram 563 field 564 3-segmented 789 ? ? 565 593 Fleur-de-lys 592 Inscription Lion passant to right in middle segment Lion passant to left and cup 595

594

Inscription 653
654

Jaqmaq (842-57)
al-Mansur Uthmftn (857) ?

846 and
848 (?) 845 ?

Fleur-de-lys Rosette 655 Lion passant

to left in middle 751

segment

656

Aynftl (857-65) Khushqadam (865-72)

?865
? ?

in lozenge Rosette Hexagram 752 Circle 757

Hexalobe/Spindle cartouche 778 Rosette 800


Circle 798 and star Hexagram Rhomboid SS9 799

Note:

(a) no. 563

is an Egyptian-style

fats.

tfam& Reign al-N&sir Mubammad (709-41) ? ? ? ?

Copper

Coins Date Design Coin number

229 Inscription Mibr&b and lamp 241 field and bends 250 3-segmented Circle with 3-segmentcd field and bends

251

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

112

SULTANIC HERALDRY AND THENUMISMATIC MAMLUK BVIDBNCE: A REINTERPRETATION


Date Reign Design Coinnumber 296 Square Ornamented dodecalobe 295

Ismail

(743-6)

tfajji I (747-8) Muhammad (762-4) II (764-78)

746 ? ? ? 315 ? ? ? ? 764 765 ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sha'ban

HSjjI

II (783-4) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

and sun 392 Cup/Lion Horse and qubbah 393 field and bends Rosettes/3-segmented 466 Fleur-de-lys line 467 Triple horizontal 460 Hexagram twin circle 461 Spoked field and bends Ornaments/3-segmented Lion passant to right 463 Lion passant to left 464 Shark 465 ?Rosette with 527 pellets Lion passant to left in middle segment device 598 Composite 599 Eagle Waterwheel 600 in halves 601 Inscription 657 Intersecting semi-circles Circle 658 Chandelier 905 (?) and chalice Tripoli Copper Coins

394

462

BarqQq(784-801

799
?

" Inscription 596

_ 258 597

Faraj

(801-8) attribution)

(Uncertain

al-Na$ir Muhammad

(709-41)

DateReign ? 726 ? ? 741 ? ? ? ?

Ismail (743-6) Hasan (748-52) Sha'ban II (764-78)

? ? ?

744 750 776

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 789 ? ? ? Faraj (801-8) 804 ? ? ? ?-

Design Coin number Inscription217 218 Inscription 227 Inscription and pellets 240 Hexagram border 235 Fleur-de-lys 239 Hexagram field and hexagram 253 3-segmented and rosette 259 Hexagram Eagle with pellets and branch 264 Lion passant to right 297 Twin tetralobes 329 473 Hexagram 474 Hexagram/Triquetra and pellets 475 Waterwheel Rosette in wavy cable 476 Rosette in star/Hexagram 477 479 Fleur-de-lys Lion passant to left 480 504 Fleur-de-lys Lion passant to left 505 in hexagram 506 Crescent 508 Octogram 525 Fleur-de-lys Lion passant to left 602 603 and 2 pellets Fleur-de-lys 604 Inscription 605 knot Arabesque 606 Waterwheel 660 Linear octogram 661 Inscription in ornamental circle Fleur-de-lys Square 663 753 Concave-sided lozenge

? .

478

AU (778-83)

Hajji II (783-4 and 791-2) Barquq (784-91 and 792-801)

662

Jaqmaq

(842-57)

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

You might also like