Swords from Ottoman and Mamluk Treasuries

Author(s): David Alexander

Source: Artibus Asiae , 2006, Vol. 66, No. 2, Pearls from Water. Rubies from Stone.
Studies in Islamic Art in Honor of Priscilla Soucek. Part I (2006), pp. 13-34
Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25261853

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25261853?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Artibus Asiae

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DAVID ALEXANDER

SWORDS FROM OTTOMAN AND MAMLUK TREASURIES

The following was originally intended as a discussion of a number of richly decorated sword
various Mamluk treasuries of the fifteenth century. However, as with my dissertation super
by Dr. Soucek, some refocusing was necessary once it became apparent that the key piece, long tho
to be Mamluk, was actually Ottoman. Consequently, it now seems obligatory to delineate the dif
ences between Mamluk and Ottoman ceremonial swords of the period.
Most of the swords in question are preserved in the Topkapi Sarayi Museum in Istanbul and m
of the blades are attributed to the early Islamic and Abbasid periods. The most beautifully decor
has a blade inscribed with the name of the last Abbasid caliph and a hilt of the fifteenth century.
sword has been published on numerous occasions and has generally been regarded as the product
fifteenth-century Mamluk workshop and assumed to have been part of the booty taken by the O
mans when they conquered the Mamluks in 1517. However, on the basis of its decoration and the
scription on its pommel cap, it was most probably made in one of the palace workshops of Mehm
(r. 1/1^^-1446,1451-1481). It demonstrates that at this early period the Ottomans had in their po
sion at least one 'heirloom' sword blade.
This blade is inscribed with the name of the last Abbasid caliph, Abu Ahmad Abd Allah a
ta sim (r. 1242-1258).1 There are three gold-filled holes along its length, a feature occurring on
ber of early sword blades.2 Its finely decorated hilt has a seven-sided pommel cap of gold. The side
els are chiseled and engraved in relief with large leaf forms and on the flat top it is pierced and en
with an Arabic inscription set against a floral arabesque. The rivet covers are crescent-shaped and
frame around the wrist strap hole is circular, decorated with a rope-like pattern and with trefoils (
The inscription on the pommel cap, ^^fij tjl*J (3*-ll "Truth prevails and is never overcom
also used on a blade made for Mehmed II (fig. 2). This blade is inlaid in gold immediately bel
tang with a floral arabesque design in which the serrated tipped petal forms are almost identica
those on the pommel cap of the Mustasim sword (figs. 3b?c). Both must have come from th

i The inscription on the blade is in a style typical of the late Abbasid period and can be compared, for exampl
that on a frontispiece of a Qur an dated 634/1236-1237 in the Nour Collection ; David James, The Master Scribes: Qu
of the 10th to 14th Centuries A. D. (London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford
sity Press, 1992), no. 9.
2 Most blades with gold-filled holes are now in the Topkapi Sarayi Museum, but several others are in various E
collections, including two in the Historisches Museum, Bern (nos. 1289 and 1290). One of those in the Top
attributed to the Prophet (TKS 21/129); ?nsal Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-lsl?mtyah wa sunn?'uh?, translated by Tah
Taha Ughl? (Kuwait : Munazzamat al-Mu'tamar al-Isl?m?, 1988), no. 1. It is possible that the gold-filled holes on
of these blades indicate that they are a type o?S?msam sword, which is a blade type of the early Islamic period
guished by two holes drilled at the end of their blades; David Alexander, "Swords and Sabers during the Early I
Period," Gladius 21 (2001): 199-201.

13

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
atelier; perhaps both are the work of the same craftsman. Mehmed's sword blade is also inlaid with a
golden crown paralleling the golden crowns on the painting of Mehmed completed by Gentile Bellini
ini48i(fig.3a).
The same inscription, c#W^J ?jfe i3^', is also used on another pommel cap of silver and blue
champlev? enamel, the sides of which are decorated with fleshy leaves in the 'Palace' style of the late
fifteenth century (figs. 4a-c). This type of leaf can be seen on many of the doors of the Topkapi Palace
(fig. 5), on a chandelier from the mosque of Mehmed II, and on ceramics of the period. Julian Raby
has called this the " Baba Nakka?" style after the master of Mehmed's kit?bkh?na and dates it to between
about 1470 and 1480.3
The grip of the Musta sim sword is set with circular ornaments around the wrist strap hole and
crescent-shaped rivet cover ornaments. Almost identical rivet covers are used on a number of other
sword hilts which, along with the recurrent use of similar floral forms, clearly unite these swords in a
single group (figs. 6-8). However, those with rounded pommel caps are probably marginally later in
date, as this type of cap is generally associated with the period of Bayez?d II (r. 1481-1512).4
A dating of these sword fittings to the late fifteenth century is further supported by an example
decorated with blue and green champlev? enamel on the top of its silver pommel with a carack of a
late fifteenth-century type (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the rivet covers are missing and only a rosette
shaped wrist strap ornament remains to decorate the hilt.
A final example is perplexing. This is a sword with cross guard of typically Mamluk form - that
is, with flat quill?n tips ? yet decorated with silver gilt granulations in the Granadan style. At the
same time the rivet covers are of exactly the same type as on the Ottoman saber referred to above (com
pare figs. 8 and 10). Granulated decoration of this style, also framed with raised silver borders, occurs
on several caskets found in Russia and Georgia. As on the scabbard illustrated here, one of the caskets
utilizes framing devices of interlocking stars. Hildburgh suggested that they were made in Granada
and taken east by refugees after the fall of the Nasrids.5 He did, however, allow the possibility that
they were made by refugee craftsmen. Is it also possible that the fittings for this sword were made in
Istanbul shortly after 1492 by a Spanish craftsman?

THE MAMLUK TREASURIES

Although the Musta sim blade must have entered Ottoman hands at some time during the fifteenth
century, most of the other blades attributed to the early Islamic period were probably booty from the
Mamluks.6 It also seems likely that most were taken from the treasuries of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf

3 Nurhan Atasoy and Julian Raby, Iznik: The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey (London: Alexandria Press, 1989), figs. 66a-d.
4 A hilt of this type is illustrated in Gentile Bellini's drawing of a janissary of c. 1484. For an example inscribed in the
name of B?yez?d, see ?nsal Y?cel, Islamic Swords andSwordsmiths (Istanbul: O.I.C. Research Centre for Islamic His
tory, 2001), no. 97.
5 W. L. Hildburgh, "A Hispano-Arabie Silver Gilt and Crystal Casket," The Antiquaries Journal 21 (1941): 211-31.
6 Most of the twenty-two swords attributed to the Prophet and his Companions published in 1988 by ?nsal Y?cel in
al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah were probably also acquired from the Mamluks.

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
T?m?nb?y, the caliph of the restored Abbasid dynasty, al-Mustamsik bill?h, and Muhammad Abu
Barakat, the sharif of Mecca.7
The passage of these blades from one collection to another is in itself an illustration of one aspect
of warfare - the taking of booty - and its ritual display as emblematic of the victor's power. During
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Ottoman sultans amassed works of art, manuscripts, and tro
phy weapons from all the regions neighboring their domains. The earliest account describing this accu
mulation of treasures is from shortly after the battle of Nicopolis in 1396, when Bayez?d I (r. 1389-1402)
destroyed a crusader army led by the Hungarian king Sigismund. Bayez?d captured a number of Euro
pean knights and as part of the ransom the Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Bold (1342-1404), sent to
the sultan "... a number of suits of armor and saddles of magnificent workmanship, decorated with
gold and precious stones." In 1397 he sent a second gift of objects for the hunt that included ivory sad
dles covered with precious fabric held by nails of gold.8 These gifts (ransom) and the booty from the
battle were taken to the Ottoman capital at Edirne. In 1444 at the battle of Varna, Murad II (r.
1421-1444,1446-1451) destroyed a combined Hungarian and Wallachian army and an Ottoman chron
icle reported that "the bey of the sanjaq of Nicopolis... attacked and destroyed some of the unbeliev
ers and captured some mailed, armored, and accoutred unbelievers." During the battle the Hungar
ian king Vladislav was killed and the Ottomans "plundered the weapons and took rich booty."9 Sev
eral ceremonial arrowheads and a cranequin taken during these campaigns have been preserved. One
of the arrowheads is engraved with the initials of Sigismund and another with those of Albrecht and
his wife Elizabeth.10

When Mehmed II captured Constantinople in 1453, the Ottomans inherited immense treasures
including the library of Constantine XI and Christian relics such as a reliquary for the hand of John
the Baptist.11 Later, in 1526, S?leym?n I (r. 1520-1566) defeated the Hungarians at Moh?cs and the
Ottomans took a large quantity of booty including the library of Mathias Corvinus (r. 1458-1490). A
number of European weapons now in the Topkapi Sarayi and Askeri Museums in Istanbul were almost

7 Some may also have been booty from other Mamluk cities or captured in battle. The Ottomans captured large quan
tities of arms and armor at such battles as Marj D?biq and Rayd?niyya. The Mamluk chronicler Ibn Iy?s reported that
when Sel?m captured the citadel of Aleppo he found "... sets of painted steel horse-armour, splendid helmets and other
weapons, such as neither he nor any of his ancestors had ever seen or owned before" ; Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Iy?s,
An Account of the Ottoman Conquest of Egypt, translated by W. H. Salmon (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1921), 48. A
saber blade in the Topkapi Sarayi Museum signed by Mu allim Muhammad and inscribed "...Uzbak kh?zind?r of
Kh?'?r Bay al-Ashraf?, governor of Aleppo..." was probably taken at this time (1/195); see Y?cel, Islamic Swords and
Swordsmitbs, no. 78 and David Alexander, Furusiyya, vol. 2 (Exh. cat., Riyadh, 1996), no. 85?.
8 Aziz S. Atiya, The Crusade ofNicopolis (London: Methuen & Co., 1934), 102-103, from the chronicle of Delaville Le
Rouix.
9 Bernard Lewis, ed., Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople (New York: Harper & Row,
1974), 142-144.
10 Askeri Museum, Istanbul, nos. 1597 and 462. For the group see Helmut Nickel, "Ceremonial Arrowheads from Bo
hemia," Metropolitan Museum Journal 1 (1968): 61-93.
11 For these relics see Cengiz K?seoglu, The Topkapi Saray Museum: The Treasury, translated, expanded, and edited by J.
M. Rogers (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987), 34-35.

15

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
certainly among this booty.12 Another important group of European trophies are three royal swords
from Moldavia, one of which is inscribed with the name and titles of Stephen the Great of Moldavia
(r. 1457?1504). These were probably taken to Istanbul when Moldavia became an Ottoman vassal state
in 1504.13 Among the booty taken from Muslim rivals are Mamluk, Aq Qoyunlu, and Safavid arms and
armor such as helmets, swords, and luxurious belts.
Turkish historians have argued that when the Mamluk booty reached Istanbul it was divided into
three parts.14 Most of the weapons and armor ? including those from the arsenal of Alexandria - were
stored in the Church of St. Irene adjoining the Topkapi Palace.15 The rest was taken to the palace and
a small group of weapons attributed to the Prophet, his Companions, or to the first four caliphs were
placed in a Treasury in the private quarters of the sultan. The remainder was stored in another section
of the Topkapi. However, there seem to have been periodic rearrangements of these pieces ; for instance,
some swords that were once included among the early relics were separated and placed in the general
storehouse, some blades were re-hilted or given new scabbards, and other pieces in the arsenal of St.
Irene were disguarded.
The following is therefore only a partial and hypothetical reconstruction of two types of swords
probably once in the treasuries of the sultan, the caliph, and the sharif. The first type are 'heirloom'
blades attributed to the time of the Prophet and the early Islamic period, and the second are decorated
ceremonial blades of the Mamluk period.16

HEIRLOOM SWORDS

The possession of objects associated with the Prophet was regarded as a sign of spiritual and political
legitimacy.17 This was true not only during the Abbasid and Mamluk periods but also for the
Ottomans, and from the very first days after the conquest Sel?m I (r. 1512?1520) was concerned to amass
as many such symbols as possible. For example, his first public act after the capture of Cairo was to
parade through the streets of the city with the caliph al-Mustamsik Bill?h.18 He obliged Sharif

12 The oversized ceremonial swords preserved in the Topkapi Sarayi were probably taken from the Hungarians at this
time; David G. Alexander, "European Swords in the Collections of Istanbul," Part 2, Waffen und Kost?mkunde 29
(1987): 21-24.
13 Alexander, "European Swords," 22-23, ills. 100-103.
14 Yiicel, Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths, 9-10.
15 This church had been turned into an arsenal by the Ottomans after the conquest of Constantinople and objects stored
there were marked with the tamgha of the Ottoman arsenals. Most of the objects in Western collections bearing this
mark were most likely separated from the arsenal in 1255/1839. For a discussion of the tamgha (alt. tamga), see Alexan
der, "European Swords," 21-22 and Stuart W. Pyhrr, "European Armor from the Imperial Ottoman Arsenal," Metro
politan Museum Journal 24 (1989): 85-116; for the separation of these objects from the arsenal of St. Irene, see John
Hewitt, Official Catalogue of the Tower Armouries (London, 1859), 116-117. Other pieces such as the arrowheads men
tioned above may have been in the arsenals of Edirne, whilst many of the helmets in the Hermitage Museum, St. Peters
burg, seem to have come from the arsenal of Erzurum.
16 These categories overlap since some of the 'heirloom' blades were also used in a ceremonial context.
17 David Alexander, "Dhu'1-faq?r and the Legacy of the Prophet," Gladius 19 (1999): 157-187.
18 Ibn Iy?s, An Account of the Ottoman Conquest, 116.

i6

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fig. i Sword, The
blade 13th century;
hilt Ottoman
ca. 1470-1480,
TKS 1/85

Fig. 2 Sword blade,

inscribed with the
name and titles of
Mehmedll,
Ottoman ca. 1470?
1480, TKS 1/374

Fig. 3a crown,
TKS 1/374
Fig. 3 b detail of leaf
form, TKS 1/374
Fig. 3c detail leaf
form, TKS 1/85

Fig. 4 Pommel cap,

Ottoman ca. 1480,
TKS 1/131

Fig. 5 Floral form

from a door of the

Topkapi Sarayi
ca. 1470-80

'' "'''^/?SJ^'' ' '*''

St??1

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 6 Sword, Ottoman ca. 1480, TKS 1/190

Fig. 7 Sword, Ottoman ca. 1480-1490,

Signed by Hamsa al-Sh?h?bi, TKS 1/120

Fig. 8 Saber, Ottoman ca. 1480-1490,

TKS 1/121

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I?iSi::

9.2 9.4

Fig. 9 Sword, Ottoman late fifteenth

century, TKS 1/113

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
II.2

II.I

Fig. io Sword, Ottoman? late fifteenth

century, TKS 1/130

Fig. 11 Sword blade "Sword of the Caliphs

TKS, inv.no. 1/84

Fig. 12 Sword blade, Made for al-Malik

al-Ashraf Abu'1-N?sr Q?'itb?y in about 147
TKS 1/87

Fig. 13 Sword blade, dated 150/767 and

inscribed in the name of Abu'l-Faraj ibn
Y?suf

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 kU?3 A'?uX'vArr.

14.1 H-3

Fig. 14 Sword hilt, Mamluk, 1468-96,

TKS 1/180

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
15-ia 15.1b 15c

15.2a 15.2b

Figs. I5a-e Sword

hilts, TKS;
nos. 1/134,1/132,
1/191 (Signed Mah
mud), 1/126,1/114
(T?m?n-B?y?)
15.id

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 i6.i

Fig. 16 Sword hilt.

Mamluk, late
fifteenth century.
TKS 1/134
16.2

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 i8

17

Fig. 17 Sword for

baldric, TKS 1/132

Fig. 18 "Sword of
'All," TKS 2/138

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 19-2 193

Fig. 19 Sword,
Mamluk, period of
Q?itb?y, signed
by Mahmud al-Mag
rabi?,TKS
inv. no. 1/129

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 20a Sword blade, Signed by
Muhammad al-Ansar?. TKS 1/224

Fig. 20b Sword, The blade Mamluk late 15th

century; fittings Hungarian mid 16th. So
called sword of Gyorgy Thury (1520-1571),
Blade signed by Muhammad al-Ansari,
Nemzeti Museum, Budapest inv. no. F 282

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I

^3

Fig. 21 Sword blade, Mamluk, late fifteenth

century, TKS 124

Fig. 22 Sword, Mamluk, late fifteenth cen

tury, TKS 1/125

Fig. 23 Sword, the blade Mamluk, attributed

to Khalid ibn al-Walid, TKS., inv. no. 2/145

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 *5

Fig. 24 Sword blade, Mamluk, late fifteenth

century, Furusiyya Collection, Vaduz

Fig. 25 Sword, Blade Mamluk, late fifteenth

century, fittings Ottoman 16th century,
TKS 1/287

Fig. 26 Sword, Mamluk, fifteenth century,

Askeri Museum, no. 2353

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Muhammad Abu Barakat to hand over the keys to the Ka'ba19 and took for himself the new title of
"guardian of the two holy shrines." At this time he is said to have taken possession of the bow and
cloak of the Prophet and of many of the swords now preserved in the Treasury of the Prophet in the
Topkapi Sarayi.20
Since there was a certain amount of interchange and gift-giving between the great Mamluk dig
nitaries ? sultan, caliph, and sharif- the precise pre-conquest ownership of specific swords cannot be
established exactly. Ibn Iy?s, for example, reported that in the year 921/1515 the Mamluk sultan gave
Muhammad Abu Barakat, the sharif of Mecca:

a dagger that had belonged to a Companion of the Prophet and permitted him to have his name
engraved on it and inlaid in gold, and also four special swords decorated in gold.21

It has been suggested by Abdul Rahman Zaki that the swords now in the Treasury of the Prophet were
taken from al-Mustamsik bill?h, while Tahsin ?2 maintained that they were presented to Sel?m I by
Sharif Muhammad Abu Barakat.22 It seems more likely that Sel?m took weapons from three sources -
from the caliph, the sharif, and the sultan.

19 Janine Sourdel-Thomine, "Clef et serrures de la Ka'ba: Notes d epigraphie arabe," Revue des ?tudes islamiques: Arti
cles et M?moires 39:1 (1971): 41, quoting Sel?hattin Tansel, Yavuz Sultan Selim (Ankara: Mill? Egitim Basimevi,
1969), 195.
20 Collectively the objects that belonged to the Prophet were known as the m?r?th ras?l Allah, but there is no agreement
on the inventory involved. Most reports include his ring (kat?m), cloak (burda), staff ('anaza, or baton ['asa] or rod
[qad?b]), and sword; others include his flag, bow, and an assortment of ancient objects such as the staff and basin of
Moses, the Ark of the Covenant, and the shirt of Adam. Reference is often made to certain texts being among the
legacy. According to al-Maqr?z?, some of the objects such as the sword Dhu'1-faq?r were lost during the chaos follow
ing the famine of 459-464/1062-1072 when the Fatimid ruler al-Mustansir was forced to give away many of his most
precious objects and gave Dhu'l-faqar to one of his generals. In 451/1059 the Abbasid caliph al-Q?'im bi-amr Allah
(422-467/1031-1075) renounced his rights in favor of the Fatimid ruler, and it was said that the Prophet's cloak was
transferred to Cairo; Marius Canard, "Le ceremonial fatimide et le ceremonial Byzantin: Essai de comparaison," Byzan
tion 21 (1951): 355-420, says the Fatimids used the 'relics' in their courtly ceremonial and notes that the objects sent
to Cairo were the turban (mind?l), cloak (rida'), and a latticed screen (shubb?k); Marius Canard, "Al-B?s?sm," in Ency
clopaedia of Islam, New Edition, edited by Bernard Lewis, et al. (Leiden and London: EJ. Brill/Luzac & Co., 1965), vol.
2,1074 and Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, 10th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1977), 622. Later historians
report that the cloak of the Prophet (and the other 'relics'?) were returned from Cairo to Baghdad by Sal?h al-D?n
(532-589/1138-1193), and it is generally thought that the m?r?th were destroyed in 656/1258 when the Mongols burnt
Baghdad and murdered the last Abbasid caliph. Later, during the Mamluk period when a 'restored' Abbasid dynasty
ruled in Egypt and Syria, mention is made of imperial insignia including "the black cloak, the black turban, and the
badaw? sword." Ibn Iy?s, An Account of the Ottoman Conquest, 72 and L. A. Mayer, "Saracenic Arms and Armour," Ars
Isl?mica 10 (1943): 8. According to Haul Inalcik, "The Rise of the Ottoman Empire," in The Cambridge History of Islam,
edited by P.M. Holt, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 320, the caliph al-Mutawakkil trans
ferred not only the relics but also the Caliphate to the Ottomans.
21 Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Iy?s, Alltagsnotizen eines ?gyptischen B?rgers, translated by Annemarie Schimmel (Ham
burg: Erdmann, 1985), 201.
22 ?nsal Y?cel, Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths, 10.

29

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 One blade now in the Topkapi Sarayi illustrates the way in which important swords were trans
ferred from one owner to another over the centuries. This is the so-called Sword of the Caliphs (figs,
na?b). Its hilt is now missing and the straight, double-edged steel blade is severely rusted. It is
engraved on either side with a series of very worn Arabic inscriptions appearing to record that in the
year 20/641 the blade was the property of'Umar ibn al-Khatt?b; in the year 45/665-666 it was trans
ferred to Mu?wiya ibn Ab? Sufy?n; in 99/717 it became the property of 'Umar bin Abd al-Az?z; and
in 190/805-806 it was transferred to the treasury of H?r?n al-Rash?d.23 The final inscription is in the
name of al-Malik al-Ashraf Ab?'1-N?sr Q?'itb?y (r. 872-901/1468-1496), at which time the blade
must have been in his possession.
Q?'itb?y's interest in demonstrating a link with the early caliphs and especially with the Prophet
is illustrated by a sword blade he had made in about 1476. This is engraved with an Arabic inscription
stating that it was forged from a column of iron from the Prophet's mosque in Medina. It was at this
time that Q?'itb?y adopted the title mawl?n? al-maq?m al-shar?fy?n, which is also used in the inscrip
tion on the blade (fig. 12):

In the year 881 the noble room and residence of the Prophet was renovated, may God bless those
who honor Him. During the renovation a column of iron had to be removed from the vicinity of
the noble tomb of the Prophet, may God bless and honor Him. From this pillar this sword of iron
was made by the order of our lord al-maq?m al-shar?fy?n, the sultan, our lord al-Ashraf Ab?'1-N?sr
Q?'itb?y, may God bless his reign by Muhammad and His family.24

Another Abbasid blade dated 150/767 and inscribed in the name of Ab?'l-Faraj ibn Y?suf, the vizier
of al-Mans?r (136-158/754-775), can also be linked to the Mamluks (fig. 13).25 The hilt of this sword
is now missing, but a photograph taken by Hans St?cklein in 1934 shows it with a hilt and scabbard.26
The guard in the photograph has quillons that are round in section with flat tips. Such sword guards
are of a typical fifteenth-century Mamluk style and are documented by numerous examples including
one sent by B?rsb?y to the Emperor John Palaeologus in about 1438.27 It therefore seems certain that
this blade was also at one time in an armory or treasury of the Mamluk period.

23 Inv. no. 1/84; Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, no. 23 (45 for the text). The date 109 read by Yiicel does not correspond to
H?run's reign, but Manuel Keene, in a personal communication of October 2,1979, read it as 190/805-806. All but
the last inscription are in a similar script and it has been suggested by both Janine Sourdel-Thomine and Ludvik Kalus
that all date to the period of H?r?n al-Rash?d (r. 170-193/786-809). If so, this would indicate that the blade is at least
of the late eighth to ninth century, at which time it was traditionally accepted that it had been made for 'Umar ibn
al-Khatt?b (r. 13-23/634-644) and then passed through the possession of subsequent caliphs.
24 Translated by Ludvik Kalus, in David Alexander and Ludvik Kalus' Topkapi catalogue, forthcoming as a special edi
tion oiGladius (2006 or 2007).
25 Topkapi Sarayi Museum, inv. no. 1/100, for example; Hans St?cklein, "Die Waffensch?tze im Topkapu Sarayi Miizesi
zu Istanbul: Ein vorl?ufiger Bericht," Ars Isl?mica 1 (1934): 217, no. 3 and fig. 16, and Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, cat.
no. 27.
26 The guard associated with the blade when examined by the present author in the 1980s has slightly spear-shaped tips
and is not the same as that recorded by St?cklein ("Die Waffensch?tze"), the quillons of which had flat tips; however,
the pommel cap seems to match that in his photograph.
27 David Alexander, "Pisanello's Hat," Gladius 24 (2004): 135-185.

30

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Before continuing with a discussion of decorated 'special' sword blades, it seems useful to describe
a small feature that can be used to distinguish between Ottoman and Mamluk hilts of the fifteenth
century. As with the Ottoman examples discussed above, a number of Mamluk blades are fitted with
hilts distinguished by a specific type of rivet cover. Perhaps the most important is a blade inscribed
with the name of Q?'itb?y, which has a hilt set on either side with three ornamental rivet covers of sil
ver gilt. Two of those on the right side are rosette-shaped, formed by interlocking loops, and the other
is engraved with a sun spiral ; on the left the upper cover is engraved with a sun spiral, that in the mid
dle is of rosette form, and the lower cover is embossed with a star design, the points separated by trilo
bate floral forms (fig. 14).z8 Five other hilts have rivet covers of the same type and all should be assigned
to the same workshop.
Another hilt has rivet covers of a different form; however, its pommel cap and shagreened grip are
almost identical to 1/191 and it must also have been produced in a Mamluk workshop of the fifteenth
century (Topkapi Sarayi Museum, inv. no. 1/121; fig. 16).

SPECIAL' SWORDS

The 'special' swords presented by Q?nsawh al-Ghawr? to Sharif Muhammad Abu Barakat are recorded
as being decorated in gold, a description that fits a number of elaborately decorated Mamluk sword
blades. Many of these were published in 1988 by ?nsal Y?cel ; others are in several European and Amer
ican museums and private collections.29
Mamluk saber blades were also often elaborately decorated and the saber was the preferred Mam
luk fighting weapon but swords, not sabers, were used in the most important ceremonial events of the
Mamluk period, that is, in the investiture of Mamluk sultans and caliphs of the restored Abbasid
dynasty where the ruler was 'girded' with a (or the) sayfbadaw?ot Bedouin sword.30 This term refers
to a sword carried over the shoulder on a baldric and it is possible that some of the 'special' Mamluk
swords originally had scabbards fitted for baldrics, such as a fifteenth-century example illustrated here
(Topkapi Sarayi Museum 1/132; fig. 17). Instead of two mounts with suspension rings at the side, this
scabbard is fitted with a single rectangular plaque, at the back of which are rings for attaching the
baldric. The Prophet carried his sword in this way, but the tradition was consciously abandoned by
the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 232-247/847-861) in favor of the saber suspended from a belt
around the waist.31 Later, the Zangid ruler Nur al-D?n (r. 541-569/1146-1174), keen to demonstrate
that he was a pious traditionalist, re-adopted the custom of wearing a sword suspended from a baldric.32

28 Topkapi Sarayi Museum, inv. no. 1/180; Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, no. 39.
29 Many of those now in Istanbul were published in 1988 by ?nsal Yiicel (al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah), while others are in sev
eral European and American museums; for example, Nemzeti Museum, Budapest, no. F282 (fig. 20b). See also Ferenc
Temesv?ry, Arms and Armour, translated by R. D. C. Sturgess (Budapest : Corvina Kiad?/Helikon Kiad?, 1983), pi. 21.
30 L. A. Mayer, Mamluk Costume: A Survey (Geneva: A. Kundig, 1952), 8-10.
31 See David Alexander, "Dhu'l-faq?r" ; Hitti, History of the Arabs, 327. That is a belt around the waist often with pen
dant straps.
32 Personal communication, Julian Raby and Caroline Alexander of November, 1998. Nur al-D?n's successor, Sal?h al
D?n (533-589/1138-1193) did the same and it is noteworthy that he was buried with his sword and "... took it with him

31

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Although some of these decorated blades appear to be from the same workshop, others are slightly
different, but all have interrelated design elements, forming a family relationship probably involving
several workshops and a production that can be documented throughout the fifteenth century.
An example of such a 'special' sword blade is one said to have belonged to All, the son-in-law and
cousin of the Prophet and the fourth caliph (fig. 18).33 Its hilt and scabbard are perhaps Ottoman and
slightly later in date than the blade, and it is also possible that this sword originally had a scabbard
fitted with a baldric. The wide blade is damascened in gold in a contour reserv? technique with a com
position consisting of a floral arabesque forming a circle that divides to form a lanceolate leaf design
form on either edge; in the center is a rectangle containing an Arabic inscription (now very worn) in

a cursive script: "made by order of our lord ^ILJl (al-maq?m)..."

There is no reason to suppose that this blade is of the early Islamic period; rather, it is typically
Mamluk of the fifteenth century. The word maq?m in the inscription also occurs among the titles used
by several Mamluk sultans, including Q?'itb?y. An example is on the blade discussed above (fig. 12),
where his titles include the phrase al-maq?m al-sharify?n. Q?'itb?y appears to have begun using such
titulature after his restoration of the Prophet's mosque in Medina. The decoration on the blade of All
is also typical ofthat found on swords, axes, and standards from Q?'itb?y's period and for that reason
the inscription should probably be reconstructed as being in his name.34
Among the gold-decorated Mamluk blades, two types can be distinguished for further discussion.
One of these is forged with four or five facets on either side, forming in section a thin elongated octag
onal or ten-sided shape; the other is chiseled on either side of a central panel with a tresse pattern.
A blade once attributed to Caliph 'Umar is worked on either side below the hilt with four facets
and then with a long panel chiseled with a tresse pattern (fig. 19). Although the Topkapi Sarayi
Museum inventory of 1923 listed this as a sword of'Umar, the design is typical for the period of Q?'it
b?y; comparable pieces include an axe in the Bargello Museum,35 which has a roundel containing an
identical arabesque and a pen box made for the timekeeper of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus.36

to Paradise"; quoted in Stanley Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (London: G.P. Putnam's
Sons, 1898), 366. A sword said to be from the tomb of Najm al-D?n Ayy?b and signed by the swordsmith Al? ibn
Sel?m is in the Askeri Museum, Istanbul (2355); see Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-lsl?m?yah, no. 34. Its pommel is missing but
the short straight cross guard has sculpted and pierced quillons that are of the general type represented as 'Arab' in
miniature painting of approximately this period.
33 Topkapi Sarayi Museum, inv. no. 2/138 ; see, for example, Abdul Rahman Zaki, "Medieval Arab Arms," in Islamic Arms
and Armour, edited by Robert Elgood (London: Scolar Press, 1979), 204, no. 204 (called sword of Zayn al-Abidin);
Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-lsl?m?yah, cat. no. 11; Alexander, "Swords and Sabers," fig. 4.
34 The fittings on the scabbard can be compared to Safavid metal work of the late fifteenth to early sixteenth century, and
it is likely that this piece was composed in about 1500; cf. Safavid belt dated 912/1507, published in Arthur Upham
Pope and Phyllis Ackerman, A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present (London and New York: Oxford
University Press, 1938-1939), pi. 1394. The reason for the attribution to All is unclear. Y?cel published eleven other
swords damascened in gold with similar decoration; Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-lsl?m?yah, nos. 32, 38, 39, 49, 64, 65, 70, 83,
84, 85, 86.
35 The sword is published in Y?cel, al-Suy?f al-lsl?m?yah, cat. no. 84; for the axe in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello
(Bg. M1227), see Islam specchio d'Orient? (Exh. cat., Florence, 2002), cat. no. 17.
36 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, ace. no. 91.1 ; see Esin Atil, Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks (Exh. cat., Wash
ington, D.C., 1981), 104, no. 36.

32

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The latter has a split leaf design identical to that in the large field on the blade. The signature is unclear
and has been read as Mahmud al-Maghrib? or Mu izz?. Another blade with four facets is signed by
Muhammad al-Ans?ri, whose work is also known from an almost identically decorated blade now in
Budapest (figs. 20a-b).
The other blades of this type are forged with five facets on either side (figs. 21-22). The decorative
style and inscriptions date both of these to the second half of the fifteenth century. The former has a
very worn inscription that possibly reads "...al-Maghrab?," and the latter is inscribed "glory to our
lord the sultan al-Malik, imam of the Muslims, slayer of polytheists, al-Ashraf... [?] may his victory
be glorious." Unfortunately, the inscription is worn and difficult to decipher; Ludvik Kalus thought
it might refer to Q?'itb?y, whereas Y?cel has read it as Q?nsawh.37
Among the sword blades that could be classified as 'special' are five chiseled with tresse patterns
(figs. 19, 23-26). The blade once attributed to 'Umar also belongs to this group, adding further sup
port to the view that one is dealing with a small number of workshops and smiths working at approx
imately the same time. Three of these are in the Topkapi Sarayi Museum, a fourth in the Askeri
Museum, and a fifth in the Furusiyya Collection, Vaduz. In addition there is a saber in the Topkapi
chiseled along its center with a similar tresse design.38
A blade attributed to Kh?lid ibn al-Wal?d and another decorated in a Mamluk style of the early
fifteenth century (Topkapi Sarayi Museum 1/287)are ^so chiseled with a tresse design,39 as is a sword
in the Askeri Museum that has a hilt of a Mamluk type popular during the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.40 The blade in the Furusiyya Collection is not only chiseled with a tresse design, but is also
damascened in gold below the tang with a grid design topped by a palmette. Above this is a roundel
decorated with a vine-like motif and around this an arabesque in the contour reserv? technique. On either
side above the main design is a rectangular cartouche with an Arabic inscription in a cursive script.
Along either edge is a rope and knot pattern that is identical to one decorating a helmet inscribed with
the name of the Mamluk sultan B?rsb?y (r. 1422-1438),41 while the design and contour reserv? technique
are found on arms and armor made for the sultans ?nal (r. 1453-1461) and Q?'itb?y (r. 873?906/
1468-1496).42 The Furusiyya blade is in many respects virtually identical to the swords of 'Umar and
Kh?lid and differs from the latter only in that its decoration is damascened in gold as opposed to the

37 Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, no. 70.

38 Topkapi Sarayi Museum, 1/288, signed by Haj? Muhammad ibn Ibrah?m al-Misr?; Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, cat.
no 68, and David G. Alexander, "The Silver Dragon and the Golden Fish: An Imperial Ottoman Symbol," Gladius 23
(2003): 211-68, no. 6.
39 For the sword attributed to 'Umar, see Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, cat. no. 84 and Alexander, "Swords and Sabers,"
fig. 5, and for the sword attributed to Kh?lid, see Zaki, "Medieval Arab Arms," 205, no. 205 and Yiicel, al-Suy?f al
Isl?m?yah, no. 18. The Furusiyya Collection sword was previously in the Pauillac Collection.
40 Ludvik Kalus, "Donations pieuses d'?p??s m?di?vales ? l'arsenal d'Alexandrie," Revue des ?tudes islamiques 50 (1991):
3-174 and David G. Alexander, "European Swords in the Collections of Istanbul," Part 1, Waffen und Kost?mkunde 27
(1985): 81-118.
41 Mus?e du Louvre 6130; see Atil, Renaissance of Islam, no. 41.
42 For the armor inscribed to In?l, see Arms and Armour from the Furusiyya Collection (Exh. cat., Paris, Institut du Monde
Arabe, forthcoming), no. R-749.

33

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
engraved decoration on that of Kh?lid. For example, the polylobed design on the Kh?lid blade is the
engraved equivalent of the golden motif on the Furusiyya blade.43 Both the sword of'Umar and the
Furusiyya blade are engraved with the tamgha of the Ottoman arsenal and both must at one time have
been stored in the arsenal of St. Irene. Both are decorated in styles datable to the fifteenth century and
both are signed.44 Unfortunately both signatures are worn, although the signature on the sword of
'Umar has been read as Mahmud al-Maghrab? by Yiicel and as Mahmud al-Mu'izz? by Ludvik Kalus.
The blade in the Furusiyya Collection seems to be signed by Ibrahim ibn Sa'?d al-Makar?.45 Hopefully,
further research will illuminate precisely for whom these masters worked and locate the ateliers respon
sible.

43 Topkapi Sarayi Museum, inv. no. 2/145 i Zaki, "Medieval Arab Arms," 205, no. 205 ; Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, no. 18.
44 Objects with comparable decoration to that on the sword of'Umar include an axe in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello
(Bg. M1227), which has a roundel containing an identical arabesque; Islam specchio d'Orient?, cat. no. 17; and a pen box
made for the timekeeper of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, which has a split leaf design identical to that in the
large field on the blade (Metropolitan Museum of Art, ace. no. 91.1); Atil, Renaissance of Islam, 104, no. 36.
45 The other blades are decorated in the same Mamluk style but are not chiseled with tresse patterns; they are: Topkapi
Sarayi Museum, 1/127 and 1/128. Yiicel read both signatures as Ahmad al-Maghrib?; Ludvik Kalus reads 1/127,1/128
and 1/129 as Mu'izz?; Yiicel, al-Suy?f al-Isl?m?yah, nos. 85-86, and Ludvik Kalus' Topkapi catalogue, forthcoming as
a special edition oiGladius (2007).

34

This content downloaded from

109.175.61.126 on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:28:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms