European bladed takouba

[Iain]

I've cross posted this to the European Armoury board because of the marks. But I wanted to post it here as well and discuss the takouba aspects.

The sword has what I like to term a sandwich forte, where the blade has been pinned into two thick pieces of steel. This particular mount is very sturdy and thick. These fortes would fit well with how takouba were used, as even normal takouba blades are left unsharpened for about the first third of the blade. This blade is European with interesting marks and quite stiff. Heavy sharpening on the tip and most of the length of the blade. There are the remains of brass inlays in the marks.

The hilt is of an old style, large and heavy iron pommel and a guard made out of a similarly solid block. Brass plates are affixed to both sides of the guard. The grip was likely originally covered with leather.

I am not sure at the moment of an ethnic attribution, there are very few clues with this particular sword, I need to dig through a bunch of notes to see if the decorative pattern on the brass will reveal anything. A pity no scabbard came with the sword.

This is an interesting sword for me, not just because of the blade but because the hilt is solid and old. There is such a difference between these older takouba and newer ones in terms of how they handle and feel.

[Wodimi]

Iain, first congratulation to this sword. For me it's Haussa style. What you think or feel of the mark, could it be an old one, or more an imitation of this real old Solingen smithmark? Is it brass inside the cross?

[Iain]

Hi Wolf,

Not an imitation in my opinion. Lee has kindly pointed me in the direction of this thread and sword:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...91&postcount=7

The style of the marks and inlays are exactly the same. Also the profile of the blade, when taking into consideration the shortened length and rounded tip, is very, very similar. I'll let Lee say more on his impressions, only I can say that I think it is earlier than the 1590 date on the cross mark in your illustrations (thanks for posting them by the way!).

Perhaps Hausa I agree, unfortunately I see no way right now to say if it not Tuareg, Hausa or something else.

Best,

Iain

[Wodimi]

Hi Iain,

if the cross mark is no imitation, will say an original mark, than it makes no sense to me, that the blade could be earlier than 1590. Why should a German (Solingen) blacksmith made his sign on the blade, if he don't made the blade. I think the people at that time are very proud for their work and would not made their mark on an older used blade, no no. The other way had happen, in the 15./16 Cent. there are German sword makers who copy for example this ball with a cross, a Swiss mark from the 10.Cent., but very famous for their quality.

It makes more sense, if the blade is not so old, that somebody later made this mark because this quality European blades had for sure a bigger value and the believe of the people maybe also more power with such (magic) signs. This you can read in documents from Henry Lhote and also Jean Gabus told so. That's the reason why I asked for your feeling, original or later attached mark.

The question Hausa or Tuareg......have you copper parts at your new beautiful sword? If not, it would be for me one point for Hausa origin, because Tuareg normal use all three materials, iron, brass and copper.

only some thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all
Wolf

[Iain]

Hi Wolf,

Probably we have a small misunderstanding. I am sure fairly sure it is an original mark and my understanding is this is an old symbol. I don't see why it could only be attributed to 1590? Are there any more details in your book you found the mark in? For example a photo of a blade from around 1590 with the mark? Its something like the running wolf maybe or the cross and orb, you can find many versions in different periods, so just because there is one match from 1590 doesn't mean it can't be the same mark older or newer - like you said copies of marks from the 10 or 11th centuries. There is also the question of the second mark, I cannot find very much information about it.

I am familiar with the practice of copied marks for talismanic value but I honestly don't think this is one of those cases. I am about 99% sure original.

So I agree it is not a mark that some smith put on an old blade, it is original to the blade.

No copper, but I have to say you don't always find copper. You can look at these two old swords from Louis-Pierre: http://blade.japet.com/takouba.htm these are absolutely Tuareg swords. So I am still not sure. It could also be from Bornu regions...

[Tim Simmons]

We could be getting uncomfortably close to Richard Widmark and "The Long Ships"?

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

We could be getting uncomfortably close to Richard Widmark and "The Long Ships"?

Must say the reference is going over my head at the moment Tim?

[Lee]

I favor that this takouba has a 14th or 15th century European blade based upon the nature of the marks and the appearance of the background steel.

I have known so many owners certain they had a medieval European blade remounted as a kaskara or takouba. This is the first one, albeit based upon pictures, that I believe in. So my certainty in dismissing these claims on general principal and following the experience of Briggs is now broken.

...Unless it is a brilliant forgery targeted to set me drooling all over myself, but I do not think so.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Lee

I favor that this takouba has a 14th or 15th century European blade based upon the nature of the marks and the appearance of the background steel.

I have known so many owners certain they had a medieval European blade remounted as a kaskara or takouba. This is the first one, albeit based upon pictures, that I believe in. So my certainty in dismissing these claims on general principal and following the experience of Briggs is now broken.

...Unless it is a brilliant forgery targeted to set me drooling all over myself, but I do not think so.

Just to add to this... those that know my history with takouba will know I am usually the first to chuck out any ideas of medieval blades and extremely critical of blade marks and perhaps overly prone to suggesting native copies. To be honest I bought this piece with the vague hopes the blade might be 17th century at best. To that end I am not interested dates just for the sake of dates, if anyone really wants to know I bought this because of the pommel...

However I have to say, even with relatively limited experience this one is different, in look, feel and presence.

I'm still intrigued by the second mark, the little sword like one...

[Jim McDougall]

This is absolutely amazing! and well said by Lee...the Holy Grail of takoubas... I am very much in accord with his observations. Actually, there are few who can match Lee's knowledge and expertise on medieval blades and thier metallurgy. The character of the metal and shape of the well worn blades' fullering suggests a quite early blade, and these lattened markings are most certainly European. Actually these 'cross fourchee' correspond to the type markings that were placed on blades in the times when ordnance and war materials were typically controlled by the Bishop in church establishments.
Often these type crosses were a component of the signature or marks of those individuals, and seem to have become adopted singly as a kind of blessing or talismanic imbuement.

The marking itself, much as in the case of most others, is recorded in various compilations of markings as shown along with a date, which is more of a presumed date or period than accurately recorded notation. Most of these are taken from collected weapons and the approximate period of use and so on are captioned with them. These were of course transcribed into many subsequent works of later writers, so while of course plausible, they must be regarded as largely speculative unless they can be proven with wider range of provenanced examples carrying similar marks.

It has been me understanding that the origins of the cross and orb remain unclear as well as the period which they came into use. I believe the Swiss attribution derives most likely from the many Landsknecht blades which had these and other cross oriented markings as previously noted. Most of these of course were probably from German workshops.

How this early blade, which can likely predate the 16th century, perhaps even some time earlier, came to be in Saharan regions can only of course be speculated. It is well worn and clearly an esteemed blade which seems to have likely been handed down for many generations. It has been refurbished by a skilled smith, and the care in emplacing the blade into the bolstering block forte with even the detail of the dentated edge shows it was done for an important figure in my perception. The old style of hilt as noted by Iain suggests its last 'incarnation' was some time ago, and the sword has probably been 'static' for a very long time.

This is a breathtaking sword Iain!!! and all the more so because it is quite literally a historic icon and clearly holds so many of the secrets of these Saharan swords. Thank you so much for sharing it here!!!


All the very best,
Jim

[Wodimi]

Iain, they say in the book clear that they started with the producing of this special mark in 1590. That's why I think, could not be before. They don't say in this book when they stopped with this mark.

[Jim McDougall]

As previously mentioned there is no doubt that the 'forked cross' or cross fourchee appeared encircled as a known blade marking in 1590, but who actually used it remains unknown...it was likely used by a number of makers on blades as was the case with many of these marks. The use of crosses on blades, particularly along with names and invocations was well established with the Vlfberht, Ingelrii and Gicelin blades of Frankish origin from mid 10th to mid 11th centuries, usually encapsulating the words or names. These were typically Greek crosses (potent) with serif type arm ends also known as the kruckenkruez (crutch cross) in later times (Jerusalem cross by the time of the crusades).

In the 6th and 7th centuries crosses were placed on scabbards for the protection of the sword, blessing it and guarding it in battle (Ellis-Davidson, 1962, p.93). It is known that earlier, various symbols including crosses were inlaid in blades usually in gold or brass (latten).

It seems that the nature of the cross appearing on this blade is distinguished by the forked ends as discussed, and that while crosses have appeared on blades over many centuries, this form is somewhat distinctive. These forked ends are seen on cross & orb marks on German blades assessed by Sir James Mann (Wallace Coll. A524, p.269) as 16th century. In previous discussions it has been noted that the forked end cross fourchee is seen on several examples of swords of justice of presumably 16th to 17th century. These are attributed typically to the Vehmic courts or tribunals of Westphalian regions primarily and the cross fourchee occurs between the letters 'S' configured as S+S .
(Sacrificum Sanctum). These courts were well in place by the 15th century having been established in Charlemagnes time.

While this type of cross cannot be firmly attributed to these secretive groups it is interesting to note the use of this type cross. The form can also be associated as previously mentioned to sacredotal instances concerning clerical vestments, and the use of the cross fourchee (or moline) on the chausuble worn. It is interesting that the 'pall cross' or Y shaped cross is seen in paintings of the Crucifixion in the 13th century and later. This perhaps may have been considered in the use of these forked terminals on the cross, of course along with other possibilities.

Whatever the case, it would seem quite likely that this type of cross inlaid in this manner predates the 1590 estimate as discussed in markings references.
Regarding the cross and orb, these date far into antiquity and were well in use in variation from Byzantine times (used even in Egypt by the Coptic Christians) and in Germany in the 15th century in printers guild marks, in Venice on blades in examples c.1520 and 1560 (Boccia & Coelho, 1975).
Interestingly this device was used in the badge of the Carthusian Order in Cologne c. 1084. Cologne of course was the precedent of Solingen in arms production and it seems possible this could be significant in its use by these makers, but clearly speculatively speaking.

In summary, I do not believe that earlier date for this blade than 1590 is compromised at all by the cited markings references shown. Typically these authors simply lifted the material from previous authors thus various entries cannot necessarily be considered supportive of each other. What would be excellent would be finding similar marking on well provenanced example which is dated.

[Iain]

Thanks guys for all the great information and comments.

Wolf,

Thank you for checking for me. Does the book mention a particular maker or workshop that started this mark? Also did I notice on the illustration that there should be sword in the main museum in Berlin with this mark? If so I will try to contact them so we can see it.

A big question still for me is to find something with both marks and a similar blade style. I didn't think this blade style was very typical for late 16th century, but I am no expert. Anyways, I would not be unhappy with the 1590 date. For me it is still very old and perhaps the oldest complete takouba I have seen.

Jim,

I agree with you completely that sometimes the marking reference books don't give a complete history of the mark, they are very useful but often are citing single examples to provide a date. I am not sure if this is the case for this cross mark, which is why I would like to find some other swords with the mark to compare with.

The second mark I found nothing so far, I looked through the usual resources for takouba but I do not think anyone documented it. I don't have many resources for just European marks.

I am usually as skeptical as you and Lee, which is why when Lee suggested an early date I was surprised, but I know neither of you would entertain the idea unless you had pretty strong reasons to do so.

I think the next step is to find some other examples marked similarly and see if anything that has been dated shows a) the second mark and b) the same profile. I think this will help to pin down if this potentially came from a workshop and the mark is as specialized as the book Wolf has says.

Again, thank you guys and I want to make clear I am not date crazy and don't like arguing with the sources I just like to know as much as I can.

Iain

[Lee]

Not the same as Iain's marks, but executed in a similar manner, are a pair of 'cross in circle' marks from either side of the blade of a great sword of war that Christie's opined to be 14th century that subsequently met the fate of being tarted-up in the late 16th century into a bearing sword, though some of the structurally shabby decorative mountings are probably even later. Or maybe the whole thing is an atavistic exercise from the late 16th century, though I feel Christie's interpretation is quite plausible.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Iain, and Lee for addding the additional example. I am inclined to agree with approximate 14th century period for this blade shown in Christies, as these kinds of crosses (various forms of Greek cross) were well emplaced during the crusades. As earlier explained, the placement of crosses were not only a component of ecclesiastic authority in signatures of bishops and abbots which appeared on blades, but attained probable talismanic properties, as noted in the practice of placement on scabbards and blades.

While the cross and orb is known to have presence into antiquity, it seems that these medieval interpretations carry similar allegorical symbolism, which of course the orb, or in this case circle represents encompassing the world..the triumphant cross concept. The placement of the lines on the arm terminals on this Greek cross is simply another of the many variations used with the fourchee (forks or more embellished 'moline') being another.

I am inclined to doubt that the use of these types of marks can be attributed to a particular workshop or exact period, but a range of period may be established in grouping examples which have similar types. As far as makers, there are cases where certain ones have been associated with having been known to favor certain types...such as Heinrich Koll (Coll) often used the cross and orb..to the point that observers felt it notable. The case of the flourished 'anchors' which likely developed from cross and orb symbolism seem to have signature type embellishments which may be attributed to certain makers, but that is far from being accomplished as far as I am aware.

As Iain has noted, and Lee is keenly aware, the character of the blade becomes one of the prevalent identifying factors in cases like these. While many marks can offer compelling evidence, they were of course used extensively and often relatively randomly by many makers over extended periods as well as being copied widely. This is in no way diminishes thier importance, but often requires considerable supporting evidence by other comparitive examples and detail to accurately use them in identification.

As Lee has noted, atavistic renovation using heirloom or venerable blades was practiced in western settings much as is typically the case in ethnographic native situations. Blades often had extensively long working lives and were often remounted through many generations. In looking through the Wallace Collection reference by Sir James Mann it is interesting to see how many instances there are of older blades on later hilts, and incongruent nationality in blades and hilts. Often many swords described as 'composite' are actually these kinds of weapons, refurbished with components of other usually similar weapon types during thier working life to maintain serviceability.
Many venerated old blades which had become in degree 'relics of combat' were remounted and did become as I understand, bearing type swords used ceremonially as symbols of authority.

[Wodimi]

Iain, they don't mention in the book a maker or workshop. You're right with your meaning, they have an example of this mark in this Berliner Zeughaus, which is this museum today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch...risches_Museum

and another example in Coburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veste_Coburg

[Jim McDougall]

The references showing the cross fourchee encircled with the date 1590 are most interesting though it is unclear what references they appear in. I am assuming one is R.Cronau, the other the Solingen history by Weyersberg but cannot be certain. In any case, these type marks are not makers marks in the sense of those recorded by the guilds, but are often referred to as makers marks in that they were applied by the maker. It seems these crosses, orb and cross and such devices often occurred on one side of the blade, while the actual distinct mark of the maker may appear on the other.

Oakeshott, in his "Records of the Medieval Sword" (1991) shows a large hand and a half (type XX) sword (fig. XX.1, p.208) with this same kind of forked cross and the central fuller blade, assessing date period c.1320-40. There are also other enigmatic markings present.
The author also notes on p.257 markings on several swords carry "..the age old figure of a cross within a circle".
Also seen in this reference (p.212, XXa.1) is a type XX.A sword with curious amalgam of Greek and Latin miniscule letters in inscription with an encircled cross present, this one being the 'cross crosslet' (four Latin crosses to form one larger cross) as seen on the example Lee presented. Oakeshott dates this example in his book to c. 1425-50.

It is tempting to consider the forementioned cross fourchee as an earlier form of cross, but clearly both forms (among apparantly numbers of others such as the cross pattee) were in use concurrently and for some time using inlaid brass or copper. In Wallace Collection(1962), Sir James Mann notes on p.251 describing 'inlaid marks' on a 16th century example as having been used for a very long time. Actually Lech Marek ("Early Medieval Swords from Eastern and Central Europe", 2005, p.47) notes 10th century swords from Slovakia with Greek cross inlaid in copper in the blade.

In Wendell Boeheim "Waffenkunde" (Leipzig, 1890, p.674) there are examples of this exact cross fourchee form, one encircled just as this one on Iains takouba blade, the other encircled within two concentric circles. They are both identified as 13th century marks, with the one corresponding to Iains noted as having presence in 14th and 15th century noting Italian provenance as well.
In the same reference page one of the cross crosslet type shown by Lee is also present and shown as 12th century.

It would indeed be interesting to see the examples in the arsenal in Berlin and Coburg as seeing context in the actual sword would add a bit more perspective.

[Iain]

I am afraid I have to keep this to a short note due to the holidays and a wife who really would rather I was decorating the tree right now!

Lee,

Thank you for posting these additional marks. I think it is important to be able to say the cross, with terminals (albeit not forked) was being used encircled by the 14th century. This goes a long way to supporting to inclination to an earlier dating I think. Truly fantastic that you have these Medieval pieces in your hands, I am absolutely delighted and honored you have taken this degree of interested in my sword.

Wolf,

Thank you! I will attempt to contact both museums in the new year. I will be very interested in how these blades look....

Jim,

As always, very helpful in getting oriented about the how's and why's of Medieval marks. I am enjoying the discussion and references intensely. I think you and Lee are making a better and better case for this blade being the early example you think it is.


Just a few notes to clarify and help out future avenues of inquiry. On my blade both marks are found on both sides of the blade in the same positions. So absolutely duplicated.

Obviously the next step is to track down these two German swords and any others bearing similar crosses. Also, I just wanted to make clear I know the danger of only judging by photographs, if I have the chance to come to Baltimore this year, I will make every effort to bring this sword along so Lee can have a hands on examination.

All the best,

Iain

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Wodimi

Hi Iain,

if the cross mark is no imitation, will say an original mark, than it makes no sense to me, that the blade could be earlier than 1590. Why should a German (Solingen) blacksmith made his sign on the blade, if he don't made the blade. I think the people at that time are very proud for their work and would not made their mark on an older used blade, no no. The other way had happen, in the 15./16 Cent. there are German sword makers who copy for example this ball with a cross, a Swiss mark from the 10.Cent., but very famous for their quality.

It makes more sense, if the blade is not so old, that somebody later made this mark because this quality European blades had for sure a bigger value and the believe of the people maybe also more power with such (magic) signs. This you can read in documents from Henry Lhote and also Jean Gabus told so. That's the reason why I asked for your feeling, original or later attached mark.

The question Hausa or Tuareg......have you copper parts at your new beautiful sword? If not, it would be for me one point for Hausa origin, because Tuareg normal use all three materials, iron, brass and copper.

only some thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all
Wolf

While not relevant to the marking on this sword directly (though the cross enclosed withing a circle may be perceived as a variant I suppose)...I am intrigued by the observation that the cross and orb is a Swiss mark from the 10th century. The marking indeed was used by German makers, but I am wondering what Swiss makers this refers to.

I have been searching through references and finally found a comment in Briggs (1965) citing Henri Lhote, who in 1954 wrote "...the cross and orb originated as a Swiss mark applied to blades made in Vienne in France, which was widely copied by German armourers in 15th and 16th c. In point of fact it seems to have been essentially a German mark".
In another reference to work by Lhote, Briggs is curious as to how he arrived at the conclusion that copper and brass inlaid markings are proof that these had to have been added in Africa, as there was no tradition in Europe for this practice with these metals? There was, the term in Europe was 'latten' and the practice dates into the early centuries of blade production.

I am truly curious on 10th century use of the marks by the Swiss and if for the sake of accuracy we might know what references state this. I have been under the impression, much as Briggs apparantly, that these cross and orb marks were used by Solingen makers primarily.

[Iain]

Still doing as much reading as possible, but thanks to a kind chap on a more European oriented forum, I was pointed to this sword that Christies auctioned off. Mid 14th century, same type of cross, same type of incised lines. Similar blade profile.

http://www.armsandarmourforum.com/fo...der-the-hammer

A photo of the mark attached here as well for forum archives. There are other examples as well I am finding, some with the double circles as in this case.

In light of this, I can only say I think Lee (and Jim) have been spot on and I am quite happy about being able to realistically say I think my example should date mid to late 14th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you very much Iain!
I think we can well support probable 14th century period conservatively for your blade, and that is powerfully exciting. I really appreciate your keeping additions current for the purpose of enhancing the archival content here.

While I am often addressing the much wider populus of readers who clearly use this material, I know that those of us who participate actively use this material constantly as well. The goal here is not who can provide the best answers, but for us all to contribute as much as possible to better compile accurate ones.

I always hope that eventually those reading will join as share information we have not yet touched on, or as in the case of uncited or unreferenced material presented may offer the source from which these comments were obtained.

All the best,
Jim

[TVV]

Iain, while I cannot add much to the discussion, I just want to congratulate you on what is undoubtedly an amazing find. Given all your effort and research into takoubas and weapons from the Western Sahel, this is most deserved. Merry Christmas!
Teodor

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by TVV

Iain, while I cannot add much to the discussion, I just want to congratulate you on what is undoubtedly an amazing find. Given all your effort and research into takoubas and weapons from the Western Sahel, this is most deserved. Merry Christmas!
Teodor

Salaams All ~!! .... Absolutely !!!!!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Hi Jim,

Yes, I think the 14th century date is fairly supportable now. The twin circles seems to have been popular as well as I've seen a few now (all Alexandria related).

Teodor and Ibrahiim,

Thank you for the kind words. It was pure luck, but the best Christmas I can remember in quite some time.



I wanted to continue with the discussion a bit now that the blade has been pretty thoroughly commented on.

While the 1365 invasion by Peter of Cyprus is probably the most well known of the late crusades, the Mahdian Crusade should also be mentioned. A 1390 campaign against the pirate stronghold on the Tunisian coast. Besides this various other small campaigns and actions on Malta, Cyprus or the Italian commercial cities like Genoa could account for such a blade arriving in N. Africa and then on, into the Sahel proper.

But I wanted to talk about the hilt on this sword, which, putting aside the blade for the moment, is equally worthy of discussion.

The pommel is of the older oval type and interestingly is curved on the inside to fit the palm of your hand. Made of two halves, the top features a single strap of iron and a cap of brass in a rectangular shape. It is the most comfortable and hand fitting pommel I've seen so far.

The handle is ten sided and very solid. Almost certainly originally covered in leather.

The guard appears to be a single piece of iron forming both sides of the guard and a second piece on the top forming the ends and the top slot for the blade. This differs from the usual method of wrapping two pieces around the blade to form the guard. This in constrast this has clean, square edges and is more solid. I would say this has a chance to be an 18th century hilt and mount judging by the early 19th century mounts we can compare it with.

I still need to do a bit of derusting, there are some pits and built up dark areas on the blade, but knowing the age of it now, I am going slowly and carefully.

[Jim McDougall]

Intrigued by this blade, I have been on a fact finding mission to try to learn more on the history surrounding these medieval swords and these markings, and trying to also better understand the presence of this blade in North Africa.
I think that the early hilt style noted by Iain is significantly placed in possibly 18th century, early 19th though I am not nearly as clear on dating these so I would defer to his judgement. What I am trying to determine is when this blade, which seems to be at this point probably a 14th century example, may have entered the North African sphere.

As has been shown, the late crusades swords which survive mostly were presented to the arsenal at Alexandria with most of them apparantly entering those holdings as donations presented by the amirs. It seems understandable that these were afforded this extra attention as they were considered as trophies and proudly emplaced, most seem to have been donated between 1367 and 1467 AD (Kalus, 1982).

The dual concentric rings encircling the cross fourchee seem to be present on a number of these, with several accompanied by the running wolf. Since the terminus ante quem for these marks on the blade of I believe a couple of these is 1408 (the death of one donating amir) with the naskh inscriptions showing that amir as 'in the time of'. ...we can establish the markings used accordingly.

It is suggested that most of these blades were probably made in Milan (Boeheim, 1890, suggests the marking with single circle is probably Italian and in use as late as 14th-15th c.). The examples with the crudely chiseled 'quadraped' or running wolf (pre 1408) are quite probably Italian interpretations of the Passau mark....Italy and Germany were competitors in the arms market and as Sir James Mann (1962) points out, often spuriously used each others markings.
These Italian blades certainly had potential to later enter trade networks to North Africa as it is noted that Venice maintained trade with Mamluk Egypt. It seems clear that this trade continued post crusades of course, so the entry of these medieval blades into Mamluk possession need not have been through combat, but would certainly have been attractive reflecting the trophy type presence of those earlier examples which were. Many of these quite possibly entered the general population in Egypt for some time afterwards and even blades which had reached 'surplus' or obsolete status probably entered the North African littoral sometime indeterminately after thier manufacture. It was not at all uncommon for somewhat antiquated materials to end up entering colonial use in thier more remote circumstances or trade stock of merchants supplying these regions.

The Mamluks in Egypt were feudally in control until thier clandestine massacre by Muhammed Ali Pasha in Cairo in 1811, though many of them escaped to Sennar in Sudan to the south. As I understand, there had already been numbers of the Mamluks emplaced in these regions and engaged in the slave trade.
I am wondering if perhaps this medieval blade had entered the Mamluk reign and moved southward into Sudan either before or as result of the events of 1811. If it had entered the slave trade areas in Sudan, it seems not only likely but probable, that it may have been among trade materials, especially if it had been compromised by age or damage already.

In this scenario, the blade was appointed with the interesting collar to bolster the blade, and has clearly been ground to Tuareg or Hausa preferred profiles. With tradition of these being handed over and refurbished through generations, it seems possible it may have become static in early times and revered as a heirloom no longer for use, perhaps around end of the 18th to early 19th c.

Just my thoughts for possible scenario.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Iain and Jim et al ~ and congratulations on an excellent topic ... This specialist research project is stunning !

The cross is of course Ethiopian Coptic and a fine example exists in the Deir es Salam Coptic Ethiopian Church in Jerusalem which in itself has for 1500 years been the beacon of their religion and indeed their country ~ such is its importance. (Picture attached)

The ancient forked cross pushes the envelope or rather supports the theory on the blades antiquity. Could it be that pilgrims passing into the Jerusalem hub have transferred either this blade(or the original blade which may have been modified later) and /or the technology centuries ago to Ethiopia ?... It makes sense to me.

Reference the second exhibit at #20; As a caution (and to myself since I dont have the knowledge on this particular type of weapon) the passau wolf and the cross look like having been made with the same tools i.e. the outlines are feathered in both cases with what looks to be from the same tool. The chisel strikes look to be the same on the wolf and cross (from the same tool). It can be argued, therefor, that they were done at the same time.

It is difficult to decide where these marks were made; Europe or Ethiopia. I leave that to the specialists however I lean toward Europe as I can believe a Coptic cross but not perhaps the wolf as both being put on at the same time in Ethiopia!! Therefor in the case of #20 I follow the earlier date rather.

In respect therefor of... #1 it appears to compare favourably with # 20 and in the absence of a radio spectrometry probe I would say its the same vintage..

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi..

[Iain]

Hi Ibrahiim,

The mark, along with many other European crosses, is largely derived from the Greek cross and you can find many cross marks with either fork terminals, or straight, Maltese or many other designs. So I think there is some superficial similarities with all Coptic crosses.

This blade and the marks are entirely European and I think the entry point into the Sahel is likely to have been Egypt or Tunisia. About dating I really hope it is 14th century as well and I see no reason at this point to think it is not.

Jim,

Brilliant as always! Very helpful material, Italian seems a very likely attribution. The idea of the blade moving with the Mamluks, either by trade or war, is a valid path to consider. My reason for suspecting an early date for the hilt is mainly the difference in construction and the pommel. If we use the two examples from 1830 as a benchmark and consider those styles in vogue for +/- 50 years, we are already back in the late 18th with those two swords. I think it is fairly reasonable then consider an 18th century date for this one. It is quite lucky for me this wasn't rehilted more recently!

Thinking about the Mamluk connection, it strikes as odd these haven't turned up in kaskara hilts as well... This was the pinnacle of the gold routes and large numbers of traders would have been moving with the great camel caravans.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

Hi Ibrahiim,

The mark, along with many other European crosses, is largely derived from the Greek cross and you can find many cross marks with either fork terminals, or straight, Maltese or many other designs. So I think there is some superficial similarities with all Coptic crosses.

This blade and the marks are entirely European and I think the entry point into the Sahel is likely to have been Egypt or Tunisia. About dating I really hope it is 14th century as well and I see no reason at this point to think it is not.

Jim,

Brilliant as always! Very helpful material, Italian seems a very likely attribution. The idea of the blade moving with the Mamluks, either by trade or war, is a valid path to consider. My reason for suspecting an early date for the hilt is mainly the difference in construction and the pommel. If we use the two examples from 1830 as a benchmark and consider those styles in vogue for +/- 50 years, we are already back in the late 18th with those two swords. I think it is fairly reasonable then consider an 18th century date for this one. It is quite lucky for me this wasn't rehilted more recently!

Thinking about the Mamluk connection, it strikes as odd these haven't turned up in kaskara hilts as well... This was the pinnacle of the gold routes and large numbers of traders would have been moving with the great camel caravans.

Salaams Iaian, What an interesting thread...!! I neither disagree nor agree if you see what I mean... for example the Maltese cross ... ok it is related but it is very different to the almost exact form of the cross in a 1500 year old Church in Jerusalem and the one on your sword! I suspect the earlier date illustrated by Jim in his reference quote :

"Lech Marek ("Early Medieval Swords from Eastern and Central Europe", 2005, p.47) notes 10th century swords from Slovakia with Greek cross inlaid in copper in the blade".

I see a situation where this sword has perhaps transmitted from Europe with pilgrims to Jerusalem thence via Ethiopian traders to Africa.... Ethiopia. It is one of the possibilities. There are others. Mine is the most fanciful!

I further fancied that the other sword mark >-l--- was related to ancient Ethiopic or Greek script however after hours of comparison I cannot report any success with that theory moreover I suspect it is simply attempt at a second Coptic Cross which has stopped abruptly >-l--- rather like my letter !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[TVV]

If I had to make a guess on the journey of this blade (and at this point we are all only making guesses), I would think that it is most likely to have entered the Western Sahel through the Maghreb. We all know about the activity of North African corsairs during the 16th century, when they sacked many Mediterranean coastal towns. While this type of sword was not in vogue, it is not improbable that many such swords were still in use a century to century and a half after their manufacture. The plunder that just the Barbarossa brothers brought to North Africa must have surpassed any trophies from the Eighth Crusade by a large factor.
In his book, Smaldone points out the trade links of the Sahelian Muslim Kingdoms and Empires with the Maghreb, and most of that trade was controlled by the Tuaregs. It is not difficult to imagine how this blade may have entered the Sahel through trade with Morocco for example.
Anyway, since we are all throwing theories, I thought I'd throw in mine as well.
Regards,
Teodor

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Iain!
The prevalent trade which came out of North Italy, particularly Venice, was of course likely to carry blades to the North African ports over many years.
It would not be surprising that numbers of surplus old blades may have been carried into the trade centers, and the fact that the broadsword prevailed in Mamluk regions for so long seems to add support to the idea.

Teodor, your theory is of course quite plausible as well, and we know that there were prevalent points of entry in the Maghrebi littoral to the caravan routes which headed southward and eastward across the Sahara. As noted, these routes were indeed controlled by Tuareg tribes.

Ibrahiim, the Ethiopian suggestion and the association of Greek cross with the Coptic Church is well placed. While we know as Iain has mentioned, there were many variations in the decorative style of Greek crosses used through medieval times. There are many subtle nuances and symbolic meanings applied through heraldic interpretations, so it is difficult to determine just how much must be presumed from these embellishments to this very simple cross design.
The cross you show for example is actually known heraldrically as the 'cross moline' and uses the bifurcated arms, but these are more in arched curve than the cross fourchee (forked) used in European parlance as discussed.
The more commonly seen 'cross potent' with straight lined serif at the arm ends is also known as the Jerusalem cross, and may well be aligned with the Coptic traditions you have well described with thier basilica there.

Actually the use of the kaskara, as far as I have known developed in Ethiopia much later than it did in the Sudan. During the early stages of the Mahdist uprising in the 1880s many of the tribesmen, if not even most, were poorly armed and had no swords or weapons other than tools or even rocks to throw. The use of the broadsword likely remained with Mamluks in Egypt and in some degree in the Sennar regions in Sudan where they had become established in slave trade.
There was not as much movement of blades as we are discussing into the Ethiopian regions, certainly not as was entering through Tunis and Alexandria...nor for that matter in the Moroccan ports. The key was that Malta and Cyprus were stops for Meditteranean trade and these locations are noted as likely having presumably significant holdings of surplus with provenance from probably any number of crusade associated campaigns.
Over time many changes in politics or power in areas where long established branches of military orders had once housed arsenals of these weapons had opened these to dispersal and likely brought forth these assemblages of blades etc.

Returning to Iains well placed query on why this blade was in Tuareg mounts rather than as a kaskara. Actually, in one of its earlier incarnations, it most likely was, and quite possibly in service in the Mamluk perameters. In my opinion it may well have entered into the westward trade routes with slave trade activity, probably in the 18th century as evidenced by the early form of Tuareg hilting. It would seem that the use of these broadswords in North Africa was more prevalent in Saharan regions in Chad, Bornu as well as with the Tuaregs and associated tribal confederations...at an earlier time than the widespread use of the kaskara in Sudan. In Egypt and the Sudan the use of broadswords existed of course with Mamluks and upper echelon and ranking individuals, but not with the majority tribal rank and file.

As Teodor has well noted, we're throwing our theories into the ring, and these are simply my own opinions. Its a great discussion!!! Lets keep it going, and of course look forward to thoughts of others out there reading this.

All best regards,
Jim