The Sword of Kanta, a Nimcha and Some Clues as to the Origins of Both

[TVV]

It is Thanksgiving week, I have more free time than usual and as a result my mind tends to wonder about some of my favorite topics, such as nimchas, swords from the Sahel and their origins.

One book that has always fascinated me is "The Nigerian Panoply" by Bivar. It is really a booklet published 60 years ago, but it is full of wonderful objects that somehow show up in North Nigerian treasuries, such as a late Medieval mail hauberk from Germany, a Balkan flintlock pistol, a Mameluke saber and most interestingly of all, the mysterious sword of Kanta. It is ascribed to Muhammad Kanta Kotal, the founder of the Kebbi Emirate who rebelled against Songhai and built a small Empire in Hausaland in the beginning of the 16th century. Here are the pictures from Bivar:







Sadly, there is no picture of the full blade as Bivar dismisses it as a later addition to the hilt, but it is a straight blade possibly from a European backsword. Anyone want to venture a guess based on the markings? The hilt on the other hand is well photographed and has a lion/monster/dragon head pommel (Bivar believes it to be a lion) and downturned quillons with monster head finials, in a very Timurid inspired style.

The closest parallel in terms of the hilt is a nimcha from a private collection, which is now published in the "Gold and Damascus Steel Catalogue" from this year:



This is a pretty unique nimcha, as there are not many with such a hilt. There is a metal hilted nimcha with a monster head pommel in Buttin, but it has a more typical nimcha guard, whereas this one has similar downturned quillons as the sword of Kanta. Marcus Pilz, the editor of the catalogue does indeed reference Bivar in the description. The blade with the star of David mark is very interesting, and Pilz may be correct that it may not be a European import, but a blade made in Northern Africa or the Middle East. The scabbard is also quite interesting with decoration in what looks like Souther Indian style and potentially much later. Pilz dates this nimcha to the first half of the 17th century, or a century to century and a half past Kanta's reign.

If this style of hilt was used in the Maghreb, then that provides a potential clue as to how the sword of Kanta's hilt got there - trade between the Sahel and the Maghreb was well established. However, so many questions remain. How should we date these swords, and is it possible that the sword of Kanta is actually later and one that belonged to a descendant, rather than to Kanta himself? How did the nimcha from "Gold and Damascus Steel" get its Indian decorated scabbard (if it is Indian in the first place)? If a crossguard form that originated in Central Asia in the 15th century travel that far west in the Islamic World, are the monster head pommels also an Eastern Asian element that made is West? Are nimcha grips a stylized representation of these monster/lion heads?

Some of these questions may be impossible to answer presently, but it is still fun to ask ourselves and discuss.

[Changdao]

Extremely interesting sword!

Does Bivar give any reason to adscribe it to Kanta Muhammad Kotal? Because one misconception I have seen around is treating Kanta as part of his name, when it is his title. As ruler of Kebbi, he bore the title Kanta, as did all of them. So if it just associated to a "Kanta", it might be one of his descendants from the late 1500's or early 1600's

It is a shame to not be able to see the full blade. If it was of a 16/17th century style and/or manufacture, it would raise interesting questions. In any case, this one will totally depend on the hilt, so I hope someone can shed more light on it. I don't know why, but it rings the bell of Mamluk Egypt, at least the upturned quillons.

[TVV]

Great questions. Bivar is careful in making any general claims about the sword and simply describes it as the sword of state in Kebbi. He mentions that local oral tradition in Argungu ascribes it to Muhammad Kanta Kotal, the founder of the state, and only states that the hilt may be of sufficient age to be compatible with such a claim.

When it comes to the quillons turning toward the blade and terminating in dragon heads, I believe that to be a Timurid feature, in turn inspired by contact with China. Here is a nice Timurid jade quillon block in the Met collection:

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/56220

There are similar quillons on some of the Holy Swords of Islam in the Top Kapi treasury. Ucel's opinion is that these date from the late 16th century. With Ottoman expansion to the east into formerly Timurid territory, some of the local craftsmen were relocated to Constantinople and brought those artistic influences with them.

Going back to the two swords in question. The private collection monster head nimcha is dated by Pilz, the catalogue's editor to the first half of the 17th century. This is consistent with other dated nimcha examples, such as those of Dutch admirals, and it makes sense that this type of quillons would have taken some time to get to the Maghreb from Constantinople. When it comes to the "Sword of Kanta", if the dating is similar, then obviously it could not have belonged to Muhammad Kanta. On the other hand, a 17th century dating would be more in line with the broadsword blade. Nothing is absolutely certain, but the signs seem to point toward this sword being a little later than what the oral tradition claims.

[Jim McDougall]

Fascinating topic Teodor! and the swords in this esoteric booklet truly present challenges, with this one especially challenging.
One thing I have thought in previous research on these swords is that they seem to have more commemorative and honorific value than distinct reference to the ownership and periods ascribed.
As swords of state, of course they must given great pedigree, and local officials did their best to accommodate.

As has been noted, this hilt seems to align with Ottoman hilt forms (yataghans pictured probably much later 18thc), and of the 16th century as were popular throughout their empire. Many influences seem to have come into this sphere, including Timurid elements as also noted. The 'dragon' feature on quillon terminals also aligns with the mythical creatures of India with the makara and yali.
The 'monster' forms in these hilt quillons seem to be wide ranged in the Ottoman interpretations, from varying grotesque dragon heads to stylized versions which are more vestigial. It does seem that mythical creatures like dragons and phoenixes were popular in Ottoman styles in 16th c. (Saz style). (pictured dragon)

Yucel if I recall, ascribes most of the historic Islamic blades in his references to have been rehilted in the 16th century, mostly with these kinds of hilts with downturned quillons.

These type hilts were of course known in North Africa with the Ottomans who held suzerainty in Algeria, Tunis, Libya and Egypt. They are found in varying mountings including nimcha and yataghan in those regions. Naturally these types were not limited to these regions, and via trade, diplomatic relations and of course warfare and territorial tribal expansions they in degree would diffuse accordingly.

The frustrating thing with study of most of these tribal states kingdoms, Sultanates etc. is that the history seems detailed through medieval periods, then typically fast forwards to late 18th into 19th century and more current geopolitical events. Therefore, without advanced study and specialized resources it is hard to assess more on these kinds of weapons of note.

It would seem that the powerful trade networks through Songhai regions and the Hausa would have experienced contact with Ottoman's to the north. A hilt such as this might well have come from a diplomatic embassy at some point during the reign of Kanda Kotal, thus indeed been from the period, though I am inclined to think this hilt is later.

The blade is I think as noted most likely 17th century and Italian, and such blades were known on schiavona of course. The nominal representations of the ubiquitous 'sickle' marks (generally regarded as Genoan) are seen with the singular mark, which is very much like an example from an Italian gunners stiletto c. 1650 (Wallace A858) . These are not typically taken to be makers marks though sometimes favored by particular ones, the actual purpose or meaning of them not known. They may be guild or other distinctively meant administrative symbols or perhaps even talismanic as often the case in many.


All of this long winded assessment is to support what Teodor has already well observed, but adding my own details. I dont have Bivar at hand, but my interest is really piqued so could not resist.

Interesting note Changdao on the Kanta 'name'. It is of course a common occurrence with these complex compound names in these cultures, where titles may be mistaken for a personal name. I'd like to know more on this as Im not familiar with regal titles in this context, it reminds me of the Pasha term in Ottoman parlance , which is of course of lesser station.

[Changdao]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Interesting note Changdao on the Kanta 'name'. It is of course a common occurrence with these complex compound names in these cultures, where titles may be mistaken for a personal name. I'd like to know more on this as Im not familiar with regal titles in this context, it reminds me of the Pasha term in Ottoman parlance , which is of course of lesser station.

Snippets from sources of the era. The first is from the Tarikh al-Sudan, an historical chronicle written by a member of the Timbuktu elite.

At the end of the year 919lFeb. 1514 the askiya campaigned against Katsina, returning in Rabi I 920/26 April-25 May 1514. Towards the end of 921 he campaigned against al-'Adala, the sultan of Agades, returning in 922. On his way back Kuta, who bore the title Kanta, ruler of Leka, broke with him for the following reason. [...] The Kanta refused to give in, and cast off his allegiance to the amir Askiya al-hfijj Muhammad, a situation which endured down to the demise of the dynasty of the Songhay folk. The Kanta thus gained his independence.


The second is a letter sent by Mulay Ahmad al-Mansur in the 1590's to the ruler of Kebbi protesting his continued support for Songhay after the battle of Tondibi

To the ruler of the Kebbi kingdom within the borders of our Sudanese dominions, Dawud Kantah-may God inspire you with right guidance and lead you by the forelock to that which you will find praiseworthy today, tomorrow and yesterday. Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His blessings.

Kebbi would under Kanta Kuta repulse Songhay efforts to reestablish their authority, and then under Kanta Kotal would become the hegemonic power in the Hausalands and a mighty kingdom of its own, rebuffing Songhay and Bornu forays. Its status dimished by the late 1500's, and it became friendly with Songhay, thus helping them after Tondibi.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Changdao, excellent response and much appreciated. These kinds of details really help in these studies and your thorough response gives great perspective. Not my regular field of study but fascinating history.