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.

[TVV]

The Ottomans conquest of Egypt was happening at approximately the same time as Muhammed Kanta's rebellion against Songhai, and Ottoman expansion along the African Mediterranean cost over the next several decades was mostly due to the efforts of corsairs, who aligned themselves with the Sublime Porte. I am not aware of any evidence for direct interaction between Kebbi and Constantinople, but of course trade routes reached further than diplomacy.

Trying to study early swords is like trying to figure out the full picture of a puzzle consisting of a thousand pieces based on only a few pieces available. This is why I find the nimcha from the Gold and Damascus Steel exhibition exciting, as its hilt is the closest thing I have seen to the hilt on the "Sword of Kanta".

I tried to search for pictures of the "Sword of Kanta" online and only found the one below. Apparently all of the swords are part of the regalia at Argungu. The top one was a gift from Queen Elizabeth II. Then we have our sword, unfortunately still in its 19th century Bida sheath. The katana like thing is described as a judicial sword for executions in use for the last two centuries - if true, certainly an interesting story in itself. The bottom one reportedly belonged to Muhammadu Sama, who ruled in Argungu between 1920 and 1934 (courtesy of Wikipedia), with the scabbard reportedly having a 25% gold content.

[Changdao]

Originally Posted by TVV

The Ottomans conquest of Egypt was happening at approximately the same time as Muhammed Kanta's rebellion against Songhai, and Ottoman expansion along the African Mediterranean cost over the next several decades was mostly due to the efforts of corsairs, who aligned themselves with the Sublime Porte. I am not aware of any evidence for direct interaction between Kebbi and Constantinople, but of course trade routes reached further than diplomacy.

Trying to study early swords is like trying to figure out the full picture of a puzzle consisting of a thousand pieces based on only a few pieces available. This is why I find the nimcha from the Gold and Damascus Steel exhibition exciting, as its hilt is the closest thing I have seen to the hilt on the "Sword of Kanta".

I tried to search for pictures of the "Sword of Kanta" online and only found the one below. Apparently all of the swords are part of the regalia at Argungu. The top one was a gift from Queen Elizabeth II. Then we have our sword, unfortunately still in its 19th century Bida sheath. The katana like thing is described as a judicial sword for executions in use for the last two centuries - if true, certainly an interesting story in itself. The bottom one reportedly belonged to Muhammadu Sama, who ruled in Argungu between 1920 and 1934 (courtesy of Wikipedia), with the scabbard reportedly having a 25% gold content.

Attachment 241523

Thanks for this new picture! This is a beautiful sword.

Regarding diplomatic contacts, I'm not aware of any directly (though I would not be surprised there were, given that Bornu was the main rival of Kebbi in the second half of the 1500's and the Bornu-Ottoman rivalry in the Fezzan), but it certainly saw Egyptian and North African trade directed through its land as master of the Hausalands. We know this trade happened in a very significative volume, and Kebbi collected important taxes from it.

Besides, contemporary Songhay people were making trips to Egypt all the time, from hajj to scholars going there to study. Askia al-hajj Muhammad went to Egypt in 1497-98 as part of a hajj and the Abbasid caliph bestowed him the title of khalifa and gifted him a sword, that became sword of state and was still around in the 1590's. One of his sons, also called Muhammad, did a hajj as well and later in the second half of the 1500's became Askia too. We know of many scholars of Timbuktu making the pilgrimage and stopping in Egypt for a time.

Given that Islam was growing steadily during the 1500's in the Hausalands, maybe something similar happened. Whatever the mechanism, Kebbi was known in the Mediterranean world. Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania, in his L'Universale fabbrica del Mondo overo Cosmografia (1582) states:

"Then comes Borno on the banks of the River Negro (where there is a great lake, caused by aforesaid river), a very great city having much commerce. It has its own king. . .He is attended with a great group of eunuchs, and certain young girls, who are made sterile by certain potions, so that in our speech they would be called 'female mules'. The ancient Lydians did the same thing: Omphale became angry over the matter and made a bloody dispute over it. In writing to foreign princes, they use the Arabic language, as I am informed by Signor Giovanni di Vesti, a most honourable person. Among the Turks, where he was the slave of a great count, he himself saw a letter which he [the Mai of Bornu] wrote to the Bassa [Pasha] of Tripoli, with much eloquence and very great art. This prince is so powerful, that he has several times put into the field 100,000 men against the King of Cabi [Kebbi]. Because of his power, the Negroes deem him to be an emperor. They also have a great multitude of horses, which the Arabs bring in from their countries, selling them for at least 700 or 1000 scudi each. These do not live long, for, when the sun enters the Sign of the Lion, many die each year from the extreme heat. . .And from there set out each year merchants who carry such quantities of the best Cordovan [leather] that it is accounted a great thing in the Fizzan [sic], whence they return with infinite numbers of horses for their country, accompanying the caravans of Negro merchants."

I'm not sure if he talks later on in more detail about Kebbi, maybe he does, but in any case they were aware of the scope of its conflicts with Bornu for hegemony in the Hausalands.

So, we must not assume a delay in the dating for this sword. As soon as it appears in the Middle East, it should be available for Kebbi and co., especially in this case in which it is the ruler himself who would be buying it. I'm not sure about the Hausanlands in this era, but Leo Africanus certainly states that on the other side of the Niger Bend there was active trade with Europe through North African merchants. Likely the same was the case for Kebbi (and the Hausa in general) with Libya/Egipt:

The people of the land make considerable profit from the trade in cotton cloth which they carry on with the Barbary merchants. For their part, these merchants sell them many European cloths, copper, brass, and arms, such as gianettoni.

[Jim McDougall]

The katana amidst this regalia is truly intriguing!
Interesting that despite their isolationism, the Japanese had diplomatic embassies pretty much worldwide as it would appear. However it does not seem these contacts were directly connected to the regions where these katanas would turn up.

I recall an article by Dr.Peter Bleed concerning the occurrence of Japanese katana with the Plains Indians in latter 1800s. This if course recalls the 1971 Charles Bronson film "Red Sun" with Toshiro Mifune as a Samurai set on recovering a diplomatic katana in the 1870s western US.

Also, it seems a Japanese katana was among weapons recorded with early American colonists at Jamestown.

Trade and its complex networks were far more notably dynamic than ever accurately recorded, and certainly account for the diffusion of influences and materials that exceeded any direct contact between peoples and cultural spheres.

[TVV]

If the question is whether it is possible for the hilt to date to Muhammed Kanta's time, then the answer is Yes. The guard with quillons terminating in monster heads turned towards the blade existed in the Islamic world as early as the 14th-15th century and the hilt may have been exported to Egypt and from there all the way to Hausaland. This may have even happened before the Ottomans made it to North Africa.

If the questions is whether it is plausible, then things get more complex. The main problem is the lack of similar hilts we can compare it to. In fact the only example of a hilt made entirely of metal with this kind of guard and a pommel in the shape of a monster or lion head is the one on the nimcha, #67 in the "Gold and Damascus Steel" catalogue. Number 1005 in Buttin comes close, but it has a typical nimcha guard.



Hopefully there are other examples out there, but these are the ones I am aware of. A couple of examples are far from enough to establish any trends, but for what it is worth, Buttin dates 1005 as late 16th, early 17th century. Number 67 in "Gold and Damascus Steel" is dated as early to mid-17th century and that dating makes a lot of sense to me.

And then there is the blade on the "Sword of Kanta", which we cannot see in its entirety, but which we know is a European blade, most likely from Northern Italy and dates most likely to the 17th century as well. But the blade itself is not sufficient to provide dating, because as Bivar points out, it could have been paired with the hilt at a later point. Broadswords were preferred over sabers in the Sahel, but then there is another sword in Bivar, from the Emirate of Katsina's regalia, which as a 14th or 15th century Mameluke saber blade. Based on that we cannot dismiss Bivar's point - this may have originally been a saber with the hilt then transferred to a European straight blade.

Overall, it is more likely that this sword is from the 17th century, and belonged to one of Muhammed Kanta's successors, but there is a possibility that the hilt may indeed have been something he held and used.