Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
A few years ago Professor Balog, in the introduction to his book Coinage of the Mamlūk sultans of Egypt and Syria, suggested, on the basis of the numismatic evidence, a number of modifications to the principles of Mamlūk heraldry proposed earlier by Mayer in his book Saracenic heraldry, particularly with regard to the use of composite blazons by the sultans, and their design. Balog's main conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows:
(a) The Mamlūk sultans engraved their coats-of-arms on many of their coins. (b) Besides simple charges true composite blazons occur on fulūs, showing that not only the nobility but the sultans also had composite blazons. (c) All simple charges occurring on issues of one and the same sultan are parts of his composite blazon. (d) Coins sometimes confirm the evidence for a sultan's blazon provided by other objects, and sometimes contradict it; in the latter case, the coin evidence should prevail, (e) Coins, in that they can be definitely attributed and the ownership of the blazons they carry can be proved without question, confirm Mayer's theory that the Mamlūk blazon was hereditary.
1 Balog, Paul, The coinage of the Mamlūk sultans of Egypt and Syria, Numismatic Studies No. 12, New York, 1964Google Scholar, henceforward referred to as Coinage. The numbers in brackets after particular coins mentioned in this article are the coin numbers in Coinage. Hoard numbers refer to the coins published by Balog in his article “A hoard of late Mamlūk copper coins and observations on the metrology of the Mamlūk fals”, in Numismatic Chronicle, 7th series, II, 1962, 243–73.
2 Coinage, 18–38.
3 Mayer, L. A., Saracenic heraldry, Oxford, 1933Google Scholar, henceforward referred to as SH.
4 Sacy, A. I. Sylvestre de: (Translated by), “Traité des monnoies musulmanes traduit de l'arabe de Maḳrizi”, in Bibliothèque des arabisants francais, Ière serie, T.1, Cairo, 1905, 39Google Scholar. Maqrīzī, , al-Nuqūd al-islāmiyya, called Shudhūr al-'ukūd fī dhikr al-nuqūd, ed. al-'Ulūm, Muḥammad Baḥr, Najaf, 1967, 30Google Scholar. Also Quatremère, M., Histoire des sultans mamlouks, Paris, 1837, II/1, 14–15, n. 12.Google Scholar
5 Sauvaget, J., La poste aux chevaux dans l'empire des Mamelouks, Paris, 1941, 46–49Google Scholar; SH, 17.
6 This was pointed out by Oman, G. in his review of Balog's book in Annali dell' Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, IX–XI, 1962–1964, 310–312.Google Scholar
7 SH. 14–15.
8 SH, fig. p. 30.
9 SH, 146 and 124–5.
10 SH, 235, 63–4, and 249–50.
11 Sacy, op. cit, 39; Maqrīzī, , al-Nuqūd al-islāmiyya, Najaf, 1967 edition, 31.Google Scholar
12 Mayer, L. A., “Lead coins of Barquq”, in Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, III, 1933, 22Google Scholar, quoting Ibn Furāṭ, MS. Vienna, IX, f. 3, lines 16 ff.
13 Sauvaire, H., “Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire de la numismatique et de la métrologie musulmanes”, Journal Asiatique, ser. VII, vol. XIX, 306Google Scholar, quoting Maqrīzī, , Description d'Egypte, II, 306.Google Scholar
14 Popper, W., Egypt and Syria under the Circassian sultans, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955, 95Google Scholar. This was a military post in Cairo, not duplicated it seems in Damascus.
15 M. Quatremère, op. cit., I, pt. 1, 233.
16 Sauvaire, op. cit., XV, 261, quoting Maqrīzī, Traité des famines, fol. 28 v., 29 v.
17 Lane-Poole, S., Catalogue of Oriental coins in the British Museum, IV, 1879, pl. III, no. 274, and p. 72.Google Scholar
18 In his madrasa in Damascus, and in the main mosque at Ḥimṣ, see SH, 22.
19 Schlumberger, G., Numismatique de l'Orient latin, Paris, 1878, pl. III, 1 & 2, and p. 52.Google Scholar
20 S. Lane Poole, op. cit., III, 1877, nos. 619, 633, 346, 349, 351, for example.
21 For a brief history of the double-headed eagle as a royal symbol and coat-of-arms see Bǎncilǎ, I., “Eléments d'art monétaire bulgare au XIIIe siècle”, Bulletin de l'Institut d'Archéologie Bulgare, XXV, 1962, 68.Google Scholar
22 For a list of the objects on which the horseman appears see SH, 18.
23 SH, 25.
24 SH, 26.
26 Quoted by Mayer in SH, 144, and by Balog, 27.
26 Sauvaget, op. cit., 77, n. 300.
27 Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalā'ūn is also included in Mayer's Armorial Roll on the basis of a glass lamp and two coins. Mayer himself stresses how tenuous the attribution of a blazon on the basis of objects is in the case of this sultan, and there seems to be no more reason for accepting the blazon on the lamp he cites than that on any of the other objects.
28 SH, 201.
29 SH, 88.
30 SH, 128–9.
31 SH, 179.
32 SH, 34–40, and Mayer, L. A., “Das Schriftwappen der Mamlukensultane”, Jahrbuch der asiatischen Kunst, 1925, 183 ff.Google Scholar
33 SH, 44.
