European bladed takouba

[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..