Introduction to Islamic Heraldry

(last updated on February 21, 2002)

Introduction to Islamic Heraldry

by Dr. Murray Lee Eiland

Frankfurt aM, Germany

...Click here to view the illustrations.

................

The Nature of the Evidence

Imagine attempting to re-construct a heraldic tradition without documentary evidence. There are no heraldic authorities, no rolls of arms, no archives. This is the case for the heraldry of the Islamic world. It is important to make a distinction between armorial insignia and heraldry, an issue that will be addressed later in the paper. The situation is not as dire as it would first appear, as there has been considerable effort by a number of scholars directed towards this problem. As with many aspects of ancient societies, all that is left is the art itself, in most instances pointing to no more than what was lost. Several Medieval European authors note distinctive blazons, but they can cannot be relied upon for detailed information. Islamic charges are not always straightforward. Designs must be viewed in a cultural context. Religious and social factors that predominate in one culture may be alien to another. There are few references in Arabic, and essentially no Arabic illuminated texts that depict arms. One is left with few verbal descriptions. This is in contrast to other material evidence. There are a wealth of symbols depicted carved into stone, on ceramics (both tiles and vessels), glass, metalwork, occasionally coins, and even rarely on textiles. In the case of metalwork, the designs tend to be carefully depicted, but the important issue of colour is left open. Most pottery, though it can still have bright glazes, is crudely decorated. Of course pottery is commonly encountered in the archaeological record, but it was usually un-inscribed, and therefore some of the most difficult material to use. In order to assign the blazon to a person with certainty, not to mention place it in time, an inscription is required. In some cases a web of art-historical conjectures can be used to assign a particular design to a person or date, but as with numismatic studies that use the same methods, it seems every new discovery necessitates a reappraisal. Hence, most scholarly works dealing with Islamic heraldry rely upon blazons that are accompanied by inscriptions. While there is a mass of evidence, the question is then what is it evidence of?

Is it Heraldry?

At this juncture, it is important to stress what is known. The first is that heraldry in the true sense of the word, as proposed by Fox-Davies, was used in the Islamic world. The two primary criteria are that the symbols were associated with armour and were hereditary. The first issue is straightforward to address. Clothing that would have armorial bearings has largely perished, as have coloured shields and the like. The Muslim author Ahmad al-Qalqashandi notes in his Subh al-Asha (Advice to Civil Servants) of 1412 that: “...it was customary for every amir...big or small, to have a special blazon according to his choice or preference...It was applied in colour above the doors of his houses and other buildings...Also in coloured cloth or wool on his horse blankets and camel cloths and embroidered and similar articles, and sometimes even on swords, bows, harness for his horses and other things” (Leaf and Purcell, 1986). At this late date in the development of Islamic heraldry one notes that it was not primarily applied to accoutrements of war. As was the case in Europe, heraldry was applied to many other objects as well. That Islamic blazon was appreciated as having military connotations is preserved in many depictions, even on buildings. There are a wealth of different shaped shields that are depicted that encompass a blazon. The most common is a roundel, which requires little imagination to appreciate as a simplified shield. In other cases arms are simply placed in geometric figures - that are not convincing shield shapes - or simply directly on the object itself. This should not be a distraction, as heraldic devices depicted on crockery are still heraldic.

There are apparently no Islamic illuminated manuscripts that preserve images of heraldic shields, but this may relate more to the spotty nature of what has survived rather than what was depicted (or in fact what really existed). Many shield shapes of sultans preserve a motto with little or no trace of a charge, a trend that gains ground with time. This should be appreciated as a natural development, as in Europe there are civic and personal arms that are composed of words and letters. Given traditional Islamic prohibitions against figural representation, it comes as no surprise that heraldry was used by certain Islamic groups and not others. Indeed, given the wide range of forms that the Arabic calligraphy can adopt - where words can imitate plant or animal forms - a case could be made that heraldry simply changed forms, though it seems that mottos were not hereditary. This art reached a high point during the Ottoman empire. Calligraphers devised the tu?ra, or symbol, of the sultan, which would be used at the beginning of court documents. The first example known is of Sultan Orlan Gâzi (1326-1359). It was used as a state symbol for as long as the sultan reigned, and typically gave the sultan’s name, patronymic, and motto. There are similar devices used for sayings of Muhammad and saints. The practice was unusually lavish by the time of Sultan Süleyman I (1520-1566) when the state symbol was embellished so heavily that it was barely visible behind the decoration (Derman 1998, 38). The important element was that the viewer could know what the symbol meat without being able to read. Clearly this practice had a stifling effect on the development of heraldry. However one defines the issue, there seems to be very little difficulty in convincing someone that Islamic heraldry has armorial associations, and what little documentary evidence exists fills in any remaining gaps.

The next question to address is one of heredity. Given the lack of detailed documentary evidence, such as rolls of arms, it is hardly surprising that this is one of the most contentious issues. In several cases it can be proven that males for several generations bore the same blazon. At the same time the structure of Ayyoubid and later Mamluk society at least factored against sons following in the footsteps of their fathers, as the children of amirs (military officials) usually received religious-administrative education over military training. As a result they did not bear arms. This presents a stark contrast to the situation in the West, where a military aristocracy - or those who claimed descent from this group - continued to exert political influence for generations. The basis for this cultural difference is so vast that it would require more detailed treatment elsewhere. In short, unlike in Europe, where arms became symbolic of a wide class, the same was apparently not the case in the East. Blazons were the prerogative of the amir, in Ayyubid and Mamluk society. No one but a sultan or amir are known to have used these devices, and of those with a religious or administrative post who used arms, they almost certainly occupied positions reserved for amirs (Mayer 1933, 3).

In keeping with Medieval European practice, there is no doubt that there were laws relating to clothing - and symbolism - that stated what could be used by various persons depending upon rank (Killerby 2001). The Arab historian Abu’l-Fida records how his cousin al-Muzaffar Mahmud was confirmed as the lord of Hamah in 1284 by Sultan Qalaun: “The Sultan also sent him his sultanic insignia, which consisted of a flag decorated with the streamers of a sultan, a horse with a golden saddle, a yellow silk neck-covering for the horse, and a horsetrapper.” As Leaf and Purcell (1986, 43) note “...no arms are mentioned; but we know from other sources that Muzaffar, like his father Muhammad, whom he succeeded in 1284, bore the insignia bendy and a chief. The historian, when he was confirmed as ruler of Hamah in 1320 by Qalaun’s son and successor, an-Nasir Muhammad, used the same arms, the chief uncoloured (perhaps white is intended), the bends either ten or twelve in number, gold, red, gold, black, gold, etc.”

Social Factors

The evidence above supports several contentions. The first is that a blazon was granted by the sultan, at least in the earlier period. As a text by Ahmad al-Qalqashandi of 1412 mentions, by this time it seems that blazons were assumed by choice. Neither statement suggests that arms were not also granted, or assumed, as a routine right of office, or perhaps to a class as a whole. Human nature being as it is, without firm legal controls - particularly in out of the way areas - individuals likely took up arms themselves. The material evidence attests to a wealth of symbolism, but was it supposed to be heraldry? Powerful families who would be widely recognised as rulers would adopt symbols that reflect their power, and would not feel ashamed at placing it upon their table-wares which survive today. This does not suggest a central authority such as a group of heralds, but it is almost certain that there would have been social pressure that discouraged those from assuming arms or symbols to which they were not entitled. This shows that the situation in the East is quite distinctive to the West, and point to some larger social differences, as Mayer (1933, 4) notes:

The two great stimuli for the development of the coats of arms in Europe, viz. the helmet with the vizier that made the face invisible in tournament and warfare, and hereditary land tenure involving obligatory military service, did not exist in the East. Although the Saracenic blazon was hereditary among amirs, yet those of their sons who, as so many did, chose an ecclesiastic or administrative career, apparently had no right to arms. The blazon could thus never reach the importance it attained in the West; an importance which subsequently led to registration, to ‘Colleges of Arms’, and to legal protection.

The paragraph above summarises the issues quite well, though there are some areas for further comment. In keeping with recent theories about the origins of arms, it should be noted that the disguising aspects of European armour may have been only one factor that encouraged the rapid spread of heraldry in Europe. As Platts (1980) notes, arms may have developed from the civil personal emblems used by descendants of Charlemagne. She contends that these marks were first used on seals to authenticate documents, and later used on war banners, as are clearly shown on the Bayeux tapestry. While her argument lacks some important evidence (Woodcock and Robinson 1988, 4-9), it also explains, using parallel reasoning, why merchants also used arms from a relatively early date. As symbols that could be recognised even by those who could not read, they were useful for identification and business, if the latter two points can be always separated! Interestingly, seals were not engraved with arms in the East. This suggests several issues. The first was that these symbols were not recognised as significant personal marks. While the lack of a helmet with a visor is one issue, the lack of hereditary land tenure, coupled with the propensity for youth to be steered away from a life of warfare is another. At the same time the importance of the Arabic language should not be underestimated. Arabic is the language of the prophet, and the Koran is still read in Arabic by many Muslims. In order to be civilised, one had to speak and read the language. What use would a mark to proclaim one’s identity to those who could not read? Going one step further, it is significant that Islamic merchants did not use arms. A case could be made that gives European merchants greater social status, but this is far beyond the scope of this paper.

Another reason why heraldry was not as significant in the East may relate to origins. The development of heraldry in Islamic lands was almost certainly related to the crusades, a period of intense contact between East and West. Arms were used in Europe by the first half of the 12th century, and adopted by the Ayyoubids of Hamah about a hundred and fifty years later. There is a short flowering, but a rapid development of symbols (Leaf and Purcell 1986, 60). Up to about 1300 there were single element blazons, and to 1400 there was the introduction of chiefs and fesses; 1400-70 is defined as the period of tripartite insignia, each part charged, and 1470-1517 witnessed the composite blazons for scribes and warriors. What other social factors led to the adoption of heraldry in Islamic lands?

It has generally been assumed that Islamic style metalwork with European coats of arms - some of it described as ‘Veneto-Saracenic’ metalwork - has been manufactured by immigrant craftsmen in Italy. As this nation was known to have far-flung trading interests, and imported specialists from the East, this hypothesis has been little challenged. Recently, however, there has been speculation that immigrant craftsmen would not have been welcomed into the Medieval guild structure. In the last several years, art-historical as well as scientific examination of the so called Baptistére de Saint Louis suggests that this vessel was made in Syria for a European patron in the middle of the 14th century. Ward (1999) suggests that far from being made for an Mamluk sultan or amir, the iconography of the vessel shows European influence. Enthroned figures bear crowns, when the Mamluk sultans did not wear crowns. There is also a figure that seems to represent St. George slaying a dragon. These figures had been interpreted as Islamic by a number of scholars, and it was only by comparing them to Eastern Christian sources that convincing evidence was brought forward. Indeed, there are a number of Veneto-Saracenic vessels made with blank spaces in the shape of European shields (Ward 1989). This evidence suggests what may have been a sizeable East to West trade in metal vessels. It also suggests that Eastern exposure to heraldry was not limited to battlefields.

There are many more issues that can be explored when considering how and why heraldry was used in Islamic lands. It is difficult to summarise a phenomenon that encompassed different people over a wide time span, yet it is important at some stage to ‘paint with a wide brush’. By considering only general issues, and attempting to find the common elements that influence Islamic heraldry, fresh issues and insights can be brought to the study of heraldry in all countries.

Charges

The earliest evidence suggests that at first insignia consisted of one element. Some were clearly taken from European models. The rosette with a varying number of petals was perhaps the most common charge, and there is evidence to suspect that it travelled from East to West. The fleur-de-lys, felines (often taken for lions), and eagles with one or two heads are also encountered, though they were not nearly so common as in the West. It is interesting to speculate on the origin of these three charges, and many depictions suggest that they were adapted from Western coins. The lion is almost always shown walking. One leg, usually right, is raised and a the animal has a curled tail.

The nomadic heritage of the Mamlukes is preserved in tamgas. These devices have been interpreted as tribal emblems as well as marks that were used for branding animals. Leaf and Purcell (1986, 77-79) note that in their descriptions of Muslim armies, several Medieval European writers took tamgas as figural representations. It is unlikely that Moslems, with strict prohibitions against figural representation, would rally around such a banner. As these symbols may not have been familiar to the West, this is an understandable interpretation.

Perhaps the most interesting, and common charges, are those if not unique to, then are characteristic of, Islamic heraldry. These have more or less solid evidence that links them with occupation (Mayer 1933). It is significant to note that even after ascending to a higher rank, evidence of one’s origins was apparently retained in the blazon. In the vast majority of cases they are only schematically drawn, apparently to diffuse the problem of figural representation.

Cup

The number of cup-bearers was greater than any other group of pages, and not surprisingly occurs on a number of blazons.

Pen-Box

Denotes a secretary of a lower rank, and does not appear on early blazons. A number of variants preserve the same general pattern: an inkwell, sand pot and starch paste pot, thread holder, and receptacles for reeds. As Mayer (1933, 12) notes, the pen-box was the main component of two common composite blazons: “one of which consisted of a napkin on the upper and lower fields and a pen-box on the middle field, and the other of a napkin on the upper, of a cup placed between a pair of ‘trousers of nobility’ and charged with a pen-box on the middle, and of a cup on the lower field”. Leaf and Purcell (1986, 74) note that in the third and final stage (c. 1325-1495) of armorial insignia there is a change corresponding to the importance of various occupations. The men of the pen, either free born ‘Arabs’ or sons of Mamlukes, could not pursue a military career, but were coming to dominate political life. The pen box is more common than the sword.

Sword

Occurs in a variety of forms, from a double edged weapon to a scimitar (or even a dagger), either singly or in pairs. Signifies the armour bearer.

Bow

This charge apparently signifies an armour bearer or a bow-man, both of whom had the same rank. Arrows can accompany the device.

Napkin

This is a piece of cloth that was used to wrap clothes, deeds etc. The normal shape would be square or oblong. When written sources are compared with blazons the rhomb seems a likely candidate for the napkin.

Table

Islamic tables are commonly round, with or without support. The office could be that of taster.

Polo-sticks

The polo master was a court functionary. For a horse riding people, with need to practice for warfare, the game would take on particular significance. The blazon does not appear on later arms.

Saddle

The blazon looks like a dome, and could be a target or a tent, though neither of these are a sign of office. Therefore, it is most likely a saddle.

“Horns”

These charges always appear in pairs, and they seem to be hollow. There is considerable difficulty in interpretation as there are no clear references to them in literature. Earlier writers suggested that they are horns of plenty derived from the Byzantines. Mayer notes that they are likely to be trousers that signify nobility. Leaf and Purcell (1986, 76) suggest that as a horn and flag are given by the sultan to make an amir - according to one text - what looks like horns may really be horns. The symbol emerges during their third stage of armorial insignia.

Crescent

Mayer notes that it often occurs on potsherds, and can be associated with other charges, such as napkins or swords. He suggests that it should be taken as a horseshoe, and may be the symbol for the master of the stable. While this theory is supported by proximity to other symbols that had an occupational meaning, it should be noted that the crescent was a common symbol during the Sasanian dynasty (A.D. 250-650). Crescents appear associated with astral imagery in art, and are commonly encountered on coins of the period, also accompanied by stars. When crescent appear on early Islamic coins it is clear that they follow pre-Islamic practice. Because astronomy was intimately connected with mathematics and calendars, it is also possible that it had similar connotations even hundreds of years later. As for the case of the horseshoe, further evidence is required.

Colours

As with early Medieval heraldry, there may have been more meaning attached to the colours used (and how they were placed) than in what pattern or design they were arranged. It seems that there was little effort to follow the later European practice of never placing a metal on a metal or a colour on a colour. For Islamic heraldry this rule is particularly not applicable, as the major focus of arms seems to have been architectural. There was no need for ‘long distance’ recognition in the field. One would also expect, given the bright colours found on everything from tiles to textiles, that the arms were also brightly coloured. Islamic glass preserves some of the best evidence for coloured armorial devices. Stone carving naturally is not coloured. Metal with blazons is if at all, usually coloured with white and red. Ceramics preserve some colour, and suggest that the palette contained white, yellow, red, green, blue, brown, and black. There were also various shades available.

Summary: Islamic Heraldry

1. Was used by some Islamic groups but not others. Most significant factor seems to have been contact with Europe. While some blazons were similar, intent was distinctive.

2. The main purpose of arms, if such can be deduced today, was to convey the occupation of the armiger.

3. Arms were issued by the sultan in the early period. Later they were apparently adopted at will. It is unclear if arms were controlled by a central authority towards the end.

4. Due to Islamic prohibitions against figural representation, elaborate calligraphy came to replace heraldry. As passages from the Koran and names of saints came to be used as symbols, and placed on armour, they were the 'new heraldry'. The symbol of the sultan was not hereditary, but served a similar function.

Main Issues: Problems

1. Without rolls of arms, as in Europe, many charges that seem to pertain to an occupation remain contentious.

2. Many blazons have no accompanying inscription. In the majority of cases they cannot be assigned to an individual or dated with any certainty. Can these be assumed to be ‘Burgher’ arms?

3. Many blazons with inscriptions are architectural, others are on metalwork. There is little or no indication of colour. At the same time these objects, occupying the upper realms of cost, may give a distorted picture of social phenomena.

Bibliography

Derman, , M.U.

1998 Letters in Gold: Ottoman Calligraphy from the Sakip Sabanci Collection, Istanbul. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Killerby, C.K.

2001 Sumptuary Law in Italy: 1200-1500. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Leaf, W. and Purcell, S.

1986 Heraldic Symbols: Islamic Insignia and Western Heraldry. Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

Mayer, L.A.

1933 (1999) Saracenic Heraldry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Platts, B.

1980 Origins of Heraldry. Procter Press, London.

Ward, R.

1989 “Metallarbeiten der Mamluken-Zeit, hergestellet für den Export nach Europa”, in G. Sievernich and H. Budde eds. Europa und der Orient 800-1900. Berlin.

1999 “The ‘Baptistére de Saint Louis’ - A Mumluk Basin Made for Export to

Europe”, in C. Burnett and A. Contadini eds. Islam and the Italian Renaissance. The Warburg Institute, London.

Woodcock, T. and Robinson, J.M.

1988 Oxford Guide to Heraldry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Illustrations...

These have been chosen to convey the range of Islamic heraldry with some noteworthy charges. They have been drawn from the original sources by Lidiya Kuznetsova.

A. This blazon depicts a sword (top), pen box (middle) and a cup surrounded by two horns. Swords can be in many styles, though they are clearly of Eastern and not Western form. The horns are commonly shown flanking another charge, and almost always face upwards. Such composite blazons are generally from a later period than the earler simple forms, though examples on pottery in particular may not follow this general convention.

B. Ayyoubid blazon of Muzaffar II of Hamah. Bendy, or, gules, or and sable, with a feline (lion) gules in chief.

C. The fleur-de-lys here is very detailed. The design may be schematised in other examples. It may also accompany other charges.

D. This elaborate blazon is encompassed by a shape that while not convincing as a shield, is at least pleasing. It also demonstrates that while the charges may be simply drawn, they are artistically placed in the figure. The top is a napkin, while the middle charges are a cup with a pen box, flanked by horns. The bottom is also a cup. Such repetition is common with cups, though it is unclear what this means.

E. This crescent is enclosed by a convincing shield.

F. One of the commonest charges is the rosette, which could be naturalistically drawn, or as here, geometricised. The ‘target’ like aspect of this blazon is very pleasing, and reflects the use of the protractor in design, a particularly Islamic trait.

G. Images of two metal plates dating to the 1930's from Northern Africa. These show "heraldic" central devices, and demonstrate that heraldry did not die, it changed from heraldry in a European sense to something else.

................

©..2001 by Dr. Murray Lee Eiland...No part of the webpages on this website may be reproduced in any form without written permission from its owner and moderator...ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...®..Commercial use of the clipart and/or images that appear anywhere on this website is strictly forbidden!!!..If you own or operate or are in any way associated with a commercial genealogy and/or heraldry company, then DO NOT use the clipart or images found anywhere on this website.