Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
It does not seem that volumes of 'captured' crusaders arms were marketed as trophies to anxious tribal consumers. Only a few such 'trophy' swords were kept, and these were placed in the armoury in Alexandria. Most weapons gathered from these battlefields were typically 'recycled' as the metal was valuable in forging new arms by Muslim sources. With the European 'salvors', these gathered arms became saleable surplus, which as noted arrived in the volumes of materials exported.
Many of these early blades did circulate for a time through generations in North Africa, but most surviving examples (with rare exceptions) are blades from the mid to late 19th century which are products of the Mahdist period, some pre WWI, then post 1940s.
I hope this elaborates a bit more on the 'kaskara' question, and I hope Iain will adjust or add to what my perceptions state here. The reason I 'quote' the term kaskara, is that this very word is not even used in the Sudan or anywhere it is used to describe it. It is simply known locally as sa'if.
This term was derived from a Saharan tribal dialect by European linguists it appears, and became entered into the glossary of 'collectors' terms.
|
Hi Jim, as always a very succinct and informative post. I have to admit I have spent much less time researching the kaskara, although the name as you rightly point out is simply down to the fact that Stone labelled it as a kaskara (rightly in his case since he was specifically referring to use by the Bagirmi kingdom) and the term was then simply used by all and sundry to refer to swords from Sudan. However, given current forum discussions featuring the name game and not wanting to distract from the real topic at hand I'll move on...
Just a small point in the complete and well known grouping of swords that entered the Alexandria armoury, thanks to the excellent research of Clive Thomas, David Oliver and of course D.G. Alexander on these swords, we know most of these were in fact diplomatic gifts as part of treaties with Cyrpus. Even less romantic than war trophies!
Further, I have always to a degree questioned the idea of old blades being dumped on the African market when we have plenty of sources illustrating a thriving export industry from Europe to Mamluk Egypt and the Ottomans during the 15th century and later, although this was hardly legal. Mamluk Egypt also had a heavy reliance on European trade for metals including steel. In short I think the trade in blades was contemporary rather than old stock.
To get back to the original question of just when a kaskara became a kaskara, I think its important to note that we are essentially discussing a hilt form. In particular a form comprised of a guard with a cruciform shape and inveriably having an extension over the blade.
This style of guard was quite popular within Mamluk swords, not only on straight blades but also sabres. It differs significantly from another common but older style with larger pommels and shorter guards. While no expert in Mamluk weaponry as near as I can gather this style emerges in the late 15th century, as the piece in the image attached illustrates.
This is more or less the pattern the kaskara follows, although in the latter the pommel over time degenerates to a simple wrapped nub of leather and the grip is simplified as well.
Unsurprisingly the late 15th century and early 16th also is the period when Sennar, a kingdom heavily tied to Ottoman Egypt arises and notable for their heavy calvary patterned after the Mamluk model...