Heraldry and “Material Culture”[1]During the Mamlūk Period in Egypt and Syria

Nur Güne[2]

Abstract

The goal of this project is to produce a critical work on Mamlūk heraldic devices in their social setting：the deliberate visual forms of self-representation of the Mamlūk elite，their role in the creation of a Mamlūk “popular”visual culture，the institutions behind their production and distribution，and their changing of meanings over time.In addition to critical analysis，a catalog，which includes representative examples of published and available non-published heraldic symbols from different media，produced throughout the Mamlūk era will also be included.

With the categorization，cataloging and analysis presented in this manner，it will be possible to make an initial classification of the coat of arms on the basis of art-historical principles，followed by a comparison of it with the designs and styles of other regions.

Keywords

Mamlūk Heraldry　Coats of Arms　Material Culture　Islamic Art History / Archaeology

This is a very short abstract of a current written dissertation at the University of Bonn，which is funded by the DFG （German Research Foundation）.

This project explores the changing visual vocabulary of Mamlūk public art，and those elements that have came to epitomize the ways Mamlūks represented themselves：heraldic devices.The combination of blazons and titular inscriptions （used in a heraldic fashion）in decorative registers was the most immediately recognizable element on public buildings-defining the cityscape-and on objects used for official and public display and ceremony.The visual world thus created by Mamlūk inspired artists was saturated with such images.The Mamlūk sultans and their amirs took this imagery of political legitimacy beyond the cities to villages and the frontiers of their territories.Thus these symbols were the means of expressing the projection of state power in deeper levels of local society.[3]

The primary method of analysis used in this study will be art history，but at the same time，we will also look at the archaeological （spatial）context and its reference to contemporary Arabic and Turkish literature.

Who are the Mamlūks，and What is Heraldry？

In simple terms，the Mamlūks were a dynasty of former military slaves who became a military aristocracy，and ruled much of the eastern Mediterranean from their capital in Cairo from 1250-1516.Their most notable military achievements were their ultimate victory over Crusader forces and the eventual dissolution of the Crusader states in the Holy Land，as well as bringing an end to the Mongol （Il Khanid）expansion to the west.These victories lent the regime political and religious clout in the Islamic world until the Ottoman conquests of the early 16th century.

The long reign of the Mamlūks （two and a half centuries）makes its conducive for studying the long-term changes in the devices that appeared on nearly every genre of portable object and building.The project，then，has a relevance that goes beyond that of Mamlūk studies，allowing a comparison to be done between it and the European heraldry of the medieval era.Through stylistic study，archaeological research，and textual analysis，this study determined whether the heraldic devices of Mamlūk art functioned as heraldry in a technical sense，began as such but developed into something else，or carried an entirely different meaning from that of their European counterparts.In addition to this，such a comparison has the potential to raise important questions about the differing natures of medieval society in both worlds.

Instead of heraldry，the following words are also commonly used in different contexts：coat of arms，blazon，emblem，embroidery，design，motif，symbol and others.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online，heraldry is defined as follows：

“Heraldry [is] the science and the art that deal with the use，display，and regulation of hereditary symbols employed to distinguish individuals，armies，institutions，and corporations.Those symbols，which originated as identification devices on flags and shields，are called armorial bearings.”[4]

If you look for a translation of heraldry in the Encyclopedia of Islam you will find that itis commonly translated as “hilāl”，“shiсār”and “rank”.All three words have several meanings and were used in several contexts.But as Mayer put it，“In the strict sense of the word，the technical term in Arabic is the word ‘rank’”[5]

Nasser Rabbat said the word “rank”（plural “runuk”）comes from the Persian word “reng”meaning “color”or “tincture”and he continues explaining that the “emblems were stylized representations of objects and were most of the time displayed in a circle，which like its European counterpart seems to have been derived from a shield of a soldier.”[6]

I prefer also to use “rank”（plural “runuk”），European sources sometimes use the plural form of the word，i.e.“ranks”，but often it needs to use the German or Norman/English or French heraldic terms.

Runuk appear on buildings like mosques，madrasas，mausoleums，doorways，cenotaphs，as well as portable glass objects （mosque lamps，flasks，rose water sprinklers，bottles and vases，and others.），metal objects （candlesticks，bowls，basins，pen boxes，ink-pots，helmets and swords，coins，and others），textiles （horse blankets，saddlecloths and other horse trappings，tents，embroideries，flags and banners，and others），books covers，portraits，playing cards，and many other “everday”items.Depending on the material，they were either carved，painted，engraved，embossed，embroidered or dyed.But the abundance of material evidence is not confirmed by contemporary textual evidence.[7]

State of Research

Because of the active production of the kilns of Fustat and the vast quantities of emblazoned pottery found in Cairo as a result，the earliest scholarly work conducted on Mamlūk blazons focused on ceramics，namely sgraffitos and slip-painted wares.The first of these studies was done by Daniel Fouquet's Contribution á l'étude de la céramique orientale （Cairo，1900）[8]，now well over a century old.The stylistic analysis of heraldry on Egyptian earthen wares continued with the American Research Center in Egypt's excavations of Fustat （Scanlon，1980）[9].This was followed by two important studies by Leo Ary Mayer，namely Saracenic Heraldry：A Survey ，originally published in 1933[10]，and his Mamlūk Costume （1952）[11]，which documents the appearance of blazons on textiles of that period.These studies remain today as key reference works for Mamlūk heraldic designs，though they are far from comprehensive in their coverage of blazon forms.

Attention then quickly turns to architecture.The central work in this field is Michael Meinecke's 1972 monography Zur Mamlūkischen Heraldik .Of the more than 220 registered Mamlūk-era buildings in Cairo，he recorded more than 90 coats of arms and emblems，30 of which were published for the first time.He suggested that originally all Mamlūk buildings were marked by coats of arms.[12]Most recent studies of Mamlūk architecture include some discussion of heraldic devices，as they appear on building façades； notable in this sense is the work of Doris Behrens-Abouseif[13]and Nasser Rabbat.[14]

There are few scholarly studies of blazons in other media.Outside of Mayer's Mamlūk Costume ，emblazoned textiles have not been a subject of study （Bethany J.Walker's Mamlūk Studies Review article on silks and embroideries is a notable exception[15]）.As for metalwork，there is a handful of articles on well-known works of art in public collections （“Wade Cup in the Cleveland Art Museum”in 1957，[16]or alternatively，Whelan's[17]important study of a corpus of inlaid vessels in 1988）which include subsidiary discussions of blazons as part of the surface decoration.Because of their wide circulation and strictly controlled production，coinage is an important category of emblazoned objects for exploring the ways heraldic images of authority were created （in conjunction with inscriptions）and penetrated local society.Their potential for research results，however，has not been fully realized.In a series of articles （Balog 1964 and 1977），the numismatist Balog has discussed in detail the single elements of heraldic devices on coins，such as the bar （fesse），napkin （buqja），lion （lion passant），cup （hanab），fleurs-de-lis，and some amiral blazons.[18]Stefan Heidemann's studies on this topic from the field of numismatics （namely 1993）[19]and Warren Schulz discourses in Bonn have been important contributions in this regard.

These art historical works are largely descriptive and rely on stylistic analysis of surface decorations.They do not address meaning，intention，or reception，and do not aim at social-historical interpretation.Mamlūk blazons，however，have recently attracted the attention of archaeologists working in Greater Syria，whose scholarship focuses on the organization of production and distributional patterns of emblazoned pottery recovered from systematic excavations （Walker[20]1998，2004，2010 and 2013； Walker and LaBianca 2003[21]； Milwright 1997/98[22]）.Walker's work has made inroads into a cultural interpretation of such pottery，in combination with critical readings of contemporary Arabic texts （administrative manuals，chronicles，and geographical treatises）.

Arabic and Turkish primary sources will be consulted in this study，in an effort to reconstruct meaning （intention of the patron and visual and cultural reception by the viewer/consumer）from the heraldic patterns.

In Qalqashandī's ubal-aс shā，we read that every amir owned a coat-of-arms possessed by their own preferences in different colors and field divisions.These could adorn his buildings，such as palaces，but also the sugar factories，grain chambers，and other such industrial buildings under amiral control，as well as the covers （qumaš）of his horses and camels.The 14th century Egyptian secretary also noted that these devices were found in combination with the gold-embroidered monogram （laqab）of the Sultan on his robes.[23]

Two and half centuries later，the Ottoman scholar Evliyā çelebi，in his famous travelogue，describes for us the flags，inscriptions and some coats-of-arms on the architecture，some remains of which were quite old.Such texts give an impression of how the designs on buildings constructed in a much earlier era were interpreted and received by a public that no longer remembered the social or political context of these symbols.

From the Ayyūbid period there are a number of references to ranks given by Ibn Taghrībirdī[24]，Ibn al-Dawādārī[25]and Abu 'l-Fidā[26].

What is missing collectively from the art historical and archaeological literature to date are catalogues and cross-media analysis.

The System of Mamlūk Heraldic Designs

Weapons of Europeans were unique coats of arms.They served as an identifying feature in combat and tournaments and showed an individual's family origins.They mark the household，the family，and particularly the children，so that someone recognizes who they belong to.

The Mamlūks had a system of heraldry，which was almost unique in the Islamic world.But it was not used in the same way that the Europeans used it.At the beginning，only Sultans，amirs and high ranking people had heraldic devices.

These emblems which marked the bearer even after his death were not only reserved for the rulers.The ruler lent them，for example，to Mamlūks at their retirement from active military service or upon their promotion to officer's rank.Wives and daughters of the sultans were also able to inherit the blazons.[27]Over the course of the fourteenth century-during a period of intense changes in the political and economic spheres-these very symbols of Mamlūk authority and the exclusive privileges of Mamlūk rank were popularized and spread to objects of local production and consumption，such as household-produced embroideries and mass-produced earthen wares.Heraldic designs，which were formerly restricted to the officials and public spheres，were thus transferred to private and non-elite use.Heraldic inscriptions were broken into smaller elements and reconstituted in new and creative ways in “popular art”.By the term “popular art”I mean here objects produced for mass consumption，produced and distributed free from state control.

The adaptation of the motifs on everyday objects and household products （urban as well as rural）is an important starting point to consider the traditional categories of“elite art”“andpopular art”.The popularization of “militarized art”in this way parallels the development of vernacular literature and “popular”religion in the 14th century.

This is where the collection of Professor Bethany J.Walker in the labor in Bonn comes into play，namely ceramics，as the most immediate reflections of daily use，mass consumption，and changes in production.

The study，then，begins with a creation and stylistic analysis of a database for the most poignant representatives of this pottery on the popular level：the so-called Egyptian “barracks”sgraffito ware usually associated with Fustat productions and Syrian glazed relief ware.This work will consist largely of physical inspection and analysis of key archaeological and study collections.As a reference，it needs to compare the ceramics with well-known as well as unknown pieces in the museums and on architecture.

But because of spatial context （locations of the object used，and its association with other objects in those spaces）and patterns of distribution are critical to understanding the function and social value of portable and emblazoned objects，this project heavily references archaeological material，namely emblazed and inscribed pottery from the Citadel and village of Tall Hisban[28]，as well as field reports from archaeological projects throughout Egypt and Syria.

Understanding the archaeological contexts of “Mamlūk”and “popular”objects is critical in understanding the processes of physical，functional，and spatial transfer of these symbols.I will also examine Mamlūk-era texts，as appropriate，for information on the administrative function of blazons and heraldic inscriptions，the institutions that produced objects with these designs，the socio-economic relations between garrisons and villages，and the local reception of public ceremonial.

On the level of art historical analysis，a systematic study of the designs themselves，their relationship with other decorative devices，and the kinds of vessels and buildings on which they appear suggests the following aspects about that the system of Mamlūk heraldic designs：

·It is closely connected with the history of rulers and offices

·It has a strong relation to the military

·It represents the striving for power and acquisition of prestige

·It physically projects power and makes visual claims to territory

·It is influenced by the charisma of the foreigner

·It is popular with the so-called elite，but eventually has influence on the popular level，acquiring new meaning in the process

·It can，on some level，be compared with European and Asian Heraldry

·It is subject to culturally bound notions of aesthetics and transfer processes

·It urges stylistic comparison with contemporary motifs and styles of other regions and previous dynasties

·It is also present in the form of portable coats-of-arms and flags，and is present beyond the territories under the sultan's control.

Figure 1 Disciplines[29]

So far we can see heraldry is more than just a small picture on great media，and it touches subjects as art history，archaeology，religion，sociology，psychology and ethnology.

It also shows in a cultural way how visual symbols and decorative devices in art and architecture were understood by the public.

Characteristics of Mamlūk heraldry

Shapes and forms

Mamlūk runuk come in varied shapes and forms.That said，the single most common form by far was al-Da'ira ，the “Circle”or roundel，based on the round shields carried by so many Islamic men-at-arms.They are solid-colour or multi-coloured，freestanding or enclosed in round，pointed，or polygonal shields.[30]

Muslim runuk usually consisted of the ard （field，or “ground”）.They first appeared as single-element emblems.From the 14th century the emblazons developed into composite shields which were divided into three parts，called shatfas or shatabs ，that means horizontal strips.The division of“checkly”，“barry”and“bendy”are also presented，but they are rare.

Figure 2 Given only some，but not the final examples of al-Da'ira [31]

The representation of the rank was not limited to one shatfa，nor to a certain class of persons.In fact，it is possible to find the rank of a single person appearing on different field shapes adorning the same building.[32]

Tinctures （colours）

Colours dominate everything in the world.Everything in nature has its colour and seems to harmonize well with each other.Colours do not only affect the eyes of people but also their thoughts，feelings，senses and actions.It should also be noted that the word “rank”also means colour.The most used colours in Mamlūk heraldry are the following seven tinctures：The two metal colours gold/yellow and（or）white/silver （argent），plus the five colours of green （vert），blue （azur），red （gules），brown （brunâtre），black （sable），as well as self-coloured.That means the colour of the material on which the emblazon was placed has the colour of the material，i.e.runuk on stone are “stone-coloured”，on metal are metal-coloured，etc.

Table 1 Tinktures[33]

Categories

unuk may be classified into several categories.[34]

（1）Familia to European and / or Asian heralds

（2）Symbols of office / Symbols of Islamic use

（3）Tamghas / Tribal marks / Ornaments

（4）Inscriptions[35]

Those runuk which can be seen that are similar to European or Asian heralds are：the lion，the eagle （or the falcon），fleur-de-lis，the crescent，and rarely，the bend.

Although animal motifs were unusual，and the only animals that appear in heraldry are the lion （or the panther），the eagle （or the falcon），and occasionally the horse passant，we have many well-preserved examples for the first two motifs with different versions.According to Nasser Rabbat is the “earliest firmly established rank”，the so-called lion or panther of Sultan al-Z·āhir Baybars （reg.658-76 /1260-77）； or the eagle as a heraldic symbol of S·alāh· al-Dīn （Saladin）.[36]But the attributes are disputed by archaeologists，who also do not count the horse as a rank，believing it is only the bearer of another charge.

Some controversy exists regarding the fleur-de-lis and the crescent and their meaning.The Islamic fleur-de-lis is what we think of as a “true”fleur-de-lis，but no one seems to be sure how it came into Muslim heraldry or what it means.[37]

The category of the symbols of the office is the largest category of runuk.These runuk are purely Islamic charges，and often relate directly to the office which the bearer held when elevated to the rank of amir.

That category of runuk are charges which have only Islamic use and meaning，but according some researchers，they are not symbols of the office.The most common of this category are the sarawil al-futuwwa， the “trousers of nobility”.No clear consensus has been （nor perhaps can be）achieved as to just what exactly these represent，either literally or figuratively.An argument has been made recently that they are actually drinking horns.However，much of the argument is based upon little more than speculation，and it has not been widely accepted.In any case，the “trousers of nobility”are a very common charge，and always appear in pairs，frequently “framing”another charge as in the example shown here.[38]

（Here I have my own view，which I hope to publish soon in my thesis.）

Writing in the early 14th century，Abu 'l-Fidā records that the Secretary's emblem is the pen-box，the Armor-bearer's the bow，the Superintendent of Stores'the ewer，the Master of the Robes'the napkin，the Marshal's the horseshoe，and the Jawish a golden saddle.[39]

Figure 3 Some Examples of Runuk of the Offices[40]

Some other motifs represented Tamghas，the tribal symbols，were used as brands by many Asiatic peoples and introduced into the Near East by Turkish Mamlūks.Small ornaments，arabesques，scrolls and flowers appear profusely scattered among almost all the media.[41]Beside the true ornaments，inscriptions are also common and often used.

Conclusion

The goal of this project is to produce a critical work on Mamlūk heraldic devices in their social setting：as deliberate visual forms of self-representation of the Mamlūk elite，their role in the creation of a Mamlūk “popular”visual culture，the institutions behind their production and distribution，and their change of meaning over time.It will be accompanied by a （nearly ready）catalogue，which includes representative examples of published and available non-published heraldic symbols from different media，produced throughout the Mamlūk era.

It is my hope that this Islamic Art History work can serve as a bridge between Islamic Archeology，Mamlūk studies and the larger fields of Islamic Studies，and Central Asian Studies.[42]

References

ABU 'L-FIDā，Kitāb al-Mukhtaar fī akhbār al-bashar，Beirut，1979.

Paul Balog，The Coinage of the Mamlūk Sultans of Egypt and Syria ，New York：The American Numismatic Society，1964.

Paul Balog，New Considerations on Mamlūk Heraldry ，The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes，1977.

Doris Behrens-Abouseif，The Arts of the Mamlūks in Egypt and Syria - Evolution and Impact ，Göttingen：V＆R unipress，2012.

Richard Ettinghausen，The “Wade Cup”in the Cleveland Museum of Art，Its Origin and Decorations ，Ars Orientalis 2，1957.

Daniel Fouquet，Contribution à l'étude de la céramique orientale ，Cairo：Institut Égyptien，1900.

Hans Peter Hahn，Materielle Kultur.Eine Einführung ，Berlin：Reimer （Ethnologische Paperbacks），2005.

Stefan Heidemann，Coins as Works of Art：in Oriental Splendour ，Islamic Art from German Private Collections，ed.，C.-P.Haase，J.Kröger，and U.Lienert.Edition Temmen，1993.

IBN AL-DAWĀDĀRĪ，al-Durra al-dhakiyya fi akhbār al-dawla al-turkiyya，Cairo，1971.

IBN TAGHRĪBIRDĪ，al-Manhal al-āfī，Cairo，1988.

Leo Ary Mayer，Saracenic Heraldry，A survey ，Oxford：Clarendon Press，1933.

Leo Ary Mayer，Mamlūk Costume.A Survey ，Genève：A.Kundig，1952.

Michael Meinecke，Zur Mamlūkischen Heraldik ，Mainz/Rhein：Philipp von Zabern，1972.

Michael Meinecke，Patterns of Stylistic Changes in Islamic Architecture：Local traditions versus migrating artists ，New York University Press，1996.

Marcus Milwright，The Cup of the Sāqī：Origins of an Emblem of the Mamlūk Khāakiyya ，ARAM，1997/1998.

Nasser Rabbat，Mamlūk History through Architecture.Monuments，culture and politics in medieval Egypt and Syria ，Tauris，2010.

George T.Scanlon，Fustat Expedition：Preliminary Report 1971， 1980.

Bethany J.Walker，The Ceramic Correlates of Decline in the Mamlūk Sultanate：An Analysis of Late Medieval Sgraffito Wares ，University of Toronto，1998.

Bethany J.Walker，“The Social Implications of Textile Development in Fourteenth-Century Egypt”，Mamlūk Studies Review ，2000.

Bethany J.Walker and Øystein S.Labianca，“The Islamic Qusur of Tall Hisban：Preliminary Report on the 1998 and 2001 Seasons”，Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan ，2003.

Bethany J.Walker，“ Ceramic Evidence for Political Transformations in Early Mamlūk Egypt”，Mamlūk Studies Review ，2004.

Bethany J.Walker，“From Ceramics to Social Theory：Reflections on Mamlūk Archaeology Today”，Mamlūk Studies Review ，2010.

Bethany J.Walker，What Can Archaeology Contribute to the New Mamlukology？ Where Culture Studies and Social Theory Meet， in Stephan Conermann （ed.）； Ubi sumus？ Quo vademus：Mamlūk Studies-State of the Art ，Bonn University Press，2013.

Estelle Whelan，Representations of the Khās·s·akiyya and the Origins of Mamlūk Emblems ，Pennsylvania State University，1988.

David Appleton，（B.Da'ud ibn Auda）：“ISLAMIC HERALDRY，An Introduction”，http：//www.appletonstudios.com/MamlukHeraldry2001.pdf.

Frederick Hogarth and Leslie Gilbert Pine，“Heraldry”in Encyclopædia Britannica，inc.https：//www.britannica.com/topic/heraldry.Date published online：28 September 2018，Consulted online on 16 Oct.16，2018.

Nasser Rabbat，“Rank”in Encyclopaedia of Islam，Second Edition，Edited by：P.Bearman，Th.Bianquis，C.E.Bosworth，E.van Donzel，W.P.Heinrichs.，http：//dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_6221.First published online：2012.Consulted online on 16 Oct.16，2018.

Paul Balog：http：//numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark：/53695/nnan55713.

Ian Heath：http：//www.warfare.meximas.com/WRG/Crusades-64-Saracen_Heraldry.htm.

Tell Hisban-Project websites can be found at：http：//www.mamluk.uni-bonn.de/islamic-archaeology and www.madabaplains.org/hisban.

埃及和叙利亚马穆鲁克时期的纹章学和“物质文化”

努尔·兹迪尔玛

摘要

本课题的目标是将马穆鲁克的纹章图案置于当时的社会背景进行研究，其中包括马穆鲁克精英有意表现自身形象的需要，纹章图案在创建马穆鲁克“流行”视觉文化中的作用，纹章图案产生和分配背后的体系，以及纹章随时代而变化的意义。课题研究将制作一份目录，包括整个马穆鲁克时代不同媒介上纹章符号的代表性示例，其中包括已公布及未公布的研究。通过这样的分类、编目和分析，我们可以基于艺术史原则对族徽进行初步分类，并与其他地区（族徽）的设计和风格进行比较研究。

关键词

马穆鲁克 纹章学 物质文化 伊斯兰艺术史/考古学

---

[1]For a working definition of “material culture”，see Hans Peter Hahn，Materielle Kultur.Eine Einführung ，Berlin：Reimer （Ethnologische Paperbacks），2005.

[2]Nur Güne，Ph.D.，student at The University of Bonn，email：noez1@uni-bonn.de.

[3]This was accomplished through the public display of such objects as parade gear，serving vessels used for public banquets （simāt· ），and ceremonial robes （khilaс ）given as gifts to local elite.

[4]Frederick Hogarth and Leslie Gilbert Pine，“Heraldry”，in Encyclopædia Britannica，＜https：//www.britannica.com/topic/heraldry＞ Date published online：28 September 2018.Consulted online on 16 October 2018.

[5]Leo Ary Mayer，Saracenic Heraldry，A Survey ，Oxford：Clarendon Press，1933，p.26.

[6]Nasser Rabbat，“Rank”，in Encyclopaedia of Islam，Second Edition ，Edited by P.Bearman，T.Bianquis，C.E.Bosworth，E.van Donzel，and W.P.Heinrichs，＜http：//dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_6221＞ First published online：2012.Consulted online on 16 October，2018.

[7]Nasser Rabbat，“Rank”，2012.

[8]Daniel Fouquet，1900.

[9]Georg T.Scanlon，1980.

[10]Leo Ary Mayer，1933.

[11]Leo Ary Mayer，1952.

[12]Michael Meinecke，1972.

[13]Doris Behrens-Abouseif，2012.

[14]Nasser Rabbat，2010.

[15]Bethany J.Walker，2000.

[16]Richard Ettinghausen，1957.

[17]Estelle Whelan，1988.

[18]Paul Balog，1964； Paul Balog，1977.

[19]Stefan Heidemann，1993.

[20]Bethany J.Walker，1998，2004，2010，2013.

[21]Bethany J.Walker and Øystein S.Labianca，2003.

[22]Marcus Milwright，1997，1998.

[23]Cited after Leo Ary Mayer，1933，Heraldry，p.3； from him：Kitāb·ubh· al-aсshā fī sināс at al-insha'li -l Qalqashandī，Ed.Cairo IV，p.61：pp.21-62：5； cf.the translation of M.Gaudefroy-Demombynes：La Syrie a l'Époque de Mamlouqs，Paris，1923.

[24]IBN TAGHRĪBIRD，al-Manhal al-s·āfī，Cairo，1988，v，p.296.

[25]IBN AL-DAWĀDĀR，al-Durra al-dhakiyya fi akhbār al-dawla al-turkiyya，Cairo，1971，pp.56-57.

[26]ABU 'L-FIDĀ，Kitāb al-Mukhtas·ar fī akhbār al-bashar，Beirut，1979，vi，p.49.

[27]Michael Meinecke，1972，p.214.

[28]Project websites can be found at：http：//www.mamluk.uni-bonn.de/islamic-archaeology and www.madabaplains.org/hisban.

[29]Figure 1：Drawing Nur Özdilmaç，2018.

[30]Nasser Rabbat，“Rank”，2012.

[31]Figure 2：Drawing Nur Özdilma，2018.

[32]David B.Appleton，“Islamic Heraldry：An Introduction”，＜http：//www.appletonstudios.com/MamlukHeraldry2001.pdf.＞，Consulted online on 16 October，2018.

[33]Figure 3：Drawing Nur Özdilmaç，2018.

[34]This category is currently the subject of my research and not yet completed.

[35]This project would not work on inscriptions.

[36]Nasser Rabbat，“Rank”，2012.

[37]I was tempted to say it was adopted from the Europeans，but there is also no evidence to indicate that.

[38]David Appleton，2001.

[39]ABU 'L-FIDĀ，Kitāb al-Mukhtas·ar fī akhbār al-bashar，Beirut，1979； Ian HEATH，＜http：//www.warfare.meximas.com/WRG/Crusades-64-Saracen_Heraldry.htm＞，Consulted online on 16 October，2018.

[40]Figure 4：Drawing Nur Özdilmaç，2018.

[41]Paul Balog，＜http：//numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark：/53695/nnan55713＞，Consulted online on 16 October，2018.

[42]This work is in progress and therefore changes are reserved.