The Mamluk Sultanate and Its Periphery 9789042951754, 9789042951761, 9042951753

Table of contents :
Blank Page
Blank Page

Citation preview

THE MA M

mémoires n°14

K LU

ANATE AND T L ITS SU

Edited by Frédéric BAUDEN

mémoires n°14

PEETERS

PE

Y ER PH RI

THE MAMLUK SULTANATE AND ITS PERIPHERY

This volume is the result of a selection of papers presented at the second conference of the School of Mamluk Studies (Liège, 2015) whose theme was “The Mamluk Sultanate and Its Periphery”. It is well known that Mamluk studies suffer from a deficit of interest for the peripheral areas because of the centripetal effect played by the main cities of the sultanate, i.e. the political centers (Cairo and Damascus), where most of the historians whose works constitute the lion’s share of modern studies lived. Nevertheless, it is still possible to study aspects related to regions, cities, villages by resorting to these classical sources but also and above all to other types of sources (documents, archaeological excavations). Obviously, the concept of periphery can be interpreted in various ways. Above all, it is understood in geographic, political, or economic terms: the periphery is defined in relation to the center of power, whether central or local. It can also be interpreted in sociological and religious terms. In this case, the concept can be applied to practices or parts of the society considered borderline. The eight essays collected in this volume seek to explore this question of the periphery from these various angles.

Association pour la Promotion de l'Histoire et de l'Archéologie Orientales Université de Liège

PEETERS

THE MAMLUK SULTANATE AND ITS PERIPHERY

Cover image: Representation of the world in a copy of Ibn al-Wardī’s (d. after 822/1419) Kharīdat al-ʿajāʾib (copy of the tenth/sixteenth c., private collection).

Association pour la Promotion de l'Histoire et de l'Archéologie Orientales Université de Liège

K LU

ATE AND LTAN ITS U S

P

RY HE IP ER

THE MA M

mémoires n°14

Edited by Frédéric BAUDEN

PEETERS Louvain - Paris - Bristol, CT PEETERS 2022 LOUVAIN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2023

Copyright Université de Liège A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2023 - Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven D/2023/0602/35 ISBN 978-90-429-5175-4 eISBN 978-90-429-5176-1

In loving memory of Riccardo (1997–2022)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

xi

Abbreviations

xiii

List of Contributors

xv

List of Figures, Tables, and Charts Frédéric Bauden—The Mamluk Sultanate and Its Periphery: An Introduction Or Amir—Forming a New Local Elite: The ʿUthmānī Family of Ṣafad

xvii xxi

1

Hani Hamza—Periphery in the Middle: Qaṭiyya and al-Ṭīna, Gateways to Mamluk Egypt

23

Takao Ito—A Collection of Histories of the Mamluk Sultanate’s Syrian Borderlands: Some Notes on MS Ahmet III 3057 (TSMK, Istanbul)

65

Shivan Mahendrarajah—The ‘Guardian of the Two Holy Places’ and the Hajj: The Iranian Challenge to Mamluk Control of the Hijaz, 871–82/1467–78

83

Ignacio Sánchez—The Jawāmiʿ al-Tawba: Vice and Repentance in the Margins of the Mamluk Society

113

Warren Schultz—Coins Where There Were No Mints: Mamluk Coins from  Jordanian Archaeological Sites

141

Anne Troadec—Governing the Periphery: Early Mamluk Strategies of Domination in Syria. The Case of the Ayyubid Principality of Hama

163

Frédéric Bauden—Yemeni-Egyptian Diplomatic Exchanges about the Meccan Sharifate: A Reconstructed Rasulid Letter Addressed to al-Muʾayyad Shaykh in 817/1415

185

Index

265

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This volume gathers a selection of papers presented during the first day of the second conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies that was held at Liège Université (June 25–8, 2015). Over the years, the School has proven to be successful at enabling all those interested in Mamluk studies to share and challenge ideas as well as new methods. From its inception, the annual conference has included an intensive course dedicated to a field or discipline rarely taught at universities, a day of panels based on themes, followed by two days1 devoted to preorganized panels. The theme chosen for the second conference was “The Mamluk Sultanate and Its Periphery.” It attracted eleven papers; of these, seven were submitted for publication in this volume. In addition, an article by the editor of this volume was included, as it fits well into the theme, though it was written later and read on another occasion.2 The organization of the conference was made possible thanks to the generous financial support of various institutions. It is not only a duty, but above all a pleasure to express my deepest gratitude to them: first and foremost the Fonds de la recherche scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS, Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles), then the Patrimoine and the Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres of Liège Université. Over the years, the collaboration with Marlis Saleh (University of Chicago) and Antonella Ghersetti (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice), co-founders and co-organizers of the School, has proven fruitful, effective, and, more than anything else, friendly. Their help and moral support on this occasion, and others, were essential. For practical matters, I also greatly benefited from the assistance of two of my former students: Élise Franssen, who was at the time a postdoctoral researcher at the F.R.S-FNRS, and Alessandro Rizzo, who held a research fellowship from the same institution to complete his doctoral dissertation. During the conference, several colleagues kindly agreed to chair and participate as discussants in the sessions. I give them my warmest thanks for their time and efforts: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Mounira Chapoutot, Antonella Ghersetti, Carole Hillenbrand, Yaacov Lev, Tetsuya Ohtoshi, Dwight Reynolds, and Marlis Saleh. Several colleagues also accepted the task of assessing the articles published here. Their work was generally under-appreciated, 1

2

In the case of the second conference, the School was a victim of its own success: given the number of submissions and, in the absence of fair criteria to decline some of them, we had to make an exception and allow for a third day of panels. It was part of the panel “The Versatile Approach to the Diplomatic Dialogue” organized by Alessandro Rizzo for the Sixth Conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies (Waseda University, Tokyo, June 15–7, 2019).

XII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

as the blind peer review process is anonymous, preventing me from naming them here. I hope that these few words will suffice to express to them how much this volume owes to them. Last but not least, this volume would not exist without the trust the authors put in this endeavor. Their (almost) endless patience allowed me to overcome, with serenity and relief, many of the unexpected issues generated by the challenges the world faced over the last three years. Without their continuous support and understanding, this volume would not lie in the reader’s hands. The editor

ABBREVIATIONS

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BSOAS

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

EI²

The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, ed. C.E. Bosworth et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1960–2007), 11 vols.

EQ

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, ed. J. Dammen McAuliffe (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2001–2006), 6 vols.

IJMES

International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies

ILS

Islamic Law and Society

JA

Journal asiatique

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JESHO

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient

JRAS

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

JSAI

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam

MSR

Mamluk Studies Review

REI

Revue des études islamiques

SI

Studia islamica

SIr

Studia iranica

WI

Die Welt des Islams

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Or Amir, MA in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013), is currently a PhD candidate at the department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has published articles on the social history of Palestine in the Mamluk period and on mobility and cultural contacts between the Mamluk sultanate and the Ilkhanate. Frédéric Bauden, PhD in Oriental history and philology (Liège University, 1996), is Professor of Arabic Language and Islamic Studies at Liège University. His research focuses on Mamlūk historiography, diplomatics, and codicology. He is the editor of the Bibliotheca Maqriziana (Leiden) and the author of the forthcoming Al-Maqrīzī’s Collection of Opuscules: An Introduction (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Hani Hamza, PhD in history of Islamic art and architecture (Cairo University, 2003), is an independent scholar. He is the author of The Northern Cemetery of Cairo (Cairo, 2001) and Miṣr al-mamlūkiyya (in two parts, Cairo, 2011 and 2014). He also published several articles (four published; three in press) on different subjects related to the Mamluk sultanate. Takao Ito, PhD (University of Munich, 2007), is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Humanities at Kobe University, Japan. He has published several studies on Arabic historiography as well as social and economic history of Mamluk and Ottoman Egypt and Syria, including “Al-Maqrīzī’s Biography of Tīmūr”, Arabica 62 (2015) and “The Last Mamluk Princess, Her Endowment, and Her Family History”, Orient 54 (2019). Shivan Mahendrarajah, PhD (University of Cambridge, 2014), is a research fellow at the Institute of Iranian Studies, University of St Andrews. He is the author of The Sufi Saint of Jam: History, Religion, and Politics of a Sunni Shrine in Shiʿi Iran (Cambridge UP, 2020). He is the co-editor of Afghanistan: The Journal of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies. Ignacio Sánchez, PhD (2011, Cambridge), is Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Warwick and founder editor of Endowment Studies (Brill). He has published the Epistle on geography of the Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ (Oxford University Press/Institute of Ismaili

XVI

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Studies, 2014), contributed to A Literary History of Medicine. Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah’s ʿUyūn al-Anbāʾ fī Ṭabaqāt al-Aṭibbāʾ (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019), and written articles on intellectual history, Islamic pious foundations, and medicine in Medieval Islam. Warren C. Schultz, PhD in Islamic History (University of Chicago, 1995), is Professor of Islamic History at DePaul University in Chicago. He has published Numismatic Nights: Gold, Silver and Copper Coins in the Mahdi A Manuscript of the Alf Layla wa-Layla (Bonn: EB Verlag, 2015) as well several other articles and chapters on the monetary history of Egypt and Syria in the Islamic Middle Period. Anne Troadec, PhD in Religious Studies (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, 2014). She is currently in charge of scientific coordination at the Institut d'études de l'Islam et des sociétés du monde musulman (IISMM, UMS 2000, EHESS/ CNRS), Paris. She has published several articles related to Mamluk domination in the Bilād al-Shām.

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND CHARTS

Figure 1.1:al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf’s inscription placed inside the Kaʿba (Courtesy Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique) XXVI Figure 3.1: Indication of Qaṭiyya on map of Egypt (yellow pin) (Source: Google) 52 Figure 3.2: The ruins of the mosque of Qaṭiyya (Photo by the author) 52 Figure 3.3: al-Tīna fort, port and lake in early tenth/sixteenth century (Courtesy John Cooper) 53 Figure 3.4: The ruins of al-Ghawrī fort in al-Ṭīna plain (Photo by the author) 54 Figure 3.5: Location of al-Ṭīna fort and plain (Source: The Military Survey of Egypt) 54 Figure 3.6: Plan of al-Ṭīna fort (Courtesy of The Documentation Center of Islamic and Coptic Monuments of The Ministry of Antiquities of Egypt obtained through Sāmī ʿAbd al-Malik) 55 Figure 3.7: Plan of the inner keep (Courtesy of The Documentation Center of Islamic and Coptic Monuments of The Ministry of Antiquities of Egypt) 55 Figure 3.8: Bent entrance of the inner keep (Photo by the author) 56 Figure 3.9: Court of the inner keep (Photo by the author) 56 Figure 3.10: Brick cross vault of the vestibule (Photo by the author) 57 Figure 3.11: The enceinte (Courtesy of The Documentation Center of Islamic and Coptic Monuments of The Ministry of Antiquities of Egypt) 57 Figure 3.12: Area separating the inner keep from the enceinte (Photo by the author) 58 Figure 3.13: The wall and two corner towers (Photo by the author) 58 Figure 3.14: The main (southern) façade with the entrance to the enceinte (Photo by the author) 59 Figure 3.15: The mosque (Photo by the author) 59 Figure 3.16: Map of Pīrī Reʾīs’ Kitāb-i baḥriye, ca. 932/1525, MS W.658, fol. 308b (late eleventh/seventeenth–early twelfth/eighteenth century) (Courtesy of The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore) 60 Figure 3.17: The ruins around the fort (Photo by the author) 60 Figure 3.18: al-Tīna port, lake and environs (Courtesy of John Cooper) 61 Figure 4.1: MS Ahmet III 3057, fol. 1a (Courtesy Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul) 67

XVIII

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND CHARTS

Figure 4.2: MS Ahmet III 3057, fol. 106a (Courtesy Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul) 69 Figure 4.3: MS Ayasofya 3344, fol. 1a (Courtesy Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul) 71 Figure 9.1: A composite quire (trinion with one additional folio) composed of single folios mounted on counterfoils, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fols. 125b–31a 187 Figure 9.2: Representation of a roll with indication of the kolleseis and the places where the document was cut. The fragments obtained allowed alMaqrīzī to reuse the first as a bifolio (A) and the second as a small sheet (B) 189 Figure 9.3: The structure of the paper with indication of the chain and laid lines, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya 3362, fol. 143a 205 Figure 9.4: The lion’s jaw (fakk al-asad), Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 115b 206 Figure 9.5: The lion’s jaw (fakk al-asad), al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 80 206 Figure 9.6: Size of an alif 207 Figure 9.7: Rāʾ, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 115b 208 Figure 9.8: Ḥāʾ with mater lectionis, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 124a 208 Figure 9.9: ʿAyn with mater lectionis, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 115b 208 Figure 9.10: Kāf with mater lectionis, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 120a 208 Figure 9.11: Dāl with dot below, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya 3362, fol. 143b 209 Figure 9.12: Ṭāʾ with dot below, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 123a 209 Figure 9.13: Note attesting that the manuscript was commissioned for the royal library of the Rasulid sultan al-Muʾayyad Dāʾūd (r. 696/1296–721/ 1321) and illustrating the use of matres lectionis for the dāl, the sīn, the ṭāʾ, and the ʿayn (al-Lakhmī, Wāsiṭat al-ādāb wa-māddat al-albāb, vol. 3), Paris, BnF, MS arabe 6494, fol. 2a 209 Figure 9.14: Euphonic tashdīd, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya 3362, fol. 143b 210 Figure 9.15: Interlinear space, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fols. 119b–120a 210 Figure 9.16: The date of the letter, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Or. 1366c, fol. 103a 219 Figure 9.17: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 119b 254 Figure 9.18: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 120a 254

THE MAMLUK SULTANATE AND ITS PERIPHERY

Figure 9.19: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 117b Figure 9.20: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 122a Figure 9.21: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 126b Figure 9.22: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 127b Figure 9.23: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 118b Figure 9.24: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 121a Figure 9.25: Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Or. 1366c, fol. 20a Figure 9.26: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 116b Figure 9.27: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 123a Figure 9.28: Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Or. 1366c, fol. 77b Figure 9.29: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 130b Figure 9.30: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya, fol. 143b Figure 9.31: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 125b Figure 9.32: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 115b Figure 9.33: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 124a Figure 9.34: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 129b Figure 9.35: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 128b Figure 9.36: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Fatih 4340, fol. 131a Figure 9.37: Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Ayasofya, fol. 142b Figure 9.38: Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Or. 1366c, fol. 103a

XIX

255 255 256 256 257 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 261 261 262 262 263 263 264 264

Table 5.1: The Iraqi maḥmal, 871–82/1467–78 97 Table 7.1: Dhrāʿ al-Khān 145 Table 7.2: Ṭabaqāt Faḥl (Pella) 146 Table 7.3: Ḥisbān 148 Table 7.4: Dhībān 151 Table 7.5: al-Lajjūn 1976–1989 154 Table 9.1: Evolution of the opening formula and honorific titles in the address used for the Rasulid sultan (mid-seventh–mid-eighth/mid-thirteenth– mid-fourteenth century) 197 Table 9.2: Diplomatic conventions for the issuance of letters addressed by the Mamluk chancery to the Rasulid sultan and vice versa (early ninth/ fifteenth century) 212 Table 9.3: List of the inscriptions with indication of the measures (mm) 213 Table 9.4: The reconstructed letter 220 Table 9.5: List of embassies exchanged by the Mamluks, the Rasulids, the Timurids, and the Meccan Sharīf 242 Chart 2.1: The ʿUthmānī family Chart 8.1: Genealogy of the Ayyubids of Hama

19 179

THE MAMLUK SULTANATE AND ITS PERIPHERY AN INTRODUCTION

Frédéric BAUDEN

The word ‘periphery’ (from Greek περιφέρω, “to carry around”) is used to designate a circumference or an external boundary. By definition, the word is intrinsically linked to the existence of something, usually called the ‘center,’ around which something else revolves. Taken together but in opposition, the two terms have often been associated in modern times with the core-periphery model, a conception of the world that has generated multiple biased perceptions of geographical spaces. In terms of global geography and according to the core-periphery concept, the world is divided into two parts: the core or the center is represented by developed countries (broadly speaking, those in Europe, North America, and Japan) while the rest of the world is identified as the periphery.1 In the field of Islamic studies, Ralph W. Brauer’s 1995 study on boundaries and frontiers as they were perceived in the works of medieval Islamic geographers concluded that the concept of frontier was absent from these works while legal texts remained silent on the issue of political boundaries.2 On the basis of this assessment, he claimed that the core-periphery model was significant to characterize the frontier. In this view, those living on the periphery were linked to those living in the center(s) in a hierarchical and structural relationship, a highly imbalanced relationship in which the inhabitants of core areas took advantage of those on the periphery. During the last few decades, this model has rightly been challenged by scholars of all disciplines as a top-down or colonialist perspective. As A. Asa Eger has put it in a recent edited volume dedicated to the archeology of medieval Islamic frontiers,3 “the frontier as peripheral is created by the central state, and is accordingly a matter of perspective.”4 The selection of the concept of periphery as the theme of the second conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies was not motivated by the above-mentioned biased view, rather by a desire to concentrate our attention on areas that are usually perceived as “peripheral” and thus less studied for a number of reasons. 1 2

3 4

Mabogunje, The dynamics. Brauer, Boundaries and frontiers. Since then, see Antrim, Routes and realms; Antrim, Mapping. Asa Eger, The archaeology. Asa Eger, The archaeology 6.

XXII

F. BAUDEN

The most obvious of these reasons concerns the availability of sources, be they narrative, documentary, or material. It is widely known that most historians lived in urban centers, particularly the two main centers of power, i.e., Cairo and Damascus, and that their interests and/or their access to information about peripheral areas were inferior to those places where they lived and worked. Despite this caveat, the conference showed that it is still possible to scrutinize some aspects of what we understand now as the periphery. The most unequivocal definition is geographic.5 As for contemporary appraisals, we are left with a few descriptions of the limits of the Mamluk realm found in some administrative manuals, like Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī’s (d. 749/1349) al-Taʿrīf bi-l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, in which the author describes the geographical boundaries (ḥadd, pl. ḥudūd) of the various administrative districts (mamlaka, pl. mamālik) that the sultanate was comprised of.6 This administrative representation of the realm reflected the political view. The Mamluk sultans overtly referred to the extension of their territories according to the circumstances, notably in documents in which the description of the territories was required and had legal implications. In the text of the truce negotiated in 692/1293 between the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalīl (r. 689–93/1290–3) and the king of Aragon James II (r. 1291–1327), the applicable territories of each party were listed. In the case of al-Ashraf Khalīl, they were described as follows: Provided that the territory of our lord the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Ṣalāḥ alDunyā wa-l-Dīn, his citadels, castles, ports, provinces, harbors, territory with its coastlands, its mainland, its regions, its towns, and everything in his realm as reckoned a part thereof and annexed thereto of all the regions pertaining to Anatolia, al-ʿIrāq, the East, the North, Aleppo, the Euphrates, the Yemen, the Hijaz, Egypt, and the West; The boundary of these regions and territory, their harbors and coastlands are on the northern mainland from Constantinople and the coastal territory of Anatolia, Tripoli in Syria, and the coastland of Barqa, Alexandria, Damietta, Ṭīna, Qaṭyā, Gaza, Ascalon, Jaffa, Arsūf [Arsur], Caesarea, Atlit [Pierre-Encise or Château Pèlerin], Haifa, Acre, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Jubayl [Gibelet], al-Batrūn [Boutron], Anfa [Nephin] of Tripoli in Syria, Tartus [Tortosa], Marqiyā [Maracle], al-Marqab [Margat], the coastland of al-Marqab [including] Bāniyās [Valenia] and others, Jabla [Gibel], Latakia, al-Suwaydiyya [St. Simeon], and all the harbors and the mainland up to the port of Damietta and the lake of Tinnīs; their boundary on the western mainland, from Tunis and the region of Ifrīqiya with its territory and harbors, Tripoli of the West with its ports, territory and harbors, Barqa with its 5

6

Recently, several studies have been devoted to the issue of periphery. See Abulafia and Berend, Medieval frontiers; Amitai and Conermann, The Mamluk sultanate; Asa Eger, The archaeology; Boussac et al. (eds.), Frontières et marges; Frontières spatiales; Fuess and Heyberger (eds.), La Frontière méditerranéenne; Powers and Standen, Frontiers in question. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, al-Taʿrīf ii, 246–63.

INTRODUCTION

XXIII

ports, territory, and harbors to the port of Alexandria and Rosetta, the lake of Tinnīs with its coastlands, territory, and harbors and what is encompassed in the territories and provinces mentioned, including the cities, ports, coastlands, 7 harbors and roads [...].

This list of the territories where the truce would be applied with all its implications reflected only part of the reality of Mamluk authority. The text emphasizes the numerous fortresses conquered by al-Ashraf Khalīl and his predecessors in Palestine, thus bolstering the impact of the takeover of the last stronghold, Acre, a couple of years earlier. At the same time, it included territories where the Mamluk sultan exerted little control, like Ifrīqiya, for instance. The official proclamation here was more idealistic than realistic. Similar overstatements were also made by al-Ashraf Khalīl’s brother and successor, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, whose titles included ‘sultan of Nubia’ and ‘sultan of Yemen and the Hijaz.’8 Mamluk historians sometimes passed on in their chronicles and annals some of these proclamations.9 The impression is that of a seamlessly unitary polity in which the peripheral regions appeared to be fully subordinate, while in fact the latter’s subordination was neither stable nor continuous.10 In this volume, several papers address issues linked to this most obvious geographical interpretation of the term ‘periphery’ while others approach it from other perspectives. A short summary of each paper is thus appropriate. With the conquest of Acre in 690/1291 and the defeat of the Mongols in 702/1303, the threat of an invasion faded away but fear still prevailed. To come to grips with this fear, it is well-known that the Mamluks embraced a multifaceted strategy. In Palestine, they razed to the ground most of the coastal fortresses built by the crusaders, in order to thwart any new disembarkations and attempts by the latter to reconquer them. At the same time, they displaced the centers of the coastal cities, like Tripoli, Tyre, or Acre, further inland. To compensate for the absence of a regular fleet, they posted garrisons and built watch towers along the coast.11 They also reorganized the territory administratively by creating new districts.12 The northern marches of Syria were subjected to a different policy. There, the Mamluks created a buffer zone where power was shared by various princely 7

8

9

10

11 12

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 64–5; trans. by the present author adapting Holt, Early Mamluk diplomacy 133. The titulature is found in a letter dated 705/1306 and addressed to James II of Aragon. See Alarcón y Santón and García de Linares, Los documentos árabes 355. See, for instance, al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv/1, 547 when speaking of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh: “the sultan of the territories of Egypt, and the lands of Syria and the Hijaz and Anatolia.” Meloy, Mamluk rule. I thank John Meloy for sharing with me the text of his unpublished paper presented at the second conference of the School of Mamluk Studies held in Liège. See Fuess, Rotting ships, and more recently, Piana, The Mamluk defense. Drory, Founding a new mamlaka.

XXIV

F. BAUDEN

Turkmen dynasties, like the Qaramanids and the Dulkadirids in southern Anatolia. In Syria, in areas where it was more difficult to exert control, the Mamluks preferred to rely on local elites. They did this in the Gharb, the region located southeast of Beirut, where a local family, the Buḥturids, ruled as governors in the name of the Mamluk sultan.13 In this volume, Anne Troadec investigates the case of the Ayyubid principality of Hama. Located between Aleppo and Damascus, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn had given Hama to one of his nephews whose descendants ruled over the city and the region until Baybars’ conquest of the Bilād al-Shām. As a buffer state between the two main Syrian cities—Aleppo in the north and Damascus in the south—, Hama profited by its understanding of politics. Unlike the other Ayyubid principalities, the Ayyubids of Hama successfully negotiated the transfer of power from the Ayyubids to the Mamluks with a strategy that allowed them to stay in power until 742/1341. In her analysis of the nature of the relationships established by the Ayyubids of Hama with their Mamluk overlords, Troadec focuses on three key elements. The first one is the issue of hierarchy: from the very beginning of Mamluk intervention in the Bilād al-Shām, the sultan of Cairo built a relation based on hierarchy, clearly indicating to the Ayyubid princes of Hama what their ranks and status were. He did so symbolically and through his actions. Aware that their position depended on accepting their new status of dependency, the Ayyubids of Hama embraced the conditions. The second key element identified by Troadec is exclusivity. In order to maintain their status with the Mamluks, the Ayyubids of Hama had to accept the political program of the Cairene sultans and its consequences. Alliances with the Mamluks’ enemies—the crusaders and the Mongols—would have been fatal to their power. Furthermore, the Mamluks expected military cooperation against their enemies. In several circumstances, the unfailing loyalty of the Ayyubids of Hama was clear. Troadec concludes by discussing the concept of formalization. Highly dependent on the two former elements, formalization was a corroboration of these. The symbolic representation of the hierarchical dependence could be seen in various settings, including parades and court visits. The two rulers regularly exchanged a variety of gifts. Furthermore, the Mamluk sultans bestowed symbols of power like robes of honor, horses, and arms to the Ayyubids of Hama to confirm their status and rank. To conclude, the Mamluks kept the Ayyubids of Hama in power first and foremost because they did not represent a threat to Mamluk authority in general, but also because the Mamluks preferred to rely on the Ayyubids as intermediaries to control the region—at the very least as long as they needed them. In Egypt, the Mamluks adopted a different approach for their defensive strategy. On the littoral, they maintained and strengthened existing fortresses, and took advantage of the natural deterrent the web of canals offered against any milit13

See Salibi, The Buḥturids.

INTRODUCTION

XXV

ary endeavor.14 In case of invasion, the gateway to Egypt since antiquity remained the northern Sinai. In this volume, Hani Hamza precisely addresses the issue of the defense strategy implemented by the Mamluks in this area. This ‘periphery in the middle,’ as he coins it, was indeed situated at the crossroads between Egypt, Syria, and the Hijaz.15 As Hamza shows, the Mamluks developed settlements along the route that led from Egypt to Syria in northwest Sinai. Two of these settlements, Qaṭiyya and al-Ṭīna, are the object of his analysis. Qaṭiyya was a station that became an obligatory stop for anyone traveling between Egypt and Syria in the Mamluk period. As such, this small settlement came to play a significant role on various occasions, as detailed by the textual sources that allow Hamza to retrace the history of Qaṭiyya from the beginning of Mamluk rule up to the Ottoman conquest. He demonstrates that it was administered by a governor of the lowest rank (wālī) according to the Mamluk hierarchical system of power and that the person holding this position gained in importance by the mid-eighth/fourteenth century, a fact that corroborates Qaṭiyya’s rise in standing at that time. The status of Qaṭiyya continued to grow until the threat of an Ottoman conquest became more concrete. Due to its location, merchants traveling by land between Egypt and Syria had to pass by this small city where taxes were collected by various officeholders on behalf of the Mamluk sultan. The second location Hamza studied is alṬīna, a small secondary port that served in cases of necessity when other, more central harbors like Alexandria and Damietta were not accessible for meteorological reasons. The port suffered from successive attacks by European pirates. As a consequence, at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, the Mamluk sultans began to build a fort whose function was to fend off potential attacks from the sea and, further inland, against Qaṭiyya. Despite their significance as warning posts against any potential invasion or incursion into Egypt by land or sea and the presence of remains, neither site was ever systematically excavated. It is hoped that this gap will be filled in the future. In order to strengthen their legitimacy, the Mamluks turned to the Hijaz for its political and religious significance in the eyes of the greater Muslim world. After the brutal demise of the Abbasid caliphate of Baghdad in 656/1258 and its re-establishment in Cairo three years later, Baybars was quick to claim the title of Servant of the Two Noble Sanctuaries (khādim al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn), a title that had been part of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn’s titulature.16 Thanks to John Meloy, we now know that the Mamluks exerted true control over the Hijaz, albeit over a very lim-

14 15 16

See Pradines, The Mamluk fortifications. On the strategic position of the Sinai, see Mouton, Le Sinaï médiéval. See Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique, record no. 2102; Aigle, Les Inscriptions de Baybars 66. The title appears in an inscription dated 659/1261 on the walls of the Citadel of Damascus to celebrate the restoration works ordered by Baybars after the Mongol occupation of the city.

XXVI

F. BAUDEN

ited period of time, i.e., during the pilgrimage.17 Nevertheless, the sultans continually boasted of being the rulers who exercised dominion over the whole region. Even though they made this claim first and foremost to gain the respect of their subjects, they also intended to convey it to foreign rulers; this method was successful with some rulers, but less so with others.

Figure 1.1: al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf’s inscription placed inside the Kaʿba (COURTESY Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique)

From the beginning of the Mamluk sultanate, the Rasulid sultans were the first in the peripheral realms to contend with their Mamluk counterparts’ hegemony over the holy cities. They did so by pouring a part of the huge revenues the maritime trade was generating in their ports into the construction or restoration of buildings in the holy cities.18 A witness to this policy can be seen in an inscription dated to Shawwāl 680/January-February 1282 celebrating the restoration of the marble slabs inside the Kaʿba by al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf (see fig. 1.1).19 Another inscription, dated three years later, states that the same sultan paid for the repair of 17 18 19

Meloy, Imperial power. Sadek, Custodians. See Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique, record no. 2444.

INTRODUCTION

XXVII

a signpost (ʿalam) at ʿArafāt, confirms this sultan’s desire to leave his imprint in the area.20 His successors continued to build madrasas and other structures in Mecca, and distributed alms and grain on various occasions.21 However, from the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth c., the military interventionism of the Mamluk sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad signaled to his Yemeni counterpart his intentions with regard to his role in the Hijaz. The Mamluk sultans made it clear that the symbols of power connected with the holy cities, like sending the veil (kiswa) for the Kaʿba, were and would remain their prerogatives. When, in the mid-eighth/fourteenth c., the Rasulid al-Mujāhid ʿAlī attempted to reassert his influence on Mecca during his pilgrimage by covering the Kaʿba with the veil he had carried with him, the Mamluk amir in charge of the Egyptian caravan kidnapped him and brought him to Cairo. He was imprisoned for more than a year before being allowed to return to Yemen.22 The Rasulid sultans then limited their involvement in the Hijaz to other forms of influence, like supporting the scholarly elite. In the early ninth/ fifteenth c., a significant and dramatic change modified the way the Rasulids interacted with the Hijaz, and to some extent with the Mamluks. In this volume, Frédéric Bauden directs his attention to the early ninth/fifteenth c., taking as a starting point a letter addressed by the Rasulid sultan to his Mamluk peer. The document, unique in many ways, more particularly because it is the first original Rasulid document to surface, tackles various issues. These include the diplomatic rules prevailing in letters exchanged by the two powers, the kind of dialogue the chancery secretaries of each side established through the medium of official correspondence by having recourse to poetry, among other media. The study of the diplomatic contacts between the Rasulid and Mamluk sultans, without neglecting the Meccan Sharīf and the Timurid ruler, reconstructs the details of a combination of events that led to a shift in the relations of the various powers with regard to the Hijaz. The factor that triggered this shift was Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s rise to the Sharifate at the end of the eighth/fourteenth c. Unlike most of his predecessors, this Sharīf wanted to exert more control over the whole region and, by doing so, accrue more revenues. The opening of a customs house in Jedda contributed to his wealth. The Mamluks and the Rasulids took a dim view of his desire to expand his autonomy. The letter studied in this article demonstrates that the Rasulid sultan was the first to perceive the danger of the Sharīf’s new policies and what these represented for his economy. The Rasulid sultan took serious measures to thwart the Sharīf’s ambitions, most notably by supporting one of his challengers. At the same time, he could not take this step without informing the Egyptian authorities. The letter conveyed this message but also requested that the Mamluk sultan exert his authority over the Sharīf. Thus, the Rasulids recognized, 20 21 22

See Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique, record no. 15029. See Vallet, Les Sultans du Yémen; Mortel, Madrasas. See Varisco, The trials and tribulations.

XXVIII

F. BAUDEN

de facto, that the Sharīf depended on the Mamluk sultan. When the Rasulid letter reached Cairo, more than a year after it had been redacted, the situation in the Hijaz had evolved. The Mamluk sultan had come to the same conclusion as his Yemeni peer and had replaced Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān with one of his relatives. Shortly after, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān was reappointed, a clear indication that the Mamluk authorities were unable to really control the situation in the Hijaz. Eventually, this series of events worked in favor of the Mamluks. Direct contacts were established between the merchants working for their respective sultans. In the meantime, from Barsbāy on, the Mamluk sultans tightened their grip over the Hijaz. Together with the redirection of trade from Asia to the ports now under Mamluk control, these factors led to the disappearance of the Rasulid dynasty. The Rasulids were not the only rulers with a desire to encroach upon the Mamluks’ prerogatives over the Hijaz and the holy cities. Other contenders came forward in the ninth/fifteenth c.; first and foremost among these was the Timurids. As early as 819/1416–7, Shāh Rukh started to claim the title of caliph and his immediate successors followed suit.23 Some twenty years later, he also tentatively challenged the Mamluks by asking permission to dispatch the veil for the Kaʿba. Malika Dekkiche has shown that the veil in question was not the kiswa that covers the external faces of the square building, rather another one that hung inside it; thus, the uproar that the Timurid request caused in Cairo proves that its symbolic impact was deep.24 Other challengers came to the fore in the late ninth/fifteenth c. when the Mamluks started to lose their position as the central epicenter in Islam. The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and the rise of the Aq Qoyunlu Turkmen confederation contributed to this downgrade. In this volume, Shivan Mahendrarajah devotes his article to the policy of the Aq Qoyunlu Uzūn Ḥasan (d. 882/1478). Pursuing a policy reinstated by the Qara Qoyunlu Jahān-Shāh (d. 872/1467), between 873/1469 and 881/1477 Uzūn Ḥasan regularly sent the Iraqi pilgrimage caravan and the accompanying palanquin (maḥmal) to the Hijaz. His intent was to deprive the Mamluk sultan of his title of the Servant of the Two Noble Sanctuaries and, by doing so, to appropriate his standing as a central political figure in Islam. If Uzūn Ḥasan’s attempts proved successful in some respects (his name was pronounced during the sermon in Medina in 877/1473), his defeat by the Ottomans in 878/1473 foiled his designs. Once again, the support of the local elite and of the Sharīfs of the two holy cities were critical, a detail the Aq Qoyunlu ruler seems to have underestimated. The Sharīfs agreed to be courted by the Mamluks’ opponents, but always with the hope of receiving an increased fair share in terms of political and economic power. Uzūn Ḥasan failed to provide enough money along

23 24

See Binbaş, Intellectual networks 260. See Dekkiche, New source, new debate.

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

with his policy toward the Hijaz, a failure that other competitors, like the Ottomans, quickly grasped. Over the last decade or so, archeologists have become increasingly interested in excavating areas at the periphery of the Islamic world. This shift can partially be explained by the prevailing political situation in the central Middle East.25 Among the archeologists who have focused their attention on sites far from the center are Bethany J. Walker, whose work in Jordan, for instance, has shown that such sites can reveal as much about the provincial perspective as they do about the Mamluk sultanate itself.26 Among the artifacts unearthed during excavations, one regularly finds coins. The study of Mamluk numismatics experienced a noteworthy boom after the 1960s. Multiple factors can explain this renewed interest in Mamluk coins, the most prominent being the following. In 1964, one of the few specialists in this discipline, Paul Balog, published the first corpus of Mamluk coins, offering for the first time a comprehensive presentation of the material and a useful tool for identifying types.27 Balog’s organization of the coins was based on his deep knowledge of and experience with institutional and private collections around the world. Nevertheless, he could not grasp all the material that was available at that time because many collections were still uncatalogued while others remained difficult to access. Balog was fully aware that his corpus was far from complete, and six years later, he published an addendum.28 Numismatists continue to regard Balog’s work as ‘the reference’ but also recognize that there is a need for an updated corpus that takes into account all the new types that have surfaced over the last fifty years and the readings of the legends must be improved. Ideally, the classification of the material should be reconsidered in order to allow and facilitate the inclusion of new types; a work like this has started under the direction of Warren Schultz.29 Over the years, numismatists have also concluded that an essential preliminary step in establishing a corpus involves publishing catalogs of coin collections according to a given mint or region and covering the whole period of Islamic coinage.30 Indeed, such catalogs would give numismatists the ability to follow numis25 26 27 28 29

30

See Asa Eger, The archaeology. Walker, Jordan. Balog, The coinage. Balog, The coinage. The Mamluk Mint Series Web Resource was inaugurated in 2003 and should be made available online in the future. See http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/medoc-and-mamluk-studiesresources.html (last consulted in October 2022). Such catalogs are called sylloge. The first who introduced the sylloge in Islamic numismatics was Lutz Ilisch. He applied this model to the collection of the Forschungstelle für islamische Nümismatik (University of Tübingen) which is renowned as one of the richest in terms of chronological and geographical coverage. Several volumes have appeared, including those

XXX

F. BAUDEN

matic production over the centuries at a micro level and take into account overstriking. While Balog’s corpus and the various sylloge that have been published or are announced are useful to our understanding of the minting history of a dynasty or of a local authority, they shed little light on the circulation of these coins. The reason is simple: most of the coins found in institutional and private collections lack any historical detail of their place of finding if they are not clearly identified as belonging to a recorded (ideally published) hoard. Coins unearthed in the context of excavations led by an archaelogical team are thus all the more significant. The numismatic material brought to light during excavations must be described accurately in archeological reports. Unfortunately, this task is not always fulfilled and when it is, it is not always entrusted to a numismatist. Such issues complicate the analysis of the findings. In his article in this volume, Warren Schultz examines the coins from the southern Bilād al-Shām, particularly those found at Jordanian sites. Though several mints were active in the region from the Umayyad to the Ayyubid period, it appears that this minting activity ceased under the Mamluks. This would indicate that the unearthed coins can enlighten us about their use in a remote region. Based on his perusal of dozens of local reports and publications and his personal knowledge of several sites where he was called in as a specialist, Schultz is in an excellent position to analyze the findings. From the thirteen excavated sites, mostly located along trade or pilgrimage routes, some 3,500 coins were exhumed. The number of coins for each site is rather limited, but in some cases hoards have been discovered. The sites where these hoards were dug up correspond to locations that were known as administrative centers. The chronological distribution is also significant: the overwhelming majority of the coins date from the Turkish era, a period when the Mamluks invested in the region. The finding of copper coins was less impressive (roughly 5 percent of the total). This petty coinage, whose intrinsic value was inferior to that of the precious metals, was used for small purchases and the issuing authority fixed the exchange rate relative to coins with higher intrinsic values. Given that the places these coins were found were not where they had been minted, several questions arise with no definitive answer because the quantity of information that the coins convey is limited. Unfortunately, textual sources also prove unhelpful considering the region we are dealing with. The publication, in 1976, of Jean-Claude Garcin’s seminal study of Qūṣ represented a milestone from various points of view.31 He managed to write a

31

regarding the Mamluk period covering Aleppo, Damascus, Hama, Palestine, and Egypt. See Sylloge. Other significant collections followed suit: the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (for the Mamluk period, see Nicol, Sylloge) and the Israel Museum, the latter holding Paul Balog’s collection (see Baidoun, Sylloge, covering Egypt, and the forthcoming volume by the same author comprising al-Shām, the Jazīra, and Anatolia). Garcin, Un centre musulman. Over time, this book became a reference for many historians, as

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

detailed history of this rather remote city from Upper Egypt, a region scantly and unevenly mentioned in the sources authored by historians based in Cairo because of the preservation of a biographical dictionary devoted to the people from Upper Egypt, and particularly those from Qūṣ: al-Udfuwī’s (d. 748/1347) al-Ṭāliʿ alsaʿīd. Containing a little less than six hundred biographies, the work starts with a geographical description of the whole region and its main cities. Combined with other textual and documentary sources, including epigraphical ones, al-Udfuwī’s text offers a unique insight into the history of a city and its surroundings located far from Cairo, the center of power. Despite the focus on major urban centers like Cairo and Damascus, in Mamluk historiography, local histories and biographical dictionaries do exist for the Mamluk period. In this volume, Or Amir delves into a little-known history of Ṣafad by a rather obscure local scholar whose name was Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī (d. aft. 780/1379). Although information about the work was widespread as early as 1953, it remained unpublished until 2009, when a manuscript with a full copy of the text was finally edited. As Amir stresses, Ṣafad rose to prominence on the local level after Baybars conquered it from the Templars and devised his policy for Mamluk rule over Syria. Ṣafad became the capital of a new regional military and administrative center (mamlaka) with a Muslim settlement replacing the Frankish one. The foundation of this new center involved establishing new administrative structures. It supposed that highly educated administrative personnel would settle in the city and form a new civilian elite. The ʿUthmānī family contributed to the founding of this new elite by managing to hold several administrative posts in the city over several generations; it even played a role in the education of the most renowned of all Ṣafadīs: Ṣalāh al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak (d. 764/1363). After detailing the most prominent members of the ʿUthmānī family, Amir focuses his attention on the hidden agenda behind Shams al-Dīn’s work. The authors of such local histories and biographical dictionaries intended, first and foremost, to establish their authority and standing by providing readers with numerous examples of the family members’ credentials, and Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī was no exception to the rule. His history of the town where his family had become part of the local elite was written at a time when the position of Shāfiʿī judges in the Mamluk realms was challenged by the establishment of three additional judgeships of other juridical schools. Being the last member of his family to be mentioned in the sources, it seems that his efforts were not really successful. Be that as it may, his work is a mine of information for those interested in writing the history of provincial towns like Ṣafad.32 Such a work, which still needs to be undertaken, can take its inspiration from Garcin’s masterpiece.

32

is confirmed by its reprint almost thirty years later. See, for instance, for Gaza: Amitai, The development.

XXXII

F. BAUDEN

Information on the periphery of the Mamluk realms, particularly the borderlands, appears frequently in the historiographical tradition of the sultanate. Military expeditions, incursions by an enemy, and diplomatic missions crossing the border figure among the topics that historians factored in when narrating the reigns of the sultans. Works specifically dedicated to the events of one of the peripheral areas are almost non-existent. In this light, the manuscript studied by Takao Ito in this volume will certainly draw the attention of scholars concerned by Mamluk historiography. The manuscript in question, a unicum held in the collections of the Topkapı Palace, was briefly described for the first time in 1936 by the French historian Claude Cahen who perused it in the Istanbul collections while undertaking his research on northern Syria during the crusades.33 It consists of three textual units copied by a former student of Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) named Ibn Bahādur (d. 877/1473), who dedicated the whole manuscript to a certain Yaʿqūb Shāh who served as an interpreter at the sultan’s court. Ibn Bahādur also authored the first text as well as, most probably, the third. These two texts consist of a compilation of reports regarding, respectively, the events mostly linked to the Dulkadirids, and those dealing with Tīmūr. The second text contains Ibn Ajā’s report of Yashbak min Mahdī’s expedition against the Dulkadirid ruler between 875/1471 and 877/1472 as well as Ibn Ajā’s account of his mission to the Aq Qoyunlu ruler during the same period. This text, available in two editions published almost contemporarily, has since attracted the attention of several scholars. In his study, Ito shares the result of his close analysis of the contents and their collation with the sources used by the compiler: Ibn Ḥajar and al-ʿAynī (d. 855/1451). This places Ito in a good position to argue that the compiler, Ibn Bahādur, also relied on other—undeclared—sources. Ito also asserts that the edited version of the two sources used by the compiler present some discrepancies; thus he adds to the value of Ibn Bahādur’s compilation. Last but not least, the manuscript is also evidence of the growing interest in the history of the Syrian borderlands; this was probably prompted by Yashbak min Mahdī’s expedition and Ibn Ajā’s diplomatic mission, both included in the manuscript. The concept of periphery is not uniquely understood in its geographical or spatial sense. For instance, it can also be applied to social structures. From the point of view of social history, several studies were recently devoted to categories of Mamluk society that can be regarded as marginal in the sense of deviating from the norm (the core) as it was set by the religious elite and, with episodic success, implemented by the judiciary.34 Yet, those considered socially marginal individuals and groups by a significant swath of popular opinion were probably closer to quotidian life as it was experienced in Mamluk cities. The picture that emerges from these studies is one of a less static and more dynamic society. Among the lasting 33 34

Cahen, La Syrie du nord. See Cook, Commanding right; Stilt, Islamic law.

INTRODUCTION

XXXIII

contributions made to the field we should note Carl Petry’s 2012 book, in which he concentrated on what he called ‘the criminal underworld,’ a rather restrictive and misleading characterization given that his concern is not exclusively limited to crime, rather he includes transgressive behavior in general terms.35 Kristina Richardson’s study of people affected by a wide variety of disabilities throws light on a category of society that is seldom mentioned in the sources.36 Her analysis of several treatises allows us to better understand how people suffering from such physical defects were perceived. Richardson’s more recent study addresses another marginal group: the ‘strangers’ (ghurabāʾ), which she identifies as AfroEurasian Roma and Roma-adjacent groups.37 In this volume, Ignacio Sánchez deals with an issue linked to social history: the mosques of repentance (jawāmiʿ al-tawba), as attested in sources of the Mamluk period both in Egypt and Syria. Thanks to his perusal of these sources, he identified seven mosques erected between the early seventh/thirteenth and the end of the ninth/fifteenth century. Sánchez first lists each of these buildings, highlighting their foundational history as it is reported in the sources to better pinpoint the process at play. In the majority of cases, the sources stress the link between the establishment of the mosque and a location of ill repute: the places that were used for the consumption of wine and/or engagement in illicit sex.38 Such places were regularly closed or destroyed during the Mamluk period, a practice recommended by the contemporary normative works, but they reappeared soon thereafter. Private houses were also used for such practices but these were harder to identify. Sánchez addresses why these mosques, whose foundations were linked to locations of ill repute, were called ‘mosques of repentance.’ In his attempt to answer this question, Sánchez investigates religious and literary works and concludes that the issue should be read through the prism of literary topoi: the idealization of the just ruler, in this case, the Ayyubid sultan, who sought to better decry the immorality of the Mamluk rulers. This brief survey of the volume’s contents shows the wide variety of angles taken by contributors in their approaches to the core-periphery paradigm. These contributions, far from covering all the issues related to the concept of periphery, certainly do not close the debate over the nature of the periphery in the Mamluk sultanate, rather they open diverse new avenues of research.

35

36 37 38

Petry, The criminal underworld. The same year Bernadette Martel-Thoumian published a book on a similar subject: Martel-Thoumian, Délinquance et ordre social. Richardson, Difference and disability. Richardson, Roma. On prostitution, see now Leiser, Prostitution.

XXXIV

F. BAUDEN

Bibliography Sources Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, al-Taʿrīf bi-l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, ed. S. al-Durūbī, 2 vols., al-Karak 1992. al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M.M. Ziyāda, and S.ʿA. al-F. ʿĀshūr, 4 vols., Cairo 1934–73. al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ, ed. M.ʿA. al-R. Ibrāhīm, 14 vols., Cairo 1963. Secondary Literature Abulafia, D., and N. Berend (eds.), Medieval frontiers: Concepts and practices, Burlington, VT 2002. Aigle, D., Les Inscriptions de Baybars dans le Bilād al-Šām. Une expression de la légitimité du pouvoir, in SI 97 (2003), 57–85. Alarcón y Santón, M.A., and R.Y.T.P. García de Linares, Los documentos árabes diplomáticos del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Madrid 1940. Amitai, R., The development of a Muslim city in Palestine: Gaza under the Mamluks, in B.J. Walker and A. Al Ghouz (eds.), History and society during the Mamluk period (1250–1517): Studies of the Annemarie Schimmel Institute for Advanced Study III, Göttingen 2021, 163–95. ———, and S. Conermann (eds.), The Mamluk sultanate from the perspective of regional and world history: Economic, social and cultural development in an era of increasing international interaction and competition, Göttingen 2019. Antrim, Z., Routes and realms: The power of place in the early Islamic world, Oxford 2012. ———, Mapping the Middle East, London 2018. Asa Eger, A., The archaeology of medieval Islamic frontiers: An introduction, in Asa Eger (ed.), The archaeology of medieval Islamic frontiers: From the Mediterranean to the Caspian sea, Louisville 2019, 3–27. ——— (ed.), The archaeology of medieval Islamic frontiers: From the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea, Louisville 2019. Baidoun, I.M., Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Israel Museum. The Paul Balog collection. Egypt, vol. 3: The Mamlūks, 1248–1517, Jerusalem and Trieste 2011. ———, S. Heidemann, and M. Naue, Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Israel Museum. The Paul Balog collection. al-Shām, al-Jazīra, and al-Rūm: The middle Is-

INTRODUCTION

XXXV

lamic period, London (forthcoming). Balog, P., The coinage of the Mamlūk sultans of Egypt and Syria, New York 1964. ———, The coinage of the Mamlūk sultans: Additions and corrections, in American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 16 (1970), 113–71. Binbaş, İ.E., Intellectual networks in Timurid Iran: Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī and the Islamicate republic of letters, Cambridge 2016. Boussac, M.-F. et al. (eds.), Frontières et marges occidentales de l’Égypte de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque international, Le Caire, 2-3 décembre 2017, Cairo 2023. Brauer, R.W., Boundaries and frontiers in medieval Muslim geography, in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 6 (1995), 1–73. Cahen, C., La Syrie du nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque d’Antioche, Paris 1940. Cook, M., Commanding right and forbidding wrong in Islamic thought, Cambridge 2004. Dekkiche, M., New source, new debate: Re-evaluation of the Mamluk-Timurid struggle for religious supremacy in the Hijaz (Paris, BnF, MS ar. 4440), in MSR 18 (2014), 247–71. Drory, J., Founding a new mamlaka: Some remarks concerning Safed and the organization of the region in the Mamluk period, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian politics and society, Leiden and Boston 2004, 163–90. Frontières spatiales, frontières sociales au Moyen Âge: LIe Congrès de la SHMESP (Perpignan, 21–22 mai 2020), Paris 2021. Fuess, A., Rotting ships and razed harbors: The naval policies of the Mamluks, in MSR 5 (2001), 45–71. ———, and B. Heyberger (eds.), La Frontière méditerranéenne du XVe au XVIIe siècle: Échanges, circulations et affrontements, Turnhout 2013. Garcin, J.-C., Un centre musulman de la Haute-Égypte médiévale: Qūṣ, Cairo 1976 (repr. 2005). Holt, P.M., Early Mamluk diplomacy (1260–1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian rulers, Leiden, New York, and Cologne 1995. Leiser, G., Prostitution in the eastern Mediterranean world: The economics of sex in the late antique and medieval Middle East, London 2017. Mabogunje, A.L., The dynamics of centre-periphery relations: The need for a new geography of resource development, in Transactions of the Institute of British

XXXVI

F. BAUDEN

Geographers 5/3 (1980), 277–96. Martel-Thoumian, B., Délinquance et ordre social. L’État mamlouk syro-égyptien face au crime à la fin du IXe–XVe siècle, Bordeaux 2012. Meloy, J.L., Imperial power and maritime trade: Mecca and Cairo in the later Middle Ages, Chicago 2010. ———, Mamluk rule on the peripheries, unpublished paper read at the second conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies, Liège, 25–8 June 2015. Mortel, R.T., Madrasas in Mecca during the medieval period: A descriptive study based on literary sources, in BSOAS 60/2 (1997), 236–52. Mouton, J.-M., Le Sinaï médiéval : un espace stratégique de l’Islam, Paris 2000. Nicol, N.D., Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Ashmolean, vol. 6: The Egyptian dynasties, Oxford 2006. Petry, C.F., The criminal underworld in a medieval Islamic society: Narratives from Cairo and Damascus under the Mamluks, Chicago 2012. Piana, M., The Mamluk defense of the Levantine coast, in S. Pradines (ed.), Ports and fortifications in the Muslim world: Coastal military architecture from the Arab conquest to the Ottoman period, Cairo 2020, 103–30. Powers, D., and N. Standen (eds.), Frontiers in question: Eurasian borderlands, 700–1700, New York 1999. Pradines, S., The Mamluk fortifications of Egypt, in MSR 19 (2016), 25–78. Richardson, K., Difference and disability in the medieval Islamic world: Blighted bodies, Edinburgh 2012. ———, Roma in the medieval Islamic world: Literacy, culture, and migration, London, New York, and Dublin 2022. Sadek, N., Custodians of the holy sanctuaries: Rasulid-Mamluk rivalry in Mecca, Berlin 2019. Salibi, K.S., The Buḥturids of the Ġarb: Mediaeval lords of Beirut and of southern Lebanon, in Arabica 8 (1961), 74–97. Stilt, K., Islamic law in action: Authority, discretion, and everyday experiences in Mamluk Egypt, Oxford 2011. Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen, vol. III: Egypt, ed. M. Younis, Tübingen 2017; vol. IVa (Bilād aš-Šām I): Palästina, ed. L. Ilisch, Tübingen 1994; vol. IVb1 (Bilād aš-Šām II): Die Münzstätte Damaskus von den Umayyaden bis zu den Mongolen, ed. L. Ilisch, Tübingen 2015; vol. IVc (Bilād aš-Šām III): Ḥamāh, ed. L. Korn, Tübingen 1998; vol. IVe2 (Bilād aš-Šām V): Die Münzstätte Aleppo in mamlūkischer und osmanischer Zeit, ed. A. A. Al

INTRODUCTION

XXXVII

Chomari, Berlin 2021. Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique, dir. L. Kalus, co-dir. F. Bauden, dev. F. Soudan, Geneva and Liège 2022 (http://www.epigraphie-islamique.uliege.be/ thesaurus/). Vallet, É., Les Sultans du Yémen, protecteurs de La Mecque (XIIIe-XIVe s.), in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (2017), 211–32. Varisco, D.M., The trials and tribulations of the Rasulid sultan al-Malik al-Mujāhid ʿAlī (d. 764/1363), in MSR 24 (2021), 255–81. Walker, B.J., Jordan in the late middle ages: Transformation of the Mamluk frontier, Chicago 2011.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE THE ʿUTHMĀNĪ FAMILY OF ṢAFAD

Or AMIR1

Sultan Baybars (r. 658–76/1260–77) conquered Ṣafad from the Franks in 664/1266, and then set about rebuilding the town and fortifications—in many ways anew—and setting it up as the administrative capital of a new province in Syria. Although located at the center of the Mamluk sultanate geographically, Ṣafad was somewhat peripheral in importance and prestige. In this paper, I examine the history of one scholarly family, whose first member settled in Ṣafad immediately following Baybars’s conquest of the town. The main source for this study is Taʾrīkh Ṣafad (A history of Ṣafad), written in the second half of the eighth/fourteenth century by one member of the family. I present a brief historical background, followed by an examination of the main source and its author, the history of the family, and some conclusions on the ways in which a new elite emerged in Ṣafad. 1. Historical Background During the early Islamic period, and up until the advent of Frankish rule, Ṣafad was an insignificant settlement, which was rarely mentioned in the Arabic sources. This state of affairs changed with the coming of the crusaders, who founded a fortress there sometime during the sixth/twelfth century. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (r. 567–89/1174–93) conquered this fortress in 584/1188 and bequeathed it to Masʿūd b. Mubārak, a remote relative of his. In 617/1220–1, the fortress was razed to the ground by the Ayyubid al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā (r. 594–624/1198–1227), as a precaution against a feared crusader invasion, as they had seized Damietta two years earlier. The fortress remained in ruins, under Ayyubid possession, until al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl (r. 637–43/1239–45) handed it to the Franks in 638/1240–1.2 Ṣafad was then given to the Templars, who rebuilt its fortress and transformed it into a major Frankish stronghold in the Near East. A Frankish suburb 1

2

This article is partially based on my MA thesis, written with the support of the Israel Science Foundation project no. 1676/09. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Reuven Amitai, for his support and guidance throughout the last several years generally, and for his assistance with this paper specifically. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their productive comments and suggestions. Ibn Shaddād, al-Aʿlāq al-khaṭīra iii, 147. For more on pre-Mamluk Ṣafad, see Amitai-Preiss, Ṣafad; Drory, Founding a new Mamlaka.

2

O. AMIR

developed next to it, although we have few indications as to its size.3 Being located near the road between Damascus and Acre—the crusaders’ capital in Palestine—Ṣafad was, in the words of Baybars’s court biographer, Ibn ʿAbd alẒāhir, “the bone in Syria’s throat”; and so it was an important target for the sultan, who conquered it in 664/1266, after a siege which lasted several weeks.4 Baybars’s conquest of Ṣafad, and subsequently of most of the Galilee, opened a new chapter in the history of this area in general, and of Ṣafad in particular. Immediately after seizing the fortress, Baybars gave several orders, all intended to turn Ṣafad into a regional military and administrative center for the emerging Mamluk rule over Syria. These included, among others, the restoration of the citadel; the stationing of a garrison there, commanded by a nāʾib (governor) who answered directly to the sultan in Cairo; the demolition of the Frankish suburb and the founding of a new Muslim settlement in its place, with a Friday mosque at its center; and the assignment of a second nāʾib, who functioned as the governor of the new province of Ṣafad (mamlakat Ṣafad).5 As Joseph Drory points out, transforming a newly conquered town, with virtually no Islamic heritage, into the capital of a new mamlaka—a “Galilean Province” as he put it—was unprecedented, although it was done again for Tripoli under the sultan al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn in 688/1289.6 Drory also points to the challenges the new Mamluk regime faced with this move; specifically, they had to form a new administrative center from scratch. This included bringing quality administrative personnel to man the new posts, and these could not be found in the area; implementing the Muslim-Mamluk systems of taxation, land allocation, law, etc.; building the required establishments for an administrative center—governor’s residences, mosques, madrasas, and so on; and creating a ‘new’ Islamic heritage for Ṣafad, which would give it the prestige it so obviously lacked in comparison with other Muslim cities in Syria.7 Until recently we had scant information as to how exactly all of this was accomplished.8 But a recently published source, written by Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUth-

3

4 5 6 7 8

An eyewitness account of the Templars’ reconstruction of the fortress can be found in Kennedy, Crusader castles 190–8. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 254. Drory, Founding a new Mamlaka; Ibn Shaddād, al-Aʿlāq al-khaṭīra iii, 150. Drory, Founding a new Mamlaka 168. Ibid. Namely, a brief statement by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir—later repeated by al-Maqrīzī—who wrote that Baybars encouraged people from Damascus to settle in Ṣafad, and information about iqṭāʿāt (land allocations) the sultan distributed to amirs who took part in the siege of Ṣafad, as well as lands he endowed to several Sufi shaykhs. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 262–3; alMaqrīzī, al-Sulūk i, 458; Drory, Baybars 421 (n. 63).

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

3

mānī,9 the khaṭīb (preacher) and qāḍī (judge) of Ṣafad in the second half of the eighth/fourteenth century, provides us abundant information on these issues. In this paper, I focus on the author’s family, in an attempt to learn from its story how a new elite emerged in this newly founded town, with all of its peculiar circumstances. By a ‘new’ elite, I do not mean to suggest that they necessarily had different characteristics than the local elites of other Syrian towns, but only that they were new in the sense that Ṣafad was a new town altogether. By the term ‘elite’, I focus on the religious and administrative, or the learned elite, who possessed cultural capital that defined them as elite and enabled them to maintain their status over the generations.10 2. About Taʾrīkh Ṣafad and Its Author Already in 1953 Bernard Lewis published an article under the title ‘An Arabic Account of the Province of Ṣafad,’ in which he presented al-ʿUthmānī’s geographical description of this province. Lewis found this part of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad in a manuscript in Istanbul. As this was all he found, and no other manuscripts of this book were known, and he was unable to locate any references to it in later Arabic sources, Lewis concluded that the author probably did not complete his book and only finished this geographical survey. This despite the fact that al-ʿUthmānī wrote in the introduction that he intended to present biographies of eminent persons who lived in Ṣafad during the first hundred years after its conquest by Baybars, followed by a brief chronicle of events in the form of annals.11 After more than fifty years, during which it was assumed that this work was either lost or had never been completed, in 2009 Suhayl Zakkār published the full text of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, based on a copy of a manuscript found in Diyarbakir, Turkey.12 Here we find, in addition to the aforementioned geographical survey of the province of Ṣafad, an account of the office holders in the town—both military and civilian/religious offices, and the promised biographies of notables. The annals section is still missing and may never have been completed. We base this 9

10

11 12

There is an inconsistency in the references to his laqab, sometimes he is referred to as Shams al-Dīn and sometimes as Ṣadr al-Dīn. For the sake of convenience, I chose the former and applied it throughout this paper. Many studies have focused on the elite of medieval Islamic societies. Lapidus described the ʿulamāʾ as a religious, social, and administrative elite; Petry called the ʿulamāʾ “civilian elite”; Salibi used the French term noblesse de robe; while Chamberlain mainly used the Arabic term aʿyān for elite and bayt for elite household (in this paper I use the term ‘family’, but ‘household’ may also apply in the case of the ʿUthmānīs). All those studies serve as the basis for the way in which ‘elite’ is understood in this paper. See Lapidus, Muslim cities 107–13; Petry, The civilian elite 3–4; Salibi, The Banū Jamāʿa; and mostly, Chamberlain, Knowledge and social practice. Lewis, An Arabic account. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad.

4

O. AMIR

assumption on the fact that, while contrary to Lewis’s findings, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad was actually quoted quite often by several later sources and I was unable to find any reference to its annals section.13 The book was written by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān alʿUthmānī, probably, as Lewis stated, between the years 772/1370 and 776/1374. This date is based on the book’s dedication to the nāʾib of Ṣafad, Sayf al-Dīn ʿAlamdār al-Muḥammadī, who held the position during those years.14 Al-ʿUthmānī served as qāḍī and khaṭīb in Ṣafad. He wrote three other known works, one on the science of legal disputes (khilāf), which was popular and is available in several manuscripts and printed editions;15 a biographical compendium of Shāfiʿī scholars in the ṭabaqāt tradition, several manuscripts of which exist;16 and a sole manuscript at the Chester Beatty Library that is described as ‘a compendium of Shāfiʿī jurisprudence.’17 Interestingly, there is no mention of al-ʿUthmānī in any of the biographical dictionaries of his own time or later. The only times his name is mentioned in other sources are when his works are quoted, and even then we find inconsistencies regarding his name; he is referred to as Ṣadr or Shams al-Dīn. Nonetheless, various information about his life, and even more about his family, can be extracted from his works, as we show below. His birth or death years are unknown, but as Sublet shows, he was probably born in 717/1317 and died in 780/1379 or later.18 The question of why al-ʿUthmānī was overlooked by his peers is addressed below, after an examination of the history of his family. 3. The ʿUthmānī Family and the Formation of the Civilian Elite of Ṣafad The first member of the ʿUthmānī family to settle in Ṣafad was Shams alDīn’s great-grandfather, Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad, who came immediately following Baybars’s conquest of the town and was appointed as the first khaṭīb of its newly-founded Friday mosque. From that time on, his descendants held that posi-

13 14 15 16 17 18

Taʾrīkh Ṣafad is quoted by such later authors as Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, al-Sakhāwī, and Ibn Ḥajar. Lewis, An Arabic account 477; al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 115. E.g., al-ʿUthmānī, Raḥmat al-umma. On this source, see Sublet, Un itinéraire. Arberry, A handlist vi, 51. Sublet, Un itinéraire 189 (I would like to thank Yehoshua Frenkel who brought this article to my attention); she deduced his birth year from a poem he included in his Ṭabaqāt (alʿUthmānī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ 165), written in 776/1375, in which he lamented his “59 years wasted in idleness.” As for Shams al-Dīn’s death, he was alive in 780/1379, when he wrote his book on khilāf, and we have information from Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba (Taʾrīkh iii, 83, 262) which suggests that he might have lived for several years after that (see below).

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

5

tion, as well as others in the town, for more than one hundred years, almost without interruption.19 Almost all the information we have regarding the family comes from Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, a fact that makes it difficult to assess its members objectively; namely because the author has a natural bias toward his family. The author, Shams al-Dīn, describes his ancestors and family members in an extremely positive, almost hagiographic manner. They are presented as the epitome of piety and altruism, and as central figures in Ṣafadī society. Yet, with one exception, the members of this family are not mentioned at all in other contemporary and later sources, a fact that is, in itself, quite telling. But if we take into account Ṣafad’s provinciality, we might conclude that even relatively central figures in the town were unimportant in comparison to those scholars who lived in the great centers of Islamic learning such as Damascus or Aleppo. In what follows, I present the members of the ʿUthmānī family, and the role they played in Ṣafad’s administration and society. Following that, I try to see what we can learn from this—admittedly biased—picture on the formation of the new religio-administrative elite of Ṣafad, and to conclude I analyze the author’s intentions and motivations in composing the book, and the various modes he utilized in doing so. Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad, the family’s ancestor and its first member to settle at Ṣafad only appears in Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, where his great-grandson states that he was born in Damascus in 626/1228–9.20 We do not have any information as to his ancestors, but his nisba ‘al-Qurṭubī’ suggests an Andalusian background. In addition, the nisba ‘al-ʿUthmānī’ indicates that the family claimed descent from the third caliph.21 The next piece of information regarding Kamāl al-Dīn comes in the year 658/1260. At that time, when the Mongols invaded Syria, Kamāl al-Dīn left Damascus, intending to flee to Egypt. The Mongols captured him, along with a group of his companions or disciples (jamāʿa min aṣḥābihi), and they were all put in chains, except for Kamāl al-Dīn, whom the Mongols left unchained because apparently they felt humility in front of “his beauty and the light which beamed from him.”22 The Mongols ordered him not to escape, but during the night, while 19

20 21

22

Family monopolies of such posts as khaṭīb or qāḍī were common practice in this period, as Talmon-Heller points out (Islamic piety 91–2). For instance, see such families as the Banū Jamāʿa in Jerusalem (Salibi, The Banū Jamāʿa), or Banū al-Bārizī and others in Hama (Hirschler, The formation 106–10; 115). Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 157. Al-ʿUthmānī includes his full line of descent from the caliph ʿUthmān in his Ṭabaqāt alfuqahāʾ (127). Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 157.

6

O. AMIR

both Mongols and captives were asleep, Kamāl al-Dīn prayed and supplicated to God. His companions told him to go and save himself, but he refused to leave without them, and then, toward the end of the night, they heard a great voice that caused the Mongols to disperse in every direction. Kamāl al-Dīn then unchained his companions and they all departed together, acknowledging that this was all thanks to his blessing (baraka).23 This story, along with several others, was clearly designed to show Kamāl al-Dīn’s extreme piety and altruism, and by that, to establish his saintly status as a ‘friend of God’ (walī Allāh). It comes directly after Kamāl al-Dīn’s description as just that (kāna min al-awliyāʾ), and as an ascetic who constantly put others before himself, looked after the weak members of society, exerted himself in the worship of God, and whose intercession with God—as demonstrated in the story—was always accepted. Perhaps most importantly, the author states that Kamāl al-Dīn was granted a blessed offspring (ruziqa dhurriyya mubāraka).24 After surviving the Mongol menace, Kamāl al-Dīn did not make his way to Egypt, but stopped at al-Karak, in what is now Jordan. From there he reached Ṣafad, following its conquest by Baybars, and accompanied its first nāʾib, ʿIzz alDīn al-ʿAlāʾī, who had been the nāʾib of ʿAjlūn prior to that, and may already have venerated Kamāl al-Dīn at that time. Kamāl al-Dīn then spent a short period in Cairo, but was sent back to Ṣafad by Baybars, at al-ʿAlāʾī’s specific request. According to Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, al-ʿAlāʾī saw Kamāl al-Dīn as one of the great awliyāʾ, and when Kamāl al-Dīn returned to Ṣafad, the nāʾib greatly honored him, reinstated him to his former position as khaṭīb, and even put him in charge of the affairs of the citadel.25 Kamāl al-Dīn remained the khaṭīb of Ṣafad until his death in 701/1301–2, when his son, Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥasan, inherited the position.26 Najm al-Dīn was probably the most prominent figure of the ʿUthmānī family, and the only member of it who ‘made it’ in the cosmopolitan city of Damascus, at least for a short period. Subsequently, he was also the only member of the family to be noted in a meaningful way in the biographical dictionaries of the period. Najm al-Dīn was born in 658/1260 at al-Karak, during his father’s interim stay there; he then moved with his father to Ṣafad, where he was raised and received his primary education, namely in the reading of the Quran. He then traveled to Egypt to study with the leading teachers of the time. He studied fiqh and uṣūl from Shihāb al-Dīn b. al-Naḥḥās (d. 698/1299), the art of writing from the leading calligrapher Ibn al-ʿAfīf (d. 736/1336), and various other fields of 23 24 25 26

Ibid. 157–8. Ibid. 157. Ibid. 153. Ibid. 153.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

7

knowledge, such as poetry, grammar, logic, and more. He later continued his education in Damascus. Najm al-Dīn went on to become one of the leading scholars of Ṣafad in his time, and a prolific teacher, who trained many successful students, the most famous of which was the belletrist, scribe, and biographer, Khalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1363).27 The latter devoted an extensive biographical entry (tarjama) to Najm al-Dīn, whom he described as his first teacher; he greatly praised his pedagogical skills, as well as his other qualities, mainly his great capacity and eloquence as khaṭīb. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present a thorough examination of al-Ṣafadī’s tarjama of his beloved teacher, but suffice it to say that al-Ṣafadī even wrote a complete work of eulogies about Najm al-Dīn.28 No less important to our subject is the fact that, while Najm al-Dīn was the only member of the family about whom we have substantial independent information (i.e., from a source other than Taʾrīkh Ṣafad), even this information comes from Najm al-Dīn’s affectionate student, and so may well also be biased. With regard to Najm al-Dīn’s career, in addition to his teaching activities, his professional career proceeded in two parallel directions: as khaṭīb in the mosque and in the chancery. He first acted as khaṭīb at Ṣafad during his father’s lifetime, as his deputy, while simultaneously starting his second, parallel, career in the chancery of Ṣafad. He first worked as a scribe in the chancery (dīwān alinshāʾ), and then, thanks to his good relations with the nāʾib of Ṣafad, Fāris al-Dīn Albakī (d. 702/1303), who filled the position for most of the last decade of the seventh/thirteenth century, he was promoted to the highest bureaucratic position at Ṣafad, that of chief secretary (kātib al-sirr). Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī states that prior to Najm al-Dīn, the position of kātib al-sirr at Ṣafad was not permanent, rather each nāʾib had his own personal secretary. But because of his affection for Najm al-Dīn, Albakī created this position especially for him.29 Najm al-Dīn’s position in town further improved under the next nāʾib, Sayf al-Dīn Karāy al-Manṣūrī (698–700/1298–1300), who relied on Najm al-Dīn for the administration of the town.30 But when Karāy left Ṣafad, Najm al-Dīn feuded with the next nāʾib, Sayf al-Dīn Butkhāṣ (d. 700–4/1300–4), and as a result had to leave town. He made his way to Damascus, where he was warmly welcomed by the former nāʾib of the citadel of Ṣafad, Sayf al-Dīn Balabān al-Jūkandār (d. 706/1307), who was then superintendent of the bureaux (mushidd al-dawāwīn) in

27 28 29

30

Ibid. 187; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 232–44. Al-Ṣafadī, A‛yān al-ʿaṣr ii, 236. ‘Wa-lam yakun qablahu fī hādhihi al-waẓīfa aḥadun bal ʿumilat liajlihi’. See al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 187. Al-Ṣafadī states that the two used to socialize until late at night. See al-Ṣafadī, A‛yān al-ʿaṣr i, 589. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 187–8.

8

O. AMIR

Damascus,31 and remembered Najm al-Dīn favorably from his days at Ṣafad.32 AlṢafadī states that Balabān, during his tenure as mushidd al-dawāwīn in Damascus, looked after his companions and arranged jobs for everyone who came from Ṣafad.33 And so Balabān employed Najm al-Dīn as a scribe under him, while the qāḍī and kātib al-sirr, Muḥyī al-Dīn b. Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī (d. 738/1338), who trusted and appreciated Najm al-Dīn, promoted him, employed him as a secretary, and assigned him another position as the khaṭīb of Jāmiʿ Jarrāḥ.34 The peak of Najm al-Dīn’s career probably came in the year 711/1311, when the aforementioned Karāy al-Manṣūrī was appointed nāʾib of Damascus. There he met Najm al-Dīn and heavily relied on him for the administration of the city, as he had previously in Ṣafad. But Karāy’s reign as nāʾib was short—his harshness and a heavy tax he imposed on the inhabitants led to protests against him, and he was dismissed and arrested shortly thereafter, only four months into his tenure.35 As the man who executed Karāy’s policies, the inhabitants of Damascus then came after Najm al-Dīn, who was forced to hide, but was later excused by the new nāʾib, thanks to his clean record and reputation of modesty. He was reappointed to his former positions at Ṣafad and returned to his hometown.36 When Najm al-Dīn returned to Ṣafad he found that his former student, Zayn al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Ḥalāwāt (d. 726/1326), who had been—according to both al-Ṣafadī and al-ʿUthmānī—the reason behind Najm al-Dīn’s dismissal from those positions in 700/1300, now held them himself.37 Ibn Ḥalāwāt is depicted by alṢafadī and al-ʿUthmānī as a shrewd and manipulative scribe, who always knew how to weave close connections with the governors and to manipulate them.38 He is the one who supposedly schemed against Najm al-Dīn and led the nāʾib Butkhāṣ to dismiss him from his positions. So when Najm al-Dīn returned to Ṣafad with an official letter of appointment, Ibn Ḥalāwāt first tried to oppose the 31

32 33 34

35

36 37 38

The holder of this office, a member of the military class, was mainly responsible for the collection of taxes, but probably had at least some responsibility over the civilian administration. See Gaudefroy-Demombynes, La Syrie 149; Northrup, From slave to sultan 222–4. Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 234; al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 188. Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 43–4. ‘Wa-kāna al-qāḍī Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn Faḍl Allāh yaʾmanu ilayhi wa-yuqaddimuhu wayastaktibuhu fī al-sirr wa-ghayrihi’. Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 234. For this sequence of events, see al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, 152–3. Another reason for Karāy’s arrest—and probably more important at least from a Cairene point of view—was his close companionship with Baktamur al-Jūkandār, who allegedly conspired in a coup d’état that was crushed by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad and that led to the arrest of several of his intimates. On this, see Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira ix, 28–30; Mazor, The rise and fall 195–205. Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 234–5. Ibid. ii, 234. On Ibn Ḥalāwāt, see ibid. iii, 592–8.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

9

decision, but after a second decree arrived from Cairo, he had to succumb. Eventually, the new nāʾib of Damascus, Sayf al-Dīn Tankiz (r. 712–40/1312–40), divided the three offices—the two posts of khaṭīb (that of the town’s Friday mosque and that of the citadel’s mosque) and the office of kātib al-sirr—between them. Najm al-Dīn chose for himself the offices of khaṭīb. He assigned his brother, Burhān alDīn Ibrāhīm, to the khiṭāba of the citadel, and he remained the khaṭīb of the town, a position he held until he died in 723/1323.39 At this stage, we can deduce three lessons from Najm al-Dīn’s career; these shed some light on the life of a religious scholar and a bureaucrat in a provincial town such as Ṣafad. First, during virtually all the major crossroads of his career, it was Najm al-Dīn’s close and intimate relations with the Mamluk amirs in the highest local positions that enabled him to win desirable assignments—as was the case with his father before him. These amirs included Fāris al-Dīn Albakī, then Karāy al-Manṣūrī, Balabān al-Jūkandār, Karāy again, and finally the powerful Tankiz. As for the latter, it is stated that Najm al-Dīn, prior to Tankiz’s appointment as nāʾib of al-Shām, wrote some panegyrics of the amir, which the latter greatly appreciated. This likely influenced Tankiz to intercede for Najm al-Dīn and ensure that he would get the appointment he desired back in Ṣafad. In fact, alʿUthmānī writes that Tankiz first offered to keep Najm al-Dīn in Damascus, an offer that the latter declined.40 Of course, his relations with the Mamluk elite could also have had a negative effect, as in the two instances when Najm al-Dīn fell out of favor—once because of a feud with the nāʾib Butkhāṣ, and then in Damascus, when he lost his positions because of his close association with Karāy. The last example brings us to the second point. When one’s fate was so deeply dependent on his personal relations with others, it was essential to calculate one’s steps prudently and consider the consequences of every action. This is evident from an anecdote, presented by both al-Ṣafadī and al-ʿUthmānī, regarding Najm al-Dīn’s modesty and foresight. The anecdote—of both cautionary and laudatory purposes—relates that Najm al-Dīn always shunned any material gains and possessions, so when he was at the peak of his career as kātib al-sirr of Damascus under Karāy, and one of Syria’s notables (shakhṣ min akābir al-Shām) offered him a package that contained some furs, wool, and one hundred gold dinars,41 Najm alDīn, who did not possess ‘a single dirham’ at the time, rejected the gift, even though, on the same night, he had to send his son to pawn his seal for oil to light their house. When his son gazed at him in confusion, Najm al-Dīn told him that “you will praise my act in the future.”42 And indeed, after Karāy’s downfall, his 39 40 41

42

Ibid. ii, 234–5; al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 154, 189. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 189. Ibid., 188. The term al-Shām here can also refer to the city of Damascus, i.e., one of the notables of Damascus. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 188.

10

O. AMIR

companions were all arrested, but Najm al-Dīn was left alone. When the inhabitants of Damascus demanded that the new nāʾib punish him, the nāʾib asked if Najm al-Dīn had taken anything from anyone, and when the answer was negative, he refused to punish him.43 A third notable point concerns the tension between their local attachments and higher, trans-regional aspirations. This is discussed below; for now, we should note how this tension was embodied in the career of Najm al-Dīn. On the one hand, he had a clear attachment to Ṣafad, where he grew up, made a name for himself, and later returned to spend the remainder of his life. On the other hand, it is not surprising that a scholar or bureaucrat aspired to a position in a metropolitan center such as Cairo or Damascus.44 As a youth, Najm al-Dīn had traveled to both centers to learn from the best teachers. Then, he tried his luck in Damascus, although this spell of several years came after he was all but forced to leave Ṣafad. The interesting point in-between local identity and higher, regional aspirations is manifested in Najm al-Dīn’s fate after he arrived at Damascus. He was first appointed to a position thanks to his connections with the amir Balabān who had lived in Ṣafad; and then, he was promoted again thanks to Karāy, a former acquaintance from Ṣafad. Even in a great metropolis such as Damascus, personal connections and identities, shaped in a provincial town, played a major role in the path to success. Back to the chronology of the ʿUthmānī family. After Najm al-Dīn died, the position of khaṭīb of the town’s Friday mosque passed on to his son, Kamāl alDīn Muḥammad, who held it until his death in 759/1358. Kamāl al-Dīn was born in Damascus, during his father’s stay there, sometime between 706/1306 and 709/1310.45 He grew up and was educated in Ṣafad, mainly by his father, whose footsteps he followed. He started acting as khaṭīb during his father’s lifetime, and when the latter died suddenly, Kamāl al-Dīn inherited his position, though he was just seventeen.46

43

44

45

46

Ibid.; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr ii, 234. This new nāʾib was Jamāl al-Dīn Āqūsh al-Ashrafī, who was replaced by Tankiz after less than a year in office. Āqūsh is described by al-Ṣafadī as a just and wise man; it is interesting to note here that when he was replaced as governor of Damascus by Tankiz, he advised the latter to never accept gifts from anyone, if he wanted to keep the position for a long period. See al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī ix, 195–7. The fact that Ṣafad was a backwater in terms of scholarly activity was already emphasized by Tarawneh (Mamlakat Ṣafad 264–9). Although I fully agree with him in regard to Ṣafad’s provinciality vis-à-vis the larger scholarly centers in Syria, I think he underestimated the scholarly activity in the town, probably because of the lack of source material; fortunately Taʾrīkh Ṣafad now compensates for this, at least in part. There are variations between al-Ṣafadī’s and al-ʿUthmānī’s versions here. See al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 215; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, 401. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 154, 215–6; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, 401.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

11

Kamāl al-Dīn was learned and proficient in adab and poetry. He seems to have had a close relationship with Khalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī, who dedicated a relatively long biographical entry to him, most of which is composed of poems the two exchanged.47 Al-Ṣafadī also states that he wrote a letter of appointment (tawqīʿ) for Kamāl al-Dīn in the year 742/1341–2 for the position of scribe (muwaqqiʿ) in Ṣafad, a letter which he quotes in full in Kamāl al-Dīn’s biographical entry.48 Finally, Kamāl al-Dīn seems to have authored two works which, as far as I can tell, are no longer extant.49 After Kamāl al-Dīn’s death, the post of khaṭīb remained in the ʿUthmānī family, but moved to another branch of it, that is, to Kamāl al-Dīn’s nephew, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the author of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad. His direct ancestry from the family’s forefather Kamāl al-Dīn went through his grandfather, Najm al-Dīn’s brother, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn. We have scant information regarding him from his grandson’s Taʾrīkh Ṣafad; for example, we know that he was one of the scholars and notables of Ṣafad (min ʿulamāʾ Ṣafad wa-akābirihā), learned in the traditional sciences, such as the variant readings of the Quran (alqirāʾāt al-sabʿa, which he learned in Cairo) and fiqh, as well as in the rational sciences, namely mathematics and astronomy. According to Taʾrīkh Ṣafad he authored some works, composed poetry, and was inclined to asceticism (zuhd) and seclusion (inqiṭāʿ). He died young, before reaching the age of thirty.50 Sharaf al-Dīn’s son, and the father of the author of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, was Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. He was also described by his son as one of the notables of Ṣafad (min al-sādāt al-akābir), as a religious scholar who traveled to Damascus to learn,51 as the author of several works on notarial formularies (shurūṭ), and as a writer of some poetry.52 At the same time, he was an ascetic with inclinations to Sufism, like his father and grandfather. He died in 741/1340–1 at the age of 58, and left five sons, all of whom had careers as qāḍīs or khaṭībs.53

47

48 49 50 51 52

53

Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, 402–8; those poems, and others, are also preserved in al-Ṣafadī’s Alḥān al-sawājiʿ ii, 70–82. Al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, 407–8. Al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn ii, 161. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 204. Al-ʿUthmānī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ 120. His son, Shams al-Dīn, devoted a short biography to Sharaf al-Dīn in Taʾrīkh Ṣafad (205–7) but not in his Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ, where Sharaf al-Dīn is mentioned frequently in passing, mainly as a link between the author and other scholars. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba did include a short biography of Sharaf al-Dīn, which he summarized from the two aforementioned works written by his son (Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taʾrīkh i, 165). Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 207. The fact that all of Sharaf al-Dīn’s sons pursued religious careers, were able to acquire the necessary education, and to attain posts, is another clear indication of the family’s elite status in town.

12

O. AMIR

Of Sharaf al-Dīn’s five sons we have information on two. One is of course the author, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, and the other is his brother, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī. The latter is actually one of the members of the family who appeared in some of the biographical compilations of the period.54 He is described as a faqīh who authored a mukhtaṣar (abridgment) on fiqh. He held posts at Ṣafad as both qāḍī (for over twenty years) and professor of law (mudarris) at the Ẓāhirī mosque and later was concurrently mudarris, khaṭīb, and inspector of the new mosque (aljāmiʿ al-jadīd) built by the nāʾib Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Ṣubḥ (r. 753–9/1352–8). He died at the age of 38 in the year 759/1358. He is also described as a Sufi, or as one of the scholars (ʿulamāʾ) inclined to Sufism (kāna min al-ʿulamāʾ al-ʿāmilīn wa-l-fuqarāʾ al-ṣāliḥīn).55 We do not have any information about Sharaf al-Dīn’s other three sons, except for their names and occupations—either khaṭīb or qāḍī (see tab. below). I conclude this survey of the ʿUthmānī family where it began, with Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, the author of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad. As noted, he served as qāḍī and khaṭīb in Ṣafad. His biography can only be constructed from the anecdotes in his books, which feature Shams al-Dīn involved in various affairs of the community, such as interceding with the governors on behalf of the inhabitants, or holding friendly or patronage relationships with other local notables. He also traveled to Damascus to study there, as did many other members of his family.56 Perhaps the most fascinating point is his absence from any other biographical compendium. While it is not possible at this stage to confirm his scholarly reputation and status among his peers, we cannot ignore that he held two significant positions and produced (at least) three scholarly works, two of which seem to have gained some circulation and were even quoted by the same authors who chose to ignore him in their biographical compendiums. In fact, things are even more complicated: Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī was not only not given a biographical entry and his appointments and death were not mentioned, but he was even criticized in several instances as being an unreliable source. This allegation seems to have been derived from Ibn Ḥijjī (d. 816/1413–4), and then passed over to his student Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba (d. 851/1448) and to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449). Even though Sublet suggests, based on a poem Shams al-Dīn wrote in his Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya, that he was aware of these critiques, she left open the question of why Shams al-Dīn was treated with this “silent conspiracy.”57

54 55 56 57

Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taʾrīkh ii, 116; Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāmina iii, 129. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 207–8. Sublet, Un itinéraire 190; al-ʿUthmānī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ 144. Sublet, Un itinéraire 189–90. His awareness of this critique can be deduced from a poem with which he concluded his Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ (p. 162). See also note 18 above.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

13

For now, I cannot suggest any better answer to this question, and so I leave it open, as did Sublet. But some further information regarding the ʿUthmānī family’s disappearance from the sources can be added. While Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī was the last member of the family to be mentioned by name, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba does mention a qāḍī of Ṣafad named al-ʿUthmānī in the year 784/1382, and in 791/1389 he states that Shihāb al-Dīn al-Sallāwī was dismissed from his position as qāḍī of Ṣafad and replaced by his predecessor in the post, “the brother of Ṣadr al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī.”58 This indicates that the family continued to compete for positions in the town at least until the last decade of the eighth/fourteenth century. As for Shams al-Dīn himself, another source states that a certain ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmīn al-Kafrmāwī was appointed as Shāfiʿī qāḍī of Ṣafad in the year 780/1378–9, a fact that may suggest that Shams al-Dīn either died in that year or lost his position as qāḍī.59 4. Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī and Taʾrīkh Ṣafad: Authorial Strategies Recent scholarship has gone a long way in the study of Islamic historiography, mainly by deconstructing narratives and authorial strategies and motivations.60 While analyzing these aspects of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad is not the main concern of this article, I do offer some suggestions in this regard. First, reading this text as an ego-document may have some heuristic value. By this term, I refer to a text in which the author writes in the first person “about his own behavior and feeling and about topics and events that concern him personally.”61 This kind of text is frequently also replete with autobiographical material, as is obviously the case with Taʾrīkh Ṣafad.62 Of course, this work is not a diary of any sort, but the author’s presence—and that of his family members—is very much felt throughout the text. In fact, reading Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, one cannot escape a sense of the centrality of the ʿUthmānī family in Ṣafad’s internal affairs. The family held central official roles in town throughout the period under discussion, but this is not all. The family members also took part in daily activities in the town; for example, they interceded with the rulers on behalf of the community, taught and mentored, gave in charity, and so forth. The central position of his family in the text leads us to reflect on the author’s motivation in writing it. The author’s glorification of his family is not 58

59 60 61 62

Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taʾrīkh iii, 83, 262. As noted, Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī was also referred to as Ṣadr al-Dīn. Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr ii, 112. E.g., Hirschler, Medieval Arabic historiography. Conermann and Seidensticker, Some remarks 131. Recent scholarship on the study of Arabic, or Islamic, autobiographical writing has increased. For one of the most comprehensive studies in this field, see Reynolds, Interpreting the self.

14

O. AMIR

surprising, as it was a common feature in the Islamic tradition of biographical writing. One of the main reasons for writing such works was to reinforce—indeed even establish—one’s own position and authority as a leading religious scholar who is firmly connected and positioned in a well-founded chain of authorities. In medieval Islamic society, the two main methods of establishing oneself in such a chain was either through one’s teachers or, perhaps even better, through a direct bloodline.63 What Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī does in Taʾrīkh Ṣafad is not innovative, but rather a common method used by Muslim scholars of his time who produced similar works. This method has been well analyzed, for example in R. Kevin Jaques’s study of Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba’s Ṭabaqāt.64 Jaques shows that Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba—al-ʿUthmānī’s contemporary—places himself as an heir to great genealogical and intellectual lines, and thereby establishes himself as an authority and Shāfiʿī leader in Damascus.65 Even more striking is the similarity in the way both Shams al-Dīn and Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba glorified their direct ancestors, even though it seems that at least some of them may not have been as well respected as their descendents portrayed them. This strategy and the importance both authors placed on praising their ancestors are derived from the belief—quite central in their society—that a person inherits his ancestors’ authority and spiritual capital.66 As stated, Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī used common strategies to establish his ancestors’—and so his own—credentials as leading authorities in the sphere of Ṣafadī ʿulamāʾ. For example, one such strategy utilizes dream narratives, both to ascertain the righteousness of his dead ancestors, and also to confirm his direct connection to them.67 The use of dream narratives for such reasons has been well established in modern scholarship and requires no further affirmation here.68 Other strategies are even more clear, for example, the depictions of the piety, learning, and altruism of the ʿUthmānī family members, as described above. But one strategy that does seem worth mentioning in more detail is the way in which al-ʿUthmānī cleverly weaves two somehow distinct lines of virtuosity for his family; these lines run roughly parallel to the family’s two main genealogical lines ascending from the family’s forefather Kamāl al-Dīn. These two lines can be termed the “ascetic-Sufi” and “learned” lines. In fact, those two pious tradi-

63 64 65 66 67 68

Jaques, Authority 259–61. Ibid. Ibid., chapter 8. Mottahedeh, Loyalty 98–104; Jaques, Authority 259–61. E.g., al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 158, 204–7. There are multiple studies on dreams and their usage in Islamic literature. For example, see the various studies published by Kinberg, e.g. The legitimization; Interaction.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

15

tions—one leaning more to ascetic virtuosity and the other to a more “traditional” learning—constitute the framework for the biographical section of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad. The main part of the work—the biographies of notables who flourished in Ṣafad during the period covered in the text—is divided into two groups: the socalled “pietistic-ascetic group” (ahl al-ṣalāḥ wa-l-zuhd) and the “learned leadership” (ahl al-ʿilm wa-l-siyāda). In practice, this seemingly clear distinction between the two groups is not as clear in the text as these labels might suggest; in fact most members of the “ascetic” group were quite learned, and many members of the “learned” group were very much inclined to asceticism. The interesting issue here is the way in which Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī divided his own family members between the two pious traditions. Two lines of the ʿUthmānī family can be distinguished. Both, of course, begin with Kamāl al-Dīn, who is depicted as a walī Allāh and placed at the top of the “pietistic-ascetic” group. All other members of the family are placed in the second, “learned,” group, but as noted, the descriptions of the virtuosity of the notables matter more than the group in which they were placed. The second group starts with Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥasan, Kamāl al-Dīn’s son and the one who best represents the learned tradition in the family. The “learned” line then continues with his son, Kamāl al-Dīn, who closes this group, and is in fact the last person mentioned in the entire work. The second line in the ʿUthmānī family runs from the first Kamāl al-Dīn to the author’s grandfather Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn and then to his son, the author’s father, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Both are lauded more for their asceticpietistic virtue than for their learning (although the latter virtue is also noted in their biographies), for example, they show clear inclinations to Sufism and practice such pious rituals as nocturnal prayers, fasting, and dhikr. The author himself writes frequently about his actions, thoughts, values, and anxieties throughout the book. These autobiographical notes do not emerge in a biographical entry dedicated to himself, rather they are scattered throughout the biographies of others.69 All these anecdotes depict the author as one who is both deeply inclined to ascetic practices, Sufism, and to the veneration of saintly Sufi shaykhs, and who also holds juridical positions, such as qāḍī, and is thoroughly invested in the tradition of religious learning. In the persona of the author the two virtuous traditions of the ʿUthmānī family are embodied. He is both the direct heir to the learned line—having studied with his great-uncle Najm al-Dīn and inherited the position of khaṭīb from Najm al-Dīn’s son, Kamāl al-Dīn—and to the pious-ascetic line, by direct genealogical descent from his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. And so, by connecting 69

Compare this to the strategies used by the seventh-/thirteenth-century Damascene scholar Abū Shāma: see Hirschler, Medieval Arabic historiography 39–42.

16

O. AMIR

himself to a family with such a prestigious tradition, one that reflected the two main themes of Islamic piety at the time, and played a central role in Ṣafadī society from its inception after Baybars’s conquest, Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī presented himself, and very possibly also intended to place his descendants, as one who is capable and fit to hold the highest positions in Ṣafad’s religious elite, and to be considered among its notables. Although Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī’s endeavor is not out of the ordinary, we can speculate as to the circumstances that led to the writing of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad (and perhaps also his other works). First, the text was written shortly before Ṣafad was assigned qāḍīs from the other three juridical schools—that is, in addition to the Shāfiʿī school.70 This development—a rather late manifestation of Baybars’s famous reform—could have influenced al-ʿUthmānī, the Shāfiʿī qāḍī of the town, although it more likely effected his writing of the book on khilāf.71 It is even more tempting to link the writing of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad (as well as Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ) to al-ʿUthmānī’s attempt to establish his position in the ʿulamāʾ milieu of his time. This assumption reverts to the question of why al-ʿUthmānī was ignored by his contemporary biographers and suggests that writing those books was part of the author’s struggle for recognition. In this vein, it is possible to place al-ʿUthmānī’s two biographical compendiums in different, but intertwined, contexts. While Taʾrīkh Ṣafad places the author at the center of the local scene, and so also stresses the importance of his family as part of the Ṣafadī elite, in Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ the author tries to highlight his place in the trans-regional network of Shāfiʿī jurists, although only two members of his family have biographical entries there.72 That is, if Taʾrīkh Ṣafad has a “local profile” and places the ʿUthmānī family at its center, then Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ has a “cosmopolitan profile,” but gives the town of Ṣafad an exceedingly more central place than any other Shāfiʿī compendium did. In this sense, both books serve, at least in part, the purpose of establishing the author’s status, in two complementary ways.73 70

71

72

73

Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba (Taʾrīkh i, 139) writes of the appointment of Ḥanbalī and Mālikī qāḍīs in Ṣafad in the year 786/1384–5. In fact, additional qāḍīs were appointed to several Syrian towns during that period, as shown by Rapoport, who suggests that a Ḥanafī qāḍī had been appointed prior to that time. See Rapoport, Legal diversity 213. For the appointment of Ḥanbalī and Mālikī qāḍīs in Hama around the same period, see Hirschler, The formation 111. The relation between the appointment of qāḍīs from other schools of law and the writing of a book on khilāf was suggested to me by Yosef Rapoport during the conference at Liège. Al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 127, 145. The two are his great-uncle Najm al-Dīn and his brother, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, who are also the two members of the family who have biographical entries in other sources. Meanwhile, the author’s father, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, is not mentioned in the Ṭabaqāt, but he is mentioned many times throughout as a link between the author and other scholars, or as his source for various anecdotes. On Hama, another middle-sized Syrian town, and its local vs. cosmopolitan profile, see Hirschler, The formation 103–6.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

17

Finally, as stated, Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī was the last member of the family mentioned in the sources. While writing biographical compendiums—in which the author stresses his own family’s virtues and centrality in society—was probably, in many cases, a useful tool to perpetuate the family’s symbolic capital and thus assure its future,74 it seems that, in this sense, it did not succeed in the case of the ʿUthmānī family, which disappeared from the sources shortly after the author’s death.75 5. Conclusions Baybars’s conquest of Ṣafad and the founding of a new administrative center there opened a new chapter in the history of the town and the entire area of the Galilee. There was a need for scholars and bureaucrats to administer this new center, and this opened up new opportunities for ʿulamāʾ that were willing to settle in this provincial town. Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-ʿUthmānī accepted this opportunity. While we have almost no information as to his status prior to his arrival in Ṣafad, thanks to Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, written by his great-grandson, we know that, by settling in Ṣafad, Kamāl al-Dīn started a local ‘dynasty’ of scholars and functionaries, one which lasted for more than one hundred years and was part of the emerging elite circles of this new town. While the ʿUthmānī family was not the only one to produce such a local dynasty in Ṣafad,76 it was the only one we know of to have lasted for such a long period, and the only family about which we have such a detailed account. The contrast between the family’s prominence on the Ṣafadī scene—at least according to Taʾrīkh Ṣafad—and its almost complete obscurity in other sources, written in the larger cities of the sultanate, may indicate something about Ṣafad’s relative provinciality and the attitude held by metropolitan scholars toward their peers in provincial towns such as Ṣafad. By studying the biographies of the ʿUthmānī family members we also learn more about local rivalries and competition for posts and about the tenuous nature of high status in the Mamluk administration and elite civilian circles. We 74

75

76

As Hirschler recently suggested, we may view these compendiums as fulfilling the function documentary sources did in European societies. See Hirschler, Studying 175. For example, Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba’s son, Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad, had a successful career after his father’s death. See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ vii, 155–6; the writing of hagiobiographic accounts of one’s own ancestors was a common tradition in Islamic societies, and is probably best attested in Sufi circles. Nonetheless, ample examples can be found in the biographical tradition of the fuqahāʾ. See also the biographical notice Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī devotes to his father. See al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya x, 139–338. Cf. the Nahāwandī family, whose first member, Jalāl al-Dīn, also arrived in Ṣafad following Baybars’ conquest and was appointed as qāḍī, a position that was held by three generations of the family. See al-ʿUthmānī, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad 151.

18

O. AMIR

see the importance of associating and befriending the Mamluk amirs, who had the power to promote their intimates, but we also see the dangers inherent in associating oneself too closely to an amir who might fall out of favor at any time. The importance of intimate relations was not, of course, unique to the reality of the Mamluk sultanate, yet such relations played an extremely important role in the nexus between the military elite and the scholarly-bureaucratic one, as Mathieu Eychenne shows.77 In a relatively small and provincial town such as Ṣafad during the decades after its re-foundation by Baybars, those personal relations may have played an even greater role than in metropolises such as Cairo or Damascus, on which we have abundant information. This is evident from the illuminating anecdote on the amir Balabān al-Jūkandār, who held an important position in Damascus and gave precedence to his old acquaintances from Ṣafad—a town with a small local civilian elite that was bound to share a more intimate atmosphere than that found in Damascus. The case of the ʿUthmānī family and their role in Ṣafad thus presents us with a somewhat unique glimpse into life in a provincial Syrian town, and to the ways in which the administration functioned and took shape in the first century of Mamluk rule over Syria. It shows how local histories like Taʾrīkh Ṣafad can enrich our knowledge and further our understanding of life in smaller, more provincial towns in the Mamluk sultanate. Unfortunately, these local histories are, as is well known, a rarity. In the words of Ira Lapidus, “the study of provincial places affords the opportunity… to bring to bear on the subject themes which we already know to be important and to show in depth how they operate in a particular context.”78 Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī left us this local treasure of information, despite all the complexities it contains—as his contemporaries might have already realized, and we can only hope more such treasures will resurface in the future.

77 78

Eychenne, Liens personnels. Lapidus, Review 334.

Shihāb al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī khaṭīb

Badr al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī khaṭīb

Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-ʿUthmānī khaṭīb

Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn al-ʿUthmānī qāḍī and khaṭīb

Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-ʿUthmānī d. 741/1340–1 khaṭīb

Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-ʿUthmānī d. 759/1358 khaṭīb from 723/1323

Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-ʿUthmānī ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-ʿUthmānī d. ca 780/1379 d. 759/1358 khaṭīb and qāḍī, author of Taʾrīkh Ṣafad khaṭīb and qāḍī

Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn al-ʿUthmānī inspector of the citadel’s treasury

Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥasan al-ʿUthmānī al-Ṣafadī b. 658/1260 d. 723/1323 khaṭīb and kātib al-sirr

Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-ʿUthmānī al-Qurṭubī b. 626/1229 d. 701/1301–1 khaṭīb

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

19

Chart 2.1: The ʿUthmānī family

20

O. AMIR

Bibliography Sources al-Baghdādī, Hadiyyat al-ʿārifīn, 2 vols., Istanbul 1951. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-Malik al-Ẓāhir, ed. ʿA. Khowaiter, Riyadh 1976. Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāmina fī aʿyān al-miʾa al-thāmina, ed. M. S. Jād al-Ḥaqq, 5 vols., Cairo 1966. ———, Inbāʾ al-ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumr fī al-taʾrīkh, ed. M. Khān et al., 5 vols., Beirut 1967. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taʾrīkh Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, ed. ʿA. Darwīsh, 3 vols., Damascus 1977–94. Ibn Shaddād, al-Aʿlāq al-khaṭīra fī dhikr umarāʾ al-Shām wa-l-Jazīra, ed. S. alDahhān, Damascus 1963. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira fī mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, ed. F. Shaltūt et al., 16 vols., Cairo 1929–72. al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M. Ziyāda and S. ʿA. al-F. ʿĀshūr, 4 vols., Cairo 1934–73. al-Ṣafadī, Alḥān al-sawājiʿ bayna al-bādī wa-l-murājiʿ, ed. M. ʿĀyish, 2 vols., Beirut 2007. ———, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr wa-aʿwān al-naṣr, ed. ʿA. Abū Zayd et al., 12 vols., Beirut and Damascus 1998. ———, al-Wāfī bi-l-wafāyāt, ed. A. al-Arnāʾūṭ and T. Muṣṭafā, 29 vols., Beirut 2000. al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 6 vols., ed. Ḥ. al-Qudsī, Cairo 1934–6. al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, ed. M. al-Ṭanāḥī and M. al-Ḥilw, 10 vols., Cairo 1964. al-ʿUthmānī, Raḥmat al-umma fī ikhtilāf al-aʾimma, ed. M. al-Zanātī, Beirut 2006. ———, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ al-kubrā, MS Princeton Garret Collection no. 202H. ———, Taʾrīkh Ṣafad, ed. S. Zakkār, Damascus 2009. Secondary Literature Amitai-Preiss, R., Ṣafad, in EI² viii, 757–9.

FORMING A NEW LOCAL ELITE

21

Arberry, A., The Chester Beatty library: A handlist of the Arabic manuscripts, 8 vols., Dublin 1955. Chamberlain, M., Knowledge and social practice in medieval Damascus, 1190– 1350, Cambridge 1994. Conermann, S., and T. Seidensticker, Some remarks on Ibn Ṭawq’s (d. 915/1509) journal al-Taʿlīq, vol. 1 (885/1480 to 890/1485), in MSR 11/2 (2007), 121–35. Drory, J., Baybars and the conquest of Safed [in Hebrew], in Y. Ben-Porat and E. Reiner (eds.), Vezot le-Yehuda, Jerusalem 2003, 410–22. ———, Founding a new Mamlaka: Some remarks concerning Safed and the organization of the region in the Mamluk period, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian politics and society, Leiden 2004, 163–87. Eychenne, M., Liens personnels, clientélisme et réseaux de pouvoir dans le sultanat mamelouk (milieu XIIIe-fin XIVe siècle), Damascus 2013. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M., La Syrie à l’époque des Mamelouks d’après les auteurs arabes: description géographique, économique et administrative précédée d’une introduction sur l’organisation gouvernementale, Paris 1923. Hirschler, K., Medieval Arabic historiography: Authors as actors, London and New York 2006. ———, The formation of the civilian elite in the Syrian province: The case of Ayyubid and early Mamluk Ḥamāh, in MSR 12/2 (2008), 95–132. ———, Studying Mamluk historiography: From source-criticism to the cultural turn, in S. Conermann (ed.), Ubi sumus? Quo vademus? Mamluk studies—state of the art, Goettingen 2013, 159–86. Jaques, R.K., Authority, conflict, and the transmission of diversity in medieval Islamic law, Leiden and Boston 2006. Kennedy, H., Crusader castles, Cambridge 2004. Kinberg, L., Interaction between this world and the afterworld in early Islamic tradition, in Oriens 29–30 (1986), 285–308. ———, The legitimization of the “Madhāhib” through dreams, in Arabica 32/1 (1985), 47–79. Lapidus, I., Muslim cities in the later middle ages, Cambridge 1967. ———, Review of Un Centre musulman de la haute-égypte médiévale: Qūṣ, in JESHO 21/3 (1978), 331–4. Lewis, B., An Arabic account of the province of Safed – I, in BSOAS 15 (1953), 477–88.

22

O. AMIR

Mazor, A., The rise and fall of a Muslim regiment: The Manṣūriyya in the first Mamluk sultanate, 678/1279–741/1341, Bonn 2015. Mottahedeh, R., Loyalty and leadership in an early Islamic society, Princeton 1980. Northrup, L., From slave to sultan: The career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the consolidation of Mamluk rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 A.H./1279–1290 A.D.), Stuttgart 1998. Petry, C., The civilian elite of Cairo in the later middle ages, Princeton 1981. Rapoport, Y., Legal diversity in the age of taqlīd: The four chief qāḍīs under the Mamluks, in ILS 10/2 (2003), 210–28. Reynolds, D. (ed.), Interpreting the self: Autobiography in the Arabic literary tradition, Berkeley 2001. Salibi, K., The Banū Jamāʿa: A dynasty of Shāfiʿite jurists in the Mamluk period, in SI 9 (1958), 97–109. Sublet, J., Un itinéraire du fiqh šāfiʿite d’après al-Ḫaṭīb al-ʿUṯmānī, in Arabica 11/2 (1964), 188–95. Talmon-Heller, D., Islamic piety in medieval Syria: Mosques, cemeteries and sermons under the Zangids and Ayyubids (1146–1260), Leiden and Boston 2007. Tarawneh, T., Mamlakat Ṣafad fī ʿahd al-mamālīk, Beirut 1982.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE QAṬIYYA AND AL-ṬĪNA, GATEWAYS TO MAMLUK EGYPT

Hani HAMZA

For millennia, the bulk of the sedentary population of Egypt has settled in the narrow green strip along the Nile (fig. 3.1). Marginal migratory communities are scattered around the desert area surrounding the valley, which constitutes the great bulk of the area of Egypt. Historically speaking, the borders of Egypt ran far beyond the Nile Valley: to the Mediterranean in the north; in the east to the Red Sea and the line running from ʿAqaba to ʿArīsh (defining the limits of Sinai, the Asian part of Egypt). The western border is less clear, with a fluid line separating the Western Desert of Egypt from the Libyan desert of Cyrenaica (Barqa). The southern border lies at a line somewhere south of the cataracts south of Aswan, fixed at parallel 22 North only in modern times. Accessing Egypt en masse during invasions or migration, however, has always been difficult, as the deserts enveloping the Nile Valley constitute an insurmountable natural obstacle. Invaders can enter Egypt by three routes: from across the northern Sinai, from the Mediterranean coast in the north, or by crossing the northern corridor of the Western Desert through Cyrenaica. The southern border was never a source of danger in the Islamic era. Attempts to invade Islamic Egypt from the west through the Western Desert were few and unsuccessful, with the exception of the Fatimid conquest of Egypt in 358/969. Invasion attempts from the north were numerous in the Islamic period, especially attacks on Rosetta and Damietta on the Mediterranean coast during the crusades. With the signing of the treaty of Ramla between al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (r. 570–89/1174–93) and King Richard the Lion-Hearted (r. 1189–99) in Shaʿbān 588/September 1192, the Third Crusade came to an end without realizing its objective of regaining Jerusalem.1 From then on, the “Latins now realized that the road to Jerusalem ran through Egypt.”2 Consequently, the last two large crusades were directed against Egypt, invading from the north: the Fifth Crusade (615–

1 2

Runciman, A history iii, 72–3. Chamberlain, The crusader era 222.

24

H. HAMZA

8/1218–21),3 the last to be organized by a pope,4 and the crusade of Louis IX of France, the last led by a major European monarch, ended with astounding failure after initial success.5 Cyprus, in itself, was not a serious threat to Egypt, as it acted mainly as a station for embarkation of the crusades or as a base for pirates. The most serious Cypriot expedition against Egypt was led by Peter, the first king of Cyprus and Jerusalem (r. 1329–69). This was essentially a pirate raid. His armada attacked and captured Alexandria for a week in Muḥarram 767/October 1365. The massacres of the local population, both Muslims and Christians, and the looting and atrocities that followed were notorious even by the savage standards of the crusades. The Cypriots withdrew with enormous booty and made an uneasy treaty

3

4

5

The Fifth Crusade was redirected toward Egypt, disembarked near Damietta in May, and laid siege to the city after seizing its fort in Jumādā I 615/August 1218. A long stalemate followed, with skirmishes by both sides and ephemeral truces. The position of Damietta was precarious after the long siege, and the Egyptian sultan al-Kāmil offered the Latins generous terms in Rajab 616/October 1219, including, among others, the return of Jerusalem in exchange for the evacuation of Egypt; these terms were not accepted by the Latins. Eventually Damietta fell to the Latins in Shaʿbān 616/November 1219. They believed the occupation of all of Egypt was imminent, but they lost their chance by not marching straight to Cairo. Precious time was wasted in squabbles among the Latin leaders and waiting in vain for reinforcements from Europe. Meanwhile, al-Kāmil reorganized his troops and managed to destroy the advancing Latin army on the banks of the Nile, at the location of the future city of al-Manṣūra in Jumādā II 618/August 1221. The disaster forced the Latins to accept the sultan’s terms to surrender Damietta, and they evacuated Egypt in Rajab 618/September 1221. See Runciman, A history iii, 151–70. The Fifth Crusade was preached by Pope Innocent III (d. 1216) and supervised by his successor Honorius III (d. 1227) through a papal legate accompanying the crusade. To fulfill a pledge that he made when he was gravely ill with malaria, the French king Louis IX led the last serious crusade, which landed near Damietta in Ṣafar 647/June 1249. For unknown reasons, the garrison and citizens of Damietta evacuated the city in panic after a short battle on the coast and Louis IX captured the deserted city a few days later without resistance. After a sojourn in Damietta waiting for reinforcements and for the Nile flood to recede, the king marched south toward al-Manṣūra and camped on the opposite bank of the Nile facing the city in Ramaḍān 647/mid-December 1249. In Shawwāl 647/February 1250, the French army started a surprise attack to capture al-Manṣūra by crossing a nearby fort. The army van was the first to cross and hastened to attack the city against the king’s orders. The Baḥriyya Mamluk regiment lured the van into the city streets and annihilated them. On hearing the news of the disaster at al-Manṣūra, the king, with most of his army, had to retreat back across the Nile to their camp. In a few weeks the Egyptians managed to encircle the camp and cut its supply line from Damietta, forcing the king to capitulate and surrender himself, his army, and Damietta. The king was kept in prison for a few weeks. He was eventually released in exchange for a handsome ransom, and he sailed back to Acre in Muḥarram 648/May 1250. See ibid., 262–74.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

25

with the Egyptians,6 who waited to take revenge; sixty years later, in Ramaḍān 829/1426, they occupied Cyprus and captured its king. 1. Mamluk Defense Strategy With the fall of Acre, the last crusader stronghold in the Latin East, to the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalīl (r. 689–93/1290–3) in 690/1291 and the devastating defeat of the Mongol Īlkhān Ghāzān (r. 695–703/1295–1304) near Damascus by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 693–4/1293–4, 689–708/1299–1309, and 709– 41/1310–41) in Ramaḍān 702/1303, the powerful external enemies of the early Mamluk state disappeared. However, the fear, real or imagined, of recurring invasion by crusaders and Mongols or their allies shaped the defense policy of the Mamluks. The Mamluk defense strategy in Syria was different from that of Egypt. In Syria they dismantled the strategic coastal fortifications and moved many cities inland to deny any invading navy a bridgehead, thus, they sacrificed trade for security.7 At the northern end of Syria, in southern Anatolia, they created a buffer zone consisting of puppet client states, mostly Turkmen at the northern periphery of the sultanate. In Egypt, the Mediterranean port cities of Alexandria, Rosetta, and Damietta were too large to be dismantled, and the population of the towns was considered large enough to defend against foreign invasion, as we have mentioned earlier. Mamluk authorities therefore provided the coastal towns with fortifications and military garrisons that were a successful deterrent against any serious invasion. The Nile Delta, with its labyrinth of water canals and dikes, was an obstacle and served as a second line of defense in the event a coastal city was captured. The remaining major source of danger was North Sinai. Since antiquity, this had been the most commonly used route to invade Egypt; it also connected the two major regions of the Mamluk sultanate, Egypt and Syria. Because this area had no natural large harbor, it was not in danger of major naval invasions. The north of Sinai was lightly populated, except by marauding Bedouins (or ʿurbān, as the sources call them), who were kept in check by the central government in Cairo. The defense strategy adopted by the Mamluks involved the creation of settlements on this route; these settlements would give early warning against any approaching danger, allowing Cairo to mobilize its formidable army. Qaṭiyya and al-Ṭīna8 in northern Sinai were chosen to carry out this strategy and were 6 7

8

Ibid., 441–9; Hamza, Miṣr (2011 ed.) 286–9. Fuess, Rotting ships 47–9; Runciman, A history iii, 444. Cities like Arsūf, Caesarea, and Jaffa were completely razed to the ground. See Drory, Founding a new mamlaka 165. The re-construction of al-Ṭīna was part of a general plan undertaken by al-Ghawrī at the beginning of the tenth/sixteenth century to build a series of fortifications in Sinai; this included

26

H. HAMZA

developed to fulfill this task, in addition to other economic, administrative, and political objectives. 1.1. Al-Jifār Both Qaṭiyya and al-Ṭīna are in the northwest of Sinai (fig. 3.1), in a region traditionally called al-Jifār, though that name is no longer used in modern sources. Al-Jifār is a desert area known for its soft white sand, which makes walking difficult for man and beast alike. According to Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī (d. 626/1229) the area extends for seven days’ walk between Palestine and Egypt proper, running from Rafaḥ in the east to a place called al-Khashabī9 in the west; in other words, it is a strip of 250 kilometers running between the Suez Canal and the Gaza Strip.10 The Mediterranean Sea is its northern limit and the Tīh desert, in the middle of Sinai, is its southern border.11 The name al-Jifār, according to Yāqūt and others, is the plural of jufra, meaning ‘wide, shallow water springs,’ which were abundant in the region and were the main source of water for its inhabitants.12 By contrast, Ibn Duqmāq (d. 809/1407) and al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442) state that alJifār is derived from the verb tajaffara, meaning ‘to become tired,’ because camels and other beasts of burden became exhausted and sometimes died from walking on its soft, loose sand, and because the distances between stations are long.13 In antiquity and early Islam, the region was said to have been inhabited, fertile, with plenty of water and villages,14 but it gradually became barren, mostly desert with a few sour water springs and scattered palm groves. Bedouin inhabitants wandered around and lived in reed dwellings. Rafaḥ, ʿArīsh, al-Baqqāra, alFaramā, al-Warrāda, and Qaṭiyya were the main towns of the region.15 1.2. Qaṭiyya Qaṭiyya, a small town in al-Jifār in the northwest of Sinai, has now disappeared except for a few ruins. It is located near the road between modern Qanṭara and ʿArīsh at a distance of 65 km from the former.16 Yāqūt believes the word is

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Nakhl, Nuwaybaʿ, Ṭūr, and al-Ṭīna, in addition to ʿAqaba and ʿAjrūd on the fringes of the peninsula. See Pradines, The Mamluk fortifications 61. Identified by Ramzī as a village in the east of the modern Sharqiyya province of Egypt. See Ramzī, al-Qāmūs i, 54. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 3–4. Yaqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān ii, 145. Ibid. Ibn Duqmāq, al-Intiṣār v, 52; al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ i, 513; Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 152. Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-arḍ i, 144. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ i, 513. Ramzī, al-Qāmūs i, 350–1. For more detail on the site of the town in various sources, see

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

27

derived from the verb taqaṭṭā, meaning ‘to slow’ or ‘to turn your face away when addressed.’17 Yāqūt described Qaṭiyya as a small village in the desert with houses made of palm leaves; its inhabitants drank salty water and had a small market. Their bread was hardly chewable, as it was contaminated with sand, but the fish were abundant due to its location near the sea.18 Compare this modest description with that of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa (d. 779/1377), the Moroccan traveler. A century later, when he crossed the region in 726/1326, he described it as a famous dwelling place with a daily revenue of one thousand gold dinars!19 This was, without doubt, an exaggeration, but one that alludes to the prosperity and importance Qaṭiyya had attained during this interval of a single century. 1.2.1. Gateway to Egypt In antiquity and the early Islamic period, Qaṭiyya was an insignificant station in the al-Jifār region on the road to Syria; it was only mentioned in passing in Bedouin epic stories or by travelers crossing this desert region in the sixth/twelfth century.20 In early Islamic times, al-Faramā became the capital of the region till its final destruction by the crusaders coming from Syria in Rajab 545/1150.21 The town adjacent to al-Faramā to the west was pillaged for three days by a small fleet of Europeans (of unknown nationality); this sudden raid ended with many killed or captured and left the area devastated. The raiders managed to escape with their spoils in Jumāda I 549/1154, but many of the inhabitants who fled the area came back after the departure of the raiders.22 Such events must have contributed to the decline of al-Faramā, which remains in ruins until today,23 and the rise in the fortunes of Qaṭiyya. Al-Maqrīzī mentions Qaṭiyya as the first station in Egypt to be taken by al-ʿĀdil Abū Bakr (r. 596–615/1200–18), brother of al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ alDīn, in his march on Egypt in Rabīʿ II 695/1199 to expel his nephew al-Afḍal b. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (d. 622/1225).24 At the outset, the Mamluk sultanate in 648/1250 only ruled over Egypt, while Syria was under the rule of contending Ayyubid princes; the junior al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf b. al-ʿAzīz, ruler of Damascus (r. 634–58/1236–60), was the

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 644–6. Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān iv, 378. Ibid. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār 72 . Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 650. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ i, 577. Abū Shāma, Kitāb al-Rawḍatayn i, 249. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 11. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk i, 151.

28

H. HAMZA

main opponent of the Mamluks of Egypt. After several failed attempts by the Syrian Ayyubids to invade Egypt, a truce was concluded between the prince of Damascus and the first Mamluk sultan, al-Muʿizz Aybak (r 648–55/1250–7). The truce was brought about through the mediation of al-Muʿtaṣim (r. 640–56/1242–58), the last Abbasid caliph of Baghdad, in 654/1256 at Qaṭiyya, which was midway between the two capitals.25 Al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn of Damascus was the great-grandson and namesake of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (d. 589/1193), the hero of Islam and founder of the dynasty. The junior Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn did not inherit the valor of his ancestor, and advocated peace and surrender to the invading Mongols, thus parting with the defiant Mamluks of Egypt. The Mongols deceived him and took his capital, Damascus, in Ṣafar 658/1260, so Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn had no choice but to seek asylum at the Mamluk court in Cairo, his bitter enemies. He arrived at Qaṭiyya in Rabīʿ I 658/1260 almost alone after his troops had deserted him and fled to Cairo, but he hesitated to enter Egypt, fearing the reprisal of the Mamluk sultan, and instead returned to Syria, where he was arrested by a Mongol contingent and eventually put to death in 658/1260 after their defeat at the hands of the Egyptian Mamluks at ʿAyn Jālūt in Ramaḍān 658/1260.26 Those early events established Qaṭiyya as the eastern gateway and border crossing to Egypt before the Mamluk annexation of Syria, and it remained so afterward. The choice was logical: the town was remote and easy to defend, and strangers could hardly hide or sneak through, due to its small size and sparse local population. It was not on the coast and was surrounded by soft-sand deserts in all directions. Qaṭiyya was a compulsory stop for all passengers and merchandise, as it was the only border crossing to and from Egypt allowed by the Mamluk authorities. The town was in an open desert, without walls, but Bedouin guards prevented anyone from passing through in the night or circumnavigating the station.27 At nightfall a curfew was imposed and the town was sealed by Bedouins, who would sweep the desert sand surrounding the town to make the surface clean and smooth by removing all imprints or marks of men or beasts. Early in the morning, the Bedouin chiefs would check the smooth sand for any imprints or marks. If there were marks, they could follow the tracks and arrest the curfew violator, who could not possibly have gone far.28

25 26 27 28

Ibid. 398. Ibid. 426; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān i, 233–4; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira vii, 77. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 423. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār 72; al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 423.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

29

1.2.2. Political Events In the early stages of the battle of Homs in Rajab 680/1281 between the Egyptian Mamluks under al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (r. 678–89/1279–90) and the Mongols, the left wing of the Egyptian army was defeated and most of the survivors fled the battlefield29 to Qaṭiyya, en route to Cairo. Eventually the Egyptians won the day. The sultan initially sent troops and Bedouins to arrest the deserters in Qaṭiyya, but later pardoned them, with the intervention of the sultan’s son and heir-apparent, al-Manṣūr ʿAlī (d. 687/1289). The sultan also passed by Qaṭiyya on his victorious march back to Cairo.30 Qaṭiyya, by virtue of its location as the gateway to Egypt, played an important role in the struggle among the contending Mamluk factions; it was a place to ambush insurgent amirs or a battlefield for contending factions. There are numerous examples, but a few incidents will suffice. For example, a contingent of 300 Mamluks rebelled against the reigning sultan, al-Muẓaffar Baybars (r. 708– 9/1309–10), and defected to al-Karak in 709/1309 to join the deposed sultan alNāṣir Muḥammad; they pillaged Qaṭiyya en route and robbed its treasury.31 During the struggle for power that followed the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, Ṭashtamur Ḥummuṣ Akhḍar (d. 743/1342), nāʾib (viceroy) of Aleppo, sent a messenger to his supporters in Cairo to subvert them against the sultan, but his messenger was unable to reach Egypt, as he was arrested in Qaṭiyya in Jumādā I 742/1341.32 When amir Shaykhū (d. 758/1357), a leading amir of alNāṣir Ḥasan (r. 748–52/1347–51; 755–62/1354–61), was arrested in Damascus in Dhū al-Qaʿda 751/1351 he was sent to Qaṭiyya, then to the prison in Alexandria through al-Ṭīna, its port.33 The same happened again in Ṣafar 769/1376 when alAshraf Shaʿbān (r. 764–8/1363–77) arrested a group of rebels, including the future sultan Barqūq (r. 784–91/1382–9; 792–801/1391–9), and sent them to Qaṭiyya en route to the prison in al-Karak.34 Qaṭiyya was in the middle of the political struggle that erupted at the beginning of the Circassian period when Barqūq, the first Circassian sultan, stopped there in his pursuit of rebels in Damascus in Ramaḍān 793/1391 and in Muḥarram 794/1391.35 Barqūq stopped again on his way back to Cairo in Ṣafar 797/1394, where he arrested the ex-viceroy of Aleppo and exiled him to Dami29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Hamza, Miṣr (2011 ed.) 160–1. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk i, 697, 701. Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, al-Durar al-fākhira 168; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān iv, 89–90, 93. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 579. Ibid. ii 824. Ibid. iii, 155. Ibid. iii, 747, 761.

30

H. HAMZA

etta.36 Because of its strategic position, the town was used as a base of operations and as a depot for food, fodder, arms, tents, and other army supplies.37 The town suffered during the turbulent years of the rule of Barqūq’s son al-Nāṣir Faraj (r. 801–8/1399–1405; 808–15/1405–12); it was destroyed and pillaged by the rebel Mamluks in Jumādā I 807/1404,38 Ramaḍān 809/1407, and again in Ramaḍān 813/1411.39 After those turbulent years, a period of peace prevailed and serious campaigns against rebel amirs in Syria became less frequent. Qaṭiyya came to be a rest stop and place to receive dignitaries coming to Cairo, such as Ibrāhīm, son of alMuʾayyad Shaykh (d. 824/1421), who returned from a victorious campaign in the south of Anatolia in Muḥarram 822/1419.40 Al-Ashraf Barsbāy (d. 841/1437) also stopped there on his return from his controversial campaign against the Turkmen of Āmid in southern Anatolia in Muḥarram 837/1433.41 These conditions persisted during the later years of the sultanate. Azbak min Ṭuṭukh, the viceroy of Damascus, was promoted to the post of nāʾib alsalṭana and became amīr kabīr, the second-highest post after the sultan himself, and was ceremonially received in Qaṭiyya, on his way to Cairo in Ṣafar 873/1468.42 Yashbak min Mahdī, the second magnate of Qāytbāy sultanate, passed by Qaṭiyya in Shawwāl 875/1471 on his way to Damascus,43 then stopped at Qaṭiyya on his way to Cairo in Ramaḍān 882/1478.44 In spite of its relative isolation in the desert, Qaṭiyya was not spared the endemic of 748/1348 known as the Black Death; during this time, Egypt lost between one-third and two-fifths of its population.45 Al-Maqrīzī says that the entire population of Qaṭiyya perished in this endemic, with corpses strewn under the palm trees and in the shops; only four people were spared: the wālī (governor), two of his followers, and an old woman.46 This is, no doubt, a gross exaggeration, but it suggests the extent of the disaster.

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xii, 61. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i-2, 427, 588. Ibid. 700. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiii, 58, 109; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 41, 152. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 506. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr ii, 151. Al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Inbāʾ al-haṣr 14. Ibid. 281. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iii, 138. Raymond, Cairo 139–40; Hamza, Miṣr (2011 ed.), 266. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 775.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

31

The town was struck by plague again in Jumādā I 903/149847 and pillaged by the Bedouins in Shaʿbān 922/1516, after the defeat of al-Ghawrī (r. 906– 22/1501–16) at Marj Dābiq in Rajab.48 Finally, in Dhū al-Ḥijja 922/1517, it was the first Egyptian city to be taken by the Ottomans, without resistance.49 The Ottoman sultan Selim I (Yavuz) (r. 918–26/1512–20) rested in Qaṭiyya for three days and met with Bedouin chiefs who switched their loyalty from the Mamluks to the Ottomans—for a good reward.50 This incident shows that Qaṭiyya retained its strategic importance and facilities to the end of the Mamluk sultanate. 1.2.3. The Administration of Qaṭiyya Existing historical narratives hardly address the administration of Qaṭiyya directly, but we can draw a reasonable picture of its hierarchy by reading between the lines. A wālī (governor) appointed by Cairo was at the top of the executive branch. Under him were the body of tax collectors, the postal service, and the law enforcement contingent. As was usual in Mamluk institutions, the judiciary branch (al-qaḍāʾ) was separate from the executive branch. 1.2.3.1. Wālī of Qaṭiyya Governors of the provinces of Egypt outside Cairo were divided into three ranks; the highest were nūwwāb (plural of nāʾib), deputies of the sultan or viceroys; the second were kushshāf (plural of kāshif), inspectors (literally meaning ‘revealer’); and the lowest rank was the wālī.51 There were three nuwwāb in Egypt—one each for Alexandria, Upper Egypt, and Lower Egypt—drawn mainly from high-ranking military officers. The kushshāf were governors of the large towns outside Cairo and Alexandria, mainly responsible for keeping law and order, maintaining the infrastructure (roads, irrigation canals, bridges, dikes, etc.), and collecting taxes. Upper Egypt had seven kushshāf for the larger towns, while Lower Egypt had four; they mainly came from the middle military ranks. The wālīs were the governors of the smaller towns (the chiefs of police in Cairo, Fusṭāṭ, and Alexandria were also called wālī). There were three in Upper Egypt and four in Lower Egypt. They came from the civil or military ranks; if the latter, they were from the lowest rank. Qaṭiyya was one of the four areas of Lower Egypt with a wālī, either a civilian or a military man drawn from higher ranks as

47 48 49 50 51

Ibid. iii, 386. Ibid., v, 82. Ibid. 131, 133, 140. Ibn Zunbul, Wāqiʿat al-sulṭān al-Ghawrī 98. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iv, 28; Popper, Systematic notes i, 93, 95, 102.

32

H. HAMZA

his importance increased.52 The wālī of Qaṭiyya ranked sixteenth among the eighteen levels of the hierarchy of Egyptian provisional governors.53 Yet it seems, given the strategic importance of the town as the sole land gateway to Egypt from the east, that the wālī of Qaṭiyya was more important than his rank may indicate. He played a major role in political events and internal struggles, as he could monitor troop movements and arrest insurgents or fugitives on behalf of the authorities in Cairo. In addition, he was entrusted by Cairo with the collection of taxes (a lucrative endeavor, as revenues were high) and the guarantee of their timely and regular dispatch to Cairo. The sources are rich with the names of the governors of Qaṭiyya, some of whose tenures lasted only a few weeks, while a few stayed for many years and were reappointed several times. We have little information beyond the name and date of appointment of most of the governors of Qaṭiyya, with the exception of those who gained prominence later in their careers. Most of them bear Arabic names, indicating their civilian origins; a few have Turkish names, indicating their Mamluk military affiliation. A few of the early governors, up to the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century, bore the epitaph of al-Barīdī (‘the postman’) and came from the low rank of amīr ʿashara.54 This indicates Qaṭiyya’s limited importance during the early period, when it was just a postal station and communication center. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, however, mentions that during his stay in Qaṭiyya in 726/1326 a certain low-ranking but helpful amir called ʿIzz al-Dīn Ustādār Qumārī was wālī of the town.55 By the mid-eighth/fourteenth century, Qaṭiyya seems to have gained in importance. Baktamur b. ʿAlī al-Ḥasanī was its governor. He was promoted to the important post of wālī (chief of police) of Cairo in 764/1362–3 and was succeeded by ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Ṭashlāqī, who had been the governor of the important town of Damietta.56 Al-Ṭashlāqī kept his post for the best part of the next thirty years, with short intervals, until he was finally appointed governor of Bilbays in 795/1393.57 The notorious family of Abī al-Faraj b. Naqūlā kept the post for three generations. The first of this sequence was Tāj al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq, a convert to Islam of Armenian origin, who was appointed governor of Qaṭiyya in Rabīʿ II 52 53 54 55 56

57

Ibid. Ibid. viii, 223. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 403, 410, 419, 516. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār 72 . Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iii, 84–5; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i 2, 84. I found no biography for either of them. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iii, 782.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

33

798/1396.58 He was a native of the town and rose through its ranks, from being a ṣayrafī (cashier/money changer), the lowest rank, to nāẓir (supervisor) of tax collection, to governor. His rise was a result of the greed of the Mamluk authorities in Cairo: He promised them the hefty sum of 150,000 dirhams as a monthly payment from the customs revenue.59 He seems to have been very successful in extracting taxes from the merchants, since he was promoted to wazīr and then ustādār (major-domo) in the capital—both high financial posts—thanks to his ruthless methods of extracting money. As is usual for meteoric career changes of the period, he lost his high post twice, in Dhū al-Qaʿda 801/1399 and in Shawwāl 803/1401. After his imprisonment and torture in Shawwāl 805/1403, he resumed the position till his death in Rabīʿ II 808/1405.60 The second governor in the family was Fakhr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ghanī b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq, born in 784/1382–3. He was literate and educated as a bookkeeper, which qualified him to succeed his father as governor of Qaṭiyya in Rabīʿ II or Jumādā I 801/1399 at the young age of sixteen. He was deposed and reinstated several times.61 Like his father, he ascended to the highest financial posts of wazīr and ustādār in Cairo and the provinces. He outdid his father in notoriety, by extracting money by all possible means, including bloodshed; thus, he became a favorite of the sultans for the financial favors he offered them. For a period he fell from grace and returned to Qaṭiyya as governor, then defected to Baghdad for a while. But clearly his skills and talents for collecting money for his masters enabled him to regain his good fortune and return to his previous posts, which he filled until his death in mid-Shawwāl 821/1418 at the young age of thirty-seven, but after a long and notorious career.62 The third generation of the family to be appointed governor of Qaṭiyya was Zayn al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAbd al-Ghanī; he was appointed wālī of the city and kāshif of Sharqiyya province in Ṣafar 824/1421 at the young age of fifteen.63 Apparently, he did not serve long there and was promoted to higher financial posts in Cairo, however, he did not attain the success or notoriety of his ancestors. He died young, of the plague, in Jumādā II 833/1430.64 By the end of the sultanate, because of the external threat by the expanding Ottoman Empire, Qaṭiyya’s position became precarious and it was necessary to 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

Ibid. iii, 854. Ibid. Ibid. iii, 970, 1020, 1064, 1104; iv, 26. Ibid. iii, 925. For his biography, see Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī vii, 314–8; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ allāmiʿ viii, 248–51. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 570. For his biography, see Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī vii, 320–2; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ allāmiʿ viii, 272.

34

H. HAMZA

appoint a higher-ranking governor. The first governor of the highest military rank, amīr miʾa muqaddam alf (amir of one hundred, commander of one thousand) was called Qānṣawh Rukhlū, and was appointed by al-Ghawrī in Jumādā II 916/1510. He had been nāʾib of Gaza, and was then transferred to Aleppo, but went to Qaṭiyya instead, with its revenues assigned to him in lieu of a salary. He was also appointed commander of the Mamluk contingent, which was responsible for defense of the area, and stationed at the nearby fortress of al-Ṭīna.65 On his final and fatal journey to Syria to meet the Ottomans on the battlefield, al-Ghawrī stopped in Qaṭiyya in Rabīʿ II 922/1516 and was ceremonially greeted by its governor, Qānṣawh Rukhlū.66 The latter did not join the sultan, but remained in Qaṭiyya to defend against a possible surprise naval attack by the Ottomans and to ensure that this gateway to Egypt was well defended. The last Mamluk sultan, Ṭūmān Bāy (r. 922–3/1516–7), transferred Qānṣawh Rukhlū to be kāshif of Sharqiyya province in Dhū al-Ḥijja 922/1517 and to mend its deteriorating situation.67 The last governor of Qaṭiyya under the Mamluks met a horrendous end; according to Ibn Iyās (d. 930/1523) he was slaughtered by the Ottomans after their victory, in a fury of revenge against the surviving Mamluks of Egypt. His corpse was left to be mauled by stray dogs in the streets of Cairo.68 In the early years of the Ottoman rule, the wālī of Qaṭiyya, like those in most of the other provinces, came from the Mamluk ranks. In Muḥarram 925/1519 the Mamluk wālī named Qānbirdī refused to deliver Qaṭiyya’s revenues to Cairo, and instead defected to the rebel amir Jān Birdī al-Ghazālī with his Mamluk retinue (and the money).69 We do not know how the wālī met his end, but it likely came with the defeat of the rebellion of Jān Birdī al-Ghāzalī, which failed at the cost of the latter’s life, in Ṣafar 927/1521.70 1.2.4. Tax Collection With the establishment of Qaṭiyya as the sole land gateway between Egypt and Syria, it was logical to use it to collect taxes on the merchandise passing through it. It gained in importance as an administrative and fiscal center from the early Turkish period. Al-Maqrīzī mentions that an amir who rebelled against alMuẓaffar Baybars defected to Gaza in Jumādā II 709/1309, stopped in Qaṭiyya, arrested its wālī Badr al-Dīn Mīkhāʾīl, and seized the Bedouin horses and twenty

65 66 67 68 69 70

Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iv, 192–3, 368, 434. Ibid. v, 51. Ibid. v, 135. Ibid. v, 156. Ibid. v, 287. Hamza, Miṣr (2014 ed.), 518.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

35

thousand dirhams of tax revenues.71 Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad seems to have been the first to organize the tax collection when he set up the administration of Qaṭiyya in 715/1315 and allocated its revenue to the privy purse.72 Contemporary sources do not tell us much about this branch and only name those members who attained the high post of governor, as noted. However, we can deduce that there were three levels in the administration: the lowest was the ṣayrafī or maksī (cashier or teller), above him was the kātib or ʿāmil (clerk), and above them all was the nāẓir or shādd (superintendent) or mustawfī (auditor) who reported to the wālī. The ṣayrafī was the official who collected taxes on the merchandise that passed across the borders. The kātib kept the records of the tax revenues collected. A shādd or mustawfī, as chief financial officer, audited the books, kept them in order, and delivered the revenues to the wālī to be sent to Cairo.73 We have little information on the numbers or ranks of these officials, but we know that they were all from the ranks of the turbaned civil servants. Unlike Alexandria, which had dedicated customs houses for tax collection at the port,74 the sources and archaeological findings in Qaṭiyya do not point to any dedicated customs buildings. Al-Biqāʿī (d. 885/1480) mentions a dikka (lit., bench) as an open assembly place for the citizens,75 which was apparently used for tax collection, in lieu of a customs house. We have more information on the tax revenues from trade. At that time, there were three main points for tax collection on Egypt’s foreign trade. The first was Alexandria, where European trade, mainly with Venice, was taxed. The second covered trade routes from Yemen, India, and the East in general; the taxes for this route were collected at four ports on the Red Sea: ʿAydhāb, al-Quṣayr, Ṭūr, and Suez. The third, and the one that concerns us here, was Qaṭiyya, for trade with Syria, Iraq, and beyond.76 Taxes were levied at a rate of between five and ten percent of the value of the transit goods. They were mainly paid in cash, except in rare cases, in which they were paid in kind, especially for cloth or other valuable materials.77 According to al-Qalqashandī (d. 821/1418), Qaṭiyya was the most important tax-collection point, and a strict one, that produced the highest foreign trade 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 60. Ibid. 163. Ibid. iii, 924. Christ, Trading conflicts 209. Al-Biqāʿī, Iẓhār al-ʿaṣr iii, 302. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 538. Hamza, Qaṭiyya 59.

36

H. HAMZA

tax revenue for the privy purse.78 We do not have exact records for the tax revenue of the town, but we can make an estimate by reading the contemporary narratives. Al-Maqrīzī mentions that in 715/1315, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad allocated its revenue to the war veterans; each was allotted 3000 dirhams annually, but he did not state the total amount.79 The figure of a thousand gold dinars daily mentioned by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa in 726/1326 seems an incredible exaggeration.80 The modest figure of 70,000 dirhams (about 3,500 dinars), said to have been sent to Cairo in Rabīʿ I 794/1348 as revenue, may have been one of several installments.81 The revenues must have grown fast by the end of the eighth/fourteenth century; in Rabīʿ II 793/1391, the veteran governor of Qaṭiyya, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn alṬashlāqī, committed himself to obtaining a monthly revenue of 130,000 dirhams.82 A few years later, the revenue had clearly increased. In Rabīʿ II 798/1396, when the ambitious Tāj al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Razzāq, the first governor from the Armenian family of Ibn Abī al-Faraj al-Malakī, was appointed wālī, he pledged to draw a monthly revenue of 150,000 dirhams. 83 The sources are silent on the revenues of Qaṭiyya after this date, but it seems to have declined considerably, as a result of the poor economic conditions: in Rabīʿ II 873/1468, at the beginning of the reign of Qāytbāy, it was estimated at 1,000 dinars monthly, a much smaller amount than the 150,000 dirhams84 that was collected during the town’s heyday. Later, as part of his economic reforms, Qāytbāy annulled the tax collection at this post; in Rabīʿ II 873/1468, he declared it illegitimate85 according to the principles of the sharīʿa.86 Al-Ghawrī reversed this decision later, but the diminishing revenues of the town must have induced him to exclude its revenues from the privy purse and instead, in Jumādā II 916/1510, he allocated it as personal revenue to the governor of the town, in lieu of a salary.87

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 538. This allocation was canceled shortly afterwards. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 156. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār 72 . Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 760. Ibid. iii, 736. Ibid. iii, 854. Al-Jawharī al-Sayrafī, Inbāʾ al-haṣr 39. There are seven types of legitimate taxes. The first is the agricultural land tax (kharāj). The second is the mining tax. The third is zakāt, charity by private persons distributed through the treasury (bayt al-māl). The fourth is the poll tax (jawālī), imposed on Christians and Jews. The fifth is the transit trade tax imposed on non-Muslim merchants. The sixth is a tax on the estates of deceased persons without heirs (al-mawārīth al-ḥashriyya), which is added to the bayt almāl. The seventh is a tax on mint revenues. See al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 519–38. Al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Inbāʾ al-haṣr 39, 217, 220. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iv, 192, 368.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

37

1.2.5. The Postal and Homing Pigeon Service Al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658–76/1260–77) was the first Mamluk sultan to introduce a regular, efficient postal service in the Mamluk domains in Egypt and Syria, though it was interrupted during the Timurid invasion of Syria and the temporary occupation of Damascus in 803/1401.88 The service later deteriorated and never recovered to the level of its glory days.89 The postal service was part of the dīwān al-inshāʾ (chancery) headed by the kātib al-sirr (confidential secretary) in the Cairo citadel who was a subordinate to the dawādār (inkpot bearer), a high post normally held by a senior amir of the highest military rank.90 Letters were carried inside silver plates engraved on one side with Quranic phrases and on the other side with the name and titles of the reigning sultan. The plate hung around the postman’s neck with a ribbon hidden within his clothes. A yellow tassel attached to the postman’s back was a mark of his mission. After the delivery of the letters, he returned the plates to the chancery for further use.91 The postal center was in the citadel, and had four routes branching from it. The first went south, in the direction of Qūṣ up to Aswan. The second went southeast along the Red Sea coast in the direction of ʿAydhāb, up to Sawākin in the Sudan. The third went northwest to Alexandria. The fourth went northeast to Damietta and Gaza, then to Syria.92 Qaṭiyya was the twelfth station (of the fifteen stations up to Rafaḥ)93 after Cairo on the last route to Syria.94 The distance between stations was measured by a unit called a barīd, estimated to be four farsakh (six kilometers),95 or about 24 kilometers, but this varied, depending on water availability and the nature of the terrain.96 The post from Cairo took four days to reach Damascus and vice versa.97 At Qaṭiyya, as at other stations, the postman exchanged his horse for a fresh one. The horses used in the first stages up to Bilbays, which was the third station en route to Syria, were provided by the royal stables, as were the forage and grooming lads. After Bilbays, Bedouins provided fresh horses, forage, and 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Silverstein, Postal systems 183. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 415, 416. Silverstein, Postal systems 172. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 410–1. Ibid. xiv, 418–9. Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, al-Durar al-fākhira 114. Ibid. xiv, 423. A unit of distance, most probably of Persian origin. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 7. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 412. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ i, 615–6.

38

H. HAMZA

groomers at each station. The horses were replaced monthly by fresh stock.98 The Bedouins provided each station with ten horses.99 Another branch of the postal service handled the fast delivery of urgent mail by homing pigeons. This service was also based in the citadel of Cairo, in one of its numerous towers, called Burj al-Maṭār (lit., ‘tower of flying’). Birds were sent from here to Aswan, ʿAydhāb, Alexandria, and Damietta en route to Gaza and then Syria. Qaṭiyya was the third station on this route before Gaza.100 The letters were written on special paper in brief phrases, dated by the hour, and opened only by the sultan personally.101 This express communication system played a crucial role in political events; it served as an early warning device for authorities in Cairo, who could be told about unexpected visitors in advance, or could help track fugitives from the capital. Messages were also relayed optically, using beacons (manāwir) or fires on top of a series of mountains or high structures in Syria (fire signals at night and smoke by day) that were on the same line of sight. The beacons started at the border forts of Raḥba and al-Bīra on the Euphrates and ended at Gaza (because of the flat nature of the terrain beyond there); once the messages were received they were conveyed to Cairo by homing pigeons. The use of beacons was essential during the years of conflict between the Mamluk sultanate and the Mongols (1260–1335), but was abandoned afterward due to the high costs involved.102 The combined use of land post (providing detailed messages), homing pigeons (providing fast but short messages), and beacons (providing super fast early warnings) made the Mamluk postal system an “unprecedented institution.”103 1.2.6. The Judiciary This branch of government, which dispensed justice in the towns, was independent of the executive branch, and was not subject to the wālī. It consisted of a judge (qāḍī), assisted by shuhūd (singular shāhid), or witnesses;104 the responsibility of the latter was to guarantee the correctness of the court procedures. It appears that the judges of Qaṭiyya did not usually reside there, but came from the large towns of the east Delta provinces, such as Damietta. One of the most famous judges assigned to the town court was Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. ʿAbd 98 99 100

101 102 103 104

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 422. Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, al-Durar al-fākhira 114. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 437–8; Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 116–7. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ iii, 748. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 445–7. Silverstein, Postal systems 176–9, 185. Ibn Duqmāq, al-Intiṣār v, 82.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

39

al-Qādir al-Shīshīnī (d. 853/1449) from the Lower Egypt provincial town of alMaḥalla. Later in his career he accumulated a large fortune, reached the higher echelons of power, and, because of his sense of humor and amicability, became a favorite of al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq.105 Generally speaking, the sources say little about the judges of the town, unlike the governors. 1.2.7. Iced Snow Transport Long before the age of refrigeration, ice was a natural product found at the summits of the snowy mountains of Syria, but was not available in Egypt. The ice needed by the extravagant royal sharābkhāna (beverage and medicine store) at the citadel was imported as iced snow from the mountains of Syria.106 Special boats transported snow three to eight times a year from Tripoli, Lebanon to Damietta, then by riverboat to Būlāq and the citadel. It was stored in special tanks and handled by specialized workers called thallājūn (ice handlers).107 During the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, iced snow was transported on land by camel, as this means of transport was considered cleaner and meant higher quality iced snow reached the destination.108 Seventeen stations were established from Damascus to the citadel; Qaṭiyya was the twelfth station from Damascus. Each station was provided with five camels for carrying snow, all of whom were escorted by snow handlers, plus a sixth for the camel drive. Snow was transported in a season that lasted from June to November and was transported in over seventy-one lots, at equal intervals to guarantee a continuous supply; all of this was done under the supervision of the chancellery at the Cairo citadel.109 1.2.8. The Population The indigenous population of Qaṭiyya, like the region around it, consisted mainly of Bedouins of Arab origin who raised palm trees in the fertile areas. Qaṭiyya is surrounded by marshlands, so the palm groves were not as numerous as in other areas.110 Its Bedouins also engaged in palm trading, served as auxiliaries 105

106

107 108

109 110

Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Ḥawādith al-duhūr i, 182; al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ viii, 281–2; alSakhāwī, al-Tibr al-masbūk ii, 218. Fresh snow from the Syrian mountains was piled in underground pits, then compacted to solidify it into ice. It was then covered with straw and soil to insulate it from the air and prevent it from melting, then it was stored for the winter and transported during the summer. See Sulaymān, al-Thalj 266–7; al-Zaʿarīr, al-Barīd 111. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā xiv, 440–2. Sources do not mention how much iced snow could be carried by a single camel, but it is believed that a camel could carry as much as four times his weight. Sulaymān, al-Thalj 278. Ibid. 443–4; Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 117–8. Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 34.

40

H. HAMZA

in the army, and, paradoxically, raided the caravans passing through this solitary desert stretch and pillaged the town itself a few times.111 The Bedouins were entrusted with the job of guarding the desert route up to the Syrian borders. Their chiefs became amirs and received fiefs in return for their services. The most famous tribes at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century were the al-ʿĀʾid, Judhām, and Thaʿāliba, and they numbered around 1,700 cavalry.112 Apart from the indigenous Bedouin population, there must have been other residents, most of whom came from Egypt proper as civil servants for the various government departments to work in tax collection, passport control, the courts of justice, trade, and to serve the inflow of travelers. The population also must have included men of learning; al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497) mentions in his exhaustive biography of his master Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) that the latter stopped in Qaṭiyya in Shaʿbān 802/1400 to study with his tutor on their way to Syria.113 A Jewish community was an unlikely group to reside in remote Qaṭiyya. Cytryn-Silverman mentions a Geniza letter dated 23 Rajab 460/28 May 1067 from a Jew called Nessim in Qaṭiyya to a rabbi in Fusṭāṭ, informing him that a synagogue was demolished by Muslims.114 Verreth mentions the presence, in Qaṭiyya, of a Jewish community that made important donations to the Jews of Cairo in 853–4/1450115 and also says that a synagogue was built there and was destroyed in the tenth/sixteenth or eleventh/seventeenth century.116 None of the contemporary Arabic narratives known to me, however, mention anything related to a Jewish presence in Qaṭiyya that might corroborate these claims. Qaṭiyya must have had a trading community and a thriving marketplace, given its location as a gateway to Mamluk Egypt. Yāqūt mentions that it had a small market, and that bread (though of poor quality) and fish were abundant.117 It was also an army depot and logistics station, where ammunition, food, fodder, arms, and supplies for the ruling Mamluks were stockpiled.118

111 112 113 114

115

116

117 118

Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 700; v, 82. Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, al-Durar al-fākhira 114. Al-Sakhāwī, al-Jawāhir wa-l durar i, 156, 192, 194. R. Gottheil and W.H. Worrell (eds.), Fragments from the Cairo Genizah in the Freer Collection, New York 1927, 228–35, letter XLVII, cited in Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 10; Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 650. Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 656, based on a letter translated in Gottheil and Worrell, Fragments 138–41, no. 30. N. Golb, The topography of the Jews of medieval Egypt, in JNES 24 (1974), 116–49 (146), cited in Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 656. Yāqūt, Mujʿam al-buldān iv, 378. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 427, 588.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

41

In addition to the permanent settlers living in the town, the number of people transiting through Qaṭiyya was estimated at 82,000 in a seven-month period in 693/1294, not counting those who managed to sneak around the checkpoints.119 Almost two centuries later, in 876/1472, sources mention that traffic through Qaṭiyya normally consisted of caravans of at least 200 camels; these caravans were large for security purposes.120 Almost all the sultans who traveled to Syria in the ninth/fifteenth century stopped in Qaṭiyya. Al-Nāṣir Faraj stopped there in Shaʿbān 802/1400; Barsbāy stopped on his way back from his controversial Anatolian campaign in Muḥarram 837/1433; Qāytbāy in Ramaḍān 882/1477, and al-Ghawrī on his last and fatal trip in Rabīʿ II 922/1516.121 1.2.9. Travelers’ Accounts of Qaṭiyya Emmanuel Piloti was a prosperous Venetian merchant (born in Crete in 1371) and an elder veteran of Egyptian affairs who lived in Alexandria and traded in the Levant for over forty years, from 1396 till approximately 1436.122 He visited Qaṭiyya in 1441, and describes it as a key supply station halfway between Cairo and Jerusalem. He states that it had plenty of water and was a major water supply station for the armies marching to Syria.123 Rabbi Meshullam of Volterra visited Qaṭiyya in 1481 and described it as a “beautiful place with many date trees and no protecting wall; the emir lived there.”124 Meshullam was an Italian Jewish jeweler who lived in Florence. He visited Alexandria on his way to the Holy Land, traveled through Sinai, and returned to Italy via Damascus and Crete.125 The Flemish traveler Joos van Ghistele (d. ca. 1525) stopped in Qaṭiyya126 in 1482. According to him, it was four or five days’ travel west of Gaza and was the first inhabited area that a traveler encountered after Gaza. He described it as a small village in the middle of the desert, one that seemed poor from the outside, but where many wealthy people lived. He added that it was possible to buy 119

120 121 122 123

124

125 126

J.-M. Mouton, Le Sinaï médiéval: Un espace stratégique de l'islam (Islamiques), Paris 2000, cited in Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 653. Al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Inbāʾ al-haṣr 419. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 427, 488; ii, 151; iii, 138; v, 51. Wolff, How many miles 17. H. Dopp, Traité d'Emmanuel Piloti sur le passage en Terre sainte (1420), Publications de l'Université Lovanium de Léopoldville 4, Louvain-Paris 1958, 237, cited in Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 656. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 14, based on M. da Voltera, Viaggio in Terra d’Israele, trans. Alessandra Veronese, Rimini 1989, 60–3. Jewish encyclopedia online 2015 (art. Rabbi Meshullam of Volterra). He calls it Cattia.

42

H. HAMZA

whatever one needed, and that it was in the middle of a date palm grove, but beyond it, one could only see sand.127 Rabbi Obadiah b. Abraham of Bertinoro lived in Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century, then moved to Jerusalem, where he died around 1500.128 He passed by Qaṭiyya in 1488 and described it in terms similar to Van Ghistele.129 The German knight and pilgrim Arnold von Harff (d. 1505) visited Qaṭiyya (which he called Kathia) in 1499 on his way to Jerusalem.130 He traveled across the desert route from Bilbays and found many stops, each with a well with salty water and a house in ruins, at intervals of a day’s journey; the stops had been established by the sultan to provide travelers with water along the route each day.131 He described Qaṭiyya as follows: This is a great village lying in the desert belonging to the wild Arabs who live on certain date plantations, of which great numbers grow in the hot sand, in plantations of some forty or fifty 132 acres, beneath which the wild Arabs live besides the trees in small huts like wild beasts.

1.2.10. Survey and Excavation The Ben-Gurion University Survey expedition of Northern Sinai (1972–8) found, in addition to pottery sherds, the remains of a thick wall of fired bricks, arches, and granite columns dating back to the Mamluk and Ottoman periods in Qaṭiyya.133 At present, very little remains of the town. It is believed to cover a large area spread over several hills; it has been excavated, slowly, by the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities (SCA, predecessor of the State Ministry for Antiquities) since 1980. The SCA mission found a mosque in ruins (fig. 3.2). Samy Abd al-Malik, who led an excavation team of the SCA in 2001–2, attributed this mosque to al-Ẓāhir Baybars, but did not offer conclusive evidence.134 A major survey and excavation work of this area is necessary to identify the buildings that housed the administration and other activities of the population. These buildings likely include a dikka or terrace for assemblies of the population and tax collection, the governor’s house, the stables for postal services, towers for homing pigeons, and the synagogue, all of which were mentioned above. In addi127 128 129

130 131 132 133 134

Van Ghistele, Voyage en Égypte 10–1; Verreth, The northern Sinai i, 657. Jewish encyclopedia online 2015 (art. Rabbi Obadiah b. Abraham of Bertinoro). O.Y. da Bertinorom, Lettere dalla Terra Santa, ed. and trans. G. Bussi, Romini 1991, 44, cited in Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 15. Ibid. Von Harff, The pilgrimage 184. Ibid. 184–5. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 20. Abd al-Malik, Military castles i, 121.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

43

tion, there must have been the usual establishments that are necessary for everyday life, though they may not be specifically mentioned in the narratives; these would include a flour mill, a bakery, a public bath (ḥammām), water wells, a hospital (bīmāristān), and so on. 1.3. Al-Ṭīna: A Fort and a Port for Qaṭiyya Al-Ṭīna was a small isolated port near, but not on, the route to Syria. A fort protected it with a few buildings scattered around, including several huge water cisterns to the south of the fort. Today, nothing remains of the town except the ruins of the fort,135 the houses, and the cisterns; the port has disappeared completely. Al-Ṭīna is located in a plain of the same name (sahl al-Ṭīna) in the extreme northwest of Sinai, about 35 kilometers to the east of Port Fuʾād (the twin city of Port Said) and three kilometers from the coast (fig. 3.5).136 The Pelusiac branch of the Nile passed by this area near al-Ṭīna and alFaramā (ancient Pelusium) and brought with it alluvium. When the Pelusiac branch dried out and disappeared sometime in the third/ninth century,137 the alluvial sediments gave the area its characteristic argillaceous soil (ṭīn), hence the name al-Ṭīna.138 The area between Damietta and al-Faramā, including the Ṭīna plain, subsided slowly over time due to geological faults; this created a depression, which dried out and is now marshland.139 During the Mamluk era the area had a small lake (Lake Ṭīna) connected to the Damietta branch of the Nile by a tributary in the south. Lake Ṭīna was also linked by two openings or straits to a bay (Ṭīna bay or jūna), that opens onto a stretch of the Mediterranean coast to the north, as shown on the map (fig. 3.3). Yāqūt describes al-Ṭīna as a bulayda, or ‘small town’ in Egypt, between al-Faramā and Tinnīs (an ancient city to the east of the Delta).140 Ibn Duqmāq (d. 809/1407) describes al-Ṭīna as a border town of Egypt, and says that it was considered a suburb of Damietta.141 The remoteness of the place, the small harbor, and the harsh nature of the terrain made the place unsuitable for large naval landings 135

136 137

138 139 140 141

At present the ruins of the fort are in a restricted area. I took the photos of the site in June 2015. Abou El Magd, Environmental impact 60. Cooper, The medieval Nile 209, 226. Cytryn-Silverman, however, states that the Pelusiac branch of the Nile dried out in the sixth century, before the Islamic conquest of Egypt. CytrynSilverman, The settlement 4 (based on Afik Qadum, Shel ha-Nilus [in Hebrew], Hadashot Arkheologiyot 47 (1973), 29). Abou El Magd, Environmental impact 61–2. Cooper, The medieval Nile 87. Yāqūt, Muʾjam al-buldān iv, 56. Ibn Duqmāq, al-Intiṣār v, 42, 81.

44

H. HAMZA

by the crusaders or anyone else trying to conquer Egypt; in this sense, it was unlike Damietta or Alexandria. However, al-Ṭīna was the target of European pirate attacks throughout the history of the sultanate. 1.3.1. European Pirate Attacks There were brief, but frequent, attacks of European pirates seeking to pillage the few anchoring ships and the surrounding poor neighborhood of al-Ṭīna. There are two many examples to enumerate, but as early as Ṣafar 771/1369 an amir called Muḥammad b. Ṭāz captured twenty-four European pirates at al-Ṭīna; sources do not mention their nationality.142 In Rabīʿ II 785/1383, a group of European pirates raided al-Ṭīna again, captured seven natives, and released them for ransom in Damietta.143 During the turbulent last year of the reign of al-Nāṣir Faraj, in Rabīʿ II 814/1411, the authorities arrested a Genoese commander after a fight with a rival Catalan faction in Alexandria, and a ransom of 150,000 dinars was demanded for his release. The Genoese retaliated by sailing to al-Ṭīna, pillaging the town and its surroundings, and looting the merchants; this forced the Mamluk authorities to release the Genoese commander for a reduced ransom of 60,000 dinars.144 A similar event took place a few months later, in Ramaḍān 814/1411, when a European flotilla of six ships attacked Damietta. A fierce fight ensued till darkness fell; the flotilla withdrew and pillaged al-Ṭīna during the night. They came back to Damietta the next morning, where they were defeated and were forced to sail off after losing two sailors and some of their weaponry.145 A hiatus in the raids followed for the next thirty years, while the sultanate regained stability after the turbulent years at the turn of the century, but by the middle of the ninth/fifteenth century, the raids resumed.146 In Dhū al-Qaʿda 844/1441 a Catalan flotilla of ten ships attacked Beirut, captured a ship loaded with merchandise, and sold forty prisoners into the slave market. The sultan was worried about a possible raid on the northern Egyptian coast, so he sent reinforcement in the form of 100 ḥalqa (army reservist) soldiers to al-Ṭīna, which was the nearest port to Syria, Rosetta, and Damietta.147 142

143 144 145 146

147

The sources call them firanja, which denotes Europeans in general. See al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iii, 180; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 93. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iii, 491; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 329. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 182; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr i, 2, 814. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 194. Ahmed Darrag mentions several incidents of pirate attacks on al-Ṭīna in the context of Mamluk-European conflicts in the ninth/fifteenth century. See Darrag, al-Mamālīk wa-l-Firanj 68, 105, 141. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 1228; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr ii, 228.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

45

In Jumādā II 855/1451 a European pirate flotilla attacked Tyre on the Syrian coast but was defeated, so they attacked al-Ṭīna a few days later. Five Egyptians were killed, as well as a few of the attackers, but the flotilla managed to withdraw.148 In Rabīʿ II 877/1472, during the reign of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy, 100 Mamluk soldiers were sent to al-Ṭīna to fight a European flotilla attacking travelers in the area. The Mamluk contingent repulsed the flotilla, and captured one boat and several European prisoners who were sent to Cairo.149 1.3.2. The Forts Al-Ṭīna was the target of numerous pirate attacks, as outlined above, that ended mostly in failure or with petty gains, but it was never attacked by a massive naval force. The Mamluk authorities initially responded by sending an expeditionary force to deal with the pirates, but eventually decided to build a fort in al-Ṭīna. 1.3.2.1. Fort of Barsbāy The first known fort (the sources call it burj, lit., ‘tower’) was built by alAshraf Barsbāy in Rabīʿ II 828/1426.150 The construction was supervised by Zayn al-Dīn b. Fakhr al-Dīn b. Abī al-Faraj al-Armanī,151 the governor of Qaṭiyya. The fort, according to the sources, had a square plan, with each side measuring thirty ell (approximately fifteen meters). Twenty-five Mamluks, ten cavalry, and a group of local Bedouins manned it. In Dhū al-Qaʿda 844/1441, reinforcements from awlād al-nās (reservists) were sent to garrison the fort.152 Barsbāy’s fort was pillaged and partially or totally damaged by bombardment during a European pirate raid in Jumādā II 855/1451.153 On his deathbed, alAshraf Īnāl (r. 857–65/1453–61) sent his son-in-law Bardabak al-Dawādār in Rabīʿ I 865/1460 to al-Ṭīna to inspect the area, and to build a fort or perhaps repair the old one.154 The sources are silent on the outcome of this mission; perhaps the project was abandoned due to the death of the sultan shortly afterward. The fort disappeared completely at this time, though its site is thought to have been used by al-Ghawrī, who built a new fort, as discussed below.155 148 149 150

151 152 153 154

155

Al-Sakhāwī, al-Tibr al-masbūk iii, 97. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iii, 79. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 683; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 272; Ibn Shāhīn alẒāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 34; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr ii, 97. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 683. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr ii, 229. Al-Sakhāwī, al-Tibr al-masbūk iii, 97; al-Biqāʿī, Iẓhār al-ʿaṣr i, 126. Al-Biqāʿī, Iẓhār al-ʿaṣr iii, 201, 206; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xvi, 156; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr ii, 366. Abd al-Malik argues that Barsbāy in fact built two forts; he bases this solely on a statement by Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī in his Zubdat kashf al-mamālik; one fort was completely destroyed and

46

H. HAMZA

1.3.2.2. Fort of al-Ghawrī Qānṣawh al-Ghawrī ordered the construction of a fort in al-Ṭīna in Dhū alQaʿda 914/1509.156 A senior amir named Timurbāy al-Hindī was dispatched to supervise the construction, which took about six months, and was completed in Rabīʿ I 915/1509.157 The fort was garrisoned by 100 Mamluks from the ranks of awlād al-nās, who manned it on a rotational basis, for one year at a time. Qānṣawh Rukhlū, amīr miʾa muqaddam alf, who was the last Mamluk governor of Qaṭiyya, was appointed commander of the fort as well.158 Obviously, the construction of this fort was part of a general effort to fortify Egyptian ports against possible attacks by the Ottomans, in view of the growing tension between the two contending Muslim sultanates.159 The remains of the fort still exist today near the town of Balūẓa in the northwestern corner of Sinai (31˚3’37” N, 32˚30’45”E) in a flat marshy area about three kilometers south of the coast (figs. 3.4 and 3.5).160 It is widely believed that the new fort was built on the same site as the old fort of Barsbāy, mentioned earlier, as evidenced by the discovery, during recent excavation work at the fort site, of a silver dirham minted by Barsbāy.161 However, so far we do not have any other documentary or archaeological evidence to corroborate this assumption. The fort162 was aligned to the four cardinal points on a north-south axis with a unique plan of a regular octagon163 (fig. 3.6). It consisted of two concentric parts, the inner keep and the enceinte, a typical arrangement for Mamluk fortifications.164 The inner keep (fig. 3.7) was built on three levels, the underground level containing an octagonal cistern for protected water storage. The ground level con-

156 157 158 159 160

161 162

163

164

disappeared, as mentioned above, and the second still stands in ruins on a nearby island called Umm Mafraj. See Abd al-Malik, al-Mawrūth al-taʾrīkhī 123–4. No other contemporary sources or narratives, however, mention this second fort. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iv, 146. Ibid. 157. Ibid. 157, 192. Pradines, The Mamluk fortifications 61. The original site was on a bay at the Mediterranean Sea overlooking a lake that has now dried up, as is shown below. Abd al-Malik, Military castles i, 332. For a historical and archaeological study of the fort site, see S. Tamari, Qalʿat al-Tīna in Sinai [in Hebrew], Ramat Gan 1978 (non vidi). This work is based on a survey made during the Israeli occupation of Sinai and has been superseded by the SCA survey in the 1990s. Octagonal forts are virtually unknown in Egypt and the Islamic world, although the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the oldest extant Islamic monument, is octagonal. For similar examples in other parts of the Islamic world, though not octagonal, see Pradines, The Mamluk fortifications 72. For a discussion of the evolutionary pattern of Mamluk fortifications in Egypt, see ibid. 86–8.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

47

sisted of a bent entrance at the south side (fig. 3.8), which opened to an inner court (fig. 3.9) through a vestibule covered by a rare cross vault made of bricks rather than the usual stone (fig. 3.10). The inner keep provided accommodation for the commander and officers of the military contingent. It also provided space for the storage of food supplies, armaments, and water, lavatories, and accommodation for special guards.165 The enceinte (fig. 3.11) was a larger, separate octagonal fortification with a thick wall encircling rooms behind it. It was separated from the inner keep by a distance of about six meters (fig. 3.12). Three-quarter circle towers (fig. 3.13) were built at the eight corners of the octagon. The southern wall was the main façade with the main entrance to the fort, and a bent entrance with a vestibule on the same axis as the entrance to the inner keep (fig. 3.14). There was a mosque at the eastern wall of the fort (fig. 3.15); it was rectangular in shape with two aisles, a brick minbar, and a miḥrāb. This mosque is mentioned in the sources as having a Friday khuṭba as well.166 The enceinte rooms were used for the accommodation of soldiers, and secondary stores for food and armaments. It had lavatories and a flourmill, according to recent excavations.167 Both parts use bearing walls made of limestone at the lower layers and bricks at the higher layers. Barrel vault ceilings made of bricks were employed to minimize the use of scarce wood, only the keep entrance was made of wood. The construction materials used at this fort, which included stone, bricks, wood, marble, and granite, are thought to have been cannibalized from the ruins of nearby al-Faramā. 1.3.3. The Port Al-Ṭīna, though not a large harbor like Alexandria or Damietta, was adequate to receive large ships and was used for sea transport, mainly to Damietta, Alexandria, Syria, and Levantine ports. Sources abound with reports of such voyages, of which we may mention a few. In Dhū al-Qaʿda 748/1348, Shaykhū, a senior amir, was arrested in Damascus and sent to Alexandria via al-Ṭīna.168 The viceroy of Aleppo, Jalbān al-Kamushbughāwī, was arrested at Qaṭiyya in Ṣafar 165

166 167 168

For an exhaustive description with measurements of the inner keep, see Abd al-Malik, Military castles i, 372–91; Ṣāliḥ and Ziyāda, Ribāṭ sahl al-Ṭīna; Pradines, The Mamluk fortifications 70–2. For a detailed description of the engineering aspects of the construction of the fort, including the foundation, walls, ceilings, and the soil, and for its current physical condition, see Abou El Magd, Environmental impact 218–24. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr v, 94. Abd al-Malik, Military castles i, 335–6. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 824; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira x, 221.

48

H. HAMZA

797/1394 and sent to Damietta via al-Ṭīna.169 In Ramaḍān 816/1413, al-Muʾayyad Shaykh lured the rebellious amir Damurdāsh al-Muḥammadī to Egypt from Aleppo by sea via al-Ṭīna, then arrested and executed him.170 A few years later, in Muḥarram 824/1421, during the succession struggle following the death of alMuʾayyad Shaykh, his dawādār Muqbil fled from the capital to Syria by sea via al-Ṭīna.171 The only major successful naval campaign undertaken by the sultanate was al-Ashraf Barsbāy’s invasion and annexation of Cyprus, which he undertook in three campaigns between Ramaḍān 827/1424 and Ramaḍān 829/1426.172 Al-Ṭīna was the port of disembarkation of the entire fleet of the second, victorious, campaign on its return to Egypt in Shawwāl 828/1425.173 Part of the third campaign, which captured the king of Cyprus, arrived in al-Ṭīna in Ramaḍān 829/1426 as the enormous fleet was scattered among the Egyptian ports because of the changing wind directions.174 Al-Ṭīna was an alternative for vessels who could not land in for Alexandria and Damietta because of bad weather, as al-Ṭīna seems to have enjoyed a a better position in relation to winds. For example, Egypt is poor in wood resources, so it was customary to send seasonal naval expeditions to an area called al-Jūn at the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean near Antioch to buy wood for building ships, and sail back to al-Ṭīna and/or Damietta. In one such expedition, in Jumādā II 856/1452, a flotilla laden with wood encountered bad weather and had to anchor in al-Ṭīna instead of Damietta.175 In another case, ships returning from a failed campaign to occupy Rhodes in Ṣafar 865/1460 sought refuge in al-Ṭīna.176 In sum, al-Ṭīna was an active secondary port during the Mamluk era, as evidenced by the narratives. The port was abandoned and disappeared after the Mamluk period, perhaps because the tributary that supplied the lake with water and connected the port to the Nile dried up, but also due to the decline of its strategic importance when Egypt became an Ottoman province, though it remained an important town, unlike Qaṭiyya. With no visible traces and without marine archaeological excavations, we only have documentary sources with which to investigate the port. Fortunately, we have a contemporary source, Kitāb-i Baḥriye by the Ottoman admiral Piri Reis, 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

Al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iii, 825. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 14. Ibid. 170–1. Hamza, Miṣr (2014 ed.), 145–52. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 280; al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-nufūs iii, 83. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira xiv, 298; al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-nufūs iii, 93. Al-Biqāʿī, Iẓhār al-ʿaṣr i, 218. Ibid. iii, 181–2, 217–8.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

49

written (around 927–30/1520–3) as a navigational manual for the Ottoman navy. He included in his book, among other information, a map and description of the coast of Damietta and its surroundings, including al-Ṭīna (fig. 3.16). According to the map, there was a port, a fort, and a lake called Ṭīna connected to the Mediterranean, ten nautical miles to the east of Damietta.177 The Ṭīna port denoted on the map, in Ottoman Turkish as ‫ليمـان ـتنـه‬ ‫ ـ ـ‬is shown in front of Lake Ṭīna with a large ship at anchor. The port has two entrances, one smaller than the other, and is bound by two land projections. It was obviously deep enough to harbor large ships, as is indicated on the map (fig. 3.17). Lake Ṭīna (‫ )بـــحـــريـــات تـــنـــه‬is shown as a small lake extending south with a couple of small islands. A small ship is shown at anchor, indicating the shallowness of the lake compared to the port (fig. 3.18). Such ships were normally used for river transport. The map also shows a small tributary connected to the main Damietta branch of the Nile, as we discuss below. According to Piri Reis, the Bedouins used to fish in the lake, as it abounded with fish. In addition, the map shows a beacon (‫)الـ ـمـ ـنـ ـاره‬, on the southern shore of the lake, and a fort (‫ )بــــــورج‬at the eastern entrance to the lake facing the port, indicated by the name ‫ تــنــه‬on the map. The fort is drawn as a square with two stories, but the general consensus is that this is the octagonal al-Ghawrī fort. Perhaps the octagonal shape was ignored as an unnecessary detail. Yāqūt mentions that Lake Tinnīs was separated from the sea by a land bar like an island, extending from the east at al-Faramā and al-Ṭīna, with an opening to the sea, to a place called al-Qurbāj in the west, with a second opening connecting the lake to the Mediterranean.178 Cooper suggests that the area between Damietta and al-Faramā was subjected to a general seismic process that resulted in the formation of a depression that was filled by Nile water, causing the expansion of Lake Tinnīs to cover modern-day Lake Manzala up to al-Faramā in Sinai.179 We can conclude that Lake Ṭīna was part of Lake Tinnīs, which was shrinking to the west, leaving Lake Ṭīna as a small, separate lake open to the sea in the north, as depicted by Piri Reis in the early tenth/sixteenth century. Piri Reis’s map also shows a canal connecting the lake to the Damietta branch of the Nile, but he does not give it a name (figs. 3.3 and 3.16). According to Cooper, the Abū al-Munajjā canal was artificially dug in 506/1112180 to replace part of the defunct Pelusiac branch of the Nile. In the ninth/fifteenth century it was extended by a new section called Banū Munajjā that ran to the sea at al-Ṭīna near 177 178 179 180

Abd al-Malik, Military castles i, 399. Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān ii, 52; Cooper, The medieval Nile 88. Cooper, The medieval Nile 87. Al-Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ al-ḥunafāʾ iii, 50.

50

H. HAMZA

al-Faramā. It was a seasonal canal, like several others that carried water for a limited period during the rise of the Nile after September of each year.181 A branch of the Nile called Banū Munajjā, which reached al-Ṭīna fort, was also mentioned by Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī (d. 873/1469).182 This must be the small tributary on Piri Reis’s map that was used for navigation and transport to the Damietta branch and onward to other destinations and to supply fresh water to the al-Ṭīna area. 2. Conclusion “Periphery in the middle” is not just monomorphic metaphorical jargon, but a real description of these two northern Sinai settlements located between the two parts of the sultanate, Egypt and Syria. The military doctrine of the Mamluk authorities held that Syria was the first line of defense against external enemies; it was also a nursery that fomented insurgency by internal factions threatening the incumbent sultan at the Cairo citadel. Control of the main travel route and the flow of communications to Syria was therefore of vital importance to the sultanate; hence the strategic importance of Qaṭiyya and al-Ṭīna as key settlements that controlled this route and the gateway to Egypt. Unfortunately, modern scholarly, specialized studies on the history of northern Sinai in general are scarce183 and very little has been published on Qaṭiyya. Here I have endeavored for the first time to show that Qaṭiyya was a thriving town; it was a civic center, as well as the administrative, financial, and border-control point (zimām184 al-darb)185 of the vital route to Syria. Its importance is attested by the steady elevation of the status of its governor, from a humble official or postmaster at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century to middleranking officers, up to the highest rank of officers in the early years of the tenth/ sixteenth century.186 Another indication of its importance can be found in the writings of historians like al-Maqrīzī, who used it as a reference point when describing the locations of lesser-known settlements.187 Al-Ṭīna, however, was dependent on Qaṭiyya for its civic activities, and was its port188 as well as its defensive fort against any threat. It had no governor, administration, or judge of its own. It was isolated, as it was not on al-Darb al181 182 183 184

185 186 187 188

Cooper, The medieval Nile 94, 119. Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 34. Cytryn-Silverman, The settlement 4. Zimām literally means reins, meaning that the town controlled the route (al-darb) as the rein controls a horse. Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 34. See the section on the wālī above. Al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ i, 616; Hamza, Qaṭiyya 49. Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik 34.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

51

Sulṭānī (the main highway to Damascus and Syria) or on the postal route as Qaṭiyya was, hence this symbiotic relation and the interdependence of the two.189 Both were comparatively near Cairo and in close contact with the capital; thus, they acted as an early warning post, and played a pivotal role in the military and economic affairs of the sultanate. With the tragic collapse of the sultanate and once Egypt became a province of the Ottoman Empire in 923/1517, the importance of Qaṭiyya fell dramatically, and ʿArīsh became the gateway to Egypt instead. By contrast, up to the early years of the nineteenth century, al-Ṭīna kept its status as a fort garrisoned with a military contingent.190

189 190

Hamza, Qaṭiyya 50, 51, 53. Shuqayr, Taʾrīkh Sīnā 151, 166.

52

H. HAMZA

Figure 3.1: Indication of Qaṭiyya on map of Egypt (yellow pin) (SOURCE: GOOGLE)

Figure 3.2: The ruins of the mosque of Qaṭiyya (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

Figure 3.3: al-Tīna fort, port and lake in early tenth/sixteenth century (COURTESY JOHN COOPER)

53

54

H. HAMZA

Figure 3.4: The ruins of al-Ghawrī fort in al-Ṭīna plain (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

Figure 3.5: Location of al-Ṭīna fort and plain (SOURCE: THE MILITARY SURVEY OF EGYPT)

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

Figure 3.6: Plan of al-Ṭīna fort (COURTESY OF THE DOCUMENTATION CENTER OF ISLAMIC AND COPTIC MONUMENTS OF THE MINISTRY OF ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT OBTAINED THROUGH SĀMĪ ʿABD AL-MALIK)

Figure 3.7: Plan of the inner keep (COURTESY OF THE DOCUMENTATION DENTER OF ISLAMIC AND COPTIC MONUMENTS OF THE MINISTRY OF ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT)

55

56

H. HAMZA

Figure 3.8: Bent entrance of the inner keep (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

Figure 3.9: Court of the inner keep (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

Figure 3.10: Brick cross vault of the vestibule (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

Figure 3.11: The enceinte (COURTESY OF THE DOCUMENTATION CENTER OF ISLAMIC AND COPTIC MONUMENTS OF THE MINISTRY OF ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT)

57

58

H. HAMZA

Figure 3.12: Area separating the inner keep from the enceinte (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

Figure 3.13: The wall and two corner towers (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

Figure 3.14: The main (southern) façade with the entrance to the enceinte (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

Figure 3.15: The mosque (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

59

60

H. HAMZA

Figure 3.16: Map of Pīrī Reʾīs’ Kitāb-i baḥriye, ca. 932/1525, MS W.658, fol. 308b (late eleventh/seventeenth–early twelfth/eighteenth century) (COURTESY OF THE WALTERS ART MUSEUM, BALTIMORE)

Figure 3.17: The ruins around the fort (PHOTO BY THE AUTHOR)

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

Figure 3.18: al-Tīna port, lake and environs (COURTESY OF JOHN COOPER)

61

62

H. HAMZA

Bibliography Sources Abū Shāma, Kitāb al-Rawḍatayn fī akhbār al-dawlatayn al-nūriyya wa-l ṣalāḥiyya, ed. M.H.M Aḥmad, 4 vols., Cairo 1998. al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān, ʿaṣr al-salāṭīn al-mamālīk, ed. M.A. Amīn, 5 vols., Cairo 1987–2009. al-Biqāʿī, Iẓhār al-ʿaṣr li-asrār ahl al-ʿaṣr, ed. M.S.S. al-ʿAwfī, 3 vols., Cairo 1992–3. Ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī, al-Durar al-fākhira fī sīrat al-Malik al-Nāṣir, ed. H.R. Roemer, Cairo 1960. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Riḥlat Ibn Baṭṭūṭa: Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār fī gharāʾib al-amṣār wa-ʿajāʾib al-asfār, ed. T. Ḥarb, Beirut 1992. Ibn Duqmāq, al-Intiṣār li-wāsiṭat ʿiqd al-amṣār, vols. IV–V, Beirut n. d. Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-arḍ, 2 vols, Beirut 1938. Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr, ed. M. Muṣṭafā, 5 vols., Cairo 1961–5. Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī, Kitāb Zubdat kashf al-mamālik wa-bayān al-ṭuruq wa-l masālik, ed. P. Ravaisse, Paris 1894. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Ḥawādith al-duhūr fī madā al-ayyām wa-l-shuhūr, ed. F.M. Shaltūt, 2 vols., Cairo 1990. ———, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī wa-l-mustawfī fī baʿd al-Wāfī, ed. M.M. Amīn and S.A. ʿĀshūr, vols. I–II, Cairo 1984–85; ed. N.M. ʿAbd al-Azīz, vol. III, Cairo 1986; ed. M.M. Amīn, vol. IV, Cairo 1986; ed. N.M. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, vol. V, Cairo 1988; ed. M.M. Amīn, vols. VI–XIII, 13 vols., Cairo 1990–2011. ———, al-Nujūm al-zāhira fī mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, vols. I–XII, Cairo 1929– 56; ed. F.M. Shaltūt, vols. XIII–XIV, Cairo 1970; ed. I. A. Ṭarkhān, vol. XV, Cairo 1971; ed. J. al-D. al-Shayyāl and F.M. Shaltūt, vol. XVI, 16 vols., Cairo 1972. Ibn Zunbul al-Rammāl, Wāqiʿat al-sulṭān al-Ghawrī maʿa al-sulṭān Salīm, ed. A. Jamāl al-Dīn, Cairo 2014. al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī, Inbāʾ al-haṣr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿaṣr, ed. Ḥ. Ḥabashī, Cairo 1970. ———, Nuzhat al-nufūs wa-l-abdān fī tawārīkh ahl al-zamān, ed. Ḥ. Ḥabashī, 3 vols., Cairo 1971–94.

PERIPHERY IN THE MIDDLE

63

al-Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ al-ḥunafāʾ bi-akhbār al-aʾimma al-Fāṭimiyyīn al-khulafāʾ, ed. J. al-D. al-Shayyāl, M. Aḥmad, and M. Ḥilmī, 3 vols, Cairo 1967–73, repr. 1996. ———, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M.M. Ziyāda, vols. I–II, Cairo 1956–72; S. ʿA. al-F. ʿĀshūr, vols. III–IV, 4 vols., Cairo 1970–3. ———, al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār fi dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-l-āthār (al-Khiṭaṭ almaqrīziyya), ed. A.F. Sayyid, 4 vols., London 2013. al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī sināʿat al-inshā, 14 vols., Beirut 1987. al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ fī aʿyān al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 12 vols., Beirut 1966. ———, al-Jawāhir wa-l durar fī tarjamat shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar, ed. I.B. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, 3 vols., Beirut 1999. ———, Kitāb al-Tibr al-masbūk fī dhayl al-Sulūk, ed. N.M. Kāmil and L.I. Muṣṭafā, 4 vols., Cairo 2002–7. Van Ghistele, J., Voyage en Égypte de Joos van Ghistele 1482–1483, Cairo 1976. Von Harff, A., The pilgrimage of Arnold von Harff, knight from Cologne, 1496– 1499, ed. M. Letts, London 1946. Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, 5 vols., Beirut n.d. Secondary Literature Abd al-Malik, S.S., al-Mawrūth al-taʾrīkhī fī khidmat al-iktishāfāt al-āthāriyya— al-wāqiʿ wa-l-maʾmūl: ṭarīqat al-barīd wa-l-ḥajj al-miṣrī fī Sīnāʾ namūzajan— thamāniya ʿashr ʿām min al-baḥth wa-l-tanqīb fī majāhīl Sīnāʾ, in Mishkāh 5 (2010–1), 119–47. ———, Military castles in Sinai Peninsula and its borders in the Mamluk and Ottoman eras (648–1333 AH/1250–1914 AD): An archaeological–architectural study, 2 vols., PhD dissertation, Faculty of Archaeology, Cairo University, 2014. Abou El Magd, S.A.S., Environmental impact on the Islamic monuments in the northern Sinai with application on the Castle of al-Ghuri, MSc thesis, Institute of Environmental Studies and Research, Ain Shams University, Cairo 2014. Chamberlain, M., The crusader era and the Ayyūbid dynasty, in C. Petry (ed.), The Cambridge history of Egypt, vol. I: Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, Cambridge 1998, 211–41. Christ, G., Trading conflicts: Venetian merchants and Mamluk officials in late medieval Alexandria, Leiden and Boston 2012. Cooper, J., The medieval Nile: Route, navigation, and landscape in Islamic Egypt, Cairo 2014.

64

H. HAMZA

Cytryn-Silverman, K., The settlement in northern Sinai during the Islamic period, in J.-M. Mouton (ed.), Le Sinai de la conquête arabe à nos jours, Cairo 2001. Darrāj, A., al-Mamālīk wa-l-Firanj fī al-qarn al-tāsiʿ al-hijrī/al-khāmis ʿashr almīlādī, Cairo 1961. Drory, J., Founding a new mamlaka: Some remarks concerning Safed and the organization of the region in the Mamluk period, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in the Egyptian and Syrian politics and society, Leiden and Boston 2004, 163–90. Fuess, A., Rotting ships and razed harbors: The naval policies of the Mamluks, in MSR 5 (2001), 45–71. Hamza, ʿĀ., Qaṭiyya jumruk Misr al-sharqī fī al-ʿuṣūr al-wusṭā, in al-Majalla alTārīkhiyya al-Miṣriyya 37 (1990), 45–70. Hamza, H., Miṣr al-mamlūkiyya: qirāʾa jadīda, Cairo 2011; new ed. Cairo 2014. Jewish Encyclopedia Online, jewishencyclopedia.com, 2015. Popper, W., Egypt and Syria under Circassian sultans 1382–1458 A.D. Systematic notes to Ibn Taghrî Birdî’s History of Egypt, 2 vols., Berkeley 1957. Pradines, S., The Mamluk fortifications of Egypt, in MSR 19 (2016), 25–78. Ramzī, M., al-Qāmūs al-jughrāfī li-l-bilād al-miṣriyya, 4 vols., Cairo 1994. Raymond, A., Cairo: City of history, trans. W. Wood, Cairo 2001. Runciman, S., A history of the crusades, vol. III: The kingdom of Acre and the later crusades, Cambridge 1954. Ṣāliḥ, A.S., and A.M. Ziyāda, Ribāṭ sahl Ṭīna bi-shamāl Sīnāʾ, unpublished report at the Documentation Center of the Islamic and Coptic Monuments of the Ministry of Antiquities of Egypt, Cairo 1999. Shuqayr, Naʿūm, Taʾrīkh Sīnā al-qadīm wa-l-ḥadīth wa-jughrāfiyyatuhā, ed. Ṣ.A. al-ʿĀdil and A.Z. al-Shalaq, Cairo 2007. Silverstein, A., Postal systems in the pre-modern Islamic world, Cambridge 2007. Sulaymān, H.A., al-Thalj wa-l-thallājūn fī Miṣr wa-bilād al-Shām fī al-ʿaṣr almamlūkī, Ḥawliyyat Saminār al-Taʾrīkh al-Islāmī wa-l-Wasīṭ 1 (2011), 259–95. Verreth, H., The northern Sinai from the 7th century BC till the 7th century AD: A guide to the sources, 2 vols., Leuven 2006. Wolff, A., How many miles to Babylon? Travels and adventures to Egypt and Babylon from 1300 to 1640, Liverpool 2003. al-Zaʿārīr, T.Ḥ., al-Barīd fī Miṣr wa-l-Shām fī ʿaṣr salāṭīn al-mamālīk, MA dissertation, Faculty of Arts, Yarmūk University, Amman 2001.

A COLLECTION OF HISTORIES OF THE MAMLUK SULTANATE’S SYRIAN BORDERLANDS SOME NOTES ON MS AHMET III 3057 (TSMK, ISTANBUL)

Takao ITO

From the end of Il-Khanid rule in the mid-eighth/fourteenth century to the establishment of the Ottoman and the Safavid empires in the early tenth/sixteenth century, the history of the region that extends from Anatolia to Iran was dominated by a series of power struggles between local rulers, lords, and tribal leaders. These power struggles were further complicated by the involvement and military campaigns of the Mamluks and the Timurids. Arabic works written in the Mamluk sultanate during this period contain relatively detailed information on this unstable, “hot” region. One example of this kind of writing is found in MS Ahmet III 3057 held in the Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi (TSMK), Istanbul.1 This document comprises three titles: Kitāb Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh, Kitāb fī taʾrīkh Yashbak al-Ẓāhirī, and Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank li-bn Ḥajar. In this paper, I discuss the historical and historiographical significance of this manuscript. 1. The Manuscript According to the TSMK catalogue, MS Ahmet III 3057 is composed of sized (aharlı) thick paper. The manuscript measures 183 mm by 130 mm, and comprises 226 folios with 13 lines per page; it was written in naskh script, presumably in the ninth/fifteenth century.2 Its content was discussed by Claude Cahen in a 1936 article. According to Cahen, the first part (fols. 1−106) of MS Ahmet III 3057 comprises extracts from the works of Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773−852/1372−1449) and al-ʿAynī (762−855/1360−1451) concerning the Dulkadirids (Dhū al-Qadr) from 730 to 850 AH; the second part of the manuscript (fols. 110−79) is the record of an embassy from Egypt to Persia, while the third (fols. 179 [sic]−226) is an extract from the work of Ibn Ḥajar, a history of Tīmūr.3 Mükrimin Halil Yınanç referred to this manuscript as one of the sources for the

1

2 3

I would like to thank Frédéric Bauden for kindly providing me with a color reproduction of this manuscript. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the previous version of this paper. Karatay, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi iii, 475. Cahen, Les Chroniques arabes 355.

66

T. ITO

Aq Qoyunlu.4 He wrote that the manuscript included Ibn Bahādur’s Majmūʿa fī tawārīkh al-turkmān and Ibn Ajā’s Taʾrīkh-i Yashbak. Based on this article, Woods looked at the manuscript and characterized the first text as “an epitome of Turkman history to 1446/850 based largely on the works of al-ʿEyni and Ibn Hajar by Abu Fadl [sic] Muhammad Ibn Bahadur (fl. ca. 1470/875).” In his monograph, Woods also notes that this manuscript comprises Ibn Ajā’s Kitāb fī taʾrīkh Yashbak al-Ẓāhirī and Ibn Ḥajar’s Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank as well as Ibn Bahādur’s Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh.5 Indeed, in the revised and expanded edition of his monograph, Woods adds that Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh “supplies much information not found in those two chronicles,” namely al-ʿAynī’s ʿIqd al-jumān and Ibn Ḥajar’s Inbāʾ alghumr.6 More recently, Cihan Yüksel Muslu also consulted Majmūʿa fī altawārīkh in her monograph on Ottoman-Mamluk relations,7 calling it Waqāʾiʿ Turkmān and referring to it as if it were Ibn Bahādur’s original work. On several occasions in his book on Tīmūr, Tilman Nagel cites Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank, which is included in MS Ahmet III 3057, as the work of Ibn Ḥajar without any explanation.8 Although MS Ahmet III 3057 has been known for about eighty years and parts of it have been utilized by some researchers, so far it has not been thoroughly and comprehensively analyzed. As I discuss, this is a very important and interesting manuscript, especially given the state of historiographical research on the Mamluk sultanate. It should be noted that the folio numbers of this manuscript are written in Arabic numerals in the top left margin. Although these numbers go up to 226, fols. 106b−109b are blank, and the second part of the manuscript begins at fol. 110b with the title Kitāb fī taʾrīkh Yashbak al-Ẓāhirī. Folio numbering in the third section, Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank, jumps from 189 to 200, but the latter should be 190. Thus, the three texts included in the manuscript comprise 213 folios.9 As mentioned in the manuscript catalogue of the TSMK, there are, for the most part, 13 lines to a page, but some pages have 12 or 14 lines, and there is a blank space of about ten lines from the lower part of fol. 8b to the upper half of fol. 9a. The texts were written in fair naskh script in black and red ink and seem to be in a uniform handwriting, except for the one waqf note discussed below. It is also noteworthy that MS Or. 14096 held in the British Library is a copy of the first text, Majmūʿa fī

4 5 6 7 8 9

Yınanç, Akkoyunlurar 269. Woods, The Aqquyunlu 26, 234 (n. 76). Woods, The Aqquyunlu2 224. See e.g., Yüksel Muslu, The Ottomans 285 (n. 2), 343. See e.g., Nagel, Timur 471 (n. 130), 489 (n. 4), 490 (n. 38), 491 (n. 79), 509. New folio numbers have been added as digits, in pencil. In this paper, however, I refer to the folio numbers that are given in Arabic numerals.

A COLLECTION OF HISTORIES OF THE MAMLUK SULTANATE’S SYRIAN BORDERLANDS

67

al-tawārīkh, part of MS Ahmet III 3057, made in 1936 by the well-known Turkologist Kilisli Rifat Bilge.10

Figure 4.1: MS AHMET III 3057, FOL. 1A (COURTESY TOPKAPI SARAYI MÜZESI KÜTÜPHANESI, ISTANBUL)

10

I am grateful to Frédéric Bauden for alerting me to the existence of MS Or. 14096.

68

T. ITO

2. The Dedicatee and the Writer/Compiler of MS Ahmet III 3057 As part of the first folio of MS Ahmet III 3057 (see fig. 4.1), a note is included that states that “the reason for collecting [the accounts of] these events was [the request of] Yaʿqūb Shāh al-Mihmandār” (wa-kāna sabab jamʿ hādhihi alwaqāʾiʿ Yaʿqūb Shāh al-Mihmandār). Yaʿqūb Shāh was born in Erzinjan in eastern Anatolia around 810/1407−8. He then accompanied his aunt to Tabriz in Iranian Azerbaijan where he grew up. In the second year of the rule of al-Ashraf (Barsbāy), presumably in 826/1423, he traveled to Cairo. As a linguist, Yaʿqūb Shāh was charged with reading correspondence (muṭālaʿa) from al-Rūm, al-Tatar, alʿAjam, and al-Hind, and he was appointed chief host (mihmandār kabīr) in 874/1470.11 However, his career after this is not clear, although his name is referred to in 886/1481 when an unqualified person was appointed chief Ḥanafī judge in Cairo through the recommendation of Yaʿqūb Shāh and another amir.12 According to an inscription dated 901/1495−6, Yaʿqūb Shāh built two cisterns and two domes at the foot of the Muqaṭṭam hill in Cairo to commemorate the victory of the Mamluks over the Ottomans during the reign of Qāʾitbāy, which likely means the victory in 891/1486.13 It is clear that Yaʿqūb Shāh’s personal as well as vocational interests must have led him to commission Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh but probably also Kitāb fī taʾrīkh Yashbak al-Ẓāhirī and Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank, that is, he commissioned the production of the whole manuscript. The manuscript was then probably dedicated to him, although there is no indication in MS Ahmet III 3057 of any ownership or waqf note that would confirm that he owned it. Regarding the writer, or compiler, of the manuscript, the following text was recorded on fol. 106a, the last page of Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh (see fig. 4.2): This year (850) is the end of the history of our shaykh Ibn Ḥajar—may God have mercy upon him. From this, his disciple Abū al-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Bahādur alMuʾminī al-Shāfiʿī copied these quires in 875. From this year (850), the amir Yūsuf b. Taghrī Birdī wrote a continuation for a period of 25 years—may God help 14 [us in] attaching that to this. 11

12 13

14

Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ x, 280–1. His predecessor, Tamurbāy al-Timrāzī died in Jumādā II 874/Dec. 1469 (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ iii, 39), so Yaʿqūb Shāh’s appointment must have been made shortly afterwards. Al-Malaṭī, Nayl al-amal vii, 285; Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr iii, 180. Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo 294; Rogers, The inscription; Van Berchem, Matériaux 547−54. I would like to thank Doris Behrens-Abouseif for alerting me to this inscription and for sending me a copy of the relevant pages of Van Berchem’s Matériaux. Hādhihi al-sana hiya ākhir mā waqafa ʿalayhi taʾrīkh shaykhinā wa-l-imām wa-l-ḥāfiẓ washaykh al-islām al-qāḍī Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. Ḥajar al-Shāfiʿī—raḥimahu Allāh. Naqala minhu hādhihi al-karārīs tilmīdhuhu Abū al-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Bahādur al-Muʾminī al-Shāfiʿī sanat 875 wa-min hādhihi al-sana dhayyala al-amīr Yūsuf b. al-amīr al-kabīr Taghrī Birdī muddat

A COLLECTION OF HISTORIES OF THE MAMLUK SULTANATE’S SYRIAN BORDERLANDS

69

Figure 4.2: MS AHMET III 3057, FOL. 106A (COURTESY TOPKAPI SARAYI MÜZESI KÜTÜPHANESI, ISTANBUL)

Ibn Bahādur was born and brought up in Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast of the Levant. As a child, he came with his mother and brother to study in Cairo. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī gave him an ijāza (license of transmission) in 847/1443−4. Ibn Bahādur wrote much by his own hand. It has been recorded that 25—aʿāna Allāh ʿalā ilḥāq dhālika bi-hādhā.

70

T. ITO

“he was interested especially in biographies and history” (yataʿānā al-wafayāt wal-naẓar fī al-tawārīkh). Ibn Bahādur died on 25 Dhū al-Ḥijja 877/23 May 1473 at more than forty years of age.15 He also wrote an excerpt from ʿIqd al-jumān, from one of Ibn Taghrī Birdī’s (812/1409–10 to 874/1470) continuation (dhayl)—which means, apparently, one of his chronicles, al-Nujūm al-zāhira or Ḥawādith alduhūr—and from other sources for Yaʿqūb Shāh in 877/1472−3. This manuscript is entitled Futūḥ al-naṣr fī taʾrīkh mulūk Miṣr (Ayasofya 3344, see fig. 4.3),16 and is a history of the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods that begins in 565/1169−70 and stops abruptly in 751/1350−1, presumably as a result of Ibn Bahādur’s death. Interestingly, the handwriting of this manuscript appears to be similar to that of MS Ahmet III 3057. All of this evidence seems to indicate that Ibn Bahādur wrote all three texts included in MS Ahmet III 3057 with his own hand. In addition, the title Kitāb Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh may not relate to just the first text, but to the whole manuscript as a collection of histories of the Mamluk sultanate’s Syrian borderlands. In any event, a waqf note dated 924/1518 can be found on fol. 1a, meaning that this manuscript was completed by that year.17 3. Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh [fols. 1a−106a] At the beginning of this section of the manuscript, the following text is found (see fig. 4.1): This is [about] some of the events of the Turkmen, the children of Dulghādir and the others over 150(?) years [gleaned] from both the histories of Ibn Ḥajar and al-ʿAynī as well as the 18 others.

As the TSMK catalogue reads, it is possible to conclude that 58 (thamāniya wa-khamsīn) years are covered by this text.19 However, the text covers the years 736−39, 742, 753−4, 766−7, 780, 783, 785−9, 791−793, 800−1, 804−11, 813−4, 817−20, and 825−50, a total of 61 years. This text contains not only the accounts of the Dulkadirids but also other news, such as the anger of Sultan Jaqmaq (r. 842−57/1438−53) at a kātib al-sirr 15 16 17

18

19

Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ ix, 209. See also Brockelmann, GAL S. ii, 51. A certain Tānī Bay (?) Ḥājjī Sayyidī made this book (kitāb) or manuscript into a waqf for his sons, their sons, and male descendants (abnāʾihi wa-abnāʾi abnāʾihi wa-abnāʾi abnāʾi abnāʾihi). If they died out, it was to be added to the other books he made into a waqf for his descendants (awlādihi wa-awlādi awlādihi). Hādhā shayʾ min waqāʾiʿ al-Turkmān awlād Ibn Dulghādir wa-ghayrihim fī muddat miʾa(?) wa-khamsīn sana min taʾrīkhay Ibn Ḥajar wa-l-ʿAynī wa-ghayrihim [sic]. Ibn Bahādur, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 1a. Karatay, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi iii, 475. It seems rather as if the number was corrected to 850.

A COLLECTION OF HISTORIES OF THE MAMLUK SULTANATE’S SYRIAN BORDERLANDS

71

(secretary) and the appointment of an amir of Mecca.20 However, it remains unclear why the compiler, Ibn Bahādur, included these news items.

Figure 4.3: MS AYASOFYA 3344, FOL. 1A (COURTESY SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, ISTANBUL) 20

Ibn Bahādur, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 96b−97a, 99a−b.

72

T. ITO

As stated clearly at the beginning of the document, the main sources used for this text are the annals of Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (i.e., Inbāʾ al-ghumr) and alʿAynī, as well as other works. The short biography of the Dulkadir leader, Khalīl b. Qarājā b. Dhū al-Ghādir al-Turkmānī, which appears at the beginning of this text, is based on Ibn Ḥajar’s biographical dictionary, al-Durar al-kāmina,21 and is followed immediately by a quotation from his obituary notice recorded in the year 788/1386−7 in Ibn Ḥajar’s chronicle Inbāʾ al-ghumr.22 Indeed, his necrology in Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh is borrowed from al-ʿAynī’s chronicle.23 Subsequent to the biography of Khalīl at the beginning of Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh is that of his brother Sūlī, also based on al-Durar al-kāmina,24 while Sūlī’s necrology in the year 800/1397−8 is a mixture of what appears in Inbāʾ al-ghumr and in al-ʿAynī’s ʿIqd al-jumān.25 In addition, the biography of their father Qarājā, inserted in Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh after the account of year 739/1338−9, is also borrowed from al-Durar al-kāmina.26 Because the account of Inbāʾ al-ghumr begins in the year 773/1371−2, it is probable that, for the period before 773/1371–2, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh was based on ʿIqd al-jumān. According to Nobutaka Nakamachi, however, we do not have an extant manuscript of ʿIqd al-jumān that encompasses the years 746−98/1345−96. For this period, only an abridgement of ʿIqd al-jumān (e.g., MS Ahmet III 2911/a18), al-ʿAynī’s other chronicle Taʾrīkh al-badr, or the abridged version of Taʾrīkh al-badr are available.27 It is not clear when the parts of ʿIqd al21 22

23

24 25

26 27

Ibn Bahādur, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 1b; cf. Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāmina ii, 89. Ibn Bahādur, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 2a; cf. Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr (Hyderabad) ii, 232−233; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr (Cairo) i, 322. Ḥasan Ḥabashī, the editor of the Cairo edition, mistakenly noted (in a footnote) that the latter part of this obituary was related to another person. Ibn Bahādur, Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 17b−18b; cf. al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān (ed. Shukrī) 191. It is interesting to note that the name of the man who beat Khalīl has been referred to, variously, as Ibrāhīm b. YḤMR (). Elbendary, A., The sultan, the tyrant, and the hero: Changing medieval perceptions of al-Ẓāhir Baybars, in MSR 5 (2001), 141–57. Grabar, O., Islamic art and beyond: Constructing the study of Islamic art, vol. III, Aldershot 2006. Guo, L., Paradise lost: Ibn Dāniyāl’s response to Baybars’ campaign against vice in Cairo, JAOS 121/2 (2001), 219–35. ———, The devil’s advocate: Ibn Dāniyāl’s art of parody in his qaṣīdah no. 71, in MSR 7 (2003), 177–209. ———, The performing arts in medieval Islam: Shadow play and popular poetry in Ibn Dāniyāl’s Mamluk Cairo, Leiden 2012. Hanna, N., An urban history of Būlāq in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods, Cairo 1983. Hasebe, F., Popular movements and Jaqmaq, the less paternalistic sultan: Some aspects of conflict in the Egyptian cities (1449–52), in Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies 20/2 (2005), 27–51. Hirschler, K., Medieval Arabic historiography: Authors as actors, London 2006. Holt, P.M., The sultan as ideal ruler: Ayyubid and Mamluk prototypes, in M. Kunt and Ch. Woodhead (eds.), Süleyman the magnificent and his age: The Ottoman

138

I. SÁNCHEZ

empire in the early modern world, London 1995, 122–37. Humphreys, R.S., From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids in Damascus, 1193–1260, Albany 1977. Jones, L.G., The power of oratory in the medieval Muslim world, Cambridge 2012. Leiser, Gary, Prostitution in the eastern Mediterranean: The economics of sex in the late antique and medieval middle east, London 2017. Lev, Y., Saladin in Egypt, Leiden 1998. Levanoni, A., A turning point in Mamluk history: The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Ibn Qalāwūn (1310–1341), Leiden and Boston 1995. Lewicka, P., Alcohol and its consumption in medieval Cairo: The story of a habit, in Studia Arabistyczne i Islamistyczne 12 (2004), 55–97. ———, Food and foodways of medieval Cairenes: Aspects of life in an Islamic metropolis of the eastern Mediterranean, Leiden and Boston 2011. ———, Restaurants, inns and taverns that never were: Some reflections on public consumption in medieval Cairo, in JESHO 48/1 (2005), 40–91. Little, D.P., Coptic conversion to Islam under the Baḥrī Mamluks, 692–755/1293– 1354, in BSOAS 39 (1976), 552–69. Loiseau, J., Reconstruire la maison du Sultan, 1350–1450: ruine et recomposition de l’ordre urbain au Caire, 2 vols., Cairo 2010. Meinecke, M., Die Mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien (648/1250 bis 923/1517), 2 vols., Glückstadt 1992. Mez, A., The renaissance of Islam, trans. S. Khuda Bakhsh and D.S. Margoliouth, Patna 1937. Muṣayliḥī, S.ʿA., al-Bighāʾ fī Miṣr fī l-ʿaṣr al-mamlūkī 648–923 H./1250–1517, in Ḥawliyyāt Ādāb ʿAyn Shams 33 (2005), 107–63. Petry, C., The criminal underworld in a medieval Islamic society: Narratives from Cairo and Damascus under the Mamluks, Chicago 2012. Pomerantz, M., Muʿtazilī theory in practice: The repentance (tawba) of government officials in the 4th/10th century, in C. Adang, S. Schmidtke, and D. Sklare (eds.), A common rationality: Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism, Würzburg 2007, 463–93. Rabie, H., The financial system of Egypt: A.H. 564–741/A.D. 1169–1341, Oxford 1972. Ragab, A., The medieval Islamic hospital: Medicine, religion, and charity, Cam-

THE JAWĀMIʿ AL-TAWBA

139

bridge 2015. Rapoport, Y., Women and gender in Mamluk society: An overview, in MSR 11/2 (2007), 1–47. Rikabi, J., Ibn al-Nabīh, in EI2 iii, 894–5. Sabari, S., Mouvements populaires à Baghdad à l’époque ʿabbasside, cles, Paris 1981.

e

e

IX -XI

siè-

Salam-Liebich, H., The architecture of the Mamluk city of Tripoli, Cambridge MA 1975. Shatzmiller, M., Aspects of women’s participation in the economic life of later medieval Islam: Occupations and mentalities, in Arabica 35/1 (1988), 36–58. ———, Labour in the medieval Islamic world, Leiden 1994. Shoshan, B., The state and madness in medieval Islam, in IJMES 35/2 (2003), 329–40. Stilt, K., Islamic law in action: Authority, discretion and everyday experiences in Mamluk Egypt, Oxford 2011. Talmon-Heller, D., Charity and repentance in medieval Islamic thought and practice, in M. Frenkel and Y. Lev (eds.), Charity and giving in monotheistic religions, Berlin 2009, 265–79. Thorau, P., The lion of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the thirteenth century, London 1992. Wilson, B.R., Glimpses of Muslim urban women in classical Islam, in B.J. Harris, and J.K. McNamara (eds.), Women and the structure of society: Selected research from the Fifth Berkshire Conference of the History of Women, Durham 1984.

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS MAMLUK COINS FROM JORDANIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1 SITES

Warren SCHULTZ

1. Introduction It is well known that there were six cities in which the Mamluk sultanate minted coins on a regular basis. These cities were Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt, and Damascus, Tripoli, Hama, and Aleppo in the Syrian provinces. Even taking into account the mints that were only occasionally in operation, namely those of al-Lādhiqiyya and Malatya on the northern Syrian/southern Anatolian marches, there remained large swaths of Mamluk territory—such as southern Bilād al-Shām (modern Israel and Jordan) and southern Egypt—in which there were apparently no mints.2 What, if anything, did the residents of those hinterland territories use for money? The Mamluk chronicles reveal very little on this topic. Archaeological investigations in some of these regions, however, have found many Mamluk coins in their excavations. In the absence of local mints, such coins must have been imported. This, in turn, leads to the question, what can we know about the circulation of these coins in the Mamluk hinterlands? In this paper, I present the early stages of a larger project which seeks to map the Mamluk coins excavated in the southern Bilād al-Shām. I survey the current state of this evidence in Jordan and offer some preliminary observations based on that evidence. The occurrence of Mamluk fulūs in locations far from their mint of origin, for example, challenges assumptions that typically underpin discussions of the valuation of these copper coins. Several background points are in order. First, we know of many Mamluk coins for which there is no mention of a mint city in their inscriptions, or the name of the mint is missing from the surviving specimens. This absence may be due to a number of factors, ranging from poor preservation to the fact that many Mamluk coins were produced using coin dies larger than the metallic disks struck with those dies. In some cases, attribution to a particular city may be possible based on 1

2

Research support provided by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. For ephemeral Mamluk mints which minted coins for short periods of time only, see ʿAjāj, AlLādhiqiyya; Puin, Silver coins. For an example of an imitative Mamluk coin struck by a vassal state, see Broome, An enigmatic ‘Mamluk’ sequin.

142

W. SCHULTZ

other reasons—such as decorative elements, calligraphic style, etc.—but the possibilities remain that these coins could have been struck in one of the aforementioned cities, issued from an as yet unknown location, or been produced by a traveling mint.3 Second, the large-scale studies of Mamluk money published thus far have been based on institutional and private collections preserved in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. These collections were, for the most part, compiled from coins obtained from the marketplace.4 Such coins lack any provenance, and while they are important sources, they tell us little about where those coins may have circulated. Only coins from known archaeological contexts can provide a hint about circulation, and to date there has been no comprehensive survey of such Mamluk numismatic material found in archaeological digs.5 Third, there are limits to what information can be gleaned from such coins. They provide only an endpoint and endplace for the coin’s circulation, and this snapshot does not reveal everything we would like to know about monetary circulation. We cannot, for example, know the exact time a coin was deposited in the site. Coins provide a natural post quem date—as they cannot appear before they were made— yet it is possible for coins to remain in circulation long after their issuance and thus they are not always reliable for precise ante quem dates. Nor can we know why or how the coin was deposited in that location (was it lost or dropped?). The presence of silver hoards found at several sites allows us to consider some common reasons for the accumulation and preservation of hoards.6 Fourth, the chance nature of archaeological discovery is also a factor. It is impossible to know what we may yet find in regions not excavated. Finally, we cannot build an argument from a lack of evidence. There may be myriad reasons coins were not found in a particular site, nor is it safe to make simplistic linkages between the presence or absence of coins and the economic health of a region.

3

4

5 6

I do not discuss here the occasional stray find of Mamluk coins in regions beyond the Mamluk territories. Mamluk coins have been found as far afield as east Africa, the Crimea, and India. See Anderson, A Mamluk coin; Ilisch, Eine in Kaffa gegengestampelte Mamlukenmunze; and Digby, The Broach coin-hoard. See, for example, the numerous collections used by Balog in his Coinage of the Mamluk sultans, and subsequently modified by his Coinage of the Mamluk sultans. The 1964 volume established a typological schema of 911 numbers in chronological order, with each number representing a unique combination of sultan, mint, year, and metal. While the sequential nature of this schema makes it difficult to add new types when discovered, it remains a basic attribution tool. A limited foray into this field is Kool and Schultz, The copper coins. See chapter 6, Coin finds and hoards, in Grierson’s Numismatics 124–39, for an overview of hoard classifications.

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

143

2. A Survey of Mamluk Coins Found in Jordan Several decades ago, L.A. Mayer drew attention to the lack of mints in southern Bilād al-Shām in the Mamluk era.7 This lack of mints is all the more noteworthy given the previous history of Islamic coins minted in the region. During the Umayyad era, for example, coins were struck in several cities in the provinces of Filisṭīn (Palestine) and al-Urdunn (Jordan). In Jund Filisṭīn these were Ayliyā, Filisṭīn, Bayt Jibrīn, Ramla, ʿAsqalān, Qaysāriyya, Ludd, and Yubnā. For Jund al-Urdunn, mints were located in Adhriʿāt, Bāniyās, Baysān, Jarash, Ṣaffūriyya, Ṭabariyya, Acre, and Amman. Subsequent dynasties in the region eliminated mints east of the Jordan river but maintained them in cities closer to the coast, and thus nearer to the region of modern Jordan, on which I focus in this paper. The Abbasids had mints in Jerusalem, Ramla, Gaza, Ludd, Adhriʿāt, Ṭabariyya, and Acre; the Ikhshidids in Ramla and Ṭabariyya; the Fatimids in Ramla, Ṭabariyya, and Acre; and the Ayyubids in Gaza.8 Despite this lack of local mints, archaeological finds of Mamluk coins in Jordan range from single copper and silver coins to hoards of silver dirhams found in Ḥisbān (66 coins), al-Lajjūn (68 coins), Dhībān (449 coins), Umm Qays (528), and al-Karak (2,244 coins).9 Information about these coins has been gleaned primarily from published and unpublished field reports since the Jordanian Antiquities online database does not include numismatic information. This approach is not without its own challenges. The recording of numismatic information can vary greatly between authors, and if the publication lacks high-quality illustrations, it is not always possible to double-check attributions or assign the coins to an existing typological schema. Furthermore, given the preliminary status of this inquiry, I cannot claim to have found every reference to every Mamluk coin excavated in Jordan.10 Nevertheless, a general picture emerges of the numismatic record for Mamluk-era Jordan. The state of this evidence for Mamluk gold, silver, and copper coins may be summarized as follows. For gold dinars, I have not yet 7 8

9

10

Mayer, Some problems. This mint information is derived from Ilisch, Bilād aš-Šām I. For more on Rāshidūn and Umayyad-era mints and coins, see the works of Foss, Arab-Byzantine coins; Goodwin, ArabByzantine coinage; Goussous, Rare and inedited Umayyad copper coins; Halden, Money, power and politics; and S. Album and T. Goodwin, The pre-reform coinage. For Ṭūlūnid mints, see Grabar, The coinage of the Ṭūlūnids. For Ikshīdid mint cities, see Bacharach, Islamic history. See the works of al-Miṣrī, Nuqūd; Terian, Coins (1974); and Sari, A critical analysis, respectively. Given the rich state of archaeological research in Jordan, I recognize that I may have overlooked some sites and reports, and would welcome any corrections or additions. In a few cases mentioned below, I have changed attributions when the available evidence allows it.

144

W. SCHULTZ

found a single reference to a Mamluk dinar with an archaeological context.11 (This does not mean gold did not circulate in the region, however.) For silver and, to a lesser extent, copper, many hundreds of coins have been excavated from sites across the country. These copper and silver coins were struck in Egyptian and Syrian mint cities, with the latter being more common. In addition, while most of these fulūs and darāhim date from the first 150 years of the sultanate, there are also coins from the ninth/fifteenth century.12 In what follows I present a list of sites—in rough geographical order from north to south—in which Mamluk coins have been discovered, along with brief descriptions of the contents of the find. Of course there are also many locations—including several in northern Jordan— where despite other evidence of Mamluk-era occupation, no Mamluk coins have yet been found.13 2.1. Umm Qays (Gadara) The site of Umm Qays in northern Jordan has been excavated several times, but while the published reports refer to many Mamluk coins, precise information about those coins is lacking.14 The most significant discovery to date is a hoard of 533 coins found in a ceramic jar and dated by the excavators to the Ayyubid/Mamluk era. Of these 533 coins, 528 were silver and five were gold; the latter were identified as “crusader” coins.15 On the basis of the photographs of this hoard, we can state that the gold coins are Venetian ducats and most of the visible silver coins are Mamluk dirhams from before the end of eighth/fourteenth century.16 Further specificity is not possible at this time. Suffice it to say, a detailed description of this hoard would be very welcome.

11

12

13

14 15 16

As of 2010, there were four Mamluk dinars in the Jordan Ahli Bank Numismatic Museum and a few on display in the Citadel Museum, both in Amman, but the institutions did not provide archaeological provenance for these coins. Note that this periodization schema of the developments in Mamluk coinage does not fall into the commonly encountered bi-periodization schema of Qipchaq (Baḥrī) and Circassian (Burjī) eras. In a nutshell, Mamluk coinage falls into three phases, the first from the sultanate’s establishment to the reign of al-Nāṣir Faraj (r. 801–15/1399–1412, with a brief interregnum in 808/1405), a period of transition from Faraj’s reign until early in the reign of al-Ashraf Barsbāy (825–41/1422–38), and then a third phase that lasted from Barsbāy’s reign until the Ottoman conquest. Cf. Schultz, Mamlūk monetary history. See Walker, The northern Jordan Survey 2003 76–7. For Zarqāʾ, see Caneva et al., The Wādī al-Zarqā’. For ʿAjlūn, see Mabry et al., The 1987 Wadi el-Yabis survey; and MacKenzie, Ayyubid/Mamluk archaeology. Tawalbeh, Islamic settlements. See also al-Zuʿbī and Ṭawālbah, Taqrīr nihāʾī See figure 10 in Tawalbeh, Islamic settlements 625. I thank R. Kool for the clarification about the gold coins.

145

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

2.2. Dhrāʿ al-Khān Dhrāʿ al-Khān is a caravansaray site.17 In excavations conducted in 1991, 124 Mamluk-era coins were found.18 Of these coins, 62 are at least partially identifiable and can be attributed to Mamluk sultans ranging from al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (678–89/1279–90) to al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq (842–57/1448–53). Of these, 5 are silver dirhams and 57 are copper fulūs. The 5 dirhams consist of 2 from the reign of alManṣūr Qalāwūn (both of which lack mint names), 1 coin of al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl (r. 743–6/1342–5) minted in Damascus, 1 Cairene dirham of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (r. 764–78/1363–77), and 1 Syrian dirham from the second reign of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq (r. 792–801/1390–9).19 Of the copper coins, 51 of the 57 date from the reigns of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn to al-Nāṣir Faraj, 3 of these were struck in Cairo, 32 from Syrian mints (29 from Damascus, and 1 each from Hama, Tripoli, and Aleppo), with the rest unattributable to specific mints. The remaining 6 copper coins date from later in the ninth/fifteenth century and are either from Syria or we cannot attribute them to a mint: 4 are from the reign of al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq, 2 of which are from Damascus and 1 from Aleppo; 1 dirham is from the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qāytbāy (r. 901–4/1496–8); and 2 are from that of al-Ashraf Qānṣawh al-Ghawrī (r. 906–22/1501–16) (see tab. 7.1).20 Table 7.1: Dhrāʿ al-Khān 1991 excavations: 124 Mamluk-era coins, 62 identified below (5 silver dirhams, 57 fulūs) Sultan/period

Total number of coins Mint (if known)

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (678–89/1279–90)

2 dirhams

al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl (r. 743–6/1342–5)

1 dirham

Damascus

al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (r. 764–78/1363–77)

1 dirham

Cairo

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq (r. 792–801/1390–9) [second reign]

1 dirham

Syria

17 18

19

20

Kareem, The site of Dhrāʿ al-Khān. Kareem, The settlement patterns 279–92. The 107 coins were found under stones believed to have fallen during an earthquake in 861/1456–7, underlining the point made above, that coins can remain in circulation long after their date of issue. The imprecise attribution of the dirham of Barqūq to Syria as opposed to a specific city is a result of Kareem’s description of the coin as resembling the Balog typology numbers 575 and 576. While 575 is linked to Damascus, 576 is linked to Aleppo. I highlight these seven later coins since, in general, there are fewer published fulūs specimens from the mid- to late ninth/fifteenth century than from earlier periods.

146

W. SCHULTZ

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn to al-Nāṣir Faraj

51 fulūs

Cairo– 3 Damascus – 29 Hama – 1 Tripoli – 1 Aleppo – 1

al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq (842–57/1448–53)

4 fulūs

Damascus – 2 Aleppo – 1

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qāytbāy (r. 901–4/1496–8)

1 fals

al-Ashraf Qānṣawh al-Ghawrī (r. 906–22/1501–16)

2 fulūs

2.3. Ṭabaqāt Faḥl (Pella) Excavations over the period 1979–90 confirm that the site of Ṭabaqāt Faḥl contains a Mamluk-era village. These excavations yielded 11 Mamluk coins, all of which are fulūs dating from the eighth/fourteenth century.21 One coin was minted in Cairo, the remainder come from Syrian mints or cannot be attributed to a mint. There is 1 coin of possible Damascene production from the reign of al-Manṣūr Abū Bakr (r. 741–2/1341); 1 Damascus fals from the time of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad (r. 762–4/1361–3); 3 from the reign of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, with 1 from Cairo, 1 possibly from Damascus, and 1 possibly from Hama; 3 from the second reign of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq, with 1 possibly from Tripoli, 1 possibly from Alexandria, and the last without mint attribution; and finally, 2 “indeterminate” Mamluk coppers (see tab. 7.2).22 Table 7.2: Ṭabaqāt Faḥl (Pella) 1979–90 excavations: 11 Mamluk fulūs Sultan/period

Total number of coins Mint (if known)

eighth/fourteenth century

1

Cairo – 1

al-Manṣūr Abū Bakr (r. 741–2/1341)

1

Damascus? – 1

al-Manṣūr Muḥammad (r. 762–4/1361–3)

1

Damascus – 1

al-Ashraf Shaʿbān

3

Cairo – 1 Damascus? – 1 Hama? – 1

21 22

Walmsley, Settled life. The numismatic information is also found in McPhillips et al., Faḥl. Walmsley, Settled life 64.

147

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq

3

eighth/fourteenth century

2

Tripoli? – 1 Alexandria? – 1

2.4. Ḥisbān Information on more than 100 Mamluk coins from the site of Ḥisbān has been published. The dirham finds published thus far consist of one hoard of 65 dirhams and a total of 6 individual finds. The hoard was excavated in 1971 and while most of the Mamluk dirhams—the hoard also included 1 Ayyubid dirham from the reign of al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (r. 637–47/1240–9)—are not attributable to a mint, at least 18 are from Cairo and 1 is from Damascus. The chronological distribution of the hoard is as follows: 1 dates from the reign of al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak (r. 655–7/1257–9); 1 is probably from the reign of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (r. 678–89/1279–90); and the remaining 62 are all coins from the reign of al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658–76/1260–77).23 Of the 6 individual silver finds, 1 is from the reigns of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 693–4/1293–4, 698–708/1299–1309, 709– 41/1310–41),24 2 are from the period of al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl,25 1 is from the time of alNāṣir Ḥasan (r. 748–52/1347–51, 755–62/1354–61),26 1 is from the reign of alManṣūr ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān (r. 778–83/1377–82),27 and the last is an anonymous dirham which, based on stylistic grounds, may date to the first 150 years of the sultanate. 28 The 35 copper coins excavated at Ḥisbān were all individual finds. In 1968, a total of 10 fulūs were found, with the following attributions: 2 of al-Ẓāhir Baybars; 1 of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad; 1 of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad; 1 of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq; and 2 of al-Ashraf Īnāl (r. 857–65/1453–61), 1 of which is from Damas23

24 25 26 27 28

Terian, Coins from the 1971 excavations. The two non-Baybars dirhams (nos. 97–8) were both identified by Terian as from the rein of al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak. The attribution of no. 97 is correct but that of no. 98 is not. Coin no. 98 is not pictured, but it is described as resembling coin no. 36 from the 1968 excavations (see Terian, Coins from the 1968 excavations, plate II). On stylistic grounds, the coin identified in 1968 cannot be from the reign of al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak, since it lacks the square-in-a-circle design found on all known dirhams of that sultan. The regnal title on coin no. 98 is al-Manṣūr, but the coin has no legible personal name (ism). Since it cannot be al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak, the next most likely Mamluk sultan to which it can be attributed is the ruler with the title al-Malik al-Manṣūr most closely following the reign of Baybars, to whom most of the coins in the hoard belong, namely, Qalāwūn. Terian, Coins from the 1973 and 1974 excavations, coin no. 296. Terian, Coins from the 1971 excavations, coin nos. 81–2. Terian, Coins from the 1973 and 1974 excavations, coin no. 298. Terian, Coins from the 1968 excavations, coin no. 36, plate II. Terian, Coins from the 1973 and 1974 excavations, coin no. 301.

148

W. SCHULTZ

cus. Three are only partially legible, and 1 coin has a mint name of Damascus.29 In the 1971 season, 15 coppers were found: 1 of al-Ẓāhir Baybars; 1 of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad; 1 definite and 3 probable fals were of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān; 4 of alManṣūr ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān; and 5 of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq.30 Of these coins, 6 were struck in Damascus, 1 in Tripoli, and the rest lack mint names. Five fulūs were excavated in the 1973 season, including 1 unattributable fals, 1 coin from the reign of alAshraf Shaʿbān, and 3 are from the reign of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq.31 Three are Damascene coins. In 1974, 3 coppers were found but lack mint information, 1 is from the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad and 2 are from al-Manṣūr Muḥammad.32 The 1976 season yielded 2 coins, 1 of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (Damascus) and 1 of al-Ẓāhir Barqūq (Cairo).33 Finally, 3 seventh-/thirteenth-century Mamluk copper coins were found in the 2014 excavations (see tab. 7.3).34 Table 7.3: Ḥisbān A hoard containing 65 dirhams35 Sultan/period

Total number of coins Mint (if known)

al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak (r. 655–7/1257–9)

1

al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658–76/1260–77)

62

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn?

1

Damascus – 1 Cairo– 18

6 individual dirham finds al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 693–4/1293–4, 698– 708/1299–1309, 709–41/1310–41)

1

al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl

2

al-Nāṣir Ḥasan 62/1354–61)

(r.

748–52/1347–51,

al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

755–

1 1

Terian, Coins from the 1968 excavations, coin nos. 37–46. Terian, Coins from the 1971 excavations, coins 79–80, 83–95. Terian, Coins from the 1973 and 1974 excavations, coin nos. 258–62. Ibid., coin nos. 297, 299–300. Terian, Coins from the 1976 excavations, coin nos. 353–4. I thank Bethany Walker for permission to mention these as yet unpublished coins. As mentioned above, p. 147, the hoard also contained one Ayyubid dirham, dating from the reign of al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (637–47/1240–9).

149

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

first 150 years of Mamluk sultanate

1 1968 excavation: 10 fulūs

al-Ẓāhir Baybars

2

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

1

al-Manṣūr Muḥammad

1

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq

1

al-Ashraf Īnāl

2

Damascus – 1

3 (partially legible) 1971 excavation: 15 fulūs al-Ẓāhir Baybars

1

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

1

al-Ashraf Shaʿbān

1 3

al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān

4

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq

5

Damascus – 3

Unattributable

1

Damascus

al-Ashraf Shaʿbān

1

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq

3

Tripoli – 1 Damascus probable

–

1973 excavation: 5 fulūs

1974 excavation: 3 fulūs al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

1

al-Manṣūr Muḥammad

2 1976 excavation: 2 fulūs

Damascus – 3

3

150

W. SCHULTZ

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

1

Damascus

al-Ẓāhir Barqūq

1

Cairo

2014 excavations: 3 seventh-/thirteenth-century Mamluk copper coins

2.5. Dhībān Over the course of several decades, excavations at Dhībān have yielded hundreds of Mamluk dirhams along with a handful of Mamluk fulūs. The silver coins were found in two hoards, one from the 1965 season and one from 2003. The 1965 hoard consisted of approximately 1,100 crusader and Mamluk dirhams.36 A subsequent study of the hoard revealed that 449 were identifiable as Mamluk coins.37 These coins date from the reigns of the following sultans (with mints mentioned when known): al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak, 1 coin from Cairo; alMuẓaffar Quṭuz (r. 657–8/1259–60), 1 Cairene dirham; al-Ẓāhir Baybars, 39 total, including 9 Cairo, 2 Damascus, and 1 Aleppo; al-Saʿīd Baraka Khān (r. 676– 8/1277–9), 4, including 1 Damascus; al-ʿĀdil Salāmish (r. 678/1279), 2 from Cairo; al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn, 33, including 5 Cairo and 1 Hama; al-Ashraf Khalīl (r. 689–93/1290–3), 4; al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, 105, including 1 Cairo, 5 Damascus, 18 Aleppo, and 3 Hama; al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā (r. 694–6/1294–6), 1; al-Manṣūr Lājīn (r. 696–8/1296–9), 1; al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (r. 742/1343), 2, 1 of which is from Aleppo; alṢāliḥ Ismāʿīl, 107 total, including 1 Cairo, 33 Damascus, 8 Aleppo, 4 Hama, and 1 Tripoli; al-Kāmil Shaʿbān (r. 746–7/1345–6), 22, including 3 Damascus, 1 Hama, and 1 Tripoli; al-Muẓaffar Ḥājjī (r. 747–8/1346–7), 25, including 1 Cairo, 9 Damascus, 1 Aleppo, and 1 Tripoli; al-Nāṣir Ḥasan, 96, including 1 Cairo, 12 Damascus, 2 Aleppo, and 8 Hama; and al-Ṣāliḥ Ṣāliḥ (r. 752–5/1351–4), 6, including 1 each from Aleppo, Hama, and Tripoli (see tab. 7.4).38 The 2003 hoard was considerably smaller, consisting of 15 dirhams found in a ceramic jar.39 This hoard contains 1 dirham from Hama bearing only the royal laqab of al-Malik al-Nāṣir without an ism; 2 silvers of al-Ẓāhir Baybars without mint names; 3 of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn without mint names; 5 Cairene dirhams of al-Malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad; and 4 specimens worn smooth from wear (see tab. 7.4). There are very few published fulūs from Dhībān that can be confidently attributed to the Mamluk period. The excavation report from the 1952–3 season

36 37 38 39

Morton, A summary 242, for an account of the impact of the find. Al-Miṣrī, Nuqūd. Ibid. 21, 131. Al-Mahāmīd, Ḥafriyrat Tall Dhībān.

151

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

identified 7 coins as Mamluk (or Ayyubid-Mamluk) coppers.40 We do not have detailed descriptions of the appearance and epigraphic content of the coins, and only 3 appear on the accompanying plate. As a result, I can confirm that only 1 of these coins is definitely Mamluk, an anonymous fals minted in Aleppo in the period 741–2/1341–2.41 In addition, the 2005 season yielded 3 probable eighth-/fourteenth-century coppers from Syrian mints, and the 2009 season identified 2 fulūs of the type minted in Egypt in the last four decades of the eighth/fourteenth century (see tab. 7.4).42 Table 7.4: Dhībān Sultan/period

Total number of coins Mint (if known) 1965 hoard: 449 Mamluk dirhams

al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak

1

Cairo

al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz (r. 657–8/1259–60)

1

Cairo

al-Ẓāhir Baybars

39

Cairo – 9 Damascus – 2 Aleppo – 1

al-Saʿīd Baraka Khān (r. 676–8/1277–9)

4

al-ʿĀdil Salāmish (r. 678/1279)

2

Cairo

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn

33

Cairo – 5 Hama – 1

al-Ashraf Khalīl (r. 689–93/1290–3)

4

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā (r. 694–6/1294–6)

40 41

42

105

Damascus – 1

Cairo – 1 Damascus – 5 Aleppo – 18 Hama – 3

1

Tushingham, The excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) 119. Ibid., plate XXXIX, coin 5. The coin in question is listed as 91 on p. 119. It is an example of Balog type 268A or 268B. See Balog, Coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria: Additions and corrections 136. Routledge et al., The Dhiban excavation, and Porter et al., The Dhiban excavation. These attributions are made primarily on the basis of the coins’ fabric.

152

W. SCHULTZ

al-Manṣūr Lājīn (r. 696–8/1296–9)

1

al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (r. 742/1343)

2

Aleppo – 1

al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl

107

Cairo – 1 Damascus – 33 Aleppo – 8 Hama – 4 Tripoli – 1

al-Kāmil Shaʿbān (r. 746–7/1345–6)

22

Damascus – 3 Hama – 1 Tripoli – 1

25

Cairo – 1 Damascus – 9 Aleppo – 1 Tripoli – 1

96

Cairo – 1 Damascus – 12 Aleppo – 2 Hama – 8

6

Aleppo – 1 Hama – 1 Tripoli – 1

al-Malik al-Nāṣir (laqab without ism)

1

Hama – 1

al-Ẓāhir Baybars

2

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn

3

al-Malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad

5

al-Muẓaffar Ḥājjī (r. 747–8/1346–7)

al-Nāṣir Ḥasan

al-Ṣāliḥ Ṣāliḥ (r. 752–5/1351–4)

2003 hoard: 15 dirhams

Cairo – 5

4 (worn smooth from wear) 1952–3 excavation: 7 coins as Mamluk (or Ayyubid-Mamluk) coppers Mamluk, 741–2/1341–2

1

Cannot be confirmed

6

Aleppo

153

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

2005 excavation: 3 coppers probable eighth-/fourteenth century

3

probable Syrian mints

2

probable Egyptian mints

2009 excavation: 2 fulūs last four decades of the eighth/fourteenth century

2.6. Khirbat Fāris One Mamluk copper has been found at this site, a Damascene fals of alNāṣir Ḥasan.43 2.7. Al-Lajjūn Almost 80 Mamluk coins were found in and around the fortress of alLajjūn during excavations conducted between 1976 and 1989, most of them in a hoard of 68 Mamluk dirhams found in 1987. 44 Of these silver coins, 9 date from the reign of al-Ashraf Īnāl; 56 are from that of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy; and 3 are from the late ninth/fifteenth century, but are too worn to attribute to a sultan. With the exception of these last three, the coins can be linked to the mints of Cairo (36), Damascus (5), and Aleppo (24) (see tab. 7.5). Ten partially-legible copper coins from these excavations were given probable Mamluk attributions, but two comments are in order. First, only one of these coins was illustrated, and on closer examination, the illustrated coin is an Ayyubid fals from the reign of al-Kāmil Muḥammad (r. 615–35/1218–38).45 Second, all but one of these coppers date from the reign of al-Nāṣir Faraj or earlier. The exception is a small copper coin whose appearance suggests that it could be attributed to the end of the ninth/fifteenth century, as it resembles the small silver coins from the 1987 hoard in Cairo that was attributed to the reign of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy.46 Without illustration, any comment on this coin is admittedly speculative. Given that the known Egyptian copper coins of this sultan tend to be much larger and heavier than the contemporary dirhams, however, we can suggest two other possibilities. First, the coin may indeed be silver, but suffered severe degradation and staining underground, such that the specimen darkened to resemble a copper coin. 43

44 45 46

Johns and McQuitty, The Fāris project. See coin no. 10 on p. 252, which is an example of Balog type number 327. Betlyon, The coins. Ibid., coin no. 618. Cf. Balog, The coinage of the Ayyubids, type 420. Betylon, The coins, coin no. 619.

154

W. SCHULTZ

Second, the coin may be a contemporary counterfeit consisting of a copper core covered by a thin silver pellicle that has worn away. Table 7.5: al-Lajjūn 1976–1989 Total number Mint (if known) of coins

Sultan/period

1987 dirham hoard: 68

al-Ashraf Īnāl

9

Cairo – 2 Damascus – 5 Aleppo – 2

al-Ashraf Qāytbāy

56

Cairo – 34 Aleppo – 22

late ninth/fifteenth century

3

2.8. Ṭawāḥīn al-Sukkar One Mamluk fals was found at this site in the southern Jordan valley. While worn, its style and fabric support an attribution to the eighth/fourteenth century.47 2.9. Al-Karak Al-Karak is the site of the largest find of Mamluk coins found in Jordan to date. In 1963, a large silver hoard of 2,244 dirhams from the early Mamluk period was found. By 1968, a detailed analysis of 1,476 identifiable specimens from this hoard was completed.48 This sample includes dirhams of the sultans al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz through that of al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā (r. 694–6/1294–6), with the vast majority dating from the reigns of al-Ẓāhir Baybars and al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn. Identifiable mints include Cairo, Damascus, and Hama, and one dirham was minted in Alexandria. In addition, a recent publication about the Mamluk dirhams held at the Karak Citadel Museum also describes 125 coins, 112 from the Qipchaq period 47

48

King et al., Survey of Byzantine and Islamic sites. For the coin, see section 7, Ṭawaḥīn esSukkar II. At another Mamluk site in the valley, a number of “heavily eroded and thus illegible” small bronze coins were found. See p. 150 of M. Steiner, The excavations. Sari, A critical analysis. Pictures of the hoard are found in Arif, A treasury 195, 298. On a related note, over the past twenty-five years I have heard, on occasion, rumors of the existence of Mamluk dirhams minted at al-Karak. While I know of no published specimens, it is possible that Mamluk coins were minted at al-Karak. It may be, however, that the discovery of this hoard found in al-Karak contributed to the belief that the dirhams bear the mint name of al-Karak.

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

155

(many of which are from the 1963 hoard), and 13 from the Circassian era.49 Of these later coins, 4 are from the reign of al-Ashraf Īnāl (1 from Cairo, 2 from Damascus, 1 unknown mint), and 9 from the reign of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy (2 from Cairo, 4 from Aleppo, 3 unknown mints). Last but not least, 1 Mamluk fals from the eighth/fourteenth century was found in the 1987 excavations.50 2.10. Shawbak Despite the many excavations and restoration work done on the site of this castle, I have been unable to find any Mamluk coins mentioned in published reports. I know, however, that 3 Mamluk dirhams and 7 coppers—all dating from the eighth/fourteenth century—were observed in a local dealer’s assortment of 29 coins for sale from his tray, as seen in 2007 by the Italian excavation team from the University of Florence.51 While it was clear that these coins had not been excavated, it is likely that they came from the castle and/or its surroundings, since the low market value of these coins, the legal prohibitions against trading in antiquities, and the costs of transportation all suggest that these coins were not intentionally imported from other locations. 2.11. Petra Region One, Main Valley Despite the vast size of the Petra archaeological park, the presence of the nearby Mamluk-era shrine of Aaron’s tomb, a Mamluk level at the Nawāfila site, and the large number of excavations that have been conducted in this region, thus far I have only found one published reference to a Mamluk coin found in the Petra city center. During the 1992–3 excavation of the Petra church complex a Mamluk fals of al-Ẓāhir Baybars was found.52 Yet in my personal explorations within the archaeological park over the last decade, I have seen several Mamluk fulūs for sale in the souvenir trays of local Bedouins. At first I gave them little thought, but eventually, as in the case of Shawbak and according to the same rationale, it struck me that they must have come from the site. While they have been stripped of their 49 50

51

52

Al-Ṣarayra, al-Nuqūd al-fiḍḍiya. The coin is mentioned in an unpublished note which I viewed at the ACOR library in Amman: Brown, Report of the 1987 excavation 44, object no. 9, K1.7.11 6/25/87, Cu/bronze. The coin was not mentioned in the published report of the excavations, Brown, Excavations. Personal communication with team members. The tray also contained seven Umayyad and three Ayyubid fulūs as well as five Ayyubid dirhams. The usefulness of such coins that are not derived from excavations is discussed below. Fiema et al., The Petra church 389. The coin does not bear a mint name and was identified as resembling no. 2458 in Nicol, al-Nabarawi, and Bacharach, Catalog of the Islamic coins. That coin number is equivalent to Balog type 98. The authors also mentioned that, in their experience, most of the silver and bronze coins found in Jordan from this period were struck either in Cairo or Damascus.

156

W. SCHULTZ

archaeological context, they nevertheless provide additional evidence that Mamluk coins were used in the Petra region.53 2.12. Petra Region Two, Bayḍa Bayḍa is a site near what is commonly called Little Petra, located just a few kilometers north of the main entrance to the Petra archaeological park. While the area is best known for a neolithic village, there is also a separate medieval village. Excavations in the early 2000s and in 2011 in this medieval village and its environs yielded no Mamluk coins. In the 2014 excavations, however, a Mamluk copper coin was found.54 While additional details of this coin have not yet been published, I can affirm that it is a Cairene fals dating from the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century.55 2.13. ʿAqaba (Ayla) A total of 23 Mamluk coins were found in the recent excavations at ʿAqaba, the port city at the northern tip of the Gulf of ʿAqaba. Since the coins are in the process of publication elsewhere, I can only provide the most basic information here.56 Four dirhams and 19 fulūs were found. The mints of issue were both Egyptian and Syrian, and the dates of production range across the entire chronological span of the Mamluk sultanate. While most of the coins were minted in Cairo, the presence of coins produced in Syria confirms the important role of this port city in the regional trade network that attracted merchants from both Egypt and Syria. The coins thus parallel an observation based on other excavated objects. ʿAqaba is the only Mamluk site of which I am aware, for example, where glass coin weights of Egyptian origin and bronze coin weights from Bilād al-Shām have been excavated in the same location.57 3. Some Observations This survey reveals that more than 3,500 Mamluk coins have been found at archeological sites in Jordan, and that many have been published or at least referred to in publications. The overwhelming majority are silver and fewer than 53

54 55 56 57

The coins I have seen in these trays have been eighth-/fourteenth-century coppers of Egyptian and Syrian origin. The arguments mentioned for local origin as opposed to modern importation from other sites would seem to be limited to copper and silver coins. Sinibaldi, The Islamic Bayda project. I thank Micaela Sinibaldi for permission to mention this coin. I thank Reem al-Shqour for permission to mention these coins. Whitcomb, Ayla. In light of the widely variant weights of Mamluk coins, I am in agreement with those who argue that these weights were needed to determine the value of a coin or group of coins. Cf. Schultz, Mamluk metrology.

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

157

200 are copper. What trends emerge from this data? First, while coins from all six major Mamluk mints have been found (albeit only two from Alexandria), more of these coins were minted in Syria than in Egypt. While coins minted in both regions have been found, there is a slight geographical bias toward Cairene coins in southern sites, and Syrian coins in the north, as one might expect from regional trading patterns. Second, while coins from the first 150 years of the sultanate are the majority, there is a small number (around 100 or so) of later, Circassian-era coins. These coins were found primarily in locations on or near known trade routes, from Dhrāʿ al-Khān in the north to ʿAqaba in the south, or on the pilgrimage route, as in the case of al-Lajjūn. Third, three of the silver hoards mentioned were found in the known Mamluk-era administrative centers of Ḥisbān, Dhībān, and al-Karak, and all date to the heyday of Mamluk investment in the Transjordan area.58 These hoards could represent a garrison payroll, tax receipts, the treasure of a wealthy official, or something else, as any of these coins could have been lost to the original possessor for any number of reasons. The site al-Lajjūn, however, was not an administrative center in the Mamluk period. Thus, the late ninth-/fifteenth-century hoard found there could be an example of an emergency hoard, so named for coins hidden in the face of an immediate threat. This speculation further supports the excavators’ conclusion that the Mamluk-era occupation of this site was transitory. Fifth, and finally, the fulūs found at Jordanian archaeological sites take us back to the question of how copper coins were valued in the Mamluk era. They have been found throughout Jordan, and all of them were found far from the mint where they were issued. Their numbers suggest that they had value and were used in the region, and were not just dropped or otherwise lost by those passing through. If this was the case, what were they worth? Unlike silver or gold coins, which would always be worth at least the intrinsic value of their metallic content wherever they circulated, copper coins are traditionally understood to be a petty coinage.59 Copper coinage has a low intrinsic value, which is understandable since their metallic content is certainly worth less than a similar amount of gold or silver. The total value of petty coins is therefore commonly understood to be based primarily on other factors that are extrinsic to their metallic content. A standard interpretation argues that the value of these coins is supported by the issuing authority, which guarantees that they can be exchanged at a set rate with higher intrinsic-value coins, and that this value is greater than their intrinsic worth. The issuing authority controls this exchange in part by limiting the number of such petty coins in circulation.60 Moreover, it is 58 59 60

See Walker, Jordan. Coins with low intrinsic values are also called fiat or token coinages. See Cipolla, The big problem, where he discusses the case of coins with extremely low silver content. His reasoning holds for copper coins as well.

158

W. SCHULTZ

usually assumed that such coins are intended for local use, as it would be difficult to enforce exchange rates outside the city of issue. The case of Mamluk Jordan appears to contradict this usual model, as there was no local mint authority that could control the number of coins in circulation. Then what determined their value? What were they worth? These are important questions that the Mamluk chronicles and other textual sources do not answer. Therefore, we speculate that perhaps the state’s endorsement impressed on these fulūs still carried weight in these far flung provinces. If that were the case, since we know copper coins from different mints of origin have been found at the same site, we are led to ask, which authority was in force? Or, perhaps the value of these coins was set at the amount of the copper they contained, such that they functioned, in effect, as ingots of copper. The explorations of such questions must be left for another day.

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

159

Bibliography ʿAjāj, A., Al-Lādhiqiyya: dār ḍarb mamlūkiyya jadīda, in Yarmouk numismatics 10 (1998), 48–64. Album, S. and T. Goodwin, The pre-reform coinage of the early Islamic period (Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Ashmolean 1), Oxford 2002. Anderson, J.R., A Mamluk coin from Kulubnarti, Sudan, in British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 10 (2008), 65–71. Arif, A.S., A treasury of classical and Islamic coins: The collection of the Amman Museum, London 1986. Bacharach, J., Islamic history through coins: An analysis and catalogue of tenthcentury Ikhshidid coinage, Cairo 2006. Balog, P., Coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria, New York 1964. ———, Coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria: Additions and corrections, in American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 16 (1970), 131–71. ———, The coinage of the Ayyubids, London 1980. Betlyon, J.W., The coins, in S.T. Parker (ed.), The Roman frontier in central Jordan: Final report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Washington, DC 2006, 413–44. Broome, M.R., An enigmatic ‘Mamluk’ sequin, in Numismatic circular 87.7–8 (July-August 1979), 335. Brown, R.M., Excavations in the 14th century A.D. Mamluk palace at Kerak, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33 (1989), 287–304. ———, Report of the 1987 excavation at Kerak castle: The Mamluk palace reception hall, unpublished report, April 1988. Caneva, I., et al., The Wādī al-Zarqā’/Wādī aḍ-Ḍulayl archaeological project: report on the 1997 and 1999 fieldwork seasons, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45 (2001), 83–117. Cipolla, C., The big problem of the petty coins, in Money, prices and civilization in the Mediterranean world, fifth to seventeenth centuries, Princeton 1956, 27– 37. Digby, S., The Broach coin-hoard as evidence of the import of valuta across the Arabian Sea during the 13th and 14th centuries, in JRAS 2 (1980), 129–38. Fiema, Z.T. et al., The Petra church, Amman 2001. Foss, C., Arab-Byzantine coins: An introduction, with a catalogue of the Dumbar-

160

W. SCHULTZ

ton Oaks collection, Harvard 2008. Goodwin, T., Arab-Byzantine coinage (Studies in the Khalili collection IV), London 2005. Goussous, N.G., Rare and inedited Umayyad copper coins, Amman 2004. Grabar, O., The coinage of the Ṭūlūnids, New York 1957. Grierson, P., Numismatics, Oxford 1975. Haldon, J. (ed.), Money, power and politics in early Islamic Syria: A review of current debates, London 2010. Ilisch, L., Bilād aš-Šām I. Palästina (Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen IVa), Tübingen 1993. ———, Eine in Kaffa gegengestampelte Mamlukemünze, in Münstersche Numismatische Zeitung 40 (March 1971), 4–6. Johns, J. and A. McQuitty, The Fāris project: Supplementary report on the 1986 and 1988 seasons: the coins and the glass, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33 (1989), 245–58. Jones, I.W.N. et al., Khirbat Nuqayb al-Asaymir and middle Islamic metallurgy in Faynan: Surveys of Wadi al-Ghuwayb and Wadi al-Jariya in Faynan, southern Jordan, in BASOR 368 (2012), 67–102. Kareem, J., The settlement patterns in the Jordan valley in the mid- to late Islamic period, Oxford 2000. ———, The site of Dhrāʿ al-Khān: A main caravansarai on Darb al-Qufūl, in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6 (1997), 365–9. Kind, H.D. et al., Coins from Faynan, Jordan, in Levant 37 (2005), 169–95. King, G.R.D. et al., Survey of Byzantine and Islamic sites in Jordan: Third season preliminary report (1982), the southern Ghur, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31 (1987), 439–59. Kool, R, and W.C. Schultz, The copper coins of the Mamluk Sultan al-Malik alMansūr Lājīn (r. 696–698/1297–1299), in Israel Numismatic Research 4 (2009), 135–44. Mabry, J. et al., The 1987 Wadi el-Yabis survey, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32 (1987), 275–305. MacKenzie, N.D., Ayyubid/Mamluk archaeology of the ʿAjlūn area: A preliminary typology, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46 (2002), 615–20. al-Mahāmīd, B., Ḥafriyyat Tall Dhībān al-ātharī mawsim 2003 m., in Annual of

COINS WHERE THERE WERE NO MINTS

161

the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47 (2003), 71–6. Mayer, L.A., Some problems of Mamluk coinage, in J. Allan (ed.), Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, 1936, London 1938, 439–41. al-Miṣrī, ʿI., Nuqūd mamlūkiyya baḥriyya fiḍḍiyya min Dhībān, MA thesis, Yarmouk University 1991. McPhillips, S. and A. Walmsley, Faḥl during the early Mamluk period: Archaeological perspectives, in MSR 11.1 (2007), 119–56. Morton, W., A summary of the 1954, 55, and 65 excavations at Dhiban in Jordan, in A. Dearman (ed.), Studies in the Mesha inscription and Moab (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2), Atlanta 1989, 239–46. al-Mubayyid, S., al-Nuqūd al-mamlūkiyya al-mutadāwila fī Filasṭīn, in al-Nuqūd al-ʿArabiyya al-Filasṭīniyya, [Cairo] (1989), 201–18. Nicol, N.D., Early post-reform coinage (Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Ashmolean 2), Oxford 2009. ———, R. al-Nabarawi, and J.L. Bacharach, Catalog of the Islamic coins, glass weights, dies and medals in the Egyptian National Library, Cairo, Malibu 1982. Porter, B. et al., The Dhiban excavation and development project’s 2009 season: Field L excavations, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 56 (2012), 111–29. Puin, E., Silver coins of the Mamluk Sultan Qalawun (678–689/1279–1290) from the mints of Cairo, Damascus, Hamah, and al-Marqab, in MSR 4 (2000), 75– 129. Routledge, B. et al., The Dhiban excavation and development project’s 2005 season, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 54 (2010), 9–34. Sari, S., A critical analysis of a Mamluk hoard from Karak, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan 1986. al-Ṣarayra, M., al-Nuqūd al-fiḍḍiyya al-mamlūkiyya min qalʿat al-Karak, Jordan 2010. Schultz, W.C., Mamluk metrology and the numismatic evidence, in al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 15.1 (March 2003), 59–76. ———, Mamlūk monetary history: A review essay, in MSR 3 (1999), 183–205. Sinibaldi, Micaela, The Islamic Bayda project (Petra region), season 2014, in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147, 2 (2015), 160–67. Steiner, M., The excavations at Tell Abu Sarbut, a Mamluk village in the Jordan Valley, in ARAM Periodical 9–10 (1997–8), 145–51.

162

W. SCHULTZ

Tawalbeh, D.A., Islamic settlements in Umm Qays (Gadara), in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46 (2002), 621–8. Terian, A., Coins from the 1968 excavations at Heshbon, in Andrews University Seminary Studies 9.2 (1971), 147–60. ———, Coins from the 1971 excavations at Heshbon, in Andrews University Seminary Studies 12.1 (1974), 35–46. ———, Coins from the 1973 and 1974 excavations at Heshbon, in Andrews University Seminary Studies 14.1 (1976), 133–41. ———, Coins from the 1976 excavations at Heshbon, in Andrews University Seminary Studies 18.2 (1980), 173–80. ———, The coins from the excavations at Hesban, in P.J. Ray (ed.), Hesban 12. Small finds: Studies of bone, iron, glass, figurines and stone objects from Tell Hesban and vicinity, Berrien Springs, MI 2009, 309–49. Tushingham, A.D., The excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab, Cambridge 1972. Walker, B.J., Jordan in the late middle ages: Transformation of the Mamlūk frontier, Chicago 2012. ———, The northern Jordan survey 2003—agriculture in late Islamic Malka and Hubras villages: A preliminary report on the first season, in BASOR 339 (2005), 76–7. Walmsley, A., Settled life in Mamluk Jordan, views of the Jordan valley from Faḥl (Pella), in ARAM Periodical 9–10 (1997–8), 129–43. Whitcomb, D., Ayla in the balance: Glass and bronze weights from the Aqaba excavations, in Yarmouk Numismatics 7 (1995), 34–54. al-Zuʿbī, I., and Ḍ. Ṭawālbah, Taqrīr nihāʾī ḥawl aʿmāl al-tanqībāt al-āthāriyya fī mawqiʿ Umm Qays 2003, in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 48 (2008), 51–8.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY EARLY MAMLUK STRATEGIES OF DOMINATION IN SYRIA THE CASE OF THE AYYUBID PRINCIPALITY OF HAMA

Anne TROADEC

The work of Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes, published in 1923 and entitled La Syrie à l’époque des Mamelouks d’après les auteurs arabes, is the only authoritative overview to date on Mamluk Syria.1 The book is mainly a translation of the fourth volume of al-Qalqashandī’s Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā, which was dedicated to Mamluk administration in Syria. The introduction provides reflections on the mechanisms of Mamluk domination and the nature of relations between the central power in Cairo and the Syrian province. Gaudefroy-Demombynes depicts Syria as a military march between Egypt and its enemies, and closely dominated by Cairo. He argues that this situation resulted from the conflict between opposing conceptions of Syria: One stating that it was a geographical entity that could be unified or federated; another stating that it was a territory without political unity that needed a protectorate from abroad and a centralized organization to prevent its disintegration: L’administration de la Syrie à l’époque des Mamelouks est un compromis entre deux conceptions différentes, qui ont été récemment encore, l’objet de discussions passionnées : la Syrie est une unité géographique qui a sa personnalité propre, avec une population unique d’origine et en tout cas possible à unifier ou à fédéraliser, avec une ancienne capitale historique, Damas ; ou bien la Syrie est sans unité géographique, ethnographique, religieuse, historique, et on peut tout au plus rêver pour elle une union économique et une sorte de protectorat étranger, seul capable d’y maintenir la paix. On comprend que la question ainsi posée dans ses conséquences politiques ait intéressé singulièrement le sultan et les 2 émirs.

This statement should be considered in the contemporary context of Gaudefroy-Demombynes, that is, during the discussions that accompanied the establishment of the French Mandate over Lebanon and Syria in the aftermath of World War I. To uphold their “civilizing mission” in Syria in the face of nascent Syrian nationalism, the French authorities followed a political approach based on clien1

2

This is in spite of the recent bourgeoning of studies: See the special issue of MSR 11/1 (2007), as well as the work of Luz, Mamluk city, with a focus on Bilād al-Shām. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, La Syrie cvi.

164

A. TROADEC

telism with the various minorities of Syria and Lebanon.3 Hence, Gaudefroy-Demombynes, sharing the Orientalist view of an unchanging Orient in which the present structures are mere traces of the past, unsurprisingly states that the conception of Syria as a territory lacking political unity was shared in Cairo by the Mamluk sultans, and thus attempts to justify French control over Syria.4 The pattern of domination in Syria as a centralized province of Cairo emerged during the early Mamluk period. This implied a shift from the situation of the Ayyubid period. It is thus important to ask: How then did the transition from the Ayyubids to Mamluks affect the political rule of the area? On what terms and through what mechanisms were the Ayyubid principalities integrated into the Mamluk politicaladministrative system? In the present article, I aim to answer these questions by using the mamlaka of Hama during the early Mamluk period as a case study and analyzing the implications of the Ayyubid lords’ loyalty to the Mamluk sultans. The city of Hama lies on the shores of the Nahr al-ʿĀṣī (Orontes River) in a fertile region, 150 kilometers south of Aleppo. Throughout its history, it has long been a subject of dispute between rulers, be they great autonomous princes— Fatimids, Saljuqs, and Zangids—, or petty local rulers—Mirdasids, Atabags, and Burids.5 At the very beginning of the Ayyubid period, Hama was conquered by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, who gave it as an iqṭāʿ to his nephew al-Muẓaffar Taqī al-Dīn ʿUmar (d. 587/1191).6 Upon his death in 587/1191, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn offered it to al-Muẓaffar’s son, al-Manṣūr Muḥammad b. ʿUmar (d. 617/1220), whose descendants remained masters of the town throughout the Ayyubid period and until 742/1341 (to wit, the Mamluk period). This allowed the city to grow and develop in near independence, but its geographical position between Damascus and Aleppo made it a buffer state between these two principalities, and it was sometimes directly threatened by its powerful neighbor, Aleppo. Toward the end of the Ayyubid period, Hama chose the camp of al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (d. 647/1249), ruler of Egypt, Damascus, and part of Syria, in the power struggle in which he opposed al-Nāṣir Yūsuf of Aleppo (d. 658/1260). This alliance with Cairo seems to have been decisive in Hama’s strategy at the beginning of the Mamluk period, as we see. The principality was composed of the madīna of Hama, which had walls and a citadel erected by Taqī al-Dīn ʿUmar.7 In addition to the city itself, there were several oddly 3 4

5 6

7

On this issue, see an overview of recent research in Méouchy, France. However, he adds that the view of Syria as an independent entity was sometimes promoted by the governors of Damascus to threaten the authority of the sultan of Cairo. GaudefroyDemombynes, La Syrie cvi. See Sourdel, Ḥamāt, and, more recently, Hirschler, Formation. Ibn Shaddād, Description 292–3. See the genealogy of the Ayyubids of Hama in the chart at the end of this article (chart 2.1). Ibn Jubayr, al-Riḥla 280. It is worth noting that Ibn Jubayr, who visited the city in Rabīʿ I 580/ June 1184, makes no mention of the disastrous earthquake of 552/1157 that utterly destroyed the infrastructure of Hama, as the epicenter was located close to the city. On the literary

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

165

scattered districts: Apamea, Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān, Manbij, Qalʿat Najm, as well as Salāmiyya to the southeast on an important road leading to Hama.8 Bārīn, between Homs and the coast, was then added to the principality in 559/1199 after its conquest by al-Manṣūr Muḥammad, in exchange for Manbij and Qalʿat Najm.9 Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān, situated in the heart of a fertile region, lies farther north of Hama and is almost an enclave of the Aleppo territory.10 In Shaʿbān 635/April 1238, it was seized by force by troops sent by Ḍayfa Khātūn, regent of al-Nāṣir Yūsuf, the young ruler of Aleppo; the victory was celebrated with drums.11 Aleppo’s army then regrouped in Shayzār, where it launched raids against Hama until the start of the year 636/August 1238, pillaged fields and gardens in the vicinity, and even besieged the city in Shawwāl/mid-May. The intention was to make the lord of Hama, al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd (d. 642/1244), understand that he had to renounce to Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān.12 In 626/1229, Salāmiyya was given to al-Mujāhid Shīrkūh of Homs (d. 637/1239), but the rulers of Homs and Hama continued to dispute it for more than a decade before al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb, the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, gave it back to al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd (d. 698/1299) of Hama in the winter of 645/1247. However, Salāmiyya then, before 748/1250–1, fell into the hands of al-Nāṣir Yūsuf.13 With the Mamluks’ overthrow of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt, Sultan al-Nāṣir of Aleppo was the only ruler in Syria: al-Manṣūr Muḥammad of Hama was thus left with no choice but to become his vassal; this is evident from the dirham coins minted in the name of al-Nāṣir in Hama between 648/1240 and 657/1257.14 During the Mongol invasion of Syria, Hama asked Hūlāgū for amān and negotiated to keep its ramparts, necessary for the city’s defense against the Franks. At this time, its prince, al-Manṣūr Muḥammad, was in Palestine with alNāṣir; he departed from there for Cairo to ensure the safety of al-Nāṣir’s family with the Mamluk sultan Quṭuz.15 History only recorded Baybars’s decisive role in shaping the Bilād al-Shām under the Mamluks, though Quṭuz seemed to have paved the way, as we see below. After Baybars seized power in 658/1260, he implemented various strategies of domination over the Bilād al-Shām. His main concern became Palestine, where

8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

impact of the earthquake, see Hirschler, Formation 97. Humphreys, From Saladin 83. Ibn Shaddād, Description 293. According to the Turkish chronicler Qirṭāy al-ʿIzzī, in the year 628/1230–1, the principality of Hama was considered to be composed of Hama, Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān, and Bārīn “wa-mā baynahumā” (Qirṭāy al-ʿIzzī, Tārīkh 53). Qirṭāy al-ʿIzzī, Tārīkh 63. See Eddé, La Principauté ayyoubide 114. Eddé, La Principauté ayyoubide 115. Humphreys, From Saladin 207, 293–4, 309. See Balog, The coinage 237 and Eddé, La Principauté ayyoubide 150. Eddé, La Principauté ayyoubide 185; Humphreys, From Saladin 350–3.

166

A. TROADEC

he chose to establish direct rule. After its conquest, which began with the taking of Caesarea in 663/1264, the sultan distributed land to ensure the loyalty of the amirs who had participated in the operations. Local troops were also involved in the military defense of the region on behalf of the new rulers. Several studies have highlighted Baybars’s concern for Palestine; these include studies on the revival of a sacred topography,16 a building program,17 and the proclamation of ideology through epigraphy.18 Thus, Palestine became a new center of power closely connected to the sultan. Mamluk domination in Palestine was established on built structures (fortresses, bridges, and mosques), which contributed to a public projection of power, and on more temporary ones: Mamluk camps, used as places of power in a context of itinerant kingship.19 However, in other areas located far from the centers of power on the periphery, such as the Ayyubid principality of Hama, the regime chose to rely on local powers. This was also the case for the Gharb (southeast of Beirut) where the Mamluks decided to support the local elite of the region, notably the Buḥturid family, instead of replacing them with Mamluk governors.20 The center/periphery pattern—the focus of this book—seems to be particularly appropriate in the context of the early Mamluk sultanate, although these concepts must be defined. At this early stage, the center was not necessarily Cairo, rather, it was more likely where the sultan, or his representative, was located. We should keep in mind that during Baybars’s reign, the sultan was constantly on the move, not only to undertake military campaigns, but also to inspect and administer his budding empire. Thus, his domination relied on a plurality of centers of power, in Cairo, Damascus, and Palestine, as previously indicated, and based on both itinerant and sedentary structures. However, some places in Syria can be qualified as peripheral, not because of their remoteness from Cairo, but because they were located outside the area under the effective control of the sultan. These territories can be considered peripheries, because they were governed by local powers that preexisted the Mamluk sultanate (and that had survived the Mongol invasion of Syria in 657–8/1259–60). Indeed, the very issue of bringing peripheries under the domination of the center and managing their diversity has been a constant concern of empires, as stated by Frédéric Hurlet: “Le principe d’une étude des empires à partir de l’analyse des relations entre le(s) centre(s) et ses périphéries … pose la 16 17 18 19 20

Frenkel, Baybars. Taragan, Doors; Taragan, Sign of the time. Aigle, Les Inscriptions. Troadec, Early Mamluk camps. The history of this family is well documented through the chronicle written by one of its members, Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā (d. 839/1436) who composed Tārīkh Bayrūt dedicated to the defense of the interests of the family vis-à-vis the Mamluk authorities. For a general presentation of the family, see Salibi, The Buḥturids.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

167

question fondamentale des modalités de l’emprise des empires sur des territoires aux dimensions très diverses.”21 In addition to this issue of controlling a huge territory with multiple centers and peripheries—taking into consideration the difficulties caused by distance—was the challenge of governing the local people. Governing the early Mamluk Empire involved creating relations of subordination between the sultan and the local powers already existing on the periphery. With regard to empires, Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper discuss the critical issue of relationships with local powers. To understand how empires were governed and were able to sustain themselves over the long term, it is necessary to focus on the “intermediary group”: Rulers of empires sent out agents—governors, generals, tax collectors—to take charge of territories they incorporated. Could they send enough of these people— at sufficiently low cost—to govern every village or district in a widely dispersed realm? Rarely. Most often, imperial rulers needed the skills, knowledge and authority of people from a conquered society—elites who could gain from cooperation or people who had been earlier marginal and could see advantages in serving 22 the victorious power.

To study this intermediary group in the early Mamluk sultanate, we need a “stereoscopic view”23 to allow us to understand the changes affecting metropolitan hegemony. This is possible thanks to the nature of the historiographical sources at our disposal. The famous Ayyubid prince of Hama, polymath and poet, alMuʾayyad Ismāʿīl Abū al-Fidāʾ (d. 732/1331), composed a universal chronicle entitled al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar, which constitutes the main source of this paper.24 Another chronicler, Ibn Wāṣil (d. 697/1298), was born in Hama and served its prince, al-Manṣūr Muḥammad (d. 683/1284). His Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb reports events until 661/1262,25 and provides a picture of the transition from Ayyubid to Mamluk rule from the perspective of the periphery. His chronicle was completed in 695/1296 with a dhayl composed by Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Mālikī (d. 701/1302), known as Ibn al-Mughayzil. He was a chancery secretary (kātib al-darj, then head of the dīwān al-inshāʾ) of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad, and later his son al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd with whom he had close ties. He witnessed several episodes of Baybars’s and Qalāwūn’s conquests of the Bilād

21 22 23 24 25

Hurlet, Les Empires 245. Burbank and Cooper, Empires 13. This expression was used by John Meloy in his dissertation, Mamluk authority 8. Abū al-Fidāʾ, al-Mukhtaṣar and Abū al-Fidāʾ, Memoirs. Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb. For a comparative study between his chronicle and Abū Shāma’s from a literary and sociological point of view, see Hirschler, Medieval Arabic historiography..

168

A. TROADEC

al-Shām (and Anatolia).26 He also attended his patron during his meetings with the sultan of Egypt27 and wrote several letters on behalf of the Ayyubid prince.28 In addition to these local chronicles, the biographies of sultans Baybars and Qalāwūn provide insight from within the ruling circles and reflect the ideology of power from Cairo.29 Another set of sources relates to administrative encyclopedias such as Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār composed by Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī (d. 749/1348) and reused by al-Qalqashandī (d. 821/1418) in his Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā. Al-ʿUmarī is uniquely important in this respect, because, as a contemporary of the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn (3rd reign 709–41/1311–41) and alMuʾayyad Abū al-Fidāʾ, he provides elements that help us understand their mutual relationship. To analyze the mechanisms through which local groups and imperial intermediaries are brought to the service of the sultan, as well as the various components of their loyalty, I base my argument on an enlightening paper by John Haldon, who investigates the way in which premodern states were able to maintain their domination. One main concern of his paper is the relationship between the center elite and the non-central powers. Haldon maintains that the key issue of state power and its survival (irrespective of the definition of state adopted here)30 is its ability to build a relationship with pre-existing local elites. Some crucial components of this relationship include the various degrees of reciprocity, con-

26

27

28

29

30

For example, the taking of Baghrās, Dayr Kūsh, and al-Quṣayr (Ibn al-Mughayzil, Dhayl 66– 7) in 666/1268, or Baybars’s expedition to Anatolia in 675/1276 (ibid. 84). He also attended Qalāwūn’s conquest of Marqab, after which he wrote a letter to inform al-Muẓaffar’s vizier in Hama (ibid. 111–3); he was also present at the defeat of Tripoli (688/1289), for which he wrote the letter of victory (ibid. 120–2). He accompanied al-Malik al-Muẓaffar to Damascus in 684/1285 after his accession to welcome (tarḥīb) al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (ibid. 111). For example, letters to al-Ashraf Khalīl after the conquest of Acre in 690/1291 and Qalʿat alRūm in 691/1292 (ibid. 140–1, 142–3); the response to a taqlīd received by al-Muẓaffar in 693/1294 (ibid. 151–3); or a letter to the vizier Ibn Ḥinnā (ibid. 154–6). His chronicle also exhibits an exchange of correspondence with his master to reclaim a robe of honor that alMuẓaffar promised him and that was given belatedly (ibid. 144–7). The famous “three biographies” of Baybars are Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir, Ibn Shaddād, Taʾrīkh, and Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, Ḥusn al-manāqib (see Holt, Three Biographies). The two biographies of Qalāwūn are Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tashrīf al-ayyām and Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, al-Faḍl almaʾthūr (see Holt, The Presentation; Mansuri, Le Portrait). Despite the in-depth debates on this concept and the impossibility of reaching a universally accepted definition, Haldon proposes to define a state as “the most basic level to refer both to a relatively short-lived group or tribal clan communities under a warlord or chieftain who is endowed with both symbolic and military authority (…) as well as to a more-or-less territorially unified political entity, with a ‘centre (which may be peripatetic) from which a ruler or ruling group exercises political authority, and which maintains its existence over more than a single generation.” Haldon, Pre-industrial states 6.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

169

sensus, and interdependence between the state power and the leading elements of the conquered groups or previous political formations. Basing my arguments on these propositions, I propose an analytical grid to define the relationships between the Mamluk sultans and the Ayyubids of Hama, a grid that can be extended, with variants, to other power groups in Syria. In this process, I note three key elements: hierarchy, exclusivity, and formalization. 1. Hierarchy The strategy of the Mamluk sultans of Cairo toward the Ayyubid princes of Hama was characteristic of the Mamluk social order (niẓām) with its strong sense of hierarchy.31 In the early decades of the Mamluk regime, the various accounts of the personal meetings that took place between the sultans of Cairo and the princes of Hama reveal their mutual willingness to establish a hierarchy. Mamluk politics in Syria was initiated by the Mamluk sultan al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz (r. 657–8/1259– 60), whose relatively brief reign was overshadowed by that of his successor Baybars.32 Yet two episodes from the reign of Quṭuz are particularly enlightening with regard to his strategy toward the Ayyubids of Hama. These episodes established the relationship based on the reciprocal acknowledgment of the new hierarchy, with the Mamluk sultan at the apex. The first episode took place during the disarray following the Mongol occupation of Syria in Ṣafar 658/February 1260. Ibn Wāṣil was the only chronicler to transmit the record. Al-Manṣūr Muḥammad of Hama, while on his way to Cairo to seek refuge accompanied by the family of al-Nāṣir, received a banner (sanjaq) from Quṭuz, as a symbol of their alliance for a future joint military operation in Syria.33 Al-Manṣūr was then received by Quṭuz in Cairo, where he was treated with honor and generosity. During Quṭuz’s stay in Cairo, both princes played in the maydān. On that occasion, al-Manṣūr Muḥammad offered Quṭuz a horse of great value, so he could surpass the sultan in games. The gift was a symbolic recognition of both their alliance and the hierarchy between them. The Ayyubid prince chose to subordinate himself to the sultan by giving him the best horse, thus suggesting that he could not win against the sultan. It also created a personal relationship (ḥubb and manzila fī qalbihi), which was decisive for the fate of Hama, as we see later. During this stay, Quṭuz promised al-Manṣūr to give him

31

32

33

For a discussion of the political use of the term, see Clifford, State formation 55. For a spatial translation of ranking and social order, see the remarks of Chamberlain, Knowledge 159–62. We should consider Baybars himself responsible for sending Quṭuz into oblivion, as he deliberately assassinated him. His tomb was moved on Baybars’s orders, because it had started to attract visitors (ziyārāt): Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm vii, 87. Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb 272. See Humphreys, From Saladin 352.

170

A. TROADEC

back his territories (bilād) after the defeat of the enemy (wuʿida bi-bilād idhā kassara al-ʿaduww). The second event took place in the aftermath of ʿAyn Jālūt. The sultan Quṭuz, then in Damascus, officially confirmed the bestowal of an iqṭāʿ on alManṣūr Muḥammad in Hama and also on al-Ashraf Muẓaffar al-Dīn Mūsā (d. 662/1263) in Homs.34 The latter, although he had taken the Mongols’ side in 658/1260 and become a Mongol governor (nāʾib) in Syria, was confirmed in his former principality of Homs, to which Raḥba, Tall Bashīr, and Tadmur were added.35 In this manner, Quṭuz initiated a policy that was perpetuated by Baybars. The Mamluk sultan in Cairo granted his domains to the Ayyubid prince of Hama. These grants also signified Hama’s recognition of the suzerainety of Cairo. The very occasion of the bestowal of these grants might have paved the way to resettle the iqṭāʿ in order to obtain new domains or regain previous possessions. In 658/1260, al-Manṣūr Muḥammad of Hama was given Maʿarrat alNuʿmān, which had been taken by Aleppo.36 When Baybars confirmed alManṣūr’s authority over Hama, as we see later, he added the Ismaili territories (qilāʿ al-daʿwa) that bordered his domain. In other words, he intended to transfer to the Ayyubid prince the collection of a tribute (qaṭīʿa) that the Ismailis had previously paid to the Hospitallers.37 At the beginning of his reign (683/1284), Qalāwūn reconfirmed Maʿarrat and Bārīn under the control of al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd, the son of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad.38 Even given the existence of a hierarchy, it was necessary to make another agreement. This agreement was formalized by the sultan, who granted a diploma (taqlīd) to the Ayyubid prince. As early as 659/1261, when he entered Damascus for the first time as sultan, Baybars received the Ayyubid prince al-Manṣūr 34 35

36

37 38

Baybars al-Manṣūrī, Zubdat al-fikra 52; al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab xxix, 304. In 648/1250, he was deprived of Homs by al-Nāṣir Yūsuf of Damascus and given Tall Bashīr instead. Ibn Wāṣil adds that Shumaysāt was also exchanged with al-Nāṣir against Qalʿat Jaʿbar. When Hūlāgū entered Syria, al-Ashraf joined his camp and all of his possessions were returned (Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb, 273; Ibn al-Ṣuqāʿī, Tālī n° 213; al-Yūnīnī, Dhayl i, 377). On al-Ashraf Mūsā’s cooperation with the Mongols, see Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks 31; Amitai, Mongol provincial administration 134–5. The exact extent of al-Ashraf’s authority during the Mongol domination is unclear: according to al-Yūnīnī, al-Ashraf became one of the Mongol governors in Syria. Other sources, like Ibn Wāṣil (Mufarrij al-kurūb 273), say that he had authority over all of Syria (nāʾib al-mulk ʿalā hāʾulāʾi al-nuwwāb almadhkurīn), meaning that after the departure of Hūlāgū, “he was still theoretically the ruler of all of Syria” (Amitai, Mongol provincial administration 135). In return, and as a favor (anʿama), al-Manṣūr gave Salāmiyya to Quṭuz. It belonged to alManṣūr ʿAlī, the brother-in-law of the amir Sharaf al-Dīn ʿĪsā b. Muhannā. In this case, hierarchy came with reciprocity (Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb 293). Baybars al-Manṣurī, Zubdat al-fikra 69. Al-Yūnīnī, Dhayl iv, 202–3.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

171

Muḥammad of Hama, as well as al-Ashraf Mūsā of Homs and Raḥba, who had come to place themselves at his service. A ceremony was then organized.39 The Ayyubid princes received a musical band on horseback (khayl al-nawba), banners (ʿaṣāʾib), and royal paraphernalia (shaʿāʾir al-mamlaka). The amirs dismounted and stayed in his service. Games were organized in the maydān of Damascus, and the Ayyubid princes played polo with the sultan. During the ceremony, diplomas (taqālīd) were issued by the Mamluk chancery. Shortly after Qalāwūn’s accession to the throne of Egypt, he received al-Manṣūr Muḥammad in Cairo and treated him with great deference. He issued a diploma to him, thus reconfirming his jurisdiction over Hama, Bārīn, and Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān, and gave him banners, four boxes of gold and silver, four boxes of fabric (qumāsh), and a horse.40 The acceptance of the diploma was a de facto recognition of Mamluk sovereignty and his hierarchical relationship with the sultan.41 The hierarchy, headed by the Mamluk sultan, was presented as a way to legitimize Baybars’s reign by his biographer. In a short narrative, Ibn ʿAbd alẒāhir quotes Ibn al-Athīr’s account about Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn: it depicts the latter being helped by a Saljuqid scion and atābak. Ibn al-Athīr concludes by writing: “You do not fear death, o son of Ayyūb. You have reached such a position that a Seljuqid helps you and an atābak arranges your dress.”42 Then Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir concludes with this allusion to Baybars: “Where is he, the one who said that. Let him see the sultan served by kings.” This reflection is clearly linked to the Ayyubid princes who entered the service of Baybars, as described above.43 However, the hierarchical relationship was subject to gradual adjustments. For a short period following the death of al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd (in 698/1299), the son of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad who had died heirless, the Mamluks removed Hama from Ayyubid control. The Mamluk sultan placed Hama under direct Mamluk domination: he appointed a Mamluk amir as governor, namely the great amir Sayf al-Dīn Qarāsunqur al-Manṣūrī (d. 728/1328).44 The Ayyubid house continued to 39 40

41 42 43 44

Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 119; Baybars al-Manṣurī, Zubdat al-fikra 68–9. Ibn al-Furāt, Taʾrīkh al-duwal vii, 159; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk ii, 125 (25 Shawwāl 678/27 February 1280). Northrup, From save to sultan 213. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 120 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 120. Abū al-Fidāʾ, Memoirs 34. According to the Ayyubid prince of Hama, his nomination occurred after he asked the authorities in Cairo to remove him from al-Ṣubayba, where he had been granted an iqṭāʿ after his release (al-Yūnīnī, Early Mamluk Syrian historiography i, 125). This nomination must also relate to the military preparations against the Mongols in Syria in the same year and the need for a great commander. For the prince’s biography, see al-Ṣafadī, alWāfī xxiv, 212–22 (n° 229); al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr iv, n° 1367; Ibn Ṭaghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm ix, 273–4. In Jumādā I 699/January 1300, he was replaced by Zayn al-Dīn Kitbughā (al-Yūnīnī, Early Mamluk Syrian historiography i, 166).

172

A. TROADEC

have a role in the city, but its members found themselves in the service of the Mamluk governor. When he entered the city, the members of the Ayyubid house were expected to put themselves in his service.45 This situation lasted for ten years: In 710/1310, al-Muʾayyad Abū al-Fidāʾ negotiated his return to Hama with the sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn, with whom he had friendly relations, and al-Muʾayyad Abū al-Fidāʾ was appointed governor.46 Then, ten years later, the sultan al-Nāṣir granted him the title of sultan.47 Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, whose administrative manual reflects the situation during al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s reign, mentions that the diploma given to the Ayyubid prince was a marsūm sharīf (noble decree), which is higher than the diplomas (taqālīd) previously given to the rulers of Hama, as confirmation of their iqṭāʿ by the Mamluk hierarchy. The sultan of Hama then had independent authority, as shown by his right to appoint amirs, distribute land grants (iqṭāʿ), and nominate qāḍīs, secretaries, etc.: “yastaqillu fīhā bi-iʿṭāʾ al-imāra bi-l-iqṭāʿāṭ wa-tawliyat al-quḍāt wa-l-wuzarāʾ wa-kuttāb al-sirr wa-kulli al-waẓāʾif.”48 Diplomas were issued in his name. However, this does not mean that the hierarchy was challenged: Ibn Faḍl Allāh explains that major decisions were only taken after consultation (shūrā) with the Mamluk sultan, through an exchange of correspondence. Further, the investiture of the sultan of Hama was still decided by the sultan, as was the right to dismiss him. 2. Exclusivity As far as the Ayyubids of Hama were concerned, exclusivity in the service of the sultan meant that they were prohibited from building alliances with external enemies, namely the crusaders and Mongols. Exclusivity can be understood as a consequence of hierarchy. Unlike other local groups in Syria, such as the Bedouin tribes or the Buḥturids of the Gharb (Lebanon), who had allied themselves not only with the Mamluks but also with the Mongols during the turbulent period of Mongol domination,49 the Ayyubids of Hama remained exclusively in the service of the Mamluk sultan. When al-Manṣūr Muḥammad fled before the troops of 45 46 47 48 49

Abū al-Fidāʾ, Memoirs 43. Ibid. 53–4. Ibid. 78. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣār 66. There is no comprehensive study on the role of the Syrian tribes during the war between the Mongols and Mamluks. The Āl Faḍl tribe (ʿĪsā b. Muhannā and sons) changed loyalties several times, while the Khafāja tribe chose the Mongol side (Ibn Shaddād, Taʾrīkh 171). See Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks 64–71. On the Buḥturids, see, for example, Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, Tārīkh Bayrūt 60 and Salibi, The Buḥturids 85; when the family was divided into two sides, each one chose a different camp in the battle of ʿAyn Jālūt. For an interpretation of the changing loyalties, see Amitai, Northern Syria.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

173

Hūlāgū and sought refuge in Cairo, Sultan Quṭuz sent him a banner (sanjaq), a symbol of alliance, as an agreement (ittifāq) for a joint expedition toward Syria.50 After Baybars’s accession to the throne, the governor of Damascus, Sanjar alḤalabī, rose up against the sultan of Cairo, claimed the title of sulṭān for himself, and sought an alliance in Syria. Al-Manṣūr of Hama declared that he would follow the ruler of Egypt, whoever he was.51 The whole episode of Sanjar al-Ḥalabī’s “revolt” reveals that the Mamluk sultanate’s conception of political organization was still in alignment with the Ayyubid’s at that time: In Ayyubid Syria, the title of sultan could be borne by several members of the Ayyubid family, simultaneously, in quite a free manner. However, the sources indicate that the Ayyubids used to recognize the suzerainty of one sultan in particular, notably “the sultan of Egypt up to 1250, and then, the sultan of Syria.”52 Thus, by acknowledging the suzerainty of Sultan Baybars of Cairo, the Ayyubid ruler of Hama expressed his will to continue with an Ayyubid conception of power—in this case, a one based on a situation that had existed prior to the time of al-Nāṣir Yūsuf. This exclusive allegiance to the power in Cairo builds on the policy pursued by the prince of Hama at the time of al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb. The breakup of the exclusive relationship from another Ayyubid kinsman, al-Mughīth ʿUmar, prince of al-Karak, who had submitted to the Mongols, is presented by Baybars’s propagandist as the reason for al-Mughīth’s fall in 661/1263.53 Their relationship did not begin with Baybars’s accession to the throne, for he had put himself in al-Mughīth’s service as early as 655/1256, during the years he wandered with the Baḥriyya Mamluks in Palestine and Transjordan.54 Baybars and the Baḥriyya troops undertook raids in Palestine on behalf of their patron, leading to the Ghūṭa of Damascus itself.55 At that time, al-Mughīth was powerful enough to threaten al-Nāṣir’s ambitions, as well as those of the Mamluks in Cairo. However, the rise of the Mongols and the emergence of the Kurds from the Shahrāzūr as a tribal group in Syrian politics led to a new deal. Al-Mughīth is alleged to have played the Shahrāzūrī against the Baḥriyya.56 In 657/1259, Baybars turned to al-Nāṣir, but this is presented in Baybars’s biography as a consequence of al-Mughīth’s betrayal. Soon afterward, as the Mongols approached, al-Mughīth decided to submit himself to them and sent his son, al-Azīz ʿUthmān,

50 51 52 53

54 55 56

Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb 272. Ibid. 301; al-Yūnīnī, Dhayl ii, 3; al-Kutubī, ʿUyūn al-tawārīkh xx, 231. Eddé, La Principauté ayyoubide 198. On his arrest, see Baybars al-Manṣurī, Zubdat al-fikra 80; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 149; al-Yūnīnī, Dhayl i, 532–3. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 57, 61; Humphreys, From Saladin 331. Humphreys, From Saladin 342 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 122–3.

174

A. TROADEC

to the Mongol khan to express this personally.57 Hūlāgū recognized his suzerainty over al-Karak and Hebron as well.58 However, al-Mughīth did not personally take part in the Battle of ʿAyn Jālūt, as he was, perhaps, waiting for the outcome of the battle before deciding whether to change allegiance.59 After his accession to power, Baybars expressed his desire to build a firm relationship with al-Mughīth by sending him a banner with insignias of rulership; he also gave Dabyān (in the Balqāʾ) as an iqṭāʿ to al-Mughīth’s son.60 His principality had survived the crisis of 658–9/1259–61. However, in 661/1263, Baybars seized him and his family and sent him to Cairo as a prisoner. The reason invoked by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir was his involvement on the Mongols’ side, which had provoked the sultan’s anger toward him. This aspect was staged on the very occasion of al-Mughīth’s arrest: Baybars summoned the qāḍī al-quḍāt of Damascus and the ʿulamāʾ, and, based on alMughīth’s correspondence with the Mongols, they issued a fatwa to legalize the arrest. Once al-Malik al-Mughīth was arrested, the sultan summoned princes, amirs, qāḍīs, legal witnesses, soldiers, and the ambassadors of the Franks, and brought out a letter he had received from the Mongols (al-ʿaduww al-makhdhūl). The atābak said: “The sultan gives you his regards and says: ‘I seized al-Malik alMughīth for this reason only.’” The letter was read and al-Malik al-Ashraf turned away with all of the group. He said to the qāḍīs and all the ʿulamāʾ: “I summoned you only for this reason” and a document was written about the situation by the qāḍīs and the ʿulamāʾ.61 It is worth noting that the only reason given for al-Mughīth’s arrest is the betrayal of his exclusive relationship with the Mamluks, as attested in his correspondence with the Mongols. Indeed, the entire relationship between al-Mughīth and Baybars was not very peaceful.62 Soon afterward, the sultan took possession of al-Karak and appointed a governor.63 Exclusivity in the relationship involved military cooperation. The troops of Hama fought among the Muslim Syrian troops and participated in almost all of the Mamluk campaigns. For example, in 669/1271, during the siege of Ḥiṣn al-Akrād, Baybars welcomed the army of al-Manṣūr of Hama, dismounted to meet him, put 57 58 59

60 61 62

63

See Amitai, Mongol provincial administration 135. Ibn Shaddād, Liban 242. See Amitai, Hülegü. A position that was considered a stratagem (ḥīla) in Baybars’s biography (Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 123) and elsewhere as betrayal (khidāʿ) (ibid. 150). Ibid. 122–3. Ibid. 150–1. The final episode was the late arrival of al-Mughīth at Baybars’ camp in Baysān; this provoked the anger of the sultan, who had prepared a ceremony in his honor (ibid. 149) Namely his ustādhdār, ʿIzz al-Dīn Aydamur al-Ẓāhirī (ibid. 164; Baybars al-Manṣurī, Zubdat al-fikra 80).

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

175

himself under his banners without jamdāriyya (officer in charge of the sultan’s clothing) or silāḥdāriyya (arm-bearer), and sent al-Manṣūr a tent (dihlīz).64 In 680/1281, during the battle of Homs, al-Manṣūr took command of the right wing of the Muslim army against the Mongols, a position that his successors occupied thereafter (bi-rāʾs al-maymana).65 3. Formalization Premodern political systems were characterized by the prevalence of ceremonies and rituals. Mounira Chapoutot-Remadi, who analyzed the nature of the social bonds in Mamluk military society, highlights the fact that the various circumstances of life, such as military advancement in the army, expressions of loyalty, service, conflict resolution, and military alliance, all presented opportunities for public performance and ceremonies. These were strategies that the Mamluks used to stage their difference, called, after Claude Lévi-Strauss, their “identités séparées” (separate identities).66 In the case of Ayyubid Hama, the formalization of the alliance was more complex than simply the presentation of the Mamluk identity. Indeed, formal ceremonies were a mode of governance and formed the core of Mamluk politics in Hama. The nature of the relationship between the sultans of Cairo and the Ayyubids of Hama, based on hierarchy and exclusive loyalty, was formalized through ceremonies with a strong symbolic dimension. Mamluk chroniclers called these ceremonies khidma. The term usually means “service,” but it also had a practical and political dimension: the court of a sovereign was known as khidma.67 In the context of a military society, this refers to the weekly parades in Cairo through which Mamluk amirs came into the service of the sultan (the same word was used for the amirs of provincial cities entering into the service of the governor). The use of the term khidma symbolizes the prince of Hama entering into the service of the sultan, which implies a reciprocal relationship: The Ayyubid prince provided military assistance and counsel in exchange for gifts, in particular robes of honor (tashārīf, khilaʿ), and equestrian or military objects (such as swords). Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī provides a detailed description of the sultan of Hama’s robe of honor. It was exceptionally beautiful and sumptuous and was of 64 65

66 67

Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 375. Baybars al-Manṣūrī, Zubdat al-fikra 196 (for a unique description of the Mamluk order of battle); Abū al-Fidāʾ, al-Mukhtaṣar iv, 16. For the siege of Acre (690/1291), see Abū al-Fidāʾ, al-Mukhtaṣar iv, 26. See also Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks 191, n. 47. Chapoutot-Remadi, Liens propres. Both the military and religious elites used to perceive their ties in terms of service (khidma). For a study of the use of this concept, see Chamberlain, Knowledge 116ff. The domestic meaning of khidma in the context of the amir household is analyzed by Eychenne, Liens personnels 42.

176

A. TROADEC

higher rank and value (aʿlā) than all the other garments, including those of the amirs of one hundred. For example, the sultan of Hama was given a shāsh alIskandariyya made of silk and embroidered with gold and patterns of date clusters (mutamarran), whereas the amirs of one hundred wore a shāsh made of light muslin (lānis). He also received two horses (instead of one): one was equipped like those given to the amirs of one hundred and the other had a saddle cover made of red satin (kanbūsha zunnārī aṭlas aḥmar).68 What did this honorific robe mean? Robing was a common feature of ceremonies in the Mamluk period, as it had been during the Abbasid and Fatimid periods.69 The robe was a symbolic object that sealed the alliance between two parties, one superior, the other inferior; thus it was used to reinforce their relationship: “Khilaʿ has become normative vehicles for confirming personal ties and public ties between superiors and subordinates.”70 Therefore, robing was also a public celebration of hierarchy. The re-clothing of the Ayyubid prince of Hama, by sending him a robe of honor and publicly vesting him with the garment during a formal ceremony, made him part of the Mamluk political system.71 The robe was not the only artifact sent by the sultan. Objects like saddles and horse equipment had practical functions and symbolic connotations. At the end of his chronicle, Abū al-Fidāʾ provides vivid details about the gifts exchanged with Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn.72 This was a way to proclaim his good relationship with the sultan. The gifts were not only sent by the sultan to Hama, but also, annually, from Hama to the sultan.73 In this reciprocal gift exchange, the hierarchy was maintained: as a subordinate of the sultan, the Ayyubid prince of Hama used to send his gifts first (mainly horses). The sultan then advised of his acceptance, and only afterward did he send gifts in return: horses, precious horse equipment, garments, and sometimes, sums of money.74 Formalization and ceremonies were thus a way of publicly expressing the Ayyubid regime’s loyalty toward the Mamluks.

68 69

70 71

72 73

74

Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣār 70. For a comparative study of robing in the medieval world, from China to the Islamic world, see Gordon, Robes and Honor. Nevertheless, robing did not develop in the medieval West. Hambly, From Baghdad 204. After receiving the robe and gifts, the prince of Hama used to parade across the city (see Abū al-Fidāʾ, Memoirs 55). Ibid. 55, 75, 89. “This year (716), I sent my usual gift of horses, cloth and jewellery, and asked leave to go in person to the August Gates” (ibid. 71). Ibid. 60 (30,000 dirhams), 89 (300 dinars).

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

177

4. Conclusion Ayyubid Syria is usually depicted as a confederation of local petty principalities, each ruled by a prince of the Ayyubid house and interested in promoting its own political and strategic interests and autonomous administrative system.75 This would have naturally led to fragmentation and disintegration. Yet, despite all apparent probabilities, the general political evolution shifted toward centralization and militarization with the Mamluk sultanate. The vision presented by GaudefroyDemombynes at the beginning of this study—that of a divided Syria centralized from Cairo by means of the sultans’ robust action—does not allow us to understand the spatial and political logistics at work in the early Mamluk period; rather a study of the contemporary chronicles on the transition between the Ayyubid and Mamluk regimes proves more relevant in this respect. Historians of the Ayyubid period (R.S. Humphreys and A.-M. Eddé) saw the reign of al-Nāṣir Yūsuf (r. 634– 58/1238–60) as a crucial turning point in the evolution of the system. The prince of Aleppo, al-Nāṣir Yūsuf, taking advantage of turbulent events in Cairo, namely the Mamluk’s seizure of power and the murder of al-Muʿaẓẓam Tūrān Shāh, took Damascus and accomplished the dream of the Ayyubid princes and unified Syria. In 648/1250, al-Nāṣir was ruling an important territory in Syria: He thus prepared the path for Mamluk domination over Syria. Another Ayyubid prince who deserves recognition, in regard to Mamluk domination over Bilād al-Shām, is al-Manṣūr Muḥammad of Hama. He displayed a certain genius, by betting on the Mamluks’ triumph and successfully establishing such a close relationship with them. Hama owed much to him for its central role in the Mamluk domination of Syria. Likewise, by choosing the Mamluk side, he allowed the principality of Hama to survive for three more generations and become an important provincial capital, at least in comparison to its secondary status during the Ayyubid period: Although Ayyubid princes were left in possession of the petty principalities of Transjordan, Homs and Hamah, the very circumstances of their survival made it clear that their continued existence depended entirely on the will of the Mamluk sultan. Since the Ayyubids no longer ruled Aleppo or Damascus it was hardly 76 possible for them to pose any threat to Mamluk hegemony in Syria.

The Ayyubids of Hama succeeded in making themselves indispensable to the Mamluk domination of Syria. The Mamluks tolerated them not only because they posed no threat to the regime, but also because they needed them to establish their domination over the periphery. From this perspective, we need to rehabilitate the memory of Sultan al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz, who, even before his victory at ʿAyn 75 76

Humphreys, From Saladin 10. Ibid. 360.

178

A. TROADEC

Jālūt, imagined the integration of the Ayyubid principality into the Mamluk strategy for Syria. In spatial terms, the strategy of relying on intermediate groups produced an uneven domination of Syria, creating a distinction between centers and peripheries: central areas (cities, citadels)—where the power was represented by appointed men—were distinct from the peripheries, which were mediated by these intermediaries. Mamluk success thus lay in its ability to generate stable, yet flexible structures that were sufficient enough to allow its survival.

179

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

Chart 8.1: Genealogy of the Ayyubids of Hama Shādī b. Marwān

Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf d. 589/1193

Nūr al-Dīn Shāhānshāh d. 543/1148

al-Muẓaffar Taqī l-Dīn ʿUmar d. 587/1191

al-Manṣūr Muḥammad d. 617/1221

al-Nāṣir Qilij Arslān d. 626/1229

al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd d. 642/1244

al-Manṣūr Muḥammad d. 683/1284

al-Afḍal ʿAlī

al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd d. 698/1299

al-Muʾayyad Abū l-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl d. 732/1332

al-Afḍal Muḥammad d. 742/1342

180

A. TROADEC

Bibliography Sources Abū al-Fidāʾ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar, 7 vols., Beirut 1956–61. ———, The memoirs of a Syrian prince, ed. P.M. Holt, Wiesbaden 1983. Baybars al-Manṣūrī, Zubdat al-fikra fī taʾrīkh al-hijra, ed. D.S. Richards, Beirut 1998. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-malik al-Ẓāhir, ed. A.A. Khuwayṭir, Riyadh 1976. ———, Tashrīf al-ayyām wa-l-ʿuṣūr fī sīrat al-malik al-Manṣūr, ed. M. Kāmil, Cairo 1961. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār: L’Égypte, la Syrie, le Hijaz et le Yémen, ed. A.F. Sayyid, Cairo 1985. Ibn al-Furāt, Taʾrīkh al-duwal wa-l-mulūk, ed. C. Zurayq and N. ʿIzz al-Dīn, vols. 7–9, Beirut 1936–42. Ibn Jubayr, al-Riḥla, trans. P. Charles-Dominique, Voyageurs arabes, Paris 1995, 68–368. Ibn al-Mughayzil, Dhayl Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb, ed. ʿU. Tadmurī, Beirut 2004. Ibn Shaddād, Description de la Syrie du Nord. Traduction annotée de al-Aʿlāq alḫatīra fī ḏikr umarāʾ al-Šām wa-l-Ǧazīra, ed. A-M. Eddé, Damascus 1984. ———, Liban, Jordanie, Palestine: Topographie historique d’Ibn Šaddād, ed. S. Dahan, Damascus 1963. ———, [Taʾrīkh al-Malik al-Ẓāhir] Die Geschichte des Sultans Baibars, ed. A. Hutait, Wiesbaden 1983. Ibn al-Ṣuqāʿī, Tālī kitāb al-Wafayāt, ed. J. Sublet, Damascus 1974. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira fī mulūk Misr wa-l-Qāhira, 10 vols., Cairo 1929–49. Ibn Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb, vol. 6, ed. ʿU. ʿA. al-S. Tadmurī, Beirut 2004. al-Kutubī, ʿUyūn al-tawārīkh, vols. 20–21, ed. F. al-Sāmir and N. Abd al-Munʿim Dāwād, Baghdad 1980–91. al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M. ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭāʾ, 8 vols., Beirut 1997.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

181

al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, vol. 29, ed. N. Fawwāz and H. Fawwāz, Beirut 2004. Qirṭāy al-ʿIzzī al-Khaznadārī, Tārīkh majmūʿ al-nawādir, ed. ʿU. Tadmurī, Beirut 2005. al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr wa-aʿwān al-naṣr, ed. M. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Mubārak, 6 vols., Beirut 1997. al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi-l-wāfayāt, ed. A. al-Arnāʾūṭ and T. Musṭafā, 29 vols., Beirut 2000. Ṣāliḥ b. Yahyā, Tārīkh Bayrūt, ed. F. Hours and K. Salibi, Beirut 1986. Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, [al-Faḍl al-maʾthūr min sīrat al-sulṭān al-Malik al-Manṣūr] Šāfiʿ Ibn ʿAlī’s Biography of the Mamluk sultan Qalāwūn, ed. P. Lewicka, Warsaw 2000. ———, Kitāb Ḥuṣn al-manāqib al-sirriyya al-muntazaʿa min al-sīra al-ẓāhiriyya, ed. A. A. Khuwaytir, Riyadh 1976. al-Yūnīnī, Dhayl Mirʾāt al-zamān or Supplement of the mirror of ages, 4 vols., Hyderabad 1954–61. ———, Early Mamluk Syrian historiography: al-Yunīnī’s Dhayl mirʾāt al-zamān, ed. L. Guo, Leiden 1998. Secondary Literature Aigle, D., Les Inscriptions de Baybars dans le Bilâd al-Shâm: une expression de la légitimité du pouvoir, in SI 96 (2003), 87–115. Amitai, R., Hülegü and the Ayyubid lord of Transjordan: More on the Mongol governor of al-Karak, in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9 (1995–7), 5–16. ———, Mongol provincial administration: Syria in 1260 as a case-study, in I. Shagrir, R. Ellenblum, and J. Riley-Smith (eds.), In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in crusades and medieval culture in honour of Benjamin Kedar, Aldershot 2007, 117–43. ———, Northern Syria between the Mongols and Mamluks: Political boundary, military frontier, and ethnic affinities, in N. Standen and D. Power (eds.), Frontiers in question: Eurasian borderlands, 700–1700, New York 1999, 128–152. Amitai-Preiss, R., Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid war, 1260–1281, Cambridge 1995. Balog, P., The coinage of the Ayyūbids, London 1980. Burbank, J., and Cooper, F., Empires in world history: Power and the politics of difference, Princeton 2011.

182

A. TROADEC

Chamberlain, M., Knowledge and social practice in Medieval Damascus 1190– 1350, Cambridge 1994. Chapoutot-Remadi, M., Liens propres et identités séparées chez les Mamlouks bahrides, in C. Décobert (ed.), Valeur et distance. Identités communautaires en Égypte, Paris 2000, 175–88. Clifford, W.W., State formation and the structure of politics in Mamluk SyroEgypt, 648–741 A.H./1250–1340 C.E., Bonn 2013. Eddé, A-M., La Principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183–658/1260), Stuttgart 1999. Eychenne, M., Liens personnels, clientélisme et réseaux de pouvoir dans le sultanat mamelouk (milieu XIIIe-fin XIVe siècle), Beirut 2013. Frenkel, J., Baybars and the sacred geography of the Bilad al-Sham: A chapter in the islamization of Syria’s landscape, in JSAI 25 (2001), 153–70. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M., La Syrie à l’époque des Mamelouks d’après les auteurs arabes, Paris 1923. Gordon, S., Robes and honor: The medieval world of investiture, New York 2001. Haldon, J., Pre-industrial states and the distribution of resources: The nature of the problem, in Averil Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near-East, vol. III: States ressources and armies, Princeton 1995, 1–25. Hambly, G., From Baghdad to Bukhara, from Ghazna to Delhi: The khilʿa ceremony in the transmission of kingly pomp and circumstance, in S. Gordon, Robes and honor: The medieval world of investiture, New York 2001, 193–222. Hirschler, K., The formation of the civilian elite in the Syrian province: The case of Ayyubid and early Mamluk Hamah, in MSR 12/2 (2008), 95–132. ———, Medieval Arabic historiography: Authors as actors, New York 2006. Holt, P.M., The presentation of Qalâwûn by Shâfi’ Ibn Ali, in C.E Bosworth (ed.), The Islamic world from classical to modern times: Essays in honor of B. Lewis, Princeton 1989, 141–50. ———, Three biographies of al-Zâhir Baybars, in D.O. Morgan (ed.), Medieval historical writing in the Christian and Islamic worlds, London 1982, 19–29. Humphreys, R.S., From Saladin to the Mongols. The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260, Albany 1977. Hurlet, F. (dir), Les Empires. Antiquité et Moyen Âge. Analyse comparée, Rennes 2008. Luz, N., The Mamluk city in the Middle East: History, culture, and the urban landscape, Cambridge 2014.

GOVERNING THE PERIPHERY

183

Mansuri, T., Le Portrait du sultan al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn d’après al-Faḍl al-Ma’ṯūr min Sīrat al-Malik al-Manṣūr de Šafiʿ b. ʿAlī, in D. Aigle (ed.), Le Bilād al-Šām face aux mondes extérieurs. La perception de l’Autre et la représentation du Souverain, Beirut 2012, 87–97. Meloy, J., Mamluk authority, Meccan autonomy and Red Sea trade, 797– 859/1395–1455, PhD dissertation, Chicago 1998. Méouchy, N., France, Syrie et Liban 1918–1946: Les ambiguïtés et les dynamiques de la relation mandataire, Damascus 2002. Northrup, L., From slave to sultan: The career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the consolidation of Mamluk rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 A.H./1279–1290 A.D.), Stuttgart 1998. Salibi, K., The Buḥturids of the Gharb: Mediaeval lords of Beirut and of southern Lebanon, in Arabica 8/1 (1961), 74–97. Sourdel, D., Ḥamāt, in EI2 iii, 119–21. Taragan, H., Doors that open meanings: Baybars’s red mosque at Safed, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian politics and society, Leiden 2004, 3–20. ———, Sign of the time. Reusing the past in Baybars’s architecture, in D. Wasserstein and A. Ayalon (eds.), Mamluks and Ottomans: Studies in Honor of Michael Winter, London and New York 2005, 54–66. Troadec, A., Early Mamluk camps in southern Bilād al-Shām, in R. Amitai (ed.), Proceedings of the International conference between Saladin and Selim the Grim: Syria under Ayyubid and Mamluk rule. Bonn, 9–11 July 2015 (forthcoming).

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE A RECONSTRUCTED RASULID LETTER ADDRESSED TO AL-MUʾAYYAD SHAYKH IN 817/1415

Frédéric BAUDEN

Moreover, no example of an original diplomatic letter has yet been identified in Yemeni archives or libraries. [...] The only surviving full-length epistolary testimonies are three copies of late documents from the Rasūlid Sultanate, preserved in non-Yemeni works dating from the early ninth/fifteenth century. [...] Three let1 ters for 225 years of rule, the documentary haul is quite poor!

1. Introduction The holograph manuscripts of the Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442) are now recognized as an unexpected repository of documents that were issued or received by the Mamluk chancery. So far, two studies have been published in which two kinds of documents were analyzed: a diploma granting land revenues to a Bedouin from al-Karak datable to 744/13442 and a Qara Qoyunlu letter addressed to the Mamluk sultan datable to 818/1415.3 These two documents reveal that al-Maqrīzī had access to two distinct sources of scrap paper: in the case of the first document, a family archives that was disposed of in the early ninth/fifteenth century, and for the second document, the Mamluk chancery or, rather, those working for it who disposed of diplomatic letters almost immediately after their receipt.4 Among al-Maqrīzī’s twenty-five holograph or autograph manu1

2 3 4

Vallet, Mūsā b. al-Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī 131–2 (“Plus encore, aucun exemple de lettre diplomatique originale n’a été pour l’heure repérée dans les fonds d’archives ou de bibliothèques yéménites. [...] Les seuls témoignages épistolaires intégraux ayant survécu sont trois copies de documents tardifs émanant du sultanat rasūlide, conservées dans des ouvrages non yéménites datant du début du IXe/XVe siècle. [...] Trois lettres pour 225 ans de règne, la moisson documentaire est bien maigre !”). Bauden, The recovery; Id., Mamluk diplomatics 10. Bauden, Diplomatic entanglements. It should be stressed that other fragments belong to a third source: documents related to al-

186

F. BAUDEN

scripts identified so far, totaling 5,191 leaves, 616 fragments can be traced back to original documents.5 This repository is unusual not only in its essence but also in the nature and contents of the documents partially preserved. The fragmentary documents published so far show that they were linked to dramatic events that render their survival in al-Maqrīzī’s manuscripts even more thrilling. The eighth/ fourteenth century diploma was delivered to a Bedouin in exchange for his betrayal of al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (d. 745/1344), the most maverick sultan the Mamluk sultanate ever counted, while the Qara Qoyunlu letter was related to a Timurid prince who had defected to the Qara Qoyunlu ruler. Far from being trivial, these written witnesses provide historians with tangible evidence and details regarding events reported by contemporary chroniclers through—sometimes biased—lenses. In the present study, I tackle a group of other fragments all belonging to the same document that can be identified as a Rasulid letter dated 817/1415. Once again, the letter’s contents relate to a critical event that had deep repercussions well beyond just the Mamluk-Rasulid sphere. It will also be seen that, contrary to the documents studied so far, the fragmentary state of the Rasulid letter is counterbalanced by the fact that a full copy of its text has been identified in a collection of documents composed by the secretary who was in charge of the composition of diplomatic letters and deeds at the time of its arrival in Cairo. Thus, in contrast to other fragments preserved in al-Maqrīzī’s holograph manuscripts, those pertaining to the Rasulid letter can be placed in the correct order without recourse to complicated calculations.6 Moreover, given our poor knowledge of Rasulid diplomatics, the fragments offer a unique opportunity to study elements related to the issuance of diplomatic letters in Yemen at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, like the support (paper), the calligraphy, the writing rules, the formulary, and so on. 2. Fragments of a Rasulid letter and its full copy No fewer than twenty-two leaves (see figs. 9.17–38), containing a total of thirty-seven lines of text, are preserved in three holograph manuscripts (see table 9.3). Nineteen leaves can be found in two volumes of al-Khabar ʿan al-bashar (henceforth al-Khabar). This six-volume work on pre-Islamic history was planned by al-Maqrīzī as an introduction to his biography of the Prophet entitled Imtāʿ al-

5

6

Maqrīzī’s professional activities. See the list in Bauden, Diplomatic entanglements 412. Since the publication of this study, I gained access to the last manuscript of which I had no copy (Calcutta, The Asiatic Society, MS I 774) and at that time I did not know if al-Maqrīzī had used documents as scrap paper to produce it. It appears that it is only composed of blank paper. Thus, the total of the fragments (616) mentioned can be considered definitive pending the discovery of new holographs from this historian. See the method described in Bauden, Diplomatic entanglements 418–20.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

187

asmāʿ which he completed at the very end of his life.7 Of these nineteen leaves, two are in the first volume (MS Aya Sofya 3362, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi) where they were foliated 142 and 143 respectively. The remaining seventeen leaves found their way to the fifth volume of the same work (MS Fatih 4340, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi), where they are placed consecutively in what appears to be two quires, the first one corresponding to a quinion (fols. 115– 24) and the second to a trinion (fols. 125–30) with one additional leaf inserted at the end (fol. 131) (see fig. 9.1). Finally, three more leaves were identified in MS Or. 1366c (Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek), which contains one part of al-Tārīkh al-kabīr al-muqaffā li-Miṣr (henceforth al-Muqaffā), a biographical dictionary of Egyptians—Egyptians being understood here in the widest sense, i.e., those who settled or passed through the country and played a role in its history.8 These three fragments are separated from each other in the volume (fols. 20, 77, 103).

Figure 9.1: A composite quire (trinion with one additional folio) composed of single folios mounted on counterfoils ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOLS. 125b–31a

Scrap paper consisting of pieces of documents were reused by al-Maqrīzī in a manner that depended on the nature of the manuscript into which they were 7

8

Al-Maqrīzī started to work on al-Khabar when he completed Imtāʿ al-asmāʾ, i.e., in 836/1433. He finished the draft of al-Khabar before 844/1440, which is the date of the fair copy of the first and the third volumes. See Bauden, Maqriziana XIV. It is worth noting that al-Maqrīzī died in Ramaḍān 845/February 1442. On this work, see Bauden, Maqriziana X.

188

F. BAUDEN

inserted: in the case of notebooks and drafts, he used them in the form of quires, while for limited additions to fair copies, he favored single leaves.9 This is the system that we observe here in part: the additions that needed to be made to the fair copy of al-Muqaffā were made on separate pieces of the document. As for alKhabar, which is also a fair copy (datable to the year 844/1442), the situation is more complicated. In MS Aya Sofya 3362, two pieces of the document were inserted consecutively (fols. 142–3), the two pieces were detached and pasted one after the other on a counterfoil of the second. In fact, the text they contain is not an addition, rather it was a part of a previous draft dealing with a single subject (Shīth, i.e., Seth). Al-Maqrīzī probably found that this draft could be reused with limited additions, which he put in the margins and at the end of text. These additions to the draft section are clearly visible due to the change in al-Maqrīzī’s handwriting.10 The draft was obviously copied at a time when al-Maqrīzī was younger, while al-Khabar’s fair copy was carried out at the end of his life (al-Maqrīzī was 76 or 77 years old at that time).11 The same observation is true in relation to the other volume of al-Khabar, into which fragments of the document found their way. MS Fatih 4340 includes the largest number of reused leaves (seventeen) in two contiguous quires of unequal size (one quinion followed by one trinion with an additional folio). The two quires were filled with the text of a section covering the life of Alexander and Aristotle.12 It is important to stress that the section ends with the second quire and is thus complete. If one looks at the handwriting in this section and compares it with what precedes and follows it in the same volume, one is struck by the discrepancy that characterizes the handwriting in this section: it dates from an earlier period. Here again, al-Maqrīzī reused a text that stems from a draft that he felt he did not need to modify substantially in order to recycle it for al-Khabar. Thus, he just extracted it from the draft and inserted it in his fair copy of this volume of alKhabar (what could be defined nowadays as a copy-paste operation), limiting his interventions to some marginal additions. In conclusion, the presence of quires made from a reused document in this fair copy does not contradict the statement made above: separated fragments were used in fair copies while full quires were limited to drafts. A close examination of 9 10 11

12

Bauden, Diplomatic entanglements 418. Compare the text on fols. 142 and 143 (see figs. 9.37 and 9.30). For the differences noted in al-Maqrīzī’s handwriting over the years, see Bauden, Maqriziana XV. This section was edited and translated. See al-Maqrīzī, al-Maqrīzī’s al-Ḫabar 236–331. The text regarding Aristotle is in fact almost completely copied from a resumé al-Maqrīzī took from Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa’s ʿUyūn al-anbāʾ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbāʾ in his notebook preserved in Liège, MS 2232 (Bibliothèque ALPHA), fols. 4a–31b (Aristotle’s biography is found on fols. 22b–26b). See Bauden, Maqriziana I 29–33 and al-Maqrīzī, al-Maqrīzī’s al-Ḫabar 10.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

189

the additional leaves in both volumes of al-Khabar reveals that we have a text that was copied several years before the redaction of al-Khabar, as corroborated by the differences in the handwriting; this means that al-Maqrīzī recycled a full section from the draft of a different text because he considered that it did not need to be reworked.

Figure 9.2: Representation of a roll with indication of the kolleseis and the places where the document was cut. The fragments obtained allowed al-Maqrīzī to reuse the first as a bifolio (A) and the second as a small sheet (B)

The composition of the quires also reveals how al-Maqrīzī reused the document. In the case of the quinion in MS Fatih 4340 (fols. 115–24), al-Maqrīzī took fragments that corresponded to the size of a bifolio that could then be folded in

190

F. BAUDEN

two. As a consequence, the inscriptions of the original document run from one side of the bifolio to the other. The bifolio placed in the middle of the quire (fols. 119b–120a) thus shows three continuous lines (see figs. 9.17–8). With regard to the second quire in the same manuscript (fols. 125–31), a trinion with one additional folio, the situation is completely different as it shows that al-Maqrīzī reconstructed bifolia with fragments of the size of one folio. For this, he used fragments slightly longer, which offered some space (a counterfoil) to paste the other folio in order to form a bifolio (see fig. 9.34). In some cases, the inscription of the original text lies in this space and can be partly deciphered if unstuck (fol. 128b; see fig. 9.35). The reason for this discrepancy between full and reconstructed bifolia must be established from the original document. Being in the form of a roll composed of sheets glued one below the other over a small surface (roughly half a centimeter)—the joining section (overlap) is called kollesis—, the document was cut into pieces to match a bifolio of a standard size for al-Maqrīzī’s manuscripts. What was left of the original sheet in the roll up to the kollesis was too small to fit the size of a single folio (see fig. 9.2). Al-Maqrīzī could still reuse these fragments for other purposes though.13 Beside these, al-Maqrīzī also cut some fragments that coincided with the size of a single folio, and left some of them a bit longer in order to get the counterfoil on which to paste another fragment to form a bifolio. This practice explains why none of the fragments have a kollesis: al-Maqrīzī clearly disposed of this part of the document because it would have made the surface uneven and his reed pen could have been snagged, causing an outpouring of ink and a stain. The twenty-two leaves can be singled out as belonging to the same document on the basis of several internal (textual) and external (codicological, paleographic, diplomatic) characteristics they all share, as in the case of the other two documents reconstructed so far.14 These characteristics include the paper, the ink, the writing, the interlinear space, the width of the right margin, and finally the text. The analysis of all these elements together is decisive if one wants to identify the nature, the issuer, and the addressee of the document. If essential sections of the text have been preserved, they allow a very precise contextualization of the document thanks to the use of contemporary or later sources. In the case of the document that is at the core of this study, a stroke of luck greatly facilitates our task: the full text of the document was copied by a contemporary key actor within the Mamluk chancery. The person in question is none other than Ibn Ḥijja (d. 837/1434), the famous belletrist who filled the position of composition secretary (munshiʾ) in charge 13

14

For instance, as slips to be pasted in the margin, near the spine, as evidenced by other examples in his holographs. None of those slips could be identified as belonging to our document though. See Bauden, The recovery 61–2; Id., Diplomatic entanglements 416–20.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

191

of the redaction of the sultan’s correspondence and some other categories of official documents.15 Active at the state chancery between al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s accession to the throne (r. 815–24/1412–21) and his dismissal around 827/1424, he later gathered his documentary production in a collection entitled Qahwat alinshāʾ, in which he took note of the letters received from foreign rulers and his answers to them and other deeds.16 Thanks to his work, we know that the letter, of which twenty-two fragments were singled out in three volumes of al-Maqrīzī’s holographs, was issued by the chancery of the Rasulid sultan of Yemen, al-Ashraf Aḥmad (r. 803–27/1400–24). Ibn Ḥijja took a copy of it upon its arrival in Cairo and later penned the answer that he composed at the request of the chief secretary.17 Compared with the partially accessible original, his copy proves to be a faithful, verbatim reproduction. The existence of the full text of the Rasulid letter relieves us from the burden of painstakingly reconstructing the original letter on the basis of the characteristics identified above. Nevertheless, these characteristics prove essential for the study of Rasulid diplomatics of which almost nothing is known. 3. Rasulid diplomatics In his assessment of the diplomatic letters exchanged by the Rasulids and the Mamluks of which we are aware, as quoted at the beginning of this study, Vallet stressed the imbalance that characterizes the Rasulid side: just three letters addressed by the sultans of Yemen to their Mamluk counterpart could be identified in Mamluk sources and none have been found in Yemeni sources. Of these three letters, all datable to the very end of the eighth/fourteenth and beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, none is an original.18 As shown, our fragmentary letter corresponds to one of these three letters already listed by Vallet. Though it does not expand the list, at least it provides us with the first example of an original—be it fragmentary—letter, the existence of which Vallet so rightly lamented. The almost total absence of original documents or copies further complicates our understanding of Rasulid diplomatics as, contrary to the Mamluk side, almost nothing is known of the practices followed by the Rasulid chancery due to the lack of chancery manuals and collections of letters. In what follows, I review the few elements about diplomatic practices that can be garnered from Yemeni and Mamluk 15 16

17

18

On him see below, section 5.1. Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk. On this work, see Veselý, Ein Kapitel; Id., Eine Stilkunstschrift; Id., Eine neue Quelle. The Rasulid letter bears no. 39 in Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 162–6, and the answer is no. 40 in ibid. 167–71. Vallet, Mūsā b. al-Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī 131–2. The three letters are listed in Vallet, Diplomatic networks 586. The third letter is only partially preserved as it is an extract quoted by a contemporary source. On the Rasulid archives, see Vallet, Décrire et analyser.

192

F. BAUDEN

sources, and then compare these elements with what we can conclude from the fragments of the letter in this respect. In his encyclopedic chancery manual, al-Qalqashandī (d. 821/1418) gives a precious clue to start our investigation of the Rasulid chancery practices. Describing the rules followed by the Rasulid chancery when it addresses letters to the Mamluk sultan, he underlines that the Rasulid sultan’s correspondence adopted the Egyptian chancery’s usages for its correspondence with the sultan.19 In other words, the Rasulid secretaries imitated the rules applied by their Mamluk peers. Al-Qalqashandī’s depiction of the Rasulid chancery’s usages with regard to the Mamluk sultan is quite helpful not least because he is contemporary with our fragmentary letter. All in all, al-Qalqashandī’s comment regarding the dependency of the Rasulid chancery rules on the Cairene ones is not surprising. One should not forget that the Rasulid dynasty was founded in 626/1229 by a prominent member of the army of the last Ayyubid sultan in Yemen. From 569/1174, the country had been under the control of an Ayyubid branch. The Rasulids thus inherited a system of government that had strong ties with the two main Ayyubid branches that ruled over Syria and Egypt and contributed to the development of chancery rules in these regions. Another reason that explains the dependence of the Rasulid chancery on the Egyptian one can be found in an event that took place roughly three decades after the establishment of the Rasulid dynasty. Once it managed to impose its control over vast areas of the country, the second sultan, al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf I (r. 647–94/1250–95), received, in 660/1262, an Egyptian who had come from Cairo after a quarrel. His name was Mūsā b. Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī and he was the son of a secretary working for sultan Baybars’ chancery. The Rasulid sultan seized the occasion and appointed him head of his chancery. Al-Mawṣilī remained in this position until his death some forty years later (d. 699/1300).20 Beside his activity as composer of diplomatic letters, particularly those addressed to the Egyptian sultans, he also authored a book, entitled al-Burd al-muwashshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ, in which he gathered some rules regarding the composition of letters.21 Though not comparable to the Egyptian manuals of the eighth/fourteenth and ninth/fifteenth century, the work offers insightful recommendations on the way to use formulas and titles according to the rank of the addressee.22 Unfortunately, unlike its Egyptian successors, examples of full models of letters are lacking. Be that as it may, it can be established that al-Mawṣilī played a decisive role in developing and 19

20 21 22

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā viii, 72 (rasm al-mukātabāt al-wārida ʿan ṣāḥib al-Yaman ilā hādhihi al-mamlaka: wa-ʿādat mukātabatihi an yaḥdhuwa ḥadhw al-diyār al-miṣriyya fīmā yuktab ilayhi ʿanhā). His short biography is found in Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāmina v, 145 (no. 4878). The text was published in 1990. See al-Mawṣilī, al-Burd al-muwashshā. The work was the object of a thorough study by Vallet, Mūsā b. al-Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

193

enhancing the Rasulid chancery on the basis of the Egyptian practices which he probably learned from his father. Less than fifty years after al-Mawṣilī’s death, this state of affairs led Ibn Faḍl Allāh (d. 749/1349) to describe the organization of the Rasulid branches of government (viceroy, vizier, chamberlain, secretary, etc.) as similar to those of the Egyptian system.23 3.1. Mamluk chancery rules regarding correspondence with the Rasulid sultan Taking into account these assessments regarding the replication of Egyptian chancery practices, any study aiming to understand the diplomatic rules at play when the Rasulid sultan addressed a letter to his Egyptian counterpart should clearly take into consideration the Egyptian rules applied for the same purpose. In fact, such an approach is indispensable in light of the nearly total lack of information on these issues on the Rasulid side. Fortunately, copies of no fewer than thirteen letters addressed by Mamluk sultans to their Rasulid counterpart have been preserved.24 At the end of the presentation of the Egyptian rules, we are able to proceed to a comparison with the little we know for the Rasulid side and what can be observed in the evidence at hand, i.e., the copies of the three Rasulid letters preserved and the fragments that are the object of our study. In the field of Mamluk diplomatics, and more particularly of letters addressed to foreign rulers, a few basic elements need to be contemplated in relation to the status the chancery recognized for a given addressee. The status determined a series of very rigid non-textual and textual—external and internal— elements that conveyed to the addressee a symbolic message beyond the factual message transmitted in the text itself. According to the status of a recipient, a specific format of roll was selected, a roll for which width was the distinctive element. The higher the status, the wider the roll. From this format resulted a cascade of other textual and non-textual rules.25

23

24

25

Ibn Faḍl Allāh, Masālik al-abṣār iv, 17 (wa-bi-l-Yaman arbāb waẓāʾif min al-nāʾib wa-l-wazīr wa-l-ḥājib wa-kātib al-sirr wa-kātib al-jaysh wa-dīwān al-māl wa-bi-hā waẓāʾif al-shādd wa-lwilāya ʿalā mā qaddamnā dhikrahu min annahu yatashabbah bi-l-aḥwāl al-miṣriyya); alQalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā v, 34 (repetition of Ibn Faḍl Allāh’s words). See also al-Fīfī, alDawla al-rasūliyya 219–26 for a brief account of the Rasulid chancery. See the list in Vallet, Diplomatic networks 585. Vallet lists thirteen letters but one is a safeconduct and is not considered here. Moreover, one letter mentioned by Vallet is only available in a very short extract (a few words). Thus, it is disregarded here too. But we still have thirteen letters, as two additional letters of which Vallet was not aware have been identified. The first one is datable to 705/1305–6 and is available in a still unpublished manuscript: Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, Sīrat al-Nāṣir Muḥammad 48a–54a. The second one is dated 15 Ṣafar 796/20 December 1393 and is also found in an unpublished manuscript: al-Ḥalabī, al-Tibyān 16b. For a brief presentation, see Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 47–54.

194

F. BAUDEN

Beyond the width of the roll, a number of external features were impacted by the addressee’s status: the calligraphic style, the number of sheets left blank at the beginning of the roll (ṭurra), the interlinear space, and the width of the right margin. As for the internal features, these were the sultan’s signature (ʿalāma), the address (inscriptio) composed of the opening formula (iftitāḥ) and the honorific titles (alqāb), the proem (arenga), and the preamble (narratio). Let us now consider each of these elements on the basis of the information provided by the various Mamluk authors who wrote manuals, each taken in chronological order. 3.1.1. External features 3.1.1.1. Format The only clear indication regarding the format of the roll, i.e., its width, is given by Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh (d. 786/1384), who was active at the Mamluk chancery during the third quarter of the eighth/fourteenth century According to him, the format used for the Rasulid sultan was the half one (qaṭʿ al-niṣf).26 In an anonymous handbook entitled Muzīl al-ḥaṣr fī mukātabāt ahl al-ʿaṣr and composed at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, an incongruous format is mentioned: the two-third format.27 This contrasts with what we know of the status granted to the Rasulids by the Mamluk chancery: on a scale of four categories, each subdivided into various levels, the Rasulids belonged to the second category and, within this category, to the second of four levels. Letters addressed to rulers of the second category were written on rolls of the half format.28 Ibn Ḥijja, who penned the answer to our fragmentary letter of which he provides a complete copy in his Qahwat al-inshāʾ, confirms this piece of data.29 The information found in Muzīl al-ḥaṣr should thus be disregarded.30 The width of a roll of the half format measured about 290 mm.31

26

27

28 29

30

31

Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-Taʿrīf 25 (wa-rasm al-mukātaba ilayhi fī qaṭʿ al-niṣf). This is confirmed by another contemporary account: al-Ḥalabī, al-Tibyān 4a (Ṣāḥib al-Yaman fī qaṭʿ al-niṣf). Anonymous, Muzīl al-ḥaṣr 6b (wa-in kāna al-maktūb ilayhi mimman yuktab ilayhi ʿan alsulṭān fī qaṭʿ al-thulthayn ka-ṣāḥib al-Yaman kutiba ilayhi fī qaṭʿ al-thulthayn). On this handbook, see Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 35. See Dekkiche, Diplomatics 208 (table 3.9) and 201 (table 3.4). Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 167 (wa-katabtu al-jawāb ʿan al-mukātaba al-madhkūra fī qaṭʿ al-niṣf). The author is mainly concerned with the issuance of the ikhwāniyyāt (official communication between functionaries) and is not necessarily an expert in diplomatic letters. On the ikhwāniyyāt in the Mamluk period, see Bauden, Ikhwāniyyāt letters. The width of the full sheet from which the halves were made was roughly 580 mm. See Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 49.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

195

3.1.1.2. Calligraphic style Among the various calligraphic styles used by the chancery for the issuance of documents, the thulth was the writing style chosen for the half format of the roll. In the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century, the secretary resorted to two types of thulth depending on the nature of the document: the majestic or thick form (al-kabīr or al-thaqīl) and the light one (al-khafīf).32 At the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, as stated by al-Qalqashandī, only the light version was used for the half format, the thick version being reserved for the two-third format.33 When Ibn Ḥijja penned the sultan’s answer to the Rasulid letter preserved in fragments in al-Maqrīzī’s holographs, he applied the thulth style without specifying the version, but there is no reason to challenge al-Qalqashandī’s statement because he was contemporary with our document. As a consequence, Ibn Ḥijja should have issued the letter with the light version of the thulth. The difference between the two versions of this writing style only lay in the size of the letters, which were thinner and a bit smaller in the light version.34 3.1.1.3. Ṭurra The number of sheets that had to be left blank at the very beginning of the scroll, before writing the text of the letter at the beginning of the sheet that followed these blank sheets called ṭurra, also depended on the format of the roll, at least until a certain period. In the case of letters of the half format, al-Qalqashandī mentions two contradicting numbers: four or three,35 the second number corresponded more to reality, as he insists that this was the practice in his time.36 As stressed by Dekkiche, the number of blank sheets in the ṭurra relied more, in alQalqashandī’s period, on the type of the sultan’s signature than on the format of the roll.37 We will see that the sultan’s signature for the Rasulid sultan was akhūhu which required a ṭurra composed of three blank sheets. 3.1.1.4. Interlinear space The space left blank between two lines of text, starting from the third line,38 also varied depending on the format of the roll. For the larger formats, to 32 33 34

35 36

37 38

Ibn Faḍl Allāh, al-Taʿrīf 126. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 52 and 104. If the standard for the longest and highest letters in the thick version was of seven points traced one next to the other, it was of five points in the light version. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ alaʿshā iii, 104. Ibid. vi, 195 and 314. Ibid. vi, 314 (al-muṣṭalaḥ ʿalayhi fī zamāninā anna al-mukātabāt al-ṣādira ʿan al-sulṭān takūn al-ṭurra fīhā mā bayna thalāthat awṣāl ilā waṣlayn). Dekkiche, Diplomatics 201. The first line corresponds to the basmala and was immediately followed by the second line, with no interlinear space. The third line was written at the end of the sheet, leaving a large

196

F. BAUDEN

which belonged the half one, the recommended interlinear space had to correspond to three fingers (iṣbaʿ), i.e., between 60 and 70 mm.39 But al-Qalqashandī underlines that in his time the practice was to determine the interlinear space by the number of lines of text that were allowed for each sheet. In the case of the larger formats, only two lines could be written on one sheet.40 3.1.1.5. Right margin width The space left blank to the right of the text, called the right margin, was generally left to the judgment of the scribe who penned the letter. Al-Qalqashandī nevertheless recommended that the width of this margin correspond to one-third or one-fourth of the width of the roll.41 As a consequence, its size varied according to the format. In the case of the half format, the right margin measured approximately 90 or 70 mm depending on the fraction observed (one third or one fourth). 3.1.2. Internal Features 3.1.2.1. Sultan’s signature Once the letter had been prepared, the sultan’s signature was added in the space reserved for it (bayt al-ʿalāma), i.e., between the second and the third line. The signature consisted of four types, each corresponding to one of the four levels of status recognized by the Mamluk chancery. These were, in descending order, the ṭughrā (a kind of convoluted signature including the sultan’s titles and name), akhūhu (his brother), wāliduhu (his father), the sultan’s name.42 With the exception of the first, which was penned by a secretary specifically appointed for this task, the three remaining types were written by the sultan himself. In the case of the Rasulid sultan, the sultan’s signature was akhūhu (his brother), thus in line with the second level attributed by the Mamluk chancery to the Rasulids. This is confirmed by Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, al-Ḥalabī, and Ibn Ḥijja.43 3.1.2.2. Address The secretaries chose the initial words of the letter, just after the basmala, according to a scale that was determined once again by the addressee’s status which was further strengthened by the honorific titles composed of a combination of two parts: first the title, then the epithets. The titles were in descending order:

39 40 41 42 43

space between it and the second line which was reserved for the sultan’s signature (bayt alʿalāma). Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vi, 196. One finger measured either 2.078 or 2.252 cm. See Hinz, Islamische Masse 54. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vi, 196. See also ibid. vi, 314. Ibid. vi, 195 and vi, 314. See Dekkiche, Diplomatics 206–7. Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-Taʿrīf 25 (wa-l-ʿalāma akhūhu); al-Ḥalabī, al-Tibyān 4a (akhūhu); Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 167 (al-ʿalāma akhūhu).

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

197

al-ḥaḍra, al-maqām, al-maqarr, al-janāb, al-majlis, while the epithets were alashraf, al-sharīf, al-ʿālī, al-karīm, al-sāmī. Al-Qalqashandī’s chancery manual shows some evolution in this respect with regard to the Rasulid sultans, an assessment that is not surprising given that the addressee’s status could evolve over a long period of time depending on the circumstances.44 Tab. 9.1 summarizes this evolution. At the beginning of the Mamluk sultanate, the title attributed to the Rasulid sultan tallied with an inferior status (al-maqarr). As indicated by the second line in the table, this status had been raised to al-maqām by the time of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn’s reign. The secretary Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir (d. 692/1293) confirms that this decision was taken by Qalāwūn’s predecessor, al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658–76/1260– 77), when the latter received, in 666/1268, an embassy from the Rasulid sultan asking for the acknowledgment of his authority with the formal dispatch of a diploma (taqlīd).45 This embassy helped to normalize relations between the two powers, hence its significance and the reason the Rasulid sultan was elevated to a higher status; this did not change until the end of the dynasty, as the title almaqām found in all subsequent examples confirms. With only one exception, the introductory words (aʿazza Allāh) did not vary during the whole period. The four letters that Ibn Ḥijja composed during the reigns of three sultans corroborate this assessment for the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century46 Table 9.1: Evolution of the opening formula and honorific titles in the address used for the Rasulid sultan (mid-seventh–mid-eighth/mid-thirteenth–mid-fourteenth century) Opening formula and honorific titles aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār almaqarr al-sharīf al-ʿālī 44 45

46

47

Period

Sources

al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz (r. 657– 8/1259–60)

al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 36047

See the enlightening example analyzed by D’hulster, Fixed rules. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir 290 (wa-rasama al-sulṭān bi-an yukātab bi-l-maqām al-ʿālī al-mawlawī al-sulṭānī). The author also stresses that Baybars referred to himself in his correspondence with the Rasulid sultan by using the term al-mamlūk (wa-kātabahu al-sulṭān bi-l-mamlūk). Vallet, Du système mercantile 282, misunderstood this passage as he interpreted it to mean that Baybars’s signature was al-mamlūk. The practice was still followed by Baybars’ successors: Qalāwūn in four letters (al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 354 [saṭṭara al-mamlūk], 357 [al-mamlūk yakhdum], and 366 [al-mamlūk yakhdum]; Ibn al-Furāt, Tārīkh vii, 223 [al-mamlūk yakhdum]); al-Ashraf Khalīl in one letter (al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii 366 [al-mamlūk yakhdum]), and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in one letter (Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, Sīrat alNāṣir Muḥammad 48b [al-mamlūk yakhdum]). All start with aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār al-maqām al-ʿālī. Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 63, 167, 346, and 411. In the title introducing this formula, al-Qalqashandī makes a mistake in referring to the honorific title as being al-maqām, while the letter that he quotes to exemplify this formula

198

F. BAUDEN

aʿazza Allāh taʿālā nuṣrat almaqām al-ʿālī

al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn (r. 678– 89/1279–90)

aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār almaqām al-ʿālī adāma Allāh taʿālā niʿmat ayyām al-maqām al-ʿālī aʿazza Allāh taʿālā jānib almaqām al-ʿālī

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 698– 708/1299–1309) al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709– 741/1310–41) al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709– 741/1310–41)

aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār almaqām al-ʿālī

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709– 741/1310–41)

al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 353, 357, 366; Ibn al-Furāt, Tārīkh vii, 223 Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, Sīrat al-Nāṣir Muḥammad 48a al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 344 Ibn Faḍl Allāh, al-Taʿrīf 37; alQalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 352 Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf alTaʿrīf 25; al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 363

3.1.2.3. Proem and preamble Both sections of the letter were introduced by specific words also linked to the status of the addressee. In the case of the Rasulid sultans, it appears to have been respectively asḍarnāhā (“we issued it [the letter]”) and tubdī li-ʿilmihi alkarīm/li-karīm ʿilmihi (“it brings to his distinguished knowledge”) since at least the second half of the eighth/fourteenth century,48 which is in line with the second level attributed to the sultan of Yemen.49 All these rules broadly tally with the level of status the Mamluk chancery recognized for the Rasulids, as these rules were applied from at least the mideighth/fourteenth century The chancery manuals composed during the century that spans this period to the mid-ninth/fifteenth century as well as the scarce information given by Ibn Ḥijja, corroborate this conclusion. 3.2. Rasulid chancery rules regarding correspondence with the Mamluk sultan We took as a starting point al-Qalqashandī’s remark regarding the alignment of the Rasulid diplomatic rules with Mamluk rules when the Rasulid sultan corresponded with Cairo, claiming that thanks to our knowledge of Mamluk diplomatics we would be in a better position to try to reconstruct the Rasulid diplomatic rules, and thus better analyze the fragments of the only original Rasulid let-

48

49

contains al-maqarr. That al-maqarr was meant here is confirmed by what follows. Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-taʿrīf 25 (aṣdarnāhā wa-tubdī); al-Ḥalabī, al-Tibyān 16b (aṣdarnāhā mubdiya); al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 363 (which repeats Ibn Nāẓir alJaysh). The four letters composed by Ibn Ḥijja follow the rule. Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 64, 167, 346, and 412. Until the second reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, the greetings section was introduced by the expression yakhdum al-mamlūk (see fn 45). On the basis of the evidence, it seems that the shift to another word took place during al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s third reign: the word used is not yet aṣdarnāhā but ṣadarat (“was issued”). See al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā vii, 345, 366. Dekkiche, Diplomatics 208.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

199

ter so far identified. Before going forward with this analysis, we should now consider the data that can be gleaned in the literature—be it from the Rasulid or the Mamluk side—about the Rasulid diplomatic rules.50 3.2.1. Internal features As we saw, al-Mawṣilī contributed to normalize the diplomatic principles that were already at play in Yemen during the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century. In his work, he does not offer a systematic presentation of all the diplomatic rules to be implemented for each ruler with whom the Rasulid sultan could correspond. Nevertheless, he presents some general conventions related to the letters to be addressed to foreign rulers that show that the Rasulid chancery had its own scale of levels attributed to each ruler. He stresses that four titles, each corresponding to a level, should be used to address foreign rulers in the correspondence issued for them (mukhāṭabat al-mulūk). Starting from the highest, these were almaqām, al-maqarr, al-abwāb, and al-ʿatabāt.51 One immediately notices that these four levels differ only in part from the Mamluk’s scale which comprised five levels. The last two levels on the Rasulid side (al-abwāb, al-ʿatabāt) should be seen as equivalent to, respectively, al-janāb and al-majlis in the Mamluk scale. A bit further, al-Mawṣilī tackles the way foreign rulers should be addressed; he provides the opening formula reserved to each level as follows: aʿazza Allāh sulṭān al-maqām al-ʿālī, aʿazza Allāh anṣār al-maqarr al-ʿālī, aʿazza Allāh anṣār al-abwāb al-ʿāliya, zāda Allāh al-ʿatabāt al-sharīfa.52 This description obviously embodies rules that were applicable in his own time. As we noticed for the Mamluk rules, some changes intervened in the way the Rasulid sultan was addressed in the seventh/thirteenth and the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century and the following period with which we are concerned. This was undoubtedly the case, as demonstrated by another Rasulid source, even though the passage in the said source is laconic. In a compendium of documents of various natures, sometimes described as an archival repository, and composed at the request of the Rasulid sultan al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās (r. 764–78/1363–77), the anonymous compiler took note of some rules that described the way foreign rulers in official correspondence should be addressed.53 The rulers are divided, as in the Mamluk chancery tradition, into Muslims and non-Muslims.54 The section opens with the ruler of Egypt (ṣāḥib 50

51 52 53 54

We will start with the internal features given that the Rasulid sources providelimited indications of these. Al-Mawṣilī, al-Burd al-muwashshā 54–5. Ibid. 75. See Vallet, Mūsā b. al-Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī 138–9. Al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās, The manuscript 390.

200

F. BAUDEN

Miṣr) who occupies the highest level together with the Khan of the Golden Horde (ṣāḥib al-takht), the ruler of Iraq—at that time the Jalayirids—, the sultan of Delhi (ṣāḥib al-Hind), and the dāʿī (probably of the Ismailis). The text states that rulers belonging to this level must be addressed in the following way: aʿazza Allāh anṣār al-maqām al-ʿālī. It also establishes which signature the Rasulid sultan must pen on the document after its issuance. In the case of the Mamluk sultan, the Yemeni sultan must write mamlūkuhu. The other levels appear to be al-maqarr, al-janāb, al-majlis—i.e., the same as those attributed by the Egyptian chancery—, to which are added al-sulṭān, al-shaykh, al-ṣadr, and al-amīr for some other addressees. Most interestingly, the text also lists the addresses and the signatures for various office holders of Egypt and Syria with whom the Rasulid sultan could directly exchange correspondence.55 While we know that the compendium was realized during al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās’ reign, thus during the last quarter of the eighth/fourteenth century, we do not know the period to which the data recorded in it date. The volume clearly gathers material from the beginning of the dynasty, as some documents from the late seventh/thirteenth century are recorded in it. Because the material related to the chancery practices certainly predates the moment when the compilation was made, it is impossible to say which period it refers to exactly. Be that as it may, it provides us with essential clues to the development of the Rasulid chancery rules as the addresses and the levels for the status noticeably deviate from those outlined about a century earlier by al-Mawṣilī. The alignment with the Mamluk rules seemed to have been completed by the time these principles were in use—at the earliest in the mid-eighth/fourteenth century—as the four titles al-maqām, al-maqarr, aljanāb, and al-majlis had been introduced into the Rasulid scale, albeit with other ones. Moreover, the address for the Mamluk sultan matches the form reserved to the Rasulid sultan by the Mamluk chancery at that time (aʿazza Allāh anṣār almaqām al-ʿālī), thus giving substance to al-Qalqashandī’s remark about the similarity between the rules of these two chanceries when each ruler corresponded with his counterpart. As we saw, the formula in question is attested on the Mamluk side from the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century. Although the rules of these two chanceries aligned, this does not mean that the rulers considered themselves on the same level. While the Mamluk sultan’s signature for letters issued to the Rasulid sultan (akhūhu, ‘his brother’) was in line with the second level, putting him on a par with him, the Rasulid sultan implicitly recognized his inferior status by using a signature that translated his dependency on the Mamluk ruler (mamlūkuhu ‘his slave, possession’), though on a symbolic level. 55

Ibid. (umarāʾ Miṣr al-kibār al-ḥājib wa-l-nāʾib wa-raʾs al-nawba wa-zamīluhu yukhaṭabū almaqarr wa-l-ʿalāma akhūhum wa-kadhā ṣāḥib Dimashq wa-Ḥalab wa-bāqī al-umarāʾ ʿalā qadr ṭabaqātihim al-ṣaghīr wāliduhu wa-l-kabīr muḥibbuhu wa-ṣaghīr al-manzila al-shākir li-llāh ʿalā naʿmāʾihi fulān wa-l-wazīr al-mukhāṭaba lahu al-maqarr wa-l-ʿalāma muḥibbuhu).

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

201

The alignment was complete in terms of chancery rules, a fact that is strengthened by al-Qalqashandī’s details of his own period of activity at the chancery in Cairo, which started at the beginning of the last decade of the eighth/fourteenth century. In the chapter dealing with letters received from the Rasulid sultan, where he stresses the parallelism between the rules of the two chanceries, he details the basic elements of the Rasulid correspondence.56 The letter opens with the address, which is aʿazza Allāh anṣār al-maqām al-sharīf al-ʿālī, then proceeds with the proem introduced by aṣdarahā min makān kadhā and the narratio, then concludes with the blessings for the addressee.57 As an example of his description, he then quotes a letter received from al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl (r. 778–803/1377–1400) in 798/1395–6. 3.2.2. External features So far, it has been established that al-Qalqashandī’s note about the equivalence of chancery rules for letters exchanged between the Mamluk and the Rasulid sultans respectively is confirmed by evidence at hand, though it is limited. These rules concern the internal features which should be now validated by the external characteristics of the documents. Unfortunately, neither al-Mawṣilī nor al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās’ compendium inform us about these features. On the Mamluk side, the only author to mention some of these features is, once again, al-Qalqashandī. In the same section dealing with the Rasulid correspondence received in Cairo, he refers to the format of the roll and the writing style. The roll was composed of full sheets of Syrian paper and the text was written in the thulth style.58 3.2.2.1. Format The information about the format proves essential for the issue of the Mamluk sultan’s status in the Rasulid chancery rules and for the parallelism of the practices of both chanceries. For the Mamluk side, we know that the half roll format, which was roughly 290 mm wide, was used for the Rasulid sultan. Such a measure can be calculated in modern times thanks to the precise description that al-Qalqashandī gave of the papers used by the chancery in Cairo in his own time.59 But despite his meticulousness, he failed to indicate the measures of the papers produced and used in Syria.60 Among the various types he lists, the first is pre56 57

58 59

60

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā viii, 72. Ibid. (fa-yabtadiʾ al-mukātaba bi-lafẓ aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār al-maqām al-sharīf al-ʿālī almawlawī al-sulṭānī al-fulānī bi-laqab al-salṭana thumma yaqūl aṣdarahā min makān kadhā wayadhkur al-maqṣid wa-yakhtum bi-l-duʿāʾ wa-naḥwahu). Ibid. (wa-yaktubūn fī qaṭʿ al-shāmī al-kāmil bi-qalam al-thulth). Ibid. vi, 190–3. The standard he uses for the measures of the paper is the local cubit for fabrics (dhirāʿ al-qumāsh). The measure of this cubit was calculated as equaling 581.87 mm. See Hinz, Islamische Masse 56. For the papers produced and used for chancery purposes in Syria, see al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-

202

F. BAUDEN

cisely the one he refers to for the letters sent by the Rasulid sultan to the sultan of Cairo: the full sheet (qaṭʿ al-shāmī al-kāmil), which was the largest format. He limits his description to indicating that the full sheet (al-ṭūmār al-shāmī al-kāmil) is put lengthwise in the roll61 and that this format of roll is used in Syria for a very specific purpose.62 About half a century after al-Qalqashandī completed his work, another secretary active at the chancery, al-Saḥmāwī (d. 868/1463), composed an updated version of the manual. In the section concerning the papers used by the chancery in Egypt and in Syria, al-Saḥmāwī provides an interesting clue, one that helps us calculate the measures of the full sheet of this Syrian paper. According to him, beside the Syrian chanceries that used it on a daily basis for their documents, the chancery in Cairo also resorted to using this paper for the issuance of ‘square decrees’ (murabbaʿāt), instructions for the ambassadors (tadhākir), and accounting documents and lists (qawāʾim). He further stresses that the registers (daftar), in particular, were made of this paper. In some rare circumstances, the chancery in Cairo could resort to this paper for other kinds of documents (diplomatic letters and deeds of appointment); but such a use was only allowed when the sultan was traveling and the Egyptian paper was not available.63 The reference to the use of this type of paper for some categories of documents is extremely important with regard to the issue of the measurement of sheets because some examples of these documents have been preserved in the collection of al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf in Jerusalem. Some of these belong to the category of the ‘square’ decrees and are dated between 766/1365 and 886/1481.64 They are written on a single sheet of paper folded in two. The measurements of the sheet vary between 370–90 × 277–90 mm for the largest and 275–85 × 190–200 mm for the smallest.65 The comparison of the two formats is evidence that the smallest one corresponds to the exact half of the largest. The full sheet, which measured at the minimum 390 × 290 mm, could thus be cut into two parts which could be used to

61

62

63 64 65

aʿshā vi, 192. The width of the roll thus corresponds with the smallest side of the sheet. The sheet is used completely, i.e., in its full length. Ibid. (wa-huwa l-ladhī yakūn ʿarḍuhu ʿarḍ al-ṭūmār alshāmī l-kāmil fī ṭūlihi). For deeds of appointment (tawāqīʿ) and decrees (marāsīm) issued by Syrian governors for the highest office holders. Ibid. (wa-fīhi yuktab ʿan al-nuwwāb li-aʿlā al-ṭabaqāt min arbāb altawāqīʿ wa-l-marāsīm laysa illā). Al-Saḥmāwī, al-Thaghr al-bāsim ii, 548. The documents are listed in Little, A catalogue 31–5. These are in ibid.: no. 1 (375 × 290 mm), no. 3 (285 × 200 mm), no. 5 (280 × 192.5 mm), no. 6 (380 × 287.5 mm), no. 14 (275 × 190 mm), no. 303 (282 × 195 mm), no. 304 (370 × 284 mm), no. 308 (371 × 277 mm), no. 309 (390 × 290 mm). To these examples, we can add another, dated to a much earlier period (733/1333) published by Richards, A Mamlūk emir’s ‘square’ decree. Its measurements are 270 × 180 mm.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

203

produce two small ‘square’ decrees.66 The original size of the full sheet as it was produced by the paper mill extended a bit further beyond the above-mentioned measurements (400 × 300 mm) because the irregular edges of the sheet had to be trimmed before it could be put into service for documents. Before we compare these measurements to the fragments of our document, we must note another piece of information provided by al-Saḥmāwī. As he claims, the Syrian paper just described was also employed outside the Mamluk realm in regions in the vicinity of or connected to Syria: these were Iraq and Persia (bilād al-Mashriq), Yemen, Anatolia (al-Rūm), and the Hijaz. The said paper was thus exported to Yemen at the time al-Saḥmāwī was active at the chancery but also well before as confirmed by al-Qalqashandī who first attested that the Rasulid sultan wrote to his Egyptian counterpart on a roll made of full sheets of Syrian paper. With these elements in hand, we can proceed to compare the preserved fragments and check whether the measurements of the Syrian paper tally with those of the Rasulid letter. As the fragments show (see figs. 9.17–38), the lines of the text of the Rasulid letter are parallel to the spine. This indicates that the height of the leaves corresponds with the width of the roll on which the letter was written. The height of the leaves oscillates between 233 and 238 mm.67 The maximum (238 mm) should not be considered the real width of the document. It is worth recalling that al-Maqrīzī cut the fragments to make them fit the format of the other type of (blank) paper that he used to make his fair copies. Moreover, al-Maqrīzī’s manuscripts were trimmed when they were bound and this led to the loss of an average of ten millimeters on each side. Thus more than twenty millimeters need to be added to the actual measures. Another way to approach the real width of the document is by considering a fragment in which a significant part of the text of the document at the end of one line was cut out; the measurement of this part can be broadly calculated. This is the case with the fragment preserved in MS Fatih 4340, fol. 118b (see fig. 9.23). The word at the end of the two lines (al-muṣādaqa and al-mukhālaṣa respectively) is almost completetly missing. Compared with the other words, similar in length, that appear in the same fragment (al-muwādada, almuṣāfāt), it can be calculated that approximately 30 mm are missing on the left side. In this case, the width can be calculated to have been at least 270 mm (238 + 30 mm). This brings us closer to the above-mentioned 290 mm of the sheet of Syrian paper if we take into consideration the parts that were trimmed first to make the roll, then again when the manuscript was bound. As for the length of the sheet, which was placed lengthwise in the roll, we just need to calculate the width of a bifolio, like fols. 119–20 in MS Fatih 4340, i.e., 310 mm, to which the average 10 66

67

Little, A catalogue 29–30, classified the larger format as “royal square decrees,” because they were issued in the sultan’s name, and the smaller ones as “ordinary square decrees,” because they were issued by local amirs. See tab. 9.3, under column W.

204

F. BAUDEN

mm that were trimmed should be added. As explained in fig. 9.2, once the equivalent of a bifolio was cut from the roll, al-Maqrīzī was still left with the remainder of the sheet. If the full sheet of Syrian paper was placed vertically in the roll (390 mm), as explained by al-Qalqashandī, the remaining part (less than 70 mm) was indeed too small to be reused by al-Maqrīzī.68 Such a demonstration is useful to show that al-Qalqashandī’s remark regarding the use of the full sheet of Syrian paper by the Rasulid chancery writing to the Mamluk sultan is validated by the reconstructed measurements of our document. The analysis of the paper further corroborates this statement: the chain lines are parallel to the inscriptions (see fig. 9.3), meaning that the sheet was indeed placed lengthwise to create the roll because the chain lines are always parallel to the smaller sides of the sheet of paper. Going back to the question of parallelism between the Mamluk and the Rasulid chancery rules, we now understand that the Rasulids wrote their correspondence on rolls that perfectly matched the size of those on which the Mamluk correspondence was addressed to them, i.e., 290 mm more or less. For the Mamluks, this size was equal to the half format (qaṭʿ al-niṣf), the second one in the hierarchy of the status according to which the chancery acknowleged other rulers, while for the Rasulids it corresponded to the highest format available to them, the one they reserved for rulers of the first level, like the Mamluk sultan, as corroborated by al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās’ compendium. In formal terms, it means that they both exchanged correspondence on rolls of the same width (290 mm) but with two different types of paper. In the case of the Mamluks, the roll was produced from larger sheets of Egyptian paper that were cut in two to make a roll of the half format. As for the Rasulids, they used the full sheet of the Syrian paper they imported, placed lengthwise in the roll, to get the same width. The analysis of the paper reveals that the chain lines are organized by threes with a space of 13 mm (26–7 mm for three lines) between two lines and of 53 mm (see fig. 9.3) between two groups of chain lines, while twenty of the laid lines take a space of 26 mm. This type of paper is well attested in manuscripts copied in the whole Near East between the fifth/eleventh and mid-ninth/fifteenth century. Within a corpus of about two hundred manuscripts, Humbert established that this type was the most represented during the whole above-mentioned period (37%), with a prevalence during the ninth/fifteenth century. when it became profuse.69 In a study based on a corpus of manuscripts produced in Yemen during roughly the same period, d’Ottone even refined the data for this particular area, stating that this type of paper featured in 70% of her corpus composed of about one hundred seventy manuscripts. Her detailed assessment even allowed her to indicate that its use in Yemeni manuscripts abruptly dwindled during the second 68 69

See fn 13. Humbert, Papiers non filigranés 21–2.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

205

half of the eighth/fourteenth century, before shortly increasing in the next fifty years, after which period it almost vanishes.70 From this information, it appears that, in the early ninth/fifteenth century, the type with chain lines grouped by threes was almost exclusively used in the Near East while at the same time it started to disappear in Yemen, where it was overwhelmed by a locally produced paper.71 It is also interesting to note that the measures provided above (400 × 300 mm) for the Syrian paper mentioned by al-Qalqashandī and al-Saḥmāwī tally with those of manuscripts copied on a paper sharing the same characteristics (chain lines grouped by threes) at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century.72

Figure 9.3: The structure of the paper with indication of the chain (below) and laid lines (left) ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS AYASOFYA 3362, FOL. 143a 70 71

72

d’Ottone, La produzione 46–7; Id., I manoscritti arabi 57. A paper with no visible pattern. See d’Ottone, La produzione 47–8; Id., I manoscritti arabi 57–8. Humbert, Papiers non filigranés 35–6: 356–70 × 255–84 mm (minimum and maximum). The distance between the chain lines and the two groups as well as the space covered by twenty laid lines also agree with those given by Humbert. Similar results were reached for Yemeni manuscripts, leading d’Ottone to conclude that this type of paper was an imported product (d’Ottone, I manoscritti arabi 66). The format in question also corresponds with the small one identified by Irigoin in manuscripts from Egypt to Iran, for which he gave the following intended measurements after trimming: 320–70 × 235–80 mm (minimum and maximum). Irigoin, Les Papiers 303.

206

F. BAUDEN

On the basis of what precedes, it can be said that the paper used for the Rasulid letter is indeed the same as the Syrian type described by al-Qalqashandī and al-Saḥmāwī at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century. Even though it seems to have been less widely used in Yemen for manuscripts at that time, it was apparently still imported from Syria for chancery use as our document confirms. This could indicate that the Rasulid chancery gave preference to paper of better quality than the locally produced paper found in manuscripts and which began to prevail over the imported paper. 3.2.2.2. Calligraphic style According to al-Qalqashandī, when writing to the Mamluk sultan the Rasulid chancery adopted the thulth style.73 Studies of the writing styles featuring in documents, particularly those issued by the Mamluk chancery, are still lacking. Any identification of a style of script for the Mamluk period must largely rely on the descriptions and samples given by calligraphers and chancery secretaries from the eighth/fourteenth and ninth/fifteenth century.74 Among them, al-Qalqashandī stands out from the rest because he presented, for each of the calligraphic styles used by the chancery, various forms for each letter—and sometimes groups of two letters or more. Thanks to his detailed presentation of the thulth style, it is easier to compare the script appearing in our document with the samples he lists in his chancery manual.75 This is not the place to present a complete comparison of all the letters of the alphabet but one example regarding the typical “lion’s jaw” (fakk al-asad), where the alif is connected to the following ʿayn, can serve as a sample (see figs. 9.4–5). It is thus safe to ascertain that the script used to produce our document is indeed identical to al-Qalqashandī’s description.

Figure 9.4: The lion’s jaw (fakk al-asad) 4340, FOL. 115b

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

Figure 9.5: The lion’s jaw (fakk al-asad) AL-QALQASHANDĪ, ṢUBḤ AL-AʿSHĀ iii, 80

73

74 75

Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā viii, 72 (wa-yaktubūn fī qaṭʿ al-shāmī al-kāmil bi-qalam althulth). For these references, see Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 50. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā iii, 62–203.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

207

Besides the identification of the thulth, we must also consider its size as two sub-types existed: the thick (thaqīl) and the light (khafīf) forms. As we saw, the latter was reserved for the half format of the roll (qaṭʿ al-niṣf), and thus for correspondence to the Rasulid sultan. When describing the style of script used by the Rasulid chancery for its correspondence with the Mamluk sultan, alQalqashandī neglected to specify to which of the two forms it belonged. If we consider the element that differentiates each form, i.e., the proportion of the alif as is usual for the proportionate scripts of which the thulth is part,76 its size had to be equal to seven dots placed one on top of the other in the thick version and five in the light version. As fig. 9.6 shows, the size of an alif in the letter amounts to seven dots,77 thus implying that the thulth used by the Rasulid chancery in correspondence to the Mamluk sultan was the thick version.

Figure 9.6: Size of an alif ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

4340, FOL. 131a

The person who penned the letter was a secretary who was undoubtedly trained in calligraphy. Besides the mastery of the pen, we can also observe that the secretary who prepared the letter paid great attention to indicate the presence of the hamza as well as all the orthoepic signs with little exceptions. These include, besides the vowels and the diacritical dots, the sukūn, the tashdīd, and the waṣla. The sukūn is placed above the letter wāw and yāʾ to indicate their value as long vowels. Given that the text is in rhymed prose (sajʿ), the sukūn also surmounts letters at the end of words to denote the pausal form.78 In one case, the pause is additionally marked by a symbol looking like a circle with a dot in the middle.79 The secretary also resorted to contrivances to specify the value of a consonant, mostly but not exclusively in the case of homographic pairs where one of the two homo76 77

78

79

According to al-Qalqashandī himself. See fn 34. It is not easy to find in the document a perfectly square dot that should be used as the standard in such a case. This leads to some differences in the measurements. Some alifs can amount to six dots—or even eight—rather than seven, depending on the dot selected. For instance, figs. 9.17 (arkānih/ayyāmih), 9.21 (al-ikrām/al-jisām), 9.29 (ḥimāyatih/ nikāyatih), 9.30 (maḥmūdah/maʿdūdah). See fig. 9.26 (al-sharīfa/al-laṭīfa). It is represented in the edited text in tabs. 9.3–4 by the following sign: ⦿.

208

F. BAUDEN

graphs is normally distinguished from the unpointed one through the use of diacritical dots. Three systems can be identified: 1) a v-shaped or flying bird sign (∨) placed above the rāʾ (see fig. 9.7), the sīn, and the ṣād to differentiate them from their homographic pointed pairs (zāy, shīn, and ḍād);

Figure 9.7: Rāʾ ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

4340, FOL. 115b

2) a mater lectionis consisting of the same letter written in a smaller size in the isolated form either below—in the case of the ḥāʾ (see fig. 9.8) and the ʿayn (see fig. 9.9)—, or above the letter—in the case of the final kāf (see fig. 9.10) and the final hāʾ;80

Figure 9.8: Ḥāʾ with mater lectionis 4340, FOL. 124a

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

Figure 9.9: ʿAyn with mater lectionis 4340, FOL. 115b

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

Figure 9.10: Kāf with mater lectionis 4340, FOL. 120a

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

3) a diacritical dot placed under the letters dāl and ṭāʾ (see figs. 9.11–2). While the first two systems widely feature in manuscripts and are even described in grammars of Arabic,81 the phenomenon of inverting the position of the diacritical dot for the dāl and the ṭāʾ is particularly well attested in manuscripts produced

80

81

The final hāʾ is less systematic. See fig. 9.18 (miṣrihi). For the final kāf and the final hāʾ, the use of the mater lectionis is not linked to the issue of differentiating them from another similar letter. The first Arabic grammar published in Europe to pay attention to these systems is the one that appeared in 1616: Sionita and Hesronita, Grammatica arabica 6. The latest one seems to be Wright, A grammar i, 4.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

209

in Yemen (see fig. 9.13) and may represent a distinctive feature that would allow us to identify the origin of a manuscript.82

Figure 9.11: Dāl with dot below 3362, FOL. 143b

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS AS

Figure 9.12: Ṭāʾ with dot below 4340, FOL. 123a

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

Figure 9.13: Note attesting that the manuscript was commissioned for the royal library of the Rasulid sultan al-Muʾayyad Dāʾūd (r. 696/1296–721/1321) and illustrating the use of matres lectionis for the dāl, the rāʾ, the sīn, the ṭāʾ, and the ʿayn (al-Lakhmī, Wāsiṭat al-ādāb wa-māddat al-albāb, vol. 3) PARIS, BNF, MS ARABE 6494, FOL. 2a

Finally, one occurrence of the euphonic tashdīd must be noted. The euphonic tashdīd is rarely attested in manuscripts, except in copies of the Quran where the text is written with all its orthoepic signs. It consists of noting the assimilation of the nūn at the end of a word by the following letter if the latter is a rāʾ, lām, mīm, nūn, wāw, or yāʾ.83 In the document, such a case appears with the tanwīn in followed by the coordinating conjunction wa (see fig. 9.14): instead of pronouncing maḥṣūratin wa-, it should be read maḥṣūrati wwa-.84 The presence of 82

83

84

See Déroche et al., Islamic codicology 221 and fn 72 (where the earliest example is dated 327/938 for the Islamic world and 611/1214–5 for Yemen); d’Ottone, I manoscritti arabi 30. The final nūn can be part of the root of the word or of the tanwīn. See Wright, A grammar i, 15–6. For another occurrence of this system in a document from al-Andalus dated 584/1188 where

210

F. BAUDEN

this orthoepic phenomenon indicates that the person who penned the document was a lettered man educated in the recitation of the Quran and its readings, qualities that would be expected from a secretary working at the chancery.

Figure 9.14: Euphonic tashdīd 3362, FOL. 143b

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS AS

3.2.2.3. Ṭurra If the letter sent to the Rasulid sultan from Cairo opened with three blank sheets, the Mamluk and the Rasulid sources do not provide details regarding the ṭurra on the Rasulid side. Even if these blank sheets were reused by al-Maqrīzī, it is difficult to identify them in his holographs. Unfortunately, no indication can thus be derived from his manuscripts regarding this external feature of the Rasulid letter.

Figure 9.15: Interlinear space 4340, FOLS. 119b–120a

ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH

all the orthoepic signs are also indicated, see Bauden, Due trattati 45.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

211

3.2.2.4. Interlinear space In the absence of any rule mentioned by the sources on either side, we are left to extrapolate the data from the document itself. The blank space between two lines must be measured at the beginning of the lines because the baseline is not always parallel from one line to the other, as fig. 9.15 shows. This space oscillates between 94 and 132 mm, with an average of 110–20.85 The huge variation noticed (about 40 mm) indicate that the secretary applied a rough calculation, by eyeing what must have been a standard measurement for correspondence with the Mamluk sultan. As we saw, the Mamluk chancery applied a rule of two lines per sheet in the roll. In the case of our Rasulid letter, given the format of the sheet (390 × 290 mm) and its vertical position in the roll, and considering the average size of the interlinear space, only three lines appeared on a sheet.86 3.2.2.5. Right margin width As in the case of the ṭurra and the interlinear space, we are left with no indication in the sources regarding the space devoted to the right margin and thus we are obliged to consider the information conveyed by the document. The maximum width observed in the fragments is 50 mm.87 The margin was obviously larger than that. As we saw, there is a fragment in which the right margin measures 50 mm and the text on the left side was clearly cut by at least 30 mm (MS Fatih 4340, fol. 118b; see fig. 9.23). Now that we know that the width of the roll was 290 mm and that that fragment measured 270 mm with the missing part on the left, we can estimate that the right margin was about 70 mm. In this case, the right margin tallied almost one-quarter (72.5 mm) of the total width of the roll. 3.3. Conclusion Considering the paucity of the documents and details provided by chancery manuals, particularly on the Rasulid side, any conclusion we reach can, of course, only be valid for the period of time we are concerned with, which is very narrow: as we saw, most of the above-mentioned evidence, which regards a limited sample (copies of three Rasulid letters with original fragments for one of these), corresponds to a span of less than twenty-five years. The conventions identified and partly verified in the preceding pages are summarized in tab. 9.2. On the 85 86

87

See tab. 9.3, under Line space and, for the maximum, under Up. edge, beg. At the most four if the first line was placed at the top of the sheet (four lines then covered about 360 mm), but this happened only rarely in the whole roll. There is one example where the right margin reaches 68 mm (MS Fatih 4340, fol. 124a, second line; see fig. 9.33) but this is an exception: it is at the end of a line consisting of a verse of poetry and the secretary wrote it at some additional distance from the right side of the roll in order to differentiate it from the rest of the text. From this, it is understood that verses of poetry were presented on separated lines as in manuscripts.

212

F. BAUDEN

whole, al-Qalqashandī’s statement that the Rasulid chancery replicated the Mamluk rules in dealing with the Mamluk sultan can be regarded as credible. Even though the Rasulids had recourse to paper imported from Syria that differed from that produced in Egypt and used by the Mamluk chancery, the width of the roll matched that of the Mamluk roll. The calligraphic style was equivalent on both sides (thulth) even though the Mamluk chancery opted for a slightly smaller version. These indications regarding format and calligraphic style can easily be verified with the preserved fragments. It can also be ascertained, thanks to several copies of letters exchanged between the two sides, that they attributed a similar honorific title (al-maqām) to both sides, but that the Rasulid sultan implicitly recognized the higher status of his Mamluk counterpart by means of his signature (mamlūkuhu) and the epithet appended to the honorific title reserved to the Mamluk sultan (al-sharīf). Table 9.2: Diplomatic conventions for the issuance of letters addressed by the Mamluk chancery to the Rasulid sultan and vice versa (early ninth/fifteenth century) Features E x t e r n a l

Format (width)

Mamluk > Rasulid ½ (qaṭʿ al-niṣf) of Egyptian paper = 290 mm

Rasulid > Mamluk full sheet of Syrian paper (qaṭʿ alshāmī al-kāmil) = 290 mm

Calligraphic style Thulth (light)

Thulth

Ṭurra

3 sheets

?

Interlinear space

60–70 mm or 2 lines of text/sheet

83 mm (min)–128 mm (max); average: 108 mm; 4 lines of text/sheet

Right margin width Sultan’s signature Opening formula Honorific titles Proem

⅓ (96 mm) or ¼ (72.5 mm)

¼ (72.5 mm)

Akhūhu Aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār al-maqām al-ʿālī aṣdarnāhā

Mamlūkuhu Aʿazza Allāh taʿālā anṣār al-maqām al-sharīf al-ʿālī aṣdarahā/ṣadarat

tubdī li-ʿilmihi al-karīm/li-karīm ʿilmihi

nuwaḍḍiḥ li-ʿilmihi al-karīm

I n t e r n a Preamble l

‫‪YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE‬‬

‫‪213‬‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫)‪Table 9.3: List of the inscriptions with indication of the measures (mm‬‬

‫‪M Upper‬‬ ‫‪Lower‬‬ ‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪W.‬‬ ‫‪space‬‬ ‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪g. beg. end beg. end‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫حرِيز ولِكلٍ حساد لا يؤمنون أبدا وقد استعاذ‬

‫‪24‬‬

‫–‪128‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬

‫‪152 233‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫‪35‬‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪152 233 22 132 120‬‬

‫‪45‬‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪156 240 50 118 110‬‬

‫‪26‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫‪58‬‬

‫‪32 65‬‬

‫‪88–95‬‬

‫َغـ ْيـ ُر َمـ ْحـ ُمـ ْو َد ْه َو َقـ َبـائِـ ُحـ ُهـ ْم َغـ ْيـ ُر َمـ ْحـ ُصـ ْو َر ٍة َو َلا‬ ‫َم ْعد ُْو َد ْه‬

‫لِـلن‪É‬ــ ْصـ ِر َعـ َلـ ْى ٱلا‪ْ Ü‬عـ َدآ ِء َو َنـ ْر ُجـ ْوا ا‪É Ü‬ن ٱ ْلـ َمـقـَا َم ٱ ْلـ َعـالِـ َي‬ ‫َخل‪َ É‬د الله تعالى ملكه‬

‫‪Ayasofya‬‬ ‫‪143b‬‬ ‫‪3362‬‬

‫‪20a‬‬

‫‪Or.‬‬ ‫‪1366c‬‬

‫َحـآ ‪à‬ج ٱ ْلـ َيـ َمـنِ َو تِـ َجـا ُر ُه ِمـ ْن َمـ ْو ِسـ ِم َمـ ‪É‬كـ َة ٱ ْلـ َحـرا ْم‬

‫‪158 240‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫لسـ َفـ َرا ُء‬ ‫َسـ ‪É‬يـ ُد ٱ ْلـ ُمـ ْر َسـ ِلـ ْيـ َن ِمـ ْن َشـ َمـا َتـ ِه ٱ ْلا‪ْ Ü‬عـدَا فـَٱ ـ ‪à‬‬

‫‪Ayasofya‬‬ ‫‪142b‬‬ ‫‪3362‬‬

‫إ ِْن شَ آ ٱلل‪ُ É‬ه َتعالى‬

‫‪23 32‬‬

‫–‪122‬‬ ‫‪120‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪H.‬‬

‫‪Fol.‬‬

‫‪MS‬‬

‫‪159 240‬‬

‫َوٱشْ َتد ْ‪É‬ت‬

‫َو ْطـا‪Ü‬تُـ ُه َعـ َلـى ٱ ْلـ َخـ ْلـقِ َوٱ ْسـ َتـ ْغـ َنـ ْى بِـ َمـا ٱ ْنـ َتـ َهـ َب ِمـ َن‬ ‫ٱلا‪ْ Ü‬م َو ِال ٱ ْل ِع َظام‬

‫لحـ ْمـ ُد‬ ‫َو إِ ْصـدَا ِر ْه إِن‪É‬ـ ُه َعـلـى ُكـ ‪ã‬ل َشـ ْي ٍء َقـ ِد ْيـ ٌر َوٱ ـ َ‬ ‫ب ٱل َعا]لمين[‬ ‫لِل‪ِ É‬ه َر ّ‬ ‫ُكـ]ـتـب[ يـ ْو]م[ ٱلـ]ـ َثـ[ـلـ]ـثـاء ثـامـن َعـ َشـ َر َشـهـر‬

‫‪77b‬‬

‫‪103a‬‬

‫‪Or.‬‬ ‫‪1366c‬‬

‫‪Or.‬‬ ‫‪1366c‬‬

‫[‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪36‬‬

‫ٱلحرام ]سنة[ َس ْبع َعـ]ـشرة‬ ‫ْ‬ ‫ذي ٱل َق ْعدَه َ‬

‫[‬

‫‪The text reproduces as faithfully as possible the orthoepic signs with the exception of the‬‬ ‫‪matres lectionis, i.e., signs used by the secretary to specify the value of an unpointed‬‬ ‫‪consonant.‬‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫‪F. BAUDEN‬‬

‫‪Lower‬‬ ‫‪M Upper‬‬ ‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪W.‬‬ ‫‪space‬‬ ‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪g. beg. end beg. end‬‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫ُهـ َو ٱلـ َوا ِصـ ُل ا‪ْ Ü‬ر َحـا َم تِـ ْلـ َك ٱ ْلـ َمـ َو ‪É‬د ِ‬ ‫لشـ ِر ْيـ َفـ ْه‬ ‫ات ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬

‫‪15 48‬‬

‫–‪110‬‬ ‫‪123‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪90 83–90‬‬

‫‪84‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪58‬‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫‪28‬‬

‫‪48 43‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪50‬‬

‫‪50‬‬

‫‪155 238 8 105 101‬‬

‫‪55‬‬

‫‪43‬‬

‫‪155 238 50 113‬‬

‫‪95‬‬

‫تِـ ْلـ َك ٱ ْلـ ُو ْصـ َلـ ِة ٱ ـلل‪É‬ـ ِطـ ْيـ َفـ ْه ⦿ إِن َشـآء ٱ ـلل‪É‬ـ ُه َتـ َعـا َلـ ْى‬

‫‪116b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫ٱلل‪ُ É‬ه َو َع ‪É‬ظ َم ْه َو َع ‪É‬ز َز ُه َوا‪ْ Ü‬ك َر َم ْه ف ََح ِم ْد َنا ٱللّ َه َت َعا َلى‬

‫‪117b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫ٱ ْلا‪É Ü‬و ِل ِم َن ٱلمصادقة‬

‫‪118b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫لنصـ ِر أ ْعـ َوانـ ْه َو َشـ ‪É‬يـ َد بِـا ـ ِلعـ ‪ã‬ز أ ْركـانـ ْه ولا‬ ‫َوا‪َ Ü‬مـ ‪É‬د بِـا ـ ـ‬

‫‪18 15‬‬

‫–‪120‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬

‫َوٱلن‪ِ É‬اش ُر ا‪ْ Ü‬ع َلام‬

‫َوٱ ْل ُم َوافَا ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َوا َد َد ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َصافَا ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َخالصة‬

‫‪50‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫⦿‬

‫لسـ َلـ ِف‬ ‫بِـ َهـا ا‪Ü‬ن‪É‬ـ ُه ٱ ـ َلمـ ِلـ ُك ٱ ْلـ ُمـ ْحـ ِيـ ْي َمـا كـ َ‬ ‫َان َبـ ْيـ َن ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬ ‫‪155 238‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪115b‬‬

‫َص َد َر ْت‬

‫‪155 238 18 74‬‬

‫–‪100‬‬ ‫‪107‬‬

‫َو َلا‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫بضاع ْه‬ ‫َنك ْي ُل َل ُه َك َما َك ْالَ َل َنا َ‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫‪Fol.‬‬

‫‪MS‬‬

‫لشـ ِر ْيـ َفـ ِة‬ ‫َمـ ْا َلـ ْم ُيـ َرا ِعـ ْه َو َرأْ ْيـ َنـا ا‪ْ Ü‬ن َنـ ْنـ َتـ ِصـ َف بِـ َيـ ِد ِه ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪H.‬‬

‫‪28 48‬‬

‫–‪110‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬

‫‪214‬‬

‫برح‬

‫ش ٱلـ ‪É‬ر ِغـ ْيـ ُد فِـ ْي ا‪Ü‬ي‪É‬ـا ِمـ ْه َوٱ ْلـ َمـ ْو ُت ٱ ْلـ ُمـ ِبـ ْيـ ُد فِـ ْي‬ ‫ٱ ْلـ َعـ ْيـ ُ‬ ‫ُح َس ِام ْه‬

‫َوٱ ْلا‪ْ Ü‬م ُن فِ ْي َم َمالِ ِك ِم ْص ِر ِه َوشَ ْا ِم ْه َوٱ ْل َخ ْو ُف‬

‫لصـا ِد َر ِة َو ْهـ َي‬ ‫َوٱ ْلـ ُمـ َوا َلا ِة َوفِـ ْي َهـ ِذ ْه ٱ ْلـ َمـ َنـا ِشـ ْيـ ِر ٱ ـ َ‬ ‫كتب‬

‫‪119b‬‬

‫‪120a‬‬

‫‪121a‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫‪YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE‬‬

‫‪215‬‬

‫‪Lower‬‬ ‫‪M Upper‬‬ ‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪W.‬‬ ‫‪space‬‬ ‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪g. beg. end beg. end‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

‫–‪127‬‬ ‫‪123‬‬

‫‪H.‬‬

‫َعـ َلـ ْى َمـا َتـ َضـ ‪É‬مـ َنـ ُه ِمـ َن ٱ ْلـن‪ã‬ـ َعـ ِم التــي َو َهـ َبـ َهـا َوٱ ْلـ ِفـتـنِ‬

‫‪29 35‬‬

‫–‪123‬‬ ‫‪133‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪30‬‬

‫‪41‬‬

‫‪21‬‬

‫‪155 238 18 127 123‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪85‬‬

‫‪17 48‬‬

‫–‪106‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪29‬‬

‫َل َي ٍال َخ ‪É‬طا َر ْه َو َكأ ‪É‬ن‬

‫‪123a‬‬

‫ُح َسا ٌم‬

‫‪124a‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫لسـ َنـ َة بِـ َيـ ِمـ ْيـ ِنـ ِه‬ ‫َو بِـٱلل‪É‬ــ ِه َمـا ا‪َ Ü‬خـ َذ ا‪ْ Ü‬مـ َوالَ ٱ ْلـ َيـ َمـنِ َهـ ِذ ِه ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬ ‫ٱل‪ِ É‬ت ْي ِه َي َي ُد ْه‬

‫َب ـ ْل بِـ َي ـم ـ ْي ـ ِن ـ ِه ٱل‪É‬ـ ِت ـ ْي َل ـ ْم َي ـ ْص ـ ُدقْ بِـ َه ـا َم ـ ْو ِع ـ ُد ْه‬

‫‪125b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫﴿ َوق ََاس َم ُه َما إِن ْ‪ã‬ي َل ُك َما َل ِم َن‬

‫‪31 45‬‬

‫–‪112‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬

‫َوٱ ْلـ َمـرا ِكـ ُب َسـائِـ َر ٌة َعـ َلـ ْى َثـ َبـ ِج َهـ َذا ٱ ْلـ َبـ ْحـ ِر َكـا‪Ü‬ن‪É‬ـ َهـا‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫َو َلا ُر ْم ُح‬

‫‪68‬‬

‫‪31‬‬

‫هبهـا َوٱ ْلـفُـ ُتـ ْوح ٱل‪É‬ـتـي فَـ َتـ َح َمـ َغـا ـ ْليـ َق‬ ‫وا‪ْ Ü‬خـ َمـ َد َلـ ـ ـ‬

‫‪122a‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫َو َلـ ْو َلاكَ َمـا ٱ ْمـ َتـد ْ‪É‬ت إِ َلـ ْيـ َنـا َيـ ِمـ ْيـ ُنـ ُه َو َلا َصـا َنـ ُه ِمـن‪É‬ـا‬ ‫‪155 238‬‬

‫‪73‬‬

‫ٱل‪ِ É‬ت ْي ا‪Ü‬ذ َه َبها‬ ‫ابها‬ ‫ا‪ْ Ü‬ب َو َ‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫‪87–68‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪Fol.‬‬

‫‪MS‬‬

‫َسـ ْعـ ُيـ ُكـ ْم َمـ ْشـ ُكـ ْو َرا﴾ َو َو َصـ َل َمـا َو َصـ َل بِـ ِه ِمـ َن‬ ‫ٱ ْل ِٕا ْ‬ ‫ك َرا]م[‬

‫جسا ْم ٱ ْل ُم ْس َت ْق َب َلة‬ ‫وا‪Ü‬تْحف به من ٱ ْلا‪ْ Ü‬‬ ‫يادي ٱ ْل َ‬

‫‪126b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫‪F. BAUDEN‬‬

‫‪Lower‬‬ ‫‪M Upper‬‬ ‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪edge‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪W.‬‬ ‫‪space‬‬ ‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪g. beg. end beg. end‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫‪33‬‬

‫‪40‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫ات َوٱ ْلـفَـ َضـائـل ٱل‪É‬ـ ِتـ ْي‬ ‫عيـد ٱ ْلـ َغـا َيـ ْ‬ ‫َوٱ ـلت‪É‬ـ ْو ـ ْفيـق ٱ ْلـ َبـ ـ ْ‬ ‫َم َلا ِ‪Ü‬ت‬

‫‪127b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫لشـ ِر ْيـ َفـ ُة‬ ‫لشـ ِر ْيـ ُف ا‪ْ Ü‬ن َتـ ْبـ ُر َز َمـ َرا ِسـ ْيـ ُمـ ُه ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬ ‫ٱلـ ‪É‬رأْ ُي ٱ ـ ‪É‬‬

‫‪24 61‬‬

‫–‪94‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬

‫‪Fol.‬‬

‫‪MS‬‬

‫ات َوٱلت‪É‬أْيِ ْي ِد ٱ ْل َم ْن ُص ْو ِر ٱل ‪É‬را َيات‬ ‫ٱلن‪ْ É‬ص ِر ٱلت‪É‬ا ِم ٱ ْلا‪َ Ü‬ي ْ‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪H.‬‬

‫‪26 40‬‬

‫–‪118‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬

‫‪216‬‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫لس َف َرآء‬ ‫بِٱ ْل ِٕا ْذ ِن لِ ‪à‬‬

‫فـي شـرآء مـا َتـ ْشـ َهـ ُد بـه ٱ ْلـت‪É‬ـ ْذكـ َر ُة مـ َن ٱ ْلـ َمـ َمـاليــك‬

‫‪128b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫اح‬ ‫َوٱلس َل ِ‬ ‫‪40‬‬

‫ات فِـ ْيـ ِهـ ْم‬ ‫َو َصـ ْفـ َقـ ُة ا‪ْ Ü‬هـلِ ٱ ْلـ ِبـ َد ِع َخـا ِسـ َر ْه َوٱ ِلنــ َكـا َيـ ُ‬

‫‪26 57‬‬

‫–‪100‬‬ ‫‪115‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪100 115‬‬

‫ُم َت َواتِ َرة‬

‫لمسـاعـدة بـا ــلنجـدة و إلـى شـراء‬ ‫وا ـلحـاجـة إلـى ا ـ ـ‬

‫‪129b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫المماليك ٱ ْلج ْلب‬ ‫‪15‬‬

‫َيـ َر ْى ا‪Ü‬ن‪É‬ـ ُه فِـي ِحـ َمـا َيـ ِتـ ْه َوا‪َ Ü‬نـ ُه َمـا َبـ ِقـ َي َفـ َو َلـ ُد ُه َعـ ِز ْيـ ٌز َلا‬

‫‪17 28‬‬

‫َت ْق ِد ُر ٱ ْل ُم ُل ْوكُ ]على‬

‫[‬

‫–‪113‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬

‫‪155 238‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪48‬‬

‫‪31‬‬

‫‪155 238 35 126 106‬‬

‫لسـ َلا َمـ ْه َو َخـ َد َعـ ْتـ ُه‬ ‫نِـ َكـا َيـ ِتـ ْه َخـ َيـا َل ٌ‬ ‫ات َغـ ‪É‬ر ْتـ ُه بِـ َهـا ٱ ـ َ‬

‫‪130b‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

‫بِ َها ٱ ْل َج َٓرا‪ُ Ü‬ة َع َلى‬

‫َو َغ ـ ْي ـ ِر َذلِـ ْك ُم ـ َض ـا ًف ـا إِ َل ـ ْى َم ـا َت ـ ُج ـ ْو ُد بِ ـ ِه ٱ ْل ـ َي ـ ُد‬ ‫ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي َف ُة ِم ْن ُه َنالك‬

‫‪131a‬‬

‫‪Fatih‬‬ ‫‪4340‬‬

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

217

4. The recontructed letter and its copy Were it not for Ibn Ḥijja, who noted a full copy of our letter in his collection of documents, Qahwat al-inshāʾ, we would be left with twenty-two fragments and thirty-seven lines of text, most of which are not contiguous. Thanks to the full copy, we know exactly how to reconstruct the original letter and where each fragment belongs (see tab. 9.4). The fragments also prove to be instrumental in calculating the full length of the original letter. The thirty-seven lines include 301 words, which gives an average of 8.13 words per line. On the basis of this average, the text for which no fragment is available was divided into lines in tab. 9.4, with a total of 123 lines. This approximation can also be reached following another calculation: the whole text contains 1,051 words. This amount divided by the average number of words per line (8.13) corresponds to 129 lines. We can then note a slight difference of six lines between this and the other calculation based on the average of words per line. Of course, this division of the text remains approximate but it is still helpful to estimate how long the letter was. On the basis of the average interlinear space reckoned in the previous section (110–20 mm), the length of the letter can be roughly calculated as between a minimum of 13.5 meters (123 lines per 110 mm) and a maximum of 15.5 meters. An alternative way to estimate the length of the letter is to take into consideration another average (the number of lines per sheet, i.e., 3). In such a case, the result is 15.99 meters.89 One should not forget that the letter opened with blank sheets (ṭurra), the number of which is unknown. About 1.20 meters should be added accordingly to the above-mentioned measurements if the Rasulid chancery followed the Mamluk rule.90 Beside the physical appearance of the original, the letter found in Ibn Ḥijja’s Qahwat al-inshāʾ allows us to assess the reliability of his copy. The status of these copies of documents, mostly diplomatic letters, found in narrative sources (chronicles, chancery manuals, collections of letters) is a concern among historians and diplomatists. In the absence of the original documents, copies cannot be taken at face value. In some cases, it clearly appears that some parts of the document were overlooked by the author. In other cases, the text could have been revised in order to improve its linguistic and/or literary quality. Finally, in some circumstances, the text may have been altered for ideological reasons. Such flaws become clear whenever the text of a letter is available in more than one source.91 In the case of our letter, we have a rare opportunity to compare fragments representing roughly one-third of the original letter, to question issues such as the 89

90 91

This is 123 lines divided by 3 (lines per sheet), to equal 41. This number is then multiplied by the length of a sheet (390 mm). The ṭurra for letters addressed to the Rasulid sultan was made of three sheets. See above, 195. For instance, see the case documented by Brinner, Some Ayyūbid and Mamlūk documents.

218

F. BAUDEN

authenticity and the reliability of Ibn Ḥijja’s work. If we can conclude from this comparison that Ibn Ḥijja faithfully copied the original, it would give more weight to his work in general; then historians could regard it as a trustworthy source of documents. Like every document that Ibn Ḥijja wrote in his collection, the letter is introduced by a few words of presentation. In this case, three lines establish the circumstances in which it reached Cairo: it is said to be a copy (nuskha) of a letter from the ruler of Yemen (ṣāḥib al-Yaman) that reached the Mamluk court (alabwāb al-sharīfa) by the intermediary of Amīn al-Dīn Ibn al-Mufliḥ, the Rasulid envoy, on 16 Rabīʿ I 819 (/14 May 1416).92 Following this information, Ibn Ḥijja introduces the letter with the words “and it is” (wa-huwa) followed by the beginning of the text which corresponds to the address (aʿazza Allāh...). Ibn Ḥijja skipped the basmala, an element that was taken for granted, and also failed to indicate the sultan’s signature (ʿalāma) and its place in the document. As we saw, it must have been mamlūkuhu and it should have been placed between the second and the third line if the Rasulid chancery followed the Mamluk practice. The collation of the copy with the fragments reveals only a few differences: one minor orthographic detail,93 the addition of the taṣliya after the evocation of the Prophet,94 the presence of a formula at the very end of the text,95 and the absence of full vocalization. One last discrepancy needs to be addressed: the date of the letter. Ibn Ḥijja does not quote this date in his copy. He only mentions the date the letter reached Cairo (i.e., 819/1416), and this piece of information appears in his presentation of the document. Fortunately, the section where the date appears has been preserved among the fragments reused by al-Maqrīzī (see figs. 9.16 and 9.38). Even though only the upper part of the line giving the date is visible, it is still possible to reconstruct most of the basic information. We proceed from the end, as this is the place where the date is most readable. We find the year at the end of the line. The letters that one observes in the left part suffice to realize that this is the year seventeen (sabʿ ʿashara). The men92

93

94

95

Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 162 (wa-mimmā warada ʿalā al-abwāb al-sharīfa nuskhat alkitāb al-wārid min ṣāḥib al-Yaman ʿalā yad al-qāḍī Amīn al-Dīn Ibn al-Mufliḥ fī sādis ʿashar min shahr rabīʿ al-awwal sanat tisʿ ʿashara wa-thamānimiʾa). The absence, in the edition, of the alif otiosum at the end of narjū (line 33), a characteristic that is not uncommon in manuscripts but that is usually corrected in editions to adhere to modern orthographic rules. Sayyid al-mursalīn (line 113). Veselý mentions in his apparatus that the taṣliya is missing in the Berlin MS, which appears to be the most faithful to Ibn Ḥijja’s text. See Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 166 (lines 6–7). In shāʾa Allāh taʿālā bi-mannihi wa-karamihi. This formula is missing in two manuscripts, including the Berlin one, that give the best readings. Ibid. (line 14).

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

219

tion of the century (thamānīmiʾa) must appear at the beginning of the next line due to the lack of space at the end of the preserved line. It is worth noting here that in letters issued by the Mamluk chancery, the date was always centered, with the same amount of blank space on each side, unlike the text of the letter that was justified with a fixed right margin and no space at the end of the lines. By contrast, the date in the Rasulid letter is written exactly as the rest of the text, with the same right margin and no space at the end, on the left.

Figure 9.16: The date of the letter 1366C, FOL. 103a

LEIDEN, UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK, MS OR.

The name of the month is almost clear and rather easy to decipher: the two letters of the first word can quickly be made out (dhī). Given that there are only two months that begin with dhū (Dhū al-Qaʿda and Dhū al-Ḥijja) and that the upper part of the letters of the second word have been well preserved in the fragment (alif-lām, then a letter with two diacritical dots and vowel a followed by a letter that is not visible but surmounted by sukūn, then another letter with the vowel a and, finally, a hāʾ), then Dhū al-Ḥijja can thus be ruled out. The name of the month was accompanied by an epithet (in this case al-ḥarām, of which the definite article with the end of the lām leans toward the left to join with the ḥāʾ, that is no longer visible). The name of the month was presumably preceded by the word shahr. This word has completely disappeared apart from the fatḥa. For the day, we must now consider the beginning of the line. It starts with the letter ku that stands for kutiba (‘It was written’). If it were a Mamluk letter, we would expect the word fī (‘on’) next to it, followed by the date, but in the case of this Rasulid letter we can see that the word that follows does not correspond to fī: the first letter is clearly not a fāʾ, rather the homograph ‫ ٮ‬followed by the next letter, of which only the top is visible as well as the sign indicating the absence of a vowel (sukūn). The word is tentatively read yawm (day). If this is correct, the name of the day came after it and before its number. This name starts with an alif with a waṣla and then a lām, i.e., the definite article. The first following consonant has almost completely vanished but the vowel, a fatḥa, and the tip of what might be the letter or a diacritical dot are still visible. It was followed by an alif or a lām while the end of the word no longer appears. Given the possible combinations with the names of the days of the week, this leaves only one match: al-thalāthāʾ, written in its archaic form ‫الـــثـــلـــثـــاء‬, i.e., with an alif maḥdhūfa not indicated in the document. The consecutive word corresponded to the number of the day. This number did not include any tall letter and was surmounted by three narrowly written fatḥas that are still conspicuous. This leaves only one possibility: ʿashara, i.e., the word ‘ten.’ This reading is still problematic because the number of the day is

220

F. BAUDEN

expressed through an ordinal, not a cardinal number. It would mean that we should consider the presence of a unit between this number and the name of the day. In such a case, Tuesday fell on the eleventh and the eighteenth of the month of Dhū al-Qaʿda 817. The space between the name of the day and the ten is rather small and would rule out the first alternative (al-ḥādiya). Al-Thāmina could still fit in that space, so it is tentatively proposed here as the date. The date of the document can thus be approximated as Tuesday 18 Dhū al-Qaʿda 817, which corresponded to 29 January 1415. As we saw, the collation of the text available in the edition published by the late Rudolf Veselý with the text found in the fragments reveals that both tally exactly, the aforementioned small differences excepted. Thus, Ibn Ḥijja’s rendition of the text of the letter—and its edition by a scholar who made the right choices when the manuscripts presented diverging readings—can be characterized as faithful to the original as far as the fragments are concerned, and there is no reason to doubt that this was not the case for the remainder of the letter. Yet we cannot extend this assessment to all the documents found in Qahwat al-inshāʾ given that we do not have another case in which we can collate the original with Ibn Ḥijja’s copies. Nevertheless, it certainly strengthens the historical and diplomatic value of this work. Table 9.4: The reconstructed letter Text

Manuscript

‫أعز الله أنصار المقام الشريف العالي السلطاني الأعظمي‬ ‫الإ مامي الهمامي المالكي الملكي المؤيدي وأيد سلطانه‬

‫ز أ ْركان ْه ولا برح‬ã ‫ي َد بِال ِع‬É َ‫د بِالنص ِر أ ْع َوان ْه َوش‬É ‫ َم‬Ü‫َوا‬ ‫ ِام ْه َوٱ ْل َم ْو ُت ٱ ْل ُم ِب ْي ُد فِ ْي ُح َس ِام ْه‬É‫ي‬Ü‫ر ِغ ْي ُد فِ ْي ا‬É ‫ش ٱل‬ ُ ‫ٱ ْل َع ْي‬ [‫ف ] ِمن خلف‬ ُ ‫ ْم ُن فِ ْي َم َمالِ ِك ِم ْص ِر ِه َوشَ ْا ِم ْه َوٱ ْل َخ ْو‬Ü‫َوٱ ْلا‬ ‫عدوه وقدامه وخص بسلام لا أطيب منه إلا‬ ‫أخلاقه ولا أزكى منه إلا أعراقه ولا أثمر منه‬ ‫إلا عهده وميثاقه ورد المثال الشريف شرفه‬ ‫ ْك َر َم ْه ف ََح ِم ْدنَا ٱللّ َه َت َعا َلى‬Ü‫ز َز ُه َوا‬É ‫ظ َم ْه َو َع‬É ‫ ُه َو َع‬É‫ٱلل‬ ‫ذ َه َبها‬Ü‫ ِت ْي ا‬É‫ َع ِم التي َو َه َب َها َوٱ ْل ِفتنِ ٱل‬ã‫م َن ُه ِم َن ٱ ْلن‬É ‫َع َل ْى َما ت ََض‬ ‫ابها‬ َ ‫ ْب َو‬Ü‫تي َف َت َح َمغَال ْي َق ا‬É‫خْ َم َد َلهبها َوٱ ْل ُف ُت ْوح ٱل‬Ü‫وا‬ ‫ورد بها حقوق الإ سلام من غصابها والملك‬ ‫الذي ابتهج به الدين الحنيفي سرورا والسعد الذي كان‬ ‫له في الأزل مذخورا ﴿إن هذا كان لكم جزاء وكان‬

Line no. 1 2

Fatih 4340, fol. 119b

3

Fatih 4340, fol. 119b

4

Fatih 4340, fol. 120a

5 6 7 8

Fatih 4340, fol. 117b

9

Fatih 4340, fol. 122a

10

Fatih 4340, fol. 122a

11 12 13 14

‫‪221‬‬

‫‪YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪no.‬‬

‫‪Manuscript‬‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 126b‬‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 126b‬‬

‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 127b‬‬

‫‪22‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 127b‬‬

‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 118b‬‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 118b‬‬

‫‪26‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 121a‬‬

‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬

‫‪Or. 1366c, fol. 20a‬‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 116b‬‬

‫‪35‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 116b‬‬

‫‪36‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 123a‬‬

‫‪37‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫ص َل بِ ِه ِم َن ٱ ْل ِٕا ْك َرا]م[‬ ‫َس ْع ُي ُك ْم َمشْ ُك ْو َرا﴾ َو َو َص َل َما َو َ‬

‫جسا ْم ٱ ْل ُم ْس َت ْق َب َلة‬ ‫وا‪Ü‬تْحف به من ٱ ْلا‪ْ Ü‬‬ ‫يادي ٱ ْل َ‬ ‫بالإ جلال والإ عظام والمحدثة عن خلق عظيم وفضل‬ ‫عميم فما أهل مصر على القرب بأعرف من أهل‬ ‫اليمن على البعد بما انتشر من محاسن المقام‬ ‫العالي وفضله وسياسته وعدله وما خصه الله به من‬ ‫ات َوٱلت‪É‬أْيِ ْي ِد ٱ ْل َم ْن ُص ْو ِر ٱل ‪É‬را َيات‬ ‫ٱلن‪ْ É‬ص ِر ٱلت‪É‬ا ِم ٱ ْلا‪َ Ü‬ي ْ‬ ‫ات َوٱ ْلف ََضائل ٱل‪ِ É‬ت ْي َم َلا ِ‪Ü‬ت‬ ‫َوٱلت‪ْ É‬وف ْيق ٱ ْل َبع ْيد ٱ ْلغَا َي ْ‬ ‫القلوب بمحبته وأكدت الأشواق إلى رؤيته وعلمنا‬ ‫ٱلس َل ِف ٱ ْلا‪É Ü‬و ِل ِم َن ٱلمصادقة‬ ‫بِ َها ا‪Ü‬ن‪ُ É‬ه ٱل َم ِل ُك ٱ ْل ُم ْح ِي ْي َما ك َ‬ ‫َان َب ْي َن ‪É‬‬ ‫َوٱ ْل ُم َوافَا ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َوا َد َد ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َصافَا ِة َوٱ ْل ُم َخالصة‬ ‫ٱلصا ِد َر ِة َو ْه َي كتب‬ ‫َوٱ ْل ُم َوا َلا ِة َوفِ ْي َه ِذ ْه ٱ ْل َم َن ِاش ْي ِر َ‬ ‫من الملوك المتأخرة إلى صاحب اليمن الملك‬ ‫الأشرف تغمده الله برحمته وأسكنه بحبوح‬ ‫جنته ما يشهد بما بينهم من المحبة الصادقة‬ ‫والطبائع المتوافقة والألفة التي انتظمت عقودها‬ ‫وصدقت عهودها ووشيت برودها وما تضمنته من‬ ‫الاهتمام بنصره الأوداء وبذلته من بعث الجيوش‬ ‫لِلن‪ْ É‬ص ِر َع َل ْى ٱلا‪ْ Ü‬ع َدآ ِء َو َن ْر ُج ْوا ا‪É Ü‬ن ٱ ْل َمقَا َم ٱ ْل َعالِ َي َخل‪َ É‬د الله تعالى ملكه‬ ‫ُه َو ٱل َو ِ‬ ‫اص ُل ا‪ْ Ü‬ر َحا َم تِ ْل َك ٱ ْل َم َو ‪É‬د ِ‬ ‫ات ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي َف ْه ⦿ َوٱلن‪ِ É‬اش ُر ا‪ْ Ü‬ع َلام‬ ‫تِ ْل َك ٱ ْل ُو ْص َل ِة ٱلل‪ِ É‬ط ْي َف ْه ⦿ إِن شَ آء ٱلل‪ُ É‬ه َت َعا َل ْى َص َد َر ْت‬ ‫َوٱ ْل َمرا ِك ُب َسائِ َر ٌة َع َل ْى َث َب ِج َه َذا ٱ ْل َب ْح ِر َكا‪Ü‬ن َ‪É‬ها َل َي ٍال َخ ‪É‬طا َر ْه َو َكأ ‪É‬ن‬ ‫ما فوقها من القلوع أيام موارة وكارمها وتجارها مثقلون‬ ‫من المكارم ممتلئون من المغانم سالمون من المغارم‬ ‫إذا سكتوا من الثناء نطقت به حقائبهم و إذا قصروا فيه‬ ‫طولت زواملهم وركائبهم والرعايا باليمن تحت ظل الأمن‬ ‫وادعه والمعدلة لأركان الباطل صادعه ويد العدل‬ ‫والإ نصاف لشمل الحقوق جامعه ولسطوات أرباب‬ ‫الأهواء قامعه إلا أن الشريف حسن بن عجلان‬ ‫قد أخاف العباد في الحرم الذي جعله الله آمنا وأصبح‬ ‫يتخطف الناس من وسطه ومن حوله مقيما وظاعنا حتى انقطع‬

‫‪F. BAUDEN‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪no.‬‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫‪58‬‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫‪63‬‬

‫‪Manuscript‬‬

‫‪64‬‬

‫‪66‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 124a‬‬ ‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 124a‬‬

‫‪67‬‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪69‬‬ ‫‪70‬‬ ‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪َ Or. 1366c, fol. 77b‬حآ ‪à‬ج ٱ ْل َي َمنِ َو تِ َجا ُر ُه ِم ْن َم ْو ِس ِم َم ‪É‬ك َة ٱ ْل َحرا ْم َوٱشْ َتد ْ‪É‬ت‬ ‫‪َ Or. 1366c, fol. 77b‬و ْطا‪Ü‬تُ ُه َع َلى ٱ ْل َخ ْلقِ َو ْٱس َت ْغ َن ْى بِ َما ٱ ْن َت َه َب ِم َن ٱلا‪ْ Ü‬م َو ِال ٱ ْل ِع َظام‬ ‫وبقي كالقاطع وقته الحاضر غير مراع لرياسة ولا ملتفت‬ ‫على سياسة لا يدخل تحت طاعة ولا يقارب ما دخلت‬ ‫فيه الجماعة وقنع منه ملوك مصر بسلامة حاجهم من‬ ‫شره ووكلوا غيرهم من الحاج والتجار إلى أمره فاستباح‬ ‫الأموال واستحلها ونقض معاقد شرائع الإ سلام وحلها‬ ‫وما أخذ الولاية لولده إلا تكبرا عليها وأنهفة أن تكون‬ ‫على يده يد تمتد إليها فقدم ولده كالبيدق في الصدر وهو‬ ‫ى ا‪Ü‬ن‪ُ É‬ه فِي ِح َما َي ِت ْه َوا‪َ Ü‬ن ُه َما َب ِق َي َف َو َل ُد ُه َع ِز ْي ٌز َلا َت ْق ِد ُر ٱ ْل ُم ُل ْوكُ ]على[‬ ‫‪َ Fatih 4340, fol. 130b‬ي َر ْ‬ ‫ٱلس َلا َم ْه َو َخ َد َع ْت ُه بِ َها ٱ ْل َج َٓرا‪ُ Ü‬ة َع َلى‬ ‫‪ Fatih 4340, fol. 130b‬نِ َكا َي ِت ْه َخ َيا َل ٌ‬ ‫ات َغ ‪É‬ر ْت ُه بِ َها َ‬ ‫أرباب الزعامة ومن جمع ما جمع من الذهب وحاز ما حاز‬ ‫من النشب تعدى طوره واستخف غيره ورأى أنه بالملك‬ ‫أولى وترقب لأعمال الحيلة فيه حولا فحولا فعواقبهم‬ ‫‪َ Ayasofya 3362, fol. 143b‬غ ْي ُر َم ْح ُم ْو َد ْه َو َق َبائِ ُح ُه ْم َغ ْي ُر َم ْح ُص ْو َر ٍة َو َلا َم ْعد ُْو َد ْه‬ ‫ٱلس َن َة بِ َي ِم ْي ِن ِه ٱل‪ِ É‬ت ْي ِه َي َي ُد ْه‬ ‫‪َ Fatih 4340, fol. 125b‬و بِٱلل‪ِ É‬ه َما ا‪َ Ü‬خ َذ ا‪ْ Ü‬م َوالَ ٱ ْل َي َمنِ َه ِذ ِه ‪É‬‬ ‫‪َ Fatih 4340, fol. 125b‬ب ْل بِ َيم ْي ِن ِه ٱل‪ِ É‬ت ْي َل ْم َي ْص ُدقْ بِ َها َم ْو ِع ُد ْه ﴿ َوق ََاس َم ُه َما إِن ْ‪ã‬ي َل ُك َما َل ِم َن‬ ‫الناصحين﴾ وراعينا من حقوق المقام العالي خلد الله ملكه‬ ‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 115b‬‬ ‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 115b‬‬

‫‪65‬‬

‫‪222‬‬

‫َم ْا َل ْم ُي َر ِاع ْه َو َرأْ ْي َنا ا‪ْ Ü‬ن َن ْن َت ِص َف بِ َي ِد ِه ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي َف ِة َو َلا‬ ‫بضاع ْه‬ ‫نَك ْي ُل َل ُه َك َما َك ْالَ َل َنا َ‬ ‫َو َل ْو َلاكَ َما ٱ ْم َتد ْ‪É‬ت إِ َل ْي َنا َي ِم ْي ُن ُه‬ ‫َو َلا َصا َن ُه ِمن‪É‬ا ُح َسا ٌم‬ ‫َو َلا ُر ْم ُح‬ ‫تركنا له من خوف عتبك ما لنا و إن كان لا يرضيك من‬ ‫مثله الصفح‬ ‫ونحن على علم بأن ليس عندكم أمان لمن يبغي الفساد‬ ‫ولا صلح‬ ‫إلى عدلك الإ نصاف في‬ ‫و إن لنا في رفع شكوى تجارنا‬ ‫الحكم والنجح‬ ‫وقد سلط الله عليه ابن أخيه وهو رميثة بن محمد بن‬

‫‪223‬‬ ‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪no.‬‬

‫‪YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE‬‬

‫‪Manuscript‬‬

‫‪75‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪77‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫‪81‬‬ ‫‪82‬‬ ‫‪83‬‬ ‫‪84‬‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫‪86‬‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫‪88‬‬ ‫‪89‬‬ ‫‪90‬‬ ‫‪91‬‬ ‫‪92‬‬ ‫‪93‬‬ ‫‪94‬‬ ‫‪95‬‬ ‫‪96‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 129b‬‬

‫‪97‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 129b‬‬

‫‪98‬‬ ‫‪99‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 128b‬‬

‫‪100‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 128b‬‬

‫‪101‬‬

‫‪Fatih 4340, fol. 131a‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫عجلان فإن العم ظلم حقوقه وبره الولد فأكثر عقوقه‬ ‫فخرج منه مغاضبا فغضب لغضبه القواد والسبب أن ذلك‬ ‫صادف هوى في الفؤاد وقد ترشح لطلب الولاية في البلاد‬ ‫وقويت شوكته وزادت على عصبة عمه عصبته وقد دخل‬ ‫اليمن مسترفدا فرأينا من أخلاقه اللينة ومنطقه الذي‬ ‫هو منه على بينة ما يصلح أن يكون به أهلا للولاية وموضعا‬ ‫للكفاية فإن انقضى الرأي العالي كسر شوكة حسن بإقامة‬ ‫هذا الكفؤ الكريم مع ولده في نصف البلاد اتسق الحق‬ ‫وافترقت كلمة الفساد واجتهد كل في بذل الطاعة والانقياد‬ ‫وهذه سياسة بل فرصة تغتنم لا ينبغي أن يعرض عنها فما‬ ‫تقطع الشجرة إلا بعود منها وقد عمر حسن بن عجلان‬ ‫مراكب في البحر صيرها على الناس ألباء يقطع السيارة عن‬ ‫الطور ويأخذ كل سفينة غصبا ولأجلها شحنا مراكب الكارم‬ ‫من المقاتلة بكل باسل ومن أنواع السلاح بكل ما‬ ‫يعتصم به المقاتل من سيوف ورماح وسهام يطير منها‬ ‫الموت بجناح وقسي كلما اشتدت اتسعت خطا سهامها‬ ‫الفساح ومدافع لا يدفع عذابها عنهم ترس ولا‬ ‫سلاح وأمرناهم أن يستكثروا من ظروف الماء وأوعيته‬ ‫وأعناهم بما يحتاجون إليه من أوانيه وأسقيته خوفا أن يقف‬ ‫لهم بجموعه على موارد الماء وأن يحول بينهم وبين الاستقاء‬ ‫والله الكافي وأما أخبار أهل اليمن فكلمة أهل السنة ظاهرة‬ ‫ات فِ ْي ِه ْم ُم َت َواتِ َرة‬ ‫َو َص ْف َق ُة ا‪ْ Ü‬هلِ ٱ ْل ِب َد ِع َخ ِاس َر ْه َوٱل ِن َكا َي ُ‬ ‫والحاجة إلى المساعدة بالنجدة و إلى شراء المماليك ٱ ْلج ْلب‬ ‫الجياد مشتدة و إلى السلاح فإنه نعم العدة فإن اقتض‬ ‫لس َف َرآء‬ ‫ٱل ‪É‬رأْ ُي ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي ُف ا‪ْ Ü‬ن َت ْب ُر َز َم َر ِاس ْي ُم ُه ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي َف ُة بِٱ ْل ِٕا ْذ ِن لِ ‪à‬‬ ‫اح‬ ‫من ٱ ْل َم َماليك َوٱلس َل ِ‬ ‫في شرآء ما تَشْ َه ُد به ٱ ْلت‪ْ É‬ذك َر ُة َ‬ ‫َو َغ ْي ِر ذَلِ ْك ُم َضافًا إِ َل ْى َما َت ُج ْو ُد بِ ِه ٱ ْل َي ُد ٱلش‪ِ É‬ر ْي َف ُة ِم ْن ُه َنالك‬

‫‪F. BAUDEN‬‬

‫‪Line‬‬ ‫‪no.‬‬ ‫‪102‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪104‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬ ‫‪107‬‬ ‫‪108‬‬ ‫‪109‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬ ‫‪111‬‬ ‫‪112‬‬ ‫‪113‬‬ ‫‪114‬‬ ‫‪115‬‬ ‫‪116‬‬ ‫‪117‬‬ ‫‪118‬‬ ‫‪119‬‬ ‫‪120‬‬ ‫‪121‬‬ ‫‪122‬‬

‫‪123‬‬

‫‪Manuscript‬‬

‫‪224‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫كما جرت عوائد السفراء في أيام الملك الشهيد برقوق‬ ‫فإن أيامه كانت أيام خير وسلامة وسكون واستقامة ولكن‬ ‫خلفه من قطع ما وصل وأخذ ما حصل ونفر التجار‬ ‫وأخلى من المراكب البحار حتى أيد الله الإ سلام‬ ‫بهذه الدولة المؤيدية فحقنت الدماء في أهبها وقرت‬ ‫الرؤوس في كواهلها وحفظت الأموال على أربابها‬ ‫والحمد لله رب العالمين وقد صدر المجلس السامي الأثيري‬ ‫الكبيري الأجلي القاضوي الأميني أمين الدين مفلح التركي‬ ‫سلمه الله والسفراء وما بأيديهم بجواد المقام العالي خلد الله تعالى‬ ‫ملكه ونصره وفي ذمامه وجلالته واحترامه فجواره عزيز وذمامه‬ ‫‪ Ayasofya 3362, fol. 142b‬حرِيز ولِكلٍ حساد لا يؤمنون أبدا وقد استعاذ‬ ‫َٱلس َف َرا ُء إ ِْن شَ آ ٱلل‪ُ É‬ه تَعالى‬ ‫‪َ Ayasofya 3362, fol. 142b‬س ‪É‬ي ُد ٱ ْل ُم ْر َس ِل ْي َن ِم ْن شَ َما َت ِه ٱ ْلا‪ْ Ü‬عدَا ف ‪à‬‬ ‫لا ينقطعون كل عام من النزول ببابه والتعلق بجنابه فما‬ ‫انقطعوا في أيام فرج إلا لما سد دون معروفه الفرج وأما هذه‬ ‫الأيام فإنها تواريخ الخيرات وتذاكر الحسنات ومما‬ ‫اقتضاه الإ دلال على مكارمه والتبسط في مواهبه التصدق‬ ‫بما أمكن من السناقير الملكية وهي التي تسمى بالشواهين‬ ‫البحرية فللمحب إدلال وقد يكون من المحبوب الاحتمال‬ ‫والله تعالى يسمع الخير من أخباره ويحسن الكفاية في إيراده‬ ‫ب ٱل َعا]لمين[‬ ‫‪َ Or. 1366c, fol. 103a‬و إ ِْصدَا ِر ْه إِن‪ُ É‬ه َعلى ُك ‪ã‬ل شَ ْي ٍء َق ِد ْي ٌر َو َ‬ ‫ٱلح ْم ُد لِل‪ِ É‬ه َر ّ‬ ‫لحـرام ]سنــة[‬ ‫‪ُ Or. 1366c, fol. 103a‬ك ـ]ـتـب[ يـ ْو]م[ ٱل ـ]ـ َث ـ[ـل ـ]ـثـاء ثـامـن َعـ َشـ َرة َشـهـر[ ْ‬ ‫ذي ٱ ـ َلقـ ْعـدَه ٱ ـ َ‬ ‫َس ْبع َعـ]ـشرة[‬ ‫]وثماني مائة[‬ ‫‪5. Secretaries in dialogue‬‬

‫‪Besides the diplomatic analysis the Rasulid letter allows, it provides a rare‬‬ ‫‪case study of an exchange of diplomatic correspondence between two secretaries‬‬ ‫‪whose identities are known. Taken together with other partially preserved letters,‬‬ ‫‪it gives us the opportunity to analyze how two celebrated men of letters engaged‬‬ ‫‪with one another via the official correspondence they were asked to maintain. In‬‬ ‫‪what follows I briefly tackle the subject to highlight the kind of dialogue these two‬‬ ‫‪secretaries could enter into in such circumstances. I will however refrain from car-‬‬

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

225

rying out a thorough analysis of the literary devices they could resort to, as this article is not the time or place to examine this.96 5.1. The identity of the Mamluk secretary As it has already been revealed in the preceding pages, we know that Ibn Ḥijja was the secretary responsible for the composition of the diplomatic correspondence as well as some administrative deeds during the period considered—alMuʾayyad Shaykh’s reign. Born in Hama in 767/1366 as the son of a craftsman, he dedicated himself to learning and soon became renowned for his talent in poetry which he perfected first in Damascus, then in Cairo, before returning to Syria. During the following years, he struck up an acquaintance with a fellow countryman, Nāṣir al-Dīn Ibn al-Bārizī (d. 823/1420), who later became the secretary of the chancery in Hama. When the then governor of Hama and future sultan, Shaykh al-Maḥmūdī, started his ascent to power in Syria, Ibn al-Bārizī had already established a strong relationship with him. After Shaykh al-Maḥmūdī’s accession to the throne in 815/1412, the new sultan nominated Ibn al-Bārizī to the position of head of the state chancery in Cairo. Thanks to his links to these two men, Ibn Ḥijja followed suit and was designated as a composition secretary (munshiʾ),97 a position he retained until a few years after the deaths of Ibn al-Bārizī and al-Muʾayyad Shaykh (d. 824/1421). In 830/1427, he was back in his hometown where he died a few years later (d. 837/1434). During his permanent residency in Cairo, he strengthened his ties with some of the most prominent men of letters and scholars of his time. Lauded for his poetry, Ibn Ḥijja composed several works mostly dealing with stylistics, poetics, and rhetoric.98 As stressed by the Czech scholar Rudolf Veselý, “Ibn Ḥijja was not a bureaucrat, rather a poet and a man of letters.”99 The years he spent drafting documents and letters on behalf of the sultans offered him the opportunity to spread his style through the Mamluk realm and beyond. When he retired to his hometown, one of his tasks was to collect the letters and documents he had authored100 during his service at the chancery. The collection, which he entitled Qahwat alinshāʾ, also includes some personal correspondence and other literary pieces as 96

97

98

99

100

For a very brief assessment of Ibn Ḥijja’s literary prowess, see Stewart, Ibn Ḥijjah al-Ḥamawī 145. Besides this function, he himself could prepare the document to be sent, as in the case of a letter addressed to the Khan of the Golden Horde. See Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 119–20. The most detailed study of Ibn Ḥijja’s life, works, and style is by al-Rabdāwī, Ibn Ḥijja alḤamawī. See also Salīm, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Ḥijja. Veselý, Vorwort, in Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 25 (“Ibn Ḥiǧǧa war kein Bürokrat, sondern ein Dichter und Literat”). On the perception of authorship regarding diplomatic correspondence and official deeds, see Veselý, Eine Stilkunstschrift.

226

F. BAUDEN

well as some foreign correspondence that prompted the answers he composed. Ibn Ḥijja can rightly be regarded as “the last of the great secretaries of the medieval chanceries of Egypt and Syria.”101 In his Qahwat al-inshāʾ, Ibn Ḥijja recorded two letters he authored, both addressed by al-Muʾayyad Shaykh to the Rasulid sultan, each of them being an answer to a Rasulid letter.102 While he provides a copy of the second Rasulid letter, he failed to do so for the first one which must have reached Cairo shortly before Ibn Ḥijja started to work at the state chancery. There seems to be evidence that he did not keep an accurate record of all the correspondence, including his answers, as we know that another Rasulid letter was received in Cairo to which the Mamluk sultan replied. There is no trace in Qahwat al-inshāʾ of this Rasulid letter or of the Mamluk letter that was drafted in answer to it.103 5.2. The identity of the Rasulid secretary We would not know the name of the Rasulid secretary who penned at least one of the letters addressed to the Mamluk sultan if it were not for a Meccan historian, al-Fāsī (d. 832/1429), who gained access to this diplomatic correspondence. In the long and well-informed biography he devoted to the Meccan Sharīf Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān in his biographical dictionary of Meccan personalities, al-ʿIqd althamīn, he quotes an extract of the letter Ibn Ḥijja composed in 819/1420 (see tab. 9.5, no. 13) in answer to the Rasulid letter received a few months before (see tab. 9.5, no. 12). Al-Fāsī indicates that he was aware that the author of the Mamluk letter was Ibn Ḥijja, whom he presents as the brilliant man of letters (al-adīb albāriʿ).104 He then cites an excerpt of the Rasulid answer to Ibn Ḥijja’s letter (see tab. 9.5, no. 15), stating, at the end, that it is “the composition of the one and only man of letters, culture, and refinement of Yemen, the judge Sharaf al-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. Abī Bakr, known as Ibn al-Muqriʾ.”105 Even though the identity of the Rasulid secretary is only revealed with regard to a letter that Ibn Ḥijja did not take note of in his Qahwat al-inshāʾ, in what follows I argue that, like Ibn Ḥijja, Ibn al-Muqriʾ was in charge of the diplomatic correspondence, at least with the Mamluks, and that he can be rightly regarded as the author of the letter whose fragments are the subject of our study.

101 102

103

104 105

Stewart, Ibn Ḥijjah al-Ḥamawī 138. See tabs. 9.5, nos. 7 and 12 (Rasulid letters), 9 and 13 (Mamluk letters). He also copied one of his answers to a Rasulid letter received under Ṭaṭar’s reign. A short extract of the Rasulid letter is quoted by al-Fāsī in his al-ʿIqd al-thamīn. See tab. 9.5, no. 15. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 133. Ibid. iv, 132.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

227

Ibn al-Muqriʾ (b. 755/1354; d. 837/1433) was born in the Tihama region, in one of those places locally known as “fortresses of wisdom.” Such places were renowned for the transmission of science that took place in these remote mountainous villages where scholars enjoyed protection and support.106 After his primary education, he moved to Zabid where he established bonds with the Rasulid sultan. In his early career, his preference was poetry and prose, his poetry being highly appreciated and earning him lavish gifts from the rulers of Yemen. Despite the fame he built in this field in a short period of time, his father urged him to dedicate his time to the religious sciences. Hence, he specialized in jurisprudence and enjoyed a successful career as an administrator of various institutions and as a professor in Zabid and Taiz. Yet he could not refrain from his love of poetry and he continued to compose poems inspired by a wide variety of circumstances. One of these poems relates to his opposition to Yemeni partisans of Ibn ʿArabī’s thought whom he fought by pouring forth a string of abusive verses. At his death, his poems were gathered on two occasions,107 and the sources that included an entry on him usually quote some of them. Apart from Mecca, where he went on several occasions to perform the pilgrimage, he did not leave Yemen; yet this did not prevent him from meeting famous scholars, like Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449), when they visited Yemen.108 On at least two occasions, Ibn al-Muqriʾ was designated as an envoy by the Rasulid sultan. The first time, he brought a letter to the Meccan Sharīf in 814/1412 (see tab. 9.5, no. 2). The second time, he was supposed to travel as an envoy to Cairo but his mission was postponed and he was eventually replaced. According to Ibn Ḥajar, the reason of the deferral could be found in Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s eagerness to be appointed supreme judge.109 Indeed, on 20 Shawwāl 817/2 January 1415, the great lexicographer Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī, who held the position of supreme judge, died.110 Some authors asserted that Ibn al-Muqriʾ yearned to become his successor out of fear that a judge adhering to Ibn ʿArabī’s views would get the 106

107 108

109

110

On these, see al-Akwaʿ, Hijar al-ʿilm i, 34–48 where the author speaks of Abyāt Ḥusayn, Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s birthplace, and 38–41, where he mentions him. One of the two versions of his dīwān is published: al-Muqriʾ, al-Dīwān. On him, see al-Burayhī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman (1994 ed.) 302–7; al-Khazrajī, al-ʿAqd alfākhir i, 510–21 (no. 228); al-Ahdal, Tuḥfat al-zaman ii, 324–5; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 521; Id., al-Majmaʿ al-muʾassis iii, 86–8; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya iv, 109–10 (no. 765); Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī ii, 386–90 (no. 426); Id., al-Dalīl al-shāfī i, 122; al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt i, 444 (no. 909); al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ ii, 292–5 (no. 914); Id., al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar i, 147–8; al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ i, 174–7 (no. 89); Ibn alʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab ix, 321–2; al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām i, 310–1. The most detailed study on Ibn al-Muqriʾ is Abū Zayd, Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī. Ibn Ḥajar, al-Majmaʿ al-muʾassis iii, 87 (ʿuyyina lil-sifāra ilā al-Qāhira thumma taʾakhkhara dhālika). On him, see now Strotmann, Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī.

228

F. BAUDEN

job.111 Whatever the case may be, this event helps to precisely date the moment when Ibn al-Muqriʾ was designated to deliver the Rasulid letter in Cairo. The letter that is the subject of this study is indeed datable to the month following alFīrūzābādī’s death (18 Dhū al-Qaʿda/29 January). Thus, Ibn al-Muqriʾ was supposed to deliver a letter that he had also likely composed. As stressed above, we know with certainty that he authored the answer to Ibn Ḥijja’s answer to the Rasulid letter dated 817/1415. There is now little doubt that he was the author of the latter too.112 This designation would have given him the opportunity to stay in Cairo for a while and to meet scholars and luminaries in the field of belles-lettres, like Ibn Ḥijja. Ultimately, his ambition or his commitment to preventing a partisan of Ibn ʿArabī from occupying a high position prevailed and changed his mind.113 An analysis of the poetry that features in the two letters provides further elements corroborating the identification of the author of the Rasulid letter with Ibn alMuqriʾ. 5.3. Secretaries in competition If diplomatic letters were first and foremost a mode of pragmatic communication (they convey a message that must be understood by the addressee), they also engaged with literary communication by virtue of their stylistic features and their polyvalence: they could be appreciated out of context and become part of anthologies as exemplified by Ibn Ḥijja and his Qahwat al-inshāʾ.114 Composition secretaries were fully aware that the letters they were asked to write would be read by a peer once it reached the addressee. Even though the ruler who received a diplomatic letter could appreciate both its meaning and the way this meaning was conveyed, it was the composition secretary, tasked with preparing the answer, who would prize the literary devices and engage with them to show his skills. As noted by al-Qalqashandī, the style of the reply could be viewed as more challenging than the style of the initial letter that prompted it. In fact, in the reply, the secretary was

111

112

113

114

The medieval sources agree on the first reason while Abū Zayd, Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī 50, defends the second. Al-Burayhī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman (ed. 1994) 306, confirms that al-Muqriʾ composed official correspondence and that he mentioned some of the poetry the latter inserted in it in the longer version of his work (wa-qad dhakartu min ashʿārihi fī al-uḥjiyyāt wa-l-risālāt wa-linshāʾāt baʿḍahā fī al-aṣl). The editor of the text, al-Ḥibshī, later found a manuscript containing a longer text but Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s biography does not feature in it. See al-Burayhī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman (ed. 2015). Yet he ultimately failed, as al-Fīrūzābādī’s successor was a judge known for adhering to Ibn ʿArabī’s ideas. See Abū Zayd, Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī 50. On pragmatic and literary communication in Mamluk literature, see Bauer, Mamluk literature 24–6.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

229

constrained by protocol and compelled to enter into the conversation with his peer.115 This form of dialogue is best evidenced by a study of the poems found in the letters. Theoreticians of chancery diplomatic protocol deemed the use of poetry in letters exchanged by rulers a secondary, nevertheless acceptable, form of communication in comparison with prose.116 In such circumstances, composition secretaries limited the inclusion of their own poetry to a few verses. Independently from their usual jobs, both Ibn Ḥijja and Ibn al-Muqriʾ were praised for their poetic compositions. The Meccan historian al-Fāsī offers an example of Ibn Ḥijja’s artistry in a letter addressed by the Mamluk sultan to the Sharīf of Mecca in 817/1414 (see tab. 9.5, no. 10).117 The letter’s goal was to communicate that alMuʾayyad Shaykh had defeated his opponent Nawrūz in Syria and had returned victoriously to Cairo. Al-Fāsī limits himself to stress that the letter included two verses composed by Ibn Ḥijja that said (ṭawīl meter): a-yā malikan bi-Allāhi ṣāra muʾayyadan

wa-muntaṣiban fī mulkihi naṣba tamyīzī

kasarta bi-misrā nīla miṣra wa-tanqaḍī

wa-ḥaqqika baʿda al-kasri ayyāmu nawrūzī

O Ruler who came to be supported by God firmly and distinctively established in his rule! In the month of Misrā you opened the Nile of Egypt By your truth! The days of nawrūz/Nawrūz came to an end after the opening/ defeat

Al-Fāsī praised Ibn Ḥijja’s skill (kiyāsa) in conveying the news by deploying the concluding tawriya (double entendre) punning on the name of the defeated opponent. At first, this epigram118 celebrates the sultan’s victory (muʾayyad “supported” echoing the sultan’s title) and parallels it with the opening (kasr) of the canal in Cairo, which took place during the Coptic month of Misrā and whose ceremony coincided with the days of celebration—known as Nawrūz—famous for the loosening of people’s social behavior.119 The name and demise (kasr also means “defeat”) of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s opponent was thus subtly evoked at a second level.120 Al-Fāsī could not refrain from expressing his wonder at such a 115 116 117

118 119

120

See Gully, The culture of letter-writing 22, 155–6. See ibid. 31–9. The same epigram appears in a letter of good tidings (bishāra) that Ibn Ḥijja composed after 1 Ramaḍān 817/14 November 1414 (Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 81). The letter addressed to the Sharīf of Mecca was probably a copy of it. On epigrams in the Mamluk period, see Talib, How do you say “epigram” in Arabic?. Nawrūz died on 21 Rabīʿ II 817/10 July 1414. Misrā was the last month of the Coptic year and fell in August when the canal was opened and the festivities ensued. Ibn Ḥijja also plays with other words evoking metalinguistic language (naṣba tamyīz, the first

230

F. BAUDEN

poem and the strange and perfect concomitance of both events which Ibn Ḥijja made full use of.121 Ibn Ḥijja would not have failed to deploy such skills in a reply to a letter composed by an expert in poetry like Ibn al-Muqriʾ. Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s letter indeed includes four verses of the ṭawīl meter.122 It features in the section of the letter where the Rasulid sultan expresses his contempt for the Sharīf of Mecca whose past actions compelled him to establish a boycott of trade and pilgrimage. After explaining that as a result of this decision the Sharīf was unable to lay his hand (yamīn) on the money of the Yemenis this year, the Rasulid sultan stresses that he safeguarded the sultan’s interests (literally, “taxes,” ḥuqūq). At the same time, he preferred to seek redress for his actions from the Mamluk sultan. At this point the poem reads (ṭawīl meter): law lāka mā imtaddat ilaynā yamīnuhu

wa-lā ṣānahu minnā husāmun wa-lā rumḥū

taraknā lahu min khawfi ʿatbika mā lanā

wa-in kāna lā yurḍīka min mithlihi al-ṣafḥū

wa-naḥnu ʿalā ʿilmin bi-an laysa ʿindakum

amānun liman yabghī al-fasāda wa-lā ṣulḥū

wa-inna lanā fī rafʿi shakwā tujjārinā

ilā ʿadlika al-inṣāfu fī al-ḥukmi wa-l-nujḥū

Were it not for you, he could not have stretched out his right hand toward us and neither sword nor spear would have protected him from us We left him what he owes us out of fear of your rebuke even if you cannot be satisfied with pardoning someone of his kind We are aware that there cannot be from you neither a safe conduct nor peace for the one who covets viciousness By raising our merchants’ complaint to your justice, we are entitled to seek a right and favorable outcome in the judgment

In the first hemistich, the poet evokes the hand (yamīn) which he refers to in the preceding lines. There he also played on the second meaning of the word

121

122

word also referring to the accusative case—noticeable in the first hemistich—, and the second to the complement of specification—the grammatical function of both words). This kind of double entendre, in which the second-order meaning belongs to a terminological or technical field, is known as istikhdām. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 118–9 (wa-fī hādhayn al-baytayn min al-kiyāsa al-tawriya bi-lnawrūz al-ladhī yakūn bi-ithra kasr al-nīl wa-huwa yawm mashhūr ʿinda al-Miṣriyyīn limā yaqaʿ fīhi min al-mujūn wa-Nawrūz al-ladhī kāna amīran bi-l-Shām wa-qatalahu al-sulṭān wayuqālu lahu Nawrūz wa-fīhimā min al-kiyāsa ayḍan ṣiḥḥat al-ittifāq al-maqūl fa-innahu qad lā yatimmu al-ẓafar bi-nayrūz fa-tamma). These verses do not appear in the version of his dīwān that has been published. See al-Muqriʾ, al-Dīwān. There is another version that remains unpublished but I was not able to consult any of the manuscripts. See Abū Zayd, Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī 90–9.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

231

yamīn (“oath”) by stating that it was not to be trusted. This second-order meaning is also intended here. Apart from that, the meaning of the verses is straightforward and the author does not resort to rhetorical devices, though he was known for his keen interest in them.123 Before considering Ibn Ḥijja’s answer, it should be duly noted that Ibn alMuqriʾ started his poem with a variant in the meter: the initial foot begins with two long syllables (law lā) instead of a short one followed by a long one as in the following verses. The poet explicitly made this choice because a question of rhythm and poetic effect is allowed in prosody and belongs to the categories of variants called ziḥāf. When it regards the initial foot of a verse of the ṭawīl meter, as it does here, the variant is called kharm (“retrenchment”) and two options are available: either the foot starts with two long syllables, as in the case of Ibn alMuqriʾ’s poem (this sub-variant is called thalm, “a notch”), or with a long syllable followed by a short one (this sub-variant is called tharm, literally “a gap between two incisors”). Specialists of prosody of the sixth/twelfth century, moved by aesthetic concerns, classified the variants (ziḥāfāt) into three qualitative categories: good (ḥasan), acceptable (ṣāliḥ), and ugly (qabīḥ). According to some of them, the kharm as exemplified by Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s poem belonged to the last one.124 Even though this may have been the case in the classical period, poets of the ninth/fifteenth century were less concerned by such a characterization as evidenced by Ibn al-Muqriʾ in the case we are dealing with. In his answer, Ibn Ḥijja explains that the Mamluk sultan heard his Rasulid counterpart’s grievance regarding the Sharīf of Mecca and that action was taken to remove the Sharīf from his position. At this point, he proceeds with his poem that is clearly a reply to Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s poem, as the meter (ṭawīl), the rhyme (-ḥū), and the contents show: wa-yumsī al-yamānī nāʾiman milʾa jafnihi

wa-min kathrati al-taṭwīl yukhtaṣaru al-rumḥū

ka-dhāka madīdu al-baḥri yamḍī ziḥāfuhu

bi-taqṭīʿihi qahran wa-yattaḍihu al-sharḥū

wa-fī jiddatin yumsī al-surūru mujaddadan

wa-lil-ṭayri fī afnānihā bi-l-hanā ṣadḥū

wa-taʿdhubu min ʿAydhāba aryāqu thaghrihā

wa-shāribuhā min ladhdhati al-rashfi mā yaṣḥū

wa-aʿdāʾunā aʿdāʾukum ghayra annahum

ẓalāmun maḥāhu min sadāqatinā al-ṣubḥū

123

124

Besides the classical devices, like double entendre (tawriya) and riddles (lughz), he also composed poems in which the verses could also be read backwards (starting from the last word of the verse back to the first) or vertically (i.e., reusing the words of the first verse at the beginning of the following verses in the order in which they appeared). See Abū Zayd, Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī 256–67. See Paoli, De la Théorie à l’usage 143–5, 268–9.

232

F. BAUDEN

The Yemeni falls asleep profoundly and the bridle is slackened so much that the spear is leaned upon Just as the stretch of the sea whose crawling advances due to its forcible division and the opening becomes visible In a beaten way delight appears renewed and the birds on their branches sing happiness The saliva of their mouth becomes sweet from ʿAydhāb and the drinker cannot recover from the pleasure of sipping it Our enemies are your enemies, yet they are a darkness that dawn erased from our friendship

The first-order meaning is plain: the Rasulid sultan could be reassured as the Sharīf was no longer a threat. Ibn Ḥijja also chose to use a metaphor linked to a Mosaic event: the opening of the sea that exposes a track, a way out. By doing so, he announces the message he conveys after the poem: the Sharīf made amends and beseeched the Mamluk sultan’s pardon in order to be reinstated to his position in Mecca. For this, Ibn Ḥijja refers to the same image: like Moses, the Sharīf went to the Mount (al-Ṭūr, i.e., Mount Sinai) where he was told “and the sea swarming, surely thy Lord’s chastisement is about to fall.”125 As a consequence, trade can proceed uninterruptedly between Yemen, the Hijaz, and Egypt: the well-trodden path (jidda) is a reference to the port of Jedda and the mouth (thaghr) is a word also used to indicate a port, in this case the port of ʿAydhāb on the Egyptian coast. The final verse underlines the profound nature of the relations between the Mamluk sultan and his Rasulid counterpart and strengthens the idea that the exchange of information is crucial: ṣubḥ (“dawn” but also “truth”) eliminates ẓalām (“darkness” but also “vexation”), meaning that by exposing the reason of his concern, the Rasulid sultan acted in a constructive way. The last word of the poem, ṣubḥ, also echoes the first one (yumsī “to enter into the evening” but also “to become,” is used as a synonym of aṣbaḥa “to enter the morning” and also “to become”), thus offering a conclusion to the dark period of the day, i.e., the night. The second-order meaning is even more subtle. Ibn Ḥijja could not refrain from leaving Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s above-mentioned poetic variant unnoted. His second verse indicates his perception of this irregularity that he expressed in a complex and paronomastic mode embodied in his use of istikhdām, i.e., the double meaning of words, one of which is specific to terminology (in this case prosody): madīd (stretch) designates another type of meter; baḥr (sea) is the meter in prosody; ziḥāf (crawling) refers to the variants in the meter; taqṭīʿ (division) also means the scan125

Quran 52:6–7; the sura is titled The Mount (Arberry’s translation).

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

233

sion of the meter. The presence of the word “forcible” (qahran) reinforces Ibn Ḥijja’s perception of this irregularity. In his poetic reply, Ibn Ḥijja clearly engaged with Ibn al-Muqriʾ’s verses in such a way that they posed a much greater challenge to the latter. Unfortunately, we cannot know how Ibn al-Muqriʾ took up the challenge given that we lack his answer.126 6. Diplomatic to and fro between Taiz, Cairo, Mecca, and... Herat The Rasulid letter at the center of this study also offers a unique opportunity to delve more deeply into the diplomatic relations between the surrounding powers (the Mamluks, the Rasulids, and, to a lesser extent, the Timurids) with regard to the Sharīf Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s efforts to consolidate his power in the Hijaz at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century. Over the last decade, John Meloy and Éric Vallet addressed numerous issues linked to the Hijaz, from the point of view of the Mamluks and the Rasulids respectively.127 Their studies are largely based on literary sources, with a limited use of documents. Taking into consideration their studies, I focus on the embassies and the letters that the three actors exchanged during this period, without neglecting another regional actor (the Timurids), to illustrate the issues at stake.128 Before doing so, let us summarize the contents of the Rasulid letter. In his letter, the Rasulid sultan al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (r. 803–26/1400–24) starts by acknowledging receipt of a letter al-Muʾayyad Shaykh addressed to him with lavish gifts. This is in fact the letter that Ibn Ḥijja must have penned at the end of 815/beginning of 1412 in which al-Muʾayyad Shaykh announced to his Rasulid correspondent that he had been enthroned a few weeks before (see tab. 9.5, no. 9). He also confirmed that he noted al-Nāṣir Aḥmad’s letter in which the latter 126

127

128

Al-Fāsī only quoted a short extract which did not include any poetry. See tab. 9.5, no. 15. The fact that al-Fāsī did not quote the verses Ibn al-Muqriʾ inserted in his answer may be an indication that he was not impressed by them. Meloy, Imperial strategy; Id., Imperial power; Id., Mecca entangled; Id., The judges of Mecca; Vallet, L’Arabie marchande; Id., Le Marché des épices; Id., Panique à La Mecque; Id., Diplomatic networks; Sadek, Custodians. A first attempt to study the relations of the Rasulids with other powers was made by Aḥmad, Banū Rasūl, particularly 430–3 (embassies and gifts exchanged under Barqūq and al-Muʾayyad Shaykh) and 446–60 (control of the Red Sea trade by the Mamluks). Al-Fīfī, al-Dawla al-rasūliyya is useful for an overview of al-Nāṣir Aḥmad’s reign. For the relations between the Hijaz and the Mamluks, see also al-Sulaymān, al-ʿAlāqāt, particularly 41–58. For the financial means of the Sharīfs of Mecca, see al-Shahrī, al-Mawārid al-māliyya, particularly 61–78 and 104–23. For the commercial importance of the Red Sea ports, see al-ʿAmāyira, Mawāniʾ al-Baḥr al-aḥmar, particularly the section on duties and taxes (237–310). Over a decade the sources identify some seventeen embassies and/or letters between the four actors in relation to the Hijaz (see tab. 9.5).

234

F. BAUDEN

brought the Yemeni merchants to his attention. Al-Nāṣir Aḥmad also insists on maintaining the good relations that have prevailed between the two powers since the reigns of their predecessors and expresses his hope that the newly installed sultan in Cairo will maintain the status quo. He then tackles more serious matters. Among these, he confirms that the ships arrived from Asia loaded with merchandise. He also complains about the Sharīf of Mecca, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān, who had hindered the movements of pilgrims and merchants in the recent past and whose actions threaten the stability of the region. In order to counterbalance the disruptions generated by the Sharīf, al-Nāṣir Aḥmad welcomed the Sharīf’s nephew, Rumaytha, who had fled to southern Hijaz, and decided to grant him support in his leadership contest against his uncle’s power. Al-Nāṣir Aḥmad consequently asks the sultan to endorse his policy in this respect. He also stresses that the Sharīf built a fleet that impedes the circulation of boats from the port of Ṭūr (Sinai) and that he takes a share from each boat. To thwart the Sharīf’s actions, he armed the boats of the Kārimī merchants with fighters and weapons (swords, spears, bows and arrows, cannons). The shipmasters were also recommended to provide their passengers with sufficient water to avoid having to anchor in the ports under the Sharīf’s control. The letter proceeds with the Rasulid sultan’s request for the acquisition by his envoy of various goods, including but not limited to, arms, mamlūks, and other commodities. He concludes his message by recommending his ambassador, Amīn al-Dīn Mufliḥ al-Turkī, and his fellow envoys, and by making a last request, that he send gyrfalcons (sanāqīr).129 The main concern that the Rasulid sultan wanted to report to al-Muʾayyad Shaykh was clearly related to the Meccan Sharīf’s actions. Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s rule started at the end of the eighth/fourteenth century (797/1395), during Barqūq’s sultanate. After a short interlude during which he lost power, he regained his powerful position in 809/1416. As John Meloy demonstrated, the Meccan Sharīf Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān, who was officially appointed by the Mamluk sultan as amīr Makka (amir of Mecca), enjoyed relative autonomy during most of the year. It was mainly during the pilgrimage period, when a Mamluk amir was sent to lead the caravan of pilgrims accompanied by a detachment, that the Mamluk sultan exerted a kind of hegemony that Meloy characterized as seasonal.130 Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān continually sought to strengthen his authority not only over Mecca, but more generally over the whole Hijaz. To reach this goal, he instituted a customs house in Jedda in 806/1403, drawing his inspiration from Aden.131 By so doing, he was able to levy taxes on the merchants who called at the port. Thanks to the control of the collection and distribution of resources, he managed to place himself above his contenders to the throne, and moved from the position of a primus inter pares to 129 130 131

On these, see Alkhateeb Shehada, From the Far North. Meloy, Imperial power 81–112. Ibid. 74; Vallet, L’Arabie marchande 629–33.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

235

that of a real governor, not to say a ruler.132 It is not surprising that it is during this period at the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, that he reached the peak of his power and was even granted by al-Nāṣir Faraj, in 811/1408, the title of nāʾib al-sulṭān lil-aqṭār al-ḥijāziyya (Viceroy in the Hijazi territories), a title that effectively recognized his rise to power.133 The same year he ventured to conquer Medina.134 From then on, and during the whole second decade of the ninth/fifteenth century, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s efforts to consolidate his power continued, on a par with his exactions and confiscations of goods belonging particularly to Yemeni and other foreign merchants who called at the port of Jedda or visited the Holy City on a yearly basis. His behavior triggered a harsh reaction from the Rasulid sultan, the outcome of which deeply and negatively impacted the power of both rulers to the benefit of the Mamluk sultan. The relations between the Meccan Sharīf and the Rasulid sultan cooled after the former sent a poem to the latter, an offer that the Yemeni ruler did not reward as expected. As a result, at the end of 811/Spring 1409, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān confiscated a huge amount of money from the merchant who represented the Rasulid sultan while he was in Mecca.135 The Sharīf probably seized this opportunity to openly express his intent to consolidate his power on a regional level. The Rasulid response was economic and political.136 On an economic level, al-Nāṣir Aḥmad imposed a series of boycotts of the port of Jedda; this brought about repeated compromises by the Meccan Sharīf. The conflict also staggered on with tit-for-tat confiscations. In 812/1410, Wajīh alDīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn Jumayʿ, another merchant working for the Rasulid sultan who had family ties with the one who had fallen victim to the Sharīf’s exactions the preceding year, impounded part of the belongings of a representative that the Sharīf had sent to Yemen in an attempt to make amends. The Sharīf retaliated the next year and seized the goods of Ibn Jumayʿ’s agents who performed the pilgrimage. He also wrote to the Rasulid sultan explaining the reason he acted this way and attached to his message a letter he had received from al-Nāṣir Faraj (see tab. 9.5, no. 1) in which the Mamluk sultan expressed his discontent with Ibn Jumayʿ’s behavior, and urged his Yemeni counterpart to place Ibn Jumayʿ under arrest and dispatch him to Cairo as a prisoner.137 Al-Nāṣir Aḥmad’s answer to Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān (814/1412; see tab. 9.5, no. 2) was unambiguous, as it opened with the Quranic verse “Very hateful is it to God, that you say what you do not.”138 The envoy 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

Meloy, Imperial power 81–2. Ibid. 94. Ibid. 100. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 106. The various steps of this state of affairs are detailed by Vallet, L’Arabie marchande 635–40. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 110. Quran 61:3 (trans. Arberry).

236

F. BAUDEN

he chose to send was none other than Ibn al-Muqriʾ. The words went along with facts: a boycott of Jedda by Yemeni merchants ensued, causing a dearth of pepper on the Egyptian market. Recently enthroned, al-Muʾayyad Shaykh wrote to alNāṣir Aḥmad (see tab. 9.5, no. 9) urging him to reopen the gates of trade and inviting him to deter Ibn Jumayʿ from harming the interests of Muslims and to threaten him.139 The Mamluk sultan specifically chose for this mission two envoys active in trade, nevertheless, they returned empty-handed.140 On a political level, the Rasulid sultan tried his best to interfere in the leadership contest the Meccan Sharīf was permanently engaged in. In 816/1413, Rumaytha, a nephew of Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān, took the lead of the struggle for power and temporarily occupied Mecca.141 Forced to flee by the Sharīf, Rumaytha took refuge in southern Hijaz and was approached by a representative of the Rasulid sultan. A meeting was organized in order to gain financial and military support. The restive sultan of Yemen saw in this request an opportunity to cause disruption in Mecca by siding with Rumaytha against his uncle Ḥasan and he decided to seize the occasion.142 This is the decision al-Nāṣir Aḥmad transmitted to the Mamluk sultan in his 817/1415 letter preserved in al-Maqrīzī’s holographs (see tab. 9.5, no. 12). A year or so before the letter arrived in Cairo, al-Muʾayyad Shaykh had reached the same conclusion as his Yemeni counterpart. The disruptions caused by the Meccan Sharīf had convinced al-Muʾayyad Shaykh that it was time to change course in the Hijaz: in Rabīʿ I 818/May-June 1415, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān was informed that he had been dismissed from his position of amir of Mecca and that his nephew Rumaytha would replace him.143 All in all, the Rasulid and the Mamluk policies took the same direction, though not contemporarily. However, alMuʾayyad Shaykh’s decision was not followed up with the necessary reinforcements that would have strengthened the position of the new appointee. Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān noticed this and quickly regained control of the region and tried to win back al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s support. To show his goodwill, he sent his son Barakāt to Cairo with a mission to seek his reappointment. The diplomatic mission was successful as Ḥasan recovered his position in Ramaḍān 819/November 1416.144 The Rasulid envoy, Amīn al-Dīn Mufliḥ al-Turkī, was still in Cairo at that time.145 In his answer to the Rasulid letter of 817/1415 (see tab. 9.5, no. 13), the 139

140 141 142

143 144 145

Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 66 (wa-yurdaʿu Ibn Jumayʿ lā jamaʿa Allāh lahu ʿalā ḍarar almuslimīn shamlan wa-yuhaddadu bi-l-saṭawāt al-nāṣiriyya fa-in āba ilā al-tawba wa-illā). Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 18 (fa-lam yanal minhu gharaḍan). Meloy, Imperial power 103. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 117; Anonymous chronicle fol. 40a = Anonymous, A chronicle 94 = Anonymous, Tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya 172; al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, al-Kitāb al-ẓāhirī 183 = al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, Tārīkh al-Yaman 218–9. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 121; Meloy, Imperial power 105. Meloy, Imperial power 105–6. On him, see Yajima, Yemen Rasūl-chō Jidai; Id., Kaiiki kara Mita Rekishi 452–77 (I am

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

237

Mamluk sultan stressed that he was aware of the situation in the Hijaz and that he had taken the necessary measures by dismissing Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān from his position. But he also informed his correspondent that he had to review his decision and that he reappointed Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān after the latter promised to avoid creating disruptions to pilgrimage and trade—and to pay 30,000 mithqāls, a detail that he passed over in silence in his letter.146 Al-Muʾayyad Shaykh thus pleaded in favor of the Sharīf. In the answer the Rasulid sultan sent to Cairo in 821/1418—partly preserved in al-Fāsī’s biographical dictionary (see tab. 9.5, no. 15)—, he agreed with al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s decision to restore Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān as amir of Mecca because the latter had dispatched his son to Yemen to confirm the commitments made by his father. He also stressed to the Mamluk sultan that he relied on him to ensure that the Sharīf would protect envoys and merchants in the future and that the amir leading the pilgrimage caravan would check if the Sharīf fulfilled his obligations.147 During these years, the Meccan Sharīf also appears to have made efforts to court the Timurid ruler, Shāh Rukh (r. 807–50/1405–47), who was struggling to consolidate his power and who, at the same time, faced potential rivals from inside his own family as well as from foreign rulers encroaching on Timurid territories, like the Qara Qoyunlu Qarā Yūsuf (r. ca. 792–823/ca. 1390–1420).148 We know that Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān sent at least two embassies to Herat, the first one in 817/1414 (see tab. 9.5, no. 11), and the second in 824/1421 (see tab. 9.5, no. 17).149 Even

146 147 148

149

grateful to Kaori Otsuya for providing me with a translation of the relevant pages in both studies); Vallet, L’Arabie marchande 722, no. 151. Yajima, Kaiiki kara Mita Rekishi 454 and Vallet (L’Arabie marchande 642) interpret a passage in al-Khazrajī, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya ii, 310 to mean that Mufliḥ came to Yemen as an envoy of the sultan of Delhi in 802/1400. The passage is obscure and al-Khazrajī might have simply said that Mufliḥ came back from his mission together with the gifts from the sultan of Delhi. This was also Yajima’s understanding of the text in his first study (Yemen Rasūl-chō Jidai 83). On the amount of money he agreed to pay the Mamluk sultan, see Meloy, Imperial power 106. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 130. On these events enlightened by a fragmentary Qara Qoyunlu letter addressed to al-Muʾayyad Shaykh in 818/1415 found in some of al-Maqrīzī’s holographs, see Bauden, Diplomatic entanglements. Dekkiche, Diplomacy at its zenith 120, mentions four embassies: in 817/1414, 819/1416, 822/1420, and 823/1421. The second one is in fact the same as the first and results from a misunderstanding of the source (al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ x, 208). As for the third one, there is no indication in the sources that this was an embassy. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 139, indicates that Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s son, Aḥmad, traveled to Hormuz with a caravan of merchants and came back a year later empty-handed. This travel probably had more to do with commercial transactions than with diplomatic issues. Hormuz was famous as a trading port where boats arrived from the Indian Ocean and China. The local rulers reigned autonomously, and paid an irregular tribute to the Timurids. See Williamson, Hurmuz; Fiorani Piacentini, Hormuz 341–5. As a matter of fact, shortly before his father’s death (829/1426), Aḥmad went once again to Iraq with a brother and came back, along with the same caravan as in 822/1420,

238

F. BAUDEN

though support and financial help might have been sought by the Sharīf, as maintained by Malika Dekkiche,150 the Timurid sources fail to indicate the purpose of these embassies, limiting themselves to mention that the envoys paid their master’s respects to Shāh Rukh.151 In 817/1414, Shāh Rukh had not yet become the uncontested ruler of the entire Timurid polity (this only took place in the early 820s/1418–23). However, Shāh Rukh was progressing in his attempts to crush his rivals; in the same year he overcame his nephew Iskandar b. ʿUmar Shaykh. Moreover, he had not yet overtly declared his pretensions to the caliphate, something that he only did two years later, as attested by coins struck in his capital, Herat.152 At about that time, he also claimed to have his titles proclaimed during the sermon in the two holy sanctuaries.153 Roughly ten years later, he repeatedly asked for the Mamluk sultan’s permission to send the kiswa to Mecca, though it has been demonstrated that his request was limited to the less prestigious inner kiswa.154 The envoys Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān sent to Herat in 824/1421 included the famous scholar Shams al-Dīn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429), a prominent intellectual born and raised in Damascus but who had been in Timurid territory since the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century, and was a resident of Shiraz.155 It is not improbable that the aim of this second embassy was to catch Shāh Rukh’s attention, given his now undisputed power as the Timurid ruler and his growing interest in the holy cities for ideological and political reasons. Yet there are no indications in the sources that this attempted rapprochement, if confirmed, was successful. In the Hijaz, the situation did not necessarily improve, but al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s demise in 824/1421 allowed Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān to prepare his succession by promoting his son Barakāt.156 The greatest impact of his actions during this decade regarded the issue of trade. Quite significantly, the Rasulid and Mamluk sultans instated a practice of direct contacts between the merchants representing their commercial interests, as Éric Vallet demonstrated.157 Mufliḥ al-Turkī engaged in transactions with ʿAlī al-Jīlānī, one of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s merchants, with al-Nāṣir Aḥmad’s benediction.158 These contacts intensified to the detriment of the

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

with a huge amount of money that he plundered once he knew that his father had died in the meantime. See Ibn Fahd, al-Durr al-kamīn i, 444. The fourth embassy mentioned by Dekkiche left, according to al-Fāsī, shortly after the pilgrimage of 823/1421, thus it was more likely in early 824/1421. Dekkiche, Diplomacy at its zenith 120; Id., New source 269. See the references for nos. 11 and 18 in tab. 9.5. See Binbaş, Intellectual networks 260. Dekkiche, New source 268, quoting an unpublished article by John Woods. Dekkiche, Diplomacy at its zenith; Id., New source; Binbaş, Intellectual networks 62–4. On his place in the Timurid intellectual network, see Binbaş, Intellectual networks 91–3. Meloy, Imperial power 108–9. Vallet, L’Arabie marchande 640–9. Fragments of a second Rasulid document preserved in another of al-Maqrīzī’s holographs (the

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

239

Meccan Sharīf whose power was constrained by the Mamluks. In the following years, the Mamluk sultans strengthened their hold over the revenues generated by the customs house in Jedda and instituted a monopoly on the spice trade.159 AlMaqrīzī, a contemporary witness who made extended stays in Mecca on multiple occasions, captured the gist of the situation in which Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān had put himself as well as his successors: after praising him as a political leader, al-Maqrīzī moderates his assessment by stating that troubles with the sultans in Cairo increased because of Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān’s actions and that the Mamluk sultans obliged him to send money to Cairo, thus reversing the flow of money.160 As for the Rasulids, it is clear that after al-Nāṣir Aḥmad’s death in 827/1424, the dynasty entered a time of economic and political turbulence that led to its collapse by the middle of the century.161 7. Conclusion The fragmentary letter with its full copy preserved by Ibn Ḥijja offers a rare opportunity to shed light on the power brokers in the Hijaz by the two powerful neighbors—the Mamluks and the Rasulids—during the second decade of the ninth/fifteenth century. The full corpus of letters exchanged by these two sultans regarding issues linked to trade and politics constitute a remarkable example of the constant diplomatic communication that was maintained at the highest level. The Meccan Sharīf, who tried to consolidate his grip over the Hijaz in an unprecedented way, by carrying out actions that caused disruption to pilgrimage and trade, could not be left unchallenged. The correspondence, examined in light of contemporary testimonies transmitted by local historians, shows how the Rasulid sultan decided to tackle the issue. First, he pressured the Sharīf by imposing boycotts of the port of Jedda. Second, he began to maneuver the political scene in the Hijaz to suit his own agenda by supporting the Sharīf’s nephew and contender,

159

160

161

Dushanbe manuscript) and related to ʿAlī al-Jīlānī, bears witness to these direct economic relations between the two powers. A little known decree that Barsbāy addressed to Barakāt in 830/1427 is still visible above the entrance of the oldest mosque of Jedda. It proclaims that only the legal taxes could be levied on merchandise brought to Jedda by Indian merchants and others who wanted to avoid Aden and that their proceeding to the port of Ṭūr should not be impeded. The decree confirms the Mamluk sultan’s control of taxation in Jedda. See Juvin, Two unpublished Mamluk decrees 6– 7 as well as the improved reading of the inscription by the present author in Thesaurus, no. 43492 (last modified on 11 April 2022). Al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda ii, 23 (illā annahu tanawwaʿat bi-hi al-miḥan maʿa mulūk Miṣr wa-kallafūhu ḥaml al-māl min Makka ilayhim baʿdamā kānat mulūk Miṣr taḥmil ilayhi wa-ilā salafihi al-amwāl al-jamma). See also ibid. ii, 18 (wa-min ḥīnaʾidh ṭamaʿa mulūk Miṣr fī umarāʾ Makka wa-ṣārū yuṭālibūnahum bi-ḥaml al-māl baʿdamā kānat al-mulūk taḥmil ilayhim al-māl wa-l-ghilāl min Miṣr). Vallet, L’Arabie marchande 672–83.

240

F. BAUDEN

Rumaytha. Such a move could not be made without keeping the Mamluk sultan informed: the latter was indeed considered by the Rasulid sultan the Meccan Sharīf’s hierarchical superior. But this does not mean that the decision to support Rumaytha was made by the Rasulid sultan before he eventually informed his Mamluk counterpart. Of course, the pace of diplomacy differed from the pace of economic and political actions that needed to be taken in the wake of evolving local situations: between the issuance of the Rasulid letter and its arrival in Cairo, one year passed.162 It took another year before the Mamluk answer reached Yemen. By sending the letter, the Rasulid sultan wanted to see his choice validated by the Mamluk sultan. As we saw, the political game played by the Meccan Sharīf eventually led to a reversal of his removal from office. Besides the dramatic value of the fragmentary letter, the original document is a testimony to the practice of diplomacy prevailing in this area of the world. Not only does it inform us about the diplomatic rules applied by the Rasulid chancery, it also provides us with a unique witness of the role of the belletrists who were responsible for drafting these pieces of literature. All in all, these few fragments convey a full array of elements pertaining to the complex diplomacy that is seldom grasped from the available literature. Taken altogether they represent a very tangible way to study diplomacy in the medieval period. Additionally, the fate of the Rasulid letter dispatched to Cairo raises the question of the Mamluk chancery’s disposal of diplomatic letters in particular and of official documents in general. Thanks to al-Qalqashandī, we know that the head of the chancery during al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s reign, Ibn al-Bārizī, had restored the practice of copying incoming and outgoing letters in a register in his own hand, a tradition that had apparenlty been disrupted after 791/1389.163 Ibn Ḥijja, who worked under his supervision as the composition secretary, also took for his personal use copies of the letters to which he was asked to write a response, copies that he included in his Qahwat al-inshāʾ. Al-Maqrīzī’s connection with both men might explain the circumstances by which he got hold of the Qara Qoyunlu and the Rasulid letters that he reused as scrap paper.164 As far as we know, the letters were quickly discarded because al-Maqrīzī almost immediately made the most of them for his ongoing works.165 162

163 164 165

We know that at the end of Muḥarram or in Ṣafar 818/April 1415 Mufliḥ al-Turkī, the envoy, stopped in Jedda on his way to Cairo with the aim of supporting Rumaytha as well as replenishing the many boats in his convoy with pure water. He then proceeded to Yanbuʿ. See al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 120. See Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 8. Ibid. 8–9. As we saw (see above, 186–7), the fragments of the Rasulid letter are found in his al-Muqaffā (a work he started a few years before 816/1413; see Bauden, Maqriziana X 101) and alKhabar (a work he began shortly after 836/1433, though the quires containing the Rasulid fragments are sections that he wrote many years before for what might have been another

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

241

With regard to diplomatic letters, it should also be stressed that these documents, meant to be delivered to a ruler, were not supposed to be opened before their carriers reached their destinations. There is evidence that diplomatic letters were sealed and/or carried in a container (jaʿba) itself sealed to guarantee the authenticity of the document and to certify that it had not been read by anyone else.166 Nevertheless, we saw that a local witness like the Meccan historian al-Fāsī, well-known for his reliance on various kinds of sources (including epigraphy), was not only aware of the identity of the secretaries who composed the letters on the Rasulid and Mamluk sides (respectively Ibn al-Muqriʾ and Ibn Ḥijja) but he was also able to quote long passages of the letters. In one case, he underlines that most of the quotation is faithful to the original, specifying that only a few words reflected his own wording.167 In the case of Ibn Ḥijja’s response (see tab. 9.5, no. 13), it can be ascertained that it reproduces almost verbatim the original text. This means that al-Fāsī accessed this letter as well as the ensuing Rasulid answer (see tab. 9.5, no. 15) and took notes of their text. Furthermore, these letters had to pass through Mecca where al-Fāsī lived most of the time.168 If al-Fāsī became aware of their contents, there is a reason to believe that the Sharīf may also have seen them. Thus, the secrecy of diplomatic correspondence was not a sacrosanct principle.

166 167

168

book; his handwriting is indeed different from the rest of the volumes that were copied in his last years). See Bauden, Mamluk diplomatics 55, fn 263; Reinfandt, Strong letters 215–6. Al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 110–1 (wa-rubbamā baʿḍ alfāẓ hādhā al-kitāb umliyat hunā bi-lmaʿnā). Even though he had been in Yemen shortly before, he was unable to access the Rasulid letter issued on 18 Dhū al-Qaʿda 817/29 January 1415 which is the subject of our study. We know that he had already left the country by that time, as in Shawwāl and Dhū al-Qaʿda/midDecember to early February 817/1414–5 he was in the port of the island of Kamarān (northwest of Yemen) on his way to Mecca. He reached his destination before the end of the same year. He provides this information in the colophon of his Tuḥfat al-kirām 291b (fī Shawwāl wa-Dhī al-Qaʿda min al-sana al-madhkūra bi-marsā jazīrat Kamarān bi-l-baḥr almilḥ bi-l-Yaman wa-fīmā bayna hādhā al-marsā wa-Bāb al-Mandab wa-anā mutawajjih ilā Makka al-musharrafa thumma zidtu fīhi baʿda wuṣūlī ilayhā mutajaddidāt munāsiba fī baqiyyat hādhihi al-sana).

242

F. BAUDEN

Table 9.5: List of embassies exchanged by the Mamluks, the Rasulids, the Timurids, and the Meccan Sharīf No. Sender

1

al-Nāṣir Faraj

Addressee Date of redaction of the letter Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

2

al-Nāṣir Aḥmad

Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

3

Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

al-Nāṣir Faraj

4

al-Nāṣir Faraj

Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

5

Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

al-Nāṣir Faraj

6

alMustaʿīn bi-Allāh

Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

7

al-Nāṣir Aḥmad

alMustaʿīn bi-Allāh

169 170 171 172 173 174

175

Date of issuance of the letter

Aft. midDhū alḤijja 813/ Apr. 1411

Date of departure of the embassy

Bef. Ramaḍān 814/Jan. 1412

Date of Envoy(s) arrival of the embassy Bef. Dhū al-Ḥijja 813/Mar. 1411 Bef. end Ibn al-Muqriʾ of Ramaḍān or Shawwāl 814/Jan.Feb. 1412 Miftāḥ alZiftāwī

Shortly bef. Ramaḍān 814/Jan. 1412 Aft. midDhū alḤijja 814/ Apr. 1412 Aft. 28 Ṣafar 815/9 Jun. 1412 Aft. 28 Ṣafar 815/9 Jun. 1412

Ref.

169

170

171

172

Saʿd al-Dīn Jabrūh

20 Jumādā Saʿd al-Dīn II 815/27 Jabrūh Sept. 1412

173

174

175

No copy available but short summary provided by al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 110. Excerpt quoted in ibid. 110–1. For the embassy, see ibid. 111; for the envoy, see ibid. vii, 264–5 (no. 2512). For the embassy, see ibid. iv, 111. For the embassy, see ibid.; for the envoy, see ibid. For the embassy, see ibid. iv, 112. The date of issuance corresponds with al-Mustaʿīn’s nomination as sultan. No copy available but no. 9 refers to a letter received in Cairo from the Rasulid sultan al-Nāṣir

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

No. Sender

8

9

Addressee Date of redaction of the letter alḤasan b. Muʾayyad ʿAjlān Shaykh alal-Nāṣir Muʾayyad Aḥmad Shaykh

10 alḤasan b. Muʾayyad ʿAjlān Shaykh 11 Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān

176

177

178

179

Shāh Rukh

1 Ramaḍān 817/14 Nov. 1414

Date of issuance of the letter Aft. beg. of Shaʿbān 815/Nov. 1412 Aft. 1st Shaʿbān 815/1412/ Nov. 1412

Date of departure of the embassy

Bef. Dhū al-Ḥijja 815/Mar. 1413

Date of Envoy(s) arrival of the embassy Shawwāl 815/Jan. 1413 Early 816/ Khawājā Fakhr Spr. 1413 al-Dīn ʿUthmān and Aḥmad b. alJūbān alDhahabī End of 817/Beg. of 1415 Shortly aft. 22 Rajab 817/7 Oct. 1414

Sayyid ʿAbd al-Kahf and Hibat Allāh b. Aḥmad alḤasanī alMakkī

243 Ref.

176

177

178

179

Aḥmad to whom al-Muʾayyad Shaykh answers. The date of issuance corresponds with the moment when the Rasulid sultan was informed of al-Nāṣir Faraj’s killing and the designation of the caliph as his successor. See Anonymous chronicle 38a = Anonymous, A chronicle 89; Anonymous, Tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya 165–6 = al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, al-Kitāb al-ẓāhirī 176–7 = al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, Tārīkh al-Yaman 212. For the embassy, see al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 112. The date of issuance corresponds with al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s accession to the sultanate that was announced in this letter. For the letter and the first envoy, see Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 63–6 (no. 20). Ibn Ḥijja does not provide the date of redaction of this letter except for the mention of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s accession date in the body of the letter (1st Shaʿbān 815/1412/November 1412). The letter must have been written and sent in the weeks that followed the accession. Ibn al-Jūbān is said to have travelled to Yemen in 816/end of 1413 passing by Mecca. Up to the Holy City, he was accompanied by Ibn Ḥajar who wanted to perfom the pilgrimage that year. Ibn al-Jūbān thus arrived in Mecca for the pilgrimage season, i.e. before Dhū al-Ḥijja 815/March 1413. He died in Mecca shortly after his return from Yemen, during the pilgrimage of 816/end of February 1414. See al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iii, 24–5 (no. 530); Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 18 (obituary of Aḥmad b. al-Jūbān). Excerpt of the letter quoted by al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 118. The letter announced the death of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s opponent, Nawrūz, who died on 21 Rabīʿ II 817/10 July 1414. It must have been similar with a letter of good tidings (bishāra) that Ibn Ḥijja composed on the date indicated as the date of issuance. See Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 79–81 (no. 26). For the embassy, see Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, Zubdat al-tavārīkh ii/1, 564; Samarqandī, Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn ii/1, 205. Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū places its arrival after Shāh Ruhkh’s return to Herat on the date

244

F. BAUDEN

No. Sender

12 al-Nāṣir Aḥmad

Addressee Date of redaction of the letter alMuʾayyad Shaykh

13 alal-Nāṣir Muʾayyad Aḥmad Shaykh

Date of issuance of the letter 18 Dhū alQaʿda 817/29 Jan. 1415 Muḥarram 15 Ramaḍān 820/18 819/6 Nov. Feb.–19 1416 Mar.1417

14 alḤasan b. Muʾayyad ʿAjlān Shaykh

15 al-Nāṣir Aḥmad

180

181

182 183

alMuʾayyad Shaykh

Ramaḍān or Shawwāl 821/Oct. or Nov. 1418

Date of departure of the embassy

Date of arrival of the embassy 19 Muḥarram 819/19 Mar. 1416 15 Rabīʿ II 22 Dhū al820/1 Jun. Qaʿda 1417 820/31 Dec. 1417 End of Dhū alQaʿda 821/ End of Dec.1418 13 Muḥarram 822/9 Feb. 1419

Envoy(s)

Amīn al-Dīn Mufliḥ al-Turkī

Baktamur alSaʿdī

Ref.

180

181

182

Baktamur alSaʿdī

183

indicated and names only the first envoy without indicating whether he was accompanied or not. He brought a letter from the Meccan Sharīf. His name and his title (Sayyid) together with the fact that Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū characterizes him as the brother of a certain Sayyid ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, seem to indicate that he came from the Timurid lands. See also Dekkiche, New source 268–9; Id., Diplomacy at its zenith 120. For the letter, see Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 162–6 (no. 39). For the embassy, see Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 88; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān 260–1; Vallet, Du système mercantile 299–300, no. XXXIII. According to Ibn Ḥijja, the letter was received on 16 Rabīʿ I 819/15 April 1416, but the chroniclers state that the envoy delivered the letter and presented his ruler’s gifts to the Mamluk sultan two months earlier. The date recorded by Ibn Ḥijja might correspond to the moment when the letter was transmitted to him by the chancery for him to prepare the answer. For the letter, see Ibn Ḥijja, Das Rauschgetränk 167–71 (no. 40). Excerpt quoted by al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 130–2; Ibn Fahd, Ghāyat al-marām ii, 315–7; al-Madanī, Tuḥfat al-azhār i, 497–8. For the embassy, see al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 395 (date of departure and Mamluk envoy); Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 140 (idem); al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān 302 (idem); Anonymous chronicle fol. 43a (date of arrival of the Rasulid envoy in Taʿizz) = Anonymous, A chronicle 102 = Anonymous, Tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya 186 = al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, al-Kitāb al-ẓāhirī 195 = al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, Tārīkh al-Yaman 231; Vallet, Du système mercantile 300, no. XXXIV. For a summary of the two letters, see al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 133–4. For the letter, see excerpt quoted by al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 132; Ibn Fahd, Itḥāf al-warā iii, 558–9; Ibn Fahd, Ghāyat al-marām ii, 317–8; al-Madanī, Tuḥfat al-azhār i, 498–9. For the embassy, see al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk iv, 479 (return of Baktamur al-Saʿdī with letter and gift from

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

No. Sender

Addressee Date of redaction of the letter 16 alḤasan b. Muʾayyad ʿAjlān Shaykh 17 Ḥasan b. Shāh ʿAjlān Rukh

184

185

Date of issuance of the letter

Date of departure of the embassy

Date of arrival of the embassy 14 Ṣafar 823/29 Feb. 1420 16 Rajab Shortly 824/17 Jul. aft. Muḥarram 1421 824/Jan. 1421

Envoy(s)

245 Ref.

184

Zayn al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd and Shams alDīn al-Jazarī

185

the Rasulid sultan); Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-ghumr iii, 189 (idem). Excerpts of the letter quoted by al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 137; Ibn Fahd, Itḥāf al-warā iii, 571–2; Ibn Fahd, Ghāyat al-marām ii, 324. For the embassy, see Ḥāfiz-i Abrū, Zubdat al-tavārīkh ii/2, 778 (mentions only the first envoy); Samarqandī, Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn ii/1, 309 (idem); al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 139 (mentions only the second envoy); Ibn Fahd, Ghāyat al-marām ii, 332; Dekkiche, New source 268–9; Id., Diplomacy at its zenith 120. The second envoy was the famous scholar Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429), who was born in Damascus, grew up in the Mamluk territories before he moved to Ottoman lands and, after Tīmūr’s invasion in 1402, followed the Chaghatay leader to Samarqand before definitively settling in Shiraz. See al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ ix, 255–60 (no. 608). He arrived in Mecca in 823/1420 for the pilgrimage. After the pilgrimage, Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān urged him to take care of his message and gifts to deliver them to Shāh Rukh. See al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn iv, 138.

246

F. BAUDEN

Bibliography Sources (Handwritten) Anonymous chronicle of the Rasulid dynasty up to the year 840/1437, MS Arabe 4609, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.186 Anonymous, Muzīl al-ḥaṣr fī mukātabāt ahl al-ʿaṣr, MS Árabe 566, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio del Escorial, San Lorenzo de El Escorial. al-Fāsī, Tuḥfat al-kirām bi-akhbār al-balad al-ḥarām, mukhtaṣar Shifāʾ algharām, MS Árabe 1768, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio del Escorial, San Lorenzo de El Escorial. al-Ḥalabī, al-Tibyān fī iṣtilāḥ ahl al-zamān, MS Mf72, Staatsbibliothek, Berlin. al-Maqrīzī, Notebook, MS 2232, Bibliothèque ALPHA, Liège Université, Liège. Shāfiʿ b. ʿAlī, Sīrat al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, MS Arabe 1705, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Sources (Printed) al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās, The manuscript of al-Malik al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās b. ʿAlī b. Dāwūd b. Yūsuf b. ʿUmar al-Rasūlī: A medieval Arabic anthology from the Yemen, ed. G. R. Smith and D. M. Varisco, London 1998.187 al-Ahdal, Tuḥfat al-zaman fī tārīkh sādāt al-Yaman, ed. ʿA. A. M. al-Ḥibshī, 2 vols., Abu Dhabi 2004. Anonymous, A chronicle of the Rasūlid dynasty of Yemen from the unique MS Paris no. Arabe 4609, ed. H. Yajima, Tokyo 1976. Anonymous, Tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya fī al-Yaman limuʾallif majhūl ʿāsha fī al-qarn al-tāsiʿ al-hijrī, ed. ʿA. A. M. al-Ḥibshī, Sanaa 1984. al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān. Al-Ḥawādith wa-l-tarājim min sanat 815h ilā sanat 824h, ed. ʿA. al-R. al-Qarmūṭ al-Ṭanṭāwī, Cairo 1985. al-Burayhī, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman al-maʿrūf bi-Tārīkh al-Burayhī, ed. ʿA. A. 186

187

This anonymous chronicle was published by two different editors: first by H. Yajima (see below under Anonymous, A chronicle), then by al-Ḥibshī (see below under Anonymous, Tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya). Al-Ḥibshī later found another copy of the text in the Dār alKutub (Cairo) which gave the name of the author and the title of the work. He thus published the text on two different occasions with two different titles (see below under al-Ḥāsib alMiṣrī). Given that the editions remain difficult to find, I refer to the Paris manuscript as well as to the four editions listed in the bibliography. The text is not edited but reproduced in facsimile.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

247

M. al-Ḥibshī, Sanaa 1994. ———, Ṭabaqāt ṣulaḥāʾ al-Yaman al-maʿrūf bi-Tārīkh al-Burayhī al-kabīr, ed. ʿA. A. M. al-Ḥibshī, 2 vols., Beirut 2015. al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-balad al-amīn, ed. F. Sayyid, M. Ḥ. al-Fiqī, and M. M. al-Ṭanāḥī, 8 vols., Beirut 1986. Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, Zubdat al-tavārīkh, ed. S. K. Ḥ. S. Javādī, 2 parts in 4 vols., Tehran 2001. al-Ḥāsib al-Miṣrī, al-Kitāb al-ẓāhirī fī tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya bi-l-Yaman, ed. ʿA. A. M. al-Ḥibshī, Beirut 2010. ———, Tārīkh al-Yaman fī ʿaṣr al-dawla al-rasūliyya, ed. ʿA. A. M. al-Ḥibshī, Sanaa 2015. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-Malik al-Ẓāhir, ed. ʿA. al.-ʿA. alKhuwayṭir, Riyadh 1976. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār, ed. K. S. alJubūrī, 27 vols., Beirut 2010. ———, al-Taʿrīf bi-l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, ed. S. al-Durūbī, 2 vols., al-Karak 1992. Ibn Fahd, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Ghāyat al-marām bi-akhbār salṭanat al-balad al-ḥarām, ed. F. M. Shaltūt, 3 vols., Mecca 1986–9. Ibn Fahd, ʿUmar, al-Durr al-kamīn bi-dhayl al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī tārīkh al-Balad al-amīn, ed. ʿA. al-M. I. ʿA. Ibn Duhaysh, 3 vols., Beirut 2000. ———, Itḥāf al-warā bi-akhbār Umm al-qurā, ed. F. M. Shaltūt, ʿA. al-K. ʿA. Bāz, M. I. al-S. Aḥmad, and Ṣ. al-B. M. Abū Shādī, 5 vols., Mecca and Cairo 1983–90. Ibn al-Furāt, Tārīkh Ibn al-Furāt, ed. Q. Zurrayq, vol. 7, Beirut 1942. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Durar al-kāmina fī aʿyān al-miʾa al-thāmina, ed. M. S. Jād al-Ḥaqq, 5 vols., Cairo 1966–7. ———, Inbāʾ al-ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumr, ed. Ḥ. Ḥabashī, 4 vols., Cairo 1994–8 (repr.). ———, al-Majmaʿ al-muʾassis lil-muʿjam al-mufahris, ed. Y. ʿA. al.-R. alMarʿashlī, 4 vols., Beirut 1992–4. Ibn Ḥijja al-Ḥamawī, Das Rauschgetränk der Stilkunst oder Qahwat al-inshāʾ von Taqīyuddīn Abū Bakr b. ʿAlī Ibn Ḥiǧǧa al-Ḥamawī al-Azrārī, ed. R. Veselý, Berlin 2005. Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahaba, ed. ʿA. al-Q. alArnāʾūṭ, and M. al-Arnāʾūṭ, 10 vols., Damascus 1986–93.

248

F. BAUDEN

Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh, Tathqīf al-Taʿrīf bi-l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf, ed. R. Veselý, Cairo 1987. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, ed. ʿA. al-ʿA. Khān, 4 vols., Hyderabad 1978–80. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Dalīl al-shāfī ʿalā al-Manhal al-ṣāfī, ed. F. M. Shaltūt, 2 vols., Cairo 1998. ———, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī wa-l-mustawfī fī baʿd al-Wāfī, ed. M. M. Amīn, 13 vols., Cairo 1984–2009. al-Khazrajī, al-ʿAqd al-fākhir al-ḥasan fī ṭabaqāt akābir ahl al-Yaman wa-huwa Ṭirāz aʿlām al-zaman fī ṭabaqāt aʿyān al-Yaman, ed. ʿA. A. b. F. al-ʿAbbādī, ʿA. ʿA. A. Ṣ. al-Wuṣābī, M. b. M. al-Dawsarī, and J. A. S. al-Ashwal, 4 vols., Sanaa 2009. ———, al-ʿUqūd al-luʾluʾiyya fī tārīkh al-dawla al-rasūliyya, ed. M. Basyūnī ʿAsal, 2 vols., Sanaa and Beirut 1983. al-Madanī, Tuḥfat al-azhār wa-zulāl al-anhār fī nasab abnāʾ al-aʾimma al-aṭhār ʿalayhim ṣalawāt al-Malik al-Ghaffār, ed. K. S. al-Jubūrī, 4 vols., Tehran 1999. al-Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda fī tarājim al-aʿyān al-mufīda, ed. M. al-Jalīlī, 4 vols., Beirut 2002. ———, al-Maqrīzī’s al-Ḫabar ʿan al-bašar, vol. V, section 4: Persia and its kings, Part I, ed. J. Hämeen-Anttila, Leiden and Boston 2018. ———, al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M. M. Ziyāda, and S. ʿA. al-F. ʿĀshūr, 4 vols., Cairo 1934–73. al-Mawṣilī, al-Burd al-muwashshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ, ed. ʿA. S. Ṣabra, Beirut 1990. al-Muqriʾ, al-Dīwān, Bulaq 1888. al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ, ed. M. ʿA. al-R. Ibrāhīm, 14 vols., Cairo 1963. al-Saḥmāwī, al-Thaghr al-bāsim fī ṣināʿat al-kātib wa-l-kātim al-maʿrūf bi-ism alMaqṣid al-rafīʿ al-munshaʾ al-hādī li-dīwān al-inshāʾ lil-Khālidī, ed. A. M. Anas Mursī, 2 vols., Cairo 2009. al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 12 vols., Cairo 1934–6. ———, al-Jawāhir wa-l-durar fī tarjamat shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar, ed. I. B. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, 3 vols., Beirut 1999. Samarqandī, Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn va-majmaʿ-i baḥrayn, ed. ʿA. al.-Ḥ. Navāʾī, 2 vols., Tehran 2004.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

249

al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-sābiʿ, ed. M. Ḥ. Ḥallāq, 2 vols., Damascus and Beirut 2006. al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-wuʿāt fī ṭabaqāt al-lughawiyyīn wa-l-nuḥāt, ed. M. A. al-F. Ibrāhīm, 2 vols., Beirut 1979. Secondary Literature Abū Zayd, Ṭ. A., Ismāʿīl al-Muqrī: Ḥayātuhu wa-shiʿruhu, Beirut 1986. Aḥmad, M. ʿA. al-ʿĀ., Banū Rasūl wa-Banū Ṭāhir wa-ʿalāqāt al-Yaman al-khārijiyya fī ʿahdihimā (628–923/1231–1517), Alexandria 1989. al-Akwaʿ, I. b. ʿA., Hijar al-ʿilm wa-maʿāqiluhu fī al-Yaman, 5 vols., Beirut 1995. Alkhateeb Shehada, H., From the Far North to the Near East: Venice as an intermediary in the supply of gyrfalcons to the Mamluks, in G. Christ, and F.-J. Morche (eds.), Cultures of empire: Rethinking Venetian rule, 1400–1700: Essays in honour of Benjamin Arbel, Leiden and Boston 2020, 369–82. al-ʿAmāyira, Kh. M. S., Mawāniʾ al-Baḥr al-Aḥmar wa-atharuhā fī tijārat dawlat al-Mamālīk (648–923h/1250–1517m), Riyadh 2007. Bauden, F., Diplomatic entanglements between Tabriz, Cairo, and Herat: A reconstructed Qara Qoyunlu letter datable to 818/1415, in F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 410–83. ———, Due trattati di pace conclusi nel dodicesimo secolo tra i Banū Ġāniya, signori delle isole Baleari, e il Comune di Genova, in N. Martínez de Castilla (ed.), Documentos y manuscritos árabes del Occidente musulmán medieval, Madrid 2010, 33–86. ———, Ikhwāniyyāt letters in the Mamluk period: A document (muṭālaʿa) issued by al-Muʾayyad Shaykh’s chancery and a contribution to Mamluk diplomatics, in A. Levanoni (ed.), Egypt and Syria under Mamluk rule: Political, social and cultural aspects, Leiden and Boston 2022, 157–200. ———, Mamluk diplomatics: The present state of research, in F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 1–104. ———, Maqriziana I: Discovery of an autograph manuscript of al-Maqrīzī. Towards a better understanding of his working method. Description: Section 1, in MSR VII (2003), 21–68. ———, Maqriziana X. Al-Maqrīzī and his al-Tārīkh al-kabīr al-muqaffā li-Miṣr. Part 1: An inquiry into the history of the work, in S. Massoud (ed.), Studies in Islamic historiography: Essays in honour of Professor Donald P. Little, Leiden

250

F. BAUDEN

and Boston 2020, 66–124. ———, Maqriziana XIV: al-Maqrīzī’s last opus (al-Khabar ʿan al-bashar) and its significance for the historiography of the pre-modern islamicate world (forthcoming). ———, Maqriziana XV: The characteristics of al-Maqrīzī’s handwriting, in F. Bauden and É. Franssen (eds.), In the author’s hand: Holograph and authorial manuscripts in the Islamic handwritten tradition, Leiden and Boston 2020, 136–231. ———, The recovery of Mamlūk chancery documents in an unsuspected place, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian politics and society, Leiden and Boston 2004, 59–76. Bauer, Th., Mamluk literature as a means of communication, in S. Conermann (ed.), Ubi Sumus? Quo Vademus? Mamluk Studies—State of the Art, Bonn 2013, 23–56. Binbaş, İ.E., Intellectual networks in Timurid Iran: Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī and the Islamicate republic of letters, Cambridge 2016. Brinner, W.M., Some Ayyūbid and Mamlūk documents from non-archival sources, in IOS II (1972), 117–43. Dekkiche, M., Diplomacy at its zenith: Material culture of Mamluk-Timurid diplomacy in the ninth/fifteenth century, in F. Bauden (ed.), Culture matérielle et relations diplomatiques entre l’Occident latin, Byzance et l’Orient islamique (XIe-XVIe siècle), Leiden and Boston 2021, 115–42. ———, Diplomatics, or another way to see the world, in F. Bauden and Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 185–213. ———, New source, new debate: Re-evaluation of the Mamluk-Timurid struggle for religious supremacy in the Hijaz (Paris, BnF, MS Ar. 4440), in MSR XVIII (2014–5), 247–71. Déroche, F. et al., Islamic codicology: An introduction to the study of manuscripts in Arabic script, London 2005. D’hulster, K., Fixed rule to a changing game? Sultan Meḥmed II’s realignment of Ottoman-Mamluk diplomatic conventions, in F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 484–508. d’Ottone, A., I manoscritti arabi dello Yemen: una ricerca codicologica, Rome 2006. ———, La produzione ed il consumo della carta in Yemen (secoli

VI–IX

H./A.D.

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

251

XII–XV):

Primi risultati di una ricerca quantitativa, in Gazette du livre médiéval 44 (2004), 39–49. al-Fīfī, M. b. Y., al-Dawla al-rasūliyya fī al-Yaman: Dirāsa fī awḍāʿihā alsiyāsiyya wa-l-ḥaḍāriyya (803–827h/1400–1424m), Beirut 2005. Fiorani Piacentini, V., Hormuz: bandar and mulk (port and dominion): eleventh to early sixteenth century CE. When Hormuz was the hinge of a new land and maritime system, and Oman was its pivot: the Hormuz—Oman—Kij Mercantile Dominion. Part 3: New Hormuz and its maritime dominion (fourteenth to sixteenth century), in A. al-Salimi and E. Staples (eds.), The ports of Oman, Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York 2017, 333–55. Gully, A., The culture of letter-writing in pre-modern Islamic society, Edinburgh 2008. Hinz, W., Islamische Masse und Gewichte, Leiden 1955. Humbert, G., Papiers non filigranés utilisés au Proche-Orient jusqu’en 1450. Essai de typologie, in JA 286 (1998), 1–54. Irigoin, J., Les papiers non filigranés. État présent des recherches et perspectives d’avenir, in M. Maniaci and P. F. Munafò (eds.), Ancient and medieval book materials and techniques, Vatican 1993, 265–312. Juvin, C., Two unpublished Mamluk decrees in the Shāfiʿī mosque in Jedda, in International Journal of Turkology 20 (2020), 4–11. Little, D. P., A catalogue of the Islamic documents from al-Ḥaram al-sharīf in Jerusalem, Beirut 1984. Meloy, J. L., Imperial power and maritime trade: Mecca and Cairo in the later middle ages, Chicago 2015 (rev. ed.). ———, Imperial strategy and political exigency: The Red Sea spice trade and the Mamluk sultanate in the fifteenth century, in JAOS 123 (2003), 1–19. ———, Mecca entangled, in R. Amitai and S. Conermann (eds.), The Mamluk sultanate from the perspective of regional and world history: Economic, social and cultural developments in an era of increasing international interaction and competition, Göttingen and Bonn 2019, 453–478. ———, The judges of Mecca and Mamluk hegemony, in J. Van Steenbergen (ed.), Trajectories of state formation across fifteenth-century Islamic West-Asia, Leiden and Boston 2020, 283–305. Paoli, B., De la Théorie à l’usage: Essai de reconstitution du système de la métrique arabe ancienne, Damascus 2008. al-Rabdāwī, M., Ibn Ḥijja al-Ḥamawī shāʿiran wa-nāqidan, Damascus 1982.

252

F. BAUDEN

Reinfandt, L., Strong letters at the Mamluk court, in F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 214–37. Richards, D. S., A Mamlūk emir’s ‘square’ decree, in BSOAS 54 (1991), 63–7. Sadek, N., Custodians of the holy sanctuaries: Rasulid-Mamluk rivalry in Mecca, Berlin 2019. Salīm, M.R., Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Ḥijja al-Ḥamawī (767–837 h.), Cairo 1962. al-Shahrī, M. b. H., al-Mawārid al-māliyya li-umarāʾ Makka al-mukarrama fī alʿaṣr al-mamlūkī (648–923h/1250–1517m), Mecca 2014. Sionita, G., and J. Hesronita, Grammatica arabica maronitarum, Paris 1616. Stewart, D. J., Ibn Ḥijjah al-Ḥamawī, in J. E. Lowry and Stewart (eds.), Essays in Arabic literary biography, 1350–1850, Wiesbaden 2009, 137–47. Strotmann, V., Majd al-Dīn al-Fīrūzābādī (1329–1415): A polymath on the eve of the early modern period, Leiden and Boston 2015. al-Sulaymān, ʿA. b. Ḥ., al-ʿAlāqāt al-ḥijāziyya al-miṣriyya zaman salāṭīn alMamālīk, [Cairo] 1973. Talib, A., How do you say “epigram” in Arabic? Literary history at the limits of comparison, Leiden and Boston 2017. Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique, dir. L. Kalus, co-dir. F. Bauden, dev. F. Soudan, Geneva and Liège 2022 (http://www.epigraphie-islamique.uliege.be/ thesaurus/). Vallet, É., L’Arabie marchande. État et commerce sous les sultans rasūlides du Yémen (626–858/1229–1454), Paris 2010. ———, Décrire et analyser les archives du sultanat rasûlide. Le cas de Nûr almaʿârif, in Chroniques yéménites 14 (2007), 63–70. ———, Du système mercantile à l’ordre diplomatique: Les ambassades entre Égypte mamlūke et Yémen rasūlide (VIIe–IXe/XIIIe–XVe siècle), in Les Relations diplomatiques au Moyen Âge: formes et enjeux, Paris 2011, 269–301. ———, Diplomatic networks of Rasulid Yemen in Egypt (seventh/thirteenth to early ninth/fifteenth centuries), in F. Bauden and M. Dekkiche (eds.), Mamluk Cairo, a crossroads for embassies: Studies on diplomacy and diplomatics, Leiden and Boston 2019, 581–603. ———, Le Marché des épices d’Alexandrie et les mutations du grand commerce de la mer Rouge (XIVe–xve siècle), in C. Décobert, J.-Y. Empereur, and C. Picard (eds.), Alexandrie médiévale 4, Alexandria 2011, 213–28. ———, Mūsā b. al-Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī et la correspondance des sultans rasūlides

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

253

du Yémen. Genèse d’un ordre épistolaire, in D. Aigle and S. Péquignot (eds.), La Correspondance entre souverains, princes et cités-états. Approches croisées entre l’Orient musulman, l’Occident et Byzance (2013), 127–45. ———, Panique à La Mecque: écrire la fitna au temps des chérifs hasanides (début IXe/XVe siècle), in E. Tixier du Mesnil and G. Lecuppre (eds.), Désordres créateurs: l’invention politique à la faveur des troubles, Paris 2014, 215–43. Veselý, R., Ein Kapitel aus dem osmanisch-mamlukischen Beziehungen. Meḥemmed Çelebi und al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh, in Armağan: Festschrift für Andreas Tietze, Prague 1994, 241–59. ———, Eine neue Quelle zur Geschichte Ägyptens im 9./15. Jahrhundert, in C. Wunsch (ed.), XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Vorträge, München 8.– 14.4.1991, Stuttgart 1994, 136–43. ———, Eine Stilkunstschrift oder eine Urkundensammlung? Das Qahwat al-inšā’ des Abū Bakr Ibn Ḥidjdja al-Ḥamawī, in O. Hulec and M. Mendel (eds.), Threefold wisdom: Islam, the Arab world and Africa: Papers in honour of Ivan Hrbek, Prague 1993, 237–47. Williamson, A., Hurmuz and the trade of the Gulf in the 14th and 15th centuries, in Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 3 (1973), 52–68. Wright, W., A grammar of the Arabic language, 2 vols., Cambridge 1896. Yajima, H., Kaiiki kara Mita Rekishi: Indo-yō to Chichūkai wo Musubu Kōryūshi [The history from the view of ocean worlds: History of cultural exchange between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea], Nagoya 2006. ———, Yemen Rasūl-chō Jidai no Shōnin no Ichi Ruikei: qāḍī Amīn al-Dīn Mufliḥ al-Turkī no Bāi [An official merchant in the reign of the Rasulid al-Malik al-Nāṣir: qāḍī Amīn al-Dīn Mufliḥ al-Turkī], in Shigaku 46/3 (1975), 81–98. al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām: Qāmūs tarājim li-ashhar al-rijāl wa-l-nisāʾ min al-ʿArab wal-mustaʿribīn wa-l-mustashriqīn, 8 vols., Beirut 2002.

254

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.17: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 119b

FigureI 9.18: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 120a

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

Figure 9.19: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 117b

Figure 9.20: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 122a

255

256

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.21: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 126b

Figure 9.22: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 127b

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

Figure 9.23: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 118b

Figure 9.24: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 121a

257

258

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.25: LEIDEN, UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK, MS OR. 1366C, FOL. 20a

Figure 9.26: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 116b

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

Figure 9.27: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 123a

Figure 9.28: LEIDEN, UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK, MS OR. 1366C, FOL. 77b

259

260

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.29: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 130b

Figure 9.30: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS AYASOFYA 3362, FOL. 143b

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

Figure 9.31: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 125b

Figure 9.32: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 115b

261

262

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.33: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 124a

Figure 9.34: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 129b

YEMENI-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MECCAN SHARIFATE

Figure 9.35: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 128b

Figure 9.36: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS FATIH 4340, FOL. 131a

263

264

F. BAUDEN

Figure 9.37: ISTANBUL, SÜLEYMANIYE KÜTÜPHANESI, MS AYASOFYA 3362, FOL. 142b

Figure 9.38: LEIDEN, UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK, MS OR. 1366C, FOL. 103a

INDEX

A Aaron’s tomb 155 Abaqa (Il-Khans) 104 abattoir 119 Abbasid caliph 84 Abbasids 143 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Saudis) 85 ʿAbd al-Ghanī b. ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Fakhr al-Dīn 33 ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Zayn al-Dīn 245 ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq, Niẓām al-Dīn 95 ʿAbd al-Kahf 243 Abd al-Malik, Samy 42 ʿAbd al-Qādir b. ʿAbd al-Ghanī, Zayn al-Dīn 33 ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Tāj al-Dīn 32, 36 Abdülmecid II (Ottomans) 85 Abī Faraj b. Nāqūlā 32 Abū Munajjā canal 49 Abū Saʿīd b. Ūljaytū (Il-Khans) 87, 89, 92, 94, 103 Abū Shāma 15, 127-28 Abyāt Ḥusayn 227 Acre XXII-XXIII, 25, 143 adab 11, 130 al-Ādāb al-sharʿiyya (Ibn Mufliḥ) 121 Aden 234, 239 Adhriʿāt 143 al-ʿĀḍid (Fatimids) 128 al-ʿĀdil Abū Bakr (Ayyubids) 27 al-ʿĀdil I (Ayyubids) 123 al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā (Mamluks) 150, 154 al-ʿĀdil Salāmish (Mamluks) 150 al-Afḍal (Ayyubids) 27 al-Afḍal al-ʿAbbās (Rasulids) 199, 201, 204 Africa 142 ahl al-bayt 85, 90, 95-97

ahl al-fasād 115, 126 Ahl-i Haqq 96 ahl al-ʿilm wa-l-siyāda 15 ahl al-ṣalāḥ wa-l-zuhd 15 Aḥmad b. Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān 237 Aḥsan al-tavārīkh (Ḥasan Beg Rūmlū) 89 al-ʿĀʾid 40 Aigle, Denise 84, 104 ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr (Ibn ʿArabshāh) 76 ʿAjīb wa-Gharīb (Ibn Dāniyāl) 130 ʿAjlūn 6 ʿAjlūn, nāʾib 6 ʿAjrūd 25 akhūhu 196 Āl Faḍl 172 Āl Malik 124-25 al-ʿAlāʾī, ʿIzz al-Dīn 6 ʿAlamdār al-Muḥammadī, Sayf al-Dīn 4 ʿalāma 194, 218 Albakī, Fāris al-Dīn 7, 9 Aleppo XXII, XXIV, 29, 34, 106, 113, 117, 126, 141, 145, 150-51, 153, 155, 164-65, 170 Aleppo, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 117-19 Aleppo, nāʾib 29, 47-48, 75, 77 Aleppo, qāḍī 120 Alexander 188 Alexandria XXII-XXIII, XXV, 24, 29, 31, 37-38, 41, 44, 47, 123-24, 146, 154, 157 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 121 alqāb 194 amān 165 Āmid 30 ʿāmil 35 amīr al-ḥājj 95, 98-100, 102 Amman 143

266

INDEX

Anaṣbāy 125 Anatolia XXII, XXIV, 25, 30, 65, 68, 83, 88, 90-92, 94, 105-6, 168 al-Andalus 5, 126 Anfa XXII Antioch 48 Apamea 165 ʿAqaba 23, 25, 156-57 Aq Qoyunlu XXVIII, XXXII, 66, 75, 83, 85, 87, 89-90, 94, 97, 99, 103, 105 Āqūsh al-Ashrafī, Jamāl al-Dīn 10 Arabia 86, 102 Arabs 90, 92 ʿArafāt XXVII, 87, 99 arenga 194 Aristotle 188 ʿArīsh 23, 26, 51 al-Armanī, Zayn al-Dīn b. Fakhr al-Dīn b. Abī alFaraj 45 arms xxiv, 30, 40 army supplies 30 arquebuses 105 Arsūf XXII Arsur XXII artillery 105 Asa Eger, A. XXI aṣḥāb al-raʾy 115 al-Ashraf Aḥmad (Rasulids) 191 Al-Ashraf Barsbāy (Mamluks) XXVIII, 30, 41, 45, 48, 68, 144, 239 al-Ashraf Īnāl (Mamluks) 45, 147, 155 al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl (Rasulids) 201 al-Ashraf Khalīl (Mamluks) XXII-XXIII, 25, 150, 168 al-Ashraf Mūsā (Ayyubids) 114-15, 123, 126-28, 131-32, 170-71, 174 al-Ashraf Qānṣawh al-Ghawrī (Mamluks) 25, 31, 34, 41, 45-46, 125, 145 al-Ashraf Qāytbāy (Mamluks) 30, 36, 41, 45, 68, 88, 93, 103, 106, 153, 155 al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (Mamluks) 29, 124, 145-46, 148 al-Ashraf Shāh Arman (Ayyubids) 131

al-Ashraf Ṭūmān Bāy (Mamluks) 34 Asia 234 ʿAsqalān 143 astronomy 11 Aswan 23, 37-38 Atabags 164 atābak al-ʿasākir 74 Atlīt XXII awlād al-nās 45-46 Aydamur al-Khaṭīrī 116, 122, 126 Aydamur al-Ẓāhirī, ʿIzz al-Dīn 174 ʿAydhāb 35, 37-38, 232 Ayliyā 143 ʿAyn Jālūt 28, 170, 172, 174, 177 al-ʿAynī XXXII, 65-66, 72-74, 76-77, 88 Ayyubids XXIV, 28, 90, 93, 128, 133, 143 Ayyubids of Hama XXIV, 169 Azbak min Ṭuṭukh 30 Azerbaijan 68, 94 al-ʿAzīz ʿUthmān (Ayyubids) 123, 173 B Bāb al-Barqiyya 116 Bāb al-Faraj (Aleppo) 119 Bāb al-Naṣr (Aleppo) 119 Baghdad XXV, 28, 33, 77, 84, 92, 94, 98, 113 Baghrās 168 Baḥriyya Mamluk regiment 24, 173 Baktamur b. ʿAlī al-Ḥasanī 32 Baktamur al-Jūkandār 8 Baktamur al-Saʿdī 244 Balabān al-Jūkandār, Sayf al-Dīn 7-10, 18 Balkans 92-93 Balog, Paul XXIX-XXX Balqāʾ 174 Balūẓa 46 Bāniyās XXII, 143 Banū al-Bārizī 5 Banū Ḥasan (Mecca) 89, 100, 102-3 Banū Ḥusayn (Medina) 89, 100, 103

267

INDEX

Banū Jamāʿa 5 Banū Munajjā 49-50 al-Baqqāra 26 baraka 6, 92 Barakāt b. Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān (Sharīfs of Mecca) 236, 238-39 Barbaro, Josafa 89 Bardabak al-Dawādār 45 Bar Hebraeus 128 al-Barīdī 32 Bārīn 165, 171 Barqa XXII Baskent 106 basmala 196, 218 al-Baṭrūn XXII Battle of Acre 125 Battle of Baskent 99, 106 Bauer, Thomas 130 Bāyazīd II (Ottomans) 103 al-Baybarsiyya 76 Bayḍa 156 Bayna al-Sūrayn 116 Bayram al-Turkmānī 74 Baysān 143, 174 bayt al-ʿalāma 196 Bayt Jibrīn 143 bayt al-māl 36 Bedouins 25-29, 31, 34, 37-40, 45, 49, 91-92, 101-3, 155, 172, 185-86 Beirut XXII, XXIV, 44, 166 Berke (Golden Horde) 91 Bertinoro 42 Bilād al-Shām XXIV, XXX, 141, 143, 156, 165, 167, 177 Bilbays 32, 37, 42 al-Biqāʿī 35 al-Bīra 38, 106 Birecik 106 bishāra 229, 243 Black Death 30, 88 Blue Mosque of Imam ʿAlī 92 Boutron XXII

British Library 66 Broadbridge, Anne 104 brothels 116, 121, 123-27, 133 Buḥturids XXIV, 166 Būlāq 39, 113, 116, 122 Būlāq, Jāmiʿ al-Khaṭīrī 116, 122, 126 Būlāq, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 116, 122 Bulliet, Richard W. 89-90 Burbank, Jane 167 al-Burd al-muwashshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ (alMawṣilī) 192 Burids 164 Burj al-Maṭār 38 Butkhāṣ, Sayf al-Dīn 7-9 Byzantium 91 C Caesarea XXII, 25, 166 Cahen, Claude XXXII, 65 Cairo XXII, XXV, XXVII-XXVIII, XXXI, 6, 9-10, 18, 24, 28-31, 33, 36-37, 40, 45, 51, 68-69, 74-76, 84, 90, 99, 102-3, 113, 115, 118-19, 124-26, 141, 145-47, 150, 153-56, 163-64, 168, 173, 175, 177, 191, 198, 201, 210, 218, 225-29, 234, 236, 239-40 Cairo, Ḥammām al-Khaṭīrī 117 Cairo, Jāmiʿ Amīr al-Mughulṭāy 116 Cairo, Jāmiʿ al-Barqiyya 116, 126 Cairo, Jāmiʿ al-Ghamrī 118 Cairo, al-Jāmiʿ al-Jadīd 116 Cairo, al-Jāmiʿ al-Nāṣirī 116 Cairo, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 116 Cairo, al-Khānqāh al-Jamāliyya 116 Cairo, al-Madrasa al-Jamāliyya 116 Cairo, Madrasat Sitt al-Shām 129 Cairo, Manṣūrī bīmāristān 119 Cairo, wālī 32 Cairo citadel 37-39, 50 Cairo citadel, Jāmiʿ al-Iṣṭabl 120 Cairo citadel, al-Jāmiʿ al-Muʾayyadī 120 Cairo citadel, al-Jāmiʿ al-Nāṣirī 120 Cairo citadel, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 120

268

INDEX

caliph XXVIII, 85, 88, 90, 242 caliphate XXV, 83, 85, 238 camels 26, 39, 41, 92 caravans 41 caravansaray 145 Catalans 44 Caterino, Zeno 89 Caucasus 91 Central Asia 91 cereals 101 Chaghatay 91 Chapoutot-Remadi, Mounira 175 Château Pèlerin XXII Chester Beatty Library 4 China 90-91, 176, 237 Christians 116, 121, 125 chronogram 76 Chupan 76 Constantinople XXII, XXVIII, 90 Contarini, Ambrosio 89 Cooper, Frederick 167 corruption 118 Crete 41 Crimea 142 crusaders XXIII-XXIV, 1, 25, 44, 104 crusades XXXII, 23-24 customs house XXVII, 35, 239 Cyprus 24-25, 48 Cyrenaica 23 Cytryn-Silverman, Katia 40 D Dabyān 174 daftar 202 Dahmān, Muḥammad Aḥmad 75 dakdaf 127 Damascus XXII, XXIV, XXXI, 5-12, 14, 18, 25, 27, 29, 113, 115, 118, 121, 129, 131, 141, 145, 147-48, 150, 153-55, 164, 170, 225, 238, 245 Damascus, citadel XXV

Damascus, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 114, 118-19, 123, 126-28, 132-33 Damascus, Jāmiʿ al-ʿUqayba 114 Damascus, kātib al-sirr 8-9 Damascus, Khān al-Zanjabīlī 114 Damascus, Khān al-Zanjārī 114 Damascus, khaṭīb 128-29 Damascus, maydān 171 Damascus, mushidd al-dawāwīn 7-8 Damascus, nāʾib 8-10, 30, 37, 39, 41, 47, 51, 92, 173 Damascus, qāḍī 8, 174 Damietta XXII, XXV, 1, 23-25, 29, 39, 43-44, 47-50 Damietta, nāʾib 32, 37-38 Damurdāsh al-Muḥammadī 48 dār al-fāsiqīn 116 dār al-kharāj 126 Darb al-Mulūkhiyya 116 al-Darb al-Sulṭānī 50 dawādār 37 Al-Dawādārī 115 dawwār 127 Ḍayfa Khātūn 165 Dayr Kūsh 168 decree 9, 95 Dekkiche, Malika 100, 195, 238 Dhībān 150, 157 dhikr 15 dhimmīs 121 Dhrāʿ al-Khān 145, 157 dikka 35, 42 dīwān al-inshāʾ 37, 167 Diyarbakir 3 Diyār Bakr 94 Dome of the Rock 46 d’Ottone, Arianna 204 double entendre 229, 231 Drory, Joseph 2 Dughaym (Sharīfs of Medina) 102 Dulkadirids XXIV, XXXII, 65, 70, 94 al-Durar al-kāmina (Ibn Ḥajar) 72 Durar al-ʿuqūd (al-Maqrīzī) 76

269

INDEX

E East Africa 101-2 Eddé, Anne-Marie 177 Edessa 106 Egypt XXII, XXIV, 5-6, 23, 28, 30, 37, 39-40, 48, 50, 65, 90, 101-2, 105, 141, 151, 156-57, 232 Egypt, Lower 31, 39 Egypt, Upper XXXI, 31 England 91 epigram 229 Erzinjan 68, 106 Euphrates XXII, 38, 106 Eurasia 88, 91 Europe 91, 142 Eychenne, Mathieu 18 F Fahd (Saudis) 85-86 faqīh 12 al-Faramā 26-27, 43, 47, 49-50 Faroqhi, Suraiya 92 Fars 94 al-Fāsī, Taqī al-Dīn 85, 88, 226, 229, 233, 237, 241 fasting 15 fatḥ-nāmah 103 Fatimids 90, 143 fatwas 121 Fażl-Allāh b. Rūzbihān 89 Fifth Crusade 23-24 Filisṭīn 143 fiqh 6, 11-12 al-Fīrūzābādī, Majd al-Dīn 227-28 Florence 41 fodder 30, 40 forage 37 fornicators 114 Franks 1, 165, 174 French Mandate 163

Frenkel, Yehoshua 4 fulūs 141, 144-48, 150, 156-58 funduq 117 furs 9 Fusṭāṭ 31, 40 Futūḥ al-naṣr fī taʾrīkh mulūk Miṣr (Ibn Bahādur) 70 G Galilee 2, 17 Garcin, Jean-Claude XXX Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice 163-64, 177 Gaza XXII, 34, 37-38, 41, 143 Gaza, nāʾib 34 Gaza Strip 26 Geniza 40 Genoese 44 al-Ghamrī, Abū al-ʿAbbās 118, 126 al-Ghamrī, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. Aḥmad al-Wāsiṭī 118-19 Gharb (Lebanon) XXIV, 166, 172 ghazal 130 al-Ghazālī 122 Ghāzān 25 ghulāt 95 Ghūṭa 173 Gibel XXII Gibelet XXII Golden Horde 91, 200, 225 Grabar, Oleg 113 grammar 7 grooming lads 37 Gulf of ʿAqaba 156 gunners 105 gyrfalcons 234 H ḥadd XXII Haifa XXII

270

INDEX

al-Ḥājj Bahādur 117 al-Ḥalabī 196 Ḥalbat al-kumayt (al-Nawājī) 131 Haldon, John 168 Hama XXIV, 5, 16, 141, 145-46, 150, 154, 164, 166, 225 Hama, Mālikī qāḍī 16 ḥammām 117 Ḥanbalīs 120 al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf (Jerusalem) 202 Ḥārat al-Sūdān 117 al-Harawī 89 Har-El, Shai 103 Ḥasan b. ʿAjlān (Sharīfs of Mecca) XXVII-XXVIII, 95, 226, 233-39, 245 Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 96, 100 Ḥasan Beg Rūmlū 89 al-Ḥasanī al-Makkī, Hibat Allāh b. Aḥmad 243 Hashimites 85 hashish 123 Ḥawādith al-duhūr (Ibn Taghrī Birdī) 70 Hebron 174 Herat 92, 237-38, 243 Hijaz XXII, XXV, XXVII-XXIX, 83-86, 88, 91-92, 98-103, 203, 232, 234, 236, 238-39 al-Ḥillī, Ṣafī al-Dīn 130 ḥisba 121 Ḥisbān 143, 147, 157 Ḥiṣn al-Akrād 174 Hīt 74 Holy Land 41 Homs 29, 104, 165, 171, 175 Honorius III 24 Hormuz 237 horses XXIV, 34, 37-38, 171, 176 Hospitallers 170 Hūlāgū (Il-Khans) 165, 170, 173 Humbert, Geneviève 204 Humphreys, R. Stephen 177 Hurlet, Frédéric 166 Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī (Sharīfs of Mecca) 85 Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 96, 100

I Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Muḥammad 85 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir 2, 171, 174, 197 Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa 188 Ibn al-ʿAfīf 6 Ibn Ajā, Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad XXXII, 75, 77 Ibn Ajā, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd) 66, 75 Ibn ʿArabī 227-28 Ibn ʿArabshāh 76 Ibn al-Athīr 171 Ibn Bahādur, Muḥammad XXXII, 66, 68-69, 71, 73-74 Ibn al-Bārizī 125, 225, 240 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 27, 32, 36 Ibn Dāniyāl 124, 130 Ibn Diḥya, Aḥmad 99, 102 Ibn Duqmāq 26, 43, 88, 115 Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb al-Dīn XXII, 168, 172, 175, 193 Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Muḥyī al-Dīn 8 Ibn Fahd 88 Ibn Ḥajar XXXII, 4, 12, 40, 65-66, 68-69, 73-74, 76, 88, 117, 227, 243 Ibn Ḥalāwāt, Zayn al-Dīn ʿUmar 8 Ibn Ḥijja 190-91, 194-96, 198, 217-18, 220, 225-26, 228-33, 239-41, 243 Ibn Ḥijjī 12, 77 Ibn Ḥinnā 168 Ibn Iyās 34, 99, 102, 106, 125 Ibn al-Jawzī 122 Ibn al-Jazarī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad 245 Ibn al-Jūbān al-Dhahabī, Aḥmad 243 Ibn Jubayr 164 Ibn Jumayʿ, Wajīh al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 235-36 Ibn Khallikān 115, 129 Ibn Miʿmār, Ibrāhīm 130 Ibn al-Mufliḥ, Amīn al-Dīn 218, 234, 236, 238, 240 Ibn Mufliḥ, Shams al-Dīn 121

271

INDEX

Ibn al-Mughayzil, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm 167 Ibn al-Muqriʾ, Sharaf al-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. Abī Bakr 226-31, 233, 236, 241-42 Ibn al-Nabīh, Kamāl al-Dīn 131 Ibn al-Naḥḥās, Shihāb al-Dīn 6 Ibn Nāẓir al-Jaysh 194, 196 Ibn Nubāta 130 Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad 17 Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Taqī al-Dīn 4, 11-14 Ibn al-Qāḍī al-Ṣūfī 118 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya 121 Ibn Qudāma 122 Ibn al-Ṣayrafī 88 Ibn Shāhīn al-Ẓāhirī 50 Ibn Ṣubḥ, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad 12 Ibn Taghrī Birdī 68, 70, 85, 88, 116, 126 Ibn Taymiyya 121 Ibn al-Wardī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 118 Ibn Wāṣil 167, 169-70 Ibn al-Zuwaytina 128 Ibrāhīm, son of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh 30 ice 39 Ifrīqiya XXII-XXIII iftitāḥ 194 Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn (al-Ghazālī) 122 ijāza 69 Ikhshidids 143 ikhwāniyyāt 194 Ilisch, Lutz XXIX Il-Khans 65, 83-84, 87, 89, 91-92 al-ʿImād al-Wāsiṭī 129 imām 75 Imam Riżā 92 Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ (al-Maqrīzī) 186 Inbāʾ al-ghumr (Ibn Ḥajar) 66, 72-74, 76-77 India 35, 88, 91, 142 Indian Ocean 91, 237 Innocent III 24 inns 124 inqiṭāʿ 11

inscriptio 194 ʿIqd al-jumān (al-ʿAynī) 66, 70, 72-73, 76-77 al-ʿIqd al-thamīn (al-Fāsī) 226 Iran 65, 83-85, 88, 90-91, 98, 102 Iranians 92 Iraq 35, 74, 84, 86, 90-91, 94-95, 102, 203, 237 ʿĪsā b. Muhannā 170 Iskandar (Qara Qoyunlu) 73 Iskandar b. ʿUmar Shaykh (Timurids) 238 Islamic Republic of Iran 86 Ismailis 170, 200 Ismaili territories 170 Israel 141 Istanbul XXXII, 3, 65 istikhdām 229, 232 Italy 41-42 Izmirlieva, Valentina 93 J jaʿba 241 Jabla XXII Jabrūh, Saʿd al-Dīn 242 Jaffa XXII, 25 Jahān-Shāh (Qara Qoyunlu) XXVIII, 87, 89, 94-97, 103 Jalayirids 200 Jalbān al-Kamushbughāwī 47 jamdāriyya 175 James II (Aragon) XXII-XXIII Jāmiʿ Jarrāḥ 8 Jāmiʿ Jarrāḥ, khaṭīb 8 Jān Birdī al-Ghazālī 34 Jaques, R. Kevin 14 Jarash 143 Jārquṭlī 74 jawālī 36 al-Jazarī, Shams al-Dīn 238 Jazīra 77 al-Jazīrī 88, 99 Jedda XXVII, 85, 232, 234-36, 239-40 Jerusalem 5, 23-24, 42, 46, 84, 93, 143, 202

272

INDEX

Jews 40 al-Jibrīnī al-Maʿṣarānī, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr 118-19, 126 al-Jifār 26-27 al-Jīlānī, ʿAlī 238 Jordan XXIX, 6, 141, 143, 154, 157-58 Jubayl XXII Judhām 40 jughān 129 al-Jūn 48 K Kaʿba XXVI-XXVIII, 84 al-Kafrmāwī, ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmīn 13 Kamarān 241 al-Kāmil Muḥammad (Ayyubids) 24, 153 al-Kāmil Shaʿbān (Mamluks) 150 al-Karak 6, 29, 143, 154, 157, 173-74, 185 Karāy al-Manṣūrī, Sayf al-Dīn 7-10 Kārimīs 234 Kashghar 92 kāshif 31, 33-34 kātib 35 kātib al-darj 167 kātib al-sirr 7, 37, 70, 75, 125 Kemal, Mustafa (Atatürk) 85 al-Khabar ʿan al-bashar (al-Maqrīzī) 186, 188, 240 khādim al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn XXV, XXVIII, 84, 90, 100 Khafāja 172 al-Khalīj al-Ḥākimī (Tripoli) 124 Khalīl b. Qarājā b. Dhū al-Ghādir al-Turkmānī (Dhulkadirids) 72 khammāra 131 khamriyyāt 130 khāns 133 kharāj 36, 126 kharm 231 al-Khashabī 26 khidma 175

Khilāf, book on (Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī) 4, 16 Khizānat al-Bunūd (Cairo) 125 Khomeini, Ruhollah 85 Khurasan 89, 92, 105 khuṭba 86-87, 99, 102-3, 105-6, 128 Kirman 94 kiswa XXVII-XXVIII, 84, 86-87, 92, 105, 238 Kitāb-i Baḥriye (Piri Reis) 48 Kitāb Diyār Bakriyya (Ṭihrānī-Iṣfahānī) 89 Kitāb fī taʾrīkh Yashbak al-Ẓāhirī (Ibn Ajā) 65-66, 68, 77 Kitāb Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 65, 70 Kitāb al-Tawwābīn (Ibn Qudāma) 122 Kitbughā, Zayn al-Dīn 171 kiyāsa 229 kollesis 190 Komnenoi 105 Konya 105 Kurds 173 L al-Lādhiqiyya XXII, 141 al-Lajjūn 143, 153, 157 Lake Manzala 49 Lake Ṭīna 43, 49 Lake Tinnīs 49 Lapidus, Ira 18 Latins 24 Lebanon 163-64, 172 Lévi-Strauss, Claude 175 Lewis, Bernard 3-4 Little Petra 156 logic 7 Louis IX 24 Lubb al-tavārīkh (al-Qazvīnī) 89 Ludd 143 lughz 231

INDEX

M Maʿarrat al-Nuʿmān 165, 170-71 Madelung, Wilferd 96 madrasas XXVII, 92-93 al-Maḥalla 39 al-Maḥalla al-Kubrā 113, 118-19 al-Maḥalla al-Kubrā, Jāmiʿ al-Ghamrī 118, 126, 129 al-Maḥalla al-Kubrā, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 118 al-Maḥallī, Walī al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 118, 126, 129-30, 133 maḥmal xxviii, 84, 86-87, 89, 92, 94-99, 103, 105-6 Majmūʿa fī al-tawārīkh 66, 68, 72-74, 77 Majmūʿa fī tawārīkh al-turkmān 66 maksī 35 Malatya 106, 141 Maliktamur al-Ḥijāzī 124 mamlaka XXII, XXXI mamlūkuhu 218 al-Maʾmūn (Abbasids) 129 manāwir 38 Manbij 165 al-Manṣūr Abū Bakr (Mamluks) 146 al-Manṣūr ʿAlī (Ayyubids) 170 al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Aybak (Mamluks) 29, 147, 150 al-Manṣūr ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān (Mamluks) 147-48 al-Manṣūr Lājīn (Mamluks) 124, 150 al-Manṣūr Muḥammad (Mamluks) 146-47 al-Manṣūr Muḥammad b. ʿUmar (Ayyubids of Hama) 164-65, 169-75, 177 al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn 2, 29, 128, 145, 147, 150, 154, 167, 170-71 al-Manṣūra 24 al-Maqrīzī 26, 30, 34, 36, 50, 74, 76-77, 85, 88, 116, 120, 124-25, 185-87, 189-90, 195, 203-4, 210, 236, 238-40 Maracle XXII Margat XXII Marj Dābiq 31 al-Marqab XXII

273

Marqab 168 Marqiyā XXII Marr Bottom 99 marsūm 172, 202 Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār (Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī) 168 Mashhad 92 Masʿūd b. Mubārak 1 mathematics 11 al-mawārīth al-ḥashriyya 36 al-Mawṣilī, Mūsā b. Ḥasan 192-93, 199-201 Mayer, Leo A. 143 Mazār-i Sharīf 92 Mecca XXVII, 92-93, 96, 99, 101, 130, 227, 236, 238-39, 241, 243, 245 Mecca, amir 71, 83-84, 87, 89-92 Medina XXVIII, 85, 89-90, 96, 99, 106 Mediterranean 23, 26, 43, 46, 48-49, 89, 94 Meḥmed II (Ottomans) 90, 94, 103, 105-6 Meloy, John XXV, 233-34 Melvin-Koushki, Matthew 103-4 merchants XXV, XXVIII, 33, 123, 127, 156, 234-39 Meshullam of Volterra 41 Middle East 142 Miftāḥ al-Ziftāwī 242 mihmandār 68 miḥrāb 47 Mīkhāʾīl, Badr al-Dīn 34 Mina 99 minbar 47 mining tax 36 Minorsky, Vladimir 96 Mirʾāt al-zamān (Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī) 115 Mirdasids 164 mizr 123 Mongols XXIII, 5-6, 25, 28-29, 38, 84, 88, 90, 104, 170-75 Morocco 90 Mortel, Richard T. 88, 93 Moses 232 Mosul 77

274

INDEX

Mount Sinai 232 al-Muʾayyad Ismāʿīl Abū al-Fidāʾ (Ayyubids of Hama) 167-68, 172, 176 al-Muʾayyad Shaykh (Mamluks) XXIII, 48, 191, 225-26, 229, 234, 236-38, 240 al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā (Ayyubids) 1 al-Muʿaẓẓam Tūrān Shāh (Ayyubids) 177 Mudarrisī Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Ḥusayn 89, 95 Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb (Ibn Wāṣil) 167 al-Mughīth ʿUmar (Ayyubids) 173-74 al-Mughulṭāy al-Jamālī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn 115-16 Muḥammad b. Barakāt (Sharīfs of Mecca) 95, 99, 102 Muḥammad b. Ṭāz 44 Muḥammad Kart, Ghiyāth al-Dīn 92 muḥtasib 125 al-Muʿizz Aybak (Mamluks) 28, 123 mujaddid 84 al-Mujāhid ʿAlī (Rasulids) XXVII al-Mujāhid Shīrkūh (Ayyubids) 165 mujūn 130 al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar (Abū al-Fidāʾ) 167 munshiʾ 190, 225 al-Muqaṭṭam 68 Muqbil 48 murabbaʿāt 202 Mushaʿshaʿ 95-96 mushidd al-dawāwīn 7 Muslu, Cihan Yüksel 66 mustawfī 35 al-Muʿtaṣim (Abbasids) 28 al-Mutayyam wa-l-yatīm (Ibn Dāniyāl) 130 Muʿtazila 122 al-Muẓaffar Baybars (Mamluks) 29, 34, 117, 124 al-Muẓaffar Ḥājjī (Mamluks) 150 al-Muẓaffar Maḥmūd (Ayyubids of Hama) 165, 167, 170-71 al-Muẓaffar Quṭuz (Mamluks) 123, 150, 154, 169-70, 173, 177

al-Muẓaffar ʿUmar (Ayyubids of Hama) 164 al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf I (Rasulids) XXVI, 192 Muzīl al-ḥaṣr fī mukātabāt ahl al-ʿaṣr 194 N al-Nahāwandī, Jalāl al-Dīn 17 Nahr al-ʿĀṣī 164 Nakamachi, Nobutaka 72 Nakhl 25 narratio 194 al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (Mamluks) 150, 186 al-Nāṣir Aḥmad (Rasulids) 233-36, 239 al-Nāṣir Faraj (Mamluks) 30, 41, 44, 144-45, 153, 235, 242 al-Nāṣir Ḥasan (Mamluks) 29, 147, 150, 153 al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (Mamluks) XXVII, 8, 25, 35-36, 39, 115-17, 124-25, 132, 147-48, 150, 168, 172, 176 al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qāytbāy (Mamluks) 145 al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf b. al-ʿAzīz (Ayyubids) 27-28, 164-65, 169-70, 177 Nawāfila 155 al-Nawājī 131-32 Nawrūz 125 Nawrūz 229 Nawrūz (governor of Syria) 229, 243 al-Naysābūrī 131 nāẓir 33, 35 Nephin XXII Nessim 40 Nile 23-24, 43, 48-50, 124 Nile Delta 25 Nishapur 92 niẓām 169 nocturnal prayers 15 al-Nujūm al-zāhira (Ibn Taghrī Birdī) 70 Nuwaybaʿ 25 O Obadiah b. Abraham 42

275

INDEX

Oghuz 89 oil 9 Orontes River 164 Otlukbeli 106 Ottoman registers 94 Ottomans XXVIII-XXIX, 31, 34, 46, 65, 68, 83, 85, 99, 101, 103, 105-6 P Palestine XXIII, 26, 90, 93-94, 143, 165-66, 173 palm groves 26 palm trees 39 parades 175 pax Mongolica 91 Pelusiac branch 43, 49 pepper 236 Peter (Cyprus) 24 Peters, Francis 87 Petra 155-56 Petry, Carl XXXIII, 132 Pierre-Encise XXII pigeons 38, 42 pilgrimage XXVI-XXVIII, 83, 92, 130, 237, 239, 245 Piloti, Emmanuel 41 pirates XXV, 24, 44-45 Piri Reis 48-50 plague 31, 33, 88, 105 poetry 7, 11 Port Fuʾād 43 Port Said 43 Portuguese 103 postal service 31-32, 37-38, 42 privy purse 35-36 prosody 231 prostitutes 114, 118-19, 121, 123, 126, 133 prostitution 113, 120, 123-24, 126-27

Qahwat al-inshāʾ (Ibn Ḥijja) 191, 194, 217, 225-26, 228, 240 Qalʿat Jaʿbar 170 Qalʿat Najm 165 Qalʿat al-Rūm 168 al-Qalqashandī 35, 117, 163, 192, 195-98, 200-204, 206-7, 212, 240 Qānṣawh Rukhlū 34 Qanāṭir al-Sibāʿ 119, 126 Qanṭara 26 Qānbirdī 34 Qarājā b. Dhū al-Ghādir al-Turkmānī (Dhulkadirids) 72 Qaraman 105 Qaramanids XXIV Qara Qoyunlu XXVIII, 73, 87, 94-96, 105, 185, 237, 240 Qarāsunqur al-Manṣūrī (Sayf al-Dīn) 171 Qarā Yūsuf (Qara Qoyunlu) 237 Qaṭiyya XXII, XXV, 25-30, 33-34, 37-42, 47-48, 50-51 Qaṭiyya, mosque 42 Qaṭiyya, qāḍī 38 Qaṭiyya, wālī XXV, 30-34, 36, 45-46 qawāʾim 202 Qaysāriyya 143 qaysariyya 127 al-Qazvīnī, Yaḥyā 89 al-Qimanī, Zayn al-Dīn Abū Bakr b. ʿUmar 74 Qirṭāy al-ʿIzzī 165 Qizilbāsh–Ṣafaviyya 96 Qum 98 al-Qumārī 124 Quran 6, 11, 210 Quran, variant readings 11 Quraysh 85 al-Qurbāj 49 Qūṣ XXX, 37 al-Quṣayr 35, 168

Q qāḍī al-ʿaskar 75

R rabʿ 117

276

INDEX

Rabat 92 rabbi 40 Rafaḥ 26, 37 Raḥba 38, 170-71 rakb 87 Ramla 23, 143 Rasulids XXVI-XXVIII, 93, 191-92, 194, 204, 212, 233 Red Sea 23, 35, 37, 233 Rhodes 48 ribāṭs 92-93 Richard the Lion-Hearted 23 Richardson, Kristina XXXIII riddles 231 Rifat Bilge, Kilisli 67 Rosetta XXIII, 23, 25, 44 al-Ruhā 106 Rumaytha (Sharīfs of Mecca) 234, 236, 240 Russia 91-92 Rustam 99, 102 al-Ruwayshid al-Thaqafī 120 S al-Sabtī, Jamāl 129 Saddam Hussein 86 Ṣafad XXXI, 1-13, 15-18 Ṣafad, chancery 7 Ṣafad, citadel 2, 6 Ṣafad, citadel’s mosque 9 Ṣafad, Friday mosque 2, 4, 9 Ṣafad, Ḥanbalī qāḍī 16 Ṣafad, al-Jāmiʿ al-jadīd 12 Ṣafad, kātib al-sirr 7, 9 Ṣafad, khaṭīb 3-7, 9-12, 15 Ṣafad, Mālikī qāḍī 16 Ṣafad, mamlaka 2 Ṣafad, mudarris 12 Ṣafad, muwaqqiʿ 11 Ṣafad, nāʾib 2, 4, 6-7, 12 Ṣafad, qāḍī 3-5, 12-13, 15-17 Ṣafad, Ẓāhirī mosque 12

al-Ṣafadī, Khalīl b. Aybak XXXI, 7-11, 117, 130 Safavids 65, 83, 95-96 Ṣaffūriyya 143 ṣāḥib al-qiblatayn 84, 90 Sāḥib-i Qirān 98 Sahl b. Salāma 129 al-Saḥmāwī 202-3 al-Saʿīd Baraka Khān (Mamluks) 150 sajʿ 207 al-Sakhāwī 4, 40, 77, 118 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (Ayyubids) XXIV-XXV, 1, 23, 27-28, 123, 128, 164, 171 Salāmiyya 165, 170 al-Ṣāliḥ (Zangids) 128 al-Ṣāliḥ Abū al-Jaysh (Ayyubids) 129 al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (Ayyubids) 128, 147, 164, 173 Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā 166 al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl (Ayyubids) 1 al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl (Mamluks) 145, 147, 150 al-Ṣāliḥ Ṣāliḥ (Mamluks) 150 Saljuqs 164 al-Sallāwī, Shihāb al-Dīn 13 Samarqand 245 sanāqīr 234 Sanjar al-Ḥalabī 173 al-Sarāʾī, Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Sulaymān 76 Saudi Arabia 86-87 Saudis 86 Sawākin 37 ṣayrafī 33, 35 Sayyid ʿAbd al-Laṭīf 243 Sayyid Niʿmat-Allāh II 98 scribe 7-8, 11 Selim I (Ottomans) 31, 85, 103 sermons 122 Seth 188 shādd 35 Shahrāzūr 173 Shāh Rukh (Timurids) XXVIII, 85, 100, 237-38, 245 Shāh Suwār (Dhulkadirids) 75

277

INDEX

al-Shām, nāʾib 9, 74 sharābkhāna 39 Sharīf of Mecca XXVII-XXVIII, 85, 88, 91, 95-96, 99, 101-2, 106, 227, 229, 231-37, 239-41, 243 Sharīf of Medina XXVIII, 87-88, 95, 100, 102, 106 Sharqiyya province 26, 33-34 Shārquṭlū 74 Shawbak 155 Shaykhū 29, 47 Shayzār 165 Shiʿis 88, 96 Shiraz 238, 245 al-Shīshīnī, Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. ʿAbd al-Qādir 38 Shīth 188 shuhūd 38 Shumaysāt 170 shūrā 172 shurūṭ 11 Sibṭ Ibn al-ʿAjamī 117-18, 119, 125 Ṣibt Ibn al-Jawzī 115 Sidon XXII silāḥdāriyya 175 Sinai XXV, 23, 25-26, 41, 43, 46, 49-50, 232, 234 singers 117 Sīwās 104 slaves 119 sodomites 126 sodomy 118 St. Simeon XXII al-Ṣubayba 171 Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā (al-Qalqashandī) 117, 163, 168 al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn 17, 121 Sublet, Jacqueline 4, 12-13 Sudan 37 Sūdūn min ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 74 Suez 35 Suez Canal 26 Sufi 12, 14, 17, 91-92, 116 Sufism 11-12, 15

Sūlī b. Qarājā b. Dhū al-Ghādir al-Turkmānī (Dhulkadirids) 72 Sulṭān Ḥusayn (Timurids) 76 sultans of Delhi 200, 236 Sūq Amīr al-Juyūsh 118 al-Suwaydiyya XXII synagogue 40, 42 Syria XXIII-XXV, XXXI-XXXII, 1, 5, 9, 18, 25, 27, 30, 34-35, 37-41, 43-44, 47-48, 50-51, 77, 90, 94, 105-6, 114, 157, 163-64, 166, 177-78, 201, 206, 212, 225-26 T Ṭabaqāt Faḥl 146 Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ (Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī) 4, 11-12, 16 Ṭabariyya 143 Tabriz 68, 75, 77, 94, 105 tadhākir 202 Tadmur 170 al-Taḥrīrī al-Mālikī, Jamāl al-Dīn 119-20 Taiz 227 al-Ṭāliʿ al-saʿīd (al-Udfuwī) XXXI Tall Bashīr 170 Tamurbāy al-Timrāzī 68 Ṭanbughā al-Ṣaghīr 125 Tānī Bay (?) Ḥājjī Sayyidī 70 Tankiz, Sayf al-Dīn 9-10 taqlīd 170-72, 197 al-Taʿrīf bi-l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharīf (Ibn Faḍl Allāh alʿUmarī) XXII Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi Amīnī (Fażl-Allāh b. Rūzbihān) 89 Taʾrīkh al-badr (al-ʿAynī) 72-73 al-Tārīkh al-kabīr al-muqaffā li-Miṣr (al-Maqrīzī) 187-88, 240 Tārīkh-nāmah-yi Harāt (al-Harawī) 89 Taʾrīkh Ṣafad (Shams al-Dīn al-ʿUthmānī) 1, 3-7, 10-18 Tārīkh-i salāṭīn-i Kart 89 Taʾrīkh Tīmūr Lank 65-66, 68, 75-77

278

INDEX

Tārīkh va-jughrāfī-yi dār al-salṭana-i Tabrīz 89 ṭarīqa 97 Tartus XXII al-Ṭashlāqī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī 32, 36 Ṭashtamur Ḥummuṣ Akhḍar 29 taṣliya 218 Tatars 92 taverns 117 tawāqīʿ 202 tawqīʿ 11 tawriya 229, 231 tax collectors 31 tax on mint revenues 36 taxes XXV, 32-35, 101-2, 117, 123-26, 230, 233, 239 Ṭayf al-khayāl (Ibn Dāniyāl) 124, 130 Templars XXXI tents 30 Thaʿāliba 40 thallājūn 39 thalm 231 tharm 231 Third Crusade 23 thulth 195, 201, 206-7, 212 Thumāma b. Ashras 131 al-Tīfāshī 127 Tīh desert 26 Tihama 227 Ṭihrānī-Iṣfahānī 89 Tīmūr XXXII, 65, 76-77 Timurbāy al-Hindī 46 Timurids XXVII-XXVIII, 65, 83, 85, 87, 90, 105, 186, 233, 237 al-Ṭīna XXII, XXV, 25-26, 29, 34, 43-44, 47-51 al-Ṭīna, Barsbāy fort 45-46 al-Ṭīna, al-Ghawrī fort 46, 49 al-Ṭīna, mosque 47 Tinnīs XXII-XXIII, 43, 49 Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi 65 Tortosa XXII transit trade tax 36 Transjordan 173

Transjordan area 157 Transoxiana 91 Trebizon 105 Tripoli XXII-XXIII, 2, 39, 69, 113, 117, 124, 141, 145-46, 148, 150, 168 Tripoli (Gharb) XXII Tripoli, al-Jāmiʿ al-Nāṣirī 117 Tripoli, Jāmiʿ al-Tawba 117, 127, 132-33 truce XXII-XXIII , 28 ṭughrā 196 Ṭulaymāt, ʿAbd al-Qādir 75 Tunis XXII Ṭūr 25, 35, 232, 234, 239 Turkish 75 Turkmen XXIV, 25, 70, 94 Turkmen of Āmid 30 Turks 92 ṭurra 194-95, 210-11, 217 Twelver Shiʿa 88, 91, 103 Tyre XXII-XXIII, 45 U al-Udfuwī XXXI Ūljaytū (Il-Khans) 91 ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb 120-21 Umm Mafraj 45 Umm Qays 143 United States 142 al-ʿUqayba 114 al-Urdunn 143 ustādār 33, 115, 124 Ustādār Qumārī, ʿIzz al-Dīn 32 uṣūl 6 ʿUthmān, Khawājā Fakhr al-Dīn 243 ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān 5 al-ʿUthmānī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī 12, 16 al-ʿUthmānī, Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm 9 al-ʿUthmānī, Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad 4-6, 10, 14-15, 17 al-ʿUthmānī, Najm al-Dīn al-Ḥasan 6-8, 10-11, 15-16

279

INDEX

al-ʿUthmānī, Ṣadr al-Dīn 13 al-ʿUthmānī, Shams al-Dīn XXXI, 2-4, 7-9, 11-18 al-ʿUthmānī, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 11-12, 15-16 al-ʿUthmānī, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn 11, 15 Uways (Aq Qoyunlu) 98 ʿUyūn al-anbāʾ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbāʾ (Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa) 188 Uzūn Ḥasan (Aq Qoyunlu) XXVIII, 75, 83, 87-90, 94, 97, 100, 102-6 V Valenia XXII Vallet, Éric 191, 233, 238 van Ghistele, Joos 41-42 Vatican 105 Venetian ducats 144 Venetians 105 Venice 35, 89 Veselý, Rudolf 220, 225 vizier 115 von Harff, Arnold 42

Woods, John 66, 74, 87, 106 wool 9 World War I 163 Y Yanbuʿ 240 Yaʿqūb Shāh al-Mihmandār XXXII, 68, 70 Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī 26-27, 40, 43, 49 Yashbak min Mahdī XXXII, 30, 75 Yazd 98 Yemen XXII, XXVII, 35, 93, 101-2, 186, 198, 203, 206, 209, 218, 226-27, 232, 235, 237, 240-41 Yınanç, Mükrimin Halil 65 Yubnā 143 Z

W Wahhabi rebels 86 walī Allāh 6, 15 wāliduhu 196 Walker, Bethany J. XXIX al-Warrāda 26 water springs 26 wazīr 33 weapons 105 Western Desert (Egypt) 23 wine 117, 120-25, 127-28, 132

Zabid 227 Zād al-maʿād (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya) 121 al-Ẓāhir Barqūq (Mamluks) 29, 145-48, 234 al-Ẓāhir Baybars (Mamluks) XXIV-XXV, XXXI, 1-4, 6, 16-18, 37, 42, 84, 104, 117, 123-24, 128, 147-52, 154-55, 165-71, 173-74, 192, 197 al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq (Mamluks) 39, 70, 73, 118-19, 129-30, 132, 145 zakāt 36 Zakī Bāshā, Aḥmad 75 Zakkār, Suhayl 3 Zamanṭū 75 Zangids 128, 164 Zaydī Shiʿa 88, 91, 95, 100 Zeno, Caterino 105 ziḥāf 231 ẓill Allāh fī al-arḍ 84, 100 zuhd 11