Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
ULRICH HAARMANN
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in
Late Medieval Egypt
Originalbeitrag erschienen in:
Tarif Khalidi (Hrsg.): Land tenure and social transformation in the Middle East.
Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut, 1984, S. 141-168
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders
in Late Medieval Egypt
ULRICH HAARMANN
University of Freiburg
of the Mamluk sultanate only a Mamluk had
access to political and military authority and, more importantly, to the wealth
of the country. And only a very limited group could qualify as Mamluks,
namely those who were born as non-Muslims in the där al harb, preferably
of Turkish or Circassian stock, who were then purchased as military slaves,'
trained militarily by their ustadh, converted to Islam, affranchised and thus
released into the promising future that was open to them and only to them,
and could take them to the peak of society, the sultanate.
Lucid and ingenious as the Mamluk order appears to the contemporary
observer and to the historian, the realization and implementation of its ideal
type was bound to be difficult within the society, upon which this exclusive
and autocratic alien elite was grafted. Among the many areas of friction
between the local population and the foreign ruling caste I shall concentrate
on the status of a group about which we presently know little, the so-called
awled al as, the sons of the ?kis, i.e. literally: of the elite, the Mamluks. Ibn
Iyas, at the very end of Mamluk history, appropriately equates this term
with banii l atredc. 2 By virtue of the Mamluk 'constitution' just delineated
they were barred from the privileges of their fathers, lacking, at least for
the most part, the nobility of a Turkish name and a pagan birth north of
the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea.
On the other hand, the Mamluks would not have been human if they
had not tried incessantly, though only on an individual level, to save as much
of their personal prestige and wealth as possible for their own offspring.
And the sultans themselves followed this path: from the days of Sultan BayACCORDING TO THE BASIC LAW
-
-
-
141
142
Ulrich Haarmann
bars to the end of Circassian rule in the early 16th century, sons of sultans
again and again succeeded their fathers to the throne of Eet ,:,ypt. These
s'id7s, as they were for the most part called, demonstrated to their less prominent fellow Mamluks, both airlirs and privates, that it was not only possible,
but within certain limits also legitimate to pass one's own honors and riches
to the next generation, even if this meant violating the invisible barrier
separating the Mamluks from all non-Mamluks, including their own sons.
And indeed, historical reality did look different. 3 The awlad al-nas formed
a privileged class. As youths they were entitled to allowances of meat, bread,
forage, and money from the sultan. 4 As adults they were dubbed knights
of a special regiment, the Olga, that during most of the Mamluk period was
composed of non-Mamluk free soldiers and goes back to Saladin's famous
bodyguard. Yet there were barriers to their advancement. Only very rarely
did they obtain the highest command in the Mamluk army, an imrat alf
(the command of over 1,000 halqa soldiers and 100 Mamluk officers). The
rank of aiiiir of forty (airiir tablkhemeth) was usually the acme of their careers. 5
Apart from the fact that not all the numerous sons of Mamluks are likely
to have been offered the option of joining the halqa, membership in it gradually
lost its original prestige. From its inception the halqa had been a heterogeneous
body that was open to numerous other groups of hereditary or honorary
semi-Mamluk status, such as eunuchs, 6 the weifidiyyd—mainly Kurdish and
Mongol free warriors—, Turcomans, Ayyubid princes, 8 but also the bedouins, 9
and even civilians with special affinities to the Mamluk Turkish caste. 1 °
When al-Qalqashancti, who tends to describe the ideal state of Mamluk
institutions, speaks of the halqa soldiers (ajnad al-halqa) as a 'large crowd'
(cadad jamm wa-khalq kath7r), he has to admit that non-military people had
long since entered the ranks of the halqa and diluted its former military
character."
The military and social decline of the halqa was precipitated by one political
event in particular. In his rawk of 715/1315, al-Malik al-Näsir Muhammad
b. Qaldwiin redistributed the land-assignments (iqtets) of Egypt at the
expense of the halqa knights and to the benefit of the crown land and of the
Royal Mamluks (al-Mamlitik al-Sulttmiyya) who formed the backbone of
the Mamluk army. 12 Thertafter the ljalqa gradually forfeited the highly
respected status it had enjoyed in early Bahri history, at least in Egypt. 13
Common people joined the ijalqa from the late 14th century on. The salaries
of the ljalqa soldiers were subject to cuts and their fiefs often sold, an abuse
going back to al-Näsir Muhammad's days. 14 Most humiliating and at the
same time telling, the halqa soldiers could purchase exemption from dangerous
military undertakings by cash payment ;15 they were, however, obliged to
prove their prowess in the arts of war in tests with the bow and arrow.
The fate of the halqa and of the awled al-nds, who formed its prestigious
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 143
upper echelon, seems to have been inseparably connected through the decades.
Like other successful representatives of the Olga, such as eunuchs or waficlis,
awlad al-nas could rise to important positions in the state provided they had
no direct military significance, such as the governorship of the capital"
or the superintendence (shadd) of the Royal Hippodrome. 17 In the closing
period of Mamluk history the term ljalqa virtually disappeared, 18 to be
replaced, quite surprisingly, pars pro toto by awl1id al-nas, perhaps because
in the moribund ljalqa only the scions of Mamluk officers retained a certain
natural prestige, even if this was a bequest from their fathers. Certainly
they presented themselves as thoroughly harmless when the Ottomans came
to Egypt in 1517. Unlike the Mamluks proper, they were neither outlawed
nor prosecuted; some of them were even admitted into one of the Ottoman
regiments established in Egypt. 19
Under such conditions many awlad al-nas sought their fortunes outside
a military career. We know of quite a few cases when sons of am7rs quit
service in the army and in the government with all the material benefits
attached to their position. The career of Ahmad b. Almalik (d. 793/1391)
illustrates this drift away from the Mamluk establishment. He was naDib
of Ghazza and one of the ten privileged awliid al-as who under al-Malik
al-Näsir's son Hasan received an imrat alf: In 777/1376 his feudal estates,
amounting to 19,000 (tin& jaysh7 (= dj), stretched from Jazirat al-Dayr in
the province of Qiis in the very south of Egypt to Tannäki in Daqahliyya
in the eastern Delta. 2 ° Furthermore he had had the privilege of being commissioned am7r of forty during his father's life-time—an obviously unusual
distinction. 21 Suddenly, in 779/1377-8, he decided "to put on the garment
[Sc. of the sfifi], rode a donkey, walked in the markets, was content with
the proceeds of his father's pious foundation and devoted himself to the service
of God." 22 He died a mujäwir in Mecca in 793/1391.
Ahmad b. Almalik embodies the chances and also the limits peculiar to
the awlad al-nas. Like their fathers, they could successfully participate in
military and state affairs, if, that is, they qualified in a truly tough competition, if they had the right advocates and friends at court, and most importantly,
if they could relinquish the possibility of ever climbing to the top of the
ladder. 23 Yet as a corporate body they also held advantages in comparison
to the Mamluks. Having grown up in the residential quarters of the Mamluks
on and below the Cairo citadel, they had from their youth been exposed to
the two cultures: the Turkish military ambience in Mamluk halls and at
the polo field, and the local Arab religious and learned environment. They
spoke both Turkish and Arabic, often had Arab mothers 24 and seem to have
been especially susceptible to cultural stimuli. 25
Their contribution to Arabic letters and religious culture in the 14th
and 15th centuries was considerable. Evidently they made strenuous efforts
144
Ulrich Haarmann
to be accepted by the intellectual elite of the time. Khalil b. Aybak alSafacii, Ibn QuIlabugha, Näsir al-din Muhammad b. Jankali h. Albaba, 26
and the famous author of usfil al hadith, Khalil b. Kaykaldi, who made a
career similar to that of the above mentioned Ahmad b. Almalik, witness
to the remarkable results of these endeavours. Some of them, such as the
historian Ibn Taghribirdi, or Ibn Mangt1 27 who held a taqdima in the
ljalqa and composed books on warfare and hunting, epitomize the natural
function of the awled al nds as interpreters and transmitters of the two separate
cultures clashing in Mamluk Cairo, the capital both of the alien Turkish
lords and of orthodox Islam in its Arabic garb. 28 The mediating potential
of the awliid al nds has not yet been explored; specialists in Mamluk history
have hitherto been very cautious when assessing their role in society. Depending on the context, they either refused to grant them any significant part 29
at all, or divided them rather arbitrarily between the Mamluk caste 3 ° and
the autochthonous population, 31 thus denying them any relevant group
identity whatsoever.
Certainly frustrations and blockades from both directions characterized
the standard career pattern of an ibn al niis : neither of the societies between
which they stood normally allowed them to become full members. The
Mamluks barred the doors to the highest ranks. And the local culanfdp punished
the awled al niis for all the humiliations they suffered daily from the nas,
the Mamluks, yet on whom they could take no direct revenge. The psychology
of these middlemen who stood between the two poles of medieval Egyptian and
Syrian society and were not allowed to realize their ambitions, evolves as a
fascinating issue in the history of the central Arab lands in the Middle Ages. 32
-
-
-
-
-
2
Quite apart from the official recognition of the awled al nli s and their incorporation (and remuneration) in the halqa, Mamluk fathers sought other,
less public, channels to pass at least part of their income and influence to
their sons.
It was here that the viability of the Mamluk system, the principle of the
one-generation membership in the military elite, was really put to the test.
To what degree were the sultans able to preserve igi's as the source of revenue
for military services, and to collect them after the death or retirement of
their tenants undiminished, thus keeping the material basis for the continuous
rejuvenation of the army intact?
Al-Näsir Muhammad, himself a royal ibn al nds, was particularly effective
in strengthening the Mamluk military and financial system. He increased
the diwan'i lands at the expense of the halqa domains. He further enhanced
the power of the court and of the diwän al jaysh by splitting the aggregate
amount of revenue, which the muqtacs (Mamluks, awled al nã s, and even
-
-
-
-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 145
provincial governors) 33 could claim, into several small allotments spread
all over the country. As a result, a rural aristocracy, familiar with the realities
of agrarian production, could not grow. 34 Whether this action was due to
the mischief of the Coptic kuttab who wanted to undermine the prosperity
of Egypt and thus of Islam, as al-Magri:if., quoting al-Yasufi, surmises, 35
or rather al-Näsir's rigorous policy of divide et impera towards the Mamluk
grandees, must be left undecided. 36
After al-Näsir's death the power of resistance of the Mamluk system against
infringements from inside waned. 37 There was above all the momentous
intermezzo of Sultan Hasan, a third generation royal ibn al-as. He despised
the Mamluk atmosphere, preferred contacts with local scholars—much to
the satisfaction of contemporary historians with their inveterate anti-Mamluk
bias—and gave eunuchs, slave-girls, and awkid al-nds 38 unprecedented career
opportunities in the state and in the army. Large fiefdoms passed into the
hands of awled al-nds together with responsible public offices. After his
death in 762/1361 the re-mamlukization of society began.
Yet, all efforts to stabilize the Mamluk system notwithstanding, the alienation of iqtd c -holdings continued after Sultan klasan's assassination, although
these lands were indispensable for the upkeep of the Mamluk army. We
are lucky to have more or less complete excerpts from the jar7da iqtdya
in the army office of Egypt at three different dates: 777/1376, around 800/
1397 and 885/1480 (see below, part 3). If one compares the legal character
of the feudal units (jihät) of the first date, during the rule of the Bailin Sultan
Shacbän, with the situation a hundred years later, one is struck by the number
of villages that had formerly been iqtd c -land and had by now, illegal as
this procedure was, 39 at least partially been transformed into allodial land
(mulk) or into waqf. 4 °
Establishing a waqf and installing the members of one's own family as
hereditary administrators—and thus beneficiaries—became a common practice in the Burr". period. 41 It was the most expedient way of circumventing
the social barrier separating Mamluk fathers from non-Mamluk sons, because
it was sanctioned by the shaff a. At least in principle, the jurists of the time
realized very well that a or the main purpose of such donations was securing
part of the pious investment for the very mundane material welfare of the
wäqiis descendants. In a book written in the mid-14th century the elder
al-Subid, Taqi al-din, discusses the matter of the legality of leaving the
management of an endowment in the hand of the donor or of his family. 42
Al-Safadi uses nasty words when commenting upon the installation of family
control over a richly endowed waqf in the late 13th century. 43
Direct inheritance of a fief by the muqta's descendants was extremely rare.
I encountered only one case: when klusayn b. Jandar Beg, like his friend
al-Safacli, an ibn al-nets, died in 728/1327-8, his grateful sovereign al-Malik
146 Ulrich Haarmann
al-Näsir Muhammad left the income from klusayn's iqtel`ät in the lialqa to
his Mamluks, his widows and his daughters (sons are not mentioned !)—
"something that has happened to no one else." 44
3
I shall now leave the issue of the political ideal of Mamluk society, epitomized in David Ayalon's statement that the awlad al nds were excluded "by
their very nature" 45 from Mamluk rights and titles. I shall rather try to
assess their political weight in terms of their proportionate share in the wealthi.e. the iqtdcs of Egypt. 46
It is certain that the only recipients of land grants were those whose service
was needed and accordingly appreciated by the Mamluk fiscal and governmental authorities. Therefore the percentage of land held by any group,
Mamluk or non-Mamluk, e.g. the awliid al nns, can be interpreted as roughly
commensurate with its relative importance in Mamluk state and society
at a given time. The results of such a statistical enquiry will serve to qualify
the traditional, ideal, view of the aw1c7d al nc7s as a group devoid of effective
power.
Luckily the sources facilitate this enquiry. From the year 777/1376, and
—though far less completely and consistently—from around 800/1397, and
from the period preceding the year 885/1480, we have not only the names
of the muqtacs or the other tenants of the 2,489 villages, or rather tax-districts
(jilted), of Egypt; we also have figures of the misälja, i.e. the area of arable
land (sometimes divided into different subcategories according to the quality
of the soil), and of the tax-yield, the cibra, both of the individual jihat and
of the provinces as a whole. The cibra is the decisive parameter for our purposes, as it was essential also for the Mamluk fisc. The cibra is the hypothetical
tax value of a village, based on the carefully measured size and quality of
the land. 47 It is expressed in army dinars (dj), a ficticious monetary unit
that consisted of a specific combination of payment in cash and in kind 48
and was therefore subject to continuous change in real value, depending,
e.g., on the varying prices of barley and wheat." The figures of the cibra
thus yield historical information not in absolute terms and not in isolation,
but rather as indicators of a ratio. Knowing the cibra of a province or of
the whole of Egypt at a certain date, we can estimate the share of certain
groups (such as the awleid al nds, the eunuchs, the Turcomans, the Abbasid
shadow caliphs of Cairo, the wäfidiyya, the Royal Mamluks etc.,) or of the
different legal types of land (such as waqf, allodial and rizqa lands or the different kinds of divvetrii land) in the total territory and to each other in exact
percentages.
A few words about the three dates. The materials on the year 777/1376
are most detailed. We find them in Ibn al-Rdn's (d. 885/1480) al Tulffa
-
—
-
-
-
-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 147
al-saniyya bi-asind ) al-bildd al-rnisriyya. 5° The author, chief accountant (mustawf7) of the army bureau under Sultan Qdyitbay, based this fiscal geography
of Egypt on excerpts from the central feudal journal (al jarTda al iqtaciyya),
dating back to the year 777, the time of the Qalawfmid Sha`bän. The rnisälp
and cibra figures given under this date most probably go back even to alMalik al-Näsir's above mentioned rawk of 715/1315. If in comparison to
Ibn al-Ydn's own time the cibra of a village had changed—and that meant
almost without exception had decreased—the new figure is also given. Between the two dates 777 and 885 we have as a third source Ibn Duqmaq's
lists of the tax yield of Cairo and its dependencies, dated around 800/1397.
This material is contained in his Kited) al-Intissär li-wetsitat ciqd al-aingir [sc.
= Cairo] 51 Even in Ibn Duqmäq's time the values fixed in al-rawk al-näsir7
seem to have remained by and large valid. Only rarely do Ibn al jiln and
Ibn Duqmäq produce incompatible figures. On a local and certainly limited
level (al-Sharqiyya), however, Ibn Duqmäq attests to a rapid pauperization
of the Egyptian countryside even in the short period between 777 and 800. 52
As far as the names and status of the tenants of the individual tax units and
the legal quality of the land are concerned, the value of the two sources
is, again, different. Meticulously assembled data are available for 777 in
Ibn al-Sican's Tu hfa. They are less comprehensive for Ibn al Jican's lifetime
(885) and defective or only summary in most of Ibn Duqmäq's Intiyiir. Working with this rich and variegated information would continue to be very
cumbersome had not Heinz Halm compiled, and most lucidly presented,
all the relevant toponyms and figures for the three dates in his economic
geography of Mamluk Egypt. 53
-
-
-
-
.
4
Our task is to exploit these data as a source on the social and economic
status of awllid al nns, both sons of sultans and sons of anfirs. There are,
however, limits to such an enquiry based on the lists of Ibn Duqmaq and Ibn
al Jican.
1. One proviso is very general. To what degree were the awletel al nds,
who held an iqtac, at all representative of their class? The majority of sons
of Mamluks found their way neither into the feudal journals nor into the
tabaqät works of contemporary legists, sufis, poets, and grammarians. For
this reason quantitative statements on the chances of Mamluk descendants
receiving the tax yield of one or of several villages (as remuneration for a
service or as a sinecure) will remain impossible. We do not even know,
for the time being, whether the term awilid al nets was customary for the sons
and grandsons of Mamluks at large, or whether it was limited to those who
were enlisted in the ljalqa.
2. A second issue encumbering neat conclusions is the identification of
-
-
-
-
148 Ulrich Haarmann
awlad al- nds in the lists of Ibn al-Slän and Ibn Duqmaq—or respectively in
Halm's compilation—and in Mamluk narrative and archival sources in
general. As a rule, bearers of an Arab-Muslim name (and specific alqeib) 54
whose fathers or grandfathers 55 had a typical Mamluk-Turkish or Circassian
name were reckoned as awled al- nets and therefore collected for the sample.
There is, however, no guarantee for the comprehensiveness and infallibility
of such selection. We know not only of Mamluks with Arab names and
Arabs—even a Meccan shafif, Baktamur b. An al-Hasani 56 —with honorific
Mamluk names, but also of awlii d al- neis with Turkish first names. 57
3. The third obstacle obfuscating statistical clarity is the mixture of explicit
and implicit references to awleid al - nit" s in the lists on which our calculations
are based. The awlad al - neis factor in such mixed matrixes cannot be exactly
determined.
a. How many awlad al - nets were hidden in Ibn al-Sfan's utterly general,
widespread formula: bismi 1 - muqtein? As Heinz Halm kindly pointed out
to me in a recent letter, especially lowly am7rs, members of the halqa,
and Royal Mamluks staffed this category, as we can conclude from casual
remarks in Ibn Duqmaq's intis.dr. For this very reason all the percentages
and ratios given below (which are based on the explicit mention of
awlad al - neis alone) are liable to be far too low measured against contemporary reality. Yet how far exactly, we will never know.
b. The second difficulty arises with the general term Olga or ajnäcl al - ljalqa.
For the year 777 it is mentioned only twice: one village with a cibra of
700 dj in Qalyfibiyya, another with only 600 dj in Sharqiyya. In 800,
however, this category has become an important factor. 77 jihat with
a total tax yield of 329,050 dj are listed (one each in Ikhmim and Ushmanayn, 5 in Bahnasä, 7 in Ibydr, 13 in Maniifiyya, 23 in Butiayra and
27 in Gharbiyya). By 885 this prominence is again lost: we find only
4 jihiit (one each in Qalyfib, Buhayra, Gharbiyya, and Sharqiyya) with
a total cibra of 22,530 dj, i.e. only 6.84 % of the figure of 800. Remarkably enough, Qalyabiyya and Sharqiyya appear only for 777 and 885.
To what degree do these figures, at the three different times, encompass
awled al - nas? And is the statistical peak of the year 800 not perhaps
partially due to Ibn Duqmäq's personal terminology, that is to say,
that he may have labelled summarily as (ajnäd) al - halqa certain groupings
which Ibn al-Sian, our source for 777 and 885, would have identified
by name and nisba or presented in even more general terms as muqta's,
feudatories?
c. Even more critical is the determination of the share of awlad al näs
in the very frequent comprehensive formula 'Royal Mamluks and
halqa: 58 Incompatible and mutually exclusive as these two regiments
or rather institutions were in principle,—al-Qalqashandi speaks of the
.
-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 149
Royal Mamluks as the elite of the Mamluks also economically (...waawfaruhum iqtdcan) 59 at a time when the halqa was rapidly deteriorating
—the Circassian period saw the closing of this gap.
In 777 we have only 39 villages with a tax yield of 209,155 dj whose
muqta's are designated as 'Royal Mamluks plus Olga officers/soldiers'
—one in Greater Cairo, 24 in Qalyabiyya and 14 in Sharqiyya. By 800,
in Ibn Duqmäq's list, this number has risen to 84 jihdt with a cibra of
657,690 dj. They are now spread all over Egypt: one in Ikhmim and
Giza, 2 in the banlieue of Cairo, 3 in Asyut, 8 in Bahnasä, 9 in Daqahliyya,
10 in Gharbiyya, 11 in Ushmanayn, 14 in Qalyabiyya and 25 in Sharqiyya.
Note again the preeminence of Qalytibiyya and Sharqiyya.
In 885, finally, we are left with only these two provinces: 17 villages
in Qalyabiyya with a cibra of 109,500 dj, and 13 in Sharqiyya with 65,350
dj. They both clearly dominate the pattern of the 'Royal Mamluks
and halqa :' in terms of the tax yield, they represent, for the year 777,
98.4 % of the whole of Egypt. For 800 (despite the frequency of citations
in other provinces, among them Ushmanayn with 14 villages and a yield
of 115,470 dj) they still provide 40.6 %. And for 885 we return to a ratio
of 100 % .
One should add that only ten villages in the whole of Egypt continuously remained fiefs of 'Royal Mamluks and halqa' from 777 to 885,
seven of them in Qalyabiyya and the remaining three in Sharqiyya.
The villages for which in two of the three key years 'Royal Mamluks
and halqa' are named as muqtacs were also limited to these two provinces
(777 and 800: 4 in Qalyabiyya ; 800 and 885: 2 in Qalyabiyya , 777
and 885: 6 in Qalyabiyya and 8 in Sharqiyya). How can this strikingly
uneven geographical distribution of the 'Royal Mamluks plus lialqa'
group be explained? Sharqiyya and Qalyabiyya—historically a part of
Sharqiyya—, both not very far from Cairo, definitely enjoyed a special
status as far as this mixed group is concerned about which we know so
little. What did the Royal Mamluks and the halqa have in common
to make them customary partners of fiefs?
Certainly they were no longer incompatible as in early Mamluk history. We find the terms awlad al-nets—pars pro toto for the halqa as a whole—
and 'Royal Mamluks' used synonymously, and even encounter the expression: awled al-nels min al-mamntik al-sultäniyya in the writings of Ibn
Taghribirdi and Ibn Iyas in the 15th and early 16th centuries. 60 How
this merger or coalescence of terms and institutions actually came about,
we do not know yet. Poliak 61 connects it with the purchase of fiefs of
Royal Mamluks by awlii d al-70s, while Ayalon 62 favors the idea that the
term miimatik sultemiyya had, by late Circassian times, taken on a wider
meaning as a result of the incorporation of additional units of the Royal
e
150 Ulrich Haarmann
Mamluks into the cPwan al-mufrad, a special bureau of crown land founded
by Barqaq in 797/1395 upon the death of his heir-apparent and reserved
for the alimentation of Royal Mamluks. 63 Future research will have
to try to clarify this historical process.
d. No less puzzling is the relationship between the two summary groups
(a) ( ajnad) al-halqa and (b). 'Royal Mamluks plus halqa: In 800 we
find in the Western Delta (Ibydr, 7 villages; Mantifiyya, 13 villages;
Butiayra, 23 villages) only (a), and in the Eastern Delta (Daqahliyya,
9; Qalyabiyya, 14; Sharqiyya, 25) only (b). Al-Gharbiyya, located
between these two wings, stands as expected in the middle and we find both
(a) and (b), though its figures make Gharbiyya rather more a part of the
Western Delta that is characterized by the concentration of halqa holdings.
In 800 49 % (161,300 of 329,050 dj) of the hair entries for the whole
of Egypt were located in Gharbiyya. In the category 'Royal Mamluks
and Olga' this percentage is far lower (13.1 %, 86,200 of 657,690 dj).
In other words, in Gharbiyya the halqa muqta's held, in 800, almost twice
the cibra of the group 'Royal Mamluks and halqa: 64
How can this neat distribution of the two summary groups along a
line cutting the Nile Delta from North to South be explained?
We have to be very careful, however, not to push the differentiation
between the two groups too far. We have rather to distinguish between
the 'molecular' plane of the jihat (from where we obtain our figures)—
here we find ajnad al-halqa and halqa plus Royal Mamluks as separate
units—and the 'atomic' plane of the small fiefs ( akhbaz) into which
these jihat, both those with homogeneous and those with heterogeneous
ownership, were customarily divided. On this lower level the comprehensive formula 'Royal Mamluks plus halqa' (or vice versa) easily
falls—so we may surmise—into its two constituents, here ajna d al-halqa,
there Royal Mamluks. Yet again we do not know the ratio of distribution
on this basic level of Egyptian feudal geography in Mamluk times.
e. The statistical weakness of summary terms such as ajnad al-ljalqa, Royal
Mamluks plus (zalqa (or also solely: muqtacrin, feudatories) is compounded
by the fact that the share of awlad al-na s in these general categories was
in itself a variable and probably grew considerably from 777 to 800
and 885. This at least is a conclusion that suggests itself if we notice
that both in the huge Gharbiyya and also in smaller provinces such as
Asyiit, Ibydr, Manaf, Buhayra, and Daqahliyya, we have no references
to the two summary terms 'Olga' and 'Royal Mamluks plus Olga' in
777, yet many explicit citations of awlacl al-nas feudatories, whereas in
800 the exact opposite is the case. Not a single ibn al-nas figure as muqta`
in these six provinces exists any longer, whereas there are (see Table 1
above) numerous entries for the two unspecified, summary categories.
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief- holders 151
Table I
Synoptic table of the occurrence of jihat in the categories
1 ajneid) al-halqa' and 'Royal Mamluks ± lialqa'
Province
777
Ikhmim
Asyut
Ushmanayn
Bahnasä
Giza
pawähl: al-Qähira
Qalyab
Ibyar
Maria
Butlayra
Gharbiyya
Sharqiyya
Daqahliyya
800
halqa
885
777
800
885
Royal Mamluks + halqa
1
1
5
1
1
7
13
23
27
1
1
1
1
1
24
14
1
3
11
8
1
2
14
10
25
9
17
13
This hypothesis of the growth of the awlad al - nas factor within the two
general headings `?Ialqa' and 'Royal Mamluks plus halqa' between 777 and
885 can be illustrated in Table II, below. Here, we contrast the share of
awlad al - nas fiefs within the whole of Egypt (1) without consideration of
possible awlad al - na,s membership in the two categories ' halqa' and 'Royal
Mamluks plus Olga.' with (2) the figures accruing from the addition of a
tentative of a 50 % awlad al - nas participation in the category Y ajnad) alOlga' and of a 25 % participation in the compound group 'Royal Mamluks
and !Ialqa:'
-
Table II
(1)
Year 777 Year 800
Year 885
1,282 '596 dj
234 549 dj
14,375 dj
( 13.67 %)
( 2.50 % )
(0.15 % )
(2)
1,341 '085 d j
( 14 .2 9 %)
541,946 '5 dj (5.77 % )
69,002 '5 di
( 0 . 74 %)
4. There are numerous other sources making for inexactitude in the available records.
152 Ulrich Haarmann
The terms 'village' and jiha are not always exchangeable. There were
unsettled tax-units, such as manufactories (mainly in pawähi al-Qahira),
islands (especially in Atfiti and Ushmanayn), ponds, or simply a modest
saqiya 65 with a cibra of no more than 75 dj. 66 In Dawähi al-Qähira for example
we have 20 villages, yet 34 tax units; in Ikhmim the ratio is 26 to 30, and
in Atfiti—in 777—even 50 to 80/88. Were these extra jihat always conscientiously counted by our medieval authorities? Ibn al-Jican compares the
state of affairs in 777 with his own life-time. 67 But did he carefully compute
and subtract villages that formerly belonged to Atfih but which by 885,
due to the change of the course of the Nile, had perished or become part of
the provinces on the other bank of the river? Many more such questions
need to be asked.
Furthermore we have to be aware that basing our statistical statements
on whole provinces means neglecting important differences within them,
some of which were huge. In future research, therefore, the internal geography should be considered; Halm's maps provide us with this possibility.
Was the bedouinization of Sharqiyya province between 1400 and 1500 68
limited to the eastern fringes of the province or did it encompass the whole
province? Can this feature be traced in the adjacent parts of Sharqiyya's
western neighbours? Can analogous patterns of land-holding in villages of
different provinces be connected with certain common socio-geographical
factors (proximity to the Nile, the sea, the desert or to Cairo, for example) ?
And of course there are the minor differences between the two authors,
Ibn Duqmäq and Ibn al- Pan, in attaching certain areas to a particular
province (e.g., Thaghr Dimyat), 69 and possibly—as we have already discussed—also in administrative vocabulary. 70 In a few cases their tables
are defective. 71 Sometimes they disagree, or are not certain, as regards
the identification of muqta's. If between two equal variants only one is
relevant for this paper, it alone was included in the sample, as if no alternative existed:72
The groups mentioned above as having had equal access to the benefits
and duties of the halqa—such as Turcomans and eunuchs—were not considered, despite their close association with the awlad al-nas also in landholding. Aw/ad al-nas and eunuchs appear several times as partners in owning
an iqtet . 73
5
In the two following parts of the paper I shall treat (a) the sons of sultans,
and (b) the sons of 'ordinary' Mamluk am irs. The respective patterns of
their geographical and numerical distribution at the three key dates will
be contrasted and evaluated in the end.
The sons (and non-ruling brothers) of the sultans were the cream of the
-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 153
awlii d al-nas as a whole and indeed formed the most respected element in
the awlad al-dis sub-unit of the halqa. A1-Macinz1, 74 in his final comments
on the achievement of Sultan Hasan, lists among the ten awkid al-rOs who
received the unusual honour of an imrat alf, Hasan's sons Atimad and Qäsim
as numbers one and two.
In the year 777, during the reign of Sultan al-Ashraf Sha`bän, the share
of fidis, Sha`bän's sons and brothers, in the igets of Egypt was considerable
(cf. Tables III and esp. IV). The striking differences in the value of the
domains of the royal muqtacs may be tentatively explained by a hierarchy
predicated on their date of birth and also on the nobility of their mothers.
Table III
Tax yield of the iqta's held by Shacbdn's sons and brothers in 777
Sons
1. Ali (later sultan)
2. kläjj [1] (later sultan)
3. Muhammad
4. Qäsim
5. Abu Bakr
6. klasan
7. Ismall
8. Sulayman
9. Khalil
10. Atimad
238 650 dj (18jihat)
97 170 dj (9jihat)
94 000 dj (5jihat)
76,600 dq (5jihat)
55 700 dj (4jihat)
44 500 dj (5jiheit)
15 000 dj (1 jiha)
10 000 dj (1 jiha)
1 000 dj (1 jiha)
800 dj (1 jiha)
,
,
,
Sub-Total 663 420 dj (50jihat)
,
BROTHERS
1. Anak
2. Ibrahim
3. Brothers of Sha`bän (unspecified)
49,600 dj (7jihat)*
22,900 dj (3jihat)
3,000 dj (1 jiha)**
Sub-Total 75,000 dj (11 jihat)
Average cibra
Total 708,920 dj (61 jihat)
11,622 dj
* One of them mulk: village of Dabici/Gharbiyya, 1.600 dj.
** Mahallat Inshaq/Daqahliyya.
154 Ulrich Haarmann
Sha`bän's sons and brothers, the fidis of his time held altogether 61 villages
with a total cibra of 708,920 dj. Measured against the figures for the whole
of Egypt-2,489 villages with a total yield of 9,384,789 dj—the ficPs of 777
held 2.44 or 7.55% respectively, not a small percentage in view of the loss
of this revenue for the diwem al-jaysh and the Mamluk system as a whole.
And if we add three villages in which the ownership of fidis is not certain,
we obtain 64 villages with a total cibra of 748,920 dj. In comparison to the
whole of Egypt this means 2.56 % of the villages and 7.98 % of the cibra
of the country.
If we take the latter figures as a basis, the average jiha held by a fid7 in
777 valued 11,702 dj, three times the average yield of an Egyptian tax district
(3,755 dj). In other words, large, even huge, holdings characterize the
s7di muqta` s . Many of their iqtei's were worth 20,000, 25,000 and even 30,000
dj (cf. the village of Dalja in Ushmanayn, held by Sidi Muhammad b.
Shacbän). 75
The cibra claimed by the fidis of 777 (748,920 dj) was higher than the
complete tax yield of provinces such as Daqahliyya (596,071 dj), Qtis (414,663
dj), Qalyabiyya (419,850 dj), Buhayra (741,204 dj) or Manafiyya (574,629
dj), and four times the proceeds of the Fayytim (164,050 dj). Only the cibra
of Gharbiyya (1,844,080 dj), Sharqiyya (1,411,875 dj), Bahnasä (1,302,642
(1,302,642 dj), and Ushmanayn (762,040 dj) was higher.
If we arrange the holdings of the ficPs of 777 not according to individual
beneficiaries as in Table III but according to provinces, new aspects emerge.
One observation in advance: the geographical distribution of their iqp's
clearly reflects the contradictory policies of (1) concentrating the domains
of the Royal Family around the nucleus of the capital, and (2) following—
or, more accurately, being unable to abandon—al-Näsir Muhammad's
precedent of splitting the grants for individuals into small parcels spread
all over the country, thus forestalling the formation of an Egyptian landed
aristocracy.
Table IV
Igei's of fidis according to geographical distribution in 777
Province
1. Qa s
2. Ilchmim
3. Asyftt
4. Manfalat
(a) cibra of fidis (in dj)
(b) total cibra of province
(c) ratio (in ()/0 )
(a) no. of jihat of fidis
(b) total of the province
(c) ratio (in % )
60,000/414,663/14.47 %
—/243,925/—
15,500/323,920/4 . 79 °/,„
— / — / —
3/41/7 .32 %
—/26/—
2/32/6 '25 %
—/17/—
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief- holders 155
5. Ushmanayn
6. Bahnasa.
7. Atfilli
8. Giza
9. Cairo envs.
10. Fayyiim
11. Qalyab
12. Ibydr
13. Mantif
14. Buhayra
15. Fuwwa
16. Gharbiyya
17. Sharqiyya
18. Daqahliyya
19. Thughtir
91,000/762,040/11 - 94 %
44,600/1,302 '642/3 '42 %
4,000/143,997/2 - 78 %
36,000/62,000+ ?/ ?
59,850/153,075/39 '10 %
26,000/164 050/15 - 84 %
91,100/419,850/21 - 7 %
12,800/100,232/12 - 77 %
39,520/574,629/6 . 88 %
25,000/741,294/3 - 37 %
— /56,846/ —
175,000*/1 411,875/9.49 %
35,550/1,411,875/2 '52 %
33,000/596,071/5 - 03 °A
—/65,000/—
Total
748,920/9,384,789/7 '98 %
4/103/3 - 88 %
4/256/1 '56 %
1/50/2 00 %
6/159/3 - 77 %
5/34/1471 %
2/97/2 '06 %
6/59/10 - 17 %
3/46/6 - 52 %
4/132/3 '03 %
3/222/1 - 35 %
—06/—
15/471 - 318 %
3/380/0 '79 °A
3/217/092 %
/36/—
64/2,499/2 '56 °A
* Including 1.600 dj mulk of Anak, Sha`ban's brother: village of Dabiq, see above Table II.
This configuration allows the following conclusions:
a) Not only on the state, but also on the provincial level the estates granted
to the s7dis in 777 were—with the sole exception of Asyut—distinctly larger
than the average iqtfic .
In the Fayyfirn the ratio was extreme: the value of the iqta's held by s7cPs
there comprised 15.84 % of the total cibra of the province, whereas the number of tax units controlled by them was only 2.06 % of the total number of
villages in the province. In other words, the average fief of a s'id7 in Fayyilm
was eight times more lucrative than the average fief of the province.
In most provinces of Egypt this ratio was only 2 to 1. In Gharbiyya, the
largest province, it was almost exactly 3 (2.98) to 1.
b) The province with the highest percentage of ficti holdings (39.1 %)
in relation to its total cibra is Dawähi al-Qähira, the immediate surroundings
of Cairo. `Ayn Shams, al-Matariyya, and Shubrd al-Khayrna, well known
places in today's geography of Cairo, were held by ficPs as an appanage. 76
Second, not surprisingly, is Qalytibiyya, at the gates of the capital (21.7 %).
Al-Malik al-Nkir Muhammad b. Qaldwan had carved this province out
of Sharqiyya in order to concentrate land close to Cairo under his personal
control and disposal. Besides the fiefs reserved for the fid7s, major parts of
Qaly-abiyya were granted to the Royal Mamluks (see above 4.3.b) or were
allodial lands of the sultan. 77
Giza probably had a similar or even higher share of fici7s. Unfortunately,
156 Ulrich Haarmann
from Ibn al-Rdn's Tu hfa, we know only the cibra of those villages of Giza
province that were not diwarn land. Famous places such as Abii Sir and
(modern) Saqqara were iqp's of ficPs. In third place, or, if we hypothetically
include Giza, fourth, there follows the Fayyam (15.84 % ), an area that is
not too far from the capital either.
Then, however, a province quite distant is listed: Qas in the deep south
(14.47 % ) .78 Ibydr (12.77 %) and Ushmanayn (11.91 %) also show percentages above 10 %, whereas the other provinces have figures below 10 %.
The largest province, Gharbiyya, also within reach of the capital, shows
9,25 %, while neighbouring Buhayra shows the absolute minimum of only
1.75 %. This province with its frontier open to the western desert perhaps
required active muqta's who could handle the bedouins and were ready to
look after the system of canals south of Alexandria, functions for which the
infant sons of a feeble sultan or their administration may not have seemed
the ideal choice to the oligarchy of Mamluk am7rs.
In short, if we leave aside the special case of Qfts, an important station
on the way to the 1- 1ijaz and the Upper Egyptian refuge and exile for caliphs
and s7ctis alike, we observe a concentration of s7cti iqp's in territories distant
from the borders of the empire and relatively close to Cairo. Yet, as already
stated, this tendency to cluster the Royal holdings around the capital was
counteracted by the policy of the army bureau, traditional since 715/1315,
to weaken the individual muqtacs position by parceling his claims all over
Egypt.
This fragmentation can be illustrated by the case of Sha`bän's son and
successor 'Ali. During his father's rule, in 777, he held (see Table III) 18
villages: 4 in Giza" and Qalytibiyya 8° each, 3 in Dawähi al-Qähiran and
(huge) Gharbiyya, 82 and one each in Ushmanayn, 83 Bahnasa., 84 Buhayra 85
and Daqahliyya. 86 The cibra he had at his disposal amounted to 238,650
dj, only a little less than the yield of the whole province of Ikhmim (243,925 dj).
.
.
6
With the second, final accession of Barqaq to the sultanate the role of
the s'id7s within the Mamluk polity began to change. Whereas in the Bahri
period a son or brother of the incumbent sultan had a good chance of succeeding him, this dynastic or monarchic principle was abandoned in the
Circassian era. If we exclude Faraj, the son of the founder of the Burji
regime, the numerous sons of sultans who succeeded their fathers in the 15th
and early 16th centuries were no more than interim rulers. They were
left as figure-heads of the state only as long as the powerful annrs could not
decide on the best suited successor from among their own ranks. Unlike the
Qaldwiinids in the 14th century they exercised no real political authority.
After their deposition they remained a source of constant intrigue and sus-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 157
picion, all too often they would serve the interests of the adversaries of the
new sultan. Many of these sons of former sultans ended in prison. Occasional
signs of respect for the scions of a predecessor must not conceal the basic
distrust cherished against them. The previously high prestige of the awlad
al-mulEik began to wane after Sultan Barsbay, around 825/1422, allowed the
fidis to leave their honorable prison, the Cairo citadel, and to dwell in the
city an ambience that soon corrupted them. 87 As long as their fathers were
alive and they enjoyed the standing of sons of the strong man, their influence
remained considerable. They took for themselves, or were granted, special
privileges in trade and industry. So we find them in the 15th century as
owners of sugar factories 88 who took full advantage of the system of monopolies
imposed on a few lucrative industries in this very period.
Whether they were sons of an incumbent or a former sultan, the fidis of
the Burji period as compared to the Bahri not only lost the chance for political
success, but also their respectable share in the iqp's of Egypt. Whereas,
in 777, the fiths were muqta's of 64 villages with a tax yield of 748,920 dj,
i.e. 7.98 % of the total cibra of Egypt, no villages at all are mentioned in
800 and only two in 885 (worth a total of 5,200 dj, both situated in the Fayyfim) as under their control.
If we take as our basis the three random dates for which we have figures
this decrease is over-proportionate. Evidently a major policy shift took
place between the first two, 777 and 800. The sons of both incumbent and
former sultans no longer seem to have received their sinecure from among
the regular iqp's of Egypt, at least not on a large scale. Other sources of
revenue, particularly in the crown provinces such as Giza and Manfalat,
had to be tapped, if they were to receive stipends or appanages at all. The
majority of the iqta's held by ficPs in 777, had by 800 returned to the fisc.
From now on, these fiefs conformed to the Mamluk system, i.e. were again
available to those who served in the army and in the state. We know nothing
about the circumstances of this, gradual or rapid, expropriation of the
fidis, numerous as they were, as we can see from Table III above. Evidently
this reform was not, or not primarily, an act of revenge on the former ruling
house, for not only Qaldwanids were affected by this new rule. This becomes
clear from the one event that may help us understand this new policy: in
797/1395, i.e. shortly before 800, when Ibn Duqmäsq wrote, Barqaq's oldest
son, Nasir al-din Muhammad, died. His igic , large as it was, did not, as
contemporaries would have expected, revert to the d7weln al-jaysh, thus becoming available for redistribution among Mamluk or, conceivably, also s7c17
muqta's. It was rather 'separated' (mufrad) from the army bureau and placed
at the exclusive disposal of Barq -aq's elite guard, his mushtarawat Mamluks.
The thwän al-mufrad89 was born—an institution that in the course of the 15th
century became important and wealthy. Headed by the major domo (ustädär) ,
.
158 Ulrich Haarmann
its main function was providing the funds to feed Royal Mamluks and maintain
their palaces and staff. 9 °
Now, is it not likely that the alienation of the iqtac of the m(x, orestigious
ficti, the heir-apparent, from the cliwan al jaysh, was connected with the collection also of the fiefs of all the many other princes, who had less dignity
and were even more unproductive than the oldest son of the ruler? The
answer to this undoubtedly complicated question, we do not know. Barqaq's
own nephew certainly exemplifies this new policy. In 800 Rukn al-din
Baybars al-Atabak held two villages not by virtue of his blood bond to Barqaq
and Faraj b. Barqaq, but solely as a powerful am7r majlis and dawädär kab7r . 91
One of the two villages had, in 777, been a proper fief of two Mamluk officers; the other had formed part of the appanage of Sha`ban's son Aba
Bakr.
In 885, as mentioned above, two villages figure as an iqta of fic/is, namely
the sons of Sultan al-Malik al-Zähir Khushqadam, though these noble
gentlemen had to share them with an unidentified partner. 92
Not all iqtets that are listed as holdings of fic/7s in 777, however, were reassigned to the army bureau in 800 so that they could be granted away to
Mamluks. Some were annexed to the ctitvän7 land (in Giza four out of seven
cases); some passed on to eunuchs 93 or to the ajned al halqa 94 in general. Others
reappear as awqdf or amldk . 95 An iqtd` of 'Ali b. Sha`bän of 777 is qualified,
one century later, as waqf of Barqaq's two sisters; but the value of this vil
lage, al-Dimnäwiyya in Giza, was small (2,000 dj). 96 One pattern of succession is remarkable. In two cases the Abbasid shadow caliph was the
heir: once, in 800, as a fully privileged muqtac —the villages of Tirsä/klissat
Bani in Giza with 8,500 dj 97 and once, in 885, as tenant of a waqf that comprised only half the original jiha (the village of Banha 1-Asal in Sharqiyya
with 14,000/16,000 dj) 98
On the other hand, fictis not infrequently appear as owners of allodial
lands (mulk) and of waqf99 in the 15th century, although in all cases the
value of this private or endowment terrain sank considerably in comparison
to the figures of 777—in two cases to only half the former cibra: Shubra
Khit in Butlayra, in 885 mulk of Barcpaq's granddaughter khawand Shaqra. 1 °°
(from 2,000 to 1,000 dj), and al-Sarnajä in Sharqiyya, in 885 mulk of Jaqmaq's
son Srcti ' Uthmein (from 5,000 to 2,500 dj as early as 813/1410). 1 " 1
-
-
-
—
.
-
7
These data on the sVis shall now be juxtaposed with the corresponding
data on the aided al nc7s proper, i.e. the sons of am7rs. In which respects do
the two groups agree, in which respects disagree?
One salient difference at the outset. There is more continuity from 777
to 800 among the sons of am7rs . The curve runs gradually; it does not ab-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 159
ruptly break off as we have just seen with the sons of sultans. There is even
one case, the village of al-klumaydiyya in Ilchmim (yield 8,000 dj), where
we have one and the same ibn al-nets muqta` in both years: Ahmad b. Yalbughd
al-climax-I, quite typically, had served the Qaldwimids Sha`bän and kidiji
as well as the Circassian Barqaq as a high functionary. 102 And in a total
of five additional cases (two of them in Bahnasä) we find awlad al-nds muqta's,
although different individuals, not only in 777, but (in four cases) also in
800, and (in one case) in 885. Of course we do not know whether this continuity is limited to the two/three years for which we have entries or whether
it covered also the decades in between.
Table V
The fiefs of awlad al-nas from 777 to 885 cibra in dj
(and, in brackets, no. of jihät)
a = 777, b = 800, c = 885
Total
sons of officers
sons of sultans
a
b
c
13,000 (4)
60,000 (3)
1,500 (1)
1,500 (1)
2. Ikhmim
a
b
c
21,500 (4)
19,666 (3)
21,500 (4)
19,666 (3)
3. Asyat
a
b
c
13,500 (2)
15,500 (2)
29,000 (4)
5. Ushmfmayn a
b
C
57,150 (12)
73,000 (6)
91,000 (4)
148,150 (16)
73,000 (6)
6. Bahnasä
a
b
c
110,475 (19)
84,733 (5)
2,600 (1)
44,600/4)
155,075 (23)
84,733 (5)
2,600 (1)
7. Atfiti
a
b
c
4,000 (1)
4,000 (1)
Province
1. Qt's
.
73,000 (7)
4. Manfaltat
160 Ulrich Haarmann
8. Giza
9. Fayytim
10. pawdlii
al-Qähira
36 , 000 + ? (7)
36,000 (6)
a
b
c
8,950 (7)
75 (1)
a
b
26,000 ( + ?) (2) 34 , 950 (9)
5,200 (2)
5 , 275 (3)
59,850 (5)
59 , 850 (5)
91,100 (6)
91 , 100 (6)
23 , 000 (2)
C
11. Qalyab
a
b
C
23,000 (2)
12. Ibydr
a
b
C
27,226 (11)
12,800 (3)
40 026 (14)
13. Manfif
a
b
C
42,000 (5)
39,520 (4)
81,520 (9)
14. Butiayra
a
b
40,300 (19)
25,000 (3)
65,300 (22)
,
C
15. Fuwwa
16. Gharbiyya
a
b
C
113,675 (17)
175,000 (15)
288,675 (32)
17. Sharqiyya
a
b
c
42,400 (11)
6 000 (1)
5 , 000 (1)
35,550 (3)
77,950 (14)
6,000 (1)
5,000 (1)
18. Daqahliyya
a
b
C
35 , 500 (8)
33,000 (3)
68,500 (11)
19. Thughar
a
b
C
8 , 000 (1)
Total
a 573 , 676 1(21)
748,920 (64)
b 206 , 899 (17)
9 , 175 (4)
c
5,200 (2)
8,000 (1)
1,282,596 (185)
206,899 (17)
14,375 (6)
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 161
Average
cibra per jiha
a
b
c
4,410.5 dj
12,170.5 dj
2,294 dj
11,701 dj
2,600 dj
6,932 dj
12,170.5 dj
2,396 dj
Again the main results of this tabulation: in 777 the iqtäc s of the awlad
al-nas--both the sons of sultans and of ordinary Mamluks—comprised 185
tax-units( = 7.4 % of all Egyptian jihat) worth 1,282,596 dj ( = 13.67 %
one seventh of the total yield of Egypt). Within this aggregate sum the
s'idis controlled 34.6 % of the jihät (= 64), and 58.4% of the cibra. For
the sons of Mamluks proper these figures are 65 '4 % ( = 121 villages) and
41.6 % of the yield respectively. The average fief of the sons of ordinary
Mamluks in 777 amounted only to 37.7 % (4,410 '5 dj) of the average fief
of the fidi (11,701 dj).
In some provinces these ratios were more pronounced in both directions.
In Qas the fidis held 82 % of the common sum, and in Atfih, the environs
of Cairo, and, most important, in Qalyabiyya there were, in 777, no fiefs
of non-royal awlad al-nets at all. Here the ficas hold the full 100 % of the
sample. In only two provinces, the 'royal fief' Manfalat (with 17 jihat)
and in tiny al-Fuwwa wa-Muzdhamiyyatayn (with 16 jihat) neither group
is represented. In Ikhmim, on the other hand, and in the Thughar (Alexandria, Damietta and Nastardwa) we have no fictis in the lists for 777 (nor
for 800 and 885). In al-Gharbiyya, the largest province, the ratio for 777
(no entries for 800 and 885) was 60.62 % s'idis vs. 39.38 % sons of Mamluk
officers—a figure close to the average (58.4 vs. 41.6 %).
By 800 this internal distribution between the two subgroups of the awlad
al-as had been overturned. Whereas the fidis, the more powerful partner
in 777, vanished altogether from the statistics, the sons of Mamluk officers
remained a factor in the feudal lists of 800. They controlled a cibra of 206,899
dj, i.e. 2.20% of the total Egyptian tax yield of 777, 39 % of the amount
they had held in 777. This yield of 800 was concentrated in only 17 villages
(cf. 777; 121 villages!) with an average value of 12,107.5 dj (cf. 777:4,410 '5 dj).
By 885, however, the economic power also of the non-royal awld d al-nä s
had collapsed. Both subgroups show again similar—though extremely low—
figures: the ficlis reappear with only two villages with a modest average value
of 2,600 dj; the sons of Mamluk officers are listed as muqta's of four villages
. worth an average of only 2,294 dj.
Unmistakably the awlad al-as as a corporate body, in both its constituents,
no longer played a major political and military role and therefore no longer
received their remuneration from the holdings of the d7wtm al-jaysh. Quite
a few, however, received funds from amliik, rizaq and awqaf—lands that had
previously been the property of the fisc. 103
There are a few more scattered observations in this context that may,
162 Ulrich Haarmann
yet need not be, historically relevant. In Sharqiyya the well-known rising
percentage of Bedouin muqta's between 777 and 885 was accompanied by
a rising rate of halqa beneficiaries. In Buhayra we have a relatively high
percentage of third generation awlacl al-nds as muqta's. Al-Ushmanayn is
particularly rich in awled al-nds fiefs in 777, namely 16 out of 103 villages
( = 15.5 %) with a cibra of 148,150 dj out of 762,040 dj ( = 19.4 °A ). And
as we saw above, Qalyabiyya knew in 777 only fidis and not a single son of
an am7r as muqta` . There fidis and members of the two summary groups
ajned al-halqa and halqa plus Royal Mamluks held together a record 55 %
(230,800 dj) of the total cibra of the province. This is further testimony to
the anomalous character of this province in our period. In Ibyar the situation was even more pronounced. 14 awliid al-nets (11 sons of officers, 3 s7dis,
yet no muqtacs of the two mixed groups) controlled 39.9 % of the total cibra
of this small province consisting of only 46 villages.
Like the regular Mamluk muqta's, yet—as we have seen above—unlike
the fid7s, the wealthy grandees among the non-royal awled al-nc7s had their
fiefs, in 777, spread all over Egypt. Atimad b. Almalik al- Jakanclar, 1 "
Masa b. al-Azkaji, 105 and `Umar b. Arghan Shah 106 are good representatives.
They had been among the ten distinguished awläd al-niis whom Sultan Hasan
b. Muhammad b. Qalawan, breaking the rules of the dawla turkiyya, had
granted an imrat alf. 107 By 777, the time of al-Ashraf Sha`ban, they had
been joined in this privilege by `Ali b. Qushtamur,N 8 and, by 800, by Aba
Bakr b. Sunqur al-Jama11 109 and Ahmad b. Yalbugha al-cumari.no The
holdings of these most powerful awlad al-nc7s stretched from north to south,
from Ibyar to Asyat (Masa b. al-Azkaji), from Qas to Daqahli -yya (Ahmad
b. Älmalik) and from Bahnasa to Gharbiyya (`Ali b. Qushtamur). The
other powerful awled al-nds generals who were entitled to large holdings,
such as klajj b. Mughultay, 111 `Abd al-Rahim b. Mangribugha, 112 or Khalil
b. Tankizbugha, 113 show similar patterns that reflect the principle of divide
et impera.
8
What are the main conclusions to be drawn from this material? One concerns the economic status of the sons of Mamluk officers. Having enjoyed,
under Sultan klasan in the fifties of the 8th/14th century, unprecedented,
if ephemeral, career opportunities, they retained a respectable share of the
iqta cs of Egypt not only in 777, under the Qalawanid al-Ashraf Sha`ban,
but also after the change of dynasties in 800. Their real decline began only
in the course of the 9th/15th century.
The case of the elite among the awldd al-nä s, the fidis, was markedly different. Their fate was sealed under Barqaq, possibly in connection with the
establishment of the diwiin al-mufracl in 797/1395. None of their rich holdings
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 163
of 777 survived this reform, about which we unfortunately know next to
nothing.
With the accession of Barqaq and the installation of the so-called Circassian
dynasty, more happened than a simple and superficial change of autocrats.
The Bailin state, even in its frail last decade (for which we have Ibn al- Jran's
documentation for 777), had been solidly built on a disproportionate share
of the house of Qaldwan in the wealth of Egypt. The dynastic element
in the Qaldwanid/Bahri monarchy of the second half of the 8th/14th century
was stronger than one usually assumes from seeing the sons and grandsons
of al-Malik al-Nasir Muhammad mounting and dismounting the throne
at the discretion of powerful anfirs between 1340 and 1380. With Barqaq
the material privileges for unproductive princes, who in the strict sense of
the Mamluk 'constitution' were not eligible for an igi c at all, were once
and for all abolished. The puzzling question for the historian as to why
contemporary observers record such a decisive break with the reign of Sultan
Barqaq may find its answer in the destruction of the dynastic principle of
the Mamluk sultanate and in the emergence of new patterns in the distribution of wealth.
NOTES
1. This was permissible only if the young Mamluk had no access to any native 'Islam'
and could thus be treated legally as a pagan.
2. A.N. Poliak, Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the Lebanon, 1250 1900, (London
1939), p. 14, note 6.
3. Cf. D. Ayalon, L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, (Oriental Notes and Studies 1), ( Jerusalem
1951), pp. 24-5.
4. Poliak, p. 28.
5. The contemporary historians give us valuable data about the ratio between Mamluks
and awltul al nels in the different ranks. The following are two samples from the late 8th/14th
century: in 778/1377 9 am irs of 1,000, all Mamluks; 24 am irs of 40, among them 7 awleid alas; and 14 wars of 10, among them 5 awliid al niis, accompanied Sultan al-Ashraf Sha`ban
to `Aqabat Ayla where he was to be killed (al-Magrizi, Sulfa, iii, ed. S. CA. `Ashar, Cairo 1970-1,
p. 274).—And in 791/1388-9, after Barqaq had lost the throne, 74 am irs were incarcerated,
(some of them only for a very short while); 9 amTrs of 1,000, among them 2 awliid al nds (!);
31 amiss of 40, among them 8 awleui al nas; and 34 amiss of 10, among them a majority of 19
awlad al neis (Sulfa, iii, 624-5). We observe a relatively high percentage of awldd al nds even
in the highest echelon of the Mamluk military hierarchy in the last quarter of the 8th/14th
century.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
164 Ulrich Haarmann
6. See Ayalon, "The Eunuchs in the Mamlak Sultanate," Studies in memory of Gaston Wiet,
ed. M. Rosen-Ayalon, ( Jerusalem 1977), pp. 267-95.
7. On this group see Ayalon, "The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom," Islamic Culture,
(Hyderabad 1951), pp. 89-104.
8. See U. Haarmann, "Die Leiden des Qdcli Ibn as-§ã'i. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte
der Stadt Damaskus im 13. Jahrhundert," Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients,
Festschrift fir Bertold Spuler zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H.R. Roemer and A. Noth, (Leiden
1981), p. 116, notes 45 and 46.
9. By the late 15th century they had taken over major parts of Sharqiyya province as the
feudal registers show; cf. Poliak, p. 27 note 4, and particularly H. Halm, Agypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern, vol. 1: Oberagypten und dos Fayyfim, (Wiesbaden 1979); vol. II: Das Delta,
(Wiesbaden 1982) (continuous pagination in both volumes), pp. 596-7.
10. Perhaps the most prominent representative of this group was (Ibn) al-Tabläwi. During
Barqaq's second reign he rose to the governorship of Cairo, was appointed muljtasib, an office
often held by genuine Mamluks, and even court chamberlain. Together with the ndib of the
Delta (Halm, p. 184), al-Tablawl was muqtd of the oases (wähät) of the Western Desert and
held two more fiefs together with two other non-Mamluks—a eunuch and an ibn al-nds: the
villages of Idfa in Ikhmim, see Halm, p. 83, and of Dunqam in Bahnasä, see Halm, p. 155.
On al-Tablawi see al-Sakhäwi, al-Daze? al-liimic li-ahl al-qam al-tasic, (Cairo, 1353/1934-1355/
1936), V, pp. 252-3, no. 846; Carl Petry, The Civilian Elite of Cairo in the Later Middle Ages,
(Princeton 1981), pp. 215-6; Halm, pp. 83, 139, 155, 161, 184. Another civilian who rose to
high ranks was Ibn Ghurdb. He was even of Coptic descent (al-Sakhawl, paw', I, pp. 65-7;
Petry, pp. 216-7) and studied Turkish in order to be able to serve efficiently as controller of
the army and of the privy funds during Faraj's rule (on 'Copts' as amTrs see Petry, pp. 273,
388 [category I with an am ir mi a]). A third famous name is Jamäl al-din Matimad b. 'Ali
al-Ustädär who not only served his sultan as major domo but also endowed his own madrasa
with one of the most prestigious libraries of the time; on him see Ibn Hajar al-cAsqaldni, alDurar al-kamina ft dyem al-mi'a al-thämina, ed. Jadd al-klaqq, (Cairo 1385/1966), V, p. 97,
no. 4755).
11. Al-Qalqashandi, Sublj al-dsha fi sindat al-inshd , (Cairo 1337/1918 –1340/1922) , IV,
p. 16, lines 4ff (kind reference by Professor Heinz Halm, University of TUbingen).
12. On al-Näsir's rawk see Halm's excellent essay, pp. 24-30, especially the anecdote of
the impoverished halqa-jundi after al-rawk al-nasifi, p. 28. On the confusion of the terms jundi =
Mamluk private, and ajnad [sc. al-halqa]= soldiers in the Olga, see Ayalon's brief remarks
in his "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army," BSOAS 15 (1953), pp. 203-228 ( =
Studies I); pp. 448-76 ( = Studies II); 16 (1954), pp. 57-90 ( = Studies III); here Studies II,
p. 467, note 5.
13. Ayalon, s.v. I.--lalka in Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, III, p. 99b.
14. Suliik, ed. M. Ziyada, (Cairo 1941), II, p. 228, line 15 (year 721). Al-Näsir Muhammad,
when accused of neglecting his royal duties and his mamluks (annahii farrata ft mulkihT wamamdlikihi), imposed severe sanctions upon those who had made the sale of such iqtds to nonmilitary personnel possible.
15. Poliak, p. 29, including note 9.
16. Sulfa, III, p. 717 (year 792, Muhammad b. Mughultay loses the job).
17. Ibn al-Dawädäri, Durar al-tijan, ms Istanbul/A1 Damad Ibrahim Pa§a 913, sub anno
676 (no pagination), referring to Näsir al-din Muhammad b. Badr al-din Bilik al-Mukisini.
18. Ayalon, s.v. Awlad al-nds in El, New Edition, I, p. 765b; Studies II, p. 457.
19. Poliak, p. 40, quoting Ibn Iyas.
20. Halm, pp. 70, 401, 607, 760.
21. Su/iik, III, p. 754.
22. Ibn Hajar, Durar, I, p. 115f.
-
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 165
23. On the spotless `Mamluk' career of an ibn al-as until the impermeable barrier separating
the Mamluk from the non-Mamluk realm was reached, see the case of Muhammad b. Sunqur
al-Muhammadi who rose to the dignity of ustädär al-dhakifira wa'l-amlak (see Halm, p. 661,
village of al-Nakhkhas in Sharqiyya). Khalil b. Qawsan symbolizes the futile efforts of attaining the highest ranks; see W. Krebs, Innen-und Aussenpolitik A gyptens 741-78411341-1382,
(Diss. Hamburg 1980), pp. 104-5, especially note 2.
24. Petry, pp. 232-40, the case of the Bulqini family.
25. See Hans Milner, Die Kunst des Sklavenkaufs. Nach arabischen, persischen und tiirkischen
Ratgebem vom 10. bis zum 18. jahrhundert (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen vol. 57), (Freiburg
1980), p. 125, on the allegedly exceptional intelligence and penchant for scholarship among
the descendants of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
26. See Haarmann, "Mamluks and awliid al-as in the Intellectual Life of Fourteenth Century
Egypt and Syria," The Middle East after the Mongol Conquest, ed. M. Rogers, to be published
by Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Ill., note 100.
27. F. Vire, s.v. Ibn Mane, in El, Supplement, fasc. V—VI, p. 392b.
28. See Petry, pp. 201, 319, 324, 430-1 (note 1), who bases his study of the Cairo civilian
elite of the 15th century upon the concept of mediation but fails to take them into account.
Whether he does so legitimately or not, I hope to discuss in a forthcoming comprehensive study
of the awlad al-as.
29. I.M. Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages, (Cambridge Mass. 1967), p. 117.
30. Petry, pp. 72, 80-1, 112-3, [Table i], 238, 258.
31. Petry, p. 240.
32. See above, note 28.
33. The wati of Daqahliyya had his official iqtd` in Bahnasa ( Jazirat al-Kawashira; Halm,
p. 157), and in Ushmanayn ( Jazirat Jum`a bil-basa: Halm, p. 118; see also p. 705).
34. Petry, p. 18.
35. Halm, pp. 27, 46.
36. Al-Malik al-Näsir Muhammad b. Qaldwan went as far as to collect the (in principle)
inviolable (see Poliak, p. 39, note 5, on the sale of awqaf and its justification in Mamluk times)
pious endowments of his unfortunate yet cultured predecessor Baybars al- Jäshankir and to
turn them into crown land. Shortly before his death al-Näsir Muhammad had the rizaq (i.e.
estates assigned by the state for non-military purposes, as pensions and charities [Poliak, pp.
32ff.; Halm, pp. 52-3]) registered, with the obvious intention of collecting them for the ctiwän.
His death forestalled the execution of this plan. On less smooth efforts by later Mamluk am7rs
to suspend awq cif in the time of Sultan Barqaq, see Petry, pp. 328 and 431-2 (referring to alMagrizi, Khitat, [Balaq 1270/1853-4], II, pp. 415 — 6) .
37. See also Petry, p. 18 and p. 406, note 10.
38. Krebs, p. 88.
39. Poliak, p. 36, especially note 7; Halm, p. 54.
40. Examples of the transformation of iqtac-land, especially those held by awlad al-as,
into waqf: Shubrd Nana/Buhayra; Halm, p. 455; Balankuma/Gharbiyya, Halm, p. 476;
Damshit/Gharbiyya, Halm, p. 492; Dimitna Gharbiyya, Halm, p. 496 (waqf of the Holy
Cities). The village of Tunayjir/Tuwayhir in Sharqiyya (Halm, p. 697) had been iqtac land,
yet in 885 is listed as waqf of a certain Alynad b. Qutlabak al-Mukiammadi. Shirshaba/
Gharbiyya (Halm, p. 578) was held by the ibn al-nns Khalil b. Qaratäy Aydaki in 777, yet
appears in 885 as Sultan Barsbay's waqf (cf. A. Darrät L'Acte de waqf de Barsbay, (Cairo 1963),
p. 4). Aba '1-Ghazlan al-Batiriyya/Butlayra (Halm, p. 400), klasan b. Sarghitmish's
of 777, re-appears as a waqf of the famous Qardqujä al-klasani (cf. also Halm, p. 409). On
Qardqujä see CA bd al-Latif Ibrahim `Ali, "Silsilat al-wathdiq al-tärikhiyya al-qawmiyya.
Majmficat al-wathdiq al-mamlakiyya I: Wathiqat al-amir akhfir kabir Qardquja.
Bulletin of the Facu40 of Arts, Cairo University 18 (1956, published 1959), pp. 183-251; Haar-
166 Ulric/i Haarmann
mann, "Mamluk Endowment Deeds as a Source for the History of Education in Late Medieval
Egypt," al-Abhãth 28 (198O), pp. 32-3.
41. C.H. Becker, "Zur Kulturgeschichte Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Mamluken," Der
Islam 1 (1910), P. 95; Poliak, p. 38 (and note 8), P. 39 (notes 1 and 2) gives examples of influential families even of today who owe their prominence to their posts as hereditary superintendents or as beneficiaries of important awqãf.
42. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischer Litteratur, II, p. 87, no. 9: al-Qawl almücib fl
'l-qada al-müjib.
43. Al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, IX, ed. J. van Ess, (Wiesbaden 1974), P. 478.
44. Wafi, XII, ed. R. CAbo al-Tawwãb, (Wiesbaden 1979), P. 349, lines 12 if (no. 326).
45. Studies II, p. 457.
46. There are only scanty and passing references to awlad al-nãs as feudatories in the existing
literature. See H. Rabie, The Financial System of Egypt. A.H. 564– 741/A.D. 1169-1341,
(London 1972), p. 59 (plus note 1); Ayalon, "The System of Payment in Mamluk Military
Society," JESHO 1 (1958), P. 45; Studies II, P. 456.
47. Haim, PP. 26, 40.
48. Rabie, p. 48; Haim, pp. 40-2.
49. Rabie, P. 49, on the factors causing this variation in price, such as high and low floods
of the Nile, wars, epidemics, and conditions of transportation.
50. Ed. B. Moritz, (Cairo 1898; reprint Cairo 1974); see Halm, Pp. 30-1.
51. Vols. IV and V, ed. K. Vollers, Descrztion de l'Egypte, (Cairo 1893; reprint Beirut n.d.).
52. E.g. Birmã/Gharbiyya, Halm, P. 484; Ibn a1JiCan 25,000 dj—Ibn Duqmaq 3,500 dj.Minyat Ziftã Jawad/Gharbiyya, Haim, P. 550; Ibn a1JiCan 23,000 dj—Ibn Duqmaq 3,500
dj.—Two examples from Sharqiyya; Abjüj, Halm, P. 597; 3,500 dj vs. 1,000 dj; al-Nakhkhãs,
Haim, P. 661, 4,000 dj vs. 2,000 dj.
53. See above, note 9.
54. See Ayalon, "Names, titles and 'nisbas' of the Mamlüks," Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975),
p. 230, note 238.
55. Grandsons of Mamluks: See e.g. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Lãjin, amr ã/lhür, Halm,
pp. 453, 492; the amir [!] Nãsir al-din Muhammad b. cAboallãh b. Baktamur, Halm, P. 678;
Muhammad b. Müsã b. Ariqtãy, Halm, p. 451; Sãrim al-din Ibrãhim b. Yüsuf b. Burlughi,
Halm, Pp. 83, 155—he shared with [Ibn] al-Tablãwi (see above note 10) and the eunuch
Sawãb a1Sacdi the two villages of Idfa/Ikhmim and Dunqam/Bahnasa, and held an imra
of five or ten respectively. See also Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tankiz (bugha), muqta c
of Dumüh al-Dãthir/FayyUm in 777 (Halm, P. 254) and the anfir CAbdallãh b. Muhammad
b. arghayh, tenant of two iqtaCs in Buhayra (Halm, pp. 442, 462; villages of Qabr CIsãm
and Warzãfa), as well as Muhammad b. Müsã b. Ariqtay (Halm, P. 451) who also had his
fief in Buhayra.
56. Halm, Pp. 98, 252, 259, 264; his nisba is al-Hasani, not al-Husayni.
57. See Ayalon, "Names," Pp. 229-30; 230-1 "the names and titles of the sons of Mamluks
deserve special scrutiny." Let me add: Haarmann, "Mamluks," note 70a with additional
names, and the case of Taghribirdi b. Iljay, muqtac of al-Nuwayra/Bahnasa (Haim, P. 173).
58. Or vice versa: see Ayalon, Studies II, P. 458. In one case we have in the feudal lists:
Mamluks—not Royal Mamluks—and halqa (only for 777, see village of Minyat Nama/Dawahi
al-Qahira, Halm, P. 321). In only three cases, all of them in Sharqiyya, we find a differentiation between commanders and troops (rjãl) of the halqa: see Halm, pp. 647, 662, 685.
59. Sub/i, IV, p. 15, ult.
60. Ayalon, Studies II, P. 457, note 5.
61. Poliak, P. 29, note 10.
62. Studies II, P. 458.
63. Halm, pp. 44-5.
The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders 167
64. It is in Gharbiyya incidentally that, for the year 885, the 'archers' of the ajncid [alhalqa] are singled out as a group; cf. Halm, p. 570, village of Samirbaya.
65. Säqiyat al-Qummus in the Fayyam, Halm, p. 271.
66. Types of such unpopulated tax-units are listed in Halm, p. 313 (chapter on the environs
of Cairo).
67. Halm, p. 41.
68. See above, note 9.
69. Halm, p. 772.
70. Why does Ibn Duqmaq, in the context of the province of al-Manafiyya, consistently
speak of al-ajnad, whereas, in all the other provinces, he always says fi aydi 1-muqtac7n min alal-1.1alqa al-mansfira, cf. the village of Udrunka, Halm, p. 99 (kind
mam;c7l7k
information by H. Haim).
71. In Ibn Duqmäq's chapter on al-Butlayra the letters fin and shin are missing; cf. also
Halm, p. 391.
72. In the small province of Ibyä.r/ Jazirat Barn Nasr with only 46jihät and a cibra of 100,232
dj we have four such alternative ascriptions with an ibn al-nds involved: Dimshawayh al-Bighäl
(Halm, p. 346), with Masä b. Quzmän; Juraysän (Halm, p. 348), with Al imad b. Aqtamur
CAW al-Ghani; Babij/Matiallat al-Laban (Halm, p. 342), with fidiji Bak b. Alta b. cAshiq
[?] ; finally Danasfir (Halm, pp. 344-5) with Milsä b. `Umar al-Azkaji, the son of Sultan
klasan's protégé.
73. Cf. note 55 and add the following jihiit: the village of Aba/Bannasä, iqrcic of a fidi in
777, reappears as fief of the Chief Eunuch ( zimäm al-eidur al-shar7fa; on this office see Halm,
p. 140) in Qdyitbay's time. The village of Sayla/Bahnasa (Halm, p. 177), iqta` of the ibn alnc7s `Ali b. Qushtamur al-Mansari (who managed to rise to an imrat alf under al-Mansiir,
cAri b. Shacbän and died in 786/1384) in 777 had, by 800, passed into the hands of the eunuch
Bahadur al-Shihabi, the muqaddam of the Royal Mamluks during Barqaq's second rule. And
there are at least two villages—Bijdj/Bahnasä, Halm, p. 148, and Butds/Bahnasä, Halm, p.
150—that were continuously in the hands of the Chief Eunuch from Shacbän to Barqaq.
74. Sulfa, III, p. 63. In 885 we find one muqta c who can be described both as a s7cti (he was
the grandson of Sultan Jaqmaq) and son of a Mamluk am7r: al-Näsir Muhammad b. al-Amir
Uzbak al-Atabaki al-Näsiri. His village, with the average cibra of 4,000 dj, was Fardsha in
Sharqiyya, see Halm, p. 624.
75. Halm, pp. 113-4.
76. Halm, pp. 318, 320, 322.
77. Halm, pp. 322-3.
78. On Qiis, the capital of Upper Egypt in Mamluk times, see Halm, p. 63, and J.C. Garcin,
Un Centre Musulman de la Haute-Egypte Miclilvale: Qiis, (Cairo 1976), passim, esp. pp. 231-44.
79. Halm, pp. 207, 216, 230, 239.
80. Halm, pp. 329, 332, 333, 335.
81. Halm, pp. 318, 320, 322.
82. Halm, pp. 484, 554, 562.
83. Halm, p. 124.
84. Halm, p. 180.
85. Halm, p. 411.
86. Halm, p. 762.
87. Ayalon, Studies II, p. 458.
88. E. Ashtor, A Social and Economic Histog of the Near East in the Middle Ages, (London 1976),
p. 309.
89. Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nujfim al-zähira fi mulak Misr z.va'l-Qähira, (Cairo n.d.), XII, p. 145
line 13, p. 146 line 1; Halm, p. 44.
.
168 Ulrich Haarmann
90. Khalil b. Shahin al-Zahiri, Zubdat kashf al-mamalik, ed. P. Ravaisse, (Paris 1891), p.
107, lines 16-18.
91. Darilt Sarabam/Ushmanayn, Halm, pp. 114-5, 16,500 dj, and Minyat `Uqba/Giza,
Halm, p. 231, 11,150 dj. In 800 there is according to Ibn Duqmaq's list, also the village of
Mallawi/Ushmanayn, Halm, p. 124; it was worth 18,000 dj and belonged in 777 to Sidi Ali
b. Sha`ban, in 800, however, to Sidi [!] Aba Bala b. Sunqur al-Jamali. Does the term Sidi
here indicate relationship with Barqaq's family?
92. Dumah al-Lahan, Halm, p. 255; Baja (3,000 dj), Halm, p. 249, both in the Fayyfim.
93. Aba/Bahnasa (see above, note 73); its cibra decreased from 6,600 to 6,000 dj.
94. IkhshalIbyar, Halm, p. 349; cibra 7,000 dj.
95. E.g. klissat Ibyar/Gharbiyya, Halm, p. 508. See also above, note 40.
96. Halm, p. 216.
97. Halm, p. 239.
98. Halm, p. 609.
99. The sons of al-Zahir Khushqadam also held the village of sal in Atfih, Halm, p. 203
(7,312 dj), as waqf. Manyal al-cAtash in Manafiyya, Halm, p. 370 (1,666 dj) is registered as
waqfof another contemporary ficti, cUthman b. Jaqmaq ; see also below note 101. Al-Sanjariyya/
Daqahliyya, Halm, p. 753 (1,500 dj), was waqf of the son and wife of Sultan Trial.
100. Halm p. 454.
101. Halm, pp. 678-9.
102. Halm, p. 82-3. In 885 al-klumaydiyya was mulk of a non-Mamluk dignitary, Salam
b. Sa`dallah!
103. Continuity of awlad al-nds group ownership/control over certain districts is not a very
meaningful issue in view of the small number of jihat, held by them in 800 and 885, both as
igics and as allodial or quasi-allodial domains. There is the Jazirat Qift in the province of
Qias (Halm, p. 70), held by a Mamluk amir (Yalbugha al-Mulliammadi) in 778/1377, and by
an ibn al-as (Ahmad b. Baktamur) in 885, or (see above, note 74) Farasha in Sharqiyya, that
passed from a genuine Mamluk (Taniyä1 al-Märkläni) to Jaqmaq's grandson, an am7r of
10. In both cases we have rare examples where in 777 and 800 fully privileged Mamluks and
in 885 awlad al-nas appear as muqta's of the same tax district. In one single case, the village of
Manyal Abi Shacra/Bahnasa (Halm, p. 169; 2,600 dj), an ibn al-nib- is registered for 777 (Muhammad b. Tankiz, who rose to the office of n,d'ib of Damascus and died in 771/1369-70 !), whereas
the tenant for 885 is another ibn al-nas, Atimad b. Yasuf b. Manglibugha, who claims it as his
rizqa, i.e. the village had in the meantime been alienated from the diwan al-jaysh. Quite a few
awilid al-as are recorded as beneficiaries of rizaq and awqdf in Qayitbay's days: AO Asrija/
Manafiyya, Halm, p. 358; only 200 dj rizqa of the sons of Qachmas al-cIzzi. Jazirat al-Dhahab/
Fuwwa, Halm, p. 466; waqf of `Umar b. Bahadur (cibra not given).
104. Halm, pp. 70, 401, 607, 760.
105. Halm, pp. 90, 345.
106. Halm, pp. 454, 586.
107. Sulfik, III, p. 63.
108. Halm, pp. 177, 447, 498.
109. Halm, pp. 124, 337.
110. Halm, pp. 83, 108, 143, 161.
111. Halm, pp. 79, 134, 351, 597, 701. On him see Suirik, III, Index, s.v. Am7r 1:lajj b.
Mughultäy.
112. Halm, pp. 81, 134, 509, 596, 707.
113. Halm, pp. 78, 105, 124, 181, 263, 267, 623.
-