haarmann the sons of mamluks

8/2/2019 Haarmann the Sons of Mamluks

1/29

Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universitt Freiburg

ULRICHHAARMANN

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


2/29

The Sons of M amluks as Fief-holdersin Late M edieval EgyptULRICH HAARMANN

University of Freiburg

ACCORDING TO THE BASIC LAW of the Mamluk sultanate only a Mamluk hadaccess to political and m ilitary author ity and , m ore imp ortantly, to the we althof the country. And only a very limited group could qualify as Mamluks,namely those who were born as non-Muslims in the dr a l-a r b , preferablyof Turk ish or Circassian stock, who w ere then purch ased as m ilitary slaves,'trained militarily by their us tadh, converted to Islam, affranchised and thusreleased 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 contemporaryobserver and to the historian, the realization an d im plem entation of its idealtype was bound to be difficult within the society, upon which this exclusiveand autocratic alien elite was grafted. Among the many areas of frictionbetween the local population and the foreign ruling caste I shall concentrateon the status of a group about which we presently know little, the so-calledaw led a l-as, the sons of the ?k i s , i.e. literally: of the elite, the Mamluks. IbnIyas, at the very end of Mamluk history, appropriately equates this termwith bani i l-t r e d c . 2 By virtue of the Mamluk 'constitution' just delineatedthey were barred from the privileges of their fathers, lacking, at least forthe most part, the nobility of a Turkish name and a pagan birth north ofthe Caucasus and the Caspian Sea.

On the other hand, the Mamluks would not have been human if theyhad not tried incessantly, though o nly on an individual level, to save as m uchof their personal prestige and wealth as possible for their own offspring.And the sultans themselves followed this path: from the days of Sultan Bay-

141


3/29

142 Ulrich Haarmannbars to the end of Circassian rule in the early 16th century, sons of sultansagain and again succeeded their fathers to the throne of E et ,:,ypt. Theses'id7s, as they were for the most part called, demonstrated to their less promi-nent 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 richesto the next generation, even if this meant violating the invisible barrierseparating the Mamluks from all non-Mamluks, including their own sons.And indeed, historical reality did look different. 3 The awlad al-nas formeda privileged class. As youths they were entitled to allowances of meat, bread,forage, and money from the sultan. 4 As adults they were dubbed knightsof a special regiment, the Olga, that during most of the Mamluk period wascomposed of non-Mamluk free soldiers and goes back to Saladin's famousbodyguard. Yet there were barriers to their advancement. Only very rarelydid they obtain the highest command in the Mamluk army, an imrat alf(the command of over 1,000 halqa soldiers and 100 Mamluk officers). Therank of aiiiir of forty (airiir tablkhemeth) was usually the acme of their careers. 5Apart from the fact that not all the numerous sons of Mamluks are likelyto have been offered the option of joining the halqa, membership in it graduallylost its original prestige. From its inception the halqa had been a heterogeneousbody that was open to numerous other groups of hereditary or honorarysemi-Mamluk status, such as eunuchs, 6 the w e i f id i y y d m ain ly Kurdish andMongol free warriors, Turcomans, Ayyubid princes,8 but also the bedouins, 9and even civilians with special affinities to the Mamluk Turkish caste. 1 When al-Qalqashancti, who tends to describe the ideal state of Mamlukinstitutions, speaks of the halqa soldiers (ajnad al-halqa) as a 'large crowd'(cadad jam m w a-k halq kath7r) , he has to admit that non-military people hadlong since entered the ranks of the halqa and diluted its former militarycharacter."The military and social decline of the halqa was precipitated by one politicalevent in particular. In his rawk of 715/1315, al-Malik al-Nsir Muhammadb. Qaldwiin redistributed the land-assignments (iqtets) of Egypt at theexpense of the halqa knights and to the benefit of the crown land and of theRoyal Mamluks (al-Mamlitik al-Sulttmiyya) who formed the backbone ofthe Mamluk army. 12 Thertafter the ljalqa gradually forfeited the highlyrespected status it had enjoyed in early Bahri history, at least in Egypt. 13Common people joined the ijalqa from the late 14th century on. The salariesof the ljalqa soldiers were subject to cuts and their fiefs often sold, an abusegoing back to al-Nsir Muhammad's days. 1 4 Most humiliating and at thesame time telling, the halqa soldiers could purchase exemption from dangerousmilitary undertakings by cash payment ;15 they were, however, obliged toprove their prowess in the arts of war in tests with the bow and arrow.The fate of the halqa and of the awled a l-nds , who formed its prestigious


4/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 143upper 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 hadno direct military significance, such as the governorship of the capital"or the superintendence (shadd) of the Royal Hippodrome. 1 7 In the closingperiod of Mamluk history the term ljalqa virtually disappeared, 1 8 to bereplaced, quite surprisingly, pars pro toto by awl1id al-nas, perhaps becausein the moribund ljalqa only the scions of Mamluk officers retained a certainnatural prestige, even if this was a bequest from their fathers. Certainlythey presented themselves as thoroughly harmless when the Ottomans cameto Egypt in 1517. Unlike the Mamluks proper, they were neither outlawednor prosecuted; some of them were even admitted into one of the Ottomanregiments established in Egypt. 1 9Under such conditions many awlad al-nas sought their fortunes outsidea military career. We know of quite a few cases when sons of am7rs quitservice in the army and in the government with all the material benefitsattached to their position. The career of Ahmad b. Almalik (d. 793/1391)illustrates this drift away from the Mamluk establishment. He was n a D i bof Ghazza and one of the ten privileged awliid al-as who under al-Malikal-Nsir'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 inthe province of Qiis in the very south of Egypt to Tannki in Daqahliyyain the eastern Delta. 2 Furthermore he had had the privilege of being com-missioned a m 7 r of forty during his father's life-timean obviously unusualdistinction. 2 1 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 withthe proceeds of his father's pious foundation and devoted himself to the serviceof God." 2 2 He died a mujwir in Mecca in 793/1391.Ahmad b. Almalik embodies the chances and also the limits peculiar tothe awlad al-nas. Like their fathers, they could successfully participate inmilitary and state affairs, if, that is, they qualified in a truly tough competi-tion, 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 theladder. 23 Yet as a corporate body they also held advantages in comparisonto the Mamluks. Having grown up in the residential quarters of the Mamlukson and below the Cairo citadel, they had from their youth been exposed tothe two cultures: the Turkish military ambience in Mamluk halls and atthe polo field, and the local Arab religious and learned environment. Theyspoke both Turkish and Arabic, often had Arab mothers 24 and seem to havebeen especially susceptible to cultural stimuli. 25Their contribution to Arabic letters and religious culture in the 14thand 15th centuries was considerable. Evidently they made strenuous efforts


5/29

144 Ulrich Haarmannto be accepted by the intellectual elite of the time. Khalil b. Aybak al-Safacii, Ibn QuIlabugha, Nsir al-din Muhammad b. Jankali h. Albaba, 2 6and the famous author of usf il al-hadith, Khalil b. Kaykaldi, who made acareer similar to that of the above mentioned Ahmad b. Almalik, witnessto the remarkable results of these endeavours. Some of them, such as thehistorian Ibn Taghribirdi, or Ibn Mangt1 27 who held a taqdima in theljalqa and composed books on warfare and hunting, epitomize the naturalfunction of the awled al- d s as interpreters and transmitters of the two separatecultures clashing in Mamluk Cairo, the capital both of the alien Turkishlords and of orthodox Islam in its Arabic garb. 28 The mediating potentialof the awliid al- d s has not yet been explored; specialists in Mamluk historyhave hitherto been very cautious when assessing their role in society. Depend-ing on the context, they either refused to grant them any significant part 29at all, or divided them rather arbitrarily between the Mamluk caste 3 andthe autochthonous population, 31 thus denying them any relevant groupidentity whatsoever.Certainly frustrations and blockades from both directions characterizedthe standard career pattern of an ibn al- iis : neither of the societies betweenwhich they stood normally allowed them to become full members. TheMamluks barred the doors to the highest ranks. And the local culanfdp punishedthe 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 psychologyof these middlemen who stood between the two poles of medieval Egyptian andSyrian society and were not allowed to realize their ambitions, evolves as afascinating issue in the history of the central Arab lands in the Middle Ages. 32

2Quite apart from the official recognition of the awled al- l i s and their incor-poration (and remuneration) in the halqa, Mamluk fathers sought other,less public, channels to pass at least part of their income and influence totheir sons.It was here that the viability of the Mamluk system, the principle of theone-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 revenuefor military services, and to collect them after the death or retirement oftheir tenants undiminished, thus keeping the material basis for the continuousrejuvenation of the army intact?Al-Nsir Muhammad, himself a royal ibn al-n ds , was particularly effectivein strengthening the Mamluk military and financial system. He increasedthe diwan'i lands at the expense of the halqa domains. He further enhanced

the power of the court and of the d iw n al-aysh by splitting the aggregateamount of revenue, which the m uqtacs (Mamluks, awled al-n s, and even


6/29

The Sons o f Mam luks as Fief -holders 145provincial governors) 33 could claim, into several small allotments spreadall over the country. As a result, a rural aristocracy, familiar with the realitiesof agrarian production, could not grow. 34 Whether this action was due tothe mischief of the Coptic kuttab who wanted to undermine the prosperityof Egypt and thus of Islam, as al-Magri:if., quoting al-Yasufi, surmises, 35or rather al-Nsir's rigorous policy of d i v i de e t im p e ra towards the Mamlukgrandees, must be left undecided. 36After al-Nsir's death the power of resistance of the Mamluk system againstinfringements from inside waned. 37 There was above all the momentousintermezzo of Sultan Hasan, a third generation royal ibn al-as. He despisedthe Mamluk atmosphere, preferred contacts with local scholarsmuch tothe satisfaction of contemporary historians with their inveterate anti-Mamlukbiasand gave eunuchs, slave-girls, and awkid al-nds 38 unprecedented careeropportunities in the state and in the army. Large fiefdoms passed into thehands of awled al-nds together with responsible public offices. After hisdeath in 762/1361 the re-mamlukization of society began.Yet, all efforts to stabilize the Mamluk system notwithstanding, the aliena-tion of iqtd c -holdings continued after Sultan klasan's assassination, althoughthese lands were indispensable for the upkeep of the Mamluk army. Weare lucky to have more or less complete excerpts from the jar7da iqtdyain 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 characterof the feudal units (jiht) of the first date, during the rule of the Bailin SultanShacbn, with the situation a hundred years later, one is struck by the numberof villages that had formerly been iqtd c -land and had by now, illegal asthis procedure was, 39 at least partially been transformed into allodial land( mu lk ) or into waqf. 4Establishing a waqf and installing the members of one's own family ashereditary administratorsand thus beneficiariesbecame a common prac-tice in the Burr". period.41 It was the most expedient way of circumventingthe social barrier separating Mamluk fathers from non-Mamluk sons, becauseit was sanctioned by the shaff a. At least in principle, the jurists of the timerealized very well that a or the main purpose of such donations was securingpart of the pious investment for the very mundane material welfare of thewqiis descendants. In a book written in the mid-14th century the elderal-Subid, Taqi al-din, discusses the matter of the legality of leaving themanagement of an endowment in the hand of the donor or of his family. 42Al-Safadi uses nasty words when commenting upon the installation of familycontrol over a richly endowed waqf in the late 13th century.43Direct inheritance of a fief by the m uqta's descendants was extremely rare.I encountered only one case: when klusayn b. Jandar Beg, like his friendal-Safacli, an ibn al-nets, died in 728/1327-8, his grateful sovereign al-Malik


7/29

146 Ulrich Haarm annal-Nsir Muhammad left the income from klusayn's iqtel`t in the lialqa tohis Mamluks, his widows and his daughters (sons are not mentioned !)"something that has happened to no one else."44

3I shall now leave the issue of the political ideal of Mamluk society, epito-mized in David Ayalon's statement that the awlad al-nd s were excluded "bytheir very nature" 45 from Mamluk rights and titles. I shall rather try toassess their political weight in terms of their proportionate share in the wealth-i.e. the iqtdcsf Egypt.46It is certain that the only recipients of land grants were those whose servicewas needed and accordingly appreciated by the Mamluk fiscal and govern-

mental authorities. Therefore the percentage of land held by any group,Mamluk or non-Mamluk, e.g. the awliid al-nns , can be interpreted as roughlycommensurate with its relative importance in Mamluk state and societyat a given time. The results of such a statistical enquiry will serve to qualifythe traditional, ideal, view of the aw1c7d al-c 7 s as a group devoid of effectivepower.Luckily the sources facilitate this enquiry. From the year 777/1376, andthough far less completely and consistentlyfrom around 800/1397, andfrom the period preceding the year 885/1480, we have not only the namesof the muqtacs or the other tenants of the 2,489 villages, or rather tax-districts( j i l ted) , of Egypt; we also have figures of the m islja, i.e. the area of arableland (sometimes divided into different subcategories according to the qualityof the soil), and of the tax-yield, the cibra, both of the individual jihat andof the provinces as a whole. The cibra is the decisive parameter for our pur-poses, as it was essential also for the Mamluk fisc. The cibra is the hypotheticaltax value of a village, based on the carefully measured size and quality ofthe land. 47 It is expressed in army dinars (dj), a ficticious monetary unitthat consisted of a specific combination of payment in cash and in kind 48and was therefore subject to continuous change in real value, depending,e.g., on the varying prices of barley and wheat." The figures of the cibrathus 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 ofthe whole of Egypt at a certain date, we can estimate the share of certaingroups (such as the awleid al-ds, the eunuchs, the Turcomans, the Abbasidshadow caliphs of Cairo, the wfid iyya, the Royal Mamluks etc.,) or of thedifferent legal types of land (such as waqf , allodial and rizqa lands or the dif-ferent kinds of divvetrii land) in the total territory and to each other in exactpercentages.A few words about the three dates. The materials on the year 777/1376are most detailed. We find them in Ibn al-Rdn's (d. 885/1480) al-Tul f fa


8/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 147al-saniyy a bi-asind ) al-bildd al-rnisriy y a. 5 The author, chief accountant (mus-tawf7) of the army bureau under Sultan Qdyitbay, based this fiscal geographyof Egypt on excerpts from the central feudal journal (al-arTd a al-qtaciyya),dating back to the year 777, the time of the Qalawfmid Sha`bn. The rnislpand cibra figures given under this date most probably go back even to al-Malik al-Nsir's above mentioned rawk of 715/1315. If in comparison toIbn al-Ydn's own time the cibra of a village had changedand that meantalmost without exception had decreasedthe new figure is also given. Be-tween the two dates 777 and 885 we have as a third source Ibn Duqmaq'slists of the tax yield of Cairo and its dependencies, dated around 800/1397.This material is contained in his Kited) al-Intissr li-wetsitat ciqd al-aingir [sc.= Cairo] 51 Even in Ibn Duqmq's time the values fixed in al-rawk al-nsir7seem to have remained by and large valid. Only rarely do Ibn al-iln andIbn Duqmq produce incompatible figures. On a local and certainly limitedlevel (al-Sharqiyya), however, Ibn Duqmq attests to a rapid pauperizationof the Egyptian countryside even in the short period between 777 and 800. 52As far as the names and status of the tenants of the individual tax units andthe legal quality of the land are concerned, the value of the two sourcesis, again, different. Meticulously assembled data are available for 777 inIbn al-Sican's T u .hfa. They are less comprehensive for Ibn al-ican's lifetime(885) and defective or only summary in most of Ibn Duqmq's Intiyiir. Work-ing with this rich and variegated information would continue to be verycumbersome had not Heinz Halm compiled, and most lucidly presented,all the relevant toponyms and figures for the three dates in his economicgeography of Mamluk Egypt. 53

4Our task is to exploit these data as a source on the social and economicstatus of awll id 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 Ibnal-ican.1. One proviso is very general. To what degree were the awletel al-d s,who held an i q t a c , at all representative of their class? The majority of sonsof Mamluks found their way neither into the feudal journals nor into thetabaqt works of contemporary legists, sufis, poets, and grammarians. Forthis reason quantitative statements on the chances of Mamluk descendantsreceiving the tax yield of one or of several villages (as remuneration for aservice or as a sinecure) will remain impossible. We do not even know,for the time being, whether the term awilid al-ets was customary for the sonsand 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


9/29

148 Ulrich Haarm annawlad al - nd s in the lists of Ibn al-Sln and Ibn Duqmaqor respectively inHalm's compilationand in Mamluk narrative and archival sources ingeneral. As a rule, bearers of an Arab-Muslim name (and specific alqeib) 54whose fathers or grandfathers55 had a typical Mamluk-Turkish or Circassianname were reckoned as awled al- nets and therefore collected for the sample.There is, however, no guarantee for the comprehensiveness and infallibilityof such selection. We know not only of Mamluks with Arab names andArabseven a Meccan shafi f , Baktamur b. An al-Hasani 56 with honorificMamluk names, but also of awlii d al - neis with Turkish first names. 573. The third obstacle obfuscating statistical clarity is the mixture of explicitand implicit references to awleid al - n i t " s in the lists on which our calculationsare based. The awlad al - neis factor in such mixed matrixes cannot be exactlydetermined.a. How many awlad al- nets were hidden in Ibn al-Sfan's utterly general,widespread formula: bism i 1 - muqtein? As Heinz Halm kindly pointed outto me in a recent letter, especially lowly am7rs , members of the halqa,and Royal Mamluks staffed this category, as we can conclude from casualremarks in Ibn Duqmaq's intis.dr. For this very reason all the percentagesand ratios given below (which are based on the explicit mention ofawlad al - neis alone) are liable to be far too low measured against contem-porary reality. Yet how far exactly, we will never know.b. The second difficulty arises with the general term Olga or ajncl al - ljalqa.

For the year 777 it is mentioned only twice: one village with a cibra of700 dj in Qalyfibiyya, another with only 600 dj in Sharqiyya. In 800,however, this category has become an important factor. 77 jihat witha total tax yield of 329,050 dj are listed (one each in Ikhmim and Ushma-nayn, 5 in Bahnas, 7 in Ibydr, 13 in Maniifiyya, 23 in Butiayra and27 in Gharbiyya). By 885 this prominence is again lost: we find only4 jihiit (one each in Qalyfib, Buhayra, Gharbiyya, and Sharqiyya) witha total cibra of 22,530 dj, i.e. only 6.84 % of the figure of 800. Remark-ably enough, Qalyabiyya and Sharqiyya appear only for 777 and 885.To what degree do these figures, at the three different times, encompassawled al- nas? And is the statistical peak of the year 800 not perhapspartially due to Ibn Duqmq's personal terminology, that is to say,that he may have labelled summarily as (ajnd) al- halqa certain groupingswhich Ibn al-Sian, our source for 777 and 885, would have identifiedby name and nisba or presented in even more general terms as m uqta's,feudatories?c. Even more critical is the determination of the share of awlad al-nsin the very frequent comprehensive formula 'Royal Mamluks andhalqa:58 Incompatible and mutually exclusive as these two regimentsor rather institutions were in principle,al-Qalqashandi speaks of the


10/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fief -holde rs 149Royal Mamluks as the elite of the Mamluks also economically (...wa-awfaruhum iqtdcan) 59 at a time when the halqa was rapidly deterioratingthe Circassian period saw the closing of this gap.In 777 we have only 39 villages with a tax yield of 209,155 dj whosemuqta'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 Duqmq's list, this number has risen to 84 jihdt with a cibra of657,690 dj. They are now spread all over Egypt: one in Ikhmim andGiza, 2 in the banlieue of Cairo, 3 in Asyut, 8 in Bahnas, 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 villagesin Qalyabiyya with a cibra of 109,500 dj, and 13 in Sharqiyya with 65,350dj. They both clearly dominate the pattern of the 'Royal Mamluksand 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 citationsin other provinces, among them Ushmanayn with 14 villages and a yieldof 115,470 dj) they still provide 40.6 %. And for 885 we return to a ratioof 100 % .One should add that only ten villages in the whole of Egypt contin-uously 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 Mamluksand halqa' are named as muqtacs were also limited to these two provinces(777 and 800: 4 in Qalyabiyya ; 800 and 885: 2 in Qalyabiyya , 777and 885: 6 in Qalyabiyya and 8 in Sharqiyya). How can this strikinglyuneven geographical distribution of the 'Royal Mamluks plus lialqa'group be explained? Sharqiyya and Qalyabiyyahistorically a part ofSharqiyya, both not very far from Cairo, definitely enjoyed a specialstatus as far as this mixed group is concerned about which we know solittle. What did the Royal Mamluks and the halqa have in commonto make them customary partners of fiefs?Certainly they were no longer incompatible as in early Mamluk his-tory. We find the terms awlad al-nets pars pro toto for the halqa as a wholeand 'Royal Mamluks' used synonymously, and even encounter the expres-sion: awled a l-nels m in a l-m am ntik a l -su l tniyy a in the writings of IbnTaghribirdi and Ibn Iyas in the 15th and early 16th centuries. 60 Howthis merger or coalescence of terms and institutions actually came about,we do not know yet. Poliak 61 connects it with the purchase of fiefs ofRoyal Mamluks by awlii d al-70s, while Ayalon62 favors the idea that theterm miimatik sul temiyya had, by late Circassian times, taken on a widermeaning as a result of the incorporation of additional units of the Royal


11/29

150 Ulrich Haarm annMamluks into the cPwan al-m ufrad, a special bureau of crown land foundedby Barqaq in 797/1395 upon the death of his heir-apparent and reservedfor the alimentation of Royal Mamluks. 63 Future research will haveto 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 wefind 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, locatedbetween these tw o w ings, stands as expected in the middle and we find both(a) and (b), though its figures make Gharbiyya rather more a part of theWestern 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 wholeof Egypt were located in Gharbiyya. In the category 'Royal Mamluksand Olga' this percentage is far lower (13.1 %, 86,200 of 657,690 dj).In other words, in Gharbiyya the halqa m uqta's held, in 800, almost twicethe cibra of the group 'Royal Mamluks and halqa:64How can this neat distribution of the two summary groups along aline cutting the Nile Delta from North to South be explained?We have to be very careful, however, not to push the differentiationbetween the two groups too far. We have rather to distinguish betweenthe 'molecular' plane of the jihat (from where we obtain our figures)here we find ajnad al-halqa and halqa plus Royal Mamluks as separateunitsand the 'atomic' plane of the small fiefs ( akhbaz) into whichthese jihat, both those with homogeneous and those with heterogeneousownership, were customarily divided. On this lower level the com-prehensive formula 'Royal Mamluks plus halqa' (or v ice v ersa) easilyfallsso we may surmiseinto its two constituents, here ajna d al-halqa,there Royal Mamluks. Yet again we do not know the ratio of distributionon this basic level of Egyptian feudal geography in Mamluk times.e. The statistical weakness of summary terms such as ajnad al-ljalqa, RoyalMamluks plus (zalqa (or also solely: muqtacrin, feudatories) is compoundedby the fact that the share of awlad al-na s in these general categories wasin itself a variable and probably grew considerably from 777 to 800and 885. This at least is a conclusion that suggests itself if we noticethat both in the huge Gharbiyya and also in smaller provinces such asAsyiit, Ibydr, Manaf, Buhayra, and Daqahliyya, we have no referencesto the two sum m ary terms 'Olga' and 'Royal Mamluks plus Olga' in777, yet many explicit citations of aw lacl al-nas feudatories, whereas in800 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 1above) numerous entries for the two unspecified, summary categories.


12/29

The Sons o f M amluk s as Fie f- holders 151Table ISynoptic table of the occurrence of jihat in the categories1 ajneid) al-halqa' and 'Royal Mamluks lialqa'

Province7 700857 70085halqaoyal Mamluks + halqaIkhmimAsyutUshmanayn1BahnasGizapawhl: al-QhiraQalyab447IbyarMaria3Butlayra3Gharbiyya70Sharqiyya453DaqahliyyaThis hypothesis of the growth of the awlad al- nas factor within the twogeneral headings `?Ialqa' and 'Royal Mamluks plus halqa' between 777 and885 can be illustrated in Table II, below. Here, we contrast the share ofawlad al- nas fiefs within the whole of Egypt (1) without consideration ofpossible awlad al- n a , s - membership in the two categories ' halqa' and 'RoyalMamluks plus Olga.' with (2) the figures accruing from the addition of atentative of a 50 % awlad al- nas participation in the category Y ajnad) al-Olga' and of a 25 % participation in the compound group 'Royal Mamluksand !Ialqa:'

Table II(1)2)Year 777,282 '596 dj13.67 %),341 '085 d j14 .2 9 %)Year 80034 549 dj2.50 % )41,946 '5 dj (5.77 % )Year 8854,375 dj0.15 % )9,002 '5 di0 . 74 %)4. There are numerous other sources making for inexactitude in the avail-able records.


13/29

152 Ulrich Haarm annThe terms 'village' and jiha are not always exchangeable. There wereunsettled tax-units, such as manufactories (mainly in pawhi 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 Dawhi al-Qhira for examplewe have 20 villages, yet 34 tax units; in Ikhmim the ratio is 26 to 30, andin Atfitiin 777even 50 to 80/88. Were these extra jihat always consci-entiously counted by our medieval authorities? Ibn al-Jican compares thestate of affairs in 777 with his own life-time. 67 But did he carefully computeand 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 ofthe provinces on the other bank of the river? Many more such questionsneed to be asked.Furthermore we have to be aware that basing our statistical statementson whole provinces means neglecting important differences within them,some of which were huge. In future research, therefore, the internal geo-graphy should be considered; Halm's maps provide us with this possibility.Was the bedouinization of Sharqiyya province between 1400 and 1500 68limited to the eastern fringes of the province or did it encompass the wholeprovince? Can this feature be traced in the adjacent parts of Sharqiyya'swestern neighbours? Can analogous patterns of land-holding in villages ofdifferent provinces be connected with certain common socio-geographicalfactors (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 Duqmq and Ibn al- Pan, in attaching certain areas to a particularprovince (e.g., Thaghr Dimyat), 69 and possiblyas we have already dis-cussedalso in administrative vocabulary. 70 In a few cases their tablesare defective. 71 Sometimes they disagree, or are not certain, as regardsthe identification of muqta's. If between two equal variants only one isrelevant for this paper, it alone was included in the sample, as if no alter-native existed:72The groups mentioned above as having had equal access to the benefitsand duties of the halqasuch as Turcomans and eunuchswere not con-sidered, despite their close association with the awlad al-nas also in land-holding. A w /ad al-nas and eunuchs appear several times as partners in owningan iqtet . 73

5In 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 oftheir 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


14/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 1 53awlii d al-nas as a whole and indeed formed the most respected element inthe awlad al-dis sub-unit of the halqa. A1-Macinz1,74 in his final commentson the achievement of Sultan Hasan, lists among the ten awk id al-rOs w horeceived the unusual honour of an im rat alf , Hasan's sons Atimad a nd Qsimas numb ers one and two.In the year 777, during the reign of Sultan al-Ashraf Sha`bn, the shareof f id i s , Sha`bn's sons and brothers, in the igets of Egypt was considerable(cf. Tables III and esp. IV). The striking differences in the value of thedomains of the royal muqtacs may be tentatively explained by a hierarchypredicated on their date of birth and also on the nobility of their mothers.

Table IIITax yield of the iqta's held by Shacbdn 's sons and bro thers in 777

Sons1. Ali (later sultan)2. kljj [1] (later sultan)3. M u h a m m a d4. Qsim5. Abu Bakr6. klasan7. Ismall8. Sulayman9. Khalil10. Atimad

B R O T H E R S1. A nak2. Ibrahim3. Brothers of Sha`bn (unspecif ied)

23 8 ,650 dj (18j iha t )97 170 dj (9j ihat)94 ,000 dj (5j ihat)76,600 dq (5j ihat)55 700 dj (4j ihat)44 500 dj (5j iheit)15 000 dj (1 jiha)10 000 dj (1 jiha)

1 ,000 dj (1 jiha)800 dj (1 jiha)Sub-Total 663 ,420 dj (50j iha t )

49,600 dj (7j ihat )*22,900 dj (3j ihat)3,000 dj (1 jiha)**Sub-Total 75,000 dj (11 j ihat)

Total 708,920 dj (61 j iha t )Average c i b r a1 ,622 dj* One of them m u l k : village of D abici/Gharbiyya, 1 .600 dj.** Mahallat Inshaq/Daqahliyya.


15/29

154 Ulrich Haarm annSha`bn's sons and brothers, the f i d i s of his time held altogether 61 villageswith a total cibra of 708,920 dj. Measured against the figures for the wholeof Egypt-2,489 villages with a total yield of 9,384,789 djthe ficPs of 777held 2.44 or 7.55% respectively, not a small percentage in view of the lossof this revenue for the diw em 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 thewhole of Egypt this means 2.56 % of the villages and 7.98 % of the cibraof the country.If we take the latter figures as a basis, the average jiha held by a fid7 in777 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

s7d i m uqta` s . Many of their iqtei's were worth 20,000, 25,000 and even 30,000dj (cf. the village of Dalja in Ushmanayn, held by Sidi Muhammad b.Shacbn).75The cibra claimed by the fidis of 777 (748,920 dj) was higher than thecomplete tax yield of provinces such as Daqahliyya (596,071 dj), Qtis (414,663dj), Qalyabiyya (419,850 dj), Buhayra (741,204 dj) or Manafiyya (574,629dj), and four times the proceeds of the Fayytim (164,050 dj). Only the cibraof Gharbiyya (1,844,080 dj), Sharqiyya (1,411,875 dj), Bahnas (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 individualbeneficiaries as in Table III but according to provinces, new aspects emerge.One observation in advance: the geographical distribution of their iqp'sclearly reflects the contradictory policies of (1) concentrating the domainsof the Royal Family around the nucleus of the capital, and (2) followingor, more accurately, being unable to abandonal-Nsir Muhammad'sprecedent of splitting the grants for individuals into small parcels spreadall over the country, thus forestalling the formation of an Egyptian landedaristocracy.

Table IVIgei's of f i d i s according to geographical distribution in 777

Provincea) cibra of fidis (in dj)a) no. of jihat of f id is(b) total cibra of provinceb) total of the provinc e(c ) ratio (in ()/0 )c) ratio (in % )1. Qa s0,000/414,663/14.47 %/41/7 .32 %2. Ilchmim/243,925//26/3. Asyftt 5,500/323,920/4 . 79 /, /32/6 '25 %4. Manfalat / / /17/


16/29

The Sons o f Mam luks as Fie f- holders 1555. Ushmanayn1,000/762,040/11 94 %6. Bahnasa.4,600/1,302 '642/3 '42 %7. Atfilli,000/143,997/2 - 78 %8. Giza6,000/62,000+ ?/ ?9. Cairo envs.9,850/153,075/39 '10 %10. Fayyiim6,000/164 050/15 84 %1 1 . Qalyab1,100/419,850/21 - 7 %1 2 . Ibydr2,800/100,232/12 - 77 %1 3. Mantif9,520/574,629/6 88 %1 4. Buhayra5,000/741,294/3 37 %15. Fuwwa/56,846/ 16. Gharbiyya75,000*/1 411,875/9.49 %1 7. Sharqiyya5,550/1,411,875/2 '52 %1 8. Daqahliyya3,000/596,071/5 03 A19. Thughtir/65,000/ 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 1 7 %3/46/6 52 %4/132/3 '03 %3/222/1 - 35 %06/15/471 - 318 %3/380/0 '79 A3/217/092 %/36/Total48,920/9,384,789/7 '98 %4/2,499/2 '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 grantedto the s7dis in 777 werewith the sole exception of Asyutdistinctly largerthan the average i q t f i c .In the Fayyfirn the ratio was extreme: the value of the iqta's held by s 7 c P sthere comprised 15.84 % of the total cibra of the province, whereas the num-ber of tax units controlled by them was only 2.06 % of the total number ofvillages in the province. In other words, the average fief of a s'id7 in Fayyilmwas 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, thelargest province, it was almost exactly 3 (2.98) to 1.

b) The province with the highest percentage of f ic t i holdings (39.1 %)in relation to its total cibra is Dawhi al-Qhira, the immediate surroundingsof Cairo. Ayn Shams, al-Matariyya, and Shubrd al-Khayrna, well knownplaces in today's geography of Cairo, were held by ficPs as an appanage. 7 6Second, not surprisingly, is Qalytibiyya, at the gates of the capital (21.7 %).Al-Malik al-Nkir Muhammad b. Qaldwan had carved this province outof Sharqiyya in order to concentrate land close to Cairo under his personalcontrol and disposal. Besides the fiefs reserved for the f i d7s , major parts ofQalyabiyya were granted to the Royal Mamluks (see above 4.3.b) or wereallodial lands of the sultan. 7 7Giza probably had a similar or even higher share of f ici7s . Unfortunately,


17/29

156 Ulrich Haarm annfrom Ibn al-Rdn's T u .hfa, we know only the cibra of those villages of Gizaprovince that were not d iwarn land. Famous places such as Abii Sir and(modern) Saqqara were iqp's of ficPs. In third place, or, if we hypotheticallyinclude Giza, fourth, there follows the Fayyam (15.84 % ), an area that isnot 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 per-centages above 10 %, whereas the other provinces have figures below 10 %.The largest province, Gharbiyya, also within reach of the capital, shows9,25 %, while neighbouring Buhayra shows the absolute minimum of only1.75 %. This province with its frontier open to the western desert perhapsrequired active m uqta's who could handle the bedouins and were ready tolook after the system of canals south of Alexandria, functions for which theinfant sons of a feeble sultan or their administration may not have seemedthe ideal choice to the oligarchy of Mamluk am7rs.In short, if we leave aside the special case of Qfts, an important stationon the way to the 1-1ijaz and the Upper Egyptian refuge and exile for caliphsand s7ctis alike, we observe a concentration of s7 cti iqp's in territories distantfrom the borders of the empire and relatively close to Cairo. Yet, as alreadystated, this tendency to cluster the Royal holdings around the capital wascounteracted by the policy of the army bureau, traditional since 715/1315,to weaken the individual muqtacs position by parceling his claims all overEgypt.This fragmentation can be illustrated by the case of Sha`bn's son andsuccessor 'Ali. During his father's rule, in 777, he held (see Table III) 18villages: 4 in Giza" and Qalytibiyya8 each, 3 in Dawhi al-Qhiran and(huge) Gharbiyya, 82 and one each in Ushmanayn, 83 Bahnasa.,84 Buhayra85and Daqahliyya. 86 The cibra he had at his disposal amounted to 238,650dj, only a little less than the yield of the whole province of Ikhmim (243,925 dj).

6With the second, final accession of Barqaq to the sultanate the role ofthe s'id7s within the Mamluk polity began to change. Whereas in the Bahriperiod a son or brother of the incumbent sultan had a good chance of suc-ceeding him, this dynastic or monarchic principle was abandoned in theCircassian era. If we exclude Faraj, the son of the founder of the Burjiregime, the numerous sons of sultans who succeeded their fathers in the 15thand early 16th centuries were no more than interim rulers. They wereleft as figure-heads of the state only as long as the powerful annrs could notdecide 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-


18/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 157picion, all too often they would serve the interests . of the adversaries of thenew sultan. Many of these sons of former sultans ended in prison. Occasionalsigns of respect for the scions of a predecessor must not conceal the basicdistrust cherished against them. The previously high prestige of the awladal-mulEik began to wane after Sultan Barsbay, around 825/1422, allowed thefidis to leave their honorable prison, the Cairo citadel, and to dwell in thecity an ambience that soon corrupted them. 87 As long as their fathers werealive and they enjoyed the standing of sons of the strong man, their influenceremained considerable. They took for themselves, or were granted, specialprivileges in trade and industry. So we find them in the 15th century asowners of sugar factories 88 who took full advantage of the system of monopoliesimposed on a few lucrative industries in this very period.Whether they were sons of an incumbent or a former sultan, the fidis ofthe Burji period as compared to the Bahri not only lost the chance for politicalsuccess, but also their respectable share in the iqp's of Egypt. Whereas,in 777, the fiths were m uqta'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 in800 and only two in 885 (worth a total of 5,200 dj, both situated in the Fay-yfim) as under their control.If we take as our basis the three random dates for which we have figuresthis decrease is over-proportionate. Evidently a major policy shift tookplace between the first two, 777 and 800. The sons of both incumbent andformer sultans no longer seem to have received their sinecure from amongthe regular iqp's of Egypt, at least not on a large scale. Other sources ofrevenue, particularly in the crown provinces such as Giza and Manfalat,had to be tapped, if they were to receive stipends or appanages at all. Themajority 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 againavailable to those who served in the army and in the state. We know nothingabout the circumstances of this, gradual or rapid, expropriation of thef id is , numerous as they were, as we can see from Table III above. Evidentlythis reform was not, or not primarily, an act of revenge on the former rulinghouse, for not only Qaldwanids were affected by this new rule. This becomesclear from the one event that may help us understand this new policy: in797/1395, i.e. shortly before 800, when Ibn Duqmsq wrote, Barqaq's oldestson, Nasir al-din Muhammad, died. His igic , large as it was, did not, ascontemporaries would have expected, revert to the d7 weln al-jaysh, thus becom-ing available for redistribution among Mamluk or, conceivably, also s 7 c 1 7muqta's. It was rather 'separated' ( m u f r a d ) from the army bureau and placedat the exclusive disposal of Barq -aq's elite guard, his m ushtarawat Mamluks.The thwn al-m uf rad 89 was bornan institution that in the course of the 15thcentury became important and wealthy. Headed by the m ajor dom o (ustdr) ,


19/29

158 Ulrich Haarm annits main function was providing the funds to feed Royal Mamluks and maintaintheir palaces and staff. 9

Now, is it not likely that the alienation of the iqtac of the m(x, orestigiousf ic t i , the heir-apparent, from the cliwan al-aysh, was connected with the col-lection also of the fiefs of all the many other princes, who had less dignityand were even more unproductive than the oldest son of the ruler? Theanswer to this undoubtedly complicated question, we do not know. Barqaq'sown nephew certainly exemplifies this new policy. In 800 Rukn al-dinBaybars al-Atabak held two villages not by virtue of his blood bond to Barqaqand Faraj b. Barqaq, but solely as a powerful am7 r m ajlis and daw dr kab7r . 91One of the two villages had, in 777, been a proper fief of two Mamluk of-ficers; the other had formed part of the appanage of Sha`ban's son AbaBakr.

In 885, as mentioned above, two villages figure as an iqta of fic/is, namelythe sons of Sultan al-Malik al-Zhir Khushqadam, though these noblegentlemen had to share them with an unidentified partner. 92

Not all iqtets that are listed as holdings of fic/7s in 777, however, were re-assigned to the army bureau in 800 so that they could be granted away toMamluks. Some were annexed to the cti tvn7 land (in Giza four out of sevencases); some passed on to eunuchs 93 or to the ajned al-halqa 94 in general. Othersreappear as awqdf or am ldk . 95 An iqtd` of 'Ali b. Sha`bn of 777 is qualified,one century later, as waqf of Barqaq's two sisters; but the value of this vil-lage, al-Dimnwiyya in Giza, was small (2,000 dj). 96 One pattern of suc-cession is remarkable. In two cases the Abbasid shadow caliph was theheir: once, in 800, as a fully privileged muqtac the villages of Tirs/klissatBani in Giza with 8,500 dj 97nd once, in 885, as tenant of a waqf that com-prised only half the original jiha (the village of Banha 1-Asal in Sharqiyyawith 14,000/16,000 dj) . 98

On the other hand, f ic t is not infrequently appear as owners of allodiallands (mulk) and of waqf 99 in the 15th century, although in all cases thevalue of this private or endowment terrain sank considerably in comparisonto the figures of 777in two cases to only half the former cibra: ShubraKhit in Butlayra, in 885 mulk of Barcpaq's granddaughter khawand Shaqra. 1 - (from 2,000 to 1,000 dj), and al-Sarnaj in Sharqiyya, in 885 mu l k of Jaqmaq'sson Srcti ' Uthm ein (from 5,000 to 2,500 dj as early as 813/1410). 1 " 1

7These data on the sVis shall now be juxtaposed with the correspondingdata on the aided al-c 7 s 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 am 7rs . The curve runs gradually; it does not ab-


20/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 159ruptly break off as we have just seen with the sons of sultans. There is evenone case, the village of al-klumaydiyya in Ilchmim (yield 8,000 dj), wherewe have one and the same ibn al-nets muqta` in both years: Ahmad b. Yalbughdal-climax-I, quite typically, had served the Qaldwimids Sha`bn and kidijias well as the Circassian Barqaq as a high functionary. 102And in a totalof five additional cases (two of them in Bahnas) we find awlad al-nds m uqta's ,although different individuals, not only in 777, but (in four cases) also in800, and (in one case) in 885. Of course we do not know whether this con-tinuity is limited to the two/three years for which we have entries or whetherit covered also the decades in between.

Table VThe fiefs of awlad al-nas from 777 to 885 cibra in dj(and, in brackets, no. of jiht)

a = 777, b = 800, c = 885Provinceons of officersons of sultansotal1. Qt's3,000 (4)0,000 (3)3,000 (7)bc,500 (1 ),500 (1)2. Ikhmim1 ,500 (4)1 ,500 (4)b9,666 (3)9,666 (3)c3. Asyat3,500 (2)5,500 (2)9,000 (4)bc4. Manfaltat5. Ushmfmayn a7,150 (12 )1,000 (4)48,15 0 (16)b3,000 (6)3,000 (6)C6. Bahnas10,475 (19 )4,600/4)55,075 (23)b4,733 (5)4,733 (5)c,600 (1 ),600 (1 )7. Atfiti,000 (1),000 (1)bc


21/29

160Ulrich Haarm ann8. Giza 36,000 (6)6 ,000 + ? (7)9. Fayytim,950 (7)6,000 ( + ?) (2) 34 ,950 (9)bc5 (1 ),200 (2), 275 (3)

1 0. pawd lii9,850 (5 )9 ,850 (5)al-QhiraC

1 1 . Qalyab1 ,100 (6)b3,000 (2)C

1 2. Ibydr7,226 (1 1 )2,800 (3)bC

1 3 . Manfif2,000 (5)9,520 (4)bC

1 4 . Butiayra0,300 (1 9)5,000 (3)bC

15 . Fuwwa

91 , 1 00 (6)23 , 000 (2)4 0 ,026 (1 4 )

81 ,520 (9)

65,300 (22)

1 6. Gharbiyya13 ,675 (17)75,000 (15 )88,675 (3 2)bC1 7. Sharqiyya2,4 00 (1 1 )5,550 (3)b000 (1 )c,000 (1 )

1 8. Daqahliyya5 ,500 (8)3,000 (3)bC1 9. Thughar,000 (1 )bC 77,950 (14 )6,000 (1 )5,000 (1)68,500 (11 )8,000 (1 )Total73 ,676 1(21) 748,920 (64),282,596 (185 )b 206,899 (1 7)06,899 (1 7)c, 175 (4),200 (2)4,375 (6)


22/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f -ho lders 161Average,410.5 dj1,701 dj,932 djcibra p er jiha2,17 0.5 dj2,170.5 djc,294 dj,600 dj,396 djAgain the main results of this tabulation: in 777 the i q t c s of the awladal-nas--both the sons of sultans and of ordinary Mamlukscomprised 185tax-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 thes'idis controlled 34.6 % of the jiht (=64), and 58.4% of the cibra. Forthe sons of Mamluks proper these figures are 65 '4 % ( = 121 villages) and41.6 % of the yield respectively. The average fief of the sons of ordinaryMamluks in 777 amounted only to 37.7 % (4,410 '5 dj) of the average fiefof 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 environsof Cairo, and, most important, in Qalyabiyya there were, in 777, no fiefsof non-royal awlad al-nets at all. Here the f icas hold the full 100 % of thesample. In only two provinces, the 'royal fief' Manfalat (with 17 jihat)and in tiny al-Fuwwa wa-Muzdhamiyyatayn (with 16 jihat) neither groupis represented. In Ikhmim, on the other hand, and in the Thughar (Alex-andria, Damietta and Nastardwa) we have no fictis in the lists for 777 (norfor 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 Mamlukofficersa figure close to the average (58.4 vs. 41.6 %).By 800 this internal distribution between the two subgroups of the awladal-as had been overturned. Whereas the fidis, the more powerful partnerin 777, vanished altogether from the statistics, the sons of Mamluk officersremained a factor in the feudal lists of 800. They controlled a cibra of 206,899dj, i.e. 2.20% of the total Egyptian tax yield of 777, 39 % of the amountthey had held in 777. This yield of 800 was concentrated in only 17 villages(cf. 777; 1 21 villages!) with an average value of 12 ,107.5 dj (cf. 777 :4,41 0 '5 dj).

By 885, however, the economic power also of the non-royal awld d al-n shad collapsed. Both subgroups show again similarthough extremely lowfigures: the ficlis reappear with only two villages with a modest average valueof 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 longerreceived their remuneration from the holdings of the d7 w tm a l- jaysh. Quitea few, however, received funds from am liik, r izaq and awqaflands that hadpreviously been the property of the fisc. 103There are a few more scattered observations in this context that may,


23/29

162 Ulrich Haarm annyet need not be, historically relevant. In Sharqiyya the well-known risingpercentage of Bedouin muqta's between 777 and 885 was accompanied bya rising rate of halqa beneficiaries. In Buhayra we have a relatively highpercentage of third generation awlacl al-nds as muqta's. Al-Ushmanayn isparticularly rich in awled a l -nd s 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 ). Andas we saw above, Qalyabiyya knew in 777 only fidis and not a single son ofan a m 7 r as muqta` . There fidis and members of the two summary groupsajned 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 tothe anomalous character of this province in our period. In Ibyar the situa-tion 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 cibraof this small province consisting of only 46 villages.Like the regular Mamluk muqta's, yetas we have seen aboveunlikethe fid7s, the wealthy grandees among the non-royal awled al-nc7 s had theirfiefs, in 777, spread all over Egypt. Atimad b. Almalik al- Jakanclar, 1"Masa b. al-Azkaji,105 and Ùmar b. Arghan Shah 106 are good representatives.They had been among the ten distinguished awld al-niis whom Sultan Hasanb. Muhammad b. Qalawan, breaking the rules of the daw la turk iyy a , hadgranted an im rat al f . 10 7 By 777, the time of al-Ashraf Sha`ban, they hadbeen joined in this privilege by Àli b. Qushtamur,N 8 and, by 800, by AbaBakr b. Sunqur al-Jama11 109 and Ahmad b. Yalbugha al-cumari.no Theholdings of these most powerful awlad al-nc7 s stretched from north to south,from Ibyar to Asyat (Masa b. al-Azkaji), from Qas to Daqahli -yya (Ahmadb. lmalik) and from Bahnasa to Gharbiyya (Àli b. Qushtamur). Theother powerful awled al-nds generals who were entitled to large holdings,such as klajj b. Mughultay, 111 Àbd al-Rahim b. Mangribugha, 112 or Khalilb. Tankizbugha, 113 show similar patterns that reflect the principle of divideet im pera.

8What are the main conclusions to be drawn from this material? One con-cerns 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 thei q t a 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 onlyin the course of the 9th/15th century.The case of the elite among the awld d al-n s, the fidis, was markedly dif-ferent. Their fate was sealed under Barqaq, possibly in connection with theestablishment of the diw iin al-m ufracl in 797/1395. None of their rich holdings


24/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 163of 777 survived this reform, about which we unfortunately know next tonothing.With the accession of Barqaq and the installation of the so-called Circassiandynasty, 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'sdocumentation for 777), had been solidly built on a disproportionate shareof the house of Qaldwan in the wealth of Egypt. The dynastic elementin the Qaldwanid/Bahri monarchy of the second half of the 8th/14th centurywas stronger than one usually assumes from seeing the sons and grandsonsof al-Malik al-Nasir Muhammad mounting and dismounting the throneat the discretion of powerful anfirs between 1340 and 1380. With Barqaqthe material privileges for unproductive princes, who in the strict sense ofthe Mamluk 'constitution' were not eligible for an igic at all, were onceand for all abolished. The puzzling question for the historian as to whycontemporary observers record such a decisive break with the reign of SultanBarqaq may find its answer in the destruction of the dynastic principle ofthe Mamluk sultanate and in the emergence of new patterns in the distribu-tion of wealth.

NOTES1. 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, 1250-900, (London1939), 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 Mamluksand awltul al-els in the different ranks. The following are two samples from the late 8th/14thcentury: in 778/1377 9 am -rs of 1,000, all Mamluks; 24 am -irs of 40, among them 7 awleid al-as; and 14 wars of 10, among them 5 awliid al- iis, accompanied Sultan al-Ashraf Sha`banto Aqabat Ayla where he was to be killed (al-Magrizi, Sulfa , iii, ed. S. CA . `Ashar, C airo 197 0-1,p. 274).And in 791/1388-9, after Barqaq had lost the throne, 74 am -rs 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 19awlad al- eis (Sulfa, iii, 624-5). We observe a relatively high percentage of aw l - d al-d s evenin the highest echelon of the Mamluk military hierarchy in the last quarter of the 8th/14thcentury.


25/29

164 Ulrich Haarm ann6. See Ayalon, "The Eunuchs in the Mamlak Sultanate," Studies in m em ory of G aston W iet,ed. M. Rosen-Ayalon, ( Jerusalem 1977), pp. 267-95.7. On this group see Ayalon, "The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom," Islam ic Culture,(Hyderabad 1951), pp. 89-104.8. See U. Haarmann, "Die Leiden des Qdcli Ibn as-'i. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichteder Stadt Damaskus im 13. Jahrhundert," Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des V orderen Orients,Festschrift fir Bertold Spuler zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H.R. Roemer and A. Noth, (Leiden1981), p. 116, notes 45 and 46.9. By the late 15th century they had taken over major parts of Sharqiyya province as thefeudal registers show; cf. Poliak, p. 27 note 4, and particularly H. Halm, A gyp ten nach den m amlu-

kischen L ehensregistern, vol. 1: Oberagyp ten und dos Fayyf im , (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-Tablwi. DuringBarqaq's second reign he rose to the governorship of Cairo, was appointed muljtasib, an officeoften held by genuine Mamluks, and even court chamberlain. Together with the ndib of theDelta (Halm, p. 184), al-Tablawl was muqtd of the oases (wht) of the Western Desert andheld two more fiefs together with two other non-Mamluksa eunuch and an ibn al-nds: thevillages of Idfa in Ikhmim, see Halm, p. 83, and of Dunqam in Bahnas, see Halm, p. 155.On al-Tablawi see al-Sakhwi, al-Daze? al-liim ic li-ahl al-qam al-tasic, (Cairo, 1353/1934-1355/1936), V, pp. 252-3, no. 846; Carl Petry, The Civ i lian El i te o f Cairo in the Later Middle A ges,(Princeton 1981), pp. 215-6; Halm, pp. 83, 139, 155, 161, 184. Another civilian who rose tohigh 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 ofthe 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 Jaml al-din Matimad b. 'Alial-Ustdr who not only served his sultan as m ajor dom o but also endowed his own madrasawith one of the most prestigious libraries of the time; on him see Ibn Hajar al-cAsqaldni, al-Durar al-kam ina f t dyem al-mi'a al-thmina, 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-Nsir's rawk see Halm's excellent essay, pp. 24-30, especially the anecdote ofthe 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 remarksin his "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army," BSOAS 15 (1953), pp. 203-228 ( =Studies I); pp. 448-76 ( = Stud ies II); 16 (1954), pp. 57-90 ( = Stud ies III); here Stud ies I I,p. 467, note 5.

13. Ayalon, s.v. I--lalka in Ency clop aedia of Is lam , New Edition, III, p. 99b.14. Suliik , ed. M. Ziyada, (Cairo 1941), II, p. 228, line 15 (year 721). Al-Nsir Muhammad,when accused of neglecting his royal duties and his mamluks (annahii f arrata f t mulkihT wa-mamd l i k ih i ) , imposed severe sanctions upon those who had made the sale of such iqtds to non-military 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-Dawdri, Durar al-tijan, ms Istanbul/A1 Damad Ibrahim Paa 913, sub anno676 (no pagination), referring to Nsir al-din Muhammad b. Badr al-din Bilik al-Mukisini.18. Ayalon, s.v. A wlad a l-n d s 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.


26/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 16523. On the spotless `Mamluk' career of an ibn al-as until the impermeable barrier separatingthe Mamluk from the non-Mamluk realm was reached, see the case of Muhammad b. Sunqural-Muhammadi who rose to the dignity of ustdr al-dhak ifira wa'l-am lak (see Halm, p. 661,village of al-Nakhkhas in Sharqiyya). Khalil b. Qawsan symbolizes the futile efforts of at-taining the highest ranks; see W. Krebs, Innen-und A ussenpol i t ik A gyp tens 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 K unst des Sk laven kaufs . N ach arabischen , p ers ischen und t i irki schenRatgebem vom 10 . b is zum 18 . jahrhunder t (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen vol. 57), (Freiburg1980), p. 125, on the allegedly exceptional intelligence and penchant for scholarship amongthe descendants of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.26. See Haarmann, "Mamluks and awliid al-as in the Intellectual Life of Fourteenth CenturyEgypt and Syria," The M iddle E ast a f ter the Mongol Con quest , ed. M. Rogers, to be publishedby Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Ill., note 100.27. F. Vire, s.v. Ibn Mane, in El, Supplement , fasc. VVI, p. 392b.28. See Petry, pp. 201, 319, 324, 430-1 (note 1), who bases his study of the Cairo civilianelite 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 studyof the awlad al-as.29. I.M. Lapidus, Muslim Ci t ies in the L ater Middle A ges , (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 wat i 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-Nsir 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- Jshankir and toturn them into crown land. Shortly before his death al-Nsir 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 ctiwn.His death forestalled the execution of this plan. On less smooth efforts by later Mamluk am7rsto suspend aw q -if in the time of Sultan Barqaq, see Petry, pp. 328 and 431-2 (referring to al-Magrizi, 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 HolyCities). 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. Qaraty Aydaki in 777, yetappears in 885 as Sultan Barsbay's waqf (cf. A. Darrt L 'Acte de w aqf de B arsbay, (Cairo 1963),p. 4). Aba '1-Ghazlan al-Batiriyya/Butlayra (Halm, p. 400), klasan b. Sarghitmish'sof 777, re-appears as a waqf of the famous Qardquj al-klasani (cf. also Halm, p. 409). OnQardquj see CAbd al-Latif Ibrahim Ali, "Silsilat al-wathdiq al-trikhiyya al-qawmiyya.Majmficat al-wathdiq al-mamlakiyya I: Wathiqat al-amir akhfir kabir Qardquja.

B ulletin of the Facu40 of A rts , Cairo U niversi ty 18 (1956, published 1959), pp. 183-251; Haar-


27/29

166 Ulric/i Haarmannmann, "Mamluk Endowment Deeds as a Source for the History of Education in Late MedievalEgypt," al-A bhth 28 (198O), pp. 32-3.41. C.H. Becker, "Zur Kulturgeschichte Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Mamluken," DerIslam 1 (1910), P . 95; Poliak, p. 38 (and note 8), P . 39 (notes 1 and 2) gives examples of influ-ential families even of today who owe their prominence to their posts as hereditary superin-tendents or as beneficiaries of important awqf.42. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischer Litteratur, II, p . 87, no. 9: al-Qawl almcib fl' l-qada al-m jib.43. Al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, IX, ed. J. van Ess, (Wiesbaden 1974), P . 478.44. W af i, XII, ed. R. CAbo al-Tawwb, (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-ns as feudatories in the existingliterature. 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 MilitarySociety," JESHO 1 (1958), P . 45; Stud ies I I, P. 456.

47. Haim, P P . 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 floodsof the Nile, wars, epidemics, and conditions of transportation.50. Ed. B. Moritz, (Cairo 1898; reprint Cairo 1974); see Halm, P p. 30-1.51. Vols. IV and V, ed. K. Vollers, Descrzt ion de l 'Eg yp te , (Cairo 1893; reprint Beirut n.d.).52. E.g. Birm/Gharbiyya, Halm, P . 484; Ibn a1JiCan 25,000 djIbn Duqmaq 3,500 dj.-Minyat Zift Jawad/Gharbiyya, Haim, P . 550; Ibn a1JiCan 23,000 djIbn Duqmaq 3,500dj.Two examples from Sharqiyya; Abjj, Halm, P . 597; 3,500 dj vs. 1,000 dj; al-Nakhkhs,Haim, P . 661, 4,000 dj vs. 2,000 dj.53. See above, note 9.54. See Ayalon, "Names, titles and 'nisbas' of the Mamlks," Israel Oriental Stud ies 5 (1975),p. 230, note 238.55. Grandsons of Mamluks: See e.g. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ljin, amr /lhr, Halm,pp. 453, 492; the amir [!] Nsir al-din Muhammad b. cAboallh b. Baktamur, Halm, P . 678;Muhammad b. Ms b. Ariqty, Halm, p. 451; Srim al-din Ibrhim b. Ysuf b. Burlughi,Halm, P p. 83, 155he shared with [Ibn] al-Tablwi (see above note 10) and the eunuchSawb a1Sacdi the two villages of Idfa/Ikhmim and Dunqam/Bahnasa, and held an imraof five or ten respectively. See also Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tankiz (bugha), m uq ta cof Dumh al-Dthir/FayyUm in 777 (Halm, P . 254) and the anfir CAbdallh b. Muhammadb. arghayh, tenant of two i q t a C s in Buhayra (Halm, pp. 442, 462; villages of Qabr CIsmand Warzfa), as well as Muhammad b. Ms b. Ariqtay (Halm, P. 451) who also had his

fief in Buhayra.56. Halm, P p. 98, 252, 259, 264; his nisba is al-Hasani, not al-Husayni.57. See Ayalon, "Names," P p. 229-30; 230-1 "the names and titles of the sons of Mamluksdeserve special scrutiny." Let me add: Haarmann, "Mamluks," note 70a with additionalnames, and the case of Taghribirdi b. Iljay, muqtac of al-Nuwayra/Bahnasa (Haim, P . 173).58. Or vice v ersa: see Ayalon, Studies II, P . 458. In one case we have in the feudal lists:Mamluksnot Royal Mamluksand halqa (only for 777, see village of Minyat Nama/Dawahial-Qahira, Halm, P . 321). In only three cases, all of them in Sharqiyya, we find a differentia-tion between commanders and troops (rjl) of the halqa: see Halm, pp. 647, 662, 685.59. S u b / i, I V , p. 15, ult.60. Ayalon, Stud ies II , P. 457, note 5.61. Poliak, P . 29, note 10.62. Stud ies II , P. 458.63. Halm, pp. 44-5.


28/29

The Sons o f M am luks as Fie f-holders 16764. It is in Gharbiyya incidentally that, for the year 885, the 'archers' of the ajncid [al-

halqa] are singled out as a group; cf. Halm, p. 570, village of Samirbaya.65. Sqiyat al-Qummus in the Fayyam, Halm, p. 271.66. Types of such unpopulated tax-units are listed in Halm, p. 313 (chapter on the environsof 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, consistentlyspeak of al-ajnad, whereas, in all the other provinces, he always says f i aydi 1-m uqtac7n m in a l-

m a m ;c 7 l7 kl-11alqa al-m ansf ira, cf. the village of Udrunka, Halm, p. 99 (kindinformation by H. Haim).71. In Ibn Duqmq's chapter on al-Butlayra the letters fin and shin are missing; cf. alsoHalm, p. 391.72. In the small province of Iby.r/ Jazirat Barn Nasr with only 46jiht and a cibra of 100,232dj we have four such alternative ascriptions with an ibn al-nd s involved: Dimshawayh al-Bighl(Halm, p. 346), with Mas b. Quzmn; Juraysn (Halm, p. 348), with Al .imad b. AqtamurCAW al-Ghani; Babij/Matiallat al-Laban (Halm, p. 342), with fidiji Bak b. Alta b. cAshiq[?] ; finally Danasfir (Halm, pp. 344-5) with Mils b. `Umar al-Azkaji, the son of Sultanklasan's protg.73. Cf. note 55 and add the following jihiit: the village of Aba/Bannas, iqrcic of a fidi in777, reappears as fief of the Chief Eunuch ( z im m 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 al-nc7s `Ali b. Qushtamur al-Mansari (who managed to rise to an imrat alf under al-Mansiir,cAri b. Shacbn and died in 786/1384) in 777 had, by 800, passed into the hands of the eunuchBahadur al-Shihabi, the muqaddam of the Royal Mamluks during Barqaq's second rule. Andthere are at least two villagesBijdj/Bahnas, Halm, p. 148, and Butds/Bahnas, Halm, p.150that were continuously in the hands of the Chief Eunuch from Shacbn to Barqaq.74. Sulfa, III, p. 63. In 885 we find one muqtac who can be described both as a s7cti (he wasthe grandson of Sultan Jaqmaq) and son of a Mamluk am7r: al-Nsir Muhammad b. al-AmirUzbak al-Atabaki al-Nsiri. His village, with the average cibra of 4,000 dj, was Fardsha inSharqiyya, 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 Musulm an de la Haute-Egy pte M icli lvale: Qi is, (Cairo 1976), p a s s i m , 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 E conom ic Histog of the Near Eas t in the Mid dle A ges , (London 1976),p. 309.89. Ibn Taghribirdi, al-N ujfim al-zhira f i m ulak M isr z.va'l-Qhira, (Cairo n.d.), XII, p. 145line 13, p. 146 line 1; Halm, p. 44.


29/29

168 U lrich Haarm ann90. Khalil b. Shahin al-Zahiri, Zubd a t kashf a l-m am al ik , 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 Alib. Sha`ban, in 800, however, to Sidi [!] Aba Bala b. Sunqur al-Jamali. Does the term Sidihere 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 asw a q f o f 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, Salamb. Sa`dallah!103. Continuity of awlad al-nds group ownership/control over certain districts is not a verymeaningful issue in view of the small number of jihat, held by them in 800 and 885, both asigics and as allodial or quasi-allodial domains. There is the Jazirat Qift in the province ofQias (Halm, p. 70), held by a Mamluk amir (Yalbugha al-Mulliammadi) in 778/1377, and byan ibn al-as (Ahmad b. Baktamur) in 885, or (see above, note 74) Farasha in Sharqiyya, thatpassed from a genuine Mamluk (Taniy1 al-Mrklni) to Jaqmaq's grandson, an am7r of10. In both cases we have rare examples where in 777 and 800 fully privileged Mamluks andin 885 awlad al-nas appear as m uqta's of the same tax district. In one single case, the village ofManyal Abi Shacra/Bahnasa (Halm, p. 169; 2,600 dj), an ibn al-nib - is registered for 777 (Muham-mad b. Tankiz, who rose to the office of n,d'ib of Damascus and died in 771/1369-70 !), whereasthe tenant for 885 is another ibn al-nas, Atimad b. Yasuf b. Manglibugha, who claims it as hisrizqa, i.e. the village had in the meantime been alienated from the diw an al- jay sh. Quite a fewawilid 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. Sul f ik , 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 Suir ik , III, Index, s.v. A m 7 r 1:lajj b.Mughulty.112. Halm, pp. 81, 134, 509, 596, 707.113. Halm, pp. 78, 105, 124, 181, 263, 267, 623.

haarmann the sons of mamluks

Documents