Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:40:53.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mamlūk petition and a report from the Dīwān al-Jaysh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

D. S. Richards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The system of iqṭā', the allotment of the resources of the state, income from land and elsewhere, to individuals to provide them with the means of serving the state, above all in military service, stands out from the pages of the chronicles as the dominant administrative institution of the Mamlūk period; the iqṭā' was the life-blood of the Mamlūk amīrs and the whole military apparatus of the state. All the vast amount of administrative work connected with the iqṭā' system, the assigning and control of, and accounting for, grants, was carried out by the Dīwān al-Jaysh, the Army Bureau. We see some of this work ‘through a glass darkly’ in the chronicles, and we have some very schematic accounts in the scribal handbooks that are available from the period. The operations of such ‘technical’ departments of state were not described by the writers of the handbooks with anything like the same detail as the operations of the Chancery (Dīwān al-Inshā'), because, despite a long tradition of discussion and comparison of their rival merits, which was one of the stock literary themes, the departments of financial and accounting functions were generally considered of lower standing and worth less attention than the Chancery, the bureau in which polite learning and literary talent were at a premium. Hence, examples of the prestigious productions of the Dīwān al-Inshā', treaties, foreign correspondence, diplomas, and decrees, were copied and preserved for their literary interest, in addition to, and sometimes before, their historical interest, and as models for aspiring ‘mandarins’ of the Chancery. There is a smaller, much smaller, amount of Chancery material that has survived in its original form in a few scattered collections of documents.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , February 1977 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Atiya, A. S., The Arabic manuscripts of Mount Sinai: a hand-list, Baltimore, 1955.Google Scholar I am grateful to the Library of Congress for providing me with photographs of the document.

2 For examples of decrees issued in favour of the monastery, see Ernst, Hans, Die mamlukischen Sultansurkunden des Sinai-Klosters, Wiesbaden, 1960Google Scholar, particularly no. x, the nearest in date to this present document, issued by al-Nāṣir and dated 13 Rabī' II 710/9 September 1310 (‘810’ in the text, 1. 48, is a misprint).

3 Stern, S. M., ‘Petitions from the Marnlūk period’, BSOAS, XXIX, 2, 1966, 240–2.Google Scholar

4 Ṣubḥ al-a'shā, Cairo, 1331–7/1913–1919, VI, 203.Google Scholar

5 Al-Maqrīzī, , al-Sulūk, ed. Ziyada, M., Cairo, 1941, 11, 270Google Scholar; for a tarjama of Arghūn, see Ḥajar, Ibn, al-Durar al-kāmina, Cairo, 1385/1966, 1, 374.Google Scholar

6 Richards, D. S., ‘A Fāṭimid petition’, Israel Oriental Studies, 111, 1973, 140–58.Google Scholar

7 Cahen, C., ‘Douanes et commerce’, JESHO, VII, 3, 1964, 247–8.Google Scholar

8 Al-Sulūk, 1, 538.Google Scholar

9 Al-Sulūk, 11, 151Google Scholar, and parallel text, al-Khiṭaṭ, Būlāq, , 1270/1853, 1, 89.Google Scholar

10 Al-Sulūk, 11, 136–7.Google Scholar

11 This is my interpretation of the phrase jund muataqṭi'a (in al-Khiṭaṭ, mustaqṭi'ūn).

12 Rabie, Hassanein, The financial system of Egypt, London, 1972, 113–14.Google Scholar

13 op. cit., 113.

14 From Shihāb al-Dīn ibn al-'Umarī, al-Ta'rīf, Cairo, 1312/1894–5, 74, we learn that the contemporary usage was that the style of address of an amir of 10 was majlis al-amīr, but that anyone of extra importance in that rank could share the style of the majority of the amīrs of ṭablkhāna rank, namely al-majlis al-sāmī bi-ghayr al-yā' (the end phrase means that any following epithets were, as in our report, not in the nisba form—senior ṭablkhāna enjoyed that privilege, e.g. al-amīrī al-ajallī al-karīmī, and above that likely candidates for the next rank were styled al-majlis al-'ālī).

15 cf. al-'Umarī, Ibn, MasālikGoogle Scholar, Paris MS 2325, fol. 175b: wa-dhālika galīl nādir la ḥukm lahu fa-yu'arraja 'alā dhikrihi; and phrases in Ibn al-Dawādāri, ed. Haarman, VIII, p. 38, 1. 2, and p. 45, 1. 15; and Khiṭaṭ, 1, 413, 11.Google Scholar 2–3 (quoting the text of an official document, it seems).

16 While checking on the facts of the case, it is interesting that the personnel of the Army Bureau seem to have confined themselves to looking at earlier diplomas, and there is no reference to any consulting of the sort of comprehensive registers described by al-Nuwayri, in Nihāyat al-arab, VIII, 200–3Google Scholar, and see Rabie, , op. cit., 40.Google Scholar

17 Al-Nuwayrī (Nihāya, VIII, 210) tells us that brevets (mathālāt) for grants in Syria, coming to Cairo for approval, etc., were endorsed by the nāẓir and his staff (kataba ‘alayhi … bi 'l-muqābala).

It is also worth noting that, according to Ibn al-'Umarī (al-Ta'rīf, 89), diplomas (manāshīr) are drawn up by the Chancery, as far as the point where the detailed contents begin; there, the Chancery copies material provided by the Iqṭā' bureau, or under its other name, the Army Bureau (cf. p. 1 above).

18 A courier Ibu Abī al-Raddād is mentioned in 813/1410–11, al-Sulūk, IV, 139.Google Scholar

19 Al-Sulūk, 11, 70.Google Scholar

20 Al-Sulūk, 11, 76.Google Scholar

21 The numbers are those of Atiya's hand-list.

22 See Qalqashandī, , Ṣubḥ, VIII, 169–70Google Scholar, where the use of the phrase al-malakī al-fulānī, with the appropriate laqab, is explained, to express subordination to a sultan, and of al-fulānī by itself, to express subordination to an amīr.

23 Al-Sulūk, 11, 77, 110.Google Scholar

24 Zetterstéen, K., Beitrāge, Leiden, 1919, 157.Google Scholar

25 Ibn al-Dawādārī, ed. Roemer, , IX, 270, 276.Google Scholar

26 Al-Sulūk, 1, 874.Google Scholar

27 In 698/1298–9, before al-Nāṣir returned to begin his second reign, he was one of the council of eight amirs who jointly signed letters and decrees (al-Dawādārī, Ibn, VIII, 382).Google Scholar Is he also the same as the Bektimur, whose waqf document, dated 14 Muharram 707/16 July 1307, survives in the Maḥkama at Cairo? (See Rabie, , op. cit., 113, 132.)Google Scholar

28 al-Dawādārī, Ibn, IX, 148.Google Scholar

29 Al-Sulūk, 11, 62.Google Scholar

30 Al-Nāṣir came to the Citadel on. Wednesday, 1 Shawwāl 709/4 March 1310, according to the text of Beiträge, 150–1Google Scholar; al-Maqrīzī, (al-Sulūk, 11, 72–3)Google Scholar gives the following day.

31 Beiträge, 151Google Scholar, and see also 146.

32 As evidence for the speedy filling of iqṭā's, see the text in al-Yūnīnī's Dhayl (MS Topkapi Sarayi, Ahmet III MS 2907/E.4, fol. 163b) under the year 709/1309–10: fī hādhā 'l-yawm rusima bi-qaṭ' akhbāz arba'a umarā' min umarā' Dimashq wa-hum … wa-'uyyina 'iwaḍuhum.

Note, however, that the final diploma delivered up was backdated with the date of an earlier document in the issuing process (the murabba'a) for the sake of simplifying any eventual accounting necessary (al-'Umarī, Ibn, al-Ta'rīf, 89).Google Scholar

33 Arrested Friday, 17 Jumādā I 711/1 October 1311, according to Beiträge, 155Google Scholar, and al-Sulūk, 11, 102Google Scholar; al-Dawādārī, Ibn, IX, 211 and 213Google Scholar, says Friday, 24 Jumādā I/8 October. Transferred to Karak, , al-Sulūk, 11, 105.Google Scholar

34 Al-Sulūk, 11, 168Google Scholar; al-Durar, 11, 18–19.Google Scholar

35 Al-Durar, IV, 15–16Google Scholar; Beiträge, 153.Google Scholar

36 Al-Sulūk, 11, 69–70.Google Scholar

37 Al-Sulūk, 11, 87.Google Scholar

38 Beiträge, 154.Google Scholar Ihn al-Dawādāri gives the date of Betkhāṣ's arrest as 1 Muḥarram 711 (IX, 211).

39 See p. 10, n. 32, above.

40 Al-Sulūk, , 11, 286.Google Scholar

41 al-Dawādārī, Ibn, IX, 393Google Scholar; al-Sulūk, 11, 378Google Scholar, ‘Monday, 22 Rajab’, and Beiträge, 154, ‘Monday, 23 Rajab’.Google Scholar

42 Al-Sulūk, 11, 378.Google Scholar

43 Al-Sulūk, 11, 509.Google Scholar Ṭashtimur is not mentioned by name in connexion with the murder of al-Ashraf Khalīi, but perhaps he was a minor accomplice.

44 11, 273.

45 Al-Sulūk, 11, 77.Google Scholar

46 Al-Sulūk, 11, 178.Google Scholar

47 Al-Sulūk, 11, 191Google Scholar; Beiträge, 168.Google Scholar

48 Al-Sulūk, 11, 363.Google Scholar

49 MS Aya Sofya 3434, recently identified by Little, D. P. as the Nuzhat al-nāẓirGoogle Scholar of al-Yūsufī, , see JAOS, XCIV, 1, 1974, 42–54.Google Scholar

50 cf. Ibu al-Dawādāri, IX, 167 ff.: on Tuesday, 21 Jumādā II 709/25 November 1309, 300 Nāṣiriyya mamlūks, led by the amīr Anghāy and another amīr, left Cairo to rally to al-Nāṣir in his second exile at Karak.

51 Stern, S. M., Fāṭimid decrees, London, 1964, pp. 38–9, n. 1.Google Scholar

52 Kitāb al-rawḍatayn, ed. Ahmad, Hilmy, Cairo, 1962, 1, 378.Google Scholar

53 Nihāyat al-arab, VIII, 207.Google Scholar

54 Zubdat al-fikra, BM MS Add. 23325, fol. 155a.

55 op. cit., fol. 157b.

56 Nihāyat al-arab, VIII, 200.Google Scholar

57 It was also possible for someone to be assigned some fraction of the total mughall or revenue from the land in a certain place for a certain solar year; see Nihāyat al-arab, VIII, p. 201, 11. 9–10.Google Scholar

58 Beiträge, 45Google Scholar; al-Sulūk, 1, 843.Google Scholar

59 Al-Sulūk, 1, 844.Google Scholar

60 See p. 10, n. 32, above.

61 Baybars al-Manṣūrī, Zubda, BM MS cit., fol. 199a. Por a fuller text with similar details on. the rawk of Lājīn, see al-Nuwayrī, , Nihāyat al-arabGoogle Scholar, Paris MS 1579, fols. 162b–163a.

62 See al-Nuwayrī, loo. cit.: ‘There is no decrease in revenue at all through this “transference” (taḥwīl). It is simply a book-keeping exercise (taḥwīl bi 'l-aqiām khāṣṣatan)’. However, for the difficulties of reconciling collection on a solar year basis and administration on a lunar year basis in Ottoman experience, see Sahillioǧlu, Halil, ‘Siviş year crises’, in Cook, M. A. (ed.), Studies in the economic history of the Middle East, London, 1970, 230–52.Google Scholar

63 Nihāyat al-arab, XXX, Aya Sofya MS 3627, p. 322.Google Scholar

64 Nihāya, MS cit., p. 320.Google Scholar