^{page 28 note 1} Taeschner, F., ‘Futuwwa’, EI², vol. II, p. 967;Google ScholarBabinger, F., Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit(München, 1953), p. 491 ‘Gar nichts verlautet bislang über fachgenossenschaftliche Vereinigungen, Zünfte der Handwerker, wie sie im Osmanenreich des 16. und vor allem des 17. Jahrhunderts aus Schilderungen erweisbar sind.’Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Taeschner, F., ‘Akhi’, EI², vol. I pp. 322–3. However, on the basis of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa's evidence, Professor Cahen assumes that beginnings of professional grouping of the ahis may have existed in the fourteenth century or even earlier.Google Scholar See Cahen, C., Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968), pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 3} This is a general affliction of writings on Islamic guilds. See Baer, G., ‘Guilds in Middle Eastern history’, paper submitted to the Conference on the Economic History of the Middle East, University of London, 4–6 07 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} Taeschner, F., ‘Das Zunftwesen in der Türkei’, Leipziger Vierteljahrsschrift für Südosteuropa, vol. V (1941), p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} von Hammer, J., Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol. iv (Pest, 1829), pp. 126 ff., pp. 626–9.Google ScholarCf., Osman Nuri, Mecelle-i umur-u belediye, vol. i(Istanbul, 1922) (Nuri in later references), pp. 591–4. In this extremely important work many documents from the Ottoman archives are quoted verbatim. It is not correct that Nuri treats mainly the origin and early developments of the guilds until the beginning of the sixteenth century and examines only rapidly later periods, as claimed byGoogle ScholarMantran, R., Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle (Paris, 1962), p. 349 n.I.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} Ahmet, Refik, Onuncu asir-i hicrîde Îstanbul hayati (Istanbul, 1333) (Refik X in later references). Refik's collections include a large number of important documents for Turkish guild history.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 4} Refik, X, pp. 155–7.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 5} Refik, X, pp. 141, 169, 170, 171, 178–9, 180–1, 185, 188. The various officers of the guilds, as well as the structure of the guilds in general, will be dealt with in a separate article.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 6} Cf. e.g. Schurtz, H., ‘Türkische Basare und Zünfte’, Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft, vol. vi (Berlin, 1903), pp. 695–9.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} Taeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 180.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} Mantran, , Istanbul, p. 357.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 3} Evliya, Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, vol. I (Istanbul, 1314), pp. 512–669 (Evliya in later references). This part of Evliya's work is included in two translations byGoogle Scholarvon Hammer, J., a German one called Constantinopolis und der Bosporus, örtlich und geschichtlich beschrieben (Pest, 1822), vol. II, pp. 398–521 (very much shortened), and an English one called Narrative of Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa in the Seventeenth Century, byGoogle ScholarEvliya, Efendi, vol. I, pt. 2 (London, 1846), pp. 104–205. It is true that this translation too is ‘nach einer lückenhaften Handschrift ungenau und unvollständig übersetzt’Google Scholar (Taeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 180 n. 14). But it is not only much better than the German one, but also in some parts more complete than the Turkish printed edition itself, which was prepared from a manuscript at least as lacunal as that from which the English translation was made. For instance, guilds nos. 163 to 218 (pp. 149–63 of the English translation) are missing from the Turkish printed edition (see p. 563), as are guilds nos. 230 to 302 (pp. 169–88 of the translation—see p. 569 of the Turkish text). This is more serious than Mantran (p. 353 n. 4) wishes us to believe.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 4} Some guilds of this group are mentioned also in a similar description of a muster of the guilds written by the Armenian traveller Eremya Çelebi which took place 20 years later, in 1657. See Mantran, , pp. 353–4.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 5} All authors who mention the organization of these groups as guilds refer to Evliya, or to Nuri, , pp. 500–1, which is a summary of Evliya's enumeration. See, for instance,Google ScholarGibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, H., Islamic Society and the West, vol. I, pt. I (London, 1950) (Gibb and Bowen in later references), p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 6} Evliya, , pp. 521–30;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 110–6.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 7} Evliya, , pp. 560, 616, 628;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 145, 222, 231 (nos. 152, 480, 646). It is interesting to note that the only source for the existence of guilds of day labourers in Egypt is also Evliya's description of the procession of the Egyptian guilds on the occasion of the ru'ya ceremony. SeeGoogle ScholarEvliya, Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, vol. x, Misir, Sudan, Habeş (1672–1680) (Istanbul, 1938), p. 363 (Evliya, Egypt, in later references).Google ScholarCf., G. Baer, Egyptian Guilds in Modern Times (Jerusalem, 1964)Google Scholar (Baer, , Egyptian Guilds in later references), pp. 5, 13,30.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} Evliya, , pp. 534, 556;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 119, 141 (nos. 62, 132). None of the sources for Egypt has mentioned a guild of farmers—except Evliya, in very general terms. SeeGoogle ScholarEvliya, , Egypt, p. 359. It should be mentioned, however, that farmers (çiftçiler) were in 1250/1834–1835 one of the twenty-four guilds of SeresGoogle Scholar (Nuri, , p. 692). The Macedonian town of Seres (in Nuri's Arabic spelling: ) was occupied by the Turks in 1368 and remained in their hands until 1913, when the Bulgars entered it. After the second Balkan war, Seres became Greek, as a result of the Bucharest Treaty of 10 August 1913. In the course of its changing hands, it was burnt down and the old city was completely destroyed. A description of the guilds of Seres in the nineteenth century by Esad Bey, a native of that town who moved to Istanbul after the Balkan wars, is published byGoogle ScholarNuri, on pp. 690–716 of his work.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 2} Evliya, , pp. 517–9, 625–7, 632 ff.;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 108–9, 228–9, 233 ff. In sources on Egypt too these guilds have been mentioned in connexion with public ceremonies or in comprehensive lists of guilds rather than as units fulfilling administrative, economic or social functions.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 3} See, for instance, Nuri, , pp. 669–70 (leather merchants); p. 673 (merchants of the Wallachia trade), etc.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Evliya, , p. 618;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, p. 224 (no. 504). Cf. for Egypt, ‘merchants of the Sūq al-Daqīq market’; ‘merchants of Khān al-Khalīlī’, etc.Google ScholarBaer, , Egyptian Guilds, p.27.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Refik, X, pp. 170, 201;Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 594, 610, 640, 666–7;Google ScholarWhite, Ch., Three Years in Constantinople (London, 1845), vol. III, pp. 323 ff. White's excellent observations are an indispensable source for the history of the Turkish guilds, but it has not yet been used systematically for this purpose. One must, however, distinguish carefully between his original observations and those passages which he copied from Evliya.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 2} Evliya, , pp. 530–4;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 116–9;Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 649–50.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} An Egyptian manuscript dating from the end of the sixteenth or the seventeenth century, called Kitāb al-ḏẖaḵẖā'ir wa'l-tuḥaf fī bīr al-şanā‘i'wa’l-ḥiraf, whose author probably was closely connected with the guilds of barbers and physicians and which therefore reflects admirably their concepts and organization, has been studied in detail in Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 2–3, and passim.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 4} See observation by Nuri, , p. 595.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 5} Evliya, , pp. 520, 551, 559, 596; 548, 580–1, 601, 611;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 109 (no. 15), 133 (no. III), 143 (no. 145), 207 (no. 390); 131 (no. 107), 196 (no. 335), 212 (no. 425), 219 (no. 458).Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 6} Evliya, , pp.627–8.Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 230–1, nos. 604, 605, 646; 632, 636, 638.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 7} For parallel observations on Egypt see Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Cf., Schurtz, p. 698.Google ScholarTaeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 180. For EgyptGoogle Scholarcf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} Hammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 151–5, 158–60 (both groups are missing from the Turkish printed text); pp. 226–8;Google ScholarEvliya, , pp. 622–5.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 3} Nuri, , p. 558 (firman dated Cemaziyelâhir 1192/July 1778).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 4} Nuri, , p. 571 (document dated 6 Cemaziyelâhir 1277/20 December 1860).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 5} White, , vol. i, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 6} Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 7} Mantran, , p. 357;Google ScholarNuri, , p. 341;Google ScholarNicolaïdes, D., Doustour-i-Hamidié, appendice à la législation ottomane (Constantinople, 1878), pp. 289–91.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 1} Refik, X, pp. 201–3 (no.10);Google ScholarAhmet, Refik, Hicrî on ikinci asirda İstanbul hayati (Istanbul, 1930) (Refik XII in later references), pp. 108–9, 54–6, 133 (nos. 140, 79, 233);Google ScholarId., , Hicrî on ü¸uncü aszrda İstanbul hayati (Istanbul, 1932) (Refik XIII in later references), pp. 9–11 (no. 9);Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 649–51, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} Nuri, , p. 502.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 638–9.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 4} Refik, , p. 170 (no. 34); Nicolaïdes,Google Scholaribid.

^{page 34 note 5} Refik, XII, pp. 36–7 (no. 55);Google ScholarNuri, , p. 341.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} Document dated Rebiyülâhir 1257/May-June 1841, Nuri, ; pp. 682, 685.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 622–3.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 697, 701; for Egypt seeGoogle ScholarBaer, , Egyptians Guilds, p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 4} Nuri, , pp. 329 ff.;Google ScholarMantran, , pp. 144, 304–5, 307–15, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 5} Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 88–93. In Damascus the situation apparently was intermediate between that of Istanbul and Cairo: the Damascus guilds sometimes were charged with fiscal functions, and sometimes taxes were collected through the ḥāra system. See Baer, ‘Guilds in Middle Eastern history’.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} White, , vol. iii, p. 325.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 349–51. According to the résumé of an undated règlement for the corporations, reproduced (without reference) byGoogle ScholarYoung, G., Corps de droit ottoman (Oxford, 1906), vol. v, pp. 288–9, monthly taxes were collected by the kâhyas according to an ‘appended list’ (missing from Young) and transmitted to the Prefecture. Unfortunately this information is rather vague.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 375, 684.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 4} White, , vol. II, p. 158;Google ScholarRefik, XII, pp. 104–5 (no. 134).Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 5} Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 96–7.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 6} Nuri, , pp. 404 ff.; 303.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Nuri, , pp. 559;Google ScholarRefik, XII, pp. 19–20 (no. 29);Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 609–10;Google ScholarRefik, XIII, p. 3 (no. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 569–70;Google ScholarRefik, XII, pp. 169–70 (no. 202).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 570–72.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 4} Nuri, , pp. 608–9, 303.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 5} Nuri, , p. 639.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} White, , vol. ii, p. 254, says that the committee of six Armenian elders chosen by the esnaf of the sandal Bezesten determined factory and market prices, but these were minimum prices to protect the interests of the guild, and their goods were not vital consumer goods.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 302, 350, 419–20 ff., 443–8, etc.Google ScholarCf., M. Z. Pakalm, Osmanli tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüǧü (Istanbul, 1946 et seq.), vol. ii, p. 656.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 359–61, 643,Google ScholarPakalm, , vol. ii, p. 657.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 4} Nuri, , p. 549.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 5} Nuri, , pp. 419–20;Google ScholarPakalm, , vol. ii, p. 656;Google Scholarcf., Gibb and Bowen, , pp. 282–3. The narh was gradually abolished in the 1860s. SeeGoogle ScholarNuri, , p. 459;Google ScholarPakalm, , vol. ii, p. 657,Google Scholar and cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} Nuri, , pp. 640–2;Google Scholarcf., Ahmed Lûtfi, Mirat-i adalet (Istanbul, 1304/1876–1877), pp. 127–46, 150–76. A similar interpretation should be applied to the following statement by Taeschner ‘Unterbietungen wie auch Überforderungen wurden streng bestraft, bisweilen mit Schliessung der Werkstatt und mit Ausschluss aus der Zunft’.Google ScholarTaeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 186. Cf. alsoGoogle ScholarPakalm, , vol. ii, pp. 655–6,Google Scholar and Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 101–2.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Nuri, , p. 549.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 419–20.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} Nuri, , p. 641;Google ScholarMantran, , pp. 325–7;Google ScholarBaer, cf., Egyptian Guilds, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 5} Refik, XII, pp. 129–30, 141 (nos. 157 and 172).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 6} Nuri, Cf., pp. 619, 622.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 7} Nuri, , p. 644. The guilds' monopolies and restrictive practices will be dealt with in a separate article.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} See, e.g. Refik, XII, pp. 70, 155–6 (nos. 96, 186).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Refik, XIII, pp. 20–23 (no. 18).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} Cf. the following with Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 93 ff. For an exception regarding Egypt see p. 41 n. 2. As to Turkey, we have also found instances in which the Turkish guilds were required to supply craftsmen for civilian needs: thus a firman to the kadi of Gelibolu dated 1001 / 1592–3 included an order to the yiǧit başi of the carpenters of that town, all Christian Greeks, to supply 13 carpenters, mentioned by name, for the building of a palace.Google Scholar See Ahmet, Refik, Hicrî on birinci asirda İstanbul hayati (Istanbul, 1931) (Refik XI in later references), pp. 5–6 (no. 10).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Nuri, , p. 628.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 5} Nuri, , p. 629;Google ScholarPakalm, , vol. II, p.729. For an example of such a firman, dated 19 Receb 1108/11 February 1697, with details about the required recruits,Google Scholar see Nuri, , pp. 630–2Google Scholar (Gibb, cf and Bowen, , p. 322). For a further list of recruited members of guilds dated 1809–10 seeGoogle ScholarNuri, , pp. 634–5. At that time additional officials of the state were concerned with the recruiting of guild members to the army, such as the mimar başt, the su naziri, and the laİimci baştGoogle Scholar (see ibid., pp. 635–6).

^{page 41 note 1} Nuri, , pp. 633–4.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 630, 633–5;Google ScholarEvliya, cf., p. 527;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 114–15. The occurrence of an interesting similar arrangement in Egypt is related by ‘Google Scholar'Abd, al-Raḥmān al-Jabartī, ‘Aj’āib al-āthār fī'l-tarājim wa'l-aḵẖbār (Cairo-Bulaq, 1297/1870–1), vol. in, p. 6. When Bonaparte approached Cairo in July 1798 the guilds furnished the means for those who were recruited in order to combat the invaders.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Nuri, , p. 636.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 4} Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 5} White, , vol. III, p. 325.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 6} Refik, X, pp. 155–7 (no. 16).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Refik, XII, pp. 97, 178, 180, 232 (nos. 125, 216, 218, 271).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Taeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} Refik, XI, pp. 8, 40 (nos. 14, 77);Google ScholarRefik, XII, p. 180 (no. 218);Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 669–70;Google ScholarRefik, XII, p. 230 (no. 270 for the year 1196/1781).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 4} Nuri, , p. 799.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Cf., Gibb and Bowen, , p. 288.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Nuri, , p. 559.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 3} Nuri, , p. 685.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 4} Hammer, , Narrative of Travels, p. 209.Google Scholar (This information is missing from the published Turkish text—cf., Evliya, p. 598.) The Egyptian guild of shoemakers also exercised this privilege—seeGoogle ScholarBaer, , Egyptian Guilds, p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 5} See White, , vol. ii, p. 99. For the special position of the shoemakers' guild in various countries of the Middle East seeGoogle ScholarBaer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 63–4 and note 7 p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 6} Taeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, pp. 183–4.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 7} Nuri, Cf., p. 537.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 8} Cf., Ilyās Qudsī, ‘Nubdha ta'rīkhiyya fī'l-ḥiraf al-dimashqiyya’ (‘Notice sur les corporations de Damas’), Actes du sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, deuxième partie, Section i: Sémitique (Leiden, 1885), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} Nuri, , p. 697.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 611, 613.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Nuri, , p. 638.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Nuri, , p. 713;Google Scholarcf., Young, vol. v, p. 288.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 5} Nuri, , pp. 576, 694, 697;Google Scholarcf., Taeschner, ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 6} Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, pp. 113–14.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 7} Ibid. pp. 114–56.

^{page 44 note 8} Nuri, , pp. 576, 579–80.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 9} Nuri, , pp. 347, 580–1, 597, 708;Google ScholarEvliya, , p. 570 (where the number of plates is given as 10,000);Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, p. 188;Google Scholarcf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, p. 115.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} Nuri, , p. 580. Cf. also pp. 704 and 707.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Nuri, , pp. 704–6.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} Nuri, , pp. 656–7, 672–3, 713. The problems of the gedik will be analysed in a special article on the guilds' monopolies and restrictive practices.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} Gibb, and Bowen, , p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, p. 115 nn. 8 and 9. It seems to be significant that nothing is said about a fund or other arrangements for mutual help in Qudsī's detailed account of the Damascus guilds.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 3} Nuri, , p. 708.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 4} Cf., Nuri, pp. 503–5 (documents from the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century). Cf. also the miniatures mentioned in note 6 below.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 5} Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 6} See, for instance, Ettinghauseṅ, R., Turkish Miniatures from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century (UNESCO, New York, 1965), Pls. 20 and 27;Google ScholarMazhar, S. Ipsiroglu, ‘Das Buch der Feste’, Du (Zürich), 12 1963, pp. 57 ff., especially the plates depicting the guilds of makers of ropes, of sailors and of tailors.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 7} See, for instance, Evliya, and Hammer, , Narrative of Travels, passim; Surname-i Vehbi as quoted by Nuri, , pp. 588–91; Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Tableau général de l'Empire ottoman,Google Scholar as quoted by Gibb, and Bowen, , p. 287 n. 1; etc.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 8} Nuri, , pp. 692–3. Cf. also p. 713, where a specific flag of each guild is mentioned in connexion with the pilgrimage.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} See above, p. 46, notes 6 and 7. Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Nuri, , p. 563.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} Schurtz, , pp. 704–5.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} Nuri, , p. 580;Google ScholarTaeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 187,Google Scholar where the author quotes details about such excursions in Çankiri as related by Hasan Uçok and reproduced in French by Borrel, E. in Revue des Études Islamiques, vol. x (1936), pp. 309 ff. Other occasions of social gatherings of the guilds are mentioned byGoogle ScholarMantran, , p. 365, but no sources are mentioned.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 5} For more details see Nuri, , pp. 698, 700–1, 714; for expenditure on such festivities included in the budget of the guild of wool-carders for the year 1872–3 see pp. 705–6.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 6} Nuri, , p. 561.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 7} Cf., Baer, Egyptian Guilds, pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 8} Nuri, , pp. 713–14.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Evliya, , pp. 484, 570;Google ScholarHammer, , Narrative of Travels, pp. 86, 188–9;Google ScholarNuri, , pp. 582–3.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Baer, , Egyptian Guilds, p. 113Google ScholarMiddle Eastern Studies (London), vol. ii, no. 3, p. 275; vol. III, no. i, p. 107; vol. III, no. 3, p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} Gibb, and Bowen, , p. 277.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} Nuri, , p. 603.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 5} Nuri, , pp. 552, 613–14.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 6} Nuri, , pp. 553–6;Google Scholarcf., Gibb and Bowen, , p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 7} Mantran, (p. 362) also maintains: ‘Que des corporations aient conservé des liens avec des ordres mystiques n'est pas niable’, but he too does not prove this assertion, and what he says further on rather disproves it. Detailed analysis of the situation in Egypt has led us to the conclusion that, in spite of many points of contact, the two frameworks, which had different functions, seem to have co-existed on different levels, a large part of the population belonging to both at the same time. The same seems to have been the case in the Magẖnib. SeeGoogle ScholarBaer, , Egyptian Guilds, pp. 125–6.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 8} Nuri, , pp. 603–8.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Nuri, , p. 710.Google ScholarBaer, Cf., Egyptian Guilds, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Taeschner, , ‘Zunftwesen’, p. 183.Google Scholar