Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:00:34.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Notes on the Feudal System of the Mamlūks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

A. N. Poliak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The feudal system of the Mamlūks is of great interest not only because it existed for 267 years in the leading state of the Arab world and left some permanent marks on the subsequent social and economical development of Egypt, Syria and Palestine, but also from the sociological point of view, being the result of an intermixture of three various feudal systems which corresponded to peculiar cultural worlds: the Mongol, the Islamic, and the West European. The fundamental principles were borrowed from the Mongol Empire and consequently all the lawsuits relating to the fiefs were settled not by the qāḍīs and according to the Islamic Law, but by the military judges (ḥujjāb) and according to the laws based upon the rules of Chingiz Khān. The technical terms used in the official Arabic-written documents and in the Arabic literary sources were partly borrowed from the terminology of the Islamic Law, but their sense was considerably removed from their ancient meanings—which may signify that they were now used only as more or less faithful translations of the terms employed in the Turkish dialect of the Mamlūks. The Western feudalism, brought to Syria by the Crusaders, influenced the Mamluk system chiefly through the medium of the native tribal chieftains, who after having been vassals of the kingdom of Jerusalem were gradually becoming feudatories of the Sultan of Cairo, and sometimes received the feudal charters from both powers at the same time. In the charters granted by the Latin rulers of Sidon (in 1256) and Beirut (in 1280) to two chieftains of the Buḥturide family the term “fief” is translated by the word shahāra, which means “a land given in reward for a service”, but the word mulk is also used, as well as the verbs a'ṭā and wahaba which usually refer to the unconditional transfers of the right of possession.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , January 1937 , pp. 97 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1937

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

page 97 note 1 Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 219, 1. 28 to p. 222, 1. 10; especially p. 219, 1. 33. The Mongol influence is treated by me in Revue des Études Islamigues, 1935, pp. 231–248.

page 97 note 2 Ṣāliḥ Ibn Yaḥyā, 2nd ed., p. 55,1. 15 to p. 56, 1. 2; p. 56, 11.3–6, 8–12; p. 57, 1. 13 to p. 58, 1. 1; p. 79, 1. 6 to p. 80, 1. 16.

page 98 note 1 Ibn Yaḥyā, p. 57, 1. 13 to p. 58, 1. 1; p. 80, 11. 5–6. For our subject it indifferent whether these documents are authentical or not: their terms are so different from those used in the Moslem documents that they must be similar to the real charters granted by the Latin rulers to the native chieftains. After the downfall of the Latin states there was no reason to falsify such documents.

page 98 note 2 To-day it signifies “a piece of land given by the villagers to the religious teacher, the guardian or the artisan, or by the garden-owner to the gardener” (see the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1891, p. 106; 1894, p. 196).

page 98 note 3 Ibn Yax1E25;yā, p. 57, 1. 14 (a'ṭā), 15 (mulk); p. 80, 1. 5 (wahaba).

page 98 note 4 Ibn Yaḥyā, p. 60, 11. 13–14; p. 79, 1. 9; p. 80, 1. 1; p. 81, I. 9; p. 90, 1. 23; p. 93, 11. 3, 16–17; p. 134, 1. 9; p. 155, 11.5–6; p. 156, 1. 22. The term shakāra also continued to be used in relation to these lands: p. 81, 1. 9.

page 98 note 5 See, however, the use of a'ṭā. by Abū l-Fidā,', Ta'rīkh (ed. 1286 a.h.), iv, p. 35, 1. 23 (in other places is used only with the complement iqṭā'an).

page 98 note 6 This view was especially encouraged by Baybars, I: Sulūk of al-Maqrīzī-Quatremère, i, i, pp. 233–4, 237Google Scholar; i, ii, pp. 17, 18.

page 99 note 1 Sulūk, i, i, p. 53.

page 99 note 2 Abū l-Fidā', iii, p. 195, 11. 16–18.

page 99 note 3 Sulūk, i, i, p. 206 (the knights and tribal chieftains of al-Karak in 1263).

page 99 note 4 Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 34, 1. 25.

page 99 note 5 The old Islamic term qaṭī'a is quoted for philological and historical reasons only: Ṣubḥ al-A'shā, xiii, p. 104, 1. 10; Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 95, 11. The verb aqṭa'a is not often used, being mostly replaced by the expressions “akhraja lahu iqṭā'ān” or (especially by Ibn Taghrī Birdī) “an'ama 'alayhi bi-iqṭā'in”. The fief-holders—al-muqṭa'ūn, arbāb al-iqṭā'āt, ūlū al-iqṭā'āt. Al-bilād al-muqtaṭa'a (Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 4, 1. 18; p. 86, 1. 23; Zetterstéen, , Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlūkensultane, p. 81, 1. 2Google Scholar) = lands into fiefs. Ramā bi-l-iqṭā'i (Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī, ii, MS. Paris, Arabic 2069, fo. 51, p. 2, 1. 8) = gave up the fief.

page 99 note 6 Al-mukhbaza (al-Ta'rīf, p. 112, 1. 9; p. 113, 1. 7) = al-muqṭa'ūn. Qaṭa'a Khubzahu (Khiṭat, i, p. 88, 1. 18; p. 90, 11. 33, 37; Abū 1-Fidā', iii, p. 195,11. 16–17; iv, p. 54, 1. 5; p. 55, 1. 15; p. 60, 1. 11; p. 91, 11. 17–19; p. 145, 1. 30) = deprived the feudatory of his fief. The word khubz was particularly used to denote the fiefs of al-ḥ;alqa granted to the descendants of emirs (awlād al-nās), mostly exempt from active military service (so the examples cited in Sulūk, i, ii, pp. 159–161; Nujūm, vi, p. 386, 11. 11–15). In this case it is an equivalent of rizq (Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 15, 11.11, 18; p. 136, 11. 4–19; p. 150,11. 13–18).

page 99 note 7 Nujūm, vii, p. 853, 1. 15; Ḥawādith, p. 620, 11. 18–19. This name was derived from the document by which the fief was granted.

page 99 note 8 Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 3, 1. 8–9. The revenue expressed in a real currency (dirhems) was called mutaḥaṣṣil; so in the example cited by Dozy, , Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes, ii, p. 91Google Scholar.

page 100 note 1 Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 318, l. 11 to p. 319, 1. 6.

page 100 note 2 Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 3, 1. 8. The same figure is mentioned in Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 443, 11. 12–20, being probably copied from earlier sources.

page 100 note 3 Ṣubx1E25;, iii, p. 448. Afterwards it was a copper coin.

page 100 note 4 Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 3, 11. 12–15. The old figures, fixed when d.j. still had some real value, were roughly corrected according to the general information upon the state of the villages and mostly diminished (p. 7, 1. 4; p. 14, 11. 8, 14, 21; p. 15, 1. 7; p. 17, 1. 6; p. 18, 1. 2, 8; p. 19, 1. 22; p. 20, 11. 4, 17; p. 22, 1. 27; p. 24, 11. 10, 15, etc.).

page 100 note 5 Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 218, I. 11 to p. 219, 1. 6.

page 100 note 6 Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 216, 11. 5–10. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 50, 11. 10–13. Masālik al-abṣār, cited by Quatremère in Sulūk, i, i, p. 174, n. 54. Muqṣid, cited by Demombynes, Gaudefroy, La Syrie á l'époque des Mamelouks, Paris, 1923, p. xliiGoogle Scholar.

page 101 note 1 The Sultan succeeded in diminishing the fiefs' extent by an equivocal means: to the amount of the 'ibra he added two taxes, one of which (hadiyya, ḍiyāfa) already had been levied by the fief-holders without being counted in this amount, and the other (jawālī) was now conceded to the fief-holders by the central government (Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 88, 11. 17–19, 34–35).

page 101 note 2 Al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī, v (MS. Paris, Arabic 2072), fo. 204, p. 1, 11. 3–4.

page 101 note 3 Ibn Iyās, i, pp. 191–2.

page 101 note 4 Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 3, 1. 4.

page 101 note 5 Ṣubḥ, xiii, p. 117, 11. 15–16. Cf. the pecuniary fiefs in the Latin states of Syria: Monte, J. L. La, Feudal monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge (Mass.), 1932, pp. 144–7Google Scholar. The abolishment of the pecuniary fiefs on the occasion of al-rawk al-nāṣirī (Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 217, 11.33–4) was only temporary.

page 101 note 6 Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 88, 1. 37 to p. 89, 1. 5.

page 101 note 7 Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 25, II. 1–5; p. 304, 1. 6–21; p. 328, 1. 21 to p. 329, 1, 3; v, p. 17, 11. 18–19.

page 101 note 8 Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 462, 11. 1–2.

page 102 note 1 Ibn Yaḥyā, p. 167, 1. 19 to p. 168, 1. 1; p. 192, 11. 10–13.

page 102 note 2 Ṣubḥ, xiii, p. 156, 1. 9.

page 102 note 3 Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 14, 1. 8 to p. 16, 1. 11. Nujūm, vi, p. 386, 1.17 to p. 387, 1.9. Ẓāhirī, p. 113, 11. 4–18; p. 116, 11. 7–19.

page 102 note 4 Khiṭaṭ, ii, P. 216, 1. 2.

page 102 note 5 Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 337, 11. 21–6.

page 102 note 6 La Monte, p. 150.

page 104 note 1 Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 50, 11. 14–17; p. 216, 11. 16–18.

page 104 note 2 Ẓāhirī, p. 104, 1. 15.

page 104 note 3 Sulūk, ii, i, p. 45. Sakhāwī, p. 218, 1. 14; p. 426,1. 10. Nujūm, vi, p. 11. 6–7, 13; p. 68, 1. 17. Ḥawādith, p. 183, 1. 7; p. 186, 1. 12; p. 190,1. 12 p. 302, 11. 13–14; p. 322, 1. 10; p. 352, 1. 10; p. 511, 11. 11–12; p. 512, 7; p. 596, 1. 14.

page 104 note 4 Ibn Yaḥyā, p. 184, 1. 4; p. 187, 1. 21; p. 188, 1.7; p. 194, 1. 7; p. 200, II. 14, 22.

page 104 note 5 Cf. the figures of the Mamlūk army in 1315 (Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 217, 1. 35 to p. 218,1. 11) with those of the time of al-Maqrīzī (i, p. 95, 11. 12–14).

page 104 note 6 Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 457, 1. 15 to p. 458, 1. 2.

page 104 note 7 Khiṭaṭ, i, P. 90,11. 7–8. Al-Manhal al-ṭāfī, v (MS. Paris 2072), fo. 96 p. 1, 11. 19–20. Ibn Yaḥyā, p. 91, 1. 7, and all the charters posterior to al-rawk (e.g. p. 164, 11. 4–5).

page 105 note 1 Hawādith, p. 654, 11. 4–22. Nujūm, vi, p. 399, 11. 14–20.

page 105 note 2 Qīrāṭ = 1/24. Practically there is no difference between this case and the previous one, because 24 may be divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6.

page 105 note 3 So in the charters cited by Ibn Yaḥhyā and in those cases of villages divided among several lords which are mentioned by Ibn al-Jī'ān. “Shares” are mentioned in Sulūk, ii, i, p. 89, and van Berchem, M., Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, i, p. 354, 1. 19Google Scholar.

page 105 note 4 SirSimpson, John Hope, Palestine, Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, 1930, p. 31Google Scholar.

page 105 note 5 Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 250, 1. 6.

page 106 note 1 Ḥawādith, p. 133, 1.4; p. 379, 1. 7. Ibn al-Jī'ān, p. 80, 1.18; p. 84, 1.13. Ṣubḥḥ, iii, p. 457, 1. 17. Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 250, l. 6.

page 106 note 2 Nujūm, vi, p. 432, 1. 11. Ḥawādith, p. 117, 1. 16; p. 128, 1. 12; p. 133, 1. 4; p. 658, 11. 6, 7.

page 106 note 3 Ḥawādith, p. 379, 1. 7; p. 577, 1. 16.

page 106 note 4 Nujūm, vii, p. 93, 1. 18. Ḥawādith, p. 654, 1. 9. Ibn Iyās, v, p. 130, 1. 20. The same word denoted in this period his position in relation to his slaves and to the Mamlūks bought by him. On the legal status of the serfs see Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 85, II. 37–9 (falāḥa = serfdom !).

page 106 note 5 Khiṭaṭ, ii, p. 217, 1. 31. Ṣubḥ, iv, p. 50, 1. 8. Cf. Ḥawādith, p. 631, 1. 23.

page 106 note 6 Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 452, 1. 14 to p. 454, 1. 13. Denoted also as ray' (Ḥawādith, p. 458, 1. 19) and mughall (Nujūm, vi, p. 71, 1. 1; cf. Ibn Iyās, i, p. 331, 11. 4–5).

page 106 note 7 Khiṭaṭ, i, p. 88, 11. 28, 34; p. 90, 1. 16; p. 103, 11. 23–4. Nujūm, vi, p. 430, 11. 11–12.

page 106 note 8 Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 207, 11. 3–5.

page 106 note 9 Sulūk, ii, i, p. 132.

page 106 note 10 Khiṭaṭ, i, P. 88, 1. 35; p. 90, 11. 8–11. Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 463, 11.1–4.

page 106 note 11 Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 449, 11. 4–19.

page 106 note 12 Ṣubḥ, iii, p. 471, 11. 4–9.

page 107 note 1 Ṣubḥ, iii, pp. 453–4. Khiṭaṭ, i P. 107, 11. 30–4.

page 107 note 2 Sulūk, ii, i, p. 132.

page 107 note 3 Ṣubḥ, xiv, p. 45, 11. 2–6; p. 50, 11. 13–16.

page 107 note 4 Grundlinien der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung Aegyptens in den ersten Jahrhunderten des Islam, Klio, 1908Google Scholar.

page 107 note 5 Ibn Iyās, i, p. 164, 11. 22–7 (cf. Khiṭaṭ, i P. 250, 11. 4–12) ii P. 163, 11. 17–18. Ibn Duqmāq, v, p. 24,1. 24. Ibn al-Ji'ān, p. 185, 1. 19.

page 107 note 6 Abū l-Fidā', iv, p. 35, 1. 23; p. 48, 1. 2; p. 60, 1. 11. Ḥawādith, p. 603, 1. 2. Ibn Iyās, i, p. 154, 1. 6; ii, p. 305, 1. 6; p. 306, 1. 5; iv, p. 19, 11. 3–7 (cf. p. 245, 1. 6).