The study of the Mamlūks under the Seljuks is of pivotal significance, because those Mamlūks formed the essential connecting link between their predecessors in the ‘Abbāsid Caliphate and their successors in the Sultanates of the Zangids, the Ayyūbids and the Mamlūks of Egypt and Syria on the one hand, and in the Sultanate of the Ottomans on the other. They were also part of an exceptionally important stage in the ethnic transformation which those Mamlūks underwent with the progress of time.

The period of Mu'āwiya b. Sufyān, as governor over Syria and al-Jazīra under the caliph 'Uthmān from at least 25–6/646–7, and then as Umayyad caliph in Damascus 41–60/661–80, was crucial for the first impetus of Arab expansion in the eastern Mediterranean. Egypt had been conquered by 'Amr b. al-'Āṣ during 'Umar's caliphate, and the great port of Alexandria passed definitively into Arab hands by 21/642. Alexandria possessed famed dockyards, and had a Greco-Egyptian population which the Arabs were able to press into service for manning their warships operating out of the Egyptian ports and out of the harbours along the Syrian coast, such as Jaffa, Acre, Beirut and Tripoli.

In the summer of 1994 I received two communications from Mr Brad Sabin Hill, head of the Hebrew Section of the British Library. The first letter enclosed a copy of a Carmen Aethiopicum sive ‘әṭanä mogär whose most remarkable feature is that it is printed in Hebrew characters (“ob defectum Typorum, Literis Hebraicis expressum”). This composition of eleven lines forms part of a volume entitled Carmina Funebria & Triutnphalia Mis Serenissimam ac Desideratissimam Reginam Annam Deflet, Cantabrigiae MDCCXIV.

Scholars have known of Ibn al-Azraq and his Ta'rikh Mayyāfāriqin since at least 1882, with the publication of F. Wiistenfeld's Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber und ihre Werke, but it seems that the history received its first thorough reading in 1902, when Amedroz published a summary of the recently acquired British Museum (now British Library) manuscript. Amedroz concentrated only on the latter folios of the MS, particularly those that cover the Marwanid dynasty, and in his interest in the second half of the work he has been followed by B. A. L. Awad, who edited the section on the Marwaīnids, C. Hillenbrand, who edited and translated the 18-odd folios that concern the early Artuqids, and A. Savran, who made some brief comments on the two MSS of the history. It is of course natural that the later sections of Ibn al-Azraq's work have attracted historians' attention, since it is here that our author, who was born in 510/III6–7, and who probably died sometime during the last quarter of the sixth century, has important things to say about northern Mesopotamia in his day. For this reason his history was used by later authors;8 as Hillenbrand has noted,9 here he fills a gap in the historical record.

Poverty in medieval Islam is an enormous topic. It is worth considering from a historian's point of view, especially in the light of what has been accomplished by historians of Rome, Byzantium, and the medieval and modern West who have dealt with poverty and the poor. But as always, the sources for Islamic history, especially for the formative early centuries, present difficulties. Here I wish to make a preliminary attempt at dealing with part of this problem. I shall begin by considering an event which represents a turning point in the history of the Muslim poor, or more accurately, in the way poverty and the poor have been represented in modern historical scholarship on medieval Islam. Then I shall suggest a way in which this event may be set in context, and a possible strategy for handling some of the relevant sources. This strategy involves the identification of different, competing ways in which the poor were defined in the first centuries of Islam.

In 305 B.C. Demetrius I Poliorcetes of Macedonia (r. 321–283), pursuing his ambition of reuniting the empire of Alexander, marched against the island city of Rhodes, which since the partition of 323 had been able to reassert its independence and pursue its own foreign policies. The ensuing siege, one of the most famous military campaigns of Hellenistic times, was a failure, and in 304 Demetrius was obliged to admit defeat and withdraw, leaving behind his siege train and large amounts of other military stores. The jubilant Rhodians gathered up this equipment and sold it for 300 talents, which, in gratitude for their deliverance, they used to commission a spectacular monument to the sun god Helios, the focus of a lively cult at Rhodes. The sculptor selected for the task was Chares, an artist from the town of Lindos (about 40 kilometres south of the capital) and a student of the renowned Lyssipus, who had recently erected a great bronze statue of Zeus at Tarentum in Italy.

In Rajasthan, one of the north-western states of India, whoever has heard of the Kāmaḍ (or Kāmaḍiyā) would define them as wandering minstrels or jugglers, singing hymns in praise of Bābā Rāmdeo, a famous saint from Mārwāṛ, whose footprints they worship. Most people could not say much more about this community of religious singers who, since Independence, have been listed among the “scheduled castes”. In any case, everybody seems to be aware of their connection with Rāmdeo, a famous folk deity, also popular in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, now venerated by devotees of all castes and creeds, but mostly by Hindus, as an avatār of Vishnu-Krishna.

Khwāja Muhammad ibn Sadīq ibn Muhammad Kujujī or “Kujūjānī” (d. Dhū-hijja 677/April, 1279), as Hamdu'llāh Mustawfī Qazwīnī called him, was a Sufi master whose sons later occupied the post of Shaykh al-Islām in Tabriz under the early Jalā'irids, the Tīmūrids and early Safavids. Born in 614/1217–18, Kujujī's life coincides with the commencement of Mongol rule in northern Persia under Chingiz Khān in 1219, the conquest of Tabrīz in 1220 by the Mongols, the later subjugation of all of Persia under Hülegü (1256–65) and the reign of his successor Abaqa Khān (1265–82).

The expansion of Islam and the proliferation of the Arabic language and culture throughout the Near East during the seventh and eighth centuries created a growing need amongst Jews living within the Muslim empire for translating the Hebrew Bible into Arabic, their spoken tongue and the lingua franca of their age.

Annette Susannah Beveridge (1842–1929) was one of the outstanding oriental scholars of the early twentieth century. The work which established her reputation is her translation of the Bābur-nāma, the autobiographical memoir of the first Mughal emperor, published in 1922 by the Royal Asiatic Society. It was the first English translation from the Chaghatai Turki in which Babur wrote his famous account. A monumental work of scholarship, it is all the more remarkable for having been completed at a time when Chaghatai language studies were in their infancy. The translation is characterized by utter reliability and precision, exhaustive footnotes and numerous appendices: Western and Asian scholars continue to consult it as the standard translation of this classic Timurid text. Yet, despite the stature of her work, little is known about Beveridge herself, an unusual figure in the British orientalist landscape if only because she was a woman who raised four children and learned oriental languages when she was past the age of 50.

Among the few published Central Asian sources of the seventeenth century are two very unusual Persian-language accounts by Central Asians of their stays in Mughal India: the memoirs of Mutribi al-Asamm Samarqandi, and the travelogue of Mahmud b. Amir Wali. Written in stylistically different but distinctly personal voices untypical for their time, these accounts offer the modern reader valuable first-person insight into the minds and outlooks of their authors and shed light on the nature of how Muslims in Asia thought about their world and its boundaries.

Dutch scholars honoured the centenary of one of their great Orientalists at a conference in Leiden in August 1994. Their aim was “to commemorate Hendrik Neubronner Van der Tuuk, the first linguistic fieldworker, and also the first Austronesian comparative linguist in the Netherlands, who died at the age of 70 on August 17, 1894”. In the United Kingdom too, we have inherited a share of his work and influence.

Marco Polo's book — The Travels, The Description of the World, II Milione, or whatever we prefer to call it — is unquestionably the best known of all contemporary sources on that unprecedented historical phenomenon, the Mongol Empire of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. That is not to say that it is by any means the best source. As history, it cannot compare, for example, with Rashīd al-Dīn's Jāmi' al-tawārīkh, and as a European travel account (if that is what it is), it is not remotely in the same class as Friar William of Rubruck's Itinerarium. Nevertheless, while Friar William may have been completely forgotten and Chinggis Khan remembered only as someone a political reactionary can, by dint of great effort, get himself (or herself, one should hasten to add) to the right of, there are many who know at least something about Marco Polo: perhaps principally the fact that he went to China — as almost everyone has hitherto supposed that he did.

One of the questions that has prompted this study is this: despite the fact that various Xiongnu and Xianbei groups dominated the political arena in Northern China for almost 300 years between the collapse of the Western Jin and the founding of the Sui , and the usually unacknowledged fact that their descendants continued to do so for several hundreds more years,1 why is it that one could learn so little about their cultural heritage in traditional historiography?2 Even the linguistic affinity of the Tuoba Xianbei remains to this day a matter of controversy.3

In the early thirteenth century Chinggis Khan used Central Asia and North China and then throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries his successors used China, Eastern Europe, the Near East, even Vietnam, Burma and Korea, as battlegrounds for their campaigns of conquest. Little, perhaps, did the Mongol Great Khans think that some six or seven centuries later their homeland would itself be a battleground, fought over politically if not actually militarily by the empires of Russia and China and by the Communist powers which succeeded those two empires.