Pious Endowments in the Bahrī Mamlūk Period, 1250-1382

Home , Baibars, Culture of Egypt, Feddan, Raoul Curiel

The American University in Cairo

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

PIETY AND POWER: PIOUS ENDOWMENTS IN THE BAHRĪ MAMLŪK PERIOD, 1250-1382

A Thesis Submitted to

the Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts in Arabic Studies

Muhammad Hafez Shaaban

Bachelor of Arts in History

(under the supervision of Dr. Nelly Hanna)

December 2015

The American University in Cairo

Piety and Power: Pious Endowments in the Bahrī Mamlūk Period, 1250-1382

A Thesis Submitted by Muhammad Hafez Shaaban

to the Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations

December/2015

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts in Arabic Studies

has been approved by

Dr. Nelly Hanna Thesis Committee Chair / Advisor ______Distinguished Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo

Dr. Leonor Fernandes Thesis Committee Reader / Examiner ______Associate Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo

Dr. Amina Elbendary Thesis Committee Reader / Examiner ______Associate Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo

______Department Chair Date Dean Date Dedication

To the fourteenth-century scribes who have made my eye sight a little poorer.

Acknowledgements

This thesis would never have been completed without the help and encouragement of many people that I have had the pleasure of meeting during my time at AUC. I have benefited immensely from their kind mentorship and support while completing my thesis, which would not have been possible without them. My time as a graduate student was made much easier with the help and kindness of Mrs. Maggie Daoud and Mrs. Marwa Sabry. Mrs. Marwa Sabry in particular endured my endless requests and was always there when I needed help. Professor W. Matt Malczycki was one of the professors that made graduate studies at AUC worthwhile. His course on historiography my first year at AUC was one of the toughest classes and the most rewarding as well. Professor Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad continually provided advice and introduced me to Islamic and Arabic codicology that helped me navigate the sources used in this thesis. My life as a graduate student was made easier due to his kindness and helpfulness. Professors Amina ElBendary Leonor Fernandes deserve special thanks for reading my thesis and providing me with insights on how to improve it. Professor Fernandes especially deserves special thanks for her assistance in my understanding of Mamluk period endowments. This thesis would not have been possible without the support of Professor Nelly Hanna. Not only did she wade through my thesis and make corrections during the length process, it was her enthusiasm for my academic endeavors that really helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. Her unyielding support and mentorship made my time at AUC rewarding. My time at AUC was made more fruitful by the friends I made along the way. It is unimaginable to think of graduate school without the many debates and conversations I had with Paul Williams. Our explorations of medieval Cairo were both hysterically funny and educational. Walid Asfour has been a constant source of light throughout my life in Cairo. His humor and kindness have been a source of strength while we trudged through academic life. My long walks through Cairo with my uncle, Samir Shaaban, have become one of my most treasured memories. The ideal gentleman, a best friend and loving uncle; I can never repay him for the kindness he has showered on his nephew. I owe special thanks to my parents who have supported my academic endeavors and my expensive habit of collecting books. I have been very fortunate to be their son. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Rudina Ahmed Helal. My life has been made immeasurably better by your constant support.

Table of Contents Dedication ...... I Acknowledgements ...... II List of Tables ...... V List of Figures ...... VI Abbrevations ...... VII Transliteration ...... VIII Chapter 1 ...... 2 Introduction: The Importance of Waqf Studies ...... 2 Awqāf and Political Objectives ...... 4 New Land Tenure Patterns ...... 5 Power, Legitimacy and Architecture ...... 6 Sources ...... 7 Waqfiyyas as a Source ...... 7 Mamluk Architecture as a Source ...... 11 Chronicles and Historical Narratives ...... 11 Modern Scholarship ...... 12 The Political Milieu of the Late Bahrī Period ...... 18 Chapter 2 ...... 28 New Land Tenure Patterns and Endowments ...... 28 New Land Tenure Patterns ...... 29 Nazir al-waqf: Inheritance and Power through Endowments ...... 35 al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: An end to Qalāwūnid land tenure? ...... 41 Chapter 3 ...... 45 Power, Legitimacy and Architecture ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Endowed Institutions & Dynastic Space ...... 48 The Dynastic Space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn: Qalāwūn’s Heirs versus Usurping Amirs ...... 63 Awqāf & Political Relationships: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Third Reign ...... 69 Barqūq: The End of the Qalāwūnid Dynasty ...... 85 Chapter 4 ...... 89 Conclusion: Endowments and the Mamlūk Empire ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix ...... 93 Bibliography ...... 119

III

Primary Sources ...... 119 Published Waqf Deeds ...... 119 Published Primary Sources ...... 125 Secondary Sources ...... 129

List of Tables

Table A: Early Mamluk Rulers and Their Endowments, 1250-1341 ...... 26 Table B: Agricultural Properties Included in Amir Ṣargitmish’s Endowment ...... 32 Table C: Egyptian Agricultural Properties Included in Sultan Ḥassan’s Endowment ...... 34 Table D: Changes in Land Tenure Patterns From Later Qalāwūnids to the Reign of Barquq ...... 94 Table E: Father-Son Succession During the Burji Period (1382-1517) ...... 97 Table F: Regal Titles ...... 98 Table G: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Khalīl ...... 102 Table H: Inscriptions of Mamluk Amirs ...... 104 Table I: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Royal Progeny ...... 106 Table J: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ...... 107 Table K: Comparison of Royal Titles (Sultan Baybars, the Qalāwūnids & Barqūq)...... 109

List of Figures

Figure A: Endowed Mosques and Madrasahs during the Fourteenth Century ...... 23 Figure B: Excerpt from Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s Waqfiyya ...... 41 Figure C Madrasa of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars ...... 111 Figure D: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn in the Early Bahrī Mamlūk Period ...... 112 Figure E: Inscription on the Lintel above the Windows to the Right Side of Qalāwūn’s Complex Entrance Portal ...... 113 Figure F: Inscription on Top of the Entrance Portal of Qalāwūn’s Complex ...... 114 Figure G: The Brass Door Knockers of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn .... 115 Figure H: The Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ...... 116 Figure I: The Sabīl of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad at the Complex of Qalāwūn ...... 117 Figure J: Lintel Over the Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ...... 118

Abbrevations

*AI Annales Islamologiques *EI2 Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, 12 vols., Leiden-Paris,1960–2004 *al-Khiṭaṭ (I) al-Mawāʻiẓ wa-al-iʻtibār fī dhikr al- khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār, 2 vols., Cairo: Dār al-Ṭibāʿah al-Miṣrīyah, 1853-1854. *al-Khiṭaṭ (II) al-Mawāʻiẓ wa-al-iʻtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār, Ayman Fu'ad Sayyid (ed.), 5 vols., London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2002-04. *MSR Mamlūk Studies Review *RCEA Repertoire chronologique d 'épigraphie arabe, Cairo: Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale, 1931-1991.

VII

Transliteration

m م gh غ sh ش kh خ ʾ ء

n ن g ف ṣ ص d د b ب

h ه q ق ḍ ض dh ذ t ت

w و k ك ṭ ط r ر th ث

y ي l ل ẓ ظ z ز j ج

ʿ ع s س ḥ ح

-al ال h,t ة

i ـــ u ـ a ـَـ

In ـــ un ـــ an ـــ

Ī ي ū ـو ā آ

(īy (medial) , ī (final ـِ ـي ūw وــ ā اـ َ

Ay يَـ aw وَـ á ى

Ay ـيـ

Transliteration follows the practice of Mamlūk Studies Review. Arabic words are in general italicized and those that are not well known include diacritical marks. Words used throughout the book and therefore not requiring diacritical marks, or italicization, include sultan, amir,

Mamluk, and or the various dyanasties (Fatimid, Ayyubid, Bahri Mamluk) with the exception of official titles or document headings. The term mamluk refers to a manumitted military slave, while Mamluk refers to the regimes from the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries.

VIII

Piety and Power: Pious Endowments in the Bahrī Mamlūk Period, 1250-1382

Muhammad Hafez Shaaban

Chapter 1

Introduction: The Importance of Waqf Studies

The narrative chronicles that document the Mamluk Empire frequently mention the various religious endowments of their day. Their importance to the social, political and economic

1 spheres of the Mamluk Empire is evident by the numerous treatises written about them. The impressive amount of endowed buildings built from the mid-thirteenth century till the early sixteenth century ultimately poses a serious question to modern historians, why did endowed buildings become so prominent during the Mamluk Empire? As the majority of these complexes were funded by pious endowments (sing. waqf, pl. awqāf) founded by the Mamluk military and civilian elite, the answer can be investigated through their use of pious endowments and their objectives. This institution offers historians a unique opportunity to study the Mamluk power structure since it has left copious amounts of historical sources in the form of a legal document: waqfiyya or ḥujjat waqf (endowment deed). Almost every major Mamluk sultan or amir endowed a religious establishment of some sort and left behind legal documents allowing historians an opportunity to view an institution, and therefore power structures related to it, over a long period of time with ample data. The stipulations within these documents provide a wealth of

1 For an example see: Yehoshua Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʻrifat ḫabar Tamīm al-Dārī: On Tamim al-Dari and His Waqf in Hebron (Leiden: Brill, 2014). This work actually contains critical editions of Mamlūk period treatises on endowments and land tenure written by al-Maqrīzī (764-845/1364-1442), Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773-852/1372- 1449) and al-Suyūṭī (845-911/1445-1505). 2 information: salaries, land tenure patterns, social and/or political networks, and even dynastic ambitions. This data points to a key element: an informal mechanism to obtain, assert or legitimize power. Pious endowments provided a highly flexible mechanism, outside of the formal power structure of the Mamluk state, which allowed the Mamluk military elite to achieve political goals.

The power structure of the Mamluk state was derived in theory from the authority of the sultan. His ability to assign military and administrative positions to various amirs along with the financial rewards those positions entailed, provided him with the ability to dominate this power structure. Royal patronage was awarded to various Mamluk amirs in return for loyalty and

2 service to the ruler. The main financial reward for these positions was the iqṭāʿ. Its importance in financially maintaining the political structure of the Mamlūk state is shown through the

3 literature of the period in which it was commonly referred to as khubz (bread). However, this assignment could be revoked or reassigned since it did not come with hereditary rights as in the case of medieval European fiefs. The scholarly consensus has been that this insecurity encouraged

2 Although not truly equivalent to the European fief there are some general similarities. The iqṭāʿ provided the financial means for a warrior to equip himself and his entourage. However during the Mamlūk period it was not generally hereditary, although there were exceptions to the rule. For research on this feudal system see: A. N. Poliak, Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, 1250-1900 (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1939). Also see: Ḥasanayn Muḥammad Rabīʿ, "The Size and Value of the Iqṭāʿ in Egypt 564-741 A.H./1169-1341 A.D," in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. Michael A. Cook (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 129-138. For more recent studies of the iqṭāʿ system see: Tsugitaka Sato, State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqtaʻs, and Fallahun (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Idem., "The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of al-Rawk al-Ḥusāmī and al-Rawk al-Nāṣiri," Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979): 99-131. 3 The word khubz (sing.) or akhbāz (plural) is used to mean iqṭāʿ. See: Felicita Tramontana, “Khubz as Iqṭāʿ in Four Authors from the Ayyubid and Early Mamlūk Periods,” MSR XVI (2012): 103-122. 3 the Mamluk elite to create endowments in order to maintain a more permanent control of these limited assets for their offspring. However, it was the political machinations by members of the

Mamluk elite that drove this phenomenon in the fourteenth century. Those political actors that sought what van Steenbergen termed “effective power” created endowments and fueled an

4 unprecedented urban development in Cairo’s history. This study intends to investigate how pious endowments were used as a mechanism to strengthen a political actor’s position by investigating endowments in their entirety not just a single aspect (financial, symbolic, etc.) as most studies have done in the past.

Awqāf and Political Objectives

The sultan in theory could enforce his authority through several mechanisms found in the formal power structure: through the use of force (utilizing his control of the army and especially his own household mamluks), through influence (appointing supporters to offices within the state) and by granting favors or gifts. In addition to these, the sultan and the Mamluk elite would use an institution found in Islamic law, waqf. Although its concepts and legal parameters were determined by fiqh (jurisprudence), which gave it the added benefit of legal and religious protection, the institution provided flexibility that was used to generate various forms of capital: political, economic and cultural. Outside the formal power structure of the Mamluk state, the institution of waqf offered a mechanism to accumulate these different types of capital and utilize

4 Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-Political Culture, 1341-1382 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 53-122. 4 them towards the waqīf’s or founder’s political aspirations. Changes in the formal power structure of the Mamluk state during the fourteenth century were mirrored in the ways which pious endowments were used. As the power of sultan was continually tested, especially after the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (741/1341), endowments were employed to garner power outside of the formal power structure. This study will illustrate how during times of political and economic stability, the Mamluk elite used pious endowments to expand their influence and mark their dominance on the physical landscape, while at times of instability or of crisis they used pious endowments to financially and politically stabilize their regime, with varying degrees of success.

By investigating mainly the institutions of waqf sulṭāni (royal waqfs) of the fourteenth century, it will become apparent that pious endowments were actively used by the Mamluk elite to cope with the changing power structure of the fourteenth century.

New Land Tenure Patterns

The first chapter will show how the finances of pious endowments evolved over the course of the fourteenth century. The restructuring of the land tenure system during the third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709-41/1310-41) would have unintended consequences. With the consolidation of power in the hands of the sultan, he controlled the lifeline of the aristocracy and state, iqṭāʿat (fiefs). However, after his passing the Qalāwūnid rulers lacked this control.

Coupled with the changing economic situation during the fourteenth century, the Mamluk elite had to develop new ways of obtaining the necessary financial resources to maintain their power.

They created pious endowments in order to cope with the changing political and economic situations. As nāẓir (administrator) of a pious endowment, they would have access to any revenue not spent on salaries or other stipulations they themselves wrote in the endowment deed. The Qalāwūnids used this institution to build private reservoirs of financial resources as well as to bind powerful senior Mamluk officials to their cause, by ensuring them hefty financial

5 rewards through positions in their royal endowments. These efforts might not have created a permanent hereditary system but it would create a lasting idea of Qalāwūnid regal stature for much of the fourteenth century. In order to understand these changes, this study will analyze landholding patterns of the royal endowments, alongside the sultan’s milk (private) landholdings as well, to ascertain if the narrative sources are correct that during the latter half of the Bahri period endowments began to generate larger excess financial capital. The stipulations of the royal endowments will also be studied to show how later Qalāwūnids tried to pass financial resources to their heir(s) and bind high ranking Mamluk officials to their cause.

Power, Legitimacy and Architecture

The second chapter will illustrate how the physical remains of pious endowments, i.e. the buildings themselves, were used to strengthen claims of kingship. The Qalāwūnid sultans were particularly adept at this particular usage to bolster their claim of hereditary right. Narrative sources provide us with examples of how endowed institutions, like the complex of Sultan

5 The use of pious endowments was not invented by the Qalāwūnids or even the Mamluks but was adopted by previous regimes dating back to the Saljuqs, who influenced the Zangids who in turn influenced the Ayyubids. This influence, which is important, is beyond the scope of this study. 6

Qalāwūn, were used as places for state ceremonies tying Mamluk amirs to the Qalāwūnid sultan.

They were also used as propaganda tools, expressing to the public both their political power and pious intentions, operating along the same lines as modern billboards with their inscriptions influencing public opinion. Royal pious endowments created a familiar bond not only between direct heirs of the endower, or waqīf, but with those of his political allies or subordinates. Their use of endowed institutions to build and strengthen claims of kingship will be established by studying the epigraphic evidence of these endowments and their physical presence within the urban fabric of Cairo. While several scholars, who will be discussed later, have already studied the financial rewards that the ruling elite solicited from endowments, the power they generated from their architectural works has not received as much attention since Humphrey’s study on the

6 “expressive intent” of Mamluk architecture in 1972. The amount of effort expended to create these works of art meant the patrons considered the building(s) just as important as the financial aspects, therefore it is just as important to understand the context in which these monuments were created and their intent. These monumental constructions arguably provided as much incentive for their patrons to create them, as did the financial ones.

Sources

Waqfiyyas as a Source

6 R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary Essay,” Studia Islamica 35 (1972): 69-119. There have been a few studies that use architecture to discuss the political history of the Mamlūk state. For one of the most important, see: Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture, and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010). 7

One of the reasons that makes such a study feasible is that the Mamluk period has left a large amount of documentary sources for historians in the form of endowment deeds, also known as a waqfiyya or ḥujjat waqf. Some forty-six waqf documents from the Bahrī period alone

7 are cataloged by Muḥammad Muḥammad ʿAmīn in the Egyptian National Archive. It is a legal document in which a founder (waqīf), who meets the requirement of ‘compos mentis’, immobilizes legally owned property and the revenue generated from it towards a charitable institution or cause in perpetuity. In order for it to be inviolable, it would follow a formula set out in legal works, required the approval of the Qādī al-Quḍāt(chief judges) of each of the four madhhabs and its registration with the dīwān al-awqāf. It should be kept in mind that there were

8 several types of endowments, each of which deserves a separate study for this period. However, the main type of endowments discussed here is the awqāf al-ahliyya. In theory, the document should minutely document the properties endowed, the day to day operations of the institution, the salaries of employees of the foundation, and the succession of its administration, usually beginning with the founder and then his or her descendants. However, waqf documents remain

9 to be thoroughly examined and utilized and need to be viewed with caution. As with all legal documents, what is not written is just as important as what is.

7 Muḥammad Muḥammad ʿAmīn, al-Awqāf wa-al-Ḥayāh al-Ijtimāʿīyah fī Miṣr, 648-923 A.H./1250-1517 A.D. (Cairo: Dār al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabīyah, 1980). 8 For information on the various forms of pious endowments see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:294-296. 9 An exhaustive research on the surviving waqf documents presented in Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s catalog has yet to be done. 8

Several issues develop once any waqf document is closely examined. It must be remembered that a waqfiyya is a legal document meant to protect the institution and ultimately the founder’s wishes. The regulations and requests of the founder speak just as loud as the lack of information on other aspects of the endowment structure. The document is minutely descriptive in documenting certain aspects such as the property endowed or the salaries and benefits of the institution’s employees, but remains aloof on subjects such as projected income. Although it would have been impossible to inscribe the specific income of each property since it would naturally vary, specific information about it was left out which might have been purposely done to protect capital accumulation.

Another concern is that several endowments grew in size or shrank over periods of time.

Many founders included clauses within the waqfiyya allowing the supervisor of the waqf to use surplus money to expand the endowment (or in periods of financial strain, a clause allowed the naẓīr to judicially make cuts). These later additions undoubtedly occurred but are often found accidently by scholars studying other documents, but more will probably found with more thorough studies. An example is found in the waqf of Ḥammām al-Sukkariyya which had

10 originally been part of Sultan Qalāwūn’s endowment. Overall, the waqfīyat provide reliable data

11 for early period of an endowment’s history.

10 Hamza ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Badr and Daniel Crecelius, “The Waqfiyya of Two Hammams in Cairo Known as al- Sukkariyya,” in Le Waqf dans l’Espace Islamique Outil de Pouvir Socio-Politique (Damascus: l’Institut Français d’Études Arabes de Damas, 1995), 138. 11 For a more in-depth analysis as to why waqfiyyas provide a reliable source of information about endowments in their early stages see: Leonor Fernandes, "Notes on a New Source for the Study of Religious Architecture during the 9

Thirdly the waqfīyat that have survived till the present day are highly skewed in favor of endowments created by sultans or powerful amirs. This might be a result of selective bias of the

Ottomans and their adaptation of local waqf policy to enhance their own position within a newly

12 conquered territory. In other words, certain endowments might have survived do to the new situation under Ottoman authority. The larger and more financial robust endowments would have been desirable for the new authorities to keep running. Another probability was that these institutions, with their larger endowments and symbolic status within society, were able to survive longer than those endowments created by individuals with much smaller means. There are surviving documents from the awlād al-nās, literally the “children of the people” which was a term used for the offspring of mamluks, which provide an interesting insight into a little

13 understood sub-section within Mamluk society. However, since the aim of this investigation is to understand how waqf was used by the Mamluk elite, particularly the sultan or the amirs at the apex of the hierarchy, this skewed selection of documents will not harm investigation but should

Mamlūk Period: The Waqfīya," al-Abḥāth 33 (1985): 3-12. Also see Carl F. Petry, "A Geniza for Mamluk Studies? Charitable Trust (Waqf) Documents as a Source for Economic and Social History," MSR II (1998): 51-60. 12 Several of the waqf documents we have actually were For more information on pious endowments in Ottoman Egypt see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt's Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo, 16th and 17th centuries (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994). 13 Stephan Conermann and Suad Saghbini, “Awlād al-Nās as Founders of Pious Endowments: The Waqfīyah of Yaḥyá ibn Ṭūghān al-Ḥasanī: of the Year 870/146,” MSR 6 (2002): 21-50. Also see: Hani Hamza, “Some Aspects of the Economic and Social Life of Ibn Taghrībirdī Based on an Examination of His Waqfīyah,” MSR 7, no. 1 (2008): 139-172. For a study on awlād al-nās during the Mamluk period, see: Ulrich Haarmann, “Arabic in Speech, Turkish in Lineage: Mamluks and Their Sons in the Intellectual Life of Fourteenth-Century Egypt and Syria,” Journal of Semitic Studies 33, no. 1 (1988): 81-144. 10 be remembered as the nature of these endowments are discussed. These particular endowments were different and had much wider intentions that those founded by less influential individuals.

Mamluk Architecture as a Source

In addition to the legal documentation of each endowed institution are the physical remains, the actual extant buildings. These provide context and clues to the founder’s motivations that are missing with the endowment deed. The epigraphic data provides researchers with information as to how the buildings were meant to be perceived by the public. These medieval institutions provided a propaganda medium similar to today’s billboards. The expressive intent of

14 these structures will provide tantalizing clues as to the complex purpose of each endowment.

Chronicles and Historical Narratives

The final set of primary sources that will be used are the chronicles written by what

15 Nasser Rabbat described as the literati of their period. This group, made up of the ‘ulamā, provide a rich historical source for modern historians. As Rabbat points out however, this class which regarded itself as the preserver of Islamic and Arab culture probably viewed their foreign overlords with disdain. It also should also be taken into consideration that this class was co- opted into the power structure and this too was reflected in their writings and should be

14 R. Stephen Humphreys, "The Expressive Intent of the Mamluk Architecture of Cairo,” 69-119. 15 Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History Through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2010), 12. 11 analyzed accordingly. Scholars, such as al-Maqrīzī (764-845/1364-1442), had access to documents that no longer survive and might provide tantalizing clues to modern historians. Al-

Maqrīzī and other scholars often provide detailed information on endowments that prove the

16 validity of these sources.

Modern Scholarship

Although the issue of pious endowments has long been a part of Arabic scholarly literature it is not until the last several decades that in-depth analysis of this institution has occurred. L. A. Mayers’s published monograph on the endowment of Sultan Qāytbāy offered the possibility to study these important documents for various fields, especially architectural

17 studies. During the 1950’s at Cairo University, the Egyptian scholar ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Ibrāhīm began modern studies on Mamluk pious endowments with his seminal and pioneering studies.

18 His encouragement of graduate students in this field led to research of several institutions.

Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s work in the 1980’s on waqf during the Mamluk period remains

19 the authoritative work in the field.

16 A study on the validity of such information has yet to be done, although they would have intimate knowledge and access to such records due to their training and the positions they held. The historian al-Maqrīzī in particular often states figures and stipulations from endowment deeds. 17 L. A. Mayer, The Buildings of Qāytbāy as Described in His Endowment Deed (London: A. Probsthain, 1938). 18 Unfortunately many of these were never published and sit waiting to be used at Cairo University’s Central Library. See bibliography in: Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Fihrist wathā'iq al-Qāhirah hatṭā nihāyat ̀asr Ṣalātị̄n al- Mamālīk (Cairo: al-Màhad al-̀Ilmī al-Firinsī lil-Āthār al-Sharqīyah, 1981). 19 Muhammad Muhammad Amīn, al-Awqāf wa-al-hạyāh al-ijtimāʻīyah fī Misṛ, 648-923 H / 1250-1517: dirāsah tārīkhīyah wathāʼiqīyah (al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Nahdạh al-ʻArabīyah, 1980). For the standard catalogue of Mamluk waqf 12

More recent scholarship has shown an increased use of endowment documents which generally tend to follow four different trends. The first trend generally utilizes a wider range of endowment deeds to study institutions and urban areas. Examples of this type of scholarship are

Leonora Fernandes’ authoritative work on the khānqāh institution during the Mamluk

20 21 period, Adam Sabra’s dissertational work on poverty and charity in Mamluk Egypt, and

22 Jonathan Berkey’s engaging study on educational institutions in Mamlūk Cairo. The second trend in waqf scholarship focuses more on its political and financial aspects. Carl Petry’s study on the endowments of sultans Qāytbāy and al-Ghūrī have shown that the institution of waqf was

23 manipulated for personal financial gain. Lucian Reinfrandt’s study of al-Muʿayyad Aḥmad, son of sultan al-Ashraf Īnāl, who succeeded his father as sultan for a few months enabled modern

documents in Cairo archives see his: Fihrist wathā'iq al-Qāhirah hatṭā nihāyat ̀asr Ṣalātị̄n al-Mamālīk (al-Qāhirah: al- Màhad al-̀Ilmī al-Firinsī lil-Āthār al-Sharqīyah, 1981). 20 Eleonora Fernandes, The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: the Khanqah (Berlin: Schwarz, 1988). Also see her: "Istibdal: The Game of Exchange and Its Impact on the Urbanization of Mamluk Cairo," in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, ed. Doris Behrens-Abouseif (Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000), 203-222. 21 Adam Sabra, Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamluk Egypt, 1250-1517 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 22 Jonathan Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: a Social History of Islamic Education (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992). 23 Carl F. Petry, "Waqf as an Instrument of Investment in the Mamluk Sultanate: Security vs. Profit?," in Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, ed. Toru Miura and John Edward Philips (London: Kegan Paul International, 2000), 99-115. Also see his: "The Estate of al-Khuwand Fāṭima al-Khaṣṣbakiyya: Royal Spouse, Autonomous Investor," in The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, ed. Amalia Levanoni and Michael Winter (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 277-294. Idem.,"Fractionalized Estates in a Centralized Regime: The Holdings of al- Ashraf Qāytbāy and Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī According to Their Waqf Deeds," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41, no. 1 (1998): 96-117. 13

24 scholars to understand how pious endowments created a security buffer for royal offspring.

Finally, Jean-Claude Garcin and Mustafa Taher’s work on the endowment of Jawhār al-Lāla

25 illustrated how endowments were used as a complex financial tool. More importantly their work illustrates that Mamluk donors, or more likely their administrative staff, were able to calculate intricate financial equations in order to create lucrative endowments. The third trend uses endowment deeds to enrich architectural studies. These studies usually focus on a single

26 institution and only provide partial publishing of waqf documents. The fourth trend focuses on jurisprudence issues regarding endowments. These generally focus on early legal opinions before

27 the Mamlūk period, with the exception of Yehoshua Frenkel’s recent work. The final trend is

28 usually a detailed study of a single entire waqf deed (i.e. as a legal deed). However, there is

24 Lucian Reinfandt, “Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan's Son in the Fifteenth Century.” MSR VI (2002): 51-70. This work is based on his doctoral research: Mamlukische Sultansstiftungen des 9./15. Jahrhunderts : nach den Urkunden der Stifter al-Ašraf Īnāl und al-Muʼayyad Aḥmad ibn Īnāl (Berlin : Klaus Schwarz, 2003). 25 Jean-Claude Garcin and Mustafa Anouar Taher, "Enquête sur le financement d'un waqf égyptien du XVe siècle: Les comptes de Jawhār Al-lāla," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38, (1995): 262-304. 26 For example see: J. Dobrowolski, "The Funerary Complex of Amīr Kabīr Qurqumas in Cairo," in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II, Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International Colloquium, ed. Urbain Vermeulen and Daniel Smet. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1995 and 1996. (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998), 265-282. Although there are exceptions to this see: Sylvie Denoix et al., Le Khan al-Khalili et ses environs: un centre commercial et artisanal au Caire du XIII° au XX° siècle (Le Caire: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1999). This study used a variety of endowment deeds to study the evolution of Khān al-Khalīl̄ī. 27 See: Muhammad Zubair Abbasi, “The Classical Islamic Law of Waqf: A Concise Introduction,” Arab Law Quarterly 26 (2012): 121-153. Also: Peter Hennigan, The Birth of a Legal Institution: the Formation of the Waqf in Third Century A.H. Ḥanafī Legal Discourse (Boston: Brill, 2004). Yehoshua Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʿrifat ḫabar Tamīm al-Dārī: On Tamīm al-Dārī and His Waqf in Hebron (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 28 Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār ʿUthmān, Wathīqat Waqf Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Ustādār: Dirāsah Tārīkhīyah Atharīyah Wathāʾiqīyah(Alexandria: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1983). ʿImād Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd Abū Ghāzī, “Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al- 14 general consensus that the Mamluk elite had mainly materialistic motives for creating pious endowments. However, these studies have not yet exhausted all the avenues of inquiry into how this malleable institution operated with such frequency and for such a monumental duration.

This is most likely due to the small number of published waqf documents in their entirety and the obsessive effort needed to transcribe an entire endowment deed. The majority of those that are published are not published in their entirety usually only referring to the physical

29 descriptions of the institution’s building(s), property endowed or salaries of employees.

However several scholars have argued for a more inclusive approach to the complex phenomena of awqāf. Yehoshua Frenkel has argued that not only was awqāf used by the Mamluk

30 elite to generate prestige but also used as “a device to establish its hegemony.” This device was

31 used in a variety of ways: to gather political support from the religious establishment , providing

32 social services and providing for the general welfare , creating networks linking urban areas

Ashraf Ṭūmān Bāy: Dirāsah wa-Taḥqīq wa-Nashr li-Baʿḍ Wathāʾiq al-Waqf wa-al-Bayʿ wa-al-Istibdāl” (Ph.D. diss, Cairo University, 1988). Aḥmad Darrāj, Ḥujjat Waqf al-Ashraf Barsbāy (Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1963). Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bil- Rumaylah (Beirut: In Kommiss. bei Das Arabische Buch, 2001). Daisuke Igarashi, "The Private Property and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamluk Sultans: The Case of Barqūq," Orient (Nippon Oriento Gakkai) 43, (2008): 167-196. 29 An example would be Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s, "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn," in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982), 329-448. 30 Yehoshua Frenkel, "Awqāf in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām," MSR XIII, no. 1 (2009): 153. 31 Ibid., 153. 32 Ibid., 160-161. 15

33 with rural , but most importantly to finance the embodiment of the regime’s ideology and image

34 of power. Igarashi Daisuke also put forth a similar argument that the “waqfization” of iqṭāʿāt was

“a vehicle for sustaining their power and rule, through which they acquired financial and social

35 influences.” However Daisuke argues that it is during the Burji period and the declining iqṭāʿ system that forced the Mamluks to utilize pious endowments to sustain their declining resources.

This study’s thesis examines how pious endowments were used as a mechanism to gain power or influence by the donor but argues it was the centralizing forces of the late thirteenth century and the political developments of the fourteenth century that drove the Mamluk elite to increasingly utilize pious endowments. The growing use of endowments created the

“waqfization” trend that became so pronounced during the Burji period. The Bahri period is particularly relevant for such a study because it offers a unique view on the development of this institution because of the large amount of documentary evidence (in the form of endowment deeds and contemporary histories) and the constant change in state politics. While some scholars argue that the Islamic world reached its nadir before the disintegration of the Abbasid caliphate and Islamic law became static, the Mamluk period refutes this. Mamluk period legal experts wrote treatises discussing the legality of creating private endowments (awqāf al-ahliyya) from state lands, ones that benefit family members, and the validity of the new state structure (i.e. rule

33 Ibid., 161-162. 34 Ibid., 163. 35 Igarashu Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs (Bonn: EB Verlag, 2014), 40. 16

36 by convert former slaves). These hotly contested issues and the development of socio-political system attest to a vibrant and confident society.

36 Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Balāṭunusī (851-935/1447-1529), Taḥrīr al-Maqāl fīmā Yaḥill wa-Yaḥrum min Bayt al-Māl, ed. Fatḥ Allāh Muḥammad Ghāzī al-Ṣabbāgh (Mansura: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1989). 17

The Political Milieu of the Late Bahri Period

It is impossible to understand the development of pious endowments in the Mamluk

Empire without understanding the political system in which they developed. As an institution, which naturally revolved around the issue of power, it is important to understand how it was affected by contemporary issues to understand its development. One of the primary components of the endowment was the agricultural land that provided financial and material support for the endowment. Since assignment of agricultural land was the prerogative of the state, the fate of endowments would always be inextricably tied to the political situation of the period. The evolving political structure of the Mamluk state would influence the evolution of pious endowments, at least in regards to the endowments made by the Mamluk elite. After the death of the last Ayyubid sultan in 647/1249, the Mamluk “state” had been adapting [ad-hoc] to the situation on the ground. In fact, this “consciously perceived and carefully formulated Mamluk system, (which) became the structural backbone of a new and long lived polity and political culture”, was not developed until the latter part of the thirteenth century, when the Mamluk state

37 actually began to take shape.

The fourteenth century would be largely influenced by the reigns of two thirteenth-century rulers, Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars al-Bunduqdārī (r. 658-676/1260-1270) and al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī (r. 678-689/1279-1290). The evolving Mamluk political structure

37 Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History Through Architecture, 5. 18

38 they consolidated during their respective reigns would heavily influence the next century. In this evolving political structure, the sultan theoretically held supreme power alongside a new institutionalized Mamluk seniority. Qalāwūn’s investiture diploma (as well as those of his two sons: al-Ṣāliḥ ʿAlī and al-Ashraf Khalīl) was also a contract between the sultan and the Ṣāliḥī amirs, whom had brought him to power in the first place, that guaranteed their status in return

39 for their support. This balance could be mastered by someone in Qalāwūn’s position coming to

40 the throne matured and battle tested. But this balance could not be maintained if one of either group became overly powerful as would be the case for much of the fourteenth century. The descendants of Qalāwūn would be placed on the throne by generally more experienced amirs, causing the delicate political structure that evolved from the policies of Baybars and Qalāwūn to

41 unravel causing political instability. The next sultan, al-Ashraf Khalīl was murdered when the

Mamluk magnates felt their status threatened. The following seventeen years saw political

38 Linda Northrup, From Slave to Sultan: the Career of Al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria 678-689 A.H./1279-1290 A.D. (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1998), 162-166. The centralization and militarization of the state by al-Ṣālih Ayyūb provided a model for Sultan Baybars. This model would be expanded upon by Sultan al-Qalāwūn. 39 Ibid., 302-303. 40 Qalāwūn became sultan at the age of 60 as well. 41 Jo Van Steenbergen, “”Is Anyone My Guardian …?” Mamlūk Under-Age Rule and the Later Qalāwūnids," Al- Masāq 19, no. 1 (2007): 55-65. Van Steenbergen offers an in-depth study of the age and situation of enthronement for each of the Qalāwūnid rulers from the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad till the reign of Barqūq. Although the main point of his article is to articulate the “Qalāwūnid reflex” and and to dispel the idea that weak and young Qalāwūnid offspring installed on the throne, it is impossible to escape the fact they were always much less experienced than the amīrs. For a look at the succession machinations of various actors at the end of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s reign see: Jo Van Steenbergen, "Mamluk Elite on the Eve of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad's Death (1341): A Look behind the Scenes of Mamluk Politics," MSR IX, no. 2 (2005): 173-199. 19 instability with al-Nāṣir Muḥammad being enthroned and dethroned twice along with three usurpations by ambitious amirs (al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā, al-Manṣūr Lājīn and Baybars al-Jāshankīr).

The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709-41/1310-41) saw the strengthening of the position of the Mamluk sultan vis-à-vis the Mamluk amirs after his cadastral survey of Egypt and Syria. The cadastral survey, which was conducted between 713/1313 and 725/1325,

42 resulted in the redistribution of iqṭāʿāt to the advantage of the sultan. This redistribution saw

43 the share of the sultan rise from 4/24 percent to 10/24 percent of all cultivated land. During his first two previous reigns, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad was barely an equal to the powerful Mamluk amirs of his father, al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn, and brother, al-Ashraf Khalīl, making him dependent on

44 them to maintain his hold on the throne. He was therefore removed when he was no longer useful to the powerful Mamluk amirs. Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad sought to remove the power of his predecessors’ amirs while strengthening his own position by redistributing the iqṭāʿāt. Al-Maqrīzī noted that,

42 For a general review on iqṭā see: Claude Cahen, "Iḳṭāʿ," in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. (Leiden: Brill, 1960-), Vol. 3, 1088. Also: Tsugitaka Sato, "The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of al-Rawk al-Ḥusāmī and al-Rawk al- Nāṣiri," Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979): 99-131. 43 Ḥasanayn Muḥammad Rabīʿ, The Financial System of Egypt, A.H. 564-741/A.D. 1169-1341 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 54. 44 Reuven Amitai, A Turning Point in Mamlūk History: The Third Reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn 1310-1341 (Brill: Leiden: 1995), 28. 20

”و فيـالعشرـالخ يرـمنـشعبانـوقعـالشروعـفيـروكـَأرضـمصرـوـسببـذَل ـكـَأنـال ُّ ـسلْطَانـ

استكثرـَأ ْخب َارـالمماليكـَأ ْصح َابـبيبرسـالجاشنكيرـوسلارـال ن ـائ ـبـوَب َقـ ي ـةـالبرجية،ـوَكَانَـا ْلخ بزـ

ال ْوَا ـحدـمَاـب َينـألفـمـثْقَالـف ـيـال ـسنةـِإل َىـث َم َانم ـائ َةـمـثْقَال، خشيـ)السلطان)ـمنـو ق وعـالفتةـبـأخذـ

45 أخبازهم.“

The cadastral survey of Egypt began at the end of Shaʿbān. The reason for this was the sultan (al-

Nāṣir Muḥammad) deemed the large amount of akhbāz (or iqṭāʿāt) of supporters of Baybars al-

Jāshankīr and Salār al-Nā’ib and the other Bahrī mamlūks too much. Their akhbāz ranged from

1000 mithqāl per year to 800 mithqāl which the sultan wanted to take.

His cadastral survey and the redistribution of iqṭāʿs created a highly centralized land tenure system benefiting the reigning sultan. It allowed al-Nāṣir Muḥammad to reward his own royal mamlūks with larger iqṭāʿāt and offsetting the power of the amirs from his predecessors by reducing their share. The sultan would also gain better control of the Mamluk hierarchy as it weakened the muqṭaʿs control over their lands since it was non-hereditary (at least in theory)

46 and contingent on the sultan’s allocation. His triumphant return to Cairo and resumption of power in 709/1310 saw him quickly eliminate or sideline the amirs which had played a hand in

47 his previous removals and the implementation of the new iqṭāʿ system. Although this system

45 Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrizi (764-845/1364-1442), Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafá Ziyādah (Cairo: Matbạʿ Lajnat al-Ta’līfa al-Tarjamak wa al-Nashr, 1934-1972), 2:1:146. 46 One of the motivations of his cadastral survey was to find out which lands had become hereditary from previous muqṭaʿs. See: al-Maqrīzī, Sūlūk, 2:153. 47 Reuven Amitai, A Turning Point in Mamlūk History, 28. 21 benefited him enormously during his final reign, it ultimately produced unintended consequences for his descendants.

This centralized iqṭāʿ institution had several unintended consequences. First, the centralization of the Mamluk hierarchy’s economic lifeline pushed them to find a mechanism to control land outside the iqṭāʿ system. This centralized institution coupled with the lack of any external threats by the end of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s third reign, which freed up financial capital spent previously on military expenditures, led to the creation of numerous endowments far beyond the populace’s need for religious, educational, and social institutions. Secondly, this new control mechanism in the formal power structure of the Mamluk state benefited a ruler with a firm grip on the throne. An inexperienced young sultan however, as many of his successors would be, was not able to control this and other mechanisms of the power structure. The amirs too looked outside the formal power structure for a way to enhance their position vis-à-vis the amirs. During the financially and politically stable period of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s third reign, endowments were funded mainly by urban rental properties and endowed institutions built by

48 amirs received financial support from the sultan. The last decade of his reign saw eighteen mosques and madrasahs built, more than the next two decades after his reign together (See

Figure A). However, during the late Bahri period as competition for power intensified and the economic situation of the Mamluk Empire changed, fewer mosques were built but they were funded by vastly larger endowments. These funds largely came from the “waqfization” of state

48 Howyda N. al-Harithy, "The Patronage of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, 1310-1341," MSR 4 (2000): 226. 22 lands, a phenomenon mostly thought to have taken place during the fifteenth century. However it was during the politically turbulent fourteenth century that powerful individuals were able to acquire state lands and place them in their endowments.

Figure A: Endowed Mosques and Madrasahs during the Fourteenth Century49

9 8 7 7

5 5

1279-90 1310-1320 1321-1330 1331-1341 1342-1350 1351-1360 1361-1370 1371-1382

The link between the political power and endowments is illustrated by the large proportion of endowments created by the Mamluk elite. Obviously it was only they who could have the financial and political clout to endow such massive institutions. The relationship

49 The reader will notice that the time periods in this table are not uniformly divided. This was intentionally done to illustrate the massive building program of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The period from 1331-1341 was the last decade al- Nāṣir Muḥammad was in power which was also when the power of the sultan was at its zenith. The amount of endowed mosques and madrasahs built during this decade is more than other decade in the fourteenth century. 23 between large endowments and the Mamluk elite has been noted by several modern researchers and contemporary Mamluk sources. Al-Suyūṭī commented that:

”ـاعلمـأنـالأوقافـفيـالغالبـلاـتصدرـإلاـمنـملكـأوـسلطان،ـأوـكافلـمملـكةـشريفة،ـأوـ

50 أميرـمنـأعيانـالأمراء،ـوـمنـفيـدرجتهم.“

“Know that endowments are not founded except by kings or sultans, or by heads of state, or high

51 ranking amīrs or men of those rank.”

Looking at Table A, there is a correlation between rulers of the Mamluk state and their creation of endowments. Of the twelve sultans who reigned from 1250 till 1341, eleven of them are known to have created endowments. The only one, al-ʿAdil Salamish, who did not create an endowment, had a short insignificant reign. The number of religious institutions endowed during

52 the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad alone is staggering. Again this is not to suggest that civilians

53 did not create endowments, they of course did. However, the size and position of these endowments within their respective urban settings denote their small scale, lack of political clout,

50 Muḥammad ibn Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Jawāhir al-ʿUqūd wa-Muʿīn al-Quḍāh wa-al-Muwaqqiʿīn wa-al-Shuhūd. Ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunnah al-Muḥammadīyah, 1955), 1:321-322. 51 Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 17. 52 See Chāhinda Fahmī Karīm, “Jawāmiʻ wa-masājid umaraʼ al-sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn-Qalāwūn” (Ph.D. diss., Cairo University, 1987). 53 For an example of an endowment by a member of the civilian elite see: Hani Hamza, "Turbat Abū Zakariyya Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Mūsa (chief surgeon of al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī) and his social status according to his endowment deed (waqfiyya)," in Material Evidence and Narrative Sources: Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the Muslim Middle East, ed. Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1:315-340. 24 and different motivations. Nimrod Luz’s study of endowments in Jerusalem has shown that those closest to the Ḥaram al-Sharīf belonged to the Mamlūk elite. Those found further and further

54 away from the Ḥaram al-Sharīf belonged to founders of smaller stature or means. These spacious, richly endowed, institutions and their central location are proof that pious endowments were used an expression of power and legitimacy. It is this particular and pervasive use of endowments that shall be investigated in order to understand its evolution and importance in the late Bahri period.

54 Nimrod Luz, Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 166. 25

Table A: Early Mamluk Rulers and Their Endowments, 1250-134155 Sultan Created An Endowment

Shajar al-Durr  1250/648 56 al-Muʿizz Aybak  1250-1257/648-655 57 al-Muẓẓafar Quṭuz  1259-1260/657-658 al-Ẓāhir Baybars  1260-1277/658-676 58 al-Saʿīd Baraka Khān  1277-1279/676-678 al-ʿAdil Salamish

1279/678 al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn  1279-1290/678-689 al-Ashraf Khalīl  1290-1293/689-693 al-Nāṣir Muḥammad  1293-1394/693-694, 1299-1309/698-708, 1310-1341/709-741 al-ʿAdil Kitbughā  1294-1296/694-696

55 Many of these sultans listed here created multiple endowed, like al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn. 56 His endowed structure no longer exists. See Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 116-117. 57 Doris Behrens-Abouseif, “The Mamluk City” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma K. Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Attilio Petrucciolo and Andre Raymond (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 2:296. Original source can be found in: Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās (852-ca. 893 A.H./1448-ca. 1524 C.E.), Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr, ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafá (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1960-1975), 1:1:308. 58 His endowment lacks the grandeur of the others, but he did endow positions for the madrasa the Ayyubid sultan Ṣāliḥ Negm al-Dīn Ayyūb. See: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:374. ”ثمـإنـالملكـالسعيدـناصرـالدينـمحمدـبركةـخانـابنـالملكـالظاهرـبيبرس،ـوقفـالصاغةـالتيـتجاهها،ـوأماكنـبالقاهرةـوبمدينةـالمحلةـالغربية،ـوقطعـ أراضيـجزائرـبالأعمالـالج يزيةـوالأطفيحيةـعلىـمدرسينـأربعة،ـعندـكلـمدرـسـمعيدانـوعدـةـطلبة.“

al-Manṣūr Lājīn  1296-1299/696-698 al-Muẓẓafar Baybars al-Jāshankīr  1309-1310/708-709

Chapter 2

New Land Tenure Patterns and Endowments

The Mamluk power system was based on land tenure. Control over agricultural property fed, clothed and trained the mamluks who provided the powerbase for the military aristocracy.

This chapter will show how after the decline of the power system set up by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, the Qalāwūnid sultans and elite Mamluk officials were forced to find alternative paths to maintain power (i.e. control over agricultural lands). They accomplished this by manipulating the institution of waqf to provide a counter balance to the changing political and economic situations. They did this by endowing larger proportions of agricultural property in their endowments and attempting to link powerful Mamluk officials to them. As the Mamluk state’s finances became more problematic, the Qalāwūnids attempted to provide financial assets to their heirs through endowments by stipulating that their male heirs gain control of these large and rich endowments. This strategy was linked to the growing allocation of iqṭāʿāt to Qalāwūnid sīdīs

59 (princes) which was meant to strengthen a Qalāwūnid sultan’s position. After the early fourteenth century, the political environment continually shifted and the link between power and endowments became more evident.

59 Ulrich Haarmann, "The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in Late Medieval Egypt," in Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, ed. by Tarif Khalidi (Beirut: American University in Beirut, 1984), 163. “The Baḥrī state, even in its frail last decade (for which we have Ibn al- Jran's documentation for 777), had been solidly built on a disproportionate share of the house of Qalāwūn in the wealth of Egypt.” Haarmann continues by saying that contemporary observers might have regarded Barqūq’s reign as a new period because it resulted in new patterns of wealth distribution. 28

New Land Tenure Patterns

The amount of agricultural land that was endowed to fund the operations of endowed institutions began to sharply increase during the late Bahri period. The Qalāwūn complex in

Bayn al-Qaṣrayn was mainly funded through commercial property located in the close vicinity of

60 the complex itself. This offered easy management of the day to day running of the endowment and oversight of the commercial property that funded it. The same applied to the madrasah of al-

Nāṣir Muḥammad where the endowed property was mainly commercial and in relative proximity to the establishment. This technique of endowing commercial property near the establishments

61 helped to develop areas and which would in turn increase the income. The endowments of

Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad relied on very little agricultural land to provide income for

62 endowments. The political changes that occurred after the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would change the nature of endowments. As the political situation became more complicated so did endowments.

60 There was some agricultural property endowed for the Qalāwūn complex. The village of Kōm al-Aswad in al-Gīza which consisted of 160 feddans was endowed for his complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. See Heinz Halm, Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979) 2:224. 61 Baybars apparently did not plan an urban development project with his endowment. He only endowed the mosque with the surrounding land, to be leased on a long-term basis. See Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 122 62 See Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad, "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qalāwūn ʿalá al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī," in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1976), 1:295-396. Also see his: "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn," in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982), 329-448. 29

The period surrounding the two reigns of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan (r. 748-752/1347-1351, 755-

762/1354-1361) illustrate the growing complexity of endowments and the changing nature of the type of properties endowed. This period saw not only a population change due to the

63 decimation caused by the Black Death plague but also an unstable political situation. This affected the land tenure system which financed the powerbase of the Mamluk state. The increase in iqṭāʿ’at becoming alienated and turned into waqf began during this period, not during the Burji period. We know this because when Barqūq became atābak al-ʿasākir he held a meeting in

64 780/1379 to discuss the problem of turning state land into awqāf properties. The issue had already become problematic before the Burji period had started. As discussed earlier, al-Nāṣir

Ḥassan had to contend with the political ambitions of powerful amīrs such as Baybughā Rūs,

Shaykhū, and Ṣarghitmish. This continued turbulence over power would see the rise in agricultural properties becoming part of endowments

At his height, Ṣarghitmish held the powerful office of atābak al-ʿasākir roughly one year before his death in 759/1358 and had created an endowed complex, built in 756-7/1356. His endowment which is adjoined to the Ibn Ṭūlūn mosque on Ṣalība Street in Cairo illustrates a

65 different trend from that of the early Mamluk generation. His endowment consisted of large tracts of agricultural land (See Table B), whereas the endowments of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-

Nāṣir Muḥammad consisted of mostly commercial property. The agricultural properties endowed

63 Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 6-7. 64 Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 10-11. 65 For an overview of the architectural history of his endowment see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 121-122. 30 by Ṣarghitmish amounted to 837 feddans, a massive amount considering that Qalāwūn’s

66 endowment consisted of 160 feddans in the village of Kōm al-Aswad in Giza. Although these properties were technically owned legally so that they could be endowed, how he came to possess them is unknown. Like other leading amirs who controlled the government, he had the power of

67 distributing iqṭāʿātand had the power to enforce his will. These agricultural properties were located near Cairo, which benefitted the administrators of the endowment. It would also have given him a supply cash and foodstuffs in times of need or emergency since he was the first administrator of his endowment which was one of the most common stipulations in endowment deeds. The amir Shaykhū al-Nāṣirī, who had been the leading amir before Ṣarghitmish, had

68 amassed massive property holdings amounting to an income 200,000 dirhams per day! It must be kept in mind that the reign of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan saw continual conflicts between the various factions seeking hegemonic power over rivals. This bitter conflict which saw both sulṭān and the highest Mamluk amirs murdered stimulated the growing trend in larger more complex endowments. However the endowment of Ṣarghitmish and its agricultural property would be dwarfed by later Bahri period endowments.

66 For agricultural property endowed by Ṣarghitmish, see Table B. For the property endowed by Qalāwūn see: Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 134. Also for the agricultural land endowed by Qalāwūn see: Heinz Halm, Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979 & 1982), 1:224. 67 Amalia Levanoni, “The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 26:3 (1994):383-384 68 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (II), 4:262. 31

Table B: Agricultural Properties Included in Amir Ṣargitmish’s Endowment69 Source Village Area in Feddans70

Page 9 Minyat Ḥalfā 529 feddans

Pages 12-13 Qalyūb 268 feddans

Pages 13-14 Tel Hadyā near Aleppo 20 feddans

Page 17 Naḥrīrīya 20 feddans

TOTAL 837 feddans

The complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan is considered one of the greatest architectural

71 monuments of the Islamic world, even though it was never fully completed. The endowment was amply supplied to ensure its longevity and profitability and was still functioning when ʿAlī

72 Bāshā Mubārak penned his famous al-Khiṭaṭ al-Tawfīqīyah in the nineteenth century. Although it would be difficult to argue that his main intention was to create a mechanism for accruing financial capital especially since the amount of money poured into the building was massive, it would have none the less produced a profit. The sultan spent an amazing 20,000 dirhams or

73 1,000 dinars mithqāl per day building his complex. The wealth needed to build this massive

69 ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Ibrāhīm, "Naṣṣān Jadīdān min Wathīqat al-Amīr Ṣarghatmish." Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al- Qāhirah 27 (1965): 134. 70 1 feddan = 5,929 square meters or 1.465088 acres. Stuart J. Borsh, The Black Death in Egypt and England, 160. 71 Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 122. 72 Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hassan, Dār al-Wathāʾiq al-Qawmiyya n°365/85. For an edited copy of this endowment deed see: Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bil- Rumaylah (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001). An online version can be found at: http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni- halle.de/ssg/content/titleinfo/732469. Also see: ʿAlī Bāshā Mubārak (1239-1311/1823 or 1824-1893), al-Khiṭaṭ al- Tawfīqīyah al-jadīdah li-Miṣr al-Qāhirah wa-mudunihā wa-bilādihā al-qadīmah wa-al-shahīrah (Cairo: al-Matbạ`ah al- Kubrá al-Amīrīyah, 1888). 73 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:316. 32

74 complex was probably funded from the property left by the numerous plague victims. The historian Ibn Kathīr (700-774/1301-1373) complained of Sultan Ḥassan’s abuse of the Bayt al-

Māl (the public treasury) from which the sultan bought properties that were eventually endowed

75 in his waqf and the collusion of religious officials who refused to bring him to account.

The amount of property endowed by Sultan Ḥassan in Egypt alone was substantial to say the least, especially in comparison to early Qalāwūnid endowments. The property generated profits even though the expenditures on the staff and other expenses found in the endowment deed amounted to over half a million dirhams per year which is impressive taking into account

76 the overall economic situation during this period. The Black Death plague had a devastating effect on the economy of the Mamluk Empire. The reduced population would have caused wages to rise, increasing the price of goods and work, but saw a reduction in the amount of goods and

77 foods produced. The rise in prices and labor coupled with the reduction in the population would have lowered profits from urban rentals which may also explain later Bahri period endowments having a higher proportion of agricultural lands in their endowments. This

74 Howyda N. al-Harithy, "The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines," Muqarnas 13 (1996): 69. Also see: Michael W. Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 269-271. 75 Abdallah Kahil, The Sultan Ḥasan Complex in Cairo, 1357-1364: A Case Study in the Formation of Mamluk Style (Beirut: Orient-Institut der DMG Beirut, 2008), 3. 76 The exact total comes out to 558,600 dirhams nuqra per annum. See: Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Wathāʼiq waqf al-Sultạ̄n al-Malik al-Nāsịr Hạsan ibn Muhạmmad ibn Qalāwūn ʻalá masạ̄lih ̣al-Qubbah wa-al-Masjid al-Jāmiʻ wa- al-Madāris wa-Maktab al-Sabīl bi-al-Qāhirah: al-shurūt,̣ al-wazạ̄ʼif, al-masạ̄rif (Cairo: Markaz Tahq̣īq al-Turāth, 1986), 30. 77 Adam Sabra, Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamlūk Egypt, 1250-1517 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 121-122. 33 development also supports the argument of the institution’s flexibility, since founders could easily change the type of properties endowed according to return rates at certain periods. However, the amount of agricultural land endowed by al-Nāṣir Ḥassan would have served another purpose.

The growing struggle between powerful amirs and Qalāwūnid heirs would require large amounts of financial resources and agricultural property would become a contested commodity. When a powerful figure in the Mamluk state gained power they were able to buy or probably more likely confiscate property from the state treasury and place it in their endowments, as in the case of

Sultan Ḥassan.

Table C: Egyptian Agricultural Properties Included in Sultan Ḥassan’s Endowment Yearly Income Source78 Village Province/Area Area in Feddans (Dirham Nuqra)79

188 Qahā Qalyūb 3,200 131,200

192 Dīrīn al-Gharbīya 1,745 71,545

206 Shanashā al-Dahaqlīya 3,253 133,373

209 Kafr Minya Naʿīm Kafūr Shanashā 345 14,145

210 Ḥamāqiya Kafūr Shanashā 473 19,393

217 Bisāṭ al-Aḥlaf al-Gharbīya 1,155 47,355

225 Arsāj al-Buḥayra 5,386 22,0416

TOTAL 15,557 637, 837

78 Page number found in Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s published waqf: al-Harithy, Howyda N., Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al- Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bil-Rumaylah. 9, 295, (Beirut: al-Maʿhad al-Almānī lil- Abḥāth al-Sharqīyah and al-Sharikah al-Muttaḥidah, and Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001). 79 Stuart J. Borsh, The Black Death in Egypt and England, 72. Borsh worked out the average income of a feddan based on dirham nuqra.

Nazir al-waqf: Inheritance and Power through Endowments

The changing political environment following the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in 1341 saw a change in the use of pious endowments by the Mamluk elite, especially the Qalāwūnids.

The continual power struggles between powerful Mamluk amirs and ambitious Qalāwūnid sultans created a financial strain on the state treasury. Coupled with the devastating effects of the plague epidemics, political actors had to find new revenue streams to finance their ambitions.

Pious endowments were used to in novel ways to offset these changes. As control of the lifeline of the military aristocracy (iqṭāʿāt) became more contested between powerful amirs versus a

Qalāwūnid sultan, the proportion of agricultural lands, which powerful Mamluk amirs or sultans had possessed as iqṭāʿ or taken from the state, in endowments increased . The growing need to finance supporting factions also saw the post of administrator of endowments become more important, as they had control of enormous financial resources. Lucian Reinfandt demonstrated this use during the late Mamluk period by examining the endowment deed of Sultan al-Ashraf

80 Īnāl (r. 857/1453–865/1461) and his son, al-Mu’ayyad Aḥmad. The importance of the administrator’s post mirrored the late Bahri period’s changing political situation as senior

Mamluk amirs grew more powerful. All of which is reflected in the growing complexity of the relevant stipulations in late Bahri period endowment deeds.

80 Lucian Reinfandt, “Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan’s Son in the Fifteenth Century,” MSR VII (2002): 51-70. 35

As noted earlier, Sultan Qalāwūn’s long reign saw the growing centralization of power in the hands of the sultan. Interestingly his endowment deed stipulated that the administration of

81 his massive endowment be handed over to a civilian, the Chief Shāfiʿī judge. However by the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, this had changed, perhaps reflecting the changing political structure of the Mamluk Empire. The late Bahri period saw the power of senior Mamluk amirs increase at the expensive of the reigning sultan. Mamluk amirs were able to rebuild their own power during the political chaos that ensued following the murder of al-Ashraf Khalīl and the early reigns of the young al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The growing power of senior Mamluk amirs in relation to the Qalāwūnid sultans is demonstrated by their inclusion in the administration of

82 royal endowments.

Their inclusion in the administration of endowments was done for several reasons. First, it was meant to entice powerful Mamluk officials to support the Qalāwūnid sultan that founded the endowment. Secondly, it was done in the hope of offsetting the chance of the confiscation of the endowment by including them in the financial rewards of the endowment. Igarashi Daisuke

83 cataloged a number of endowments that were administered by high ranking Mamluk amirs.

Daisuke’s data supports Ibn Taghrībirdī’s (813-874/1411-1470) statement that only high

81 Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, “Wathāʼiq waqf al-Sultạ̄n Qalāwūnʿala al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī: Dirāsah wa- Nashr wa-Taḥqīq,” in Tadhkirat al-nabīh fī ayyām al-Mansụ̄r wa-banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo, al- Hayʼah al-Misṛīyah al-ʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1976), 1:369 82 The endowments of powerful amirs also stipulated that senior Mamluk amirs hold the post of administrator after their deaths. Igarashi Daisuke 83 Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 42-25. 36

84 ranking officials were appointed to be administrators alongside the heir(s) of the endower. The

Mamluk era writer al-Qalqashandī (756-821/1355-1418) also stated that the most powerful

85 amir held the position of administrator of al-Bimāristān al-Manṣūri. It was a rich prize for

86 whoever controlled it since it reputedly had an income around one million dirhams per year. It was al-Nāṣir Ḥassan who awarded Ṣarghitmish the administration post of al-Bimāristān al-

87 Manṣūri, who was the leading amir during his reign. There is clearly a link between power, control of large endowments and financial profit.

Modern scholars have yet to decidedly prove that royal endowments created huge surpluses since we have yet to come across documents showing the financial accounting of these endowments. However recent studies, especially those done by Carl Petry, have pointed out the huge discrepancies between possible income and the expenditures. We also have contemporary observations of the vast sums of money these endowments generated. It was Shāfiʿ ibn ʿAlī (649-

730/1252-1330), a scribe in Qalāwūn’s royal chancery, who stated the endowment amounted an

84 Ibn Taghrībirdī (813-874/1411-1470), Ḥawādith al-Duhūr fī madá al-Ayyām wa-al-Shuhūr, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shultūt (Cairo: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, 1990), 1:83-84. 85 Aḥmad ibn al-Qalqashandī (756-821/1355-1418), KitābṢubḥ al-aʻshá (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Khudaywīyah, 1913-1922), 4:38. ”...وـعادة ـالنظرـفيهـمنـاصحابـلأكبرـالأمراءـبالديارـالمصرية.“ “…and it was the administrator of customarily from the companions of the biggest amirs in Egypt.” 86 Linda S. Northrup, “Qalāwūn’s Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt,” MSR V (2001): 123. 87 al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʻrifat duwal al-mulūk (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1970-1973), 3:1:7-8. 37

88 amazing one million dirhams per year. Even if this amount was count in half, it still provided an amazing income in comparison to its expenditures. The position of administrator was a financially rewarding office.

The stipulations of who would control the endowment after the passing of the original endower seem to have become more complicated. By the time of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, the stipulations regulating who exactly would control the endowment as administrator reached

89 multiple lines in comparison with that of his grandfather, Sultan Qalāwūn. Sultan al-Nasir

Hasan’s stipulations over who should control his endowment after his passing was meant to ensure his dynasty, specifically his direct male heirs, continued. The stipulations laid out in his endowment deed are very concise and leave little room for legal discrepancies.

”كَانَـالنظرـفيـذَل ـكـللا َرشدــفالارشدــمـنـا َولَادــمولَاناـالس لطانـالملكـالناصرـالوَاقفـالمسمىـ

فيهــمـنـالذكورـخا ـصةـد ونَـالاناثـوـا َولَادـا َولَادـهــوـن َسل ـهــوَـعَقبهــالذ كورــد ونـالانا ـثـمـنـ

90 ا َولَادــالظَهرـوَـا َولَادــالب َط ـنـف َا ـنـاستوـوـفيـذَل ـ َكـق ـدمَـا َ َسن ه م…“

“The administrator should be the most mature of the children of the stipulated founder,

Sulṭān al-Malik al-Nāṣir (Ḥassan), specifically the males not the females, and the

88 Linda S. Northrup, “Qalāwūn’s Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt,” MSR 5 (2001): 123. 89 Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, “Wathāʼiq waqf al-Sultạ̄n Qalāwūnʿala al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī: Dirāsah wa- Nashr wa-Taḥqīq”, in Tadhkirat al-nabīh fī ayyām al-Mansụ̄r wa-banīh, Vol. 1 (Cairo: al-Hayʼah al-Misṛīyah al- ʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1976), 369. 90 Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan, 176. 38

founder’s children’s children, but only his male descendants from the offspring of his sons

and daughters, if they are the same level and push forward the eldest…”

Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan went through great lengths to ensure his male progeny would succeed him as administrator of his large endowment institution (dūn al-ānāth: with the exclusion of the females). As the stipulation details the condition for who shall succeed the founder as its administrator, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan wished that his most able and mature male heir would gain control of this lucrative foundation using terms such as “al-ārshad fā-al-ārshad” (the most mature). Interestingly, there was no distinction made between the offspring of his sons or from his daughters (min āwlād al-ẓahr wa awlād al-batn), as long as that offspring who was to inherit the position was male. Why would he exclude his female progeny? This particular endowment was meant to help ensure the succession of the Qalāwūnid line during troubled

91 times. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan would provide for his wife in a different waqf all together. His intention was to ensure that the Qalāwūnid heir would have access to financial resources. Sultan al-Nasir Hassan stipulated in the endowment deed that four hundred thousand dirhams be saved

92 in reserve, a significant sum. Although half of it should have been used to enlarge the complex’s endowment, maintenance or charitable purposes, it would have undoubtedly provided a quick source of capital for someone in need. When Barqūq fled Cairo in 791/1389, his complex was

91 Abdallah Kahil, The Sultan Ḥassan Complex in Cairo (1357-1364), 194. For a transcription of this waqf see: ʿAlī Ḥasan Zaghlūl, “Madrasat al-Sulṭān Ḥasan: dirāsa miʿmāriyya wa āthāriyya” (MA Thesis, Faculty of Archeology, Cairo University, 1977), Appendix 5. 92 Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan, 173. 39

93 found to have had 7,500 dinars stored in it. There are other instances recorded in contemporary sources that illustrate how Mamluk officials used these institutions to quickly

94 acquire wealth. This use of endowments to help the stability of the Qalāwūnid dynasty was not only financial but symbolic as well, something that did not go unnoticed by the man who would finally bring an end to Qalāwūnid rule.

The next Qalāwūnid sultan who held serious power after al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was al-Ashraf

Shaʿbān, who created two endowed institutions. The first created a madrasah below the citadel in

Cairo most likely in the same place where the ruins of Sultan al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh’s hospital now stand. The second endowment was to the benefit of al-Ḥaramayn, the cities of Mecca and

95 Madīnah. The endowment document for this last endowment provides an interesting clause regarding its administration (See Figure B). The stipulations regarding the position of administrator is quite regular, it was reserved for the founding sultan during his lifetime and then his descendants. However, the next clause is unusual. It states that after those provisions are met

(in the case of his family line dying out) the administrator should also be the administrator of his great grandfather’s endowment, the bīmaristān of Qalāwūn. While it was normal for the benefit of the financial surplus to revert to a more charitable cause after the end of the founder’s family line, this clause is interesting. It binds his endowment with that of his family. This link

93 Igarashi Daisuke, “The Private Property and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamlūk Sultans: The Case of Barquq,” Orient 43(2008): 173. 94 Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamluk Waqfs, 24. 95 Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48. An edited edition of this document can be found in: Rāshid Saʿd Rāshid al-Qaḥṭānī, Awqāf al-Sulṭān al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ʿalá al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Malik Fahd al-Waṭanīyah, 1994). 40 was possibly another way to assure that the Qalāwūnids maintained a financial link to each other for the benefit of the family’s cause. Theoretically, a Qalāwūnid heir would have access to the financial windfall of several well-endowed institutions giving them the ability to have access to quick funds or posts for patronage.

Figure B: Excerpt from Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s Waqfiyya96

Line # 1219 …فإنـلمـيكنـفيـأولادـالواقفـمنـتأهلـللنظرـعلىـذلكـاستقلـبالنظر 1220 علىـالموقوفـالمذكورـالمجعولـلهـالنظرـعلىـالمارستانـالمنصوريـبالقاهرةـالمحروسة

“If there are no children of the founder qualified to be administrator, the position of administrator will be assumed by the proper beneficiary, the administrator of the al-Manṣūrī hospital in Cairo, the Protected City.”

al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: An end to Qalāwūnid land tenure?

The highly structured iqṭāʿ system, which under al-Nāṣir Muhammad had created a balanced power system in favor of the sultan, acted as the catalysis for the mounting struggles between senior amīrs and Qalāwūnid sultans after his death in 741/1341 and the “waqfization” of state lands in an attempt to control more land. As seen earlier Qalāwūnid sultans appointed

96 Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48. 41 their sons as administers of their lucrative endowments. In addition to this, Qalāwūnid sultans began to grant iqṭāʿāt to their sons and by the reign of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān this had grown to immense proportions. Coupled with the rich financial resources from royal endowments and an heir’s own private landholdings, they had the best chance of having the financial resources to hold on to the throne. However this trend abruptly ended under the regime change under Sultan

Barqūq. After Barqūq, Qalāwūnid sīdīs would no longer enjoy large shares of iqṭāʿ,which

97 corresponded to this group’s declining importance during the Burji period. There was a trend

(albeit nothing in comparison to the Qalāwūnids in the fourteenth century), of sons attempting to succeed their fathers throughout the Burji period, although the majority of them only ruled for a year (See Table D). So why was there a change in policy that could have benefitted Barqūq and his heirs? It was meant to dismantle Qalāwūnid financial resources.

As atābak al-ʿasākir in 780/1379, Barqūq summoned the men of state and important officials to discuss the issue of waqfs. He was concerned how state lands had been alienated from the state coffers and become part of endowments. Barqūq stated this trend had caused large

98 financial losses for the state. According to al-Maqrīzī, Barqūq was able to return some of these

99 waqfs back into iqṭāʿ grants for mamlūks. Another account states that Barqūq was stymied against any reform of the waqf system by opposition from powerful men of state. Either way,

97 Ulrich Haarmann, “The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders” in Land tenure and social transformation in the Middle East, ed. Tarif Khalidi (Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut, 1984), 157. 98 Igarashi Daisuke, “The Establishment of the Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background and Implications,” MSR X, no. 1 (2006): 122. 99 Ibid., 123. See the original source: al-Maqrīzī, Sūlūk, 3:347. 42

Barqūq had come to the realization that endowments constituted a threat not only to state finances but to his ability to hold on to power. In order to remedy this, Barqūq came up with a novel solution, dīwān al-mufrad.

Ulrich Haarmann’s study of land tenure and the awlād al-nās (the sons of Mamlūks) came to the opinion that this new policy “was not, or not primarily, an act of revenge on the

100 former ruling house, for not only Qalāwūnids were affected by this new rule.” However, the data shows that it was primarily an act against the Qalāwūnids as almost a third of Qalāwūnid property was placed under the control of Barqūq's dīwān al-mufrad or relatives of Barqūq by

800/1397-8 (See Table C). The table shows the massive amount of property held by the royal family under Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, mainly through his sons, in the year 777/1375-6. It also shows the change in property ownership by 800/1397-8, mainly from the private property of the

Qalāwūnid family to the control of Sultan Barqūq’s dīwān al-mufrad . This meant that these lands were under the direct control of Barqūq and not returned back to the proper diwan for re- allotment to mamluks, which naturally benefited him greatly. Barqūq was fully aware of the relationship between land, waqf and power.

Barqūq’s reign and policies directly affected the mechanisms that the Qalāwūnids had employed in the hope of maintaining their grasp on power. His attempts to undo endowments and his policy of reverting private property back to the state (albeit to his advantage under dīwān al-mufrad) greatly affected any resources at the disposal of the Qalāwūnids. This coupled with

100 Ibid., 157. 43

101 the destruction of Qalāwūnid endowed institutions, it is possible this was a confiscation of

Qalāwūnid financial resources which would have weakened their ability to challenge Barqūq's claim to the sultanate. His original move to usurp a Qalāwūnid sultan resulted in Barqūq's flight from Cairo. No matter how weak the Qalāwūnid heir(s) might be they still posed a significant risk to Barqūq's plans, especially with their legacy and financial resources.

101 The destruction of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s endowed complex in Cairo will be discussed in the following chapter. 44

Chapter 3

Power, Legitimacy and Architecture

The architectural component of a pious endowment, i.e. the building complex itself, was just as significant as its legal, socio-political and financial components. These endowed religious establishments were used to dominate the urban landscape as a testament to their founder’s legitimacy and power. The amount of planning and forethought that went into the building of a masjid, khānqāh, or madrasah negates any notion that their construction was a byproduct of a mechanism solely geared towards financial gain. Contemporary sources pointed out that several sultans were heavily involved with their endowments, personally supervising the layout and

102 construction of their endowed institutions. The expensive materials, the skilled craftsmen, grandiloquent inscriptions, and the opulent financial outlay all point to an explicit intention of the founder to communicate something more than just a college, tomb or place of worship.

Stephan Humphreys in his seminal essay argued that architecture is in itself a form of human communication.

It is nevertheless obvious that architecture must by its very nature have meaning, for it is

a human artifact as completely as is language, and as such it represents a pattern of

human intentions and motives. As a representing or signifying entity, a monument has

102 For examples of this in the Ayyubid and Mamluk period see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2007), 32-33. 45

meaning: it must refer to the thought and attitudes of its builder, and these can in

103 principle (if not always in fact) be reconstructed by an onlooker contemplating it.

So what were endowed institutions meant to communicate to the public? Power. These expensive ornate buildings were meant to express the Mamluk military elite’s right to rule or in the case of the sultan, preeminence. The Mamluk elite adapted the institution of waqf in their pursuit of hegemonic power, although this was not an original idea as their predecessors such as the Ayyubids or the Fatimids had used the institution in a similar manner. What differed in their use of endowments was the sheer number of endowments that were created and the

104 sophistication in which they were employed. This evolved usage of pious endowments was directly linked with the political changes within the Mamluk Empire. Again Humphreys eloquently sums up how religious architecture was used by the Mamluk elite.

(Mamluk religious architecture) constituted an architectural expression of the same

attitudes which shaped the whole range of Mamluk political and social behavior, and

which indeed were a decisive element in the structure of the Mamluk state. In their

religious architecture, the Mamluks communicated to their subjects that in accepting

Islam, they had become its masters; that its institutions were in fact subject to their own

103 Stephen R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary Essay”, 71. 104 Although it would be unfair to judge the Ayyubids’ building programs against the two Mamluk periods, it should be kept in mind that under the last decade of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad some eighteen mosques and madrasahs were built. 46

values and needs; that, in the end, the splendid efflorescence of Sunni Islam in the

105 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was but a manifestation of their own glory

The public would have not missed the fact that the Mamluk elite not only had the power and financial resources to endow these expensive institutions, but were also in some ways

106 superior in their acts of piety to those born Muslims. They were the guardians of Sunni Islam, able to provide the means to educate the future ʿulamā and protect the Holy Cities. Even the

ʿulamā begrudgingly acknowledged their accomplishments to Islam. A Mamluk sultan or amir establishing an endowment might have been signaling “submission to the values and institutions of the people” they ruled but “the larger and more ornate the building he erected, the more visible became the religious worth and social significance of himself and (indirectly) of the class

107 to which he belonged.” In doing so, the endower aimed to build a consensus amongst the various segments of the population in order maintain their rule. Although political machinations could bind the Mamluk elite and the ʿulamā, it is necessary to also induce the population to

108 support the regime since without their general acceptance no government could stand. The

105 Ibid., 119. Added wording and parentheses are mine. 106 Despite all of this, the ʿulamā always viewed them as outsiders. For a discussion on how the Mamluks were viewed in contemporary sources see: Nasser Rabbat, Mamlūk History Through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 12-19. 107 Stephen R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo,” 119. 108 See De La Boétie’s theory on how the general public’s acquiescence is necessary for the survival of any government even a tyrannical one: Étienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, trans. Harry Kurz (Auburn: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2008). 47

Mamluk elite who endowed institutions made use of the imposing structures to advertise themselves through one of the most important mediums of Islamic civilization, the written word.

The vain inscriptions that were incised on these institutions of religious learning and

109 practice are contradictory to the humility usually associated with pious acts. If a madrasah or khānqāh was meant to appease a founder’s guilty conscious or to follow religious beliefs, why try to impress the public with lengthy titles and magnificent grandeur? Clearly pious endowments of the Mamluk elite were an expression of their power and ambition. This expression of power and right to rule was communicated through inscriptions and the position of endowed institutions within the urban environment.

Endowed Institutions & Dynastic Space

The location of the endowments in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries tells a story about the political development of the Mamluk sultanate. The Mamluk elite's use of endowed institutions to support their claims of preeminence in the political arena is reflected in the conscious decision of their placement and design. The ability to change urban space is a reflection of an individual’s power since this would require political, social and financial capital to do so. Therefore an individual’s position can be expressed in their possession of a specific area in a city. As individuals began to compete for power during the Bahri period, Cairo’s urban areas

109 This isn’t to suggest that endowed institutions founded by the Mamluk elite were all together devoid of piety. Many endowed institutions were inscribed with the humble epithet “al-ʿabd al-faqir” meaning “the humble or poor slave”. For an example of this see: RCEA, XIII, n° 4917. 48 began to drastically change as these individuals competed to legitimize their power through architecture, thus creating a dynastic space in which a ruler could physically impose his power

110 and claims of legitimacy on the urban landscape and therefore on the public. It also created a hierarchy of space within the urban landscape, since placement of an endowed institution was based on the founder’s power. In other words, sultans were able to place their endowments in areas seen to be more important than less powerful amirs. By tracing the placement of mainly royal endowments from this period, the story the Qalāwūnid dynasty unfolds.

In order to understand the relationship between urban space and power during the early

Mamluk period and how the Mamluk elite used pious endowments to demonstrate their legitimacy and power, a brief overview of the evolution of dynastic space in Cairo during the

Fatimid and Ayyubid periods is needed. The area known as Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, literally meaning

"between the two palaces", was an area of special significance beginning with the Fatimids.

Understanding its importance as a center for ritual ceremonies to enforce dynastic legitimacy is necessary in order to understand its importance later during the Mamluk period.

With the conquest of Egypt in 358/969 by the Fāṭimid general Jawhar, a new capital city was built for the Fatimid caliph, al-Muʿizz (r. 341-365/953-975), away from the ancient city of al-Fusṭāṭ. This imperial capital, al-Qāhirah or "the Victorious", was the exclusive domain of the caliph and his imperial court. It was dominated by a massive royal complex made up of the Great

110 For more on the theory of power and space see: Alan Harding and Talja Blokland, eds., Urban Theory: A Critical st Introduction to Power, Cities and Urbanism in the 21 century (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2014). 49

111 Eastern Palace and the Lesser Western Palace, giving it the name: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. The

Fatimids created a dynastic space within the urban landscape to hold their court ceremonies that reinforced their dynasty’s legitimacy by physically imposing their power on the public through

112 architecture. Its seclusion from the older city of al-Fusṭāṭ was meant to separate the august majesty of the caliph from the ordinary masses. This area's potent symbolism would have a profound influence on the use of pious endowments.

This dynastic space was modified after the takeover of Egypt by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (r. 564-

589/1169-1193). Keen to establish his own authority and power in a capital that had been ruled by the Shīʿī Fatimids for almost two centuries meant that he would have to change the urban landscape to symbolize his control over the city. The first step in the dismemberment of the

Fatimid legitimacy was the appropriation of the many urban properties held by the Fatimids and

113 their court officials. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn modified this dynastic space by distributing these properties to his supporters and family members, who in turn created law colleges and other endowed

114 institutions within these buildings or their former areas. Although Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn built the

Citadel in Cairo as the focus of his reign, later Ayyubids would go back and build endowed

111 Yaacov Lev, Saladin in Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 110. 112 On al-Qāhira as a “ritual city” during the Fatimid period see: Paula Sanders, Ritual, Politics, and the City of Fatimid Cairo (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 39-51. 113 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn also temporarily closed al-Azhar mosque since it was a center of Shīʿī teaching and daʿwa (propagation). For a history of the mosque see: Nasser O. Rabbat, "Al-Azhar Mosque: An Architectural Chronicle of Cairo's History," Muqarnas 13 (1996): 45-67. 114 Yaacov Lev, Saladin in Egypt, 108. For a topographical study of Ayyubid Cairo see: Neil D. MacKenzie, Ayyubid Cairo: A Topographical Study (Cairo: American University In Cairo Press, 1992). 50 institutions on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. This Ayyubid dynastic space would become the focus for much of the early Mamluk royal endowments.

The early Mamluk period was very unlike the establishment of a new dynastic order under the Fatimids or the Ayyubids. The legitimacy of the earliest Mamluk rulers was based on lineage with the previous dynasty, the Ayyubids. Aybak married a member of the royal family

115 and Quṭuz would claim to be an offspring of the Ayyubids to legitimize his power. However, this could not be a lasting solution since basing their legitimacy on a family they disposed from power was counter-productive. It was not until the reign of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars, some ten years since the last Ayyubid sultan ruled, when the Mamluk state took its form and a more coherent policy towards legitimacy was formed. Baybars understood the instability caused by the continual shifting in the political order and recognized new regime’s lack of legitimacy. Baybars appropriated the dynastic space established by the Ayyubids utilizing the institution of waqf to proclaim his right to rule. He consciously associated his legitimacy with his former master, the last Ayyubid ruler al-Ṣāliḥ Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb (r. 637-647/1240-1249), by claiming his place in the dynastic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn.

The complex of al-Ṣalīḥ was placed on the main thoroughfare of the former imperial city of the Fatimids, Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, which had been used as a dynastic space since the foundation

115 Yehoshua Frenkel, “Awqāf in Mamlūk Bilād al-Shām,” MSR 8:1 (2009): 151, fn. 15. For the original reference see: Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf ibn Taghrībirdī (1411-1470), al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo, 1937), 7:85. 51

116 of al-Qāhira. He, like others before and after him, placed his complex here to signal his legitimacy through his pious deed and through his Ayyubid lineage. This complex would become a center of Bahri Mamluk legitimacy propaganda, its significance lasting even during the Burji period. During the reign of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh (r. 815-824/1412-1421) there was a discussion about where to place his royal endowment. Although he would later place it next to Bāb

Zuwayla, the importance of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn and Barqūq’s complex, in particular, was suggested

117 due to its importance as a dynastic space.

The complex of al-Ṣāliḥ Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb provided a model dynastic space that relayed a message through a physical object and was improved upon under the Bahri Mamluk sultans.

One of the most potent propaganda tools were the various inscriptions found on the institution itself. Inscribed on the al-Ṣāliḥiyya complex is the usual acclamation of who the founder was.

This inscription, like others, was also a declaration of power and legitimacy. In the case of the al-

Ṣāliḥiyya complex, it read:

116 For information of this complex see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture and Its Culture (London: IB Tauris, 2007), 113-114. Also see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:28. 117 Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad al-ʿAynī (762-855/1361-1451), ʿIqd al-Jumān fī Taʾrīkh Ahl al-Zamān. ed. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṭanṭāwī al-Qarmūṭ (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat ʿAláʾ; al-Zahrāʾ lil-ʿilām al-ʿArabī, 1985), 1: 225. See the following for the history of al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh’s endowment: Nairy Hampikian, “Mu’ayyad Šayḫ and the Landscape of Power,” AI 46 (2012). Also see her: “The Barimaristan of al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh and the Area around it” (MA thesis, American Univeristy in Cairo, 1991). Tarek Swelim, “The complex of Sultan al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh” (MA thesis, American Univeristy in Cairo, 1986). ‘A. Fahmi, “Wathiqat al-Sultan al-Muayyad Shaykh” (PhD diss., Cairo University, 1991). 52

ـمولاناـ ـالسلطانـ ـالملكـا لصالح ـالسيـدـ ـالعالمـ ـالعادلـ ـالمجاهدـ ـالمرابطـ ـالمثاغرـ ـنجمـ ـالدنياــوـالدين ـسلطانـ ـالإسلامـ

ـوـ ـالمسلمينـ ـسيـدـ ـملوكـالمجاهدينــ ـوارثـ ـالملكـ ـعنـ ـآبائهـ ـالأكرمينـ ـأبىـ ـالفتح أيـو ـبـ ـبن ـالسلطانـ ـالملكـ

118 ـالكاملـناصرــ ـالدينـ ـأبىـ ـالمعالىـ ـمحمـدـ ـبنـ ـأبىـ ـبكرـ ـبنـأيـوب .

Our Lord the Sultan, the King, al-Ṣāliḥ, the Master, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior, the

One Stationed to Guard Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, Star of the World and the Religion,

Sultan of Islam and Muslims, Master of the Warrior Kinds, Inheritor of the kingdom from his

respectable fathers, Abū al-Fatḥ, Ayyub, son of the Sultan, the King, al-Kāmil, Supporter of the

119 Religion, Abū al-Maʿālī, Muḥammad ibn Abū Bakr ibn Ayyūb

Al-Ṣāliḥ claimed the right to rule through his inheritance and his role as defender of the faith. His list of titles provided a model which later Mamluk sultans would emulate but his reign

120 also provided a model of government in which power was concentrated in his hands.

Humphreys argued that “politically, these men [al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Qalāwūn] were taught both by al-Ṣāliḥ’s relationship to them as his mamlūks that political power resided in a single

121 individual, that autocracy was the natural order of government.” When al-Maqrīzī describes the personality of al-Ṣāliḥ as a ruler this sort of rule becomes quite clear.

118 RCEA, XI, n° 4298. 119 English translation found in: Heba Abd el-Aziz el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 87. 120 The use of Arabic on buildings to relay messages to the public was pioneered by the Fatimids. See: Irene A. Bierman, Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 2. 121 R. Stephen Humphreys, From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977), 367. Addition between brackets is mine. 53

Even when he sat with his companions there was silence. No one dared to speak except to answer

him. Nor was anyone seated in audience with him, no matter his business, ever known to have

spoken first, whether to intercede or to give counsel. Government officials were not permitted to

act independently. Rather they would submit a petition and await the sultan’s reply with his

instructions. Al-Ṣāliḥ, however, treated his subordinates with great respect and never uttered a

122 vile word regarding anyone in his service.

This model of kingship provided Baybars and Qalāwūn with a very instructive approach

123 on their political path to power. Although they might have arrived as the first among equals, they would push to create a regal aura around their rule. One of the mechanisms which they used to accomplish this was awqāf. They would create architecturally stunning religious establishments to support their claim of regal status in a system of supposed equals. Their model for this strategy was again provided by their former master, al-Ṣāliḥ.

The complex of al-Ṣāliḥ projected his power and legitimacy on the urban landscape, a model which would be imitated and improved under the Mamluks. Its potent symbolic power was used for promotion ceremonies of Mamluk amirs during the early Bahri period, tying their right to rule as “heirs” of the Ayyūbid dynasty. The ritual procession is described in al-Maqrīzī’s al-Khiṭaṭ:

122 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, 1:2:340. This English translation can be found in: Linda S. Northrup, From Slave to Sultan: The Career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678-689A.H./1279-1290A.D.) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), 163-164. 123 For al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb’s influence see: Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 163-164. 54

وكانتـالعادةـأنهـإذاـأمـرـالسلطانـأحداـمنـأمراءـمصرـوالشامـفإنهـينزلـمنـقلعةـالجبلـوعليهـالتشريفـ

والشرـبوشـوتوقدـلهـالقاهرة،ـفيمرــإلىـالمدرسةـالصالحيةـبينـالقصرين،ـوعملـذلكـمنـعهدـسلطنةـ

124 المعز أيبك ومنـبعده.

It was the custom that whenever the sultan awarded the rank of amir to any of the amīrs of Egypt

and Syria, the latter would come down from the citadel, dressed with a robe of honour and with a

fur hat, and while the city of Cairo was illuminated in his honour. He then would proceed to the

Ṣāliḥiyya madrasa at Bayna l-Qaṣrayn. That is how [this ceremonial] was performed during the

125 reign of sultan al-Mu’izz Aybak and during that of his immediate successors.

However, a continuance of this policy would not allow for the legitimacy of Mamluk sultans to go on indefinitely. Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658-76/1260-77) realized his rule, some ten years after the last Ayyubid ruler in Cairo, could no longer attach its legitimacy solely to the former dynasty. His solution to this problem was the use of pious endowments and projection of a power onto the urban landscape. The al-Ẓāhiriyya complex, which was mostly destroyed in 1874 to make room for a new road, was built right next to the complex of his

126 former master, al-Ṣāliḥiyya. The decoration of his madrasa is similar to those of the Ayyubid

124 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:380. 125 Jo Van Steenbergen, “Ritual, Politics and the City of Mamlūk Cairo: The Bayna l’Qaṣrayn As A Dyanmic ‘Lieu De Mémoire, 1250-1382,” in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou and Maria Parani (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 232. 126 Caroline Williams, Islamic Monuments in Cairo: The Practical Guide (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2008), 185. In 1882 the minaret fell down as well. See: Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 119-121. 55

127 period as well, symbolically signaling an unbroken continuance of legitimate rule. The choice of location was deliberate and therefore of great importance. It signals two significant points: the first is the homage to his former master as his rightful successor and secondly al-Ẓāhir Baybars’ equal stature to that of his former master since only an equal could build next to a sultan.

Interestingly on his mosque he was described as “the One who ordered the allegiance to two

128 Caliphs”, something his predecessor certainly never could claim. Perhaps the Mamluk sultans were aiming to outdo their famous predecessors.

The influential reign of al-Ẓāhir Baybars was eventually followed by Qalāwūn’s, whose long reign allowed him to cement the new state which saw a centralization of power in the hands

129 of the sultan. However, like al-Ẓāhir Baybars, he was a mamluk and the issue of legitimacy was still a problematic issue. Egypt had known hereditary rule for centuries under the Ayyubids and the Fatimids before them. Following the example of his former master, al-Ṣāliḥ, and his predecessor, al-Ẓāhir Baybars, he would endow an institution, but his ambitions would require him to attempt something on a much grander scale. His ambition to create a legacy so resounding that it would cement his descendants’ claim to power for the next century had an enormous impact on the evolution of pious endowments.

127 Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 126. 128 Translation found in: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 101. The complete inscription can ”الآمرـببيعةـالخليفتين“ .be found at: RCEA, XII, n° 4564 129 For details on Qalāwūn’s background and career prior to becoming sultan see: Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 66-83. 56

The setting of the al-Manṣūriyya complex, like that of al-Ẓāhir Baybars, was deliberate and therefore intended to convey a message. We know its location was intentional because of the hassle to acquire the property. According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir (620-692/1223-1292), female descendants of the Ayyubid dynasty inhabited the property which Qalāwūn exchanged for another property in order to acquire the property for his complex and then hurried their

130 move. The site of his monumental complex faced those of his predecessors, al-Ẓāhiriyya and al-Ṣāliḥiyya. Yet, Qalāwūn did not intend to simply put himself on equal footing with or derive legitimacy by proximity to al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb’s complex, as al-Ẓāhir Baybars had done, but to surpass them both.

Sultan Qalāwūn’s complex became the focal point of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, the dynastic space of both the Fāṭimids and the Ayyūbids. This massive structure would have drawn the public’s eye toward its impressive exterior and no doubt to the lengthy inscription band which ran the entire length of structure facing the main thoroughfare of the area. This would have operated like a modern billboard, influencing the public through a visual medium. Qalāwūn’s complex would have swayed public opinion in his favor which helped to build the necessary consensus to rule by creating the image of a pious Muslim that ensured the spiritual, intellectual and physical wellbeing of the Muslim community. Just as important was the expression of power and

130 Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿAbd al-Zāhir (620-692/1223-1292), Tashrīf al-Ayyām wa-al-ʿUṣūr fī Sīrat al-Malik al-Manṣūr, ed. Murād Kāmil (Cairo: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1961), 55. 57 legitimacy in the inscriptions on the complex. These inscriptions which can still be clearly read

131 today show a ruler who’s aspiration was as monumental as the complex.

Examining the material evidence from his complex leaves the distinct impression he intended to outdo his immediate predecessors and establish his legacy alongside that of Ṣalāḥ al-

Dīn Ayyūb (r. 564-589/1169-1193) and Nūr al-Dīn ibn Zangī (r. 541-569/1146-1174). These two rulers, lauded as the defenders of Islam, won their fame during their wars against the

Crusaders. Qalāwūn undoubtedly saw himself in a similar situation, with the exception of having to face two foes at once (the Crusaders and the Mongols). Both Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn had created legendary hospitals, the one created by the latter was supposedly visited by Qalāwūn.

Although Qalāwūn’s titles follow a similar formula to the Zangids and Ayyubids, beginning with

132 the personal adjectives of the ruler, his lengthy list of titles far outdo any of them. Qalāwūn also employed similar titles to that of Nūr al-Dīn who was described as “the Subdoer of

Mutineers, the Suppressor of the Atheists, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, King of the

133 134 World” or to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn who took the title “the Owner of the Lands of Egypt” and

135 “Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries”. He even employed several titles used by al-Ẓāhir

Baybars, however Qalāwūn builds upon these with much more grandiose titles. His use of the title “Sultan of the Two Iraqs (Arab & Persian), and of the Two Egypts (Upper and Lower)”,

131 For inscriptions on the exterior of the Sultan Qalāwūn’s complex, see: RCEA, XIII, n° 4845; RCEA, XIII, n° 4846; RCEA, XIII, n° 4847; RCEA, XIII, n° 4848; RCEA, XIII, n° 4849; RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. 132 Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 139. 133 Ibid., 69. 134 Ibid., 78. 135 Ibid., 79. 58

“Sultan of the earth so vast in its length and width” and “King of the Earth” are novel and reflect an ambition to establish something more lasting than that accomplished by al-Ẓāhir Baybars.

Qalāwūn created a hospital on such a monumental scale as to arguably outdo even those two legendary rulers. In the taqlīd (diploma) given to Muhadhdhib al-Dīn b. Abī Ḥulayqa, as

136 riyāsat al-ṭibb (post of chief physician) of Qalāwūn’s hospital, his intentions are laid bare. His predecessors had shown concern for the religious sciences by endowing institutions of learning and prayer but had neglected the science of the body (ʿilm al-abdān). Qalāwūn wished to outdo his immediate predecessors and create a complex of accomplish both sciences, an institution “to

137 dazzle the eyes”. The decorations used to beautify his complex were said to have never before

138 used in Egypt. All the more important since the institution was open to all Muslims, who needed medical services, to marvel at his beneficence and power.

Qalāwūn’s intention was to present to the public a building representing a ruler who surpassed all others before him .The titles included in the inscriptions on his complex follow a similar pattern like that seen on al-Ṣāliḥ’s complex or al-Ẓāhir Baybars’ but his titles go further than his predecessor’s as if he was signaling he was their superior (See for a comparison between

139 them see Table E). Qalāwūn was deliberately justified his legitimacy in his own right,

136 Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 120. 137 Ibid., 120. 138 Ibid., 120. 139 The mausoleum in the madrasah of al-Ẓāhir Baybars in Damascus has an interesting inscription that shows how powerful writing can be. The inscriptions states that the order of its completion was given by “al-sulṭān al-malik al- manṣūr sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī”, although it was founded by Barakā Khān ibn Baybars. One imagines Qalāwūn doing this to cement an image of legitimacy through his predecessor. His use of royal titles would 59 something more than just “al-Ṣāliḥī”, a faithful mamlūk of the Ayyubid king al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb. His right to rule originated with his protection of Islam and his endowments. His nisba, al-Ṣāliḥī, wasn’t simply a name of a mere mamluk but a special group of mujāhidūn (holy warriors) that had saved the Muslims from the enemies of their faith. His titles were meant to impress upon the public the image of a rightful ruler.

سيـدناـوـمولانا , السلطانـ, الأعظمـالملك ,ـالمنصورـ, العالمـ, العادلـ, المؤيـدـ, المظفـرـ, المجاهدـ, المنصور ـ

,سيفـالدنياـوـالدينـ, سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمينـ, سيـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطينـ, سلطانـالأرضـذاتـ

الطولـوـالعرضـ, ملكـالبسيطةـ, سلطانـالعراقينـوـالمصرينـ, ملكـالبرـينـوـالبحرينـ, وارثـالملكـ

,ملكـملوكـالعربـوـالعجمـ, صاحبـال قبلتين ,ـ خادمـالحرمينـالشريفين , قلاون الصالحىـ, قسيمـأميرـ

المؤمنينـ, أوحدـالملوكـالعصريـةـ, صاحبـالديارــ] المصريـة[ـ...ـالآملينـكنزـالعفاةـوـالمنقطعينـ, منصفـ

المظلومينـمنـالظالمينـ, قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركينـ, قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمرـدينـ, سيفـالدنياـوـالدينـ

140 ,قلاوونـالصالحىـ, قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين.

Our master and lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the

Supported, the Triumphant, the Warrior, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, the Sultan of Islam and the

Muslims, the Master of Kings and Sultans, the Sultan of the Earth so vast in its length and width,

the King of the Earth, the Sultan of the Two Iraqs and the Two Egypts, the King of the Two

Shores/Lands and the two Seas, the Inheritor of the Kingdom, the King of the Arabs and non-

Arabs, the One in Charge of the Two Sanctuaries [Mecca and Jerusalem], the Servant of the Two

also be used to show his equal status to the legendary Mamluk ruler al-Ẓāhir Baybars. For the inscription see: RCEA, XIII, n° 4884. 140 RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. I have added commas to separate the various titles. 60

Holy Sanctuaries [Mecca and Madina], Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful

… the One of His Kind of the Kings of the time, the Owner of the Lands of Egypt … of the

Hopeful, the Treasure of the Suffering and the Needy, the Obtainer of the Rights of the Oppressed

from the Oppressors, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, the Conqueror Over the Outcasts

and the Mutineers, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the

141 faithful.

Qalāwūn’s bombastic inscriptions were meant to proclaim to the public the arrival of a ruler unlike any of those before him. His titles included many that his predecessors hadn’t used such as “Āwḥad al-malūk al-ʿaṣriyya” or “the One of His Kind of the Kings of the Time”. Any visitor would have been reminded of this entering or moving around the complex as various inscriptions detailing his right to rule are found throughout the complex (See Image E and Image

F). It would almost be impossible for any visitor to the complex not to know who had founded it. Easily readable inscriptions are found above the windows where anyone passing by could hear men reciting Quran, or the several inscriptions at the entrance door. Qalāwūn utilized his endowed complex to display his power by building on central property in the space previously employed by the Fatimids and Ayyubids for their own dynastic claims and influenced public opinion to build a consensus needed for his reign. This propaganda monument also served as a centerpiece for later Qalāwūnids’ ceremonial rituals to help enforce their unique claim to power.

Qalāwūn’s reign left such an indelible mark on the Mamluk establishment that his progeny

141 A complete translation of the entire inscription can be found in: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 138. 61 repeatedly became sultans for almost a century, a phenomenon in the Mamluk Empire. His complex modified the dynamic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn to display his power and legitimacy.

Whereas new amirs had once been invested in the complex of al-Ṣāliḥ, they now were invested in

Qalāwūn’s majestic complex.

فنقلـذلكـإلىـالقبةـالمنصوريةـوصارـالأميرـيحلفـعندـالقبرـالمذكور،ـويحضرـتحليفهـصاحبـالحجاب،ـ

وتمدــأسمطةـجليلةـبهذهـالقبة،ـثمـينصرفـالأميرـويجلسـلهـفيـطولـشارعـالقاهرةـإلىـالقلعةـأهلـ

الأغانيـلتزفهـفيـنزولهـوصعوده،ـوكانـهذاـمنـجملةـمنتزهاتـالقاهرة،ـوقدـبطلـذلكـمنذـانقرضتـ

142 دولةـبنيـقلاون

Thereafter, it was transferred to the Manṣūriyya mausoleum. Eventually, therefore, the amir used

to swear an oath [of investiture] at this mausoleum, in the presence of the lord chamberlain.

Thereupon a sumptuous banquet was organized at this mausoleum and then the amir returned [to

the citadel]. All along the road between Cairo and the citadel, there used to be singers sitting down

and turning his passage to and fro into a solemn procession. This used to be one of the great

parades of the city of Cairo, but all that was abolished with annihilation of the regime of the

143 Qalāwūnids.

His monumental complex became the focal point for his immediate successors, especially al-Ashraf Khalīl and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, although they would not be the only ones attempting to derive legitimacy through his endowed complex. Although al-Ashraf Khalīl had endowed a

142 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khitạt (I), 2:380-381. 143 Jo Van Steenbergen, “Ritual, Politics, and the City in Mamlūk Cairo”, 232-233. 62 complex not located along Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, probably due to his foundation being created before ascending to the throne, he would use his father’s complex to imbue legitimacy on his reign. The beginning of his military campaign to attack the Crusader held Acre, he would start his long march at his father’s complex, no doubt reminding those present of his legitimacy through his

144 magnificent forbearer. Its importance was not relegated to only ceremonial processions since it in fact had created a new focal point in the urban landscape. The complex provided much of the social services needed for the city since it included a hospital, water fountain, college and even shops to buy from or rent located in close proximity. Qalāwūn’s lasting legacy was illustrated by his endowed complex which became the central space for Mamluk royal legitimacy for the next century.

The Dynastic Space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn: Qalāwūn’s Heirs versus Usurping Amirs

Although al-Ashraf Khalīl’s endowed complex was located outside of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, it would still use inscriptions similar to those of Qalāwūn’s complex on its exterior to proclaim his legitimacy. His endowed institution was founded while Qalāwūn was still sultan and an inscription on his tomb mentions him as the son of the sultan. In other words, like the Ayyūbids,

Qalāwūn’s son would derive his legitimacy through his descent of a royal forbearer. Although the description shows that al-Ashraf Khalīl is the junior in this relationship, they do share similar titles (See Table F). There was an obvious attempt by al-Ashraf Khalīl, and probably his father,

144 Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 158. 63 to link the two together as rightful rulers through inscriptions. The son and father are described as:

ـمولاناــوـ ـسيـدناـ, ـالسلطانـ, ـالملكـ ـالأشرفـ, ـالعالمـ, ـالعادلـ, ـالمجاهدـ, ـالمرابطـ, ـالمثاغرـ, ـالمؤيـدـ, ـالمظفـرـ

, ـالمنصورـ ـ) صلا ـ( ح ـالدنياـوــ ـالدينـ ـ...ـ ـقاتلـ ـالـكفرةــوـ ـالمشركينـ, ـقاهرـ ـالخوارج ـوـ ـالمتمرـدينـ, مبيدــ ـالطغاةــوـ

ـالمارقينـ, محيـىـ ـالعدلـ ـفىـ ـالعالمينـ, ـمنصفـ ـالمظلومينـ ـمنـ ـالظالمينـ, ـكنزـ ـالفقراء ـوـ ـالمساكينـ, ـكهفـ

ـالضعفاءــوـ ـالمنقطعينـ, ـناصرـ ـ)؟ ـ( ـالحقــ ـبالبراهينـ, محيـىـ ـملـةـسيـدــ ـالمرسلينـ, ـحامىـ ـحوزةـ ـالدينـ, ـأبوـ

ـالفتح ـخليل ـإبنـ ـمولاناــوـ ـسيـدناـ, ـالسلطانـ ـالأعظمـ, ـالملكـالمنصور , ـالعالمـ, ـالعادلـ, ـالمجاهدـ, ـالمرابطـ

, ـالمثاغرـ, ـالمؤيـدـ ـالمظفـرـ, ـالمنصورـ, ـسلطانـ ـالعربــوـ ـالعجمـ, ـمالكـ ـرقابـ ـالأممـسلطانــ ـالشأمــوـ ـاليمنـ

, ـملكـ ـالبحرينـ, ـخادمـ ـالحرمينـ ـالشريفينـ, ـصاحبـ ـالقبلتينـ, ـملكـ ـالديارـ ـالمصريـةــوـ ـالجهاتـ ـالحجازيـةــوـ

ـالبلادـ ـالشأميـةــوـ ـالأعمالـ ـالفراتيـةــوـ ـالديارـالبكريـة ـ, ـأوحدـ ـملوكـ ـالعصريـةـ ـبهلوانـجهانـ ـ...ـ ـسيفـ ـالدنياــوـ

ـالدينـ, ـسلطانـ ـالإسلامــوـ ـالمسلمينـ, ـقاتلـ ـالـكفرةــوـ ـالمشركينـ, ـقاهرـ ـالخوارجــوـ ـالمتمرـدينـ, ـقلاونـ

145 ـالصالحىـ, ـقـ]ـسيمـ ـأميرـالمؤمنيـ[ـن

Our Lord and Master, the Sultan, al-Malik al-Ashraf, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior,

the One Stationed to Guard the Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, the Supported, the

Triumphant, the Victorious, ṣalāḥ al-dunyā wa al-dīn … Killer of the Infidels and the Polytheists,

Conqueror of the Outcasts and Mutineers, Exterminator of the Despots and the Dissenters,

Reviver of Justice in All Worlds, the Treasure of the Poor and Needy, the Supported of the Truth

with Evidence, the Reviver of the Religion of the Master of Prophets, the Defender of the

Borders/Lands of the Religion, Abū Fatḥ Khalīl, son of our Lord and Master, the Greatest Sultan,

al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior, the One Stationed to Guard

Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, the Supported, the Triumphant, the Victorious, Sultan of

145 RCEA, XIII, n° 4895. I added the commas to separate the epithets and titles. 64

Arabs and non-Arabs, Possessor of the Necks of Nations, Sultan of the Levant and the Yemen,

King of the Two Seas, Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries [Mecca and Madina], the One in

Charge of the Two Sanctuaries [Mecca and Jerusalem], King of the Egyptian Homelands, of the

Lands of the Hijaz, of the Lands of the Levant, of the Lands around the Euphrates, and the Land

of Diyarbekir, the One of his kind of Kings of his time, the King of the World … sayf al-dunyā wa al-

dīn, Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, Conqueror of the

Outcasts and Muntineers, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, Partner of the Prince of the Faithful.146

Comparing the titles used by al-Ashraf Khalīl and Qalāwūn, it is obvious that the son’s legitimacy was based on his father. More than half of the inscription matches the titles describing his father in the same inscription, unlike similar descriptions between a ruling father and heir

(ex: al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Baraka Khān or Qalāwūn and al-Ṣāliḥ ʿAlī) which were much more

147 simple when describing the heir. The Qalāwūnids utilized endowments to further their dynastic claims with growing sophistication. Although al-Ashraf Khalīl’s endowment was placed outside of the dynastic space on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, the employment of inscriptions to project his legitimacy and dynastic right was to become a trademark of the Qalāwūnids. But it was a model that not only they would try to employ.

Interestingly enough the next individual who wished to claim royal legitimacy by placing his endowment on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn was not a member of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. The powerful amir al-ʿAdil Kitbughā (r. 694-6/1295-7) had usurped power from the inexperienced al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad, the young son of Qalāwūn. Not only would Kitbughā endow a complex right next

146 English translation can be found at: Heba el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 148-149. 147 Ibid. 150. 65 to his former patron, Qalāwūn, he would use the portal of church brought back to Cairo by al-

148 Ashraf Khalīl. The importance of the endowment’s location is seen in al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s response when he was brought to power for a second time in 698/1299. Sultan al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad took over the construction of the complex, apparently before it was formally

149 endowed. He then proceeded to make it into his own endowed complex. The heavy brass door knockers of the main entrance door however are inscribed to Sultan al-ʿAdil Kitbughā (See

Figure G). Why did al-Nāṣir Muḥammad leave this door knocker on the monument after he had taken such time and effort to make sure the monument was associated with him? Perhaps as a subtle reminder of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s actions to those passing by.

In addition to this al-Nāṣir Muḥammad repaired the minaret of the Qalāwūn complex and endowed a sabīl (fountain) which was attached near the portal of the Qalāwūn complex as

150 well (See Figure I). He would inscribe on every conceivable space to remind those who passed by his connection with his father, Qalāwūn, and his right to rule. These inscriptions are easily read today with the naked eye so would have been very obvious to the public during that period

(See Figure J).

148 Philip Speiser, “The Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Madrasah in Cairo: Restoration and Archaeological Investigation,” MSR XII, no. 2 (2008): 198. 149 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:382 150 The founder of the sabīl is a matter of debate, but it seems he had ordered its building and it was completed after his death. See: Sophie Ebeid, “Early sabīls and their standardization,” (Master’s Thesis, American University in Cairo, 1976), 21. 66

The northern area of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, clustered around the religious establishments of al-Ṣāliḥ, al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Qalāwūn, was the prerogative of reigning monarchs. No other major religious establishments were endowed along this central thoroughfare until Sultan Barqūq founded his complex next to that of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The use of endowments to project power on the urban landscape also resulted in spaces of hierarchy. Sultans were able to establish endowments along the important area on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn since it required large outlays of cash and power (no doubt used by Qalāwūn to acquire the property needed to establish his complex) to build on prime real estate. However, because endowments allowed for flexible uses endowments by powerful amirs were employed in a similar manner as those created by sultans.

The complex of Baybars al-Jāshankīr (r. 708-9/1309-1310) was not located on the main thoroughfare of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn but next to it. This is due to the fact the complex was first constructed and endowed when Baybars was still an amir. His endowment is located next another powerful amir: Qarāsunqur. However, after several years of political machinations

Baybars eventually ascended to the throne in 708/1309. He would not only add to his original endowment, he would strive to create a more regal complex. The inscriptions on his complex would have displayed his royal titles, like the complexes of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ẓāhir Baybars before him. However, his removal by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in 709/1310 would change the nature of his endowment. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would close the complex down for years until the

151 opening of his khānqāh at Sīryāqūs. But more importantly, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would change

152 the inscriptions Baybars al-Jāshankīr had placed on the complex. Since the complex was a consecrated endowment and technically beyond confiscation like that of Kitbughā’s, al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad could not simple remake it into his own complex like he had done before or chose not to since it was not located in the dynastic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn and thereby less regal. So he chose to remove the royal titular inscriptions on the complex leaving the part appropriate for an amir. His actions “can be interpreted as a gesture of disapproval of their claim to the throne on the one hand, and a desire to establish an uninterrupted royal lineage for the house of

153 Qalāwūn on the other.”

These institutions and their endowments were a central part to the display of power and legitimacy for the ruling elite. The symbolism of their endowments is not a modern interpretation but one that held special significance to the people living in that era. The creation of spaces of hierarchy was not haphazard but reflected the realities of power. Evidence of the pious endowments’ importance and its relationship with the Mamluk power structure is proven by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s actions. The importance of location and inscriptions was deemed important enough to warrant his actions in confiscation of al-ʿAdil Kitbughā’s unregistered endowment, since his would have been located in an area of royal prerogative, and the rewording

151 Leonor Fernandes, “The Foundation of Baybars al-Jashankir: Its Waqf, History and Architecture,” Murqarnas 4 (1987): 23. 152 Ibid., 23. 153 Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad,” MSR IV (2000): 234. 68 of the inscriptions found on Baybars al-Jāshankīr’s endowment. The use of pious endowments by the Mamluk elite would continue to be an important factor in politics during al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad’s third reign.

Awqāf & Political Relationships: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Third Reign

The importance was endowments during the early period of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s three reigns has been shown to be central to the legitimacy of the sultan. His third reign (709-

41/1310-41) would usher in a new phase in the use of waqf. Not only would he continue using endowments to promote urban growth and establish his legitimacy like his father had before him, he would use endowments in an effort to bind amirs to his cause and further establish his legitimacy. His third reign would see him firmly establish his rule after removing those amirs that proved to be disloyal to his own supremacy and his redistribution of iqṭāʿ in the favor of the

154 sultan with his cadastral survey of the empire in 713/1313. . This relatively peaceful period, in which he reigned supreme, would see the use of awqāf change in objectives hoping to bind chosen elite amirs to his family’s dynasty, therefore prolonging the Qalāwūnid’s claim to the throne and a move away from building on the royal venue of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn.

154 The cadastral survey began in al-Shām in 713/1313, then Miṣr in 715/1315, Ṭarābulus in 717/1317 and finally Ḥalab in 725/1325. On al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī, see: Tsugitaka Satō, State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam, 135-152. 69

This long period of rule by one man, along with the lack of hostile enemies threatening

155 invasion, allowed the ruling elite to direct financial resources to other avenues. This lack of outside intrusions with a more centralized land tenure system after the cadastral survey meant

156 that the sultan and the favored elite could spend more resources on building programs. Ibn

Taghrībirdī reported that if al-Nāṣir Muḥammad heard that a foundation was established, the founder would receive the sultan’s congratulations in public and would receive money,

157 equipment and more from him in private. This generous support to amirs was not only out of favoritism to those he held in esteem but also a form of control which helped him spread his legitimacy through his largesse via building programs. Much like the building programs of the sultans, these amiral endowments would provide a means to display his legitimacy. These calculated gifts were also meant to bind the forming ruling aristocracy to his family, therefore hopefully ensuring his dynasty’s survival. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would use a two pronged approach to this task. First, he created an alliance with certain amirs through marriage, either by

158 allowing them to marry into his family or the sultan into theirs. The second part would entail providing financial support for architectural programs, both in the forms of endowed institutions

155 Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 222-223. 156 Ibid., 224. For the original source see: Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās (850-930/1448-ca.1524), Badāʾiʿ al- Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr (Cairo: al-Hayʼah al-Misṛīyah al-ʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982-1984), 1:1:446. 157 Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo: al-Muʾassasah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah, 1963-1972), 9:185. ”…إذاـسمعـبأحدـقدـأنشأـعمارةـبمكانـشَكَرهـفيـالمَلَأـوـأمدذـفيـالباطنـبالمالـوـالآلات،ـوـغيره…“ 158 Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 82. 70 or palaces. The financial support al-Nāṣir Muḥammad offered to his favored amirs was very substantial.

The building of a mosque could be very costly. According to al-Maqrīzī, the mosque of amīr Aydumur al-Khaṭīrī, built in 1337, cost 400,000 silver dirhams or 20,000 dinars. The mosque of al-Māridānī was supposed to have cost more than 300,000 dirhams or 15,000 dinars.

Although in comparison to private buildings, such as the palace of Baktimur al-Sāqī which cost an estimated one million dirhams or 50,000 dinars, these endowed complexes did not cost an

159 exorbitant amount. However, what we do notice in the sources is that material and financial funding for this did not solely come from the purses of the amirs, but from a generous patron, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad.

The historian al-Maqrīzī remarked that al-Nāṣir Muḥammad spent eighty thousand

160 dirhams daily on his building programs during this third reign. While it is not certain that those funds also covered the gifts to amirs who were conducting their own building programs is not known, but it does show the amount of buildings created during this time. This period would see the creation of many Friday masjids, jāmiʿ, and a number of other religious establishments. During his reign alone, some thirty congregational mosques were built while only

159 For a more detailed discussion on the cost of building during the Bahri Mamluk period see: Doris Behrens- Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 47-48. 160 Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʻrifat duwal al-mulūk (Cairo: Matbạʻat Lajnat al-Taʼlīf wa-al- Tarjamah wa-al-Nashr, 1934-1972), 2:2:163-164. 71

161 one (belonging to al-Ẓāhir Baybars) had been built in the 50 years prior. Amirs, like

Alṭunbughā al-Māridānī, benefited from al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s largesse through cash funds, labor, or building materials. As stated earlier, these gifts were given in the hope of tying these powerful individuals to his dynastic house there were also more immediate benefits. Studying the inscriptions of these amiral endowed structures, many of them proclaim the founder was an officer of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (see Table G). Most inscriptions followed the basic structure of

“amir x, position at court or rank, officer of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad”. These inscriptions of course would give legitimacy to the founding amirs through their relationship of the sultan, but it also reminded the public of his omnipresence. This legacy as a builder and patron of religious establishments would be looked back on by later historians, like al-Maqrīzī, as the zenith of the

Mamluk state. It is interesting to note that certain amirs who became sultans, like Baybars al-

Jāshankīr and Kitbughā, purposely used the title al-Manṣūrī or “al-maliki al-manṣūrī” on their

162 endowed complexes. This would have been done to illustrate the patron’s legitimacy through his relationship the Qalāwūn and perhaps his own right to power.

A New Dynastic Space?: Awqāf in the Late Fourteenth Century

The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad saw the creation of a new dynastic space in and around the area of the citadel in Cairo. This new development began his building program with

161 al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:2:544. 162 Sāmī Ṣāliḥ ‘Abdal-Mālik, "Une inscription du sultan mamelouk Kitbuġā découverte à al-Qurrayṣ (Sinaï central)", in Le Sinaï de la conquête arabe à nos jours, ed. J. M. Mouton (Cairo: IFAO, 2001), 52. 72 the intention of leaving his lasting make on the urban landscape and outdoing any other Mamlūk sultan. His building program included endowed structures, bridges, waterworks and private

163 residences for him and his amirs. There were many causes for shifting the focus area of his building program. The first is rather superficial as the sultan himself resided in the citadel and would have wanted to admire his own crowning achievement on the urban landscape to be seen from the citadel. Secondly, ceremonial possession through the city which would have either started or ended at the citadel would re-enforce the idea of Qalāwūnid legitimacy. A Qalāwūnid sultan could have begun the ceremonial entrance into Cairo at the khānqāh of al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad located to the north of the city, then headed towards the endowments of Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn going south towards to citadel and coming to the complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan or al-Ashraf Shaʿbān right before entering the citadel, all the while reminding those in attendance of the legacy of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. Finally, the construction of palaces was for patronage and control over powerful amirs in the retinue of al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad. It is these powerful amirs and their ambitions that would influence the next phase of major royal endowments and the growing sophistication of the institution itself.

This focus on the citadel began with al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s competition with the legacy

164 of al-Ẓāhir Baybars. Although he had constructed other Friday mosques around Cairo, he would rebuild one (most likely endowed) inside the citadel which replaced one that was

163 For details on these buildings, see: Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 225. Also see: Nasser Rabbat, The Citadel of Cairo: A New Interpretation of Royal Mamluk Architecture (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 181-282. 164 Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 234. 73

165 supposedly built by the Ayyūbid Sultan al-Kāmil. A costly demolishment and rebuilding of a mosque would serve to buttress his legacy as the patron of the Mamlūk state. This competition also resulted in him rebuilding and enlarging Qanāṭir al-Sibāʿ (The Bridge of Panthers) to

166 outshine his predecessor. The historian al-Maqrīzī stated that he constructed a new palace in the citadel, Qaṣr al-Ablaq, to rival the place al-Ẓāhir Baybars had built in Damascus. In addition to these, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad constructed two palaces for favorite amirs, Alṭunbugha al-Māridānī and Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī in Rumaylah. It was the amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s reign that would play a significant role in the political events after his death. Their ambitions would result in a series of Qalāwūnids being placed on the throne and removed which would have a strong impact on the development of pious endowments in the late fourteenth century. These two palaces, along with the other buildings of the elite amīrs, were to become symbols of their elevated position within the Mamluk state.

The majority of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s progeny would not enjoy the long stable reign he had during the Qalāwūnid’s sway over most of the fourteenth century (See Table H). Only three

167 of his offspring would endow institutions during their lifetime: al-Ḥājjī (his son) al-Nāṣir

Ḥassan (his son), and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (his grandson). The last two would have the longest reigns of all the Qalāwūnid sultans after al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The endowed religious complexes of al-Nāṣir Ḥasan and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān reflected the growing change in the political situation

165 Ibid., 228. 166 Ibid., 234-5. See original source: al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:1:129. 167 See Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Catalog, 11, no. 40. 74 and the adaption of awqāf. As the struggle between Qalāwūnid heirs and powerful amirs became hotly contested, Qalāwūnid sultans would use the institution to reinforce their claims as the rightful ruler of the Mamluk Empire by building imposing complexes that reminded all that the

Qalāwūnids were unlike any other who might wish to claim the sultanate.

Struggle for Power: Qalāwūnid Sultans versus Powerful Amirs

The death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad brought about a shift in the internal power structure of the Mamluk state. The Mamluk sultans since al-Ẓāhir Baybars had slowly concentrated power in the hands of the sultan at the expense of the amirs. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad had brought this concerted effort to its zenith with his final reign. However, after his death there would be a drastic reversal. Ambitious amirs would consistently challenge the power and prerogative of the

Qalāwūnid sultan. This change in the power dynamic was reflected in how pious endowments were employed by the Mamluk elite. These ambitious amirs seeking “effective power” over the state apparatus would present a serious challenge to any Qalāwūnid sultan wishing to establish

168 their own power. The Qalāwūnids who were able to obtain some measure of power would employ pious endowments in order to offset the growing power of the Mamluk amirs through financial manipulations of their endowments (See Chapter 2). They would also use the symbolic power of their royal endowments to extend the dynastic space of the Qalāwūnid sultans from

168 The term “effective power” was used by Van Steenbergen, belonging to those who actually ran the state in contrast to “legitimate power” which belonged to those who derived their power, in theory, from their position within the Mamlūk political structure. Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamlūk Socio- Political Culture, 1341-1382 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 53-122. 75

Bayn al-Qaṣrayn to the Citadel, marking their objective of dominating the nerve center of the

Mamluk Empire.

The 1340’s, the decade following al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s death, would be a politically turbulent period in which no less than six different Qalāwūnids placed on the throne (See Table

H). The longest reign during that period was that of Ismāʿīl b. al-Nāṣir Muḥammad for a little over three years. What was consistent throughout this period and the majority of the rest of the fourteenth century were the periodic power struggles between ambitious amirs and the reigning sultan. Several times, an amir would over power his rival, removing the reigning sultan and place a new sultan on the throne. These amirs were the favored amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s regime.

In August of 742/1341, Qawṣūn al-Nāṣirī al-Sāqi would stage a rebellion against al-Manṣūr Abū

169 Bakr and replaced him with Kujuk. Later that same year Ṭashtumur al-Badrī al-Nāṣirī al-Sāqī successfully challenged the power of Qawṣūn and placed al-Nāṣir Aḥmad on the throne

170 (although for only a matter of months). The next sultan, al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl, would eventually be replaced after amir Arghūn al-ʿAlāʾī al-Nāṣirī proved victorious against amir Almalik al-Jūkandar

171 and placed al-Kāmil Shaʿbān on the throne. The end of his reign would start with the rebellion of amir Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī, one of the favored amīrs al-Nāṣir Muḥammad built a luxurious palace for close to the citadel, and would be joined by amirs Maliktamur al-Ḥijāzi, Arghūn Shāh

169 Ibid., Order Out of Chaos, 148. 170 Ibid., 148. 171 Ibid., 151. 76

172 and Aqsunqur al-Naṣirī who would place al-Muẓaffar Hājjī on the throne. These Qalāwūnid sultans had a very difficult task establishing their own power, although it was not impossible.

Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan reached the throne at an early age after his brother al-Muẓaffar

173 Hājjī was removed and killed at the age of 20 in 748/1347. While the majority of the political intrigue up to this point had been caused by the favored amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, the reign of al-Muẓaffar Hājjī would see the creation of a new generation of powerful amirs that had only

174 been promoted after al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s death. Although there are inconsistencies in al-

Nāṣir Ḥassan’s age according to different sources, he was a teenager at the time of his

175 accession. His early days on the throne were much like those of his father’s two earlier reigns;

“effective power” was in the hands of senior amirs. The purse strings of the Mamlūk state which had been so carefully placed in the hands of the sultan under al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would be usurped by senior amirs like Baybughā Rūs and Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī. As nāʾib al-salṭana he would hold power as a reigning sultan would, distributing and assigning iqṭāʿ’s and position of

176 nāʾibs in Syria. Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī controlled the sultan’s treasury or khizānat al-

177 khāṣṣ. These two amirs were of the same type as al-Nāṣir Muhammad’s khāṣsakīyah who had been so intertwined in the reigns of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s siblings. Therefore it should come to no

172 Ibid., Order Out of Chaos, 114. 173 Van Steenbergen, “Is anyone my guardian . . . ?’’, 64. 174 Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 154. 175 Van Steenbergen, “Is anyone my guardian?’’, 64. 176 Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 114. 177 Ibid., 191. 77 surprise it was two palaces of al-Nāṣirī amirs that al-Nāṣir Ḥasan choose to destroy and build his own endowed complex on top of.

There is no doubt that al-Nāṣir Ḥassan witnessed the cruel replacement of one sibling over another on the throne by powerful amirs of his father which would influence the building of his monumental complex. His resentment of their usurpation of royal Qalāwūnid prerogative would have festered over time especially as he would be treated in a similar manner by the amirs

Baybughā Rūs and Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī (who controlled the sultan’s treasury or khizānat al-khāṣṣ). So powerless was his position when he first became sultan that he was given an

178 allowance of just one hundred dirhams per day. His decision to place his endowed complex on the ruins of the palaces of Alṭunbugha al-Māridānī and Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī was undeniably

179 symbolic.

Sultan al-Nāṣir Hassan’s complex was an expression of his power and legitimacy since it was built after the demise of the two most powerful amirs of his rule. The date of this complex’s construction beginning was either 1356 or 1357. However the latter date is more believable for several reasons. In July of 1357 Shaykhū was mortally wounded, supposedly by a jilted amir who had been seeking an iqṭāʿ and was refused. Shaykhū’s departure opened the way for al-Nāṣir

180 Ḥassan to create his own patronage network and therefore his own power. He would have

178 al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:751. 179 Abdullah Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 1. 180 Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 156. 78 also been able to recoup financial resources that had long been at the disposal of the former atābak al-ʿasākir. The first endowment deed for the complex is dated 15 Rabī al-Ākhir 760

181 (1359) and Thursday 2 Rajab 760 (1359) , roughly eight months after al-Nāṣir Ḥassan outmaneuvered another political enemy, amir Ṣarghitmish in 759/1358. His improved political fortunes allowed him the necessary time to build his own patronage network and the financial

182 resources to establish an endowment.

The complex is unlike any other from the Mamlūk period in its size and grandeur, it was meant to remind all that the Qalāwūnids were the rightful rulers. Its monumental size and position across from the citadel of Cairo was intended to express al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s power and contempt for the elite Mamluk amirs. The Black Death which had decimated the Cairene

183 population would have made unnecessary another massive religious establishment. Its

184 intention is quiet clear from al-Maqrīzī’s description of it as an “anti-Citadel”. The Qalāwūnid heirs were prisoners of ambitious amirs in the housing quarters of the Citadel, which was the seat of the Mamluk state. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan had been a witness to his own removal and manipulation of his position by ambitious amirs, not to mention the fate of his brothers, would have felt bitterness at having being denied and barred from what he probably viewed as his right.

181 Howayda al-Harithy, Kitāb waqf as-sulṭān an-Nāṣir Ḥasan Ibn-Muḥammad Ibn-Qalāwūn ʿalā madrasatihī bi-'r- Rumaila, 181, lines 21-23. 182 Financial resources left by victims of the plague also helped finance the institution. See Howayda al-Harithy, “The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines,” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 77. 183 Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 3. 184 Ibid., 3. For the original text see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:316. ”ضدـالقلعةالجبل“ 79

His description is apt since it would be used as fortified position against fights against Barqūq’s

185 mamluks in the citadel. It was meant to display royal power in opposition to meddling amirs.

This display of power was furthered when the complex by a formal ceremony for inauguration where the sultan publicly proclaimed his wealth, power and patronage. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥasan gave five hundred robes of honor (khilʿa) to the various people involved in the construction of his complex. In addition to this magnanimity he awarded the princely sum of one hundred thousand dinars to the chief architect. This was done in full view of amirs and the four chief

186 qādīs. This expression of Qalāwūnid power and legitimacy would last till the rise of Barqūq.

There is little epigraphic data from al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex which is probably due to

187 his death prior to its completion. However there are inscriptions found above the doors in each corner of the madrasah that read:

”بسمـالل ـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـأمرـبإنشاءـهذهـالمدرسةـالمباركةـمولاناـالسلطانـالشهيدـالمرحومـالملكـ

الناصرـحسن إبنـمولاناـالسلطانـالشهيدـالمرحومـالملكـالناصرـمحمـدـبن قلاون وـذلكـفىـشهورـ

188 سنةـأربعـوـستـينـو سبعمائة.“

185 Ibid., 3. 186 Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās, s Badāʼiʻ al-zuhūr fī waqāʼiʻ al-duhūr, 1:560-561. 187 The decorations in sections of the complex were left semi-complete in areas. See: Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 62. 188 RCEA, XVII, n° 764 002. 80

“The construction of this blessed college was order by our Lord, the Sultan, the Martyr,

al-Malik al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, son of our Lord, the Sultan, the Martyr, the late al-Malik al-

Nāṣir, Muhammad b. Qalāwūn in the year 764 A.H.”

Both sultans, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad and al-Nāṣir Ḥassan are referred to as “al-shahīd”, or martyr). Although al-Nāṣir Muḥammad died of natural causes, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was murdered.

His body was never interred in the majestic complex he established below the citadel. The term employed here is interesting as it attests to their struggle for the faith but in the case of al-Nāṣir

Ḥassan against those would be purveyors of injustice and civil unrest, the usurping amirs. The importance placed on names and titles is important and we know this because of an action of al-

Nāṣir Ḥassan who changed his original name from Qumārī, the Qalāwūnid sultans are distinguished from other Mamluk sultans due to their Arabic names. Like his father before him, this gave him a distinction from the mamluk amirs who had “foreign” names. His name, endowment and titles inscribed on it were all meant to set him apart from the mamluk amirs and establish his legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The next Qalāwūnid sultan would also use endowments in a similar way.

Although the madrasa of sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān did not survive the Mamlūk period, the complex of Umm Sultan Shaʿbān did. The epigraphic data that remains provides a tantalizing clue as to the aspirations of what al-Ashraf Shaʿbān hoped to employ through waqf. The titular inscriptions left on his mother’s endowed establishment have a remarkable similarity to that of

81 his grandfather, Qalāwūn (See Table I). The embattled sultan probably strove to link his rule to that of his illustrious grandfather. Like the reign of his uncle, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, al-Ashraf Shaʿbān was forced to contend with ambitious amirs. His endowed institutions no doubt were meant to display his right to rule by displaying his royal descent to men of legacy, Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad. The inscription reads,

مولاناـ, السلطانـ, المالكـالملكـ, الأشرف شعبان بنـالمرحومـحسينـ, سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمينـ, قاتلـ

الـكفرةـوـالمشركينـ, محيىـالعدلـفىـالعالمينـ, مظهرـالحقـــبالبراهينـ, حامى حوزةـالدينـ, سيـدـالملوكـوـ

السلاطينـ, قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنينـ, قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمرـدينـ, كنزـالغزـاةـوـالمجاهدينـ, منصفـالمظلومينـ

منـالظالمينـ, ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجينـ, صاحبـالديارـالمصريـةـوـالبلادـالشأميـةـوـالحصونـالإسماعيليـةـ

189 وـالثغورـالسكندريـةـوـالقلاعـالساحليـةـوـالأقطارـالحجازيـة.

Our Lord, the Sultan, the King of Kings, al-Ashraf Shaʿbān son of the late Husayn, Sultan of Islam

and the Muslims, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, the Reviver of Justice in all Worlds,

the Supporter of the Truth with Evidence, the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion,

the Master of Kings and Sultans, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful, the Conqueror Over

the Outcasts and the Mutineers, the Treasure of the Poor and Needy, the One who obtains the

rights of the oppressed from the oppressors, the Asset of the Widows and the Needy, the Owner

of Egypt, Syria, the strongholds of al-Ismāʿīlīya, the ports of Alexandria, the citadels of al-

Sāḥiliya And the Hijāz region.

This inscription on the complex of Umm Sultan Shaʿbān follow the usual pattern for

Qalāwūnid sultans, borrowing titles from their predecessors with a few additions, with the

189 RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005 82

190 exception it was placed on the endowment of his mother. Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān borrows more than half of his titles from his forefather, Sultan Qalāwūn (See Table I). However, it doesn’t follow the usual list of personal adjectives found in the inscriptions of Qalāwūn and al-

Nāṣir Muḥammad. This might be due to the fact that the endowed complex actually belonged to his mother (according to the endowment deed for the complex). The complex he did endow next to the citadel no longer exists. This complex supposedly shared had much in common with al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex nearby.

Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s complex was in many ways very similar to that of his uncle al-

Nāṣir Ḥassan’s. He bought the palace of amir Sunqur al-Jamālī and destroyed in order to place

191 his complex close to the citadel. Ibn Taghrībirdī said it imitated the complex of al-Nāṣir

192 Ḥassan. It must have been a majestic building since both Ibn Taghrībirdī and al-Maqrīzī said it

193 was unlike any other building. Its strategic location, which would have been used for ceremonies to and from the Citadel by al-Ashraf Shaʿbān made it useful during pitched battles between Mamluk factions. This might have been the reason was al-Nāṣir Faraj ordered it

190 Fernandes discusses how it was Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān who built and paid for the construction of the complex, but it was the mother who was the legal endower of the complex. See: Leonor Fernandes, “The Madrasa of Umm al- Sulṭān Shaʿbān” (Master’s Thesis, American University in Cairo, 1976), 73-74. This complex and endowment deserves a separate study. 191 Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al- Kutub al-Miṣrīyah, 1929–1949), 6:67. Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1997), 4:388. 192 Ibid., 8:123. 193 Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm, 8:123.al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 6:294. 83

194 destroyed. However, his father simply closed the strategically located complex of Sultan al-

Nāṣir Ḥassan which caused the same problem. So perhaps al-Nāṣir Faraj destroyed the complex to further dismantle the Qalāwūnid legacy with the excuse of it being a political nuisance.

Although he was able to gain the support of some judges, it is fairly amazing that he was able to

195 destroy it. The complex, which is now occupied by the ruins of Sultan al-Muʿayyad Shaykh’s bīmāristān, was majestic and would have undoubtedly been employed in a similar manner to the

196 other Qalāwūnid foundations.

194 al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 6:294. 195 al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ, 2:408. 196 Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr, ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafá (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1960-1975), 1:2:813. 84

Barqūq: The End of the Qalāwūnid Dynasty

The two reigns of Barqūq (r. 784-791/1382-89 and 792-801/1390-99) marked the end of the Qalāwūnid dynasty and was manifested in the construction of his own complex in Bayn al-Qaṣrayn and his treatment of Qalāwūnid endowed establishments. Barqūq was not completely successful at first removing the legitimacy of the Qalāwūnids since his reign was interrupted by the return of Ḥājjī b. Shaʿbān in June of 791/1389. Although this interruption would only last until the beginning of the next year, Barqūq would have felt it necessary to impose his claim through various means against the long term legacy of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. Barq̄uq would employ the same mechanism that the Qalāwūnids had. Waqf.

The al-Barqūqiyya complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn lies at the end of the of the Qalāwūnid complexes of Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad as if to illustrate his ending of their regal line.

The complex did not begin construction until two years after Barqūq had put down the last serious attempt to enthrone a Qalāwūnid sultan, Ḥājjī b. Shaʿbān. This follows the trend of the later Qalāwūnids who would establish an endowment after gaining political control. His complex would be, just like those endowed by the Qalāwūnids, a proclamation of his power and legitimacy.

The inscriptions that adorn his complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn are just as important as his choice to build on the royal avenue. Barqūq chose the regnal title “al-Malik al-Ẓāhir” harkening back to the originator of the Mamluk state, al-Ẓāhir Baybars, and effectively bypassing the line of

197 Qalāwūn. His titles follow a very similar pattern as al-Ẓāhir Baybars but there are many similarities with the Qalāwūnids as well (See Table J). Even though Barqūq would have attempted to remove the legacy of the one group that could challenge his claim to the throne, he would still have had to compete with the Qalāwūnids claims through inscriptions. However, on the wall of the complex he refers to himself as “al-Maqarr al-Sayfī Jarkis Amīr Akhūr al-Malik al-

198 Ẓāhir”, referring to his title amīr akhūr kabīr which he held before becoming sultan in 1382.

This title is missing on the cupola of the complex, where he refers to himself as “al-mālik al-

199 mulk”. Why would he use this title is unknown, but it was probably meant to illustrate his mamluk status unlike the non-mamluk status of the Qalāwūnid heirs. Barqūq would plaster his name all over his endowment, just like Qalāwūn did in his, to remind all those who saw it of his

200 power.

Barqūq would close the complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan and his son, al-Nāṣir Faraj, would

201 destroy the complex of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, the last two Qalāwūnid sultans with effective power.

As noted earlier, the complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was closed since it provided a strategic fortified position in opposition to the citadel. Closing of this complex, even if for military reasons alone, would alter the formal processions of the city. The nearest religious establishments were all

197 Van Steenbergen, Out of Order, 172. None of the Qalāwūnids used the title al-Ẓāhir. 198 RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040. 199 RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042. 200 See the following inscriptions: RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040. 201 Van Steenbergen, Out of Order, 7. The term effective power is used by Van Steenbergen explain the complex political environment of the Mamlūk state. Although the Qalāwūnid sultans held “Legitimate power”, the amirs that ruled behind the throne and controlling the reigns of the state, held “Effective power. 86 created by the Qalāwūnids, which Barqūq would definitely have been aware of. Sultan al-Nāṣir

Ḥassan had reversed the traditional procession through al-Qāhira in 761/1360 by entering the

202 city through the southern gate of Bāb Zuwayla instead of the northern gate of Bāb al-Naṣr.

This reversal probably was made to bring his own complex in to the formal procession to highlight his power and legitimacy. Barqūq’s closure of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex would have altered any procession to or from the citadel. It is also possible that the closing of this large endowment would possibly provide financial resources needed to establish effective control over the Mamluk state.

The Bahri Mamluk period witnessed a new phenomenon that affected the political, social, economic and cultural spheres of the Mamluk Empire. The Mamluk elite, especially the

Qalāwūnid sultans, utilized the ubiquitous nature of endowments as a mechanism for political dominance. They were able to accomplish this by placing monumental structures located in key areas in Cairo, creating symbolic spaces that emphasized their status. This dynastic space was originally located in Bayn al-Qaṣrayn but was later expanded to the Citadel area. This space was used during ceremonies by the Qalāwūnid sultans to reinforce their image as the rightful rulers of the Mamluk Empire. Certainly no other family could boast so many magnificent structures.

These structures made use of inscriptions to instill the viewer with a sense of the founder’s grandeur and power. This tactic should not be underestimated as these inscriptions are still easily read centuries later with the naked eye and made use of Islamic civilization’s most impressive art

202 Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 33. 87 form, the written word. Inscriptions in the capital of the Mamluk Empire also differed from those on buildings located on the periphery of the Empire, suggesting that the Mamluks utilized

203 them in different manners for different objectives. Although Mamuk sultans would continue to use pious endowments to help further their political power, the reign of Barqūq and al-Nāṣir

Faraj marked the end of Qalāwūnid political influence which had dominated the urban landscape of Cairo for almost a century.

203 Howayda al-Harithy, “Writing on the Wall: Mamluk Monuments of Tripoli,” in Towards a Cultural History of the Mamluk Empire, ed. Mahmoud Haddad, Arnim Heinemann, John L.. Meloy and Souad Slim (Beirut: Orient-Institut Beirut - Ergon Verlag Würzburg, 2010), 83. Al-Harithy discovered that waqf isncriptions were more prominent in Tripoli, which was at the periphery of the Mamluk Empire, than in Cairo where “the emphasis is more on politically charged references.” 88

Chapter 4

Conclusion

The institution of endowments provided a flexible legal mechanism, which was outside of the traditional duties and powers of the Mamluk power system, which allowed the Mamluk military elite to obtain political goals. As the political system which centralized authority in the sultan began to unravel at the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, endowments provided a fairly safe and reliable legal mechanism for the Mamluk military elite to achieve their goals. The

Qalāwūnid sultans especially became adept at using this legal mechanism to help bolster their family’s particular claim to pre-eminence within the Mamluk political sphere. In order to do this, they employed various strategies through their endowments to create a lasting image of legitimacy and a pool of financial resources.

Endowments have always been viewed as an economic strategy employed by waqifs, endowers, even by Mamluk contemporaries. Many Mamluk contemporary scholars noted that endowments created rich financial resources for the Mamluk elite, even employing the same strategy themselves if possible. Looking at the evolution of endowments in the Bahri period, several patterns begin to emerge. The Qalāwūnid created a massive financial resource through royal endowments that initially began with dynasty’s founder, Sultan Qalāwūn. Several of the

Qalāwūnid sultans created royal endowments and each specified that their offspring should benefit from its endowment as administrator. As the Qalāwūnid sultans became weaker due to

89 changing political conditions and a change in the empire’s economics, their endowments included larger tracts of agricultural properties and larger incomes as seen in the endowment of Sultan

Ḥassan. This was probably done for several reasons. The first was to allow the sultan unfettered access to resources due to ever growing financial needs of their office. As iqṭāʿāt were the economic lifeline of the Mamluk state, control over it gave one political power. This was the purpose of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s cadastral survey and the same reason why later Qalāwūnids began to endow large proportions of agricultural land in their endowments. Also the plague which caused economic and demographic problems required the Mamluk elite to fund their endowments with agricultural properties as the urban economy slumped. The second reason was to help the chances of their offspring succeeding them in office by stipulating their children, specifically male children as seen in the endowment of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, succeed them as administrator of their endowment. This adaption of endowments for financial gain by sultans was imitated by high ranking Mamluk officials, who had a smaller scale version of the sultan’s household, as well. Like the endowments of the Qalāwūnid sultans, the most powerful amirs of the day funded endowments to help further their own ambitions.

The Qalāwūnid sultans were also to employ the institution of endowments in a more abstract way to bolster their legitimacy. The royal endowments of the Qalāwūnid sultans were medieval billboards and campaign signs for their claim to the throne. Their royal endowments were expressions of their power and piety intended to convey the sultan’s majesty and reminded onlookers of the sultan’s special place in the world. The Mamluk sultans were the protectors of

Islam. Their armies protected the Muslim world from outside invaders and the Mamluk elite built and sponsored the colleges that taught the Islamic sciences. If the size and bustle of the endowments did not accomplish this, onlookers were reminded by inscriptions on almost every viewable part of the building(s), as one enters the main entrance, or goes to prayer, enter their dorm room at night, or along the walls of the exterior for those passing by. The heirs of al-Nāṣir

Muḥammad would use the edifices of their endowments to remind the public (and ambitious amirs) of their descent from Qalāwūn and especially al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The symbolic power of these endowments did not solely rest on their size or their inscriptions but also on their location within the city.

The geographic location of each endowment had just as much purpose as the inscriptions on its edifice. The early Mamluk sultans who established the state, al-Ẓāhir Baybars and

Qalāwūn, purposely placed their endowments in the same location of the last Ayyubid sultan on

Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. This symbolic avenue in the most illustrious part of Cairo, which was also a lucrative commercial area, was the preserve of reigning monarchs symbolizing a continuity of rule since the Fatimid dynasty through visually stunning architecture. Bayn al-Qaṣrayn served as the dynastic space for most of the Bahri Mamluk period with its symbolic and financial capital employed by early Mamluk rulers who built religious establishments that were funded by nearby urban rentals. Qalāwūn used his endowment to support the idea of not only his legitimacy through his predecessors but also his superiority. His son, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, confiscated the early building foundations of his usurper al-ʿAdil Kitbughā and make it his own as a reminder of

91 his right to rule through his special bloodline. As he established his own power, his other endowments were placed in other parts of the city, creating his mark on the capital of the

Mamluk Empire. His successors, namely al-Nāṣir Ḥassan and al-Ashraf Shaʾbān, would build their endowments in opposition to the Citadel which was both the central nerve of the empire but also a prison for the Qalāwūnid s.

The institution of endowments has played a large part in the life of the Muslim world. Its importance is proven by its longevity up till the twentieth century and its death at the supposed

“modernization” policies of nationalistic governments. The flexibility and adaption of this legal mechanism is proven not through modern studies but by Mamluk contemporaries who complained about the new usages by the Mamluk elite. It would not have been able to survive if it had not been a useful mechanism that could adapt to the changing political, economic and social climates of the region.

Appendix

Table D: Changes in Land Tenure Patterns From Later Qalāwūnids to the Reign of Barquq1 Person Region Village 777 Change by 800 Ref. al-Ushmūnain Rawwāḥa Waqf 1:130 Bisfā Milk 1:149 al-Bahnasā Safṭ Rashīn Milk 1:176 Gifted to a khanqah al- Abū Ruwaish Ashraf Shaʿbān in al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:208 al-Gīza 770/1368-69 Barnasht Milk 1:213 al-Fayyūm Bilāla Milk 1:251 Damanhūr Shubrā Milk 2:317 Sulṭān al-Qāhira al-Ashraf Minyat Ṣurud Milk 2:321 Shaʿbān Qalqashanda Milk 2:333

Qalyūb Qalyūb Milk 2:333 half for the waqf of Qashshīsh Milk Barqūq 2:334 Abū Ṣamāda Milk 2:402 al-Buḥaira Sunṭais Waqf 2:456 Tallibqā Milk 2:457 Fūwa Itfīna Waqf 2:466 al-Gharbīya Buṭaina Milk 2:487 al-Sharqīya Safṭ al-Ḥinnā Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:670 al-Ushmūnain Mallawī Milk 1:124 al-Bahnasā Sumusṭā Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:180 Abū Ghālib Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:207 waqf of Sultan Dimnāwīya Milk Barqūq’s two 1:216 al-Gīza sisters Minyat ash-Shammās Milk 1:230 Tirsā Milk 1:239 Sīdī ʿAlī al-Dīwān al-Mufrad (Son) Khuṣūṣ ʿAin Shams Milk 1:318 al-Qāhira Maṭarīya Milk 1:320 Shubrā al-Khaima Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:322 Marṣafā Milk 2:329 Ṭanān Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:338 Qalyūb Qalamā Milk 2:332 Ṣanāfīr Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:335 al-Buḥaira Bībān Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:410

Birmā Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:484 al-Gharbīya Nasahnā Milk 2:554 Quwaisinā Milk 2:562 al-Daqahlīya Ushmūm Ṭannāḥ Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:762 Sīdī Aḥmad (Son) Ibyār Ḥiṣṣat ʿĀmir Milk 2:348 Qalyūb Nawā Milk 2:331 Ibyār Bishtāma Milk 2:343 Sīdī Ḥassan (Son) Asyūṭ Ṭūkh Bakrīma Milk 1:98 al-Fayyūm Ḥammām Milk 1:258 al-Gharbīya Maḥallat al-Marḥūm Milk 2:523 Qūs Fargūṭ Milk 1:68 al-Bahnasā Āba Milk 1:140 Sīdī Qāsim (Son) al-Qāhira Kōm Ishfīn Milk 2:318 Qalyūb Nāy Milk 2:331 al-Sharqīya Damāṣ Milk 2:620 Khalīl (Son) al-Gharbīya Ḥiṣṣat Ibyār Milk 2:508 Ismāʿīl (Son) al-Daqahlīya Minyat Badrān Milk 2:732 Qūṣ Gharb Qamūla Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:69 al-Ushmūnain Tanda Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:136 al-Gīza Abū Ṣīr al-Sidr Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:208 Sīdī Amīr al-Qāhira Minyat al-Umarāʿ Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:321 Ḥājj, later Sulṭān Barshans Milk 2:361 Minūf Manyal Lubaisha Milk 2:371 Subk al-ʿAbīd Milk 2:384 al-Gharbīya Minyat Ziftā Gawād Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:550 al-Ushmūnain Sanabū Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 1:132 al-Dīwān al-Mufrad and for Rukn al-Din Abū Bakr al-Gīza Minyat ʿUqba Milk Baybars, Son of a 1:231 (Son) sister of Barqūq Abgūg Milk 2:597 al-Sharqīya Banhā al-ʿAsal Milk 2:609 Qūṣ Balyanā Milk 1:66 al-Ushmūnain Dalga Milk 1:113 Muḥammad

(Son) al-Fayyŭm Fānū/Naqalīfa Milk 1:255 al-Buḥaira Absūm Milk al-Dīwān al-Mufrad 2:399 al-Gharbīya Shanarā al-Baḥrīya Milk 2:571

Sulaimān

(Son) al-Gharbīya Manbūṭain Milk 2:527

Khawand al-Ushmūnain Ibshāda Milk 1:121 Wālida al-Gharbīya Safṭ Abī Turāb Waqf 2:567 (mother) al-Sharqīya Taqadūs Waqf 2:692 Asyūṭ Shuṭb Milk 1:97 Ibrāhīm al-Dīwān al-Mufrad (brother) Ibyār Ikhshā Milk 2:349 al-Gharbīya Minyat Ḥuwai Milk 2:540 Dilhānis Milk 1:154 al-Bahnasā Ihwā Milk 1:160 Aṭfīḥ Ṣaff Milk 1:202 Ānūk

(brother) Minūf Shībīn al-Kōm Milk 2:382 Dabīq Milk 2:488 al-Gharbīya Dahtūra Milk 2:489 Mīmā Milk 2:530

1 Heinz Halm, Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979 & 1982). The column titled “777” refers to the status of the property in that year (either milk or waqf property belonging to x person). The column titled “Ref.” is the volume and page number for each listed village. Halm tabulated information on land tenure based on several Mamluk period sources. For the list of sources he used see page 59.

Table E: Father-Son Succession During the Burji Period (1382-1517) Reign Sultan Father A.H. C.E.

al-Nāṣir Faraj al-Ẓāhir Barqūq 801-808, 808-815 1399-1405, 1405-1412

al-Manṣūr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ẓāhir Barqūq 808 1405

al-Muẓaffar Aḥmad al-Muʾayyad Shaykh 824 1421

al-Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad al-Ẓāhir Ṭaṭar 824-825 1421-1422

al-ʿAzīz Yūsuf al-Ashraf Barsbāy 841-842 1438

al-Manṣūr ʿUthmān al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq 857 1453

al-Muʾayyad Aḥmad al-Ashraf Ināl 856 1461

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad al-Ashraf Qāytbāy 901-904 1496-1498

Table F: Regal Titles 1 2 al-Ṣāliḥ 4 5 Qalāwūn al-Ẓāhir Baybars 3 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Nūr al-Dīn Nejm al-Dīn السيدــالـكبير السيـد سيـدنا Our Master the Master the High Master مولانا    Our Lord السلطان السلطان السلطانالأعظم the Greatest Sultan the Sultan the Sultan الملك الملكـالناصر الملك الملكـالظاهر الملكالمنصور

al-Malik al-Manṣūr al-Malik al-Ẓāhir al-Malik al-Malik al-Nāṣir al-Malik العالم    

jectives the Knowledgeable

Ad العادل     the Just

Personal المؤيد ـ  the Supporter المظفـر   the Supported المجاهد     the Warrior المنصور    the Victorious صلاحـالدنياـوـالدين ركنـالدنياـوـالدين سيفـالدنياـوـالدين Rukn al-dunyā wa Ṣalāḥ al-dunyā wa Sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn al-dīn al-dīn

سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين    the Sultan of Islam and the Muslims 6 تاجـالملوكـوـالسلاطين سيدـالأمم سيـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين  the Master of the Crown of Kings the Master of Kings and Sultans Nations and Sultans سلطانـالأرضـذاتـالطولـوـالعرض the Sultan of the Earth so vast in its length and width ملكـالبسيطة the King of the Earth سلطانـالعراقينـوـالمصرين

the Sultan of the two Iraqs and the two Egypts ملكـالبرـينـوـالبحرين

the King of the Shores and two Seas

ارثـالملكـعنـآبائهـ Titles وارثـالملك الأكرمين 7  the Inheritor of the the Inheritor of the Kingdom Kingdom from His Respectable Fathers

9 سلطانـالعربـوـ ملك العربـوـالعجم 8 ملكـملوكـالعربـوـالعجم العجم the Kings of the the Kings of the the King of the Kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs Arabs and Persians Arabs and Persians

10 صاحبـالقبلتين  the One in Charge of the two Holy Sanctuaries خادمـالحرمينـالشريفين  the Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries 99

قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين  the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful أوحدـالملوكـالعصر يـة the One of His Kind of the Kings of the Time ـصاحبـالديارالمصريـة ـ  the Owner of the lands of Egypt … الآملين … of the Hopeful كنزـالعفاةـوـالمنقطعين the Treasure of the Suffering and the Needy منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين the Obtainer of the Rights of the Oppressed from the Oppressors قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين  the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists قاهرـالمتمرـدين قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمرـدين the Conqueror Over the Conqueror Over the Outcasts and the Mutineers the Mutineers الصالحي ـ  al-Ṣāliḥ̄ī

1 RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. English translations of his titles are from: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk Sultans”, 138. 2 RCEA, XII, n° 4476. 3 Heba el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk Sultans”, 87. 4 Ibid., 65. 5 Ibid., 75. 6 Ibid., 110 7 Ibid., 113.

100

8 Ibid., 113. 9 Ibid., 110. 10 RCEA, XII, n° 4564.

101

Table G: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Khalīl

1 2 al-Ashraf Khalīl Qalāwūn

مولاناـوـسيدناـ  Our Lord and Master السلطان  The Sultan العالم  the Knowledgeable العادل  the Just المجاهد  the Warrior ـ المرابط  the One Stationed to Guard the Territories

Personal Adjectives المثاغر  the Fighter at the borders المؤيد  the Supported المظفر  the Triumphant المنصور  the Victorious قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين  Killer of the Infidels and the Polytheists قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمردين  Conqueror of the Outcasts and Mutineers مبيدـالطغاةـوـالمارقين

Exterminator of the Despots/Oppressors and the Dissenters/Mutineers

محييـالعدلـفيـالعالمين Titles  Reviver of justice in all worlds منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين  the One who obtains the rights of the oppressed from the oppressors كنزـالفقراءـوـالمساكين

the Treasure of the Poor and Needy

102

خفـالضعفاءـوـالمنقضعين

the Refuge of the Weak and the Needy

ناصرـالحقـبالبراهين the Supporter of the Right/Truth with Evidence

محييـملةـسيدـالمرسلين Reviver of the Religion of the Master of the Prophets

حاميـحوزةـالدين the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion

Matches 14 Out of 20

1 RCEA, XIII, n° 4895. 2 RCEA, XIII, n° 4852

103

Table H: Inscriptions of Mamluk Amirs

Patron Inscription Excerpts

بسملةـأمرـبإنشاءـهذاـالمكانـ المباركـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىالل ـهـتعالىـص ـفىـالدينـجوهرالملـكى الناصرىتقب ـلـالل ـهـعملهـوـبل ـغهـفىـالدارينـ 1 Sayf al-Dīn Jāwhar آمالهـفىمستهلـذىـالحجـةـسنةـأربعـعشرـوـسبعمائة.

بسمـالل ـهـالرحمنـالرحيـمـ ـأمرـ ـبإنشاءـ ـهذاـ ـالمكانـ ـالمباركـ ـالأميرـ ـالأجلــ ـالـكبيرـ ـالمحترمـ ـالمخدومـ ــالمجاهد ـالمرابطـ ـالمثاغرـ ـالمؤيـدـ ـالمظفـرـ ـالمنصورـ

ـعمدةـ ـالملوكـ ـاختيارـ ـالسلاطينـ ـالمقدـمى ـالاسفهسلارىـ ـالعونىـ ـالسيـدىـ ـالمنعمىـالمتفضـ ـلىالأع ـز ـىـ ـالأخصـىـ ـالأوحدى ـــ ـالأثيرىـ 2 Sunqur al-Saʿdī الأمجد ـى ـالأكملى ـالظهيرىـ ـالـكفيلىـ ـالمعينىـ ـالسندىـال ـورعى ـالزعيمىـ ـالزينىـ ـالذخرىالعالمىـ ـالعاملىـ ـالزاهدىـ ـالغياثىـ ـالهمامىـ ـالمقدـمىـمقدمـ ـالأمراءـ ـالمماليكـ ـالسلطانيـةـ ـالشمسىـ ـشمسـ ـالدينـ ـسنقرـ ـالسعدىـ ـالمالـكى الناصرى ـأدامـالل ــهـسعادته.

ـ… ـأنشأـ ـهذاـالجامعـ ـ ـالمباركـ ـالفقيرـ ـإلىالل ــهـ ـتعالىـ ـالمقرـــ ـالأشرفـ ـالعالىـ ـالعلائى ـ ـالطنبغا الناصرى أع ـزـالل ـهـأنصارهـ>١<ـوـ ـعفاـ ـعنهــوـ ـذلكـ 3 Alṭunbughā ـفىـ ـأيـام ـ ـدولةـ ـمولاناـ ـالسلطانـ ـالمالكـ ـالملكـ ـالناصرـ ـمحمـدـع ـزــ ـنصرهــ ـفىـ ـشهورـسنةــ ـثمانيةـعشرـــوـ ـسبعمائةـ ـمنـ ـالهجرةـ ـالنبويـةــوـ ـالحمدـلل ـه.

بسملةـأنشأـهذاـالمسجدـالمباركـ]ـ ـالعبدـالفقيرـإلى[ـالل ـهـتعالىـالملكـالجوكندار الناصرى الراجىـعفواللـهـتعالىـوـمغفرتهـبتأريخـسنةـتسعةـ 4 Almalik al-Jūkandār عشرـوـسبعمائةـللهجرةـالنبويـةـعلىـصاحبهاـالسلام.

ـبسملةـأنسأـهذاالمكانـالمباركـراجياـثوابـاللـهوـعفوهـالمقرــالـكريمـالسيفىـتنكز الملـكىـالناصرىعفاـالل ـهـعنهـوـأثابهــ]وـذلكـفىـشهورـ 5 Tankiz ـ) ـ؟([ـ ـسنةـتسعـوـعشرينـوـسبعمائة.

أمرـبإنشاءـهذاـالجامعـالمباركـبكرمـالل ـهـتعالىـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىـالل ـهـقوصونـالساقى الملكى ـالناصرى فىأيـامـمولاناـالسلطانـالملكـالناصرـ 6 Qawṣūn أع ـزـالل ـهـأنصارهـوـذلكـفىـسنةـثلاثينـوـسبعمائة. …مرـبإنشاءـهذهـالخانقاهـالمباركةـالسعيدةـمنـفواضلـأنعامـالل ـهـوـجزيلـعطائهـالمقرــالـكريمالعالىـالمولوىـالأميرىـالأجلـىـالـكبيرىـ 7 المحترمىـالمخدومىـالاسفهسلارىـالعلائىـعمدةـالملوكـوـالسلاطينـمغلطاىـأستادـالعارـالعاليةـالملـكى الناصرى ـوـكانـالفراغفىـ Mughalṭāy شهرربيع …

104

بسمـالل ـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـهذاـماـأنشأهـوـأوقفهـوـحبـسهـعلىـا ـلتربةـالمباركةـالمقرــالعالىـالمولوىـالأميرىـالـكبيرىلمخدومىـالسيفىـكجكنـ

بنـعبدـالل ـهـالملـكى الناصرى أع ـزهـالل ـهجميعـمـايذكرـوـهوـجميعـالـكرمـببلدـالمعروفـبجنينةـالمسكىـقديماـوـجميعـالقيساريـةـجوارـالدارـ 8 Sayf al-Dīn Kujkun ـالمباركةبدمشقـوـمن غربهاـجميعـالطبقةجوارـالدارـالمذكورةـوـمنـشرقهاـشمالىالمدرسةـالريحانيـةـوـجميعـالحصـ ةـوـهىـسبعـقراريطـ بخانقصرـحجـاجـوقفاـمؤبـداـوـذلكـفىـسنةـإثنتىـوـعشرينـوـسبعمائة.

بسمـالل ـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـأنشأـهذهـالتربـةالمباركةـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىـرحمةـربـهـالقديرـرجاءـلرحمةـاللـهوـرضوانهـمستشفعاـعندهـبج يرانةـبهادرـ 9 البدرىـ ـالملـكىالناصرى نائبـالسلطنةـالمعظـمةـبالـكركـوـالشوبكالمحروستينـوـ ـكانـالفراغمنهـفىـثانىـذىـالحجـةـعامـسبعةـوـعشرينـوـ Bahādar al-Badrī سبعمائة.

10 ـهذاـ ـقبرـ ـالمرحومـ آق سنقر ـالناصرىـ ـالمعروفـ ـبجامعـ ـالنورـوـ ـكانـ ـابتداءهـ ـسادسـ ـعشرـرمضانــسنةــ٨٤٧ــوـ ـالفراغـ ـفىـ ـسنةـ٨٤٧. Aqsunqur

1 RCEA, XIV, n° 5337. 2 RCEA, XIV, n° 5355. 3 RCEA, XIV, n° 5403. 4 RCEA, XIV, n° 5408. 5 RCEA, XIV, n° 5572. 6 Max van BERCHEM, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum: Egypte (Cairo: del'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1894-1903), XIX, 1-4, p. 177, n° 119. 7 RCEA, XIV, n° 5581. 8 RCEA, XIV, n° 5473. 9 RCEA, XIV, n° 5545 10 RCEA, XVI, n° 6045.

105

Table I: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Royal Progeny Reign Sultan Relation to al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Enthroned Dethroned

Abū Bakr Son 7 June 1341 21 Dhū al-ḥijja 741 5 August 1341 20 Ṣafar 742

Kujuk Son 6 August 1341 21 Ṣafar 742 9 January 1342 30 Rajab 742

Aḥmad Son 19 March 1342 10 Shawwāl 742 26 June 1342 21 Muḥarram 743

Ismāʿīl Son 27 June 1342 22 Muḥarram 743 4 August 1345 4 Rabīʿ II 746

Shaʿbān Son 4 August 1345 4 Rabīʿ II 746 19 September 1346 1 Jumādá II 747

Ḥājjī Son 19 September 1346 1 Jumādá II 747 16 December 1347 12 Ramaḍān 748

Ḥassan Son 18 December 1347 14 Ramaḍān 748 22 August 1351 28 Jumādá II 752

Ṣāliḥ Son 22 August 1351 28 Jumādá II 752 20 October 1354 2 Shawwāl 755

Ḥassan Son 20 October 1354 2 Shawwāl 755 17 March 1361 9 Jumādá I 762 (2nd reign)

Muḥammad Grandson through Ḥājjī 17 March 1361 9 Jumādá I 762 30 May 1363 15 Shaʿbān 764

Shaʿbān Grandson through Ḥusayn 30 May 1363 15 Shaʿbān 764 14 March 1377 3 Dhū al-Qaʿda 778

ʿAli Great grandson through Shaʿbān 14 March 1377 3 Dhū al-Qaʿda 778 19 May 1381 23 Ṣafar 783

Ḥājjī Great grandson through Shaʿbān 20 May 1381 24 Ṣafar 783 26 November 1382 19 Ramaḍān 784

Ḥājjī Great grandson through Shaʿbān 2 June 1389 6 Jumādá II 791 1 February 1390 14 Ṣafar 792 (2nd reign)

106

Table J: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān 1 al-Ashraf Shaʿbān Qalāwūn

مولانا  Our Lord السلطانالأعظم السلطان ـ the Sultan the Greatest Sultan سيـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين المالك الملك ـ the King of Kings the Master of Kings and Sultans سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين  the Sultan of Islam and the Muslims قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين  The Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists محيىـالعدلـفىـالعالمين  The Reviver of Justice in All World ـمظهرـالحقــبالبراهين

the Supporter of the Truth with Evidence حامىحوزةـالدين the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion ـ سيـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين  the Master of Kings and Sultans قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين  the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمرـدين  The Conqueror Over the Outcasts and the Mutineers كنزـالغزـاةـوـالمجاهدين  the Treasure of the Poor and Needy منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين  the One who obtains the rights of the oppressed from the oppressors ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجين

the Asset of the Widows and the Needy

صاحبـالديارـالمصر يـة  the Owner of Egypt

107

وـالبلادـالشأميـة  And of Syria وـالحصونـالإسماعيليـة ـ

And the strongholds of al-Ismāʿīlīya وـالثغورـالسكندر يـة ـ

And the ports of Alexandria وـالقلاعـالساحليـة ـ

And the citadels of al-Sāḥiliya وـالأقطارـالحجازيـة ـ  And the Hijāz region

MATCHING 14 out of 20

1 RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005.

108

Table K: Comparison of Royal Titles (Sultan Baybars, the Qalāwūnids & Barqūq)

1 2 3 4 Barqūq al-Ẓāhir Baybars Qalāwūn al-Ashraf Shaʿbān

مولانا    Our Lord السلطان    The Sultan المالكـالملك

The King of Kings الملكـلظاهر  al-Malik al-Ẓāhir

سيفـالدنياـوـالدين  Sayf al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn العالم   the Knowledgeable

العادل Personal Adjectives   the Just المجاهد   the Warrior المرابط the One Stationed to Guard the  Territories المؤيـد   the Supported الغازى  the Ghāzī

الحاكمـبأمرـالل ـهـوـالتالىـلكتابـالل ـه

Ruler in the سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين   

Sultan of Islam and the Muslims نصرةـالغزاةـوـالمجاهدين

Titles Supporter of the Ghazis and Mujahideen حامىـحوزةـالدين  Defender of the Lands of the Religion

109

ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجين ذخرـالأيتامـوـالمساكين the Asset of the Widows and Asset of Orphans and the Needy the Needy ـصاحبـالديارالمصريـة صاحبـالديارـالمصر يـةـوـالبلادـالشأميـة Owner of the Lands  Owner of the Lands of Egypt and Syria of Egypt صاحبـالصدقاتـوـالمعروف

Master of Charity and … كنزـالغزـاةـوـالمجاهدين Treasure of the Ghazis and the  Mujahideen

1 RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 050. 2 RCEA, XII, n° 4476. 3 RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. 4 RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005; RCEA, XVII, n° 770 008.

110

Figure C Madrasa of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars1

Left picture: Side view of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars’ madrasah on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. Right Picture: Close up of the artistic work above the windows. Sultan al- Ẓāhir Baybars’ used panthers as a personal emblem.

1 Author’s own photo.

111

Figure D: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn in the Early Bahri Mamluk Period

Modified image from: http://tectonicablog.com/?p=25760

112

Figure E: Inscription on the Lintel above the Windows to the Right Side of Qalāwūn’s Complex Entrance Portal1

أمرـبإنشائهـسيـدناـوـمولاناـالسلطانـالأعظمـالملكـالمنصورـالعالمـالعادلـسيفـالدنياـوـالدين قلاون الصالحىقسيمـأمير 2 المؤمنينـأع ـزـ الل ـهـأنصارهـوـكانـابتداءـعمارتهاـفىـ شوـالـسنةـثلاثـوـثمانينـوـستـمائةـوـانتهاءـعمارتهاـفىـصفرـسنةـأربعـوـثمانينـوـستـمائة. “The construction was ordered by our master and lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, sayf al- dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful. The building began in the month of Shawwāl of 683 A.H. and was completed in the month of Safar of 684 A.H.”

1 Author’s own photo. 2 RCEA, XIII, n° 4845.

113

Figure F: Inscription on Top of the Entrance Portal of Qalāwūn’s Complex1

ـأمرـبإنشاءـهذهـالقبـةـالشريفةللعظمةوـالمدرسةـالمعظـمةـوـالبيمارستانـالمباركـمولاناـالسلطانـالأعظمـالملكـالمنصور 2 سيفـالدنياـوـالدين قلاون الصالحىـوـكانـابتداءـعمارةـذلكـربيعـالآخرـسنةـثلاثـوـثمانينـوـستـمائةـوـالفراغـمنهـجمادىـالآخرـسنةـأربعـوـثمانينـوـستـمائة. The Construction of this venerable tomb, greatest college, and blessed hospital was ordered by our lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī. Construction began in the month of Rabīʿ al-Akhar of 683 A.H. and completed in Jamādā al-Akhar of 684 A.H.

1 Author’s own photo. 2 RCEA, XIII, n° 4850.

114

Figure G: The Brass Door Knockers of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn1

The door knockers from the main entrance of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s complex. It clearly reads: …كتبغاـالمنصوريـمولاناـالسلطانـالعادل… “… Kitbughā al-Manṣurī, Our Lord, the Sultan, the Just …”

1 Author’s own photo.

115

Figure H: The Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad1

The Gothic entrance portal to al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn which originally belonged to the Church of St. Agnes in Acre.

1 Author’s own photo.

116

Figure I: The Sabīl of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad at the Complex of Qalāwūn1

The inscription on the sabīl once read: 2 ”ـ…مولاناــ ـالسلطانـ ـالشهيدـ ـالملكـ ـالناصرـ ـناصرـ ـالدنياــوـ ـالدينـ ـأبى ـالفتحـ ـمحمـدـ ـبنـ ـمولاناـ ـالسلطانـ ـالشهيدـ ـالملكـ ـالمنصورـ ـسيفـالدنياـــوـ ـالدين قلاون ـالصالحى… “ “Our Lord, the Sultan, the Maytr, al-Malik al-Nāṣir, nāṣr al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Abū al-Fatḥ, Muḥammad the son of our Lord, the Sultan, the Maytr, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī…”

1 Author’s own photo. 2 RCEA, XV, n° 5821. 117

Figure J: Lintel Over the Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad1

”… ـ ـأمرـ ـبإنشاءـ ـهذهـ ـالقبـةـ ـالشريفةــوـ ـالمدرسةـ ـالمباركةـ ـالسلطانـ ـالأجلـــ ـالملكـ ـالناصرـ ناصر

2 ـ ـالدنياــوـ ـالدينـ ـمحمـدـ ـبنـ ـالسلطانـ ـالملكـ ـالمنصورـ ـسيفـ ـالدين قلاون الصالحى ـ …“

“The construction of this venerable tomb and blessed college was ordered by the august sultan, al-Malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, sayf al- dunyā wa al-dīn, Muḥammad son of the sultan al-Malik al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī…”

1 Author’s own photo. 2 RCEA, XIII, n° 5059.

118

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Hujja Waqf Sultan Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 2/15

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/26

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/31

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/25

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/37

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/40

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/41

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/42

Hujja Waqf Umm Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/47

Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48

Published Waqf Deeds

ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm, Fahmī.al-ʿImārah al-Islāmiyah fi ʿAṣr al-Mamālik al-Charākisah: ʿẠsr al-Sulṭān al-

Muʾayyad Shaykh. Cairo: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah, al-Majlis al-Aʿlá lil-Āthar, 2003.

119

ʿAbū Ghāzī, ʿImad̄ Badr al-Dī̄n Maḥmūd.“Wathāʾīq al-Sulṭā̄n al-Ashraf Ṭūmān Bāy: Dirāsah wa-

Taḥqīq wa-Nashr li-Baʿḍ Wathāʾīq al-Waqf wa al-Bay Wathāʾīq wa al-Istibdāl.”Master’s thesis, Cairo

University, 1988.

Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad, “Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy ʿalá al-Madrasah al-Ashrafīyah wa-Qāʿat al-Silāḥ bi-Dimyāṭ.” al-Majallah al-Tārīkhīyah al-Miṣrīyah 22 (1975): 343-390.

———.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qalāwūn ʿalá al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī,” in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī

Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh [by Ḥasan ibn Ḥabīb],edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, vol. 1,

295-396. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1976.

———.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn,” in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī

Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, 329-448. Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982

ʿAmīr, Madīḥah Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Aḥmad.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Shaykh Abū al-Saʿūd al-Jāriḥī.”Master’s thesis, Cairo University, 1987.

al-ʿAsalī, Kāmil Jamīl. “Wathīqah Maqdisīyah Tārīkhīyah Jadīdah: Kitāb al-Waqf alladhī Anshaʾah al-Malik al-Ẓāhir Baybars ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bunduqdārī al-Ṣāliḥī al-Mutawaffá Sanat 676 H ʿalá

Maqām al-Nabī Mūsá ʿalayh al-Salām.” Al-Quds al-Sharīf 10, (1986): 77-71.

120

Christie, Niall. “Reconstructing Life in Medieval Alexandria from an Eighth/Fourteenth

Century Waqf Document.” Mamlūk Studies Review 8, 2 (2004): 163-190.

Conermann, Stephan and Suad Saghbini.“Awlād al-Nās as Founders of Pious Endowments: The

Waqfīyah of Yaḥyá ibn Ṭūghān al-Ḥasanī of the Year 870/1465.” Mamlūk Studies Review 6

(2002): 21-50.

Darrāj, Aḥmad. Ḥujjat Waqf al-Ashraf Barsbāy (L’acte de waqf de Barsbay). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1963.

al-Ḥajjī, Ḥayāt Nāṣir.al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn wa-Niẓām al-Waqf fī ʿAhdihi maʿa

Taḥqīq wa-Dirāsatt ‘Wathīqat Waqf Sīryāqūs. Kuwait: Maktabat al-Falāḥ, 1983.

Hamza, Hani. “Some Aspects of the Economic and Social Life of Ibn Taghrībirdī Based on an

Examination of His Waqfīyah.” Mamlūk Studies Review 12, 1 (2008): 139-172.

———.“Turbat Abū Zakariyya Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Mūsa (Chief Surgeon of al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī) and his social status according to his endowment deed (waqfiyya),” in Material Eveidence and

Narrative Sources: Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the Muslim Middle East, edited by

Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman, 315-340. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

121 al-Hamzah, Khaled. Late Mamlūk Patronage: Qansuh al-ghuri’s Waqfs and His Foundations in Cairo.

Boca Raton: Universal Publishers, 2009.

al-Harithy, Howayda.Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá

Madrasatih bil-Rumaylah. Beirut: al-Maʿhad al-Almānī lil-Abḥāth al-Sharqīyah and al-Sharikah al-

Muttaḥidah and Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001.

Ḥasan, Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm.“Jāmiʿ al-Sitt Miskah bi-Ḥayy al-Ḥanafī: Dirāsah Atharīyah

Wathāʾiqīyah.” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal (Jāmiʿat al-Minyā) 1, 2 (1991): 139-232

Ibrāhīm, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf.“Dirāsāt Tārīkhīyah wa-Atharīyah fī Wathāʾiq min ʿAṣr al-Sulṭān al-

Ghawrī.” Ph.D. diss., Cairo University, 1956.

———.“Wathīqat Waqf Masrūr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Shiblī al-Jamdār: Dirāsah wa-Nashr wa-

Tahqīq.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 21, 2 (1959): 133-173.

———.“Waqfīyat Ibn Taghrī Birdī,” in al-Muʾarrikh Ibn Taghrī Birdī: Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Maḥāsin

Yūsuf, 813-874 H.,prepared by Lajnat al-Tārīkh bi-al-Majlis al-Aʿlá li-Riʿāyat al-Funūn wa-al-

Ādāb wa-al-ʿUlūm al-Ijtimāʿīyah, 181-222. Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb,

1974.

———. “Naṣṣān Jadīdān min Wathīqat al-Amīr Ṣarghatmish.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-

Qāhirah 27; 28 (1965; 1966): 121-158; 143-210.

122

———. “Silsilat al-Wathāʾiq al-Tārīkhīyah al-Qawmīyah: Majmūʿat al-Wathāʾiq al-Mamlūkīyah, 1.

Wathīqat al-Amīr Ākhūr Kabīr Qaraqujā al-Ḥasanī.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-

Qāhirah 18, 2 (1956): 183-251.

———. “al-Tawthīqāt al-Sharʿīyah wa-al-Ishhādāt fī Ẓahr Wathīqat al-Ghawrī.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 19, 1 (1957): 293-420.

———. “Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 2: Wathīqat al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy; Dirāsah wa-Taḥlīl al-

Madrasah bi-al-Quds wa-al-Jāmiʿ bi-Ghazzah." In Dirāsāt fī al-Āthār al-Islāmīyah. 483-454. Cairo: al-Munaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbiyah wa-al-Thaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm, 1979.

th Fernandes, Leonor. “Three Ṣūfī Foundations in a 15 Century Waqfiyya.”Annales Islamologiques

17 (1981): 141-156.

———. “The Foundation of Baybars al-Jashankir: Its Waqf, History, and Architecture.” Muqarnas:

An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture 4 (1987): 51-42.

Garcin, Jean-Claude and Mustafa Anouar Taher.“Un ensemble de waqfs du IXe/XVe siècle en

Égypte: Les actes de Jawhar al-Lālā,”in Itinéraires d'Orient: Hommages à Claude Cahen, edited by

Raoul Curiel and Rika Gyselen, 309-324. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l'Étude de la

Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1994.

———.“Enquête sur le financement d'un waqf égyptien du XVe siècle: Les comptes de Jawhār Al- lāla.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38 (1995): 262-304.

123

Mayer, L. A.The Buildings of Qāytbāy as Described in his Endowment Deed, I: Text and Index.

London: Arthur Probsthain, 1938.

Al-Miṣrī, Aḥmad Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.“Wathīqat Taghyīr Sharṭ al-Intifāʿ bil-Waqf min al-

ʿAṣr al-Mamlūkī lil-Sayfī Qalij ʿAbd Allāh al-Sharīfī.”Annales Islamologiques 38, 2 (2004): 1-15.

Moberg, Axel. “Zwei ägyptische Wakf-Urkunden aus dem Jahre 691/1292.” Le monde oriental 12,

(1918): 1-64.

Rabīʿ, Ḥasanayn Muḥammad. “Ḥujjat Tamlīk wa-Waf Ṣādirah ʿan al-Qādī Sadīd al-Dīn Abī

Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh li-Manfaʿat ʿAtīqat Abīh wa-Ismuhā Khaṭlū ibnat ʿAbd Allāh.” al-Majallah al-Tārīkhīyah al-Miṣrīyah 12 (1964-1965): 191-202.

Salati, M.“Un document di epocha Mamelucca sul di ʿIzz al-Dīn Abū l-Makārim, Ḥamza b. Zuhra al-Ḥusaynī al-Isḥāqī al-Ḥalabī (ca. 707/1307).”Annali di Ca’Foscari: Rivista della Facoltá di Lingue e Letteratura Stanie 33,3 (1994): 97-137.

al-Shāfiʿī, Laylá Kāmil. “Madrasat al-Amīr Jawhar al-Lālā.” Master's thesis, Cairo University,

1977.

124

ʿUthmān, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār.Wathīqat Waqf Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Ustādār: Dirāsah

Tārīkhīyah Atharīyah Wathāʾiqīyah. Alexandria: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1983.

Yaḥyá, Sawsan. “Manshāt AmīrQijmās al-Isḥāqī: dirāsa athariyya miʿmāriyya.” Master's thesis,

Cairo University, 1985.

Zaghlūl, ʿAlī Ḥasan. “Madrasat al-Sulṭān Ḥasan: dirāsa miʿmāriyya wa athariyya.” Master’s thesis,

Cairo University, 1977.

Published Primary Sources

al-ʿAynī, Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad (1361-1451). ʿIqd al-Jumān fī Taʾrīkh Ahl al-

Zamān.Edited by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṭanṭāwī al-Qarmūṭ. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat ʿAláʾ; al-Zahrāʾ lil-ʿilām al-ʿArabī, 1985, 1989.

al-Birzālī, ʿAlam al-Dīn al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf (1267-1339). Muqtafī ʿalá kitāb al-

Rawḍatayn al-maʿrūf bi-Tārīkh al-Barzālī.Edited by ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī. Beirut: al-

Maktabah al-ʿAṣrīyah, 2006.

Comité de Conservation des Monuments de l'Art Arabe, Procès-verbaux des séances.Rapport de la deuxième commission.Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1882/83-1927/28.

125

Ibn al-Dawādārī, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh (1309-1335). Kanz al-Durar wa-Jāmiʿ al-Ghurar.

Cairo: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1960-1992.

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1372-1449). Inbāʾ al-Ghumr bi-Anbāʾ al-ʿUmr.Edited by

Ḥasan Ḥabashī. Cairo: al-Majlis al-Āʿlá lil-Shuʾūn al-Islāmīyah, 1969-1972.

———.Dhayl al-Durar al-Kāminah fī Aʿyān al-Miʾah al-Thāminah.Edited by Aḥmad Farīd al-Māzidī.

Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1998.

Ibn al-Jīʻān, Yahỵá ibn al-Maqarr (d. 1480). Kitāb al-tuhf̣ah al-sanīyah bi-asmāʼ al-bilād al-

Misṛīyah.Edited by Bernhard Moritz. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kullīyāt al-Azharīyah, 1974.

Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf (1411-1470). al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-

Qāhirah. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīyah, 1929-1949.

———.Les biographies du Manhal Safi.Abridged by Gaston Wiet. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1932.

———.History of Egypt, 1382-1469 A.D., Translated from the Arabic Annals of Abu l-Maḥâsin ibn

Taghrî Birdî. Translated by William Popper. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California

Press, 1954-1963.

126

———.al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī wa-al-Mustawfá baʿda al-Wāfī. Edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn.

Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1984-1993.

———.Ḥawādith al-Duhūr fī Maḍá al-Ayyām wa-al-Shuhūr.Edited by Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt.

Cairo: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Thurāth al-Islāmī, 1990.

al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1364-1442). al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār.

Edited by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Quṭṭah al-ʿAdawī. Cairo: Dār al-Ṭibāʿah al-Miṣrīyah,

1853-1854.

———.Kitāb Ighāthat al-Ummah bi-Kashf al-Ghummah.Edited by Muḥammad Muṣṭafá Zīyādah and

Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Shayyāl. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Lajnat al-Taʾlīf wa-al-Tarjamah wa-al-

Nashr, 1940.

———.Kitāb al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk.Edited by Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ʿĀshūr. Cairo:

Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1970-1973.

———.al-Nuqūd al-Islāmīyah al-Musammá bi-Shudhūr al-ʿUqūd fī Dhikr al-Nuqūd. Edited by

Muḥammad al-Sayyid ʿAlī Baḥr al-ʿUlūm.al-Najaf: al-Maktabah al-Ḥaydarīyah, 1967.

———.Mamluk Economics: A Study and Translation of al-Maqrīzī's Ighāthah. Translated by Adel

Allouche. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.

———.al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā. 8 vols..

Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1997.

127

———.al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār. Edited by Ayman Fuʾād Sayyid.

London: Muʾassasat al-Furqān lil-Turāth al-Islāmī, 2002-2003.

———.Ḍawʾ al-Sārī fī Maʿrifat Khabar Tamīm al-Dārī. 1.Edited by Yehoshua Frenkel. Leiden: Brill,

2014. al-Nuwayrī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1279-1332). Nihāyat al-Arab fī Funūn al-Adab. Cairo: al-Muʾassasah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Taʾlīf wa-al-Tarjamah wa-al-Ṭibāʿah wa- al-Nashr, al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1964-1992.

al-Qalqashandī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1355 or 6-1418). Ṣubḥ al-Aʿshá fī Ṣināʿat al-Inshāʾ.

Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīrīyah, 1913-1919.

———. Nihāyat al-Arab fī Maʿrifat Ansāb al-ʿArab.Edited by Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī. Cairo: al-Sharikah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Ṭibāʿah wa-al-Nashr, 1959.

al-Suyūṭī, Muḥammad ibn Shihāb al-Dīn (1413 or 14-1475). Jawāhir al-ʿUqūd wa-Muʿīn al-

Quḍāh wa-al-Muwaqqiʿīn wa-al-Shuhūd.Edited by Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-

Sunnah al-Muḥammadīyah, 1955.

Ṭaḥāwī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad (852-933). The function of documents in Islamic law: the chapters on sales from Ṭaḥāwī's Kitāb al-shurūṭ al-kabīr. Edited by Jeanette A. Wakin. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1972.

128

Zettersteen, K.Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlūkensultane in den Jahre 690–741 der Higga nach arabischen Handschriften herausgegeben. Leiden: Brill, 1919.

Secondary Sources

ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ, Muḥammad Ḥusām al-Dīn Ismāʿīl."Munshaʾāt al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy bi-Sūq al-

Ghanam min Khilāl Wathīqah ʿUthmānīyah." Annales islamologiques 32 (1998): 41-64.

ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Ḥasan, “Khānaqāh Faraj ibn Barqūq wa-mā ḥawlahā,” in Dirāsāt fī al-Āthār al-

Islāmīyah, 213-266. Cairo: al-Minaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbīyah wa-al-Thaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm,

1979.

ʿAbū Bakr, Niʿmat Muḥammad.“Minbar Jāmiʿ al-Sitt Tātār al-Ḥijāzīyah.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah

Islāmīyah 1 (1978): 143-169.

Abū al-Futūḥ, Muḥammad Sayf al-Naṣr. "Madrasat al-Sulṭān al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn bi-al-Naḥḥāsīn bi-al-Qāhirah: Dirāsah Atharīyah fī Ḍawʾ Wathīqah Jadīdah." Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat

Ṣanʿāʾ (1984): 77-129.

129

ʿAbū Ghāzī, ʿImad̄ Badr al-Dī̄n Maḥmūd. Taṭawwur al-ḥiyāzah al-zirā ʿīyah fī Miṣr: Zaman al-

Mamālīk al-Jarākisah: Dirāsah fī bay ʿ amlāk Bayt al-Māl. Giza: ʿAyn lil-Dirāsāt wa al-Buḥūth al-

Insānīyah wa al-Ijtimā ʿīyah, 2000.

———. “Manāzil al-Umarāʾ fī Awākhir ʿAṣr al-Mamālīk al-Charākisah fī Ḍawʾ Wathāʾiq al-Ashraf

Ṭūmān Bāy.” Annales islamologiques 34, 2 (2000): 1-21.

Aḥmad, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Rāziq, “Un mausolée feminine dans l’Egypte mamluke.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 2 (1997): 3-9.

———.“Un collège féminin dans l'Égypte mamlūke,” in al-Kitāb al-Dhahabī lil-Iḥtifāl al-Khamsīnī bil-Dirāsāt al-Āthārīyah bi-Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah. Cairo: al-Jihāz al-Markazī lil-Kutub al-Jāmiʿīyah wa- al-Madrasīyah wa-al-Wasāʾil al-Taʿlīmīyah and Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah, 1978.

ʿAllām, ʿĀdil Sharīf, “Aʿmāl al-Sulṭān Qānṣūh Abū Saʿīd al-Miʿmārīyah bi-al-Qāhirah.” Qaḍāyā

Tārīkhīyah 5 (1994): 94-131.

Amitai, Reuven, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War, 1260-1281. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1995.

———.“The Mamluk Officer Class during the Reign of Sultan Baybars,” in War and Society in the

Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th Centuries, edited by Yaacov Lev, 267-300. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1997.

130

ʿAmīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad.al-Awqāf wa-al-Ḥayāh al-Ijtimāʿīyah fī Miṣr, 648-923 A.H./1250-

1517 A.D.. Cairo: Dār al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabīyah, 1980.

———. Fihrist Wathāʾiq al-Qāhirah ḥattá Nihāyat ʿAṣr Salāṭīn al-Mamālīk (239-922 AH/853-1516

AD). Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1981.

———.“Manshūr bi-Manḥ Iqṭāʿ min ʿAṣr al-Sulṭān al-Ghawrī.”Annales Islamologiques 19 (1983):

1-23.

———.“Waqf in the Mamluk Period: A Case Study about Waqf as Public Goods,” in Urbanism in

Islam, The Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urbanism in Islam (ICUIT II),

179-184. The Middle Eastern Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990. Tokyo: Research

Project "Urbanism in Islam" &The Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 1994.

Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad and Leila Ibrahim. al-Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Miʿmarīyah fī al-Wathāʾiq al-

Mamlūkīyah (648-923 H./1250-1517 M.). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1990.

Ashtor, E. “Prix et salaires à l'époque mamlouk: Une étude sur l'état économique de l'Égypte et de la Syrie à la fin du Moyen Âge." Revue des études islamiques 17, (1949): 49-94.

———.“Quelques indications sur les revenues dans l'Orient musulman au haut Moyen

Âge.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 2 (1959): 262-280.

———.“L'évolution des prix dans le Proche-Orient à la basse-époque.” Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 4 (1961): 15-46.

131

———. “Matériaux pour l'histoire des prix dans l'Égypte médiévale.” Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 6 (1963): 158-189.

———.“La recherche des prix dans l'Orient médiéval: Sources, méthodes et problèmes.” Studia

Islamica 21 (1964): 101-144.

———.Histoire des prix et des salaires dans l’Orient medieval.Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1969.

———.Les métaux precieux et la balanace des payements du Proche-Orient à la basse époque.Paris:

S.E.V.P.E.N., 1971.

———.“Salaires dans l'Orient médiéval à la basse époque.” Revue des études islamiques 39 (1971):

103-117.

———.A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum, 1978.

———.“Etudes sur le système monétaire des Mamlouks circassiens.” Israel Oriental Studies 6

(1976): 264-287.

———.“The Development of Prices in the Medieval Near East," in Handbuch der Orientalistik,

Abteilung 1: Der nahe und der mittlere Osten, Band VI: Geschichte der islamischen Länder, Abschnitt 6:

Wirtschaftsgeschichte des vorderen Orients in islamischer Zeit, Teil 1,edited by BertoldSpuler, 98-115.

Leiden and Köln: E. J. Brill, 1977.

———.“Quelques problèmes que soulève l'histoire des prix dans l'Orient medieval,”in Studies in

Memory of Gaston Wiet,edited by Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, 203-234. Jerusalem: Institute of Asian and African Studies, 1977.

132

ʿĀshūr, Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ.“al-Fallāḥ wa-al-Iqṭāʿ fī ʿAṣr al-Ayyūbīyīn wa-al-Mamālīk,”in Buḥūth wa-Dirāsāt fī Tārīkh al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭá, 141-152. Beirut: Jāmiʿat Bayrūt al-ʿArabīyah, 1977.

Ayalon, D. “The Plague and Its Effects upon the Mamlūk Army.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society (1946): 67-73.

———.“The Circassians in the Mamlùk Kingdom”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 69/3

(1949): 135–147.

———.“Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army”, Bulletin of the School of Orient and African

Studies 15;16 (1953-54): 203–228, 448–476; 57–90.

———.“The System of Payment in Mamluk Military Society.” Journal of the Economic and Social

History of the Orient 1 (1958):37–65, 257–296.

———.“The Muslim City and the Mamluk Military Aristocracy.”Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 311–329.

———.“Names, Titles, and Nisbas’ of the Mamluks.”Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975): 189-232.

———.“Mamluk Military Aristocracy, a Non-Hereditary Nobility.” Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and

Islam 10 (1987): 205–210.

———.“Bahri Mamluks, Burji Mamluks—inadequate names for the two reigns of the Mamluk

Sultanate.”Tàrìkh 1 (1990): 3–53.

133

Bacharach, Jere L.“Circassian Monetary Policy: Silver.” The Numismatic Chronicle (7th ser.) 11,

(1971): 267-281.

———.“Circassian Monetary Policy: Copper.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the

Orient 19 (1976) 32-47.

———.“Circassian Mamluk Historians and Their Quantitative Data.” Journal of the American

Research Center in Egypt 12 (1975): 75-87.

———.“Monetary Movements in Medieval Egypt, 1171-1517,”in Precious Metals in the Later

Medieval and Early Modern Worlds,edited by John F. Richards, 159-181. Durham, North Carolina:

Carolina Academic Press, 1983.

Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. “The North-Eastern Extension of Cairo under the Mamluks.”Annales

Islamologiques 17 (1981): 157-189.

———.“The Lost Minaret of Shajarat ad-Durr at her Complex in the Cemetery of Sayyida

Nafīsa.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 39 (1983): 1-16.

———.“The Qubba: An Aristocratic Type of Zāwiya.” Annales Islamologiques 19 (1983): 1-7.

———.“Change in Function and Form of Mamlūk Religious Institutions.” Annales Islamologiques

21 (1985): 73-93.

———. The Minarets of Cairo. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1985.

———. Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.

134

th ———.Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf, and Architecture in Cairo (16 and

th 17 Centuries). Leiden: Brill, 1994.

———.“Qāytbāy’s Investments in the City of Cairo: Waqf and Power.” Annales Islamologiques 32

(1998): 29-40.

———."Qāytbāy's Madrasahs in the Holy Cities and the Evolution of Ḥaram

Architecture." Mamlūk Studies Review 3 (1999): 129-147.

———."Waqf as Remuneration and the Family Affairs of al-Nasir Muhammad and Baktimur al-

Saqi," in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited byDorisBehrens-Abouseif,

55-67. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.

———.Cairo of the Mamluks: a history of the architecture and its culture. Cairo: The American

University in Cairo Press, 2007.

Berkey, Jonathan P. The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of Islamic

Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

———.“Mamluks and the World of Higher Islamic Education in Medieval Cairo, 1250-

1517,”in Modes de transmission de la culture religieuse en Islam, edited by Hassan Elboudrari, 93-

116. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1993.

———.“Tradition, Innovation and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Medieval Islamic

Near East.” Past and Present 146 (1995): 38-65.

135

———.“The Mamluks as Muslims: The Military Elite and the Construction of Islam in Medieval

Egypt,”in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society,edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich

Haarmann, 163-173. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

———. Popular Preaching and Religious Authority in the Medieval Islamic Near East. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 2001.

———.“Mamluk Religious Policy.” Mamlūk Studies Review 13, 2 (2009): 7-22.

———.““There Are ʿulamā’, and Then There Are ʿulamā’ ”: Minor Religious Institutions and

Minor Religious Functionaries in Medieval Cairo,”in Histories of the Middle East: Studies in Middle

Eastern Society: Economy and Law in Honor of A.L. Udovitch, edited by Margariti Roxani, Adam

Sabra and Petra Sijpesteijn, 9-22. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Bloom, Jonathan. “The Mosque of Baybars al-Bunduqdārī in Cairo.”Annales Islamologiques 18

(1982): 45-78.

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of

Education,edited John Richardson, 241-258. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Borsch, Stuart.“Standards of Living in East and West: England and Egypt before and after the

Black Death,”in Views from the Edge: Essays in Honor of Richard W. Bulliet,edited by Neguin Yavari,

136

Lawrence G.Potter and Jean-Marc Ran Oppenheim, 27-44. New York: Columbia University

Press, 2004.

———.The Black Death in Egypt and England.A Comparative Study. Austin: Unviersity of Texas

Press, 2005.

Burgoyne, Michael H. Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architectural Study. Jerusalem: Published on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem by the World of Islam Festival Trust, 1987.

Bylinski, Janusz. “Darb Ibn al-Baba: A Quarter in Mamlūk Cairo in the Light of Waqf

Documents.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 31 (1994): 203-222.

Combe, Étienne, Jean Sauvaget and Gaston Wiet. Répertoire chronologique d'épigraphie arabe. Cairo:

Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1941-1991.

Crecelius, Daniel. “The Organization of Waqf Documents in Cairo.”International Journal of Middle

East Studies 2 (1971): 266-277.

Creswell, K.A.C. “The Words of Sultan Baibars al-Bunduqdârî in Egypt.” Bulletin de l’Institut

Français d’Archéologie Orientale 26 (1926): 129-193.

137

———. The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, Volume 1: Ikhshīds and Fāṭimids; Volume 2: Ayyūbids and

Early Baḥrite Mamlūks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952, 1959.

Chamberlain, M. Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190–1350.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Clifford, W.W. “Ubi Sumus? Mamluk History and Social Theory.”Mamlūk Studies Review 1

(1997): 45–62.

———, State formation and the structure of politics in Mamluk Syro-Egypt, 648-741 A.H./1250-1340

C.E..Edited by Stephan Conermann. Goettingen: Bonn University Press, 2013.

Daisuke, Igarashi. Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs. Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2014. ———, “The Establishment and Development of al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background and

Implications.” Mamlūk Studies Review 10, 1 (2006): 117-231.

Denoix, Sylvie. “Foundations pieuses, fondations économiques, le waqf, un mode d’intervention sur la ville mamelouke,” in Le Khan al-Khalili et ses environs: Un centre commercial et artisanal au

Caire du XIIIe au XXe siècle, edited by Slyvie Denoix, Jean-Charles Depaule and Michel

Tuchscherer, 19-26. Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, 1999.

———.“Topographie de l’intervention du personnel politique à l’époque mamelouke,” in Le Khan al-Khalili et ses environs: Un centre commercial et artisanal au Caire du XIIIe au XXe siècle,edited by

138

Slyvie Denoix, Jean-Charles Depaule and Michel Tuchscherer, 33-49. Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, 1999.

———.“A Mamlūk Institution for Urbanization: The Waqf,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 183-190. Cairo and New York: The

American University in Cairo Press, 2000.

Dols, Michael W. The Black Death in the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.

———.“The General Mortality of the Black Death in the Mamluk Empire,”in The Islamic Middle

East, 700-1900, edited by Abraham L. Udovitch, 397-428. Princeton: Darwin, 1981.

Fernandes, Leonor. “The madrasa of Umm al Sultān Shaʻbān.” Master’s thesis, American

University in Cairo, 1972.

———.“The Zāwiya in Cairo.”Annales Islamologiques 18 (1982): 116-121.

———. “Notes on a New Source for the Study of Religious Architecture during the Mamlūk

Period: The Waqfīya.” Al-Abḥath 33 (1985): 3-12.

———. “Mamlūk Politics and Education: The Evidence from Two Fourteenth Waqfiyya.” Annales

Islamologiques 23 (1987): 87-98.

———.The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: The Khanqah. Berlin: Klaus Schwartz,

1988.

139

———."Mamluk Architecture and the Question of Patronage." Mamlūk Studies Review 1 (1997):

107-120.

———.“Istibdal: The Game of Exchange and Its Impact on the Urbanization of Mamlūk Cairo,” in

The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim,edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 203-

222. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.

Forand, P. “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval

Islam.”International Journal of Middle East Studies 2 (1977): 59–66.

Frenkel, Yehoshua. "Muslim Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Mamluk Period," in Pilgrims &

Travelers to the Holy Land, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and

Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, edited by Bryan F. Le Beau and Menachem Mor,

63-87. Omaha, 2-3 October 1994. Omaha: Creighton University Press, 1996.

———.“The Impact of the Crusades on Rural Society and Religious Endowments: The Case of

Medieval Syria (Bilad al-Sham),”in War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th

Centuries, edited by Yaacov Lev, 237-248. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.

———.“Agricultural, Land Tenure and Peasants in Palestine during the Mamlūk Period,” in Egypt

th th th and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamlūk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6 , 7 and 8 International

Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 193-208. Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.

140

———.“The Relationship between Mamluk Officials and the Urban Civilian Population: A Study of Some Legal Documents from Jerusalem,”in Governing the Holy City: The Interaction of Social

Groups in Jerusalem between the Fatimid and the Ottoman Period, edited by Johannes Pahlitzsch andLorenz Korn, 91-108. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2004.

———.“Public Projection of Power in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām.” Mamlūk Studies Review 11, 1

(2007): 39-53.

———.“Ayyubid and Mamluk Historiography -- Eyewitness Accounts by Several

Contemporaries,"in Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam: Studies in Honour of Professor

Urbain Vermeulen, edited by Kristof D'Hulster and Jo Van Steenbergen, 245-260. Leuven:

Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2008.

———.“Piety and Charity in Late Medieval Egypt and Syria,”in Charity and Giving in Monotheistic

Religions, edited by Myriam Frenkel and Yaacov Lev, 175-202. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

———.“Awqāf in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām.” Mamlūk Studies Review 13, 1 (2009): 149-166.

———.“Tamīm al-Dārī and Hebron during the Mamluk Period,”in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,

Ayyubid, and Mamluk Eras VII,edited by Urbain Vermeulen,Kristof D'Hulster and Jo Van

Steenbergen, 435-446. Leuven: Uitgerverij Peeters, 2013.

———.“Mapping the Mamluk Sultanate,”in History and Society during the Mamluk Period (1250-

1517),edited by Stephan Conermann, 37-60. Bonn: Bonn University, 2014.

141

Garcin, Jean-Claude. “Le Caire et la province: Constructions au Cairo et à Qus sous les mamelouks bahrides.” Annales Islamologiques 8 (1969): 47-62.

———.“La mosque al-Lamaṭī à Minyā.”Annales Islamologiques 13 (1977): 101-117.

Gottheil, Richard J. H. “A Door from the Madrasah of Barḳūḳ.” Journal of the American Oriental

Society 30 (1909-1910): 58-60.

Grabar, Oleg. “The Insciptions of the Madrasah-Mausoleum of Qaytbay,” in Near Eastern

Numimatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor George C. Miles, edited by Dickran

Kouymijian, 465-468. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974.

———.“Sultan Ḥasan Madrasah,” in The Genius of Arab Civlization: Source of Renaissance, edited by

John Hayes, 108-109. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1976.

Haarmann, U. "The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in Late Medieval Egypt," in Land Tenure and

Social Transformation in the Middle East,edited by Tarif Khalidi, 141-168. Beirut: American

University in Beirut, 1984.

———.“Arabic in speech, Turkish in lineage: Mamluks and their sons in the intellecual life of fourteenth century Egypt and Syria.” Journal of Semetic Studies 33 (1988): 81–114.

142

———.“The sons of Mamluks as Fief-Holders in Late Medieval Egypt,” in Land Tenure and Social

Transformation in the Middle East, edited by Tarif Khalidi, 141-168. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1984.

———.“Joseph’s Law—the careers and activities of mamluk descendants before the Ottoman conquest of Egypt,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, edited by Thomas Philipp and

Ulrich Haarmann, 55-84.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

———.“al-Aḥwāl al-Dākhilīya fi salṭanat al-Ashraf Shaʿbān b. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn.

764–778 h./1362–1376 m.” ʿĀlam al-Fikr 3/3 (1983): 761–822.

———.“al-Amīr Qawṣūn: ṣūra ḥayya li-niẓām al-ḥukm fi salṭanat al-mamālīk.” al-Majalla al-

ʿArabīya li-al-ʿulūm al-insānīya 8/32 (1988): 6–55. al-Ḥajjī, Ḥayāt Nāṣir. “al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī mundhu Taʾsīsihi wa-ḥattá Nihāyat al-Qarn al-

Thāmin al-Hijrī/al-Rābiʿ ʿAshar al-Mīlādī.” al-Majallah al-ʿArabīyah lil-ʿUlūm al-Insānīyah 8, 29

(1988): 6-35.

Halm, H. Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979–1982.

El-Hamamsy, Gazbeya.“The mosque of Qijmas al-Ishaqi.”Master’s thesis, American University in

Cairo, 2010.

143

Hampikian, Nairy.“The bimāristān of al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh and the area around it.” Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 1991.

Hamza, Hany. The Northern Cemetery of Cairo. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press,

2001.

Hanna, Nelly. An Urban History of Būlāq in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. Cairo: Institut

Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1983.

al-Harithy, Howayda.“Female Patronage of Mamlūk Architecture in Cairo.” Harvard Middle

Eastern and Islamic Review 1, 2 (1994): 152-174.

———.“The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines.” Muqarnas: An

Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World 13 (1996): 68-79.

———. “The Concept of Space in Mamluk Architecture” Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual

Culture of the Islamic World 18 (2001): 73-93.

———.“Turbat al-Sitt: An Identification,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali

Ibrahim, edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 103-121. Cairo: The American University in Cairo

Press, 2000.

———."The Patronage of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, 1310-1341." Mamlūk Studies

Review 4, (2000): 219-24

144

Hennequin, Gilles. “Waqf et monnaie dans l’Egypte mamlūke.” Journal of the Economic and Social

History of the Orient 38 (1995): 305-312.

Hernandez, Rebecca Skreslet. “Sultan, Scholar, and Sufi: Authority and Power Relations in al-

Suyūṭī’s Fatwā on Waqf.” Islamic Law and Society 20, 4 (2013): 333-370.

Holt, P.M. "The Sultanate of al-Manṣūr Lāchīn 696-8/1296-9." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 36 (1973): 521-532.

———.“The position and power of the Mamlūk Sultan.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and

African Studies 38/2 (1975): 237–249.

———.“The Structure of government in the Mamluk sultanate,” in Eastern Mediterranean Lands in the Period of the Crusades, edited by P.M. Holt, 44–61. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977.

———. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. London:

Longman, 1986.

———.“an-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn (684–741/1258–1341): his Ancestry, Kindred and

Affinity,” in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, Proceedings of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Daniel De Smet, 313-324.

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1995.

145

Humphreys, R., “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary

Essay.” Studia Islamic 35 (1972): 69-119.

———.“The Fiscal Administration of the Mamluk Empire,”in Islamic History: A Framework for

Inquiry, 169-186 (Chap. 7). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

———.“Egypt in the world system of the later Middle Ages,” in The Cambridge History of Egypt,

Volume 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 453–454. Cambridge: Cambridge

University, 1998.

———.“The Politics of the Mamluk Sultanate: A Review Essay.” Mamlūk Studies Review 9/1

(2005): 221–231.

Ibrāhīm, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, “Wathīqat Bayʿ: Dirāsah wa-Nashr wa-Taḥqīq.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb,

Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 19, 2 (1957): 135-214.

———.“Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 1: al-Wathāʾiq fī Khidmat al-Āthār: “al-ʿAṣr al-

Mamlūkī”,”in al-Muʾtamar al-Thānī lil-Āthār fī al-Bilād al-ʿArabīyah, 205-287.Baghdad, 18-28

November 1957. Cairo: Jāmiʿat al-Duwal al-ʿArabīyah, 1958.

———.”Min al-Wathāʾiq al-ʿArabīyah fī al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭá: Wathīqat Istibdāl.” Majallat Kullīyat al-

Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 25, 2 (1963): 1-38.

———.“Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 1: al-Wathāʾiq fī Khidmat Āthār al-ʿAṣr al-Mamlūkī,” in

Dirāsāt al- Āthār al-Islāmīyah, 389-481. Cairo: al-Munaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbiyah wa-al-

Thaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm, 1979.

146

Ibrāhīm, Jamāl ʿAbd al-Raḥīm.“Aʿmāl al-Amīr Baysará al-Miʿmārīyah wa-al-Fannīyah.” Majallat

Kullīyat al-Āthār 8 (1997): 521-543.

Ibrahim, L.A. “The great Ḫanqah of the Emir Qawṣūn in Cairo.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 30/1 (1974): 37–64.

Igarashi, Daisuke. "The Establishment and Development of al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background and Implications." Mamlūk Studies Review 10, 1 (2006): 117-140.

———."The Private Property and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamluk Sultans: The Case of

Barqūq." Orient 43 (2008): 167-196.

———."The Evolution of the Sultanic Fisc and al-Dhakhīrah during the Circassian Mamluk

Period." Mamlūk Studies Review 14 (2010): 85-108.

———.Land Tenure and Mamluk Waqfs. Bonn: EB Verlag, 2014.

al-ʿImarī, Āmāl Aḥmad. “Dirāsah Jadīdah ʿalá Ḍarīḥ all-Manṣur̄ Qalāwūn bi-al-Naḥḥāsīn (683-

684 H./1284-1285 M.).” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3 (1988): 47-61.

———.“Dirāsah li-Zakhārif ʿalá Lawḥ min al-Rukhām ʿUthira ʿalayhi fī Madrasat

Ṣarghatmish.”Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 1 (1975): 143-176.

147

———.“Madrasat Quṭlūbughā al-Dhahabī 785 H./1347 M. bi-Shāriʿ Sūq al-Silāḥ bi-al-Qāhirah.”

Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3 (1988): 17-45.

Irwin, R. The Middle East in the Middle Ages: The Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250–1382. London:

Croom Helm, 1986.

ʿĪsá, Mirfat Maḥmūd."Dirāsah fī Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al-Malik al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ibn

Ḥusayn." Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 6 (1995): 471-512.

———."Dirāsah fī Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al-Malik al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ibn Ḥusayn. al-Munshaʾāt al-

Tijārīyah wa-Aḍwāʾ Jadīdah ʿalá al-Takhṭīṭ al-Miʿmārī lil-Fanādiq wa-al-Ribāʿ fī al-ʿAṣr al-

Mamlūkī." al-Muʾarrikh al-Miṣrī 21 (1999): 129-202.

Jarrar, Sabri. “al-Maqrīzī’s Reinvention of Egyptian Historiography through Architectural

History,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited by Doris Behrens-

Abouseif, 31-53. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.

Johansen, Baber. The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants' Loss of Property Rights as

Interpreted in the Hanafite Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. New York: Croom

Helm, 1988.

148

Karim, Chahinda Fahmi. “The mosque of Aṣlam Al-Silaḥdār.”Master’s Thesis, American

University in Cairo, 1978.

———.“Jawāmiʻ wa-masājid umaraʼ al-sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn-Qalāwūn.”Ph.D. diss., Cairo

University, 1987.

———.“The Mosque of Aslam al-Bahāʾī al-Silāḥdār (746/1345).”Annales Islamologiques 24

(1988): 233-252.

———.“The Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila

AliIbrahim,edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 123-147. Cairo: The American University in Cairo

Press, 2000.

———.“The Mosque of Amir Qawsun in Cairo (730/1330),” In Historians in Cairo: Essays in

Honor of George Scanlon,edited by Jill Edwards, 49-79. Cairo: The American University in Cairo

Press, 2002.

Kessler, Christel M. “The Ṭashtimuriyya in Jerusalem in the Light of a Recent Architectural

Survey.” Levant 11, (1979): 138-161.

Kikuchi, Tadayoshi. “Two Working Hypotheses of the Waqf Institution,” In Urbanism in Islam,

nd The Proceedings of the 2 International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, 251-253. The Middle

Eastern Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990.

149

Kool, Robert and Warren C. Schultz."The Copper Coins of the Mamlūk Sultan al-Malik al-

Manṣūr Lājīn (r. AH 696-698/1297-1299 CE)." Israel Numismatic Research 4 (2009): 135-144.

Kuran, Timur. “The Provision of Public Goods under Islamic Law: Origins, Impact, and

Limitations of the Waqf System.” Law & Society Review35, 4 (2001): 841-898.

Labīb, Ṣubḥī. Handelsgeschichte Ägyptens im Spätmittelalter (1171-1517). Wiesbaden: Franz

Steiner, 1965.

Lapidus, I.Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Levanoni, Amalia.“The Mamluks’ Ascent to Power in Egypt.”Studia Islamica 72 (1990): 121–

144.

———.“The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate.”International Journal of Middle East Studies 26

(1994): 373–392.

———.A Turning Point in Mamluk History: The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn

(1310–1341). Leiden: Brill, 1995.

———.“Rank-and-File Mamluks versus Amirs: New Norms in the Mamluk Military Institutions,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society,edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann,

17-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

150

———.“Al-Maqrīzī’s account of the Transition from Turkish to Circassian Mamluk Sultanate:

History in the Service of Faith”, in The Historiography of Islamic Egypt (C. 950–1800), edited by

Hugh Kennedy, 93-105. Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001.

———. “The Sultan’s Laqab—A Sign of a New Order in Mamluk Factionalism?,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael Winter, 143-

161.Leiden-Boston-Köln 2004.

Little, D.P. “An Analysis of the Relationship between Four Mamluk Chronicles for 737–745”,

Journal of Semetic Studies 19 (1974): 252–268.

———.“The Nature of Khānqāh, Ribāṭs, and Zāwiyahs under the Mamlūks.” in Islamic Studies

Presented to Charles J. Adams, edited by Wael Hallaq and Donald P. Little, 91-106. Leiden: Brill,

1991.

———.“Historiography of the Ayyubid and Mamluk epochs”, in The Cambridge History of Egypt,

Volume 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 412-444. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1998.

———.“Notes on the Early Naẓar al-Khāṣṣ,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann, 235-253. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1998.

151

Lopez, M., H. Miskinin& A. Udovitch.“England to Egypt, 1350–1500: Long-term Trends and

Long-distance Trade,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, edited by Michael

Cook, 93-128. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Maḥāmīd, Ḥātim.“Waqf, Education and Politics in Mamlūk Jerusalem.”Islamic Quaterly 50, 1

(2006): 33-56.

———.Waqf, Education and Politics in Late Medieval Syria: Islamic Education in Medieval Syria.

Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2013.

Makar, Farida. “al-Sultānīyyā.” Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 1972.

Matthews, Charles D..“Maqrīzī’s Treatise on Dau al-sārī on the Tamīmī Waqf in Hebron.”Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 19 (1939): 147-179.

Mayer, L. A. “Arabic Inscriptions of Gaza.” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 3; 5; 9; 10; 11,

(1923; 1925; 1929; 1930; 1931): 69-78; 64-68; 219-225; 59-63; 144-151.

———. Saracenic Heraldry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.

———. “Lead Coins of Barqūq.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3 (1934):

20-23.

———. “À propos du blason sous les mamluks circassiens.” Syria 18 (1937): 389-393.

152

———. “New Material for Mamluk Heraldry.” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 17 (1937):

52-62.

———. Islamic Architects and Their Works. Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1956.

Meinecke, Michael. “Das Mausoleum des Qalāʾūn in Kairo: Untersuchungen zur Genese der mamlukischen Arkitektur Dekoration.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,

Abteilung Kairo 27 (1971): 47-80.

———. “Die Moschee des Amīrs Āqsunqur an-Nāṣirī in Kairo.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 29 (1973): 9-38.

———. Die Restaurierung der Madrasa des Amirs Sabie ad-Din Mitqal al-Anuki und die Sanierung des

Qirmiz in Kairo. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1980.

Miura, Toru. “Administrative Networks in the Mamlūk Period: Taxation, Legal Execution, and

Bribery.” In Islamic Urbanism in Human History: Political Power and Social Networks, edited by Sato,

Tsugitaka. 39-76. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1997.

Morisot, Corinne. “Patrimoine des commerçants à l'époque mamelouke d'après les archives conservées au Caire.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8th International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van

Steenbergen, 309-328. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven:

Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.

153

Mostafa, Heba H. “The Ceremonial-Urban Dynamic of Cairo from the Fatimid to the early

Mamluk period.” Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 2004.

Muḥammad, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Fahmī.“Bayna Adab al-Maqāmah wa-Fann al-ʿImārah bil-Madrasah al-Saʿdīyah (Qubbat Ḥasan Ṣadaqah) 715-721 H (1315-1321 M).” Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte /

Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Miṣrī 5 (1970-1971): 39-63.

———. “Jāmiʿ al-Ẓāhir Baybars--Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah wa-Fannīyah.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3

(1988): 99-159.

Muṣṭafá, Ṣāliḥ Lamʿī. Kloster und Mausoleum des Farag ibn Barquq in Kairo. Glückstadt: Augustin,

1968.

———. Moschee des Farag ibn Barquq in Kairo. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1972.

———. “Die Einganstür des Ribāṭ des Yāqūt al-Māridānī in Medina.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 131, 2 (1981): 338-342.

———. Madrasa, Ḫānqāh und Mausoleum des Barqūq in Kairo : mit einem Überblick über Bauten aus der Epoche der Familie Barqūq. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1982.

———. “The Cairene Sabil: Form and Meaning.” Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and

Architecture 6 (1989): 33-42.

154

Nielsen, Jørgen S. Secular Justice in an Islamic State: Maẓālim under the Baḥrī Mamlūks, 662/1264-

789/1387. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1985.

Northrup, L.S. From Slave to Sultan: The Career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of

Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678-689A.H./1279-1290A.D.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,

1998.

———.“The Baḥrī Mamlūk Sultanate, 1250-1390." In The Cambridge History of Egypt. Vol. 1:

Islamic Egypt, 640-1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 242-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1998.

———.“Qalāwūn's Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt.” Mamlūk

Studies Review 5 (2001): 119-140.

———.“Al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī -- Explorations: The Interface between Medicine, Politics, and

Culture in Early Mamluk Egypt.” In History and Society during the Mamluk Period, edited by

Stephan Conermann, 107-142. Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2014.

Nuwayṣar, Ḥusnī Muḥammad. Madrasah Jarkasīyah ʻalá namat al-masājid al-jāmiʻah : Madrasat al-

Amīr Sūdūn min Zādah bi-Sūq al-Silāḥ. Cairo: Maktabat Nahdạt al-Sharq, 1985.

———. “Madrasah Jarkasīyah ʿalá Namaṭ al-Masājid al-Jāmiʿah, Madrasat al-Amīr Sūdūn min

Zādah bi-Sūq al-Silāḥ.” al-ʿUṣūr 1, 1 (1986): 33-58.

155

———. “Dirāsah li-Ajzāʾ Hāmmah min Baqāyā Madrasat al-Ẓāhir Baybars al-Bunduqdārī bi-al-

Qāhira, 660/62 H.-1313/63 [sic] M., Athar Raqm 27.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-

Qāhirah 4 (1990): 1-40.

———. “Maḍāmīn Sharīfah bi-Nuṣūṣ Taʾsīs al-Madrasah al-Ashrafīyah Barsbāy bi-al-Qāhirah:

Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah Ḥadārīyah.” al-Muʾarrikh al-Miṣrī 5 (1990): 217-291.

———. “Munshaʾat al-Amīr Fayrūz al-Sāqī bi-al-Qāhirah.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 6 (1995): 1-

50.

Pahlitzsch, J. “The Concern for Spiritual Salvation and Memoria in Islamic Public Endowments in Jerusalem (XII-XVI C.) as Compared to the Concepts of Christendom.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8th International

Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 329-344. Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.

Petry, C.F. The Civilian Elite of Cairo in the Later Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1981.

———. “Medieval Waqf Documents in Cairo: Their Role as Historical Sources.” Newsletter of the

American Research Center in Egypt 118 (1982): 28-33.

———. “A Paradox of Patronage during the Later Mamluk Period.” The Muslim World 73 (1983):

182-207.

156

———. “Research on Medieval Waqf Documents: Preliminary Report from the Field.” Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt 133 (1986): 11-14.

———. Twilight of Majesty: The Reigns of Mamlūk Sultans Al-Ashraf Qāytbāy and Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī in Egypt. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.

———. Protectors or Praetorians? The Last Mamlūk Sultans and Egypt's Waning as a Great Power.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

———. “A Geniza for Mamlūk Studies?Charitable Trust (Waqf) Documents as a Source for

Economic and Social History.”Mamlūk Studies Review 2 (1998): 51-60.

———. “Fractionalized Estates in a Centralized Regime: The Holdings of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy and

Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī According to Their Waqf Deeds.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41, 1 (1998): 96-117.

———. “Waqf as an Instrument of Investment in the Mamlūk Sultanate: Security vs. Profit?” In

Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John

Edwards Philips. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.

———. “Educational Institutions as Depicted in the Biographical Literature of Mamluk Cairo:

The Debate over Prestige and Venue.” Medieval Prosopography 23 (2002): 101-123.

———. "The Estate of al-Khuwand Fāṭima al-Khaṣṣbakiyya: Royal Spouse, Autonomous Investor."

In The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael

Winter, 277-294. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

157

Q al-Qaḥṭānī, Rāshid Saʿd Rāshid. Awqāf al-Sulṭān al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ʿalá al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn.

Riyadh: Maktabat al-Malik Fahd al-Waṭanīyah, 1994.

Rabbat, Nasser.“The Iwans of the Madrasa of Sultan Hasan.” Newsletter of the American Research

Center in Egypt 143/144 (1988/1989): 5-8.

———. “Writing the History of Islamic Architecture in Cairo.” Design Book Review 31 (Winter

1994): 48-51.

———. The Citadel of Cairo: A New Interpretation of Royal Mamluk Architecture. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1995.

———. “The Changing Concept of Mamlūk in the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt and Syria.” In Slave

Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John Edward

Philips, 81-98. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.

———.“Representing the Mamluks in Mamluk Historical Writing”, in The Historiography of

Islamic Egypt (C. 950–1800), edited by Hugh Kennedy, 59–75. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

———. “Perception of Architecture in Mamluk Sources.” Mamlūk Studies Review 6 (2002): 155-

176.

———. Mamlūk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture, and Politics in Medieval Egypt and

Syria. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

158

Rabīʿ, Ḥasanayn Muḥammad, “The Size and Value of the Iqṭāʿ in Egypt 564-741 A.H./1169-1341

A.D..”In Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, edited by Michael A. Cook, 129-138.

London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

———. The Financial System of Egypt, A.H. 564-741/A.D. 1169-1341. London: Oxford University

Press, 1972.

———.“Some Technical Aspects of Agriculture in Medieval Egypt.”In The Islamic Middle East,

700-1900, edited by Abraham L. Udovitch, 59-90. Princeton: Darwin, 1981.

———.“Some Financial Aspects of the Waqf System in Medieval Egypt.” In Urbanism in Islam, The

nd Proceedings of the 2 International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, 271-283. The Middle Eastern

Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990.

Ragib, Yusuf. “Sur deux monuments funéraires du cimetière d'al-Qarāfa al-Kubrā au

Caire.” Annales islamologiques 12 (1974): 67-84.

Ramaḍān, Ḥusayn Muṣṭafá Ḥusayn. “Tarbīʿat Āl Malik al-Jawkandār.” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal,

Jāmiʿat al-Minyā 3, 1 (1993): 213-264.

Ramadan, Fahmi Abdel Alim. “Mosque of the Mamluk Sultan Muayyad Sheikh: A Brief

Study.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 2 (1980): 147-181.

159

Ramaḍān, Ḥusayn Muṣṭafá Ḥusayn.“Munshaʾat al-Amīr Azdamir min ʿAlī Bāy.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 5 (1991): 179-252.

———. “Qubbat wa-Sabīl al-Amīr Ṭarābāy al-Sharīfī bi-Bāb al-Wazīr bi-al-Qāhirah.” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal, Jāmiʿat al-Minyā (n.s.) 2, 2 (1992): 213-260.

Rapoport, Yossef. “Divorce and the Elite Household in Late Medieval Cairo.”Continuity and

Change 16, 2 (2001): 201-218.

———. “Legal Diversity in the Age of Taqlīd: The Four Chief Qāḍīs under the Mamluks.” Islamic

Law and Society 10, 2 (2003): 210-228.

———. Marriage, Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2005.

———. “Royal Justice and Religious Law: Siyāsah and Shariʿah under the Mamluks.” Mamlūk

Studies Review 16 (2012): 70-102.

Raymond, André. “Al-Maqrīzī's Khiṭaṭ and the Urban Structure of Mamluk Cairo.” Mamlūk

Studies Review 7, 2 (2003): 145-167.

Reinfandt, Lucian. "Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan's Son in the Fifteenth Century." Mamlūk Studies Review 6 (2002): 51-62.

160

———. Mamlukische Sultansstiftungen des 9./15. Jahrhunderts: nach den Urkunden der Stifter al-Ašraf

Īnāl und al-Muʾayyad Aḥmad ibn Īnāl. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2003.

Richards, D.S. “A Damascus Scroll Relating to a Waqf for the Yūnisiyya.” Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society (1990): 267-281.

———. “Mamluk amirs and their families and households.” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann, 32–54. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1998. al-Rashdān, Wāʾil. “al-Madrasah al-Mamlūkīyah fī Qalʿat al-Karak.” Dirāsāt Tārīkhīyah 17, 57-58

(1996): 199-229.

al-Rīḥāwī, ʿAbd al-Qādir. “al-Abnīyah al-Atharīyah fī Dimashq: Dirāsah wa-Tahqīq, 3: al-

Madrasah al-Jaqmaqīyah.” Les Annales archéologiques de Syrie 10 (1960): 69-86.

———, “Jāmiʿ Yalbughā fī Dimashq.” al-Ḥawlīyāt al-Atharīyah al-ʿArabīyah al-Sūrīyah/Les Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 24 (1974): 125-150.

———, “Khānāt Madīnat Dimashq.” al-Ḥawlīyāt al-Atharīyah al-ʿArabīyah al-Sūrīyah/Les Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 25 (1975): 47-82.

Rizq, ʿĀṣim Muḥammad.“Madrasat al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr Muzhir bi-al-Qāhirah, 774-775/1479-

1480.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 2 (1980): 69-91.

161

Rogers, J.M.. “Waqfiyyas and Waqf Registers: New Primary Sources for Islamic Architecture.”

Kunst des Orients 11 (1976-1977): 182-196.

Sabra, Adam Abdelhamid.Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamlūk Egypt, 1250-1517.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Salam-Liebich, Hayat. The Architecture of the Mamluk City of Tripoli. Cambridge: Aga Khan

Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1983.

st Sameh, Kamal el-Din.“The works of Abd el-Rahman Ketkhuda in Cairo.”Ph.D diss., Fouad 1

University, no date.

Sato, T. “Irrigation in Rural Egypt from the 12th to the 14th Centuries.” Orient: Report of the

Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 8 (1972): 81-92.

———. “The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of al-Rawk al-

Ḥusāmī and al-Rawk al-Nāṣiri.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979):

99-131.

162

———. “Historical Character of al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī in Mamlūk Syria.”In Proceedings of the First

International Conference on Bilād al-Shām, 223-225. Amman, 20-25 April 1974. Amman: al-Dār al-Muttaḥidah lil-Nashr, 1984.

———. State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqtaʿs, and Fallahun. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1997.

———. “The Proposers and Supervisors of al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī in Mamluk Egypt.” Mamlūk Studies

Review 2 (1998): 73-92.

———. “Fiscal Administration in Syria during the Reign of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad.” Mamlūk

Studies Review 11, 1 (2007): 19-37.

Schultz, Warren C., "The Monetary History of Egypt, 642-1517." In The Cambridge History of

Egypt. Vol. 1: Islamic Egypt, 640-1517. edited by Carl F. Petry, 318-338. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1998.

———. "Mamluk Monetary History: A Review Essay." Mamlūk Studies Review 3 (1999): 183-205.

———. "An Ayyūbid-Style Dirham of al-Ashraf Khalīl." Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 161

(1999): 6.

———. “Ayyubid and Mamluk Coins Preserved in the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60, 4 (2001): 269-273.

———. “Mamluk Egyptian Copper Coinage before 759/1357-1358: A Preliminary

Inquiry.” Mamlūk Studies Review 5 (2001): 25-43.

163

———. “Mamlūk Metrology and the Numismatic Evidence.” Al-Masāq 15, 1 (2003): 59-75.

———. “The Spread of Ibn Khaldûn's Ideas on Climate and Culture.” Journal of the History of

Ideas 28, 3 (1967): 415-422.

———. ““It Has No Root Among Any Community That Believes in Revealed Religion, Nor Legal

Foundation for Its Implementation”: Placing al-Maqrīzī's Comments on Money in a Wider

Context.” Mamlūk Studies Review 7, 2 (2003): 169-181.

———. ““Mahmūd ibn ʿAlī and the "New Fulūs”: Late Fourteenth Century Mamluk Egyptian

Copper Coinage Reconsidered.” American Journal of Numismatics (2nd ser.) 10 (1998): 127-148.

———. “The Circulation of Dirhams in the Bahri Period.”In The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian

Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael Winter, 221-244. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Shoshan, B. “Grain Riots and Moral Economy: Cairo 1350–1517.” Journal of Interdisciplinary

History 10,3 (1980): 459–478.

———.“From Silver to Copper: Monetary Changes in Fifteenth Century Egypt.” Studia Islamica

56 (1982): 97-116.

———.“Money Supply and Grain Prices in Fifteenth Century Egypt.”Economic History Review 36

(1983): 47-67.

———.“The 'Politics of Notables' in Medieval Islam.” Asian and African Studies: Journal of the Israel

Oriental Society 20 (1986): 179-215.

———. Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1993.

164

Stilt, Kristen. Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion and Everyday Experiences in Mamlūk Egypt.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Surūr, Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn. Dawlat Banī Qalāwūn fī Miṣr: al-Ḥālah al-Siyāsīyah wa-al-

Iqtiṣādīyah fī ʿAhdihā bi-Wajh Khāṣṣ. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī, 1947.

Swelim, Tarek M. “The complex of Sultān Al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh at Bāb Zuwayla.” Master’s thesis,

American University in Cairo, 1986.

Taragan, Hana. “Politics and Aesthetics: Sultan Baybars and the Abu Hurayra / Rabbi Gamliel

Building in Yavne.” In Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt,edited by Asher Ovadiah, 117-

143. Tel Aviv: The Yolanda and David Katz Faculty of the Arts, Tel Aviv University, 2000.

al-Ṭarāwnah, Ṭāhā Thaljī. The Province of Damascus during the Second Mamluk Period (784/1382-

922/1516). Karak: Muʾtah University, 1994.

al-Ṭāyish, ʿAlī Aḥmad. “Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah li-Jāmiʿ Badr al-Dīn al-Wannāʾī bi-al-Qāhirah (885-

902 H/1480-1496 M - Athar 163).” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal, Jāmiʿat al-Minyā 3, 2 (1993):

305-388.

165

Taylor, Christopher S. In The Vicinity of the Righteous: Ziyāra and the Veneration of Muslim Saints in

Late Medieval Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

el-Toudy, Heba Abd al-Aziz. “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk sultans: an analysis of content.”

Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 2004.

ʿUthmān, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār. “al-Turbah al-Īwān min Anmāṭ al-Mabānī fawqa al-Qubūr fī Miṣr fī al-Aṣrayn al-Ayyūbī wa-al-Mamlūkī.” al-ʿUṣūr 7, 2 (1992): 271-305.

W al-Wakīl, Fāyizah Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Khāliq. “Dirāsah li-Madrasat al-Sulṭān Jaqmaq bi-Darb

Saʿādah fī Ḍawʾ al-Munshaʾāt al-Mamlūkīyah maʿ Nashr Wathīqah Jadīdah lah lam Yasbuq

Nashruhā.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 8 (1997): 287-395.

Wiet, Gaston. Les biographies du Manhal Safi. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1932.

———, “Sultan Hassan.” La revue du Caire 1, 2 (June 1938): 86-109.

Williams, Caroline. “The Mosque of Sitt Hadaq.” Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and

Architecture 11 (1994): 55-64.

166

Williams, John Alden. “Urbanization and Monument Construction in Mamluk Cairo.” Muqarnas:

An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture 2 (1984): 33-45.

Van Steenbergen, Jo.“The Political Role of Damascus in the Mamluk Empire: Three Events in the

Period 741/1341-750/1349, Imperative for the Change of Power in Cairo.” Orientalia

Lovaniensia Periodica 30 (1999): 113-128.

———, “The Office of Nāʾib al-Salṭana of Damascus: 741-784/1341-1382, a Case Study.”

In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and

8th International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen , 429-448.

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.

———, “The Amir Qawṣūn, Statesman or Courtier? (720-741 AH/1320-1341 AD).”In Egypt and

Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8th

International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 449-466.

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.

———, “Ḥājib al-Hujjāb: A Case Study of a Military Office in the Administration of Mamlūk

Damascus (741-784/1341-1382).” Al-Masāq 13 (2001): 97-111.

———, “Mamluk Elite on the Eve of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad's Death (1341): A Look behind the

Scenes of Mamluk Politics.” Mamlūk Studies Review 9, 2 (2005): 173-199.

———, “Mamluk Eunuchs, Ḥabašīs and Waqf in the 1340s.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,

Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V, Proceedings of the 11th, 12th and 13th International Colloquium,

167 edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Kristof D'Hulster , 539-552. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,

May 2002, 2003 and 2004. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2007.

———, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-Political Culture, 1341-1382.

Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006.

———, ““Is Anyone My Guardian …?” Mamlūk Under-Age Rule and the Later Qalāwūnids.” al-

Masāq 19, 1 (2007): 55-65.

———, “On the Brink of a New Era? Yalbughā al-Khāṣṣakī (d. 1366) and the

Yalbughāwīyah.” Mamlūk Studies Review 15 (2011): 117-152.

———, “The Mamluk Sultanate as a Military Patronage State: Household Politics and the Case of the Qalāwūnid Bayt.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 56, 2 (2013): 189-

217.

Wiederhold, Lutz. “Legal-Religious Elite, Temporal Authority, and the Caliphate in Mamluk

Society: Conclusions Drawn from the Examination of a “Zahiri Revolt” in Damascus in

1386.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, 2 (1999): 203-235.

Zakariya, Mona. Deux palais du Caire medieval: Waqfs et architecture. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1983.

168

Zeʾevi, D. “My Slave, My Son, My Lord: Slavery, Family and State in the Islamic Middle East,” in

Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John

Philips Edward, 99-115. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.

Ziadeh, Nicola A. Urban Life in Syria under the Early Mamluks. Beirut: American University, 1953.

169