KHAZAR TURKIC GHULÂMS IN CALIPHAL SERVICE1 BY PETER B. GOLDEN Arab — Khazar relations, in particular their military confrontations for control of the Caucasus, have long been the subject of investigation. As a consequence of that sustained period of military encounters, the Khazars enjoyed a fierce reputation in the Islamic world. Thus, al-Balâd- hurî, in his comments on the massacre of some of the populace of MawÒil (Mosul) in the aftermath of the ‘Abbâsid takeover in 133/750, says that “because of their evil, the people of Mosul were called the Khazars of the Arabs.”2 Much less studied is one of the side-products of those wars: the presence of Khazars in the Caliphate itself. As with other peoples captured in warfare or taken or purchased on the periphery of the Caliphate, the Khazars in the Islamic heartlands were largely, but not exclusively, used as professional military men, slave-soldiers of the Caliphs, usually termed ghilmân (sing. ghulâm, lit. “boy, servant, slave”3). The relationship of these aliens to the larger Arab and Arabized 1 I would like to thank Michael Bates and Matthew Gordon for their thoughtful read- ings of this paper. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any remaining errors or failure to take their advice. An earlier, non-updated Russian version of this article (“Khazarskie tiurkskie guliamy na sluzhbe Khalifata) is in press in Moscow, to be pub- lished in Khazary, Trudy Vtorogo Mezhdunarodnogo kollokviuma, ed. by I.A. Arzhant- seva, V.Ia. Petrukhin and A.M. Fedorchuk. 2 This passage is cited and translated in C.F. Robinson, Empire and Elites After the Muslim Conquest. The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia (Cambridge, 2000), p. 138; the Arabic text is in al-Balâdhurî, Ansâb al-Ishrâf, ed. ’A. ad-Dûrî, Bibliotheca Islamica (Wiesbaden/Beirut, 1398/1978), III, p. 281. 3 H. D. Yıldız, Islâmiyet ve Türkler (Istanbul, 1976), p.81, suggests that this term did not really mean “slave,” but rather one who was at the disposal of another, commenting that it has different connotations from Arab. ’abd or raqîq both of which denote “slave.” These terms, he remarks, are never used with regard to the Turkic ghilmân. Yıldız further notes (pp. 84-86) that “Taking all these possibilities into account, the hitherto held view regarding the origin of the Turkic units in the ‘Abbâsid army, that is that they were slaves Journal Asiatique 292.1-2 (2004): 279-309 280 P.B. GOLDEN society of the Near East was complicated. Al-JâÌi (d. 870), the brilliant essayist of the ‘Abbâsid era who was concerned with ethnic questions, using traditional genealogical formulas for the integration of aliens into Islamo-Arab society, pointed to the alleged common descent of the Turks and Arabs from Abraham/Ibrâhîm. The older Arab institution of clientage (walâ'), by that time the chief means of “naturalizing” non- Arab (Arabizing) ethnic elements into the Caliphal state, was also brought into play4. The ‘Abbâsids used a combination of patronage (iÒ†inâ') and military slavery to assure the loyalty of the servitors of their regime5. The beginning of the involvement of Turkic ghilmân in the affairs of the ‘Abbâsid Caliphate can be dated to the struggle of al-Ma'mûn (reg. 813-833) with his brother al-Amîn (reg. 809-813) for the rulership6. Operating out of Central Asia, al-Ma'mûn (who was in Marv when his who could be bought, should, in our opinion, be met with doubt.” Rather, he concludes, these were hired soldiers. This is not entirely accurate. Al-IÒ†akhrî, Kitâb Masâlik al- Mamâlik, ed. M.J. De Goeje (Leiden, 2nd ed., 1927), p. 318, refers directly to the raqîq Mâ warâ’n-Nahr (“the slaves of Transoxiana”), one of the leading sources of the Turkic ghilmân, see below, note 11. Clearly, the ghilmân were viewed as slaves — although their social standing as military men was undoubtedly higher. A view very similar to that of Yıldız was put forward at about the same time by M.A. Shaban, see discussion below. 4 The essay, Manâqib Jund al-Khilâfa wa Fa∂â ‘il al-Atrâk, see Hilâfet Ordusunun Menkıbeleri ve Türkler’in Fazîletleri, Turk. trans. R. ≤e≥en (Ankara, 1967), is not free of promoting certain ideological positions (it was addressed to the powerful Turkic courtier, al-FatÌ b. Khâqân) and has to be used with some caution, see discussion in J. Lassner, The Shaping of ‘Abbâsid Rule (Princeton, 1980), pp.116ff. The term walâ’ has a range of meanings. In addition to the older legal term denoting “clientage”(see Vl. V. Polosin, Slovar’ poetov plemeni ‘abs VI-VIII vv. Moskva, 1995, p. 523: “pokrovitel’stvo, otnosheniiia pokrovitelia i klienta; druzhba”) it also expresses “friendship, amity, benev- olence, good will, fidelity, fealty, allegiance, devotion, loyalty” in Modern Arabic, see J.M. Cowan (ed.), The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed. (Ithaca, 1994), p. 1289. In the medieval Islamic world it denoted the ongoing bonds of loyalty and allegiance between a freedman (mawlâ, pl. mawâlî) and his onetime master. Converts from the non-Arab population also entered into a walâ’ relationship with their Arab “patron,” see D. Pipes, Slave Soldiers and Islam (New Haven, 1981), pp. 95, 107-109. 5 R.P. Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton, 1980), pp.82-83. 6 Turkic military slaves or Turks serving in a military capacity are sporadically noted in the pre-‘Abbâsid period, see Yıldız, Islâmiyet ve Türkler, p. 47; D. Pipes, “Turks in Early Muslim service” Journal of Turkish Studies 2 (1978), pp. 86-97; M.S. Gordon, The Breaking of a Thousand Swords. A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (A.H. 200- 275/815-889 C.E.) (Albany, 2001), pp. 6, 162, n.21. Journal Asiatique 292.1-2 (2004): 279-309 KHAZAR TURKIC GHULÂMS IN CALIPHAL SERVICE 281 father, Hârûn ar-Rashid died) was the first Caliph to gather to his person a substantial number of Turkic ghulâms7. His other brother and ally, al-Mu‘taÒim (reg. 833-842), early in Ma'mûn’s reign, began to build up a private military establishment8, often recruiting locally Turkic slaves who were already in Baghdad serving in other households. These included the Khazars Îtâkh9 (purchased in 199/815) and Bugha10, the 7 Al-Mas‘ûdî, Murûj adh-Dhahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beirut, 1962-1979), IV, p. 261. In the course of his struggle for the Caliphate with his brother al- Amîn, al-Ma’mûn even contemplated seeking the protection of “Khâqân, the king of the Turks,” see a†-™abarî, Ta’rîkh a†- ™abarî. Ta’rîkh ar-Rasûl wa’l-Mulûk, ed. M. Ibrâhîm (Cairo, 1967-69), VIII, pp. 403-404, Eng. trans. The History of al-™abarî, ed. E. Yar- Shater et al., 38 vols. (Albany, 1985-1992), vol. XXXI, The War between Brothers, trans. M. Fishbein (Albany, 1992), pp. 71-72. After initial full citation, all future citations to this series will give translator’s name, volume number, abbreviated title. 8 It has been suggested that al-Mu ’ta Òim’s choice of Turks for these units stemmed from his mother’s alleged Turkic or part-Turkic origins. This, however, has not been demonstrated, see discussion in H. Töllner, Die türkischen Garden am Kalifenhof vom Samarra (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kultturgeschichte des Orients, 21 (Walldorf-Hessen, 1971), pp. 20-21. 9 This is a diminutive form deriving from Turkic it/ït “dog” = ïtaq “little dog,” see M. Erdal, “Ein unbermerkter Chasarische Eigenname” Türk Dilleri Ara≥tırmaları 1991 (Ankara, 1991), pp. 31-36. On these names, see P.B. Golden, “Khazar Turkic Ghulâms in Caliphal Service: Onomastic Notes” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 12 (2002-2003), pp. 15-27. 10 Turk. bugha “bull” (see Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre- Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972, henceforth ED), p. 312. The evidence for Bugha’s Khazar ethnicity (he is also called at-Turkî in the Islamic sources) stems from an incident noted in the Georgian sources s.a. 851. Bugha had been campaigning in the Cau- casus, according to the K’art’lis Ts’xovreba, ed. S. Qaukhch’ishvili (T’bilisi, 1955), I, pp. 256-257) and the Caliph had become suspicious of him when “he learned that he was taking council with the Khazars, his tribesmen” (tomt’a mist’a). Georg. tomi can also mean “kinsman,” as well as “clan, family, (fellow) tribesman,” see I. Abuladze, Dzveli k’art’uli enis lek’sikoni, T’bilisi, 1973, p. 413. In Mod. Georg. (K. Tschenkéli, Geor- gisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, Zurich, 1960-1974), Fasz. 15, p. 359) it denotes “(Volks-) stamm, Geschlecht, Sippe.” The Georgian evidence would appear to point to a more immediate blood relationship. AÒ-∑ulî, Kitâb al-Awrâq, ed. V.I. Beliaev and A. B. Khali- dov (St. Petersburg, 1998), pp. 148/457, noted also in Gordon, Breaking, p.19), in Bugha’s obituary notice, says that he was a famous warrior among the Turks who then came into the possession of al-Fa∂l b. Sahl, one of the men close to al-Ma 'mûn who was associated with Khurâsân. This would imply that he was taken in warfare in Central Asia (I am also indebted to Michael Bates for bringing this passage to my attention and for making this valuable source available to me). The language of the notice is vague. The term “Turks” included the Khazars. It is not clear when and how al-Fa∂l b. Sahl acquired him. The notice further reports that Bugha escaped from captivity but was recaptured by Ghassân b.