Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:21:02.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mamluk authorities and Anatolian realities: Jānibak al-Ṣūfī, sultan al-Ashraf Barsbāy, and the story of a social network in the Mamluk/Anatolian frontier zone, 1435–1438

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

VEERLE ADRIAENSSENS  and
JO VAN STEENBERGEN
VEERLE ADRIAENSSENS
Affiliation:
University of Ghentveerle.Adriaenssens@UGent.be
JO VAN STEENBERGEN
Affiliation:
University of Ghentjo.VanSteenbergen@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article engages with the 838–841/1435–1437 Anatolian adventures of the Mamluk amir Jānibak al-Ṣūfī. It demonstrates how Jānibak's narrative is a remarkable story full of meanings, which enable a more nuanced understanding of Mamluk engagements with southern and eastern Anatolia during the reign of sultan al-Ashraf Barsbāy (825–41/1422–38). First Jānibak's whereabouts in Anatolia are reconstructed on the one hand as they appear from contemporary source material and as they have been analysed in a handful of modern studies on the other. Against this historiographical background, a more comprehensive understanding of Jānibak's role and significance is then developed, combining local, Syro-Egyptian and Anatolian readings of Jānibak's story into one integrated social network approach. This reconstruction of Jānibak's social network in the Anatolian frontier zone finally leads to a number of conclusions on the complexity of political life in the 1430s in eastern Anatolia, on the nature of Barsbāy's state, and on the shared realities of 15th-century political cultures in the Nile-to-Black-Sea area.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 591 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article has been produced within the context of the ERC-project ‘The Mamlukisation of the Mamluk Sultanate. Political Traditions and State Formation in 15th-century Egypt and Syria’ (Ghent University, 2009–14, ERC StG 240865 MMS). It was first conceived of and presented as a paper by Veerle Adriaenssens at the conference “Everything is on the Move: The Mamluk Empire as a Node in (Trans-)regional Networks”, Annemarie Schimmel Kolleg — University of Bonn, 6–9 December 2012; it has thereafter been expanded and transformed into the current article by Jo Van Steenbergen. Our thanks are due to Stephan Conermann, organiser of the Bonn conference, to the many conference participants, and to colleagues in the Mamluk History and Culture research group at Ghent University for helpful feedback and comments.

2 It is argued here that a revision is due of some particular views of 15th- century Mamluk engagements with Anatolia that remain quite persistent: at best, there is the perspective of the sultanate as an outsider to Anatolian political realities, who engaged with Anatolia only to construct a buffer to keep these realities out (see eg. Sh. Har El, Struggle for Domination in the Middle East. The Ottoman-Mamluk War, 1485–1491 (Brill, 1995); too often, however, the Mamluk sultanate is just not considered to be an active part at all of the political landscape of Anatolia (see eg. the lack of any meaningful consideration of the Mamluk sultanate's political involvement in The Cambridge History of Turkey. Volume I. Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453, (ed.) K. Fleet [Cambridge, 2009], especially in the survey by R. P. Lindner, “Anatolia, 1300–1451”, pp. 102–117).

3 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal al-Sāfī wa-l-Mustawfā baʿda l-Wāfī, (ed.) M. M. Amīn, vols. 1–13 (Cairo, 1984–2009), iv, p. 224.

4 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 224.

5 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 224; al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk, iv, (ed.) S. A. ʿĀshūr (Cairo, 1972–1973), pp. 265, 285, 298; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhira fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, xiv, (eds.) J. M. Muḥriz & F. M. Shaltūt, Cairo 1971, pp. 8, 24; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān: al-ḥawādith wa-l-tarājim min sanat 815 h. ilā sanat 823 h., (ed.) A.Ṭ. al-Qarmūṭ (Cairo, 1985), pp. 205–206.

6 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk iv, p. 326, Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, p. 34–35; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 224; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, p. 232.

7 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 565; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, p. 172.

8 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 578; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 189, 192.

9 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 587; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 206, 211.

10 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 591–592, 602; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 213–220; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumr (Beirut, 1986) vii, pp. 426, 432.

11 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 649, 947; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 253–254, al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān, (ed.) A. Ṭ. al-Qarmūṭ (Cairo, 1989), p. 203.

12 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 253–254.

13 See the many references to continuous fear for Jānibak and to actions against his alleged supporters in al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 639, 648, 649, 654, 659; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xiv, pp. 257, 259–60, 263, 271, 278, 286, 319, 321, 345, 353; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhira fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, xv, (ed.) I.A. Ṭarkhān, [Cairo, 1971], pp. 55, 60; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, p. 203. See also A. Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, 825–841/1422–1438 (Damas, 1961), pp. 23–25 for a summary of events and actions reported in this context.

14 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 948; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 62.

15 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948–949; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 60–61.

16 For these and most other names of towns mentioned in this article, see the map of eastern and southern Anatolia at the end.

17 B. Kellner-Heinkele, “The Turkomans and Bilād aš-Šām in the Mamluk Period”, in Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, (ed.) T. Khalidi (Beirut, 1984), p. 172.

18 For general introductions into the topic of the Mamluk sultanate and Anatolia/Asia Minor in the first half of the 9th/15th century, see Sh. Har El, Struggle for Domination in the Middle East. The Ottoman-Mamluk War, 1485–1491 (Leiden, 1995), pp. 27–79; A. Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, 825–841/1422–1438 (Damascus, 1961), pp. 363–402; Kellner-Heinkele, “The Turkomans and Bilād aš-Šām in the Mamluk Period”; P. Wing, “Submission, Defiance, and the Rules of Politics on the Mamluk Sultanate's Anatolian frontier”, JRAS (Available on CJO 2015). See also relevant passages in J. E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu. Clan, Confederation, Empire. Revised and Expanded Edition (Salt Lake City, 1999), pp. 43–71; C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1481 (Istanbul, 1990); B. F. Manz, Power, Politics and Religion in Timurid Iran (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 34–45; R. Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghādir. De l’origine jusqu’à la conquête ottomane”, Dissertation (Paris, 1973), esp. pp. 76–112; M.L. Venzke, “The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqṭāʿ: A Re-Assessment of the Dulgadir Principality and Its Position within the Ottoman-Mamluk Rivalry”, JESHO XLIII/3 (2000), pp. 399–474, esp. 421–423; S. N. Yıldız, “Razing Gevele and Fortifying Konya: The Beginning of the Ottoman Conquest of the Karamanid Principality in South-Central Anatolia, 1468”, in The Frontiers of the Ottoman World, (ed.) A. C. S. Peacock (Oxford, 2009), pp. 307–329, esp. 311–316; S. N. Yıldız, “Post-Mongol Pastoral Polities in Eastern Anatolia during the late Middle Ages”, in At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th-15th Century Eastern Anatolia, (eds.) D. Beyazit and S. Rettig (Paris, 2012), pp. 27–48, esp. 35–38.

19 See Har El, Struggle for Domination, pp. 72–73; Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 392–397; Woods, The Aqquyunlu, pp. 53–54; R. Jennings, “Kaysariyya”, EI 2, vol. IV (Leiden, 1978), pp. 842–846.

20 See Har El, Struggle for Domination, pp. 73–74; Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 397–399; Woods, The Aqquyunlu, p. 68; Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghadir”, p. 102; Venzke, “The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqṭāʿ”, p. 422.

21 This will be an extensive summary, presenting the story's general line from extant Mamluk narratives sources, as a framework for further analysis below (and explicitly not as a mere positivist reconstruction of any realities of Jānibak's whereabouts); for an even more detailed reconstruction of the chronology of events as suggested by (Mamluk and other) narrative sources, see Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghadir”, pp. 102–111.

22 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 948; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 62; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs wa-l-Abdān fī Tawārīkh al-Zamān, (ed.) Ḥ. Ḥabashī (Cairo, 1973), iii, p. 333.

23 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, IV, pp. 948–949, 959–960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 60–61, 66; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 369, 375–376; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 319, 320, 333.

24 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948–949, 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 62, 66, 67; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 340–341, 375–376; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 320, 333.

25 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 960, 995; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 66–67, 205; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333; for a more detailed discussion of the strong bonds between Qurmush and Jānibak, see below, part 3/2.

26 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 67; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 341, 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 320, 328, 333.

27 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 961; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 63, 66; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

28 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 67–68; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 342–343, 375.

29 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 964–965; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 71; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 377; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 338.

30 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 968, 970, 973, 974; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 75–76; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 377–378; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, pp. 472–473; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 342, 344.

31 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 979, Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 78.

32 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 979–980 (quote from p. 980); Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 78–79; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 377–378; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 352–353.

33 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 980–981; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 79–80; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 378, 391–392, 411; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, pp. 481–482; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 354–355, 368–369.

34 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 996, 1003; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 414–415; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 367, 369, 374.

35 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1003–1004 (quote p. 1004); Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 418; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 378.

36 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1009, 1010, 1019, quote p. 1009; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 82; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 422, 423, 429; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 383, 385.

37 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1018–1019, 1023 (quote p. 1018); Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 84–85, 87–88; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 392.

38 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1023–1024, 1026; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 87–89; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, ix, pp. 4–5; al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, p. 495; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 397, 400. Interestingly, Ibn Taghrī Birdī also mentions another version of the story of Jānibak's final days, far more neutral towards his Aqquyunlu hosts: Meḥmed and his brother had refused to make a deal with the governor of Aleppo, but then Jānibak had died of the plague that was raging at that time; keeping this a secret, only then the brothers had struck their deal and sent his head to Aleppo; Ibn Taghrī Birdī commented, however, that “it was the first [rather than this] story that circulated among the people”(Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 88; also in Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 229).

39 This emerges very clearly from the above reconstruction, as this mainly follows the historical writings of the contemporaries al-Maqrīzī, Ibn Taghrī Birdī and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī; this story remained surprisingly absent — with only three very allusive references to Jānibak — in another contemporary chronicle, by al-ʿAynī (al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, pp. 481–482, 495). Later chronicles, such as by al-Ṣayrafī and by Ibn Iyās, largely followed or summarised the chronological accounts of al-Maqrīzī and of Ibn Taghrī Birdī (see the references to al-Ṣayrafī above, and see Ibn Īyās, Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʿī al-Duhūr, (ed.) M. Mostafa (Berlin, 2010) (Bibliotheca Islamica 5, ii, pp. 162, 164, 165, 166, 168–169, 170–171, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178–179).

40 Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 392–399; Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghadir”, pp. 102–111.

41 Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, p. 392. That Yinanç's understanding is closely mirrored upon that of Darrag's is suggested by her (unreferenced) statement “que les Ottomans lancèrent Djānibak dans la lice” (Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghadir”, p. 103).

42 Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 392–399 (It is interesting to note that in Darrag's reading Barsbāy's final achievement through these and related events in the Anatolian frontier zone was total triumph and a maximum expansion of the frontier of his state) [see also the following footnote].

43 Woods, The Aqquyunlu, p. 67 (Woods actually came to quite opposite conclusions from those suggested by Darrag: he claims that Barsbāy's era witnessed “the failing of the Mamluk Anatolian frontier policy” and “the formation of a highly volatile buffer zone between the expanding Ottomans and their flagging Mamluk neighbors”. We will return to this issue in the conclusions.)

44 Venzke, “The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqṭāʿ”, p. 422; Venzke actually summarises here the interpretation of Yinanç, “La dynastie de Dulghadir”, pp. 102–111 (see Venzke, “The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqṭāʿ”, p. 422, fn. 53, referring to the Turkish version of Yinanç's dissertation: Refet Yinanç, Dulkadir Beyliği [Ankara, 1989], pp. 48–54).

45 Har El, Struggle for Domination; Kellner-Heinkele, “The Turkomans and Bilād aš-Šām in the Mamluk Period”.

46 Glubb, John, Soldiers of Fortune. The Story of the Mamlukes (New York, 1973), pp. 331–332 Google Scholar.

47 Clot, André, L’Egypte des mamelouks. L’empire des esclaves (1250–1517) (Paris, 1996), p. 154 Google Scholar (“. . . Chah Rokh avait reçu un renfort de poids avec Djanibey (sic), sorti de sa cachette du Caire et qui était avide de revanche. . . . Djanibey, qui s’était alors joint aux troupes de la principauté de Doulkadir, fut vaincu et sa tête envoyée au Caire, à la grande satisfaction du sultan. . . .”)

48 Holt, Peter M., The Age of the Crusades. The Near East from the eleventh century to 1517 (London and New York, 1986), pp. 188–189 Google Scholar.

49 This view of this Anatolian frontier zone in the first half of the fifteenth century — as a highly dynamic, fluid, and permeable social space of multiple interlocking but not necessarily parallel political, economic and cultural interests, related in varying degrees of integration to multiple centres of political, economic and cultural activities in Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Iran — is actually diametrically opposed to Har-El's conceptualisation of the same Ottoman-Mamluk frontier from a rather anachronistic territorial inter-statist systemic perspective (see Har El, Struggle for Domination in the Middle East, pp. 1–8 [‘The Anatolian State System’], 27–59 [p. 28: “. . .the Mamluks’ buffer system around the landward Anatolian frontier. . .”]). For a very useful illustration of the complex and multi-layered processes of integration and secession at work in this frontier zone, see Patrick Wing's study of sultan Barsbāy's 1433 campaign against the Aqquyunlu (Wing, “Submission, Defiance, and the Rules of Politics on the Mamluk Sultanate's Anatolian frontier”, p. 12).

50 An ego-network is a network consisting of an identified focal node (“ego”) and the nodes (= the other individuals or groups) to whom ego is directly connected through a variety of ties (“edges”), appearing clearly irrespective of, or in addition to, the ties that may also directly connect the other individuals in the network (each of whom is the focal node, of course, at the centre of his own ego-network). See: Steve Borgatti, www.analytictech.com/networks/egonet.htm (consulted on 5/11/2013); see also Lemercier, Claire “Analyse de réseaux et histoire”, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 52/2 (2005), pp. 88–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 91–92.

Brokerage refers to “a structural position or role in which an actor [in this case “ego”] makes transactions and resource flows possible between two other social sites” (K. Barkey, Empire of Difference. The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective [Cambridge, 2008], p. 10 [quote]; and more in general R. S. Burt, Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital [Oxford, 2005]).

51 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 88; also al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1023; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, ix, p.4.

52 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1018–1019; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 84–85; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 392.

53 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1018; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 84; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 392.

54 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 80.

55 al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 320–321.

56 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 948; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 62; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 340; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 319–320.

57 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 66; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 959–960.

58 Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 376.

59 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 981; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 80; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 354.

60 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 66–67; a less detailed version of the same report may be found in al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

61 No further information has been found on this individual, and Yinanç also summarily identified him as “Muḥammad fils de Gundoghdū de la famille Ramadān” (Yinanç, ”La dynastie de Dulghadir”, p. 103)

62 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 61; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 47–48; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 319.

63 In the case of the Ottoman governor of Amasya, Yörgüç Pasha, who also controlled Tokat, Yinanç suggests an Ottoman geo-political incentive to counter Karamanids and the Egyptian sultan, claiming that “pour changer le sens des événements ils se servirent de Djānibak-Sūfī qui avait trouvé asile dans leur pays” (Yinanç, ”La dynastie de Dulghadir”, p. 102); although such an Ottoman interest is not unlikely in the first phase of Jānibak's story, it is nowhere corroborated in any of the surviving source reports (see below for more details on this geo-political dimension, and the apparent lack of Ottoman interest in Jānibak for most of his story).

64 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948, 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 63, 66; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 341, 375; according to al-Ṣayrafī they “belonged to the most important leaders of the Türkmen” (min akābir umarāʾ al-turkumān) (al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 320; repeated in Ibn Īyās, Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr ii, p. 162).

65 Ibn Taghī Bird, al-Manhal, v, p. 167; repeated in al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-Lāmiʿ fī Aʿyān al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ, s.e., vols. 1–12 (Beirut, 1992), iii, p. 154 (nr. 586).

66 See eg. al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 317, 353, 404, 434, 473.

67 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 472–473; Ibn Taghī Bird, al-Manhal, v, p. 168; al-Sakhāwī, Ḍawʾ, iii, p. 154.

68 al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

69 Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 341.

70 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 975, 976; Ibn Taghī Bird, al-Manhal, xv, p. 77; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 378; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 348, 349.

71 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 66.

72 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 948; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 62; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 340; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 319–320.

73 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 67; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 342; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

74 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 67–68; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 343; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 334.

75 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1009.

76 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1187; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Ḥawādith al-Duhūr fī madā al-ayyām wa-l-shuhūr, (ed.) M. K. ʿIzz al-Dīn, vols. 1–2 (Beirut, 1990), i, p. 184; Ibn Taghī Bird, al-Manhal, iv, p. 228; al-Sakhāwī, Ḍawʾ, xii, p. 122.

77 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 79; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 981; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 354.

78 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 87.

79 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1023–1024; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 87–88; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, ix, p. 4; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 397.

80 See al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk IV, pp. 1030–1031; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 92; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 403.

81 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 67; also al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 341, 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

82 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 80.

83 For an insightful appreciation of these realities and of their coalescing into an empowering ego-network around the successful brokerage of the first set of Ottoman leaders in West-Anatolia in the course of the 14th century, see Barkey, Karen, Empire of Difference. The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 28–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Emergence: Brokerage across Networks, esp. pp. 36–45: A Frontier Society: Contradictions, Constraints, and Opportunities).

84 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; also in similar wordings in Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 67; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 341, 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

85 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; also in similar wordings in Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 67; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 341, 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

86 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 979; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 78.

87 Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 378; Ibn Taghrī Birdī and al-Maqrīzī explain that they first “fell upon Marj Dulūk (nazalū ʿalā Marj Dulūk)”, a village near Gaziantep (Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 79; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 981).

88 See eg. his participation in “the march against the lands of Qaramān” and in “the siege of Qayseri” (Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1009, 1018; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 82, 85; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 422; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 383, 392).

89 al-ʿAynī, ʿIqd, p. 472.

90 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948–949, 959–960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 60–61, 66; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 369, 375–376; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 319, 320–321.

91 On the “Mesopotamian Marches” and their strategic position in south-east Anatolia, see Har El, Struggle for Domination in the Middle East, pp. 43–47.

92 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 66–67; also al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333.

93 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 981; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 79–80; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 375, 378; al-ʿAynī,ʿIqd, pp. 481–482; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 354.

94 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, ix, p. 64; al-Sakhāwī, Ḍawʾ, vi, pp. 220–221.

95 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, ix, pp. 64–65; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 66–67 (quote from p. 66); al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 995.

96 al-ʿAynī,ʿIqd, p. 481.

97 On the identification of the term turk with Mamluk elites, see J. Van Steenbergen, “Nomen est Omen. David Ayalon, the Mamluk Sultanate, and the Rule of the Turks”, in Egypt and Syria under Mamluk Rule: Political, Social and Cultural Aspects, (ed.) A. Levanoni (in press); Koby Yosef, “Dawlat al-atraāk or dawlat al-mamālīk? Ethnic origin or slave origin as the defining characteristic of the ruling élite in the Mamlūk sultanate”, Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and Islam 39 (2012); the same passage is tellingly rendered by Ibn Taghrī Birdī as “with them, a group from the Mamluks and the Türkmen was caught (wa-umsika maʿahum jumāʿa min al-mamālīk wa-l-turkumān)” (Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 228).

98 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, 4: 227.

99 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 79. See also al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 981, 995; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, ix, pp. 65, 150; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 354.

100 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, ix, p. 150.

101 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 227.

102 For similar dissatisfaction with Barsbāy's government among Syrian amirs being a major causal factor in the organisation and particular course of Barsbāy's Āmid campaign of 833/1435, see Wing, “Submission, Defiance, and the Rules of Politics on the Mamluk Sultanate's Anatolian Frontier”, [p. 8].

103 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, ix, p. 65.

104 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948, 949; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 60–61; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 319, 320.

105 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 949; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 60–61; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 369.

106 See Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 63; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 372.

107 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 974; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 75–76; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 344.

108 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 80; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 995; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 377; al-ʿAynī,ʿIqd, p. 482.

109 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 80.

110 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 945, 947, 949; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 61–63; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 333, 339–340; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 316–317, 319, 320.

111 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 948, 960; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 62, 67–68; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 342–343, 373–374, 375; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 320, 333–334.

112 Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 375.

113 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 75.

114 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 949. A related, shorter version of this assessment can be found in al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 320.

115 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, IV, 1023–1024, 1026; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 87–88; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, ix, p. 4; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 397.

116 al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk IV, pp. 1030–1031. Almost identical versions can be found in Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 92; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 403. See also Woods, The Aqquyunlu, pp. 67–68.

117 See eg. al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 1047, 1055–1056, 1058–1059, 1069. See also Woods, The Aqquyunlu, p. 68; Darrag, L’Egypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 398–399.

118 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 66–67; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 960; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 333. See also Yinanç, ”La dynastie de Dulghadir”, pp. 103–104.

119 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 996, 1003–1004; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 414–415, 418; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 374, 378.

120 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1009; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 422, 423.

121 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1010; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 429; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 385.

122 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, p. 63. An only slightly diverging version of this report can also be found in al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 957; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 330.

123 Al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, pp. 969, 976; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, xv, pp. 73–74, 78; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, pp. 376, 379, 380, 381–383; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, pp. 342, 343–344, 349.

124 Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm VI, p. 736 (quote); al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 961; Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, viii, p. 376; al-Ṣayrafī, Nuzhat al-Nufūs, iii, p. 334.

125 See Hattox, Ralph S., “Qāytbāy's Diplomatic Dilemma Concerning the Flight of Cem Sultan (1481–82)”, Mamlūk Studies Review, VI/2 (2002), pp. 177–190 Google Scholar (quote pp. 189–190).

126 Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-Ẓuhūr, iii, pp. 195, 196. See also Hattox, “Qāytbāy's Diplomatic Dilemma”, p. 189.

127 Hattox, “Qāytbāy's Diplomatic Dilemma”, pp. 189–190. For Jem Sulṭān, see Nicolas Vatin, “Cem”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Brill Online, 2013 (University of Ghent, 29 November 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/cem-COM_24384>; Vatin, Nicolas, Sultan Djem, Un prince ottoman dans l’Europe du XVe siècle d’après deux sources contemporaines: Vâki’ât-i Sultân Cem, Oeuvres de Guillaume Caoursin (Ankara, 1997)Google Scholar; Freely, John, Jem Sultan. The Adventures of a captive Turkish prince in Renaissance Europe (Harper Perennial, 2005)Google Scholar.

128 Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, ix, pp. 4–5.

129 See eg. al-Sakhāwī, Ḍawʾ, xii, p. 122; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Manhal, iv, p. 228; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Ḥawādith al-Duhūr, i, p. 184; al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, iv, p. 1187; see also Yinanç, ”La dynastie de Dulghadir”, p. 111; this additional meaning of Mamluk elite re-integration may actually explain the rather unusual explicit references in each of these sources to how the royal bride Nafīsa brought with her to court the daughter she had with Jānibak.

130 Joseph Fletcher, “Turco-Mongolian monarchic tradition in the Ottoman Empire”, Harvard Ukranian Studies 3–4 (1979–1980), pp. 236–251; Imber, Colin, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650. The Structure of Power (Palgrave, 2002), pp. 98–109 Google Scholar.

131 For a similar understanding of legitimate claims to Mamluk leadership in the 14th-century, see J. Van Steenbergen, “Caught Between Heredity and Merit. The Amir Qūṣūn (d. 1342) and the legacy of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad”, BSOAS (in publication).

132 See Darrag, L’Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay, pp. 24–25.