the buḥturids of the garb. mediaeval lords of beirut and of southern lebanon

8/8/2019 The Buḥturids of the Garb. Mediaeval Lords of Beirut and of Southern Lebanon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-buturids-of-the-garb-mediaeval-lords-of-beirut-and-of-southern-lebanon 1/26

The Buḥturids of the Garb. Mediaeval Lords of Beirut and of Southern Lebanon

Author(s): Kamal S. SalibiSource: Arabica, T. 8, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1961), pp. 74-97Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4054971

Accessed: 09/12/2010 18:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arabica.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4054971?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4054971?origin=JSTOR-pdf




THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB.MEDIAEVALLORDS OF BEIRUT AND OF

SOUTHERNLEBANON

BY

KAMAL S. SALIBI

LEBANON owes much to its Druze feudal dynasties. The Druze

house of Ma'n unified the country under its leadership in the

late sixteenth century; and,duringthe two centuries that followed,

Druze political acumen steered Mount Lebanon through the

labyrinth of Ottoman domestic and foreignpolitics and maintained

the quasi-autonomy on which its later development was based.

Throughoutthis period the Druze feudal system was the unwritten

constitution of Mount Lebanon, and political divisions among the

Lebanese were determined by the rivalry between leading Druzefamilies. The Maronite eudality, which appearedafter the Ottoman

conquest and replaced the older Maronite village and district

chieftainships, was an offshoot of Druze feudalism, organized in

its manner and remaining ancillary to it until the breakdown of

the Lebanese feudal regime towards the middle of the nineteenth

century.

$. The principal source for the history of the Buhturids of the (OarbisSALIH B. YAHYA, Thrikh Bayrit wa akhbar al-umartP al-Bukturiyyin minbani al-Gharb (published by Louis CHEIKHO, Beirut, 1927; corrections tothe very poor edition were made by Jean SAUVAGET, ((Correctionsau texteimprimi de l'histoire de Beyrouth de Sdlih b. Yahyd# , in BEO, VII-VIII,1937-I938). $ilih b. Yahya, who wrote in the first half of the fifteenthcentury, was one of the leading Buhturid emirs of his day. He wrote hishistory depending on oral accounts and on a considerable number of familydocuments, many of which he quotes verbatim. Information about the

Buhturids in the late fifteenth century is available in the history of IBN

SIBAT,of which I have used the American University of Beirut manuscript

(MS 956.9: I 13). IBN SIBAT (d. I520) was a clerk in the service of theBuhturid emirs.

i. I shall use the term Lebanon to mean the area covered today by the

Lebanese Republic, and the term Mount Lebanon to mean the territory ofthe Ottoman mutasarrillik of Mount Lebanon. By southern Lebanon (asdistinct from northern Lebanon) I shall mean that part of Mount Lebanonwhich lies, roughly, south of the Beirut-Damascus highway.



THE HOUSE OF BUHTUR

cAllNahid al-dawla Buhtur

garaf al-dawla cAll Z

Zayn al-din Salih 6

The minor (cAramuin)branch Nagof the house of Buhtur _

Sacd al-din HidrNasir al-din al-Husayn

Zayn al-din $lih

Sayf al-din Yahya

Zayn al-din Slih III L1 Fahr al-din 'Utman

i. The author of TdrKhBayriit .... See text, p. oo*.



76 K. S. SALIBI [3]

During the four centuries that preceded the Ottoman conquestof Syria in 15I6, the Druzes had graduallydeveloped into a coherent

political community with an established class of leaders, and theirorganization so impressed the Ottomans that they allowed themto maintain some measure of self-rule. In addition to being localmilitary-feudal chieftains, their leaders had won the recognitionof the Mamlilk government and had acted as their agents formany years.

The Druze homeland of southern Lebanon is mountainous andrugged, but its topography sets no obstacle to political unity. Its

natural districts, separated from each other by barriers less formi-dable than those separating the districts of northern Lebanon 1,

are of comparatively easy access to one another. The tributariesof Nahr al-Damiir,which meet almost at a common point 2, dividethe southern districts and group them in a rosette pattern; andthe topographical unity of the region is reinforced by 6abal al-

Baruik, which stretches wall-like along its eastern border and

provides it with excellent protection3.Like Cabal al-Lukam (the Amanus), cabal Bahra' (the Alouite

Mountain), Cabal 'Amil (south Lebanon), and the highlands ofGalilee and central Palestine, southern Lebanon served throughoutthe Middle Ages as an Islamic march on the western border of

Syria4. Starting from the eighth century, Arab and Persian clans

i. The districts of northern Lebanon are separated by the deep gorges of

iivers and winter torrents that spring near the watershed and pour pre-cipitously into the sea in roughly parallel courses. Communication betweenthe resultant mountainous strips of territory is, in most cases, virtuallyimpossible except by way of the coast. This geographic factor must havecontributed greatly to the political and ecclesiastical disunity among themediaeval Maronites. For the history of northern Lebanon in the MiddleAges see K. S. SALIBI, "The Maronites of Lebanon under Frankish andMamliuk rule (IO99-I56)", in Arabica, IV (I957), Pp. 288-303.

2. Nahr al-Damfir is the name applied to the lower course of a junctureof small rivers and winter streams pouring some I5 kilometers south of

Beirut. The approximate point of juncture is at Cisr al-Qadi: a point notfar from cAbayh, Dayr al-Qamar, and Btaddin, successively the feudalcapitals of Mount Lebanon.

3. See map.4. Northern Lebanon was the only part of the border where no large-

scale military settlements were made, possibly due to the height of themountains there (the peaks range in height from 2098-3088 meters, ascompared with the 1950 meter peak of (Tabalal-Bariik) and the exceptionalruggedness of the region. Northern Lebanon remained an almost exclusivelyChristian refuge.



[4] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB 77

(and much later Turkish and Kurdish clans) were settled in the

region to protect the coastal and mountain highways against

brigandage,to harass invaders, and to guardthe adjacent harbours.The rate of such settlement was increased considerably during the

twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when more clans were brought

into southern Lebanon to thwart Frankish expansion and to act

as informersand vanguards for the counter-crusades1.

It must not be supposed that southern Lebanon before the

eighth century was an uninhabitedregion. The villages there, as in

northern Lebanon, retain Canaanite and Aramaic names which

point to an ancient origin2. Before the Arab conquest both regionswere probably inhabited by Christianpeasantry; and the military

colonist clans settled in southern Lebanon by the Islamic states

must have been a relatively thin Moslem upper stratum set over

the originalpeasant population, similar to the "Mardaite"colonies

established by the Byzantines in northern Lebanon3. In time the

Moslem settlers brought the local peasantry under their control,

converted them to Islam, and organized them as a march warriorcommunity.This new community which arose from the fusion of the original

Christian (and possibly heterodox Christian) peasantry and the

semi-nomadic military colonists was ideal ground for the spread

and growth of religious heresy. A composite population, differing

in religious background, living in mountainous seclusion, and

probably having many groundsfor dissatisfaction with the central

government, the march warriors of southern Lebanon expressedtheir separatism and political disaffections through religious

heterodoxy, like similar communities elsewhere4. Although no

i. See below.2. Anis FRAYIIA, AsmCa' al-mudun wa-i-qura al-lubnaniyya wa-talsir

maacniha; dirasa lugawiyya (Beirut, I956), passim.3. K. S. SALIBI, op. cit., p. 289.4. In discussing a similar situation on the borderland between Byzantium

and Islam, Professor Paul WITTEK says: "Between the military borderlandsand the peaceful and industrious hinterland there exists the greatest cultural

contrast, and this contrast is further accentuated by racial differences. The

increase of the warlike elements, brought together from the most distant

parts of the world, gives rise on both sides of the frontier ... to a population

quite distinct from that of the hinterland. The continuous frontier fighting

created warrior clans, faithfully devoted to their chiefs and aspiring to the

greatest possible independence, fully conscious of their own importance in

their relations with the government. They tend to offer resistance to all

administrative interference, and especially detest taxation; on the contrary,



78 K. S. SALIBI [51

heresy was locally developed, heretical propagandists were warmlyreceived in the region, where they found conditions exceptionally

favourable for the dissemination of their doctrines ".Druzism was merely the last form of Moslem dissent to invadesouthern Lebanon and take root there. The Druze propagandists,who preached the deification and messianization of the Fatimidcaliph al-Hakim (996-I02I A.D.), were persecuted during the elev-enth century throughout Egypt and Syria; but they were wellreceived by the warrior-peasants of southern Lebanon. Theirmissionary effort there resulted in the conversion of the dominant

part of the population to the Druze faith.Druzism is an esoteric, exclusive, and non-proselyting cult, with

secret formulas for mutual recognition among its adherents. Assuch, it was a factor of social and political cohesion among itsfollowers. The doctrine of the taqiyya, incorporated in the Druzeas well as in other extremist Si'ite cults, whereby an adherentmaydeny his religion on oath in case of danger, enabled the Druzes

to serve and court the favours of the Sunni central governmentwithout the embarrassment of having to admit their dissent 2.

Furthermore,the non-proselytismof the Druze cult, which contri-buted to Druze solidarity and community pride, was elastic enoughin practice to admit desirable new elements. In Crusader and

Mamliik,and even in Ottoman times Druzism gradually admittedinto its presumably closed ranks the new families and clans which

settled in southern Lebanon and reached positions of leadership.

they claim from the government honours, pay and military aid. In religiousmatters, too, a similar resistance is offered. The heresies, persecuted by thestate-church, find here a secure place of refuge, often an enthusiasticreception." The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, I938), PP. 17-I8.

i. Compare with the spread of the NusayrI and IsmAcill heresies inCabal Bahra', where a similar situation seems to have prevailed, and of theIsmaclli heresy and of other extremist offshoots of Sicism in Cabal al-

D?inniyya (north Lebanon), the Biqac, and the southern regions of the

Anti-Lebanon. Similarly, the Monothelite monks of Mar Maruin stablished theMaronite church in northern Lebanon, in a Christian march warrior commu-nity. For the spread of Ismacllism geographically see Bernard LEWIS,"TheIsm2cilites and the Assassins" in K. M. Setton and M. W. Baldwin, (ed.),A history of the Crusades (Philadelphia, 1955), PP. 99-I32.

2. The Druze Buhturid emir SALIH B. YAHYA, the author of TarfkhBayriit ... (see fn. 7) never admits the Druzism of his family, and frequentlystresses their orthodox Islam. Another Buh.turid emir of the sixteenthcentury built a mosque in Beirut which still bears his name (The Mosqueof Emir Mundir).




On the other hand, the brotherhood of faith in Druzism did notefface the distinction between the two elements that had gone to

form the Druze people. The ?ayh, muqaddam,and amir (emir)ranks, descendedfrom the Moslemcolonist clans settled successivelyin the region 1,remaineda superiorclass. The rigid social rules thatforbade (and still forbid) theirintermarriagewith Druze commonersprobably reflect the original race consciousness of the alien militaryelite superimposedover the native peasantry of southern Lebanonby the Islamic states.

In ii1o Beirut fell to the Crusaders. The city garrison wasmassacred, and the Franks hunted down the chieftains of theMoslemclans already settled in the neighbouringhills. The Moslemmarch defences in the region were weakened, and new militarysettlements were in order. The Atabegs of Damascus took promptaction and lured fresh settlers into the region, most important of

whom were a clan of the South Arab tribe of Tanih: the clan later

known as Banul Buhtur2The Arab tribes that roamedSyria had always provided a source

for the recruitment of military colonists; and the Taniuhrankednot least among them 3. It appears that soon after the fall ofBeirut to the Franks a Tanuihidchieftain, cAll b. al-Husayn, wasasked to settle with his men in the hills of the Oarb,to the south-

east of Beirut. This 'Ali's grandfather, Ibrahim b. Abi 'Abdallah,had held commandin al-Birah,a fortifiedtown near the Byzantine-

i. The family traditions recorded in the early nineteenth century by

TANNUYSL-SIDYAQ (Ajhbar al-acyan fi Gabal Lubnan, Beirut, I859), likeother traditional sources, indicate that all leading Druze feudal familiesare descended from military settlers, mostly of the Crusader and post-Crusader periods. Some families (like the Canbalat) entered Lebanon asSunni Moslems in Ottoman times.

2. SIDYAQ (op. cit., PP. 715-7I6) lists the chieftains who were massacredmndhunted down by the Franks after the fall of Beirut. See also Haydar

AL-SIHABI, al-guray al-hisan ff tarih hawadit al-zaman (Cairo, 1900), PP. 317-3I8. SIHABI and SIDYAQ, who wrote during the first half of the nineteenthcentury, depended on earlier accounts, some of which seem to be lost, andon oral traditions. They noted both the massacre of the original Moslemsettlements and the establishment of new ones by the Atabegs of Damascus.I have made a special study of Sidyaq's account in my Maronite His-torians of Mediceval Lebanon, (Beyrouth, I959), PP. I6I-233.

3. SIDYAQ (op. cit., p. ii8) says that the clan previously settled in the6arb, which he wrongly calls Banil Arslan, was also Tanuihid. It is thissame clan which was exterminated by the Franks (see previous note).



8o K. S. SALIBI [7]

Moslem rontier1, wherehis clan had probablyacquiredconsiderableexperience in border warfare.

It was 'All's son, Buhtur, who gave his name to the clan 2.Towards the middle of Muharram542 h. (June II47) Mugiral-dinAbaq (II39-II54), the last BunridAtabeg of Damascus, recognizedBuhtur as Emir of the Oarb and issued for him a manOr (deed ofinvestiture) to the effect-the earliest known document relatingto the history of the Buhturids 3

This noble writ has been issued for the esteemed emir Ndhil al-dawlaAbui l-'AWir Buhtur b. cAli ... that he may abide with his old dues and

with the villages he already holds, such as have been attributed to the nameof his father and to his name. He may receive their royal revenues, whichhe shall use for his own benefit and in order to strengthen himself for service.He shall continue, as before, to hold command in the (;arb, in the mountainof Beirut .... The duty of the village elders 4 and the peasants, may Godgive them strength, shall be to attend to his orders and to obey him inwhatever he may demand of them with regard to the levy of royal dues,and to assist him in whatever duties may be assigned to him by the State.... r As for him, his duty shall be to defend them and to bring theirgrievances to the attention of the governors.....

It is likely that Buhtur was one of the march commanderssummoned by Abaq in I148 to assist in warding off the Frankishattack on Damascus 6, and that the Druze peasant-warriorsplacedunder his commandby the man?f1r f II47 were among the "manyarchers" who "arrived from the direction of the Biqa' and fromelsewhere" on the second day of the attack 7.

The Buhturids did not come alone to southern Lebanon. They

were accompanied by subsidiary clans like Banii 'Abd al-Malik:at least so we are told 8. It is probable that were also other clans,

I. SALIHB. YAHYA,op. cit., pp. 46-47. IbrThim was an emir in al-Birahin I027.

2. The clan was previously known as Banul Abi cAbdallah, and were laterknown also as Banfi Amir al-Oarb, also with reference to Buhtur.

3. SALIHB. YAHYA, p. cit., pp. 45-46, as quoted verbatim. The followingtranslation mine.

4. Ru'asa', sing. ra'is: a village notable in charge of local administrationand police duties, same as the reis (L. regulus) under the Franks.

4A 1A Z I v 1+ -.., l- ;F. JO Aly

U tbLy

6. Steven RUNCIMAN, history of the Crusades (Cambridge, 1951-54), II,

P. 28I-282.7. IBN AL-QALANISI, Damascus chronicle of the Crusades (being H. A. R.

GIBB'Stranslation of Dayl t2rirhDima?q: London, I1932),P. 229.8. According to a tradition recorded by SIDYAQ (Op. Cit., P. I6o). Note

that the pagination in Sidyaq is partly duplicated, probablydue to misprinting.



L,j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sR B '

V4

aK//, ---- PeNAHL-

.iS 8 Q- lHAN } ) | TET N

B EI R ~ ~ ~ I

NAHRAL~~~~~~~~~L SUWAYJANI~~~~~~~cAN A



[8] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE OARB 8i

independent of the Buhturids, such as that Banii Macnwho, it issaid, came to the hills of the Suif(north-east of Sidon) as early asII20 at the request of Tugtigin of Damascus (II04-II28), with in-

structions to "conduct raids against the Franks who were on thecoast" 1. According to tradition, they became the allies of the

Buhturids, and the two clans fought the Franks together 2, With

the Macnids came minor clans, such as Banui Nakad3 and Band

Talhiiq '. It is also said that later on, in II73, Niir al-dimMahmiid

b. Zangi (II46-iI74) asked Banil SihTbto settle with their men in

Wadi al-Taym, in the southern Anti-Lebanon5.

Even in the aarb the Buhturids and their subordinates were notalone. Their chieftainshipthere was disputed by BaniuSa'dan, alsoknown as Banui Abi l-Cays: apparently a branch of the semi-

nomadic Banui al-Hamra (or al-Hummayra) of the Biq' 6. It is

not known whether BaniuAbi l-Cays were invited to settle in the

Oarb by the Buiridsor whether they chose to move there of their

own accord; but they sharedthe title of "emir" with the Buhturids

and held the town of 'Aramiin.The history of southern Lebanon

during the Crusaderand early Mamliukperiods tells of the rivalrybetween the Buhturids and the Abill-6aysh in the (arb where the

former, the more powerful clan, were trying to establish an un-

disputed leadership. The Ma'nids of the Sflf remained in the

background.It is not surprising that the Buhturids of the Oarbshould have

dominatedthe internal scene in southernLebanonunder the Franks

and the Mamluiks. he Oarb,unlike the relatively remoteandruggedSflf, was in the immediate neighbourhoodof Beirut and controlled

the southern approachesto the harbour as well as the road across

the hills to Damascus. As such, it was a district in which both

Moslemsand Franks had a direct interest. The lords of Beirut and

Sidon were always willing to pay well for Buhturid good will, and

the Buhturids often found it necessaryas well as profitableto come

to terms with them, although their raison d'ctre was to fight the

Franks and to block their advance in the region.At the same time,

i. Ibid., p. 247.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 145.

4. Ibid., p. I55.

5. Ibid., p. 44.6. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

ARABICA VIII 6



82 K. S. SALIBI [9]

the Buhturids were anxious to show their masters in Damascusthat they were performing their duties with pious zeal, lest subsidy

and support be withdrawn and punishment follow. These manoeu-vres were executed with masterly skill, but informers were neverlacking: the Abiu1-Cxay? ere always there to report any intelligence

likely to compromisethe position of their rivals. After the expulsion

of the Franks from Syria, the Buhturids profited from the frequentpolitical splits within the Mamlik state and gradually gained controlof the whole of southern Lebanon. The harbour of Beirut, whichwas entrusted to their care, was a source of considerable wealth;

and the Abi l-Cayg, at last reducedto subordination, entered theirservice.

In II54 Nulral-din Mahmiudb. Zangi took Damascus from theBiirids and unified Moslem Syria. The position of the counter-crusaders was improved, and Zahr al-dawla Karama, the son of

Buhtur, who may have been toying with the idea of entering

the service of the Franks of Beirut 1, decided to commit himself

to the side of the new hero of Islam and hastened to Damascus tooffer his submission and services. In return, Nuiral-din recognizedhim as emir of the aarb and grantedhim most of the villages of the

district in iqtd' (revenuefief) in addition to other villages elsewhere

in southernLebanon,the Biqa', and Wadi al-Taym 2. Furthermore,Karama was to receive provisions from Damascus for a retinue of

forty horsemen and "whatever he may be able to levy in case ofwar" 3. Thus assured of the good will and support of Niir al-din,

he established himself in the fortress of Sarhammulr (modernSarahmill), south-east of Beirut, and began to harass the Franks

of the coast.The Brisebarre,who held the seigneury of Beirut from the kings

of Jerusalem, did not welcome the presence of Karama in their

immediate neighbourhood.Raids and counter-raids between them

continued until iI66, when Gautier III of Brisebarre sold his

fief back to the crown4. The struggle between Karama and theFranksof Beirut did not cease, however,until the death of the emir

I. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 48: "Karama seems to have neglected theFranks and he was attached to al-Malik al-cAdil." Italics mine.

2. He was recognized emir of the (;arb by a marsu4m decree) dated II57

(ibid., pp. 48-49) and was granted his iqta' by a mansur dated i i6i (ibid., p. 49).3. Ibid.4. E. REY, Les seigneurs de Barut (Revue de l'Orient latin, IV, I896), p. 15.

Jean RICHARD, Le royaume de Jtrusalem (Paris, 1953), p. 8i.



[IO] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB 83

sometime before II70 1. Soon after his death the Franks lured his

three eldersons to the city, where they weremurdered.The fortress

of Sarhammulrwas then attacked and destroyed. For the moment,it seemed as if the history of the house of Buhtur had come to an

end 2.

Only the youngest of Karama's sons, Gamdl al-din Haggi,survived the plight. He was a child of seven at the time, and his

mother escaped with him from Sarhammiirwhen the fortress was

stormed. The young emir grew up in Tirdala (also in the (Oarb)

and received a small iqtac from Nuir al-din, probably in compen-

sation 3. Ha"I's uncle, Saraf al-dawla cAll,was another survivor.He established himself in cAramiun and sired the minor branch

of the house.On August 6, ii87 Saladin (II74-II93) reconquered Beirut

from the Franks; and as the sultan approached the city young

IIa"i met him and bade him welcome at Halda 6. Saladin, pleased

by the gesture, summoned the young emir after he had taken the

city and said: "Behold! We have taken your revenge from theFranks, so let your heart be at peace!" Ha"i was then confirmed

in the chieftainship of the Oarb and received the iqtad of seven

villages there which the sultan recognized as "his property and

inheritance from his father and grandfather"6.

Little is known about the subsequent career of Hagg1, and no

i. The date of Karama's death is not known: neither is the date of the

murder of his three sons and the destruction of Sarhammfir by the Franks(see text). The latter event is said to have taken place towards the end of

the reign of Nuir al-din, but probably before II70. See SALIH B. YAHYA,

op. cit., pp. 50-52, and below, fn. 36.2. Ibid., PP. 50-51. IBN HAJAR, al-durar al-kamina ft cayan al-mi'a at-

tamina (Hyderabad Deccan, I348-50 A.H.), p. 54. After the seigneury ofBeirut had been rejoined to the crown domain of Jerusalem it was assigned

as a fief for a time to the Byzantine prince Andronicus Comnenus. It waspossibly in the days of this Andronicus that the murder of the Buhturidprinces and the destruction of their fortress took place. See R. GROUSSET,

Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jirusalem (Paris, I934-36),II, p. 85I.

3. $ALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 52. The manRlr, granting the child HaI[athe village of 6abca, is dated Ramadan 30, 565 h. (June I7, II70). The

likelihood is that the grant was subsequent to the murder of Haggi's brothers

and the destruction of Sarhammfir.

4. Ibid., p. 54.5. Halda (Haldeh) is a village in the neighbourhood of Beirut, to the south.

6. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., PP. 5I-52. Saladin's manfilr was issued in

Beirut in (umada I, 583 h. (II87 A.D.).



84 K. S. SALIBI [II]

record of the date of his death is to be found 1. The Franks retookBeirut in II97; and the reestablishedfief was assignedto the house

of Ibelin, who exercised greater control over the hinterland thanthe Brisebarre. Hagi seems to have suffered at their hands. Onat least one occasion he complained of their harsh treatment to

al-Mucazzamof Damascus 2, Later, on October 3, I242, Iaggi'sson and successor, Nagm al-din Muhammad and another son,

Sarafal-din cAllwere killedin Kisrawan3, probablyin an encounterwith the Franks or with their native allies in the region 4.

It seems that during the 50 years that followed the death of

Saladinin II93 the Bubturids of the aarb were called upon to takesides in the Ayyiibid dynastic quarrels5. On Saladin's death hiseldest son, al-Afdal, succeeded him as sultan of Damascus. Three

years later he was overthrown by his uncle al-cAdil, and indem-

nified with the fortressof Sarhad,south of Damascus. From Sarhad

al-Afdal wrote to Ha"i granting him the iqta' of "the whole

aarb" and urgingthe emir to procurefor him an oath of allegiance

from his relations, the other emirs of the aarb. The unfortunateal-Afdal was obviously soliciting the assistance of the Buhturids

in a bid to regain his lost throne 6. Later Haggi's son, Nagm al-din

Muhammad, received a similar letter from al-alih Ayyulb of

Egypt (I240-I249). After commending the emir's obedience and

I. Haggi, however, was still alive in I222. In that year he received a

man?ir from al-Mu'azzam of Damascus (12I8-I227) recognizing the iqtCa

he had received from Saladin. See ibid., p. 53 (gives the sultan's namemistakenly as al-cAzlz).

2. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 53, quotes a letter from al-Mucazzam to

IjagI in which the sultan, apparently in answer to a complaint from Haggi,assures him that the Franks of Beirut have been asked to maintain him and his

followers in their old positions and not to cause them any trouble. The emir,

it seems, was unwilling to compromise with the Franks because "they had

previously killed his brothers and destroyed their fort, so perhaps he bore

a grudge against them." Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 55.4. See K. S. SALIBI, op. cit., Pp. 292-293.5. The various branches of the Ayyuibid dynasty (Saladin's successors)

ruled in Egypt until I250, and in Syria until I260.

6. SALIH B. YAHYYA,op. cit., PP. 52-53. Jean SAUVAGET, ,,Correctionsau texte

imprimd de l'histoire de Beyrouth de Salih b. Yahya", (VII-VIII, I937-38),

p. 69. Al-Afslal's letter, dated Rama4an 26, 593 h. (August I2, II97), is in

answer to a letter from Haggi to the sultan, the contents of which are not

known. Salih b. Yahyai was not conscious of the fact that in II97 al-Afdal

was no longer sultan of Damascus, and he merely considers the letter as a

document of investiture.



[I2] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB 85

good services and promising to confirmhis iqtd' and chieftainship

and to increase his stipend and that of his followers, the sultan

proceeds to say: "We are arriving in your country soon, by thewill of God,so let the emirand his followersbe preparedto meet us,

that our bounty may show on them and that they may receive the

best of ourhonoursand attentions" 1.SinceNagmal-dinMuhammad

was killed in I242, the letter must have been written before that

date. It was only in I245 that al-Sa1ihAyyuab ucceededin wresting

Damascus from his uncle, al-Salih Ismacil. Ayyiib, therefore, was

obviously trying to enlist the emirs of the (arb on his side in his

strugglefor Damascus,hencehis generouspromises.It is not knownwhether the Buhturids respondedto these appeals.

OnNagm al-dinMuhammad'sdeath the chieftainshipof the Garb

passed over to his two sons, (Tam5lal-din Haggi II (d. I298) and

Sa'd al-din Hidr (d. I3I4), who shared it with Zayn al-dminalih

(d. I296), a cousin of Haggi I. Those three emirs lived through

what was perhaps the most critical stage in the history of the

Buhturids.

During the second half of the thirteenth century the Islamic

worldwas in crisis.The Mamliuks,who had succeededthe Ayyulbids

as the masters of Egypt in I250, were striving to overthrow the

remnants of Ayyiubidpower in Syria. Earlier in the century the

Franks had taken advantage of the Ayyiubiddynastic quarrelsand

regainedmuch of their lost dominionon the Syrian coast, and they

were certain to come to blows one day with the renascent Moslempower in Egypt. In the Eastern lands of the Caliphatethe Mongols

had established the Ilhanate of Persia. They had sacked Bagdadin I258, and were threatening Syria. It was strongly suspected, and

with some reason, that the Mongolsand the Franks were acting in

concert against the world of Islam; and Syria was the obvious

scene of the oncoming struggle.

In circumstancesof such complexity the allegiance of the Buh-

turids of the Garb wavered. They could not stand uncommitted

and risk losing the good will of all sides. On the other hand, there

was greater risk in being committed exclusively to one side. The

obvious coursewas to have a foot in every camp and thus ingratiate

all the parties concerned. Therefore,while remaining on terms of

minimum friendship with the Franks of Beirut and Sidon, the

i. Ibid., pp.54-55. The year in which the letter was sent is not mentioned.



86 K. S. SALIBI [I3]

Buhturid emirs reassured the Ayyiibids of their allegiance, invitednegotiation with the Mamliuks,and were willing in principle to

come to terms with the Mongols should that become necessary.Indeed, documentshave beenpreserved n quotationwhich llustratethe masterly duplicity of the Buhturids. These consist of mana?ir

(deeds of investiture) addressed to them by al-Nasir Yuisufof Da-

mascus (I250-I260), Mu'izz al-din Aybak (first Mamluk sultan

of Egypt, I250-I257), Hulagu (founder of the Ilhanate of Persia,

d. I265), and the Frankish lords of Sidon and Beirut'.

The Buhturid game did not go unnoticed. Al-Ndsir Yiisuf of

Damascus had his suspicions; and in I255 he sent a punitiveexpedition against the garb which included regular troops fromDamascus as well as tribesmen from Ba'albak and the Biqa'.After advancing well into the region, the expedition met with

heavy defeat at the hands of the Buhturids at the village of 'Aytat 2.

The suspicion and ill-will of the Ayyiibid sultan seems to have

convinced 6amal al-din Ha"i II that a conciliatorytrip to Damas-

cus was in order. In I259 Hulagu led the first Mongolinvasion ofSyria, and the moment was opportune for such a visit. Ha"i II

probably intended to win back the favours of al-Nasir Yuisufby

lending him assistance in his hour of need; but by the time the

emir arrived in Damascus the city was already in the hands of

the Mongols. Therefore, IIa`1 II forthwith swore allegiance to

Ketbuga, the Mongol governor of Damascus, and procured from

him a deed of investiture 3. The news of the fall of Damascus to

the Mongols brought Hagi's cousin, Zayn al-din Slih, hurryingover to the court of Ketbuga to demonstrate Buhturid submission

further4.

The two emirs were still in Damascus when they heard that

Qutuz, the Mamliukultan (I259-I260), was advancing from Egyptto fight the Mongols. The news was truly alarming. With both

emirs in the Mongol camp, a Mamlilkvictory would spell disaster

I. Ibid., pp. 55 sqq. gives the texts of these and several other documents,with their dates.

2. SALIH B. YAHYA (op. cit., p. 64), writing about the event in the latefifteenth century, explains that it probably took place because "the Da-mascenes (Ayyiubids) believed that the emirs of the (;arb were on the sideof the Egyptians (Mamlfuks)".'Aytat, in the 4arb,is very near the modernsummer resort of cAlay.

3. Ibid., pp. 56-57.4. Ibid., p. 65.



[I4] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB 87

to the house of Buhtur. But before long a wise decision was taken:Hagi II and SMiih"held counsel together and agreed that [the

latter] would leave and join the Egyptian army while [the former]would stay with the Mongols n Damascus ... and the man on theside of the victors would intercede for his comrade and for thecountry. .. " 1

At the decisive battle of cAyn (4dlit, where the Mongols wererouted, $S1ih fought with the soldiers of Qutuz, and his brave

performancesaved the fortunes of his house. "He shot a strongbow; and the sultan's mamliiks admired his archery and began

offering him arrows from their own quivers. When, later on, heappeared before the sultan, who had heard of his connexion with

the Mongols, the sultan's mamlulks testified to [the courage he

had shown], and he was forgiven" 2.

The Mamliuk ictory at cAyncxilflt decided the allegiance of the

Buhturids for nearly three centuries; but the Mamluiks ontinuedto suspect this allegiance for many years. The Buhturid record of

duplicity was not easily forgotten, and the activities of the familywere closely watched during the remaining years of the thirteenth

century. Baybars (I260-I277), who succeeded Qutuz as sultan,confirmed the chieftainship of the Buhturids in the aarb, renewedtheir land grants, and enjoined them to assist the Mamlulk roops

fighting the Franks on the coast and to serve as informers3; but

the Franks of Beirut and Sidon remained their immediate neigh-

bours, and the Buhturids were probably unable to break off re-

lations with them completely. Petty dealings between the twoparties must have continued, at least in times of peace 4; and the

Abi l-Cayg emirs were prompt to fan the ever-present Mamluik

suspicionswith reports, true or fictitious, of such dealings.

i. Ibid. Free translation mine.2. Ibid. Free translation mine.3. Ibid., pp. 67-69.

4. The Bu.hturids were certainly not above suspicion of dealing with theFranks, although there is no indication that they did so under Baybars. In1256, before cAyn Caluit, the lord of Sidon gave Haggi II a plot of farmingland in Damuir, to the south of Beirut, probably in repayment for servicesrendered or in return for promises of future service (Ibid., pp. 57-58). In1280, after the death of Baybars, Humfroy de Monfort, the lord of Beirut(I264-1283), gave Salih a plot of land in al-cAmrfisiyya, near Swayfat, oncondition that the emir would "assist" him, that he would extradite anyoneescaping from Beirut to the (arb, and that he would keep the people ofhis territory from causing damage in the territory of Beirut (ibid., p. 80).




A few years after 'Ayn cidliit, between I268 and 1270, one of theAbi l-6ayg emirs forged a note addressedto the Count of Tripoli

in the names of the three Buhturid emirs, IHagi II, Hidr, and$alih, and so arranged it that the answer of the Count of Tripolireached Baybars 1. The three emirs were promptly arrested andput in prison, where they remaineduntil released by Baraka Han,

the son and successor of Baybars, in I278. Their imprisonment

appearsto have been a mere precaution, and it does not seem that

Baybars took the charges against them seriously. He neither

confiscated their property nor withdrew their iqta'; but, uncertain

of their loyalty, he was not willing to release them before makinghimself master of the Syrian coast 2.

Having once succeeded in their intrigues against their rivals,the Abui -xayg emirs plotted the downfall of the Buhturids on at

least two other occasions. In I283 Taqi al-din Naga b. Abii l-6aygforged further letters in the names of HagI II, Hidr, and Salih,

addressedthis time to the Franks of Sidon and Acre, and set out

to deliver those letters in person. The plot was discoveredand thethree emirs, apparently, came to no harm3. Later, in I288, they

were again accused of "having come into contact with the Franks"

when the soldiers of Qalawiun I279-I290) appeared before Sidon;

but this time also they were acquitted, and the testimony brought

against them was pronounceda false accusation 4.

The reign of Qaldwvun rought new difficulties to the house of

Buhtur: difficulties far more seriousthan the plots of the Abiu -6ays

emirs.The Mamliuks,reshly acquaintedwith the coastal borderlandof Lebanon, did not appreciate its special character; and it seems

that Qaldwiin decided to centralize the military administration

of the region and bring it to conformity with the military feudal

system as established elsewhere in Syria and Egypt. In southern

Lebanon the iq!d'had degenerated into quasi-hereditaryholding,

and the chieftainswho held iqtd' there had no fixed duties and were

not thoroughly dependable.Therefore n I288, some months beforehis conquest of Tripoli, the sultan confiscated the property and

i. Ibid., pp. 69-72. This is the Buhturid version of the story, and no otherversion is available. SALLIHB. YAHYA documents it, as usual, with selectionsfrom family papers.

2. Ibid., p. 70.

3. Ibid., PP. 72-73.

4. Ibid., PP. 73-74. SALIH B. YAHYA quotes the document of acquita).



[i6] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE OARB 89

iqta' of the mountain chieftains, including those of the Buhturids,

and transformed hem into areserve of land for the newly established

&alqaof Tripoli after its conquest in I289 2.The immediate successors of Qalawun reversed his policy in

southern Lebanon without altogether abandoning ts basic premise:the need for more centralization. Qalawiun's xperiment must havemade it obvious that the experienced peasant guerillas of theLebanese borderlandwere invaluable for its defence, and that they

could only be effectively led by their own traditional chieftains.As such, his successors realized that the permanent inclusion of

southern Lebanon in the Mamlilk system would be a mistake, andthat the needed measure of centralization could be brought aboutmore effectively by incorporating the local chieftains in the halqacorps, thus recognizing their traditional chieftainship in the region

while keeping them under the central control.

By I29I al-Asraf Halil (I290-I293), the son and successor of

Qalawin, had conquered what was left of the Frankish realm in

Syria, including Beirut and Sidon. The danger of collaborationbetween the chieftains of southern Lebanon and the Franks of thecoast was no more. The Buhturids, like other mountain chieftains,

were restored to their old positionsin I292 and reinvestedwith theirold iqtda3. Halil was followed by his brother, al-Nasir Muhammad

(I293-I294, I298-I308, I309-I340), who reconfirmedthe Buhturid

chieftainship in I2944. Despite appearances, however, a radical

change had taken place. The restored Buhturids were no longer

"Lebanese tribal chieftains" with "no fixed military duties exceptthe communication of intelligence regarding the activities of the

Crusaders".After I29I they were created "knights of the halqaor

emirs of specified grades, ordered to maintain mamliuk troops

correspondingto their rank, and made responsible for the watch

i. The gund al-halqa or a4ndd al-halqa were one of the three principal

corps of the Mamluk army. They were a corps of free non-mamluik cavalry,composed of those knights who were in the sultan's service without beinghis freedmen. See David AYALON, "Studies on the structure of the Mamlukarmy" (BSOAS, 1953), P. 203. Also A. N. POLIAK, Feudalism in Egypt,Syria, Palestine, and the Lebanon, 1250-I900 (London, 1939), P. 2.

2. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 77-78. IBN HAJAR, op. cit., II, PP. 55. A.N. POLIAK, op. cit., PP. 26-27.

3. $ALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 78.4. Ibid., pp. 78-80. Al-Nasir Muhammad gave the Buliturids back what

his elder brother had not restored to them of their old iq!dc.




of roads and shores in specified regions"1. The more influentialBuhturid ernirsreceived the humbler ones, including most of the

Abiu l-;ayg emirs, into their service as mamliuks .In I3I3 the Mamliiks tried again to reformnhe iqtd' system in

southern Lebanon as part of a general scheme for the reform of

feudal land tenure throughout the empire. Al-Nasir Muhammad

instituted a rawk (cadastre) for the redistributionof fiefs in Syria

(I3I3) and Egypt (I3I5) 3:

The sultans struggled to make the fief-holders more and more dependenton the central government. At the beginning of the Mamliik epoch we still

find the influence of the Latin and Ayyfibid feudal systems, which made thefief holders hereditary rulers of their respective regions. The means employedby the sultans to put an end to it was the rawk, i.e. redistribution of landsbetween the sultan and the feudatories .... A speedy cadastral survey

(ka?/ ae-bilad) was made; then the estates were divided into royal andfeudal; the feudal lands were redivided into the necessary number of fiefsof variousgrades,and the fiefsof eachgradewereredistributedby a drawingof lots among the knights and emirs of that grade .... The feudatoriesreceived now fiefs consistingof small portions dispersed n various places,where the lords .. . were strangers4.

The Syrian rawkof I3I3 affected the fortunes of the emirs of the

aarb, and the Buhturidsimmediatelyraisedobjections.Nasir al-din

al-Husayn (I269-I350), the son and successor of Sa'd al-din Hidrand the leading Buhturid emir of his day, hurried to the court of

the viceroy of Damascus and pleaded that he and his kinsmen

had no use for the remote fiefs assigned to them by the rawk.The Buhturids, he stressed, were "diligent in the service of our lord

the sultan", and the greater part of their iqtd' was legal privatepropertyhonouredby the ?arf(a 5. The cadastralsurvey had shown

beyond doubt that the Buhturids had saved much trouble and

expense to the state by calling on their own men in the (>arbto

assist them in guardingthe harbour of Beirut. "Shouldthis propertybe included in the rawk",he concluded, "your slaves shall perish,for it is their home and that of their men and clan, and they can

benefit of no other property"6.

I. A. N. POLIAK, Op. cit., Pp. 26-27. See also SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit.,

PP. 42-43, 90-9I.2. See Ibid., pp. 96-97.3. A. N. POLIAK, op. cit., p. 24. A previous rawk, the first in the series,

was held during the reign of Husam al-din Ldin in 1298.

4. Ibid., pp. 23-25.

5. A general term used in Arabic to include Islamic law.6. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., Pp. 91-92.



[I8] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE GARB 9I

The Mamlilkauthorities reconsideredthe case of the Buhturid

iq.ta-, and the old fiefs of the family were restored. By so doing the

Mamlilks formalized the hereditary system of feudal land tenurewhich had become traditional in southern Lebanon, and which was

maintained throughout Mamlilkand Ottoman times.

Nasiral-din al-Husayn,whose fluent pleadingsaved the Buhturid

iqtad n I3I3, was the first in a line of Lebanese emirs whose alert-

ness, capacity, and keen insight into the politics of their day won

for Mount Lebanon the special status it enjoyed under Mamluiks

and Ottomans. He was, besides, the first Lebanese emir to attractthe attention of the traditional Arabic biographers1.

Husayn was born on Muharram 2, 668 h. (September2I, I269).

His father, who lost interest in his chieftainship of the clan when

Qaldwiinconfiscated the Buhturid iqta' in i288, retired soon after,

leaving the complex problems of the family to his son. When al-

Agraf Halil restored the Buhturid iqtac in i292, IJusayn received

back his father's share and was created emir of three in the halqa

corps 2. A distant cousin, iams al-din Karama b. Buhtur 3, was

created emir of ten; and when this Karama died in I307, his iqtdaand rank went to Husayn. In I3I4, when the rawkin the Garbwas

revoked, IHusaynwas created emirof twenty 4 without any increase

in his iqtdC.Accordingly, he became by far the most prominent

of the emirsof the Garb.

Husayn's rank in the halqa was a modest one, and the local

prestigehe enjoyedwas far above his officialposition. Like the lateremirs of MountLebanon,he loved pomp, and he built two sizeable

mansions: one on the sea front in Beirut and the other in the

mountain village of 'Abay. His court attracted minor poets who

sang his praisesin verse of inferiorquality. HJusayn imself did not

lack literary taste and, apart from writing some verse, he was fond

of books and collected a small library.In I305 Nasir al-din al-Husayn was invited to join the Mamlulk

punitive expedition against the Oird and Kisrawan. Earlier in the

I. IBN HAJAR (OP. it., II, pp. 54-55) gives him a short biographical notice,with some reference to the history of the family. For his full biography, onwhich this account is based, see SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., pp. 87-I38 passim.

2. This is a very low grade of emir in the halqa. The highest was thatof emir of ioo, followed by that of emir of 40 (amlr tablahZina).

3. A grandson of Zayn al-din Salh (see genealogical table).4. He actually commanded 22 knights.



92 K. S. SALIBI [19]

had rebelled against Mamliuk ule 1. Husayn joined the expeditionalong with other members of his family, and two of his cousins died

in the fighting 2, Once the rebels in the two districts were subdued,the Mamluiksettled a Turkomanclanin the coastal hills of Kisrawanto supervise the region and to cooperate with the Buhturids inguarding the roads and harbours .

The permanent duties of the Buhturids and the Turkomans ofKisrawan were fixed in I306. The former were to guard the harbourof Beirut, to notify Damascus in case of naval raids from Cyprusor elsewhere,and to assist the Mamliikarmyin repellingsuch raids.

Monthly relays of halqa troops from Ba'albak 4 worked in closeassociation with the Buhturids and kept them under supervision.

Beirut and Damascus were linked by pigeon relay and barfd(post

horse relay) for ordinary communication. In cases of dangeralarms

were sent across the mountains to Damascus by night in a six-stage

fire relay; and a marine watch-tower (manzariyya)was set up in

Beirut to keep constant watch over the sea. All communication

with Damascus went through the mutawallf (district governor) ofBeirut, who was normallya Mamliuk. The Turkomansof Kisrawanwere instructed to guardthe pass of Nahr al-Kalb 6, and no one was

allowed pass there without a special permit from the Buhturid

emirs or the mutawalli of Beirut. They were also enjoined to guardthe coastal road and the minor harbours of the region 7.

Nasir al-din al-Husayn took his duties as an officer of the halqavery seriously, as did his descendants and successors after him.

The Druze peasant warriorsthey commanded were among the best

I. See K. S. SALIBI, Op. cit., pp. 297-300. The Gird (east of the (O;arb)andKisrawan (north-east of Beirut) are two districts in Mount Lebanon.

2. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., pp. ioo-ioi. The two cousins were Muhammadand Ahmad, sons of Haggi II. The death of those two emirs must haveenhanced Husayn's claim to the undisputed leadership of his clan.

3. In Ottoman times the Turkomans of Kisrawan came to be known asBanui cAssaf. Sfilih b. Yahya referred to them occasionally as Awlad al-acmd

(sons of the blind man).4. Bacalbak, under the Mamluks, was the principal town in the northern

march of the mamlaka (province) of Damascus. The wildyat (administrativedistricts) of the northern Biqac, the southern Biqac, Beirut, and Sidon weresubordinate to it. See M. GAUDEFROY-DESMOMBYNES, La Syrie d I'Fpoqu

des Mamelouks d'aprns les auteurs arabes (Paris, I923), PP. 70-75.

5. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., PP. 40-43.

6. A river not far north of Beirut. The coastal road narrows down to amere pass at the mouth of that river because of the high cliffs.

7. $ALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 42.



[20] THE BU HTURIDS OF THE GARB 93

year the Druzes, Nusayris, Rd/ida, and Maronitesof those districtsarchers of their day, and they summoned them to the service of the

state on several occasions 1. During the lifetime of Husayn severalCypriot and Genoese naval raids on Beirut were effectively repulsed;and in I343 the emir led Druze guerillas from the Girdto join an

expedition against al-Karak, in Transjordan, which was intended

to settle a succession problem between two sons of al-Nasir Muham-mad2.

Nasir al-din al-Husayn retired from service in I348, at an ad-vanced age, leaving his chieftainship and iqtdc to his son, Zayn

al-din dlihhI (d. I377) 3. The greater part of his career had fallenduring the long third reign of al-Nasir Muhammad: perhaps themost peaceful and prosperous period in Mamlulkhistory. None ofthe later Buhturid emirs enjoyed that advantage. The death of

al-Nasir Muhammadin I340 was followed by a series of thirteen

brief reigns when his sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons (all

of whom were young or otherwise incompetent) followed each

other to the throne in rapid succession. In the meantime, realpower fell to the leading Mamlulkemirs, and the period saw the

rising influence of the Circassian(orBurgs)Mamliuks.One of those,the emir Barqulq I382-I389, I390-I399), seized the throne in I382,

and his accession ushered in the second Mamlilkperiod (the Burg,period)4 in which the principle of hereditary succession to the

sultanate was almost entirely abandoned. Accession to the thronecame to be determined by strife between rival Mamlilk factions,

and the Mamlulk tate gradually broke down until it fell to theOttomansin I5I7. In general,the periodwas one of chronicpolitical

unrest, administrativeirregularityand corruption,and an economic

and fiscal breakdownending in collapse. Under the circumstances

the Buhturids of the OWarbere forced again to resort to devious

means for the maintenanceof their position in the face of suspicionand intrigue, and to take sides in endless quarrels between rival

claimants to the throne of Cairo and rival governorsin the Syrianprovinces.

I. SALIH B. YAHYA, mentions many such occasions often with details.One such occasion was when the author himself joined a naval expeditionto Cyprus (see ibid., Pp. 22I sqq.).

2. Ibid., pp. 105 sqq.3. Ibid., p. i66. For the biography of Salih II see ibid., pp. I66-175 passim.4. For a survey of the Burgl period see Stanley LANE-POOLE, A history

of Egypt in the Middle Ages (London, I936), PP. 323-357.



94 K. S. SALIBI [2I]

It appearsthat Zayn al-din Slihh was the last Buhturid emir to

enjoy a recognized preeminence among his kinsmen. In I373,

four years before his death, he turned his iqtad over to two of hissons, Sihab al-din Ahmad (I33I-138I) 1 and Sayf al-din Yahya(d. I388) 2, who enjoyed some preeminence jointly. No distinctleadershipcan be determinedamong the later emirs, although some

enjoyed more prestige than others. 'Izz al-din Sadaqa (d. I444), agrandson of gihdb al-din Ahmad, did succeed in enjoying special

note, but it appears that he did so more by virtue of having been

appointed mutawalli of the Beirut wilaya 3 than through regional

chieftainship4.

Despite this lack of outstanding leadership,however, the Buhtu-

rids, as a family, did maintain an ascendancy in the feudal structure

of southern Lebanon during the remaining years of the Mamlik

period: an ascendancythat was challengedby other rising families.

The Abi l-Cays, principal rivals of the Buhturids before I3I3,

lost much of their old positions after that year but continued to

intrigue against Husayn and his successors, although many of themhad entered the service of those emirs as halqa troops (gund) .

Later on, apparently before the end of the fourteenth century,

the Buhturids attacked and destroyed the homes of the Abil

l-6ays, killed off all the members of the family and took over their

iqtd'6. In the meantime other rivals were appearing.

A few years after the death of Nasir al-din al-Husayn the Turko-

mans of Kisrawanbeganto competewith the Buhturidsfor Mamllk

favours. In I36I one of the Turkoman emirs took over the iq(dCof a Buhturid emir for a very short while. Later, in I366, the

Turkomansmade the first major attempt to replace the Buhturids

in the control of the Oarb. In the previous year the Franks of

Cyprushad carriedout a major naval raid on Alexandria. In res-

ponse, the ndaibof Damascus was sent to Beirut to arrangefor a

number of ships to be built for a counter-raidon Cyprus, and to

I. SALIH B. YAHYYA, op. cit., Pp. I77-I78.

2. Ibid., p. I79-I84. Also IBN SIBAT, MS Tarih, PP. 3IO-312.

3. See above, fn. 76.4. IBN SIBAT, op. cit., PP. 343-345; SALIH B. YAHYYA, p. cit., pp. I87, 226.

IBN SIBAT says that Sadaqa "had precedence over all the emirs ... and

governed [the region] from the frontier of Tripoli to the frontier of Safad,both on the coast and in the mountains" (that being the wilaya of Beirut).

5. See above.6. SALIH B. YAHYYA, op. cit., Pp. 99, I85, I89, I90, 200.




reinforces the defence of Beirut. The Buhturids,apparently, showedsome slackness at the time in performing their duties and did not

impress the nd'ib of Damascus with their work. The Turkomans,therefore, stepped in to offer their services. They offered to supplya thousand troops for the projected counter-raidin return for the

iqta' of the Buhturid emirs. Deeds for that iqtd' were soon procured

from Egypt for the Turkomans;and Zayn al-din Salih II, then theleading emir of the Oarb, had to send his son Yahya and anotherkinsman to Cairo to solicit the annulment of those deeds 1.

The rivalry between the Buhturids and the Turkomans of Kis-

rawan became most embittered in I389-I390, at a time when twoserious seditions were shaking the Mamlilk state. In I389 Ilbugaal-Nasirl, the nd'ib of Aleppo, and TimurbugaMintas, the nd'ib ofMalatiya 2, rebelled against Barquq, defeated him in battle, and

restored al-MansurHa"! (a great-grandsonof al-Nasir Muhammad)

to the throne. Barqulqwas imprisoned in al-Karak, whence he

escapedin I390 to lead a counter-rebellionand winback his throne.

In the meantime, Ilbuga and Timurbuga had quarrelled, and thelatter had defeated and imprisoned his former ally and become,virtually, the sole ruler of the Mamliukempire.

During the first rebellion Ilbuga had won the Turkomans ofKisrawanover to his side, while the Buhturidshad remainedfaithful

to Barqiiq. After the downfall of Ilbuga the Turkomanscontinued

to support Timurbuga, even after the escape of Barquiqfrom al-

Karak. The Buhturids, on the other hand, rallied around Barqulq

and joined him in the siege of Timurbugain Damascus, providinghim also with mangonel stones and carpentersfrom Beirut to helpwith the siege works. The undecisive defeat of Barquiqn a prelimi-

nary encounter caused some panic among his auxiliary troops,and the Buhturids, along with others, took to flight. When theyarrived back in Beirut, they were dealt a heavy defeat by the

Turkomans of Kisrawan and the other supporters of Timurbuga.

I. Ibid., p. i68. The Bu.hturid emirs, in Egypt, procured the help of thekdtib al-sisr (secretary of state, who pleaded their case on the grounds thatit would not be seemly to take away from those emirs the fiefs with whichthey had been endowed by the great sultans of old, even though they maynot be deemed personally worthy of such fiefs.

2. Malatiya was a province in the mamlaka of Aleppo, and thenorthernmost province of the Mamluik empire. Although not an independent

mamlaka, its remoteness encouraged some of its governors to act indepen-dently. (A mamlaka was a major administrative division of the Mamlukempire).



96 K. S. SALIBI [23]

Ninety of their men were killed, and their homes and propertyin Beirut were looted. Soon afterwards, on hearing the news of

Barqiiq's final victory and his triumphant return to Cairo, aBuhturid delegation followedhim there to reap the reward of theirservices; and while they were away the Turkomans attacked and

looted the villages of the aarb and killed forty more of their men.

Barqiiq, later on, avenged the Buhturids by sending a special

punitive expedition against the Turkomans, but he was loth to

destroy them altogether, possibly for fear of leaving the Buhturids

too strong in the region 1.

The Banil al-Hamra, semi-bedouin fief-holders in the Biqa' 2

were another source of serious trouble to the emirs of the Garb

in the second Mamlilkperiod. It is said that membersof that clan

werealready settled in Ras Beirut towardsthe middleof the twelfth

century 3; and it is likely that the Abiu -6ayg were a branch of the

Hamra4. TowardsI366 Banuial-Hamrawere already causing some

annoyance to Zayn al-din Salih II by the forcible seizure of some

properties which he had established as waql for a newly builtcaravanseraion the Beirut-Damascushighway 6. During the early

years of the fifteenth century the Hamrdwere already well estab-

lished in Beirut. They bought property at the eastern city wall

fromthe Buhturids, and they also established a madrasa . Withina

few years they werein a position to challengeBuhturidleadership n

the city; andin I425 Amir Ha", one of the Hamia chieftains,raided

the house of 'Izz al-din Sadaqa (thenthe mutawallz f Beirut), killed

a number of his men, and barely missed killing the emir himself 7.

Fortunately for the Buhturids Amir Hagg was himself slain soon

after by 'Ali b. al-Hanag,a rival chieftain in the Biqa' 8; and with

his death the Hamra ceased to be of any consequence in Beirut.

I. SALIHB. YAHYA,Op.Cit., PP. I95-I98. IBN SIBAT,OP.Cit.,PP. 3I6-3I8.

2. A. N. POLIAK,Op. Cit., PP. I2-I3.

3. TannuisAL-SIDYAK,Op. Cit., p. I55, mentions a quarrelbetween theTalhuiq and the Hamra in Ras Beirut (the hilly region to the west of the

town) in II44. I have not been able to ascertain the facts.4. See above, p. ooo.S. SALIHB. YAH.YA,OP.Cit., PP. i68-i69.6. SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., pp. iio-iii. The property they bought is on

the site of the modern Serail mosque, built on the ruins of the fourth centurychurch of the Saviour, which had been taken over by the Buhturids afterthe Mamluk conquest of Beirut and turned into stables and troop quarters.

7. Ibid., p. 226. IBN SIBAT,op. Cit., pp. 343-344.8. SALIHB. YAHYA, IcC. Cit. IBN SIBAT, op. cit., p. 344. Amir Hagg's

brother, Abu Bakr Ibn al-Hamra, had also been killed shortly before. See



[24] THE BUHTURIDS OF THE OARB 97

The Buhturids, as a family, maintained their position of leader-ship in Beirut and the Oarbduring the remaining years of the Mam-1lukperiod; and they continued to play an important role in the

affairs of the region during the first century of Ottoman rule,when they allied themselves with the Ma'nids. It is not possiblehere to trace the downfall and final extinction 1 of the Buhturids,which belong to another chapter in the history of Lebanon-thatof the rise of the Ma'nidsto power. But it is essential to note thatthe Buhturidswere the forerunnersof the Macnidsand that withoutthem the history of Lebanon under the Ottomans might well have

taken an entirely different direction.During the four centuries that preceded the Ottoman conquest

of Syria the Buhturids succeeded in maintaining, in an importantregion of southern Lebanon, a considerable measure of local rulethat made it essentially different from other regions in Syria.By opposing Mamlilk attempts at centralization, they preservedin southern Lebanon a hereditary feudal system that was to serve

later as the basis of Lebanese autonomy under the Ottomans.

ibid., and SALIH B. YAHYA, op. cit., p. 225. With the death of their leaders,the Hamra seem to have dwindled rapidly into unimportance. It is worthnoting that their raid on Sadaqa's house in I425 was not their first attempton the life of the Buh. urid emir.

i. The Buhturids were massacred by their kinsmen, the cAlam al-din orRamtuini emirs, in I633; and with this massacre the Buliturid line becameextinct. See TannUs AL-SIDYAQ, op. cit., p. 247.

the buḥturids of the garb. mediaeval lords of beirut and of southern lebanon

Documents