Memlükler Dönemi (648-923/1250-1517) Tarih ve Tabakât Eserlerine Dair
Fatih Yahya AyazMoğol istilası ile beraber yaşadıkları coğrafyaları terk etmek zorunda kalan ulemanın Mısır ve Şam bölgelerini kendilerine melce olarak belirlemeleri, özellikle de sultan ve devlet adamlarının teşvikleri gibi etkenler Memlükler’in hüküm sürdükleri topraklarda kültürel bakımdan zengin bir muhitin ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Böylece Memlükler döneminde farklı alanlarda birçok âlim yetişmiş ve çok sayıda eser kaleme alınmıştır. Bilhassa tarih alanında mebzul miktarda tarihçi ve biyografi âliminin yetişmesi ve bu kişilerin hacimli eserler yazması bu dönemin İslâm tarihçiliğinin altın çağı olarak addedilmesini sağlamıştır. Bu eserlerde aynı zamanda Osmanlı ve civardaki birçok devletin tarihleriyle ilgili önemli bilgilerle önde gelen şahsiyetlerin hayatları hakkında bilgi ve ayrıntıları bulmak da mümkündür. Tespit edebildiğimiz kadarıyla ülkemizde bağımsız olarak Memlük tarihçilerini ve biyografi eserlerini ele alan bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu bakımdan böyle bir çalışma yapılması zaruri bir durum halini almıştır. Çalışmamızda giriş kısmının ardından Memlük tarihçilerinin önde gelenleri ve eserleri Bahrî ve Burcî şeklinde iki temel devreye ayrılarak tanıtılmıştır. Çalışmamız, Memlük tarihçiliği ve tarihçilerinin tasvirinin yapıldığı bir genel çalışma olmaktan çok bu alanda uzun yıllar çalışmış bir ilim adamının tecrübelerini yansıtma amacındadır. Diğer bir deyişle bu çalışmada, bir Memlük tarihçisinin meselelere yaklaşım biçimi, tarafgirliği veya tarafsızlığı, eserinde karşılaşılabilecek sorunlar veya o eserin nasıl kullanılması gerektiği gibi konular mümkün mertebe örneklendirerek izah edilmiştir.
On the Chronicles and Biographical Works (Tabaqat) of Mamluk Times (648-923/1250-1517)
Fatih Yahya AyazFactors such as the fact that the ulema (scholars), who had to leave their regions upon the Mongol invasion and take the Regions of Egypt and Damascus as a shelter for themselves, especially the incentives of sultans and statesmen, enabled a culturally rich neighborhood in the land dominated by Mamluks. Thus, many scholars existed in different fields during the Mamluks period and many works were written. In particular, the existence of many historians and biography writers in the field of history and the writing of voluminous works, caused this period to be considered the golden age of Islamic Historiography. In these works, it is also possible to find important information about the history of the Ottomans and many surrounding states, and information and details about the lives of leading figures. As far as we can identify, there is no separate work in our country that studies Mamluk historians and biographies. In this respect, such a study has become a necessity. After the introduction of our study, the leading historians of the Mamluk and their works were introduced in two basic periods as Bahrî and Burcî. Our study aims to reflect the experiences of a scholar who worked in this field for many years, rather than a general study depicting Mamluk historiography and historians. In other words, in this study, subjects such as the way a Mamluk historian approaches matters, his/her partiality or impartiality, problems that may be encountered in his/her work, or how that work should be used are explained with examples as far as possible.
The assessment of the historians and biography authors in the period of the Mamluks should be made by considering the political, military, economic, social and scientific developments during the period, from the establishment of this state to its collapse. For example, in history works, which were written during the founding years of the Mamluks, the major theme is the struggles against the Crusaders and the Mongols. In the following years, the historians focus especially on the interior developments during al-Melikü-n-Nasir Muhammed b. Kalavun (first reign: 693-694/1293-1294, second reign: 698-709/1299-1309, third reign: 709-741/1309-1341). In the late 8th (14th) century and early 9th (15th) century, the historians focused on Timur (771-807/1370-1405), and especially towards the end of the Burji/Circassian Mamluke period (784-923 / 1382-1517), the focus was on the new rival and the hostile Ottomans. Likewise, due to the increasing economic problems in the last period of the state and the riots caused by the Mamluk groups, economic and social issues were discussed more. On the other hand, the social classes to which historians belong to affect both the content of the historical works and the way they address the events. For example, historians from the military class concentrate more on political events and give more information about the military class that holds the power. Also, the biographies of the people belonging to this class are relatively intense compared to other individuals in the biography sections of their work. The historians from the Ulema class, although there are exceptions, address to social and scientific/cultural developments more, and also devote a large part for the biographies of scholars in the biography sections. The geographical regions where the historians live also affect the content of their works. For example, historians who live in the Damascus region (Syria/Bilad-i Damascus) generally concentrate on the biographies and prefer Damascus-based narrative in political developments. Egyptian historians, on the other hand, address the events more than the biographies, and they focus on the developments taking place in Cairo, the capital city. Therefore, Mameluke historiography has several differences based on the period, place, and social class of the historians and their position in the state.
First of all, it is necessary to point out some possible reasons for writing so many historical works during the Mamluks period. The patronage provided by the sultans and statesmen to the historians and their encouragement should be mentioned first. As a matter of fact, Sultan Baybars adopted Ibn Sheddad and Ibn Abduzzahir among his relatives and took them to some of his campaigns. For example, Ibn Abduzzahir was with Baybars during his Kayseri campaign. Ibn Abduzzâhir’s booklet in makâma-style on the Kayseri campaign is quite detailed and requires special study. Also, it is a primary source in terms of determining the characteristics of the Turkish Seljuks, such as their various customs, and clothing. The statesmen of this period not only encouraged and provided patronage to the historians, but some of them also wrote historical works such as Baybars el-Mansuri and Ebu'l-Fida al-Meliku'l-Mueyyed. Also, it is determined that the leading Mameluke sultans transferred their knowledge and observations to the historians of the period. As a matter of fact, it is determined that many Mameluke sultans were among the important sources of historians such as Yunini, Nuveyri, Ibnu'd-Devadari, Makrizi, Ayni, and Ibn Tagriberdi.
The works of the children of the Mameluke sultans, which were the class of "evladunnas", also played an important role in the spread of historiography. It could be said that the members of this group, who were regarded as a reserve force and not generally appointed to important positions, tried to stand out with what they wrote in the field of history. We compare this situation with the fact that the non-Arab class, which was generally in the second order in the Umayyads (41-132/661-750) period, came to the fore in the field of science. Among the leading historians of the Mamluks period, the authors such as Ibnu'd-Devadari, Ibn Dokmak, Ibn Tagriberdi, Abdulbasit el-Malati, and Ibn Iyas tried to maintain the role of their fathers or grandfathers in the field of history. Substantially, the criticism of these historians for the historians came to the fore in the religious sciences such as Makrizi, Ibn Hacer, Sehavi, or Hatib el-Cevheri from the public class, and the criticisms of historians from the ulema class for them took place on the ground of knowledge or ignorance about the Mameluke State politics and Mameluke system. In particular, the criticisms of IbnTagriberdi on this group in terms of the Mameluke system and their knowledge of Turkish language, the statements of him and Abdulbatit al-Malati, which glorified the Bahri/Turkish Mamluks period, and severe criticism of Sehavi and Hatib al-Cevheri's on their close relations with the statesmen of the "evladunnas" class can be given as examples. It should be noted that the criticisms of Sehavi and Hatib al-Cevheri also provided very valuable information in terms of determining the understanding of the patronage of scholars in this period.
Finally, we would like to propound some of our opinions about how historical works written during the Mamluks should be used. First of all, we should present our objections to the view that the Mameluke historiography is a repetition of each other and that there are several fundamental works. In our opinion, some minor details are scientifically vital in illuminating many historical events. For example, Makrizi, who lived about a century after the establishment period of the Mamluks period, points out many details in his works, which he wrote with the help of historians who had witnessed that period and also he connected events that were reported to be independent of each other in previous history books. Also, the widest information about the biography of Baybars al-Mansuri is included in the works of Makrizi, not Safedi or Kutubi. Being from the same period as Makrizi, Ibn Kadi Suhbe conveys some of the events, which are comprehensively conveyed by Makrizi, in a short form but with important remarks. For example, while Makrizi mentions general statements about the peace that was tried to be established by the Crusader states for a long time after the known Alexandria raid, Ibn Kadi Suhbe reports that Cyprus is also among the parties to the accord and provides explanatory information, stating that the term of the accord is twenty years. Ibn Tagriberdi, who was the student of Makrizi, quotes many events from the works of his teacher during his life, however, he provides important remarks and corrections by intervening with his famous “kultu”s. Ed-Delilu's-safi, which is a summary of the twelve-volume al-Menhel, is one of the two biographical works of Ibn Tagriberdi, and it can be given as an example of this situation in that it contains additional biographies and the death dates of some sultans not included inthe first work. Therefore, the historical works that appear to be repetitions of each other, play an important role in clarifying the events with the details they provide, although they are little.
