By Butrus Abu-Manneh, Haifa
The Georgians are scarcely remembered in Jerusalem in recent times, yet they
had once occupied an important place among the Christian communkies in the Ho¬
ly City next perhaps to the Greeks.
Their presence appears to have started in the early centuries of the Christian
era, a httle after they had been converted to Orthodox Christianity about the
beginning of the fourth century '. Their main residence for a long rime was the
"Monastery of the Holy Cross" (Dayr al-Musallaba) buUt about two km. to the
south west of the old city of Jerusalem, on the site where it was beheved the wood
of the Cross was cut^ .
Already from the early phase of the Mamluk sultanate the Georgian presence in
Jerusalem figured considerably in Mamlük-Georgian relations. Since the Mongol
invasion in the eady 1240's the Georgian kingdom feh under their tutelage and
observed allegiance to the Il-Khans of Persia'. Georgian units fought on the side of
the Mongols against the Mamluks in Syria". Subsequently the Georgian presence in
Jerusalem was brought to an end. According to Ibn al-Wasiti, Sultan Baybars sus¬
pected the monks of the monastery of passing informafion to the Mongols about
the Mamlüks which they heard, it was claimed, from Coptic pilgrims to Jemsalem.
Thus Baybars executed the spies and ordered the turning of the monastery of the
Holy Cross to a mosque' .
But after the Mongol danger receded. Sultan an-Näsir Muhammad b. Qaläwün
(1293-1341) responded favourably, though after long negotiations, to the re¬
quest of a Georgian embassy, accompanied according to Maqrizi by delegates of
the Byzantine Emperor*, and ordered the restoration of the Monastery to the
* I wish to thank Father Christodholos of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem for his help in finding the source material for this paper.
My thanks are due also for the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung whose financial help made my stay in W. Germany and my participation in the Congress possible.
1 Dowling, The Georgian Church in Jerusalem, in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly State¬
ment, 43 (1911), 181-187, see 181 f.
2 This monastery seems to have been founded by King Tatian in the fifth century; I'ftW. , 183 f.
3 Ibn Fadl Alläh al-'^Umari, al-Ta'^rtf bi-l-mustalah al-sharif, Cairo 1312/1894, 53 f.
4 P.M. Holt et al. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Islam I, Cambridge 1970, 212.
5 GhäzT Ibn al-WasitT, al-Radd <=alä al-Dhimmiyym, in JAOS, 21 (1921), 411-12.
6 See MaqrTzT, K. al-Sulük (ed. by M.M. Ziyadeh), Cairo 1941, II, 17 and n. 2 of the editor.
See also Ibn Fadl Alläh al-1lmarT, op.cit., 54. According to D.M. Lang, Georgia in the Reign of Giorgi the Brilliant (1314-1346), mBSOAS, XVII (1955), 74-91, it was king Wakhtang III of Georgia who sent the embassy; see 79.
Georgians'' (1305). This act was enforced against the wishes of local '^ulama^ and other dignitaries. Ibn Fadlahali al-'^Umari (d. 1349), who visited Jerusalem a httle after that, recorded their resentment* .
Indeed, from that date till the end of the Mamlük period the attitude of the
sultans towards the Georgian monastic community was friendly, especially in the
later period. On the other hand the '^ulama^ and the dignharies of Jerusalem
continued throughout the Mamlük period to regard this attitude with much un¬
happiness and seem to have wanted to treat the Georgian monks strictly according
to the shan a. or even to molest them whenever they found the opportunity. Not
whling to understand the consideration of their rulers, this attitude of the '^ulama'^
and süfi shaykhs of Jerusalem towards the Georgians was a subject of continued
complaints submhted by the latter to the sultans in Cairo.
We learn this from many edicts issued by various sultans throughout the Mam¬
lük period, and from some letters 'sent by these sultans to the Georgian kings in
answer for correspondence sent by these kings.
I have discovered recently in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem 18
such edicts and letters concerning the Georgian monastic community m the Holy
City, which had been preserved for a long rime in the monastery of the Holy Cross
and apparently were transferred to the Patriarchate after the Monastery passed into the hands of the Greeks.
Three of these documents are letters sent by the Mamlük sultans Jaqmaq in
844/1444, Inä in 857/1453 and Qansawh al-Ghawri in 910/1504.
The other fifteen are edicts handed to the monks in Jemsalem, of these:
1 edict issued by al-Näsir himself iji 1330.
1 edict issued by al-Muzaffar H^ji . 4 edicts issued by Barsbäy.
2 edicts issued by Jaqmaq.
3 edicts issued by Qä^it Bäy.
1 edict issued by Qänsawh al-Ghawri.
3 others yet undeciphered.
The first of al-Näsir Muhammad states that Georgian monks came from their
country and complained of obstmction and irritation by the inhabitants of Jemsa¬
lem, contrary to the exalted edicts in their hands. The sultan orders the governor of Jemsalem' {al-majlis as-sämi al-amiri) to have them treated with consideration {bi-r-
rfäya) and to comply with the exalted decrees without deviating from them.
7 Qalqashandi, Subh, VIII, 28; Ibn Fadl Allah, op.cit., 54 who recorded the aet, added that
"it was not done in vain (wa-in lam yu'^mal sudan)." Maqrizi writes that in the letter of the Georgian king it was promised that "the Georgians will be obedient to the (Mamluk) sultan and will come to his help when he needs them (wa-anna l-kurja takünu fl ta'^ati s-sultdni wa-'^awnan lahu mattä htäja ilayhim)". On the negotiations for the restoration of the monas¬
tery see references in Lang, op.cit. 79 n. 2.
8 See his Masälik al-Absar fl Mamälik al-Amsär, I (ed. by Ahmad Zaki), Cairo 1924, 339:
"wa-ra-'aytu '^inda l-häfizi l-'^allämati Abi Sa'^id al-'^Alä-'i wa-'^inda sä-^ri W^ulamä^i wa-s- sulahä^i bi-bilädi l-Qudsi min i'^ädatihi ilä n-nasära mä huwa qadhä "uyünihim ilä an yatä- khallä wa-shajä hulüqihim ilä an yustaradda. " - See also Qalqashandi, op.cit., 28.
9 "wa-marsümunä lahü an nataqaddama bi-l-wasTyati bi-him wa-mu'^ämalatihim bi-r-ri'^äyati wa-hamlihim '^alä hukmi l-maräsimi sh-sharifati llati bi-aydihim. "
But the complaints of ill-treatment continued. Seventeen years after the edict of al-
Näsir, his son al-Muzaffar Häjji issued another edict enlarging on the previous one
and hinting to the reasons behind the benevolent attitude of his father towards
the Georgians. He stated first of ah that they are under his protection "awa«", and especiahy "that their king had performed some services to our distinguished prede¬
cessor"'", and moreover "no one of them is accused of disloyalty"" . Following
that, he exhorts the people of Jerusalem to treat them and their pilgrims well, not
to molest them or to encroach upon their endowments or to harm them. He ends
by an order to let them rebuild what was destroyed in time of their monastery
according to the original structure under the supervision of the Qädi.
The other edicts, including the three undeciphered ones, as well as the three
letters, all belong to the Circassian period. Indeed it could not be an accident that
so many documents were found of the later period of the Mamluk Sultanate as
against two of the early period. It perhaps suggests the existence of closer relations
between tiie two governments during this period and subsequentiy a growing
favour for the Georgian monastic community in Jerusalem at the Mamluk court.
indeed the analysis of these documents indicates two developments: first that
the Georgian monks (and also pilgrims) enjoyed at that time wide privileges and
immunities, perhaps more than the sharf^a would have allowed for non-Muslims;
and secondly they whness to the expansion of their property and of the number
of shrines under their control.
No edict among the documents found belongs to the times of sultan Barqüq,
the first of the Circassian line. However his period is regarded as one to which later
sultans referred. Thus when the governor of Jemsalem tries to impose new taxes
upon them'^. Sultan Barsbäy writes (1435) that this was not used to do in the
times of Barqüq, and he enjoins the governor to treat them as the case was during
those days. Sultan Jaqmaq states in an edict ten years later that the Georgian
monks complained to him that they were bemg harmed and molested in Jerusalem
and novel imposts" were being introduced upon them after being abolished by
previous sultans. Jaqmaq accepts their claim and orders "the governor, the QädT
and the dignitaries to stop all that and to act according to the exalted edicts".
In 1305 the Monastery of the Cross was the only place that was returned to
the Georgians and no other property or place were mentioned. By the middle of
the fifteenth century, we learn from a letter of Inäl (1453-1461) to the Georgian
court of "monasteries, places, indowments and shrines"'" all in plural. In an edict
that was issued by Qä^it Bäy in 874/1469-70 it is mentioned that "they own
monasteries from old times since the [days of] conquest"" . And at the beginning
10 "hi-man aslafa malikuhum li-salafinä l-karimi khidaman. "
11 "lam yakun ahadun minhum bi-1-ikhläsi muttahaman. "
12 "yaqsidu mu'^aradata l-kurji wa-yuhdithu '^alayhim hädit han ft'^ushri ardi l-musallabati wa- dayri Ka'^küt. "
13 "wa-inna thamma rrwn yu'^äriißuhum wa-yuhdithu '^alayhim mazälima abtalathä l-mulüku s-sälifatu wa-yu-'dhihim bi-qaPi masäni'^ihim. "
14 "wa-duyüratuhum wa-amäkinuhum wa-awqäfuhum wa-ma'^äbiduhum. "
15 "wa-lahum adyiratun bi-aydihim min taqädimi s-sintna min al-futüh. "
of the fifteenth century Qansawh al-Ghawri speaks in an edict of "seven monaste¬
ries that belong to the Monastery of the Cross"'* . He speaks also of other proper ties such as houses for rent, agricultural lands and even oftwo villages, Jaljalah and
Dair Müsä, the income of which was assigned for the expenses of the Georgian
community which is said to have been a large one ijarm'a kathira).
Indeed this picture of growth of Georgian privileges and the expansion of their
property is confirmed by European sources. Thus the German CouncUlor Baumgar-
ten who visited Jerusalem in 1507 observed that their pilgrims were free from those
vexations imposts which others had to pay, and their men and women entered the
city in full armour" . Other sources added that they used to enter the city not only
carrying arms but also riding on horses'*. Obviously such acts were contrary to
shari'^a stipulations concerning the non-Mushms.
Again some writers give the names of six shrines and monasteries that belong to
the Georgians, in addition to the Monastery of the Cross, which corresponds with
the figure mentioned in Qansawh's edict" .
How can we explain this special treatment of the Georgians by the Mamluks? Of
course one could claim that in the later Mamlük period the sultans and a great
many Mamlüks came from the Caucasus, that is from a neighbouring region to
Georgia, a matter wlhch made the understanding between them easier. However
there were substantial interests which led the Mamlüks to such a treatment.
As mentioned above we have three letters sent by sultans Jaqmaq, Inäl and
Qänsawh to the Georgian king. From these letters we can possibly learn certain
factors in Mamlük policy towards Georgia and its people. It is known that later
Mamlüks used to buy new conscripts from among the Circassian tribes. In fact it
was Sultan Qaläwün who started that^". Mamlük merchants needed, it seems, to
pass througli Georgia for that reason. Consequently, the cooperation of the Geor¬
gian authorities seems to have been useful if not necessary for the acquiring of new
Mamlüks and passing them through. A concrete example of this matter can be
learned from an incident related in Sultan Jaqmaq's letter. He complains to the
Georgian king that one of the merchants of Sultani Mamlüks {ahad tujjär al-mamä¬
lik as-sultäniyya) named Muhammad b. Mustafa al-Qaramäni reported to him that
on lüs way through Georgia the authorities forced him to pay a duty of one thou¬
sand dinar without a right or a clear reason {bi-ghayr haqq wa-lä tariq wädih). Jaq¬
maq asks for the money back, and if the king will not pay that himself the Georgian monks in Jerusalem will be forced to do so.
This was not the only reason for the Mamlük sultans to treat the Georgian mo¬
nastic community favourably. In the letter of the Georgian king (as it is related in
Sultan Jaqmaq's own letter to him) the king referred to a church destroyed in
16 "wa-U-dayri l-musallahati sab'^u duyüra. "
17 Quoted in G. Williams, The Holy City: Historical Topographical and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem, 2nd ed., London 1849, 552. See also R. Janin, Les Georgiens a Jerusalem, in Echos d'Orient. XVI (1913), 212.
18 Khuri Shihada and Niqölä Khüri, Khuläsat Tärikh Kanlsat Urshälim al-Urthüdhuksiyya, Je¬
rusalem 1925,97.
19 Daw ling, 185 20 CHI, I, 219
Damascus by orders of the Mamluk emir Tamr, and to the freedom and safety of
the Georgians in Jerusalem. The king added that in his country lived many Mushms
who were well treated by hun (mu'^ätmlüm bi-l-ihsän), who practised their rites
freely, and whose mosques and zäwiyas were open without interruption. He de¬
manded an equal treatment for his fellow countrymen. We find a similar argument
in a letter sent by sultan Ina to the king eight years after the letter of Jaqmaq and
in the letter of Sultan Qansawh. From the letter of Inä we understand that the
Georgian king stated that many Mushms from al-Sham and from other places
visited his country and stayed freely and unharmed. He even sent to Cairo süfi
shaykhs to testify before the sultan on the truth ofhis cläms.
The Mamlük sultans had to take this argument into consideration. Having
assumed the title of "servitor of the two exalted mosques" (khadim al haramayn
ash-sharifayn) and claiming a special status among Mushm rulers by virtue of their
control of the Mushm Holy places and the routes leading to them, the fate of Mus¬
lims in a Christian country must have been close to their hearts. The Georgians,
who apparently understood this situation, were determined to use h for the pro¬
tection of their community in Jerusalem and Palestine and for the widening of their immunities.
In addition to these considerations there may have been another factor which
helps to understand how Georgians came to acquire an eminent position among the
other Christian communities in Jerusalem in the last 60 years of the Mamlük Sul¬
tanate. This can be learned from pubhcarions on the history of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
It appears that after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans the Greek Or¬
thodox monks were suspected by the Mamlüks of inchning towards the new mas¬
ters of Byzanfium. With the growth of tension between them and the Ottomans
the Mamlüks threatened to persecute the Greek monks. But the Georgians seem to
have intervened on their behalf and succeeded to take the Greek shrines and mo¬
nasteries in Jerusalem under their protection^' .
However, after the Ottoman occupation of Syria in 1516 the picture it seems
was reversed. Now the Greeks regained their priority, and in 1517 the Orthodox
Patriarch of Jerusalem seems to have obtained a firman accordmg to which the
Georgians and other smah communifies feh under his protecfion^^ . In other words,
after the fall of the Mamlüks the Georgians went into a rapid dechne, and the
monasteries and shrines that once belonged to them passed into the hands of the
Greeks, the Armenians and others^' .
The British historian and traveller George Wilhams, who visited Jerusalem in
the early 1840's, stated that when he visited the Monastery of the Holy Cross he
found there three or four Georgian monks only^" . Some years after that he learned that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate had finally acquired the place^' . It is sfiU in their hands.
21 Khüri & Khüri, 104, and K.I. Qazäqiya, Tärikh al-Kanisah al-Rasüliyya al-Ürshälimiyya. Je¬
rusalem 1924, 84 f. and 89
22 Ibid. , 90 f; KhürT, 110 f. 24 Williams, op.cit. , 553
23 Dawling, 185;Khüri, 104; Janin, 35 ff. 25 lhid..S54 n. 1.
FORSCHUNGSAUFGABE
Von Bert G. Fragner, Freiburg
Die Fragen nach den historischen Ursachen der wehweiten ungleichen Entwick¬
lung der Menschheit beschäftigen sowohl das Geistesleben außereuropäischer Na¬
tionen, nicht zuletzt das der Islamischen Welt, als auch viele Vertreter abendlän¬
discher gesellschafts- und geschichtswissenschafthcher Forschung. Sie betreffen die
Überiegenheit der zumeist abendländischen Industrienationen, aber auch die
Tatsache der sogenannten „Unterentwicklung" vieler Völker außerhalb der „reichen"
Regionen der Welt. Heutzutage sind es in erster Linie Aspekte der unterschiedhchen
Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsordnungen und ihrer historischen Entwicklung, die in
diesem Zusammenhang als vorrangig erachtet werden.
Viele historisch interessierte Islamwissenschaftler haben ihre Arbeit in den
Rahmen solcher Fragestehungen eingebettet. Internarional besehen, wird der Unter¬
suchung von Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsstrukturen in der islamischen Geschichte
und deren Kontrastierung mit Verhältnissen außerhalb der Islamischen Welt in der
islamhistorischen Forschung ein beachtliches Gewicht zugemessen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es erstaunlich, daß ein vielbeachtetes theoretisches
Konzept, das damit m engem Zusammenhang steht, von islamwissenschaftlicher
Seite bis heute vernachlässigt worden ist. Ich meine die von dem Wiener Altmeister
der geographischen Forschung Hans Bobek entwickelte VorsteUung vom sogenann¬
ten „Rentenkapitahsmus" als einer Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsform, die nach
Bobek — die Geschichte und Gegenwart zahlreicher außereuropäischer Zivilisatio¬
nen kennzeichnet. Bobek hat sein Konzept des Rentenkapitahsmus zwar „aus geo¬
graphischer Sicht" entwickelt, versteht diesen jedoch als eine „sehr alte Wirtschafts¬
und Gesellschaftsform" von historischem Charakter. Bobek stützt sich vornehmhch
auf seuie Studien zum Vorderen Orient. Dieser Sachverhalt bietet genügend Anlaß
dafür, daß historisch interessierte Islamwissenschaftler auf die Theorie vom Renten¬
kapitalismus eingehen sohten, das ist kurioserweise nur in geringem Umfang ge¬
schehen.
Bobek entwickelte seine Vorstellung von einer „rentenkapitalistischen" Wirt¬
schafts- und GeseUschaftsform im Weltmaßstab durch die Gegenüberstellung sozio-
ökonomischer Verhähnisse sogenannter Entwicklungsländer mit dem fortgeschrit¬
tenen „Produktiven Kapitahsmus" Europas und Nordamerikas und stellt den Ren¬
tenkapitalismus als eine generelle historische Entwicklungsstufe der Menschheit
dar; sie war nach Bobek schon zu Beginn des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends voll entwickelt; frühere sozio-ökonomische Stadien der Menschheitsentwicklung waren die WUdbeuterstufe, die Stufe der spezialisierten Sammler, Jäger und Fischer,
das Sippenbauerntum mit Hirtennomadismus und die herrschaftlich organisierte
Agrargesellschaft. Während sich das Wirtschaftsleben im neuzeitlichen Europa zum
