Maisonneuve & Larose

The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A Reexamination (Part A)

Author(s): David Ayalon
Source: Studia Islamica, No. 33 (1971), pp. 97-140
Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595029 .
Accessed: 25/05/2014 08:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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].

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GREATYASA OF CHINGIZ
KHAN*
A REEXAMINATION

In memory of Uriel HEYD

(A)
The student of Mongol history is very often confronted with
both fascinating and formidable tasks. The extent of Mongol
expansion, in terms of swiftness and conquered areas, is almost
unique in human history (in this respect it is considerably
more impressive than the Arab expansion in the early years
of Islam, a fact admitted even by Muslim historians). Thus
the Mongol Empire-or Empires-soon included within its
boundaries, various civilizations and peoples, speaking and
writing a host of languages. Within a short period an extensive
literature about the Mongols sprang up. This literature was
written not only by people living within the boundaries of
the conquered territories, but also by people living outside

* The full version of this

study was originally written for the "Studia Islamica".
Because it has become too long, it has been considered more advisable to publish
it in book form. The book will appear in the publications of the Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. Here only a summary of the major
conclusions, with a minimum of selected source references, will be given. The
whole study of this subject developed from a paper in Hebrew entitled "The Mongol
Yasa and the Civilian Population of Cairo in the Mamluk Period", which had been
read at a meeting in memory of Professor Uriel Heyd at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem (May, 1969). The paper will be published in a memorial volume to
U. Heyd, which is due to appear soon. I would like to take this opportunity
to thank Professor R. Brunschvig for his constant and sympathetic attention
throughout all the stages of the present work.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 DAVID AYALON

them, particularly in countries bordering on the Mongol Empire,

and exposed for a long time to its threat. The mastery of
such a literature, written in so many languages, is beyond
the ability of an individual, or even of many individuals.
This is, however, not the only difficulty. Another difficulty
stems from the fact that the Mongols were a nomad people
and, being such, their institutions, manners and customs,
indeed, their whole way of life, were bound to be affected, or
even transformed, by the impact of the civilizations of the
countries which they had overrun. Since these civilizations
differed both in character and in degree of development (they
also included those of other conquered nomads, who had much
in common with the Mongols), the Mongols' way of life
necessarily changed in a different manner and at a different pace
in the various regions of their vast Empire.
There are many subjects in Mongol history which can be
easily taken out of their general background and studied alone.
There are, however, other subjects in the same history,
including the most important ones, which cannot be treated
separately. One of the major subjects which certainly falls
within this second category is that of the Great Ydsa.
Promulgated by Chingiz-Khan, founder of the Mongol Empire,
and forefather of all the Mongol dynasties himself, it was to
remain for a long time, at least theoretically, the law binding
all his descendants and the rest of the Mongols, serving as
the yardstick for their faithfulness to him and to his heritage
throughout the countries under their rule.
The present study will deal with the following three subjects:
A. The basic data in the Islamic sources on the Ydsa and
on its contents.
B. The attitude of the Mongols, and particularly of the
Mongol royal family, to the Ydsa.
C. The position of the Yasa in the Mamluk Sultanate. (1)

(1) This last-named subject will not be included in the present summary,
because the writing of its full version has not yet been completed.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA > OF CHINGIZ KHAN 99

SECTIONA
The study of the Ydsa, now more than two and a half
centuries old (it was begun by Petis de la Croix in 1710), has
suffered throughout its history from a number of serious
drawbacks, the most important of which has been the lack
of a sufficiently critical and systematic approach to the source
material.
As is well known, our information about the Yasa, as well
as about its contents, comes overwhelmingly from Muslim
sources or from sources compiled in Muslim countries. Another
well known fact is that no new data of major significance
on the contents of the Mongol code has been discovered for
a very long time. This section therefore will deal mainly with
the same old, quite familiar Muslim data (1) but, I believe,
in a basically different way than has been done hitherto. (2)
My major contentions are: a) that the study of the Yasa
has been carried out with little consideration of the chronological
order of our sources of information, and especially of their
dependence on each other; b) that one particular source has
been undeservedly dominating that study for the greater part
of its existence (since the first quarter of the nineteenth century).
We shall start our discussion with the source in question.
It is a very well known passage in the topographical work
al-Khilat of the Egyptian historian al-Maqrizi (766/1364-
845/1442). (3) In my view, this passage occupies its undeserv-
edly predominant place for two reasons: a) There has never
been an attempt made to identify the real source from which
al-Maqrizi copied, in spite of the fact that this source is easily

(1) The situation concerning some aspects other than the Ydsa's contents is
considerably better.
(2) A discovery of new important data might well cause certain adjustments
in the conclusions of the present study. The rich Mamluk, as well as other sources,
might still provide such data. A hitherto unknown passage on the contents of
the Ydsa by al-Safadi, copied by al-Kutubi, will be reproduced as an Appendix
in the full version of this study. That passage only strengthens the argument
about the uncertain character of the Moslem sources' information on the contents
of that Code.
(3) Al-Mawd'i; wal-I'tibar fi Dhikr al- Khifat wal-Athar, Bulaq, 1270/1853,
vol. II, pp. 219, 1. 23-222, 1. 10. De Sacy's edition will be discussed later in this
section.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 DAVID AYALON

identifiable and that it had been mentioned in connection with

the study of the Ydsa long before al-Maqrizi's passage but
was subsequently neglected until very recently. A contem-
porary of al-Maqrizi, who has always been considered by
students of the subject as his informant, had, in fact, nothing
to do with it; b) None of those who have studied the Ydsa
or who have referred to it, including the present writer, have
paid any attention to the reasons which prompted al-Maqrizi
to speak about the Yasa, and especially about its contents.
The implications of these two closely connected arguments
which I hope to prove in the following pages, are far reaching.
First, they ultimately imply that not only is al-Maqrizi's
passage dependent on another written source, but also that it
belongs to a whole set of Muslim sources, which derive, either
directly or indirectly, mainly or wholly from one single source.
The full meaning of such a conclusion will be explained later.
Secondly, they explain why al-Maqrizi presented his data on
the Ydsa in the way he did. Thirdly, they give the position
of the Yasa in the Mamluk Sultanate a new perspective.
The main task therefore is to identify the real source from
which al-Maqrizi copied. But before doing so one must first
review in brief the history of that author's passage and its
position in the study of the Yasa and then examine the veracity
of the prevalent view that a contemporary of al-Maqrizi had
been the source of his information.
D'Ohsson, in the first edition of his Histoire des Mongols
(1824), was the first to refer to al-Maqrizi's famous passage.
This prompted de Sacy (in 1826), according to his own statement,
to edit and translate the whole passage with numerous annota-
tions. (1) This masterly work still remains the basic study of
al-Maqrizl's account of the Yasa. Furthermore, the passage
in question has never again been fully translated into a European
language (not even by Berezin).
Since the publication of this passage by de Sacy it has become
the major source of our information on the Ydsa, and especially

(1) Chrestomathie Arabe, seconde edition, vol. II. The Arab text of al-Maqrizi's
passage is on pp. 55-66 of the Arabic text in that volume. The translation is on
pp. 157-168, and the notes are on pp. 168-190.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 101

on its contents. Its importance has been repeatedly stressed

by a host of students of the subject including d'Ohsson, de Sacy,
Hammer-Purgstall, Berezin, Popov , Barthold, Vladimirtsov
Riasanovsky, Iakoubovsky, Vernadsky, Alinge, Poliak and the
present writer. (1) It is true that not all the above-mentioned
scholars have accepted al-Maqrizi's evidence with the same
degree of credulity. Yet even those who questioned its
trustworthiness did so for the wrong reasons. The over-
whelming predominance of this passage as evidence in the
study of the Ydsa is well illustrated in Riasanovsky's presen-
tation of what he calls "the fragments of the Great Yasa".
He enumerates 36 such "fragments", giving the contents of
each of them. No less than 26 of these are taken from
al-Maqrizi (of the remaining 10 two are taken from Mirkhond,
one from Ibn Batuta, two from two Armenian sources, and
the other ones from unspecified sources). (2)
As for al-Maqrizi's alleged informant concerning the contents
of the Yasa, his identity is based on a few lines in the oft-quoted
passage, which, in my view, have been completely misunder-
stood. These lines are as follows:
wa-akhbarani al-'abd al-salih al-da'T ild Allah ta'ala Abu
Hdshim Ahmad b. al-Burhan rahimahu Allah annahu ra'a
nuskhatan min al-ydsa fT Khizdnat al-madrasa al-Mustansiriyya
fl Baghdad wa-min jumlat ma shara'ahu Jinkiz Khan fl al-yasa
anna man ...wa-man... (3)
Translation: "The late Abi Hashim Ahmad b. al-Burhan,
the righteous servant (of God), who had been praying to Him,
told me that he had seen a copy of the Ydsa in the library of
al-madrasa al-Mustansiriyya in Bagdad. Out of the Ordinances

(1) The references to the studies of all of these scholars, where the central position
of al-Maqrizi's evidence has been stressed, either explicitly or implicitly, are given
in the full version of this work.
(2) Fundamental Principles of Mongol Law, Indiana University Publications,
Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 43, Bloomington, 1965, pp. 83-86. See also C. Alinge,
Mongolische Gesetze, Darstellung des geschriebenen mongolischen Rechis, Leipzig,
1934, pp. 119-120.
(3) Khitat, II, p. 220, 11.25-22; Chrestomathie Arabe, II. This is one of the very
few passages in the full version of this work which is reproduced here without abbre-
viation.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 DAVID AYALON

which Chingiz-Khan had promulgated in the Ydsa one was

that... another was that...", and al-Maqrizi goes on telling his
readers about the contents of Chingiz-Khan's law.
From the very outset, i.e. from d'Ohsson onwards, it has
been taken for granted that al-Maqrizi got the contents of
the Ydsa from the above mentioned Ibn al-Burhan (see also
Hammer-Purgstall, Berezin, Popov, Vernadsky, and now Klaus
Lech) (1), and this assumption has never been really contested. (2)
Even if the real source from which al-Maqrizi copied those
contents cannot be established with complete certainty, there
is sufficient proof to refute the foregoing assumption. One
decisive argument against it is that al-Maqrizi never claims
Ibn al-Burhan as his informant. The only thing he says is
that that person told him he had seen (ra'a) a copy of the
Ydsa, which does not mean that he even opened it, to say
nothing of reading it and afterwards transmitting its contents
to our author. Now it is unthinkable that al-Maqrizi would
have presented the evidence he attributes to Ibn al-Burhan
in the way he did, had that person been his source of information.
For had this been the case, our author would have had every
motive to stress it in the clearest possible terms thereby
establishing a claim to the possession of first-hand knowledge of
the contents of the Ydsa.
Another argument against the above assumption can be
drawn from what is known about Ibn al-Burhan. Since 1826,
when de Sacy stated that he could not identify him (3), no
attempt had been made to do so; thus the whole treatment
of him as al-Maqrizi's alleged informant has revolved around
a completely anonymous person. In fact, he is quite well
known. His full name is: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isma'il
b. Ibrahim b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Yuisuf b. Samir b. Khazim
Abu Hashim al-Misri al-Zahiri al-Taymi, known also by the
name of Ibn al-Burhan. He was born in 754/1353 and died

(1) References in the full version.

(2) For a more reserved view than that common assumption see Alinge,
Mongolische Gesetze, p. 28, note 8.
(3) Cp. Chrestomathie Arabe, II, p. 161 with p. 171, note 11.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 103
in 808/1405. He spent most of his life in Egypt. His
friendship with al-Maqrizi seems to have emanated to a great
extent from their common Zahirite inclinations. Because of
these inclinations, and for other reasons, he clashed with Sultan
Barquiq and went to Iraq in 785/1383-4 where he must have
stayed a very short period. On returning to the Mamluk
Sultanate he stayed for a little while in Syria but soon was
forced to return to Egypt, where he spent the rest of his life
in poverty and obscurity (1).
Thus, Ibn al-Burhan can be described as a person with
strong religious inclinations who went only once, and for a
short period, outside the boundaries of the Mamluk Sultanate.
There is no mention of his knowledge of any language other
than Arabic or of his interest in history in general and in the
history of the Mongols in particular. Since we know of the
existence of the Ydsa only in the Mongol language and in the
Uighur characters (2), and since there is no evidence whatsoever
that it had ever been translated from the original into any
other language, or written in any other characters, Ibn
al-Burhan definitely could not have read it. Furthermore,
anybody could show him a text in a language or characters,
or both, unfamiliar to him, and tell him whatever he liked
about it, without his being able to check the veracity of such
a story.
The inescapable elimination of Ibn al-Burhan as al-Maqrizi's
informant is of special significance for the following reason.
No writer who spoke about the Ydsa, including those who
gave an account of its contents, claims that he had ever seen
it personally, to say nothing of reading it. Neither does

(1) The longest extant biography I know of Ibn al-Burhan is that of al-Sakhawi
in his al-Durar al-Kamina, Cairo, 1354/1935, vol. II, pp. 96, 1. 4-98, 1. 3. Another
biography of him is that of Ibn Taghribirdi in al-Manhal al-$Sfi (B. N. ms., vol. I,
fol. lOla, 1. 17-1lOb, 1. 11). See also G. Wiet, Biographies du Manhal Safi, Cairo,
1932, no. 257. Goldziher had already used Ibn Taghribirdi's biography of Ibn al-Bur-
han in his Zdhiriten, pp. 194-5.
(2) See al-Juwayni (Boyle's translation), I, p. 25. See also Bar Hebraeus
quoted below. William of Rubruck's evidence on the adoption of the Uighur
script by the Mongols is most interesting.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 DAVID AYALON

anyone name any specific source of information. In this

respect al-Maqrizi has been considered to be a unique exception
by the bulk of the students of the Ydsa, who have believed
that he got his data about it from a person who learnt its
contents straight from the original. In my view, hardly any
other factor has contributed so much to the prominence for
such a long time of al-Maqriz's passage on the Ydsa than this
completely unfounded belief. For the general study of the
subject, the elimination of Ibn al-Burhan would mean that
none of the known Medieval Muslim writers on the Ydsa can
be proved to have had direct access to the original text of
that code, or even to have gotten his information from a person
who did have such access.
What is certain, however, is that al-Maqrizf's wording
concerning Ibn al-Burhan makes it extremely tempting to
attribute to this person his data on the Ydsa. Was it mere
accident, or did al-Maqrizi do it on purpose? This question
becomes even more pertinent in the light of the fact that our
author mentions the utterly irrelevant Ibn al-Burhan precisely
in the place where he should have named the real person from
whom he copied, a thing which he fails to do.
The person from whom al-Maqrizi copied without acknow-
ledgment was the famous Encyclopaedist Ibn Fadl Allah
al-'Umari (700/1301-749/1349), the author of Masdlik al-Absar,
the greater part of which has not yet been published. (1)
Al-'Umari, in his turn, drew, with full acknowledgment, from
another famous source, namely, "The History of the World
Conqueror" (Ta'rlkh-i-Jahan Gushd), a chronicle dealing with
Chingiz Khan and his early successors by 'Ala' al-Din 'Ata
Malik al-Juwayni (623/1226-681/1283).
In the full version of this work that part of al-Maqrizi's
passage on the Ydsa dealing with its contents (2) is reproduced
with a full translation. Also reproduced, with a full translation,

(1) The part of Masalik al-Absdr from which al-Maqrizi copied was recently
published by K. Lech (see below).
(2) Khitat, II, pp. 220, 1. 27-221, 1. 12; Chrestomathie Arabe, pp. 59, 1. 8-62,
1. 11.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 105
is al-'Umari's whole passage on the Yasa. (1) As for al-
Juwayni's chapter on the Yasa, only Boyle's translation of
it (2) is incorporated there. Then a very detailed discussion
of al-Maqrizi's dependence on al-'Umari and of al-'Umari's
dependence on al-Juwayni follows.
Here all of these three passages are omitted, and only a
general outline of the above discussion will be given. (3)
Before dealing with al-Maqrizi's dependence on al-'Umari,
the particular reason and motive of the first-named author for
writing about the Yasa should be pointed out. For this too
had a decisive influence on the way he presented the Yasa
and its contents.
Al-Maqrizi was deeply concerned with and greatly infuriated
by the widespread and growing practice of the Mamluk
Chamberlains (hujjab) of trying the civilian population even
on matters which fall within the exclusive domain of Sacred
Muslim Law (al-shart'a) and which can be tried only by
authorized Muslim judges (al-qudat, sing. qdad). He writes
that the hujjab, who originally tried only Mamluks, had begun,
from 753/1351 onwards, to try civilians as well; and-what
was particularly appalling-to try them not according to the
Muslim sharl'a but according to the Mongol Ydsa which,
being "satanic" (shayfaniyya), is "oppressive and hence is
forbidden by Muslim Law" (zdlima fal-sharV'atuharrimuhd). (4)
Al-Maqrizi's major, if not sole, aim, in discussing the Yasa

(1) Masdlik al-Absdr, B. N. ms. Arabe, no. 5867, fol. 36a, 1. 11-39a, 1. 12. For
Klaus Lech's publication, translation and annotation of al-'Umari's chapter on
the Mongols see below.
(2) J. A. Boyle, The History of the World Conqueror, Manchester University
Press, Manchester, 1958, vol. I, pp. 23-25.
(3) It was impossible to summarize the full version of this study evenly. There-
fore, it was necessary to mention here those instances where important parts of
that version were omitted or drastically cut.
(4) See Khitat, II, pp. 219, 1. 28-220, 1. 25, and particularly p. 219, 11. 29-34
and p. 220, 11. 4, 8. Additional references by al-Maqrizi to the same effect are
given in section C. The degree of the application of the Yasa's ordinances both
to the military aristocracy and to civilians is also discussed in that section. There
the whole evidence of al-Maqrizi on the Ydsa, and not only that part dealing with
its contents, is analysed. The question of the corruption of the term Yasa into
siydsa is also studied there.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 DAVID AYALON

in general and in giving its contents in particular, was to

demonstrate how contradictory it is to and how different it
is from the sharn'a.
What immediately strikes the reader, apart from the very
numerous identical words and phrases in the two texts, is the
fact that the 35 items in al-Maqriz's text come in exactly (or
almost exactly) the same order as the parallel items in al-'Umari's
text. (1) Furthermore, there is not one single item in al-
Maqrizi's passage which is missing in that of al-'Umari. This,
in itself, is a decisive proof of the heavy dependence of the
first on the second. A comparison of each separate item in
the two texts proves the completeness of that dependence.

Al-Maqrtzl's Dependence on al-'Umarr

A minute comparison of each item of the Ydsa in al-Maqrizi
with the corresponding one in al-'Umari, which is made in the
full version of this work, clearly demonstrates that the degree
of coincidence in wording between the two texts is extremely
high. (2) As a matter of fact, al-'Umari, who repeatedly
ascribes all his information on the Ydsa to al-Juwayni, displays,
in his rendering of that author's account, much less obedience
to his source than did al-Maqrizi to his.
We shall now discuss the way al-Maqrizi presents the Ydsa
in his book. Since his major interest was to prove the
un-Islamic character of the Ydsa, he goes straight to that part
of al-'Umari's text which deals with crimes and transgressions
and with their punishments. He ignores almost completely
al-'Umari's quite-lengthy opening section on the Ydsa. He
also ignores completely his long description of hunting. He
cuts off much of his description of the army, etc.
By drastically abbreviating or completely omitting those
items or parts of al-'Umari's text which did not bear on his
theme, al-Maqrizi could bring into much grealer prominence

(1) Al-'Umari has several items which are not found in al-Maqrizi's passage.
They are enumerated in the full version.
(2) In the full version of this work the respective expressions used in connection
with each item by al-Maqrizi and al-'Umari are compared according to the order
of their appearance in their texts.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 107
the items which did. From these he could easily draw ample
proof for his thesis that the enormous gulf separating the
Ydsa from the sharr'a could not be bridged. Particularly
revolting to a Muslim would be the prohibition to slaughter
animals according to the Muslim law; the prohibition to
distinguish between what is pure and what is impure (see
next p., n. 1); the prohibition to dip one's hand in water, which
implies the prohibition of ablutions and the disapproval of
washing one's clothes. Furthermore, in addition to the rules
which flagrantly contradicted Islamic practice and tenets, a
Muslim like al-Maqrizi must have been antagonized by the
extremely severe punishments given for transgressions or
practices, which, according to Islamic law, or the law of any
other revealed religion, deserve incomparably lighter punish-
ments or even no punishment at all.
Al-Maqrizi's approach to the Ydsa and his purpose in dealing
with it find their most striking expression in yet another way.
For although he reproduced, on the whole, al-'Umari's version
very faithfully, with unimportant stylistic changes, nevertheless,
throughout his account, he subtly "altered" or "improved"
al-'Umari's text in a manner which is very meaningful.
Unlike al-'Umari, he attributed every single item of the Ydsa's
contents to Chingiz Khan himself. Chingiz Khan is said by
al-Maqrizi to have either shara'a, or mana'a, or sharata or
alzama, or qala or lam yufarriq in connection with each of these
items. Most of these terms he repeats more than once, and
some even many times. None of them exists in al-'Umari's
text, even in connection with those items which al-'Umari does
attribute to Chingiz Khan. On some occasions he leaves the
reader in the dark about the promulgator or originator of the
specific items. On others he makes it clear that he speaks
of Mongol customs in general, as can be learnt from such
expressions as: kanu ya'tamiduna; wal-mashhur min hdlihim
anna; wa-min dddbihim al-musta'mala wa-qawdnTnihimashya'
kathrra minhd an... wa-an... wa-an, etc., and here al-'Umari
gives a long list of these customs. All of this kind of presen-
tation and terminology is completely wiped out by al-Maqrizi,

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 DAVID AYALON

who introduces a whole set of new terms. (1) The significance

and import of these alterations by al-Maqrlzi will be discussed
somewhat later. (2)
Before presenting conclusions drawn from the comparison of
the texts of these two authors, a subject of major importance
has to be discussed, namely, the general dependence of al-
Maqrizi on al-'Umari; or, more exactly, his profuse copying
from him without acknowledgment, not only about the Ydsa,
but also about many other subjects as well. This is a question
the implications of which are far beyond the present subject,
and with which I had intended to deal separately. At first
therefore I only wanted to mention this fact here, without
elaborating on it. However, Klaus Lech's recently published
study, in which it is claimed that these two texts are independent
and even suggested that both of them draw from a third common
source, makes it imperative to examine certain salient aspects
of this question here and now. (3) Furthermore, this examina-
tion will bring out additional proofs that al-Maqrizi copied
his passage on the Yasa from al-'Umari, if such proof is still
needed.
Al-Maqrizi's habit, in his numerous works, of copying from
other sources without acknowledgment is well known. This
habit is very evident even in his Khilta, where he quotes his

(1) Very instructive is the manner in which al-Maqrizi "improves" al-'Umari's

evidence on the Mongols' attitude to washing and purity. He says that Chingiz
Khan prevented (mana'a) the Mongols from washing their clothes and prevented
(mana'a) them from considering anything as impure, and stated (qala) that
everything is pure and did not distinguish (lam yufarriq) between the pure and the
impure (Khitat, II, 221, 11. 1-2). Al-'Umari tells us something quite different.
According to him al-Juwayni said that he had heard (sami'tu) that the Mongols
did not consider it appropriate at all to wash their clothes, and that they, unlike
the Muslims, did not distinguish at all between the pure and the impure (Masalik
al-Absar, B. N. ms. no. 5867, fol. 37b, 11.9-10). Here clear Mongol customs were
turned by al-Maqrizi into personal ordinances of Chingiz Khan, who, according
to him, went to such length as to forbid his subjects from distinguishing between
the pure and the impure. For al-'Umari's handling of the statement he attributes
to al-Juwayni see below.
(2) Cp. also my paper in the memorial volume to U. Heyd, mentioned above.
(3) These aspects are discussed with much greater detail in the full version
of this work. A comprehensive study of all the aspects of al-Maqrizi's copying
from al-'Umari has yet to be made.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 109

sources far more frequently than in most of his other works (1);
and one will find no difficulty in refuting his categorical
statement, that he always mentioned the written sources which
he used in compiling that book. (2) In the Khitat he shows
an unmistakable tendency of ignoring his indebtedness to
authors nearer his own time more often than to earlier authors.
It was Quatremere who, for the first time, and on two separate
occasions, took al-Maqrizi to task for copying verbatim
(textuellement, mot pour mot), in his Khila!, his data on Egypt
and Syria from al-'Umari's Masalik al-Absdr, without men-
tioning even once either the author or his book (sans daigner
le citer une seule fois; cependant il n'a jamais prononce le nom
de l'auteur, ni le litre de son ouvrage). (3)
Even a superficial comparison between the corresponding
parts of al-Khitat and Masalik al-Absdr shows how right
Quatremere was. For the purpose of the present study this
is of decisive importance, for the key to al-Maqrizi's copying
the contents of the Ydsa from al-'Umari is to be sought and
found in his copying from him the chapter on Egypt and Syria
(i.e. on the Mamluk Sultanate).
For the purpose of proving our thesis there is no need to
indicate all the instances where al-Maqrizi "borrowed" from
al-'Umari his information on Egypt and Syria as a whole.
It is sufficient to do so in connection with al-Maqrizi's chapter
on "The Mamluk Armies, their Dresses and Customs" (Dhikr
Juyush al-Dawla al-Turkiyya wa-Ziyyiha wa-'Awd'idihd)
(Khilaf, II, pp. 215, 1. 31-229, 1. 37) which includes the section
on the hajibs and on the Ydsa (ibid., pp. 219, 128-222, 1.10).
This chapter is literally dominated by our author's unacknow-

(1) See R. Guest, "A List of Writers, Books and other Authorities mentioned
by El-Maqrizi in his Khitat, JRAS, 1902, pp. 103-125.
(2) Khitat (the Bulaq edition), I, p. 4, 11. 29-30; ibid. (G. Wiet's edition), II,
p. 10, 11. 15-17. The accusation that he plagiarized al-Awhadi's (761/1360-811/
1408) draft work on the topography of Egypt and incorporated it in his Khitat
is examined in the full version of the work.
(3) Histoire des Sultans Mamluks de l''gypte, Paris, 1837, vol. II, p. xiv; Notice
de l'Ouvrage qui a pour litre: Mesalek Alabsar fi Memalek Alamsar, in: Notices et
Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothtque du Roi, vol. XIII, Paris, 1836, p. 381.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 110 DAVID AYALON

ledged "borrowings" mainly from al-'Umari's sections on

"The Armies of this Realm" ('Asdkir hddhihi al-Mamlaka) (1)
and on "The Office Holders in this Realm" (al-Kaldm 'ala
Arbab al-Waza'if fT hadhihi al-mamlaka) (2), and, to a much
lesser degree, from other sections as well. See e.g. the general
description of the army, its components and its ranks, its
incomes from the feudal fiefs, the allotment of horses to its
members (3) etc.; the description of the offices of the Viceroy
(nd'ib al-sallana) (4), of the Grand Chamberlain (hajib) (5),
of the Grand Major Domo (ustddar) (6), of the Grand Master
of the Sword (amTr sildh) (7), of the Grand Holder of the
Inkstand (al-dawadar al-kablr) (8), of the Chief of the Military
Police (naqTb al-jaysh) (9), of the Vezir (al-wazTr) (10), and of
the distribution of the robes of honour. (11) This list of instances
is very far from complete.
In the above-cited instances, as well as in many others,
al-Maqrizi wrote in the past tense, whereas al-'Umari wrote
usually in the present tense. He also sometimes made stylistic
alterations in al'Umari's wording and added words which
usually explain the obvious. Since, however, almost a century
separated him from his predecessor, during which Mamluk
institutions and offices underwent great changes, he also had
to make other kinds of additions, in order to update his
descriptions. These additions are discussed in the full version
of this work. Here it will be only stated that they are quite
inadequate.

(1) Masdlik al-Absdr, B. N. ms., no. 5867, fol. 173b, 1. 6-176b, 1. 17.
(2) Ibid., fols. 184a, 1. 10-188b, 1. 5.
(3) Cp. Khitat, II, pp. 215, 1. 33-216, 1. 36 with Masdlik al-Absar, fols. 173b,
1. 6-175b, 1. 1.
(4) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 215, 11. 19-21 with Masalik, fol. 185a, 11. 13-16.
(5) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 219, 11. 30-32 with Mas&lik, fol. 186a, 11.2-8.
(6) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 222, 11. 14-18 with Masalik, fols. 186a, 1. 16-186b, 1. 6.
(7) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 222, 11. 14-18 with Masdlik, fol. 186b, 11.6-9.
(8) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 222, 11. 27-30 with Masalik, fol. 186b, 11. 9-14.
(9) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 223, 11. 1-4 with Masdlik, fols. 186b, 1. 14-187a, 1. 2.
(10) Cp. Khitat, II, p. 223, 11. 16-19 with Masdlik, fol. 187a, 11. 2-8.
(11) Cp. Khitat, II, pp. 227, 1. 20-228, 1. 16 with Masdlik, fols. 192a, 1. 7-194a,
1. 5.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 111
Out of the instances quoted above only that of the hajib
will be presented and examined here, because of its particular
bearing on the subject of the Ydsa. Here is what each of
the authors says about the holders of this office.

Al-MaqrizT
,^ 9 u^JI ^i^ ^v o1j L^Jj LjlkLJI 1 jL^,

:1A 9
1rYI&1 iJ : WulI

Al-' Umar

oulj ;JJl r
fOYI il &lz 4jA Y v^ >-L J 9 J f 4 >JI l
J." ^r -L;AI^ tS (I 1 - SjL o;l ja5JLJi oJ Sjl o;Sja4A^^

The wording of these two passages is almost identical.

That al-Maqrizi copied from al-'Umari in this case is beyond
any possible doubt. What is of special significance in these
few lines is that they constitute the opening sentences of
al-Maqrizi's description of the office of the haijib and of the
Yasa. The shadow of al-'Umari is thus hovering over that
description from the very beginning, exactly as it is hovering
over all of al-Maqrizi's chapter on the armies of the Mamluk
Sultanate, of which this description forms an integral part.
There is yet another important by-product of the establisment
of the fact that al-Maqrizi copied so much from al-'Umari's

(1) Sec the references in n. 5, prec. p. I reproduce here the two texts in Arabic
characters, because in this way the identical wording in both of them comes out
much more strikingly. The office of the viceroy (na'ib al-salfana) was abolished
for the first time towards the end of al-Nasir Muhammad b. Qalaun's reign.
Although renewed later, it never regained its former power (see my "Studies on
the Structure of the Mamluk Army", BSOAS, vol. XVI, 1954, pp. 57-8).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 DAVID AYALON

chapter on Egypt and Syria: it proves that he used the volume

which contains al-'Umari's chapter on the Mongols (with the
section on the Yasa); for these two chapters are in the same
volume! Now it is inconceivable that al-Maqrizi, with his
unique thirst for knowledge and particularly for historical
sources, would read the chapter on the Mamluk Sultanate so
thoroughly on the one hand, and would have no idea of the
contents of the chapter on the Mongols on the other. That
he did read that chapter and did use it can be deduced from the
fact that an account on the visit of a delegation from the king
of the Serbs and Bulgars to the Mamluk Court in the year 731
A.H., which is found in the same chapter, is repeated verbatim,
with insignificant changes, in al-Maqrizf's Suluk (1). What
is also obvious is that al-Maqrizi would hardly have noticed
that isolated, dated item-which because it had been dated
could be included in his chronicle-without reading through
al-'Umarl's chapter on the Mongols, thus coming across the
section on the Yasa, which precedes the account on the Serb
and Bulgar delegation.
If al-Maqrizi copied his data on the Mamluk Sultanate from
al-'Umari without any restraint and without any acknow-
ledgment whatsoever, he must have been far more temped to
do the same for his data on the Mongols. There are two
main reasons for assuming this. First, his knowledge of the
Mongols was much inferior to his knowledge of the realm and
the country in which he spent all his life. Secondly, in the
case of the passage concerning the Mongols, he stood a far
better chance that the ordinary reader would not find out the
source from which he copied. The reason why, in spite of
all that, he 'borrowed' so little from al-'Umari's chapter on the
Mongols, seems quite simple to me: he never wrote a monograph
or an extensive chapter on the Mongols. Had he done so,

(1) Cp. Masdlik al-Absdr, B. N. ms. no 5867, fols. 76a, 1. 11-76b, 1. 2 (Lech,
Arabic text, p. 74, 11. 6-12) with Blochet's quotation in his edition of al-Mufaddal
b. Abi al-Fada'il, al-Nahj al-Sadid, in Patrologia Orientalis, vol. XX, 1928, pp. 125-
6, and especially his citation from the B. N. ms. no 1726 of the Suluik in note 1,
p. 125. In the full version of this work the account on the Serbo-Bulgarian dele-
gation is examined in much greater detail.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KH;AN 113
he would have incorporated, in all probability, much of
al-'Umari's chapter in it, and again without acknowledgment.
That is, more or less, what he did when he wrote a monograph
on the Beduins of Egypt. Al-'Umari's chapter on the Beduins
of his time is very much noticeable in it, and, of course, with
the usual omission of his name (1). The same is true of his
monograph about the Abyssinians. Here al-Maqrizi's impu-
dence reached such a degree that he ascribed what he copied
from the masalik to trustworthy informants he met in Mekka! (2)
I have little doubt that a systematic comparison of al-'Umari's
Masalik al-Absar with al-Maqrizi's writings would show a
much bigger dependence of the second on the first than is
known to-day.
A significant aspect of al-Maqrizi's attitude to al-'Umari is
that he practically ignores his existence as an historian. (3)
It is hard to believe that this attitude is entirely divorced from
the fact that his unacknowledged indebtedness to him had been
overwhelming indeed.
The heavy dependence of al-Maqrizi on al-'Umari has implica-
tions far beyond the subject of the present work. The most
important one is that scholars have too long been studying
al-'Umari's description of the Mamluk Sultanate through
al-Maqrizi's rendition, which, for various reasons (I enumerate
them in the full version of this work) is extremely unsatisfactory.
It would have been far more logical and far more profitable to
publish the chapter on Egypt and Syria from the Masalik al-Absdr
before publishing any other part of this unusually rich and
important Encyclopaedic work. For, after all, al-'Umari's
evidence on the Mamluk Sultanate is much more solid and

(1) Cp. al-MaqrIzI's Al-Bayan wal-I'rdb 'ammd bi-Ard Misr min al-A'rab,
Cairo, 1961, with al-'Umari's fifteenth chapter entitled: Fi Dhikr al-'Arab al-Maw-
judin fi Zamdnind wa-Amdkinihim (Masalik al-Absdr, B. N. ms. Arabe, no. 5868,
fols. 87a-142a). A detailed comparison of the two texts has to be made separa-
tely. See also: Wiistenfeld, El-Macrizi's Abhandlung iiber die in Agypten einge-
wanderten arabischen Stdmme, G6ttingen, 1847.
(2) Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Ibn Fadl Alldh al-'Omarl, Masalik el Absdr
fi Mamalik al-Amsdr, l'Afrique moins l'Jgypte, Paris, 1927, pp. 33-34.
(3) This point is discussed in detail in the full version of the present work.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 DAVID AYALON

much more reliable than on any other country or region he

describes. The publication of this chapter is urgently needed
for the proper study of the Mamluk Sultanate in general and
of its institutions and their development in particular.
After this rather long but inescapable diversion, I shall now
return to al-Maqrizi's and al-'Umari's texts dealing with the
Yasa. The major conclusions to be derived from the compa-
rison of these two texts are the following:
a) Al-Maqrizi, who up until now has been considered as the
major source on the contents of the Ydsa, has, in fact, nothing
original whatsoever to tell us about them. He should, there-
fore, be completely disregarded as a source on this aspect of it.
b) The automatic outcome of the first conclusion is that all
of al-Maqrizi's "improvements" on the text from which he
copied should also be rejected outright. This pertains parti-
cularly to his ascribing to Chingiz Khan himself the codification
of every single ordinance (or rule, or custom) enumerated in
his work. By this kind of "improvement" al-Maqrizi lent
to what he copied from al-'Umari a far more compact, homo-
geneous, binding, irrevocable and lasting character-and hence
more menacing to the sharl'a than the original text had ever
permitted or implied. Considerable parts of al-'Umari's text
have a quite loose and nebulous character, and the connection
of their contents with Chingiz Khan's person is, at best, very
vague. These circumstances make al-'Umari's version on the
Yasa's contents extremely vulnerable to the inclusion in it
of Mongol practices and usages which had little to do with
Chingiz Khan's personal codification. As shall be shown
later, al-Juwayni's text suffers from the same shortcoming.
It is, however, this kind of vulnerable and quite shaky text
with which scholars have to deal, and which deserves study (1),
for the seemingly compact and solid picture depicted by
al-Maqrizi of what he calls the Ydsa is quite imaginary.

(1) The account in the "Secret History of the Mongols" concerning the code
promulgated during Chingiz Khan's reign only supports this conclusion. It also
serves as a good check on certain aspects of the Muslim sources' account on the
Ydsa. For this see below.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 115

Why, then, did this latter author depict the Ydsa as he did?
His real purpose was to combat the encroachment of the hujjdb
upon the domain of the qudat, consecrated by the sharr'a.
Since the hujjdb, who had judiciary powers within the Mamluk
aristocracy, seem to have tried the Mamluks during their
early reign (or during part of it) according to what had been
believed to be-and may indeed have been-the Ydsa (1), it
was very convenient for al-Maqriz to seize upon this fact, and
claim that the hujjdb of his time were trying the civilian popu-
lation according to that law, which, as he had demonstrated,
is so contradictory to the sharr'a. In all probability, those
hujjdb, who were our author's contemporaries, tried the
population according to their own whim, backed by their
unbounded ignorance (see also conclusion d).
c) It is absolutely certain that it was impossible for al-
Maqrizi to attribute his information on the Ydsa to Ibn
al-Burhan, for al-'Umari and his Masdlik were too well known
for such a false attribution not to be discovered soon, especially
by a fellow-historian. Besides, although he used to suppress
the names of so many of his authorities, al-Maqrizi is hardly
ever known to have ascribed his information to the wrong
sources on purpose when he did mention them. (2) Never-
theless, the way he mentioned Ibn al-Burhan misled many a
good scholar. It could well have misled many of his ordinary
readers, thereby greatly augmenting his prestige as an authority
on the Ydsa and on its danger to the sharFa. Yet it cannot
be proved that he deliberately tried to mislead his readers.
d) Al-Maqrizi's passage on the contents of the Ydsa has
nothing to do with the Yasa's position in the Mamluk Sultanate,
either in the period preceding him or in his own time. This
point, as well as the role of the hujjdb as judges, is discussed in
section C, in connection with the other information he furnished
on the Mongol law in that Sultanate.

(1) The jurisdiction of the hujjdb which was based on the Ydsa could, at best,
cover only part of Mamluk litigation.
(2) In his monograph on the Abyssinians he is cautious enough not to mention
the names of his trustworthy informants.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 DAVID AYALON

Al-'Umar's Dependence on al-Juwaynl. (1)

Al-'Umari's dependence on al-Juwayni does not require
demonstration here for he admits it throughout his passage
on the Ydsa. Furthermore, comparison of that passage with
al-Juwayni's chapter on the Ydsa makes it absolutely certain
that this latter chapter was al-'Umari's source. This assertion
has, however, to be modified by the following remarks.
I) Al-'Umari's is not a translation of the chapter in question,
neither is it a good or balanced summary of it.
II) Al-'Umari did not confine himself to al-Juwayni's
chapter on the Ydsa, but drew from other parts of that historian's
chronicle as well.
III) Al-'Umari included in his passage a considerable number
of regulations and customs which he ascribes to al-Juwayni, but
which are not found in the latter's chronicle at all.
I. Some of al-'Umari's omissions and abbreviations are
justified, for al-Juwayni drifted from time to time into a lengthy
speech which could easily be abridged without prejudice to
the substance of his ideas. Many others, however, are not
justified at all. For example, al-'Umari's rendition gives only
a very poor idea of the organization and character of the Mongol
army, described so masterfully and with such deep insight by
al-Juwayni. Al-'Umari's description of Mongol hunting is
considerably better but it still falls far behind the excellent
original. Al-'Umari's description of the Mongol horse-post
service is also extremely deficient in comparison with al-
Juwayni's text.
There is a host of other inaccuracies and distortions including
one of special significance to this study. Speaking of the
Mongols' religious tolerance al-'Umari says that al-Juwayni
slates in his Jahdn Gushd that some of Chingiz Khan's sons
adopted Christianity and others adopted Judaism. He fails
to mention their adoption of Islam, which al-Juwayni, as could
be expected, places at the top of his list. Furthermore,

(1) This section of the full version is given here in a much more abbreviated
form than the section dealing with al-Maqrizi's dependence on al-'Umari.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA > OF CHINGIZ KHAN 117

al-Juwayni does not mention the conversion of Chingiz-Kh5n's

offspring to Judaism at all! (1) Neither do we know of any
of Chingiz-Khan's sons or descendants who had been converted
to the Jewish faith, at least in the decades following his death.
It would appear that the fact that millat 'Isd and millat Muisd
rhyme, was a major reason for dropping Islam and putting
Judaism in its place. Thus even when al-'Umari cites the
names of both his authority and his book immediately before
quoting them, there is no guarantee at all that the quotation
will be accurate. (2)
It should, however, be stressed that in spite of al-'Umari's
quite loose and slipshod rendition it does offer a general idea
of the contents of al-Juwayni's chapter on the Ydsa, and a
fairly accurate picture of parts of it. (3) An important reason
for this is that al-'Umari, unlike al-Maqrizi, did not intend
to prove, by means of his account of the Ydsa, any thesis of
his own. He was just a mediocre and sometimes very poor
summarizer of somebody else's work. (4)
II. There are fourteen items in al-Juwayni's chapter on the
Ydsa, all of which have been incorporated into al-'Umari's
rendition. In addition, there are between five and seven
items scattered throughout al-Juwayni's chronicle outside that
chapter. These are also reproduced by al-'Umari. (5)
Of these last items three connected with Islam will be
discussed here in brief: the prohibition of dipping in water,

(1) Al-Juwayni (Boyle's translation), I, p. 26 (Qazwini's edition, I, p. 18).

(2) Incidentally, this is not the only inaccuracy or distortion of al-Juwayni's
words in al-'Umarl's short reference to the Mongols' religious tolerance. Completely
distorted, or perhaps even imaginary, is al-'Umarl's assertion that al-Juwayni
said that he "heard" (sami'utu) such and such things about the Mongol attitude
to washing and impurity (see above). See al-Juwayni (Boyle's translation),
I, pp. 98, 204 ff, 272.
(3) This is true, of course, only of the items mentioned by al-'Umari and
al-Juwayni.
(4) The combination of the causes of this mediocrity is discussed below.
(5) In the full version of this work the common items in al-Juwayni's chapter
and in al-'Umari's passage are enumerated, as well as those which were drawn
by al-'Umari from other parts of the Jahan Gusha. The origins of one or two items
are uncertain.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 DAVID AYALON

the prohibition of slaughtering according to Muslim practice

and the preferential status accorded to certain categories of
religious people.
The reason behind the first prohibition is strong and convin-
cing, and has nothing to do with Islam as such: the Mongols
had a deadly fear of thunder and lightning, whose power,
according to Mongol belief, is increased and strengthened by
certain kinds of contact with water. (1) The reason behind
the second prohibition is much weaker. Considering the
religious tolerance of the Mongols, why should they have been
so insistent about imposing their own way of killing animals
("by slitting open their breasts" (2)) on other peoples?
Secondly, this was by no means the only way in which the
Mongols killed their animals. For example, the Oirats, one
of the most important Mongol tribes, a section of which had
arrived in Egypt early in 695/1296, had a very different way
of killing: "They went on eating horses without slaughtering
them. Instead, they would bind the horse and strike it on
the face until it would die. Then they would eat it". (3)
It would be quite astonishing if a closer scrutiny of the sources
did not discover additional ways in which the Mongols killed
their animals. How utterly indifferent to Muslim slaughter
methods the Mongols must have been, even in the early decades
of their rule, in the central dominions of their realm, and on
what was, in their estimation, the greatest possible occasion,
can be learnt from the following episode, told by al-Juwayni.
In the Quriltay celebrating Mongka's election as Great Khan
(1251) the daily ration was 300 horses or oxen and 3,000 sheep.
All of them were slaughtered in accordance with the Muslim
ritual, in consideration of Berke Khan, the representative of
the Golden Horde, who at that time had already been converted

(1) Juwayni (Boyle's translation), I, pp. 204-206. The explanation for that
pro hibition is given by al-Juwayni, but not by al-'Umari and al-Maqrizi. A quite
similar explanation is given by William of Rubruck and Piano Carpini.
(2) Juwayni (Boyle), I, pp. 206-207.
(3) Al-Maqrizi, Suluk (ed. M. Ziyada), I, p. 812, 11. 12-17. Cp. also d'Ohsson,
IV, p. 161.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA > OF CHINGIZ KHAN 119

to Islam. (1) Al-Juwayni, himself, recounts that the original

text of the Ydsa figured most prominently in a Quriltay of
this importance. He says: "These rolls are called The Great
Book of the Yasas and are kept in the treasury of the chief
princes. Wherever a khan ascends the throne... they produce
these rolls and model their actions thereon". (2) Thus if
al-'Umari and al-Maqrizi are right in including in the text of
the Yasa the commandment that only one certain way of
killing an animal is legal, and that slaughtering it according
to Muslim practice is not only illegal, but also punishable by
death (man dhabaha ka-dhabThatal-Muslimmndhubiha), then all
the members of the royal family, including the Great Khan
himself, and all the Mongol notables must have been grossly
violating the Ydsa under such solemn circumstances and at
a time when the sacred rolls of that Code lay open before them!
Furthermore, a good many of them should have been executed!
From al-Juwayni's account we get a more balanced picture
of how the prohibition of slaughtering worked out in practice,
as well as of some other aspects of that prohibition. He says:
"When they first rose to power they made a Ydsa that no
one should slaughter animals by cutting their throats, but
should slit open their breasts after the Mongol fashion". Then
he tells of a Moslem who bought a sheep and < took it home,
closed the gates secretly and slaughtered the animal after the
Moslem fashion... not knowing that he was being watched by
a Qifchaq". The Qifchaq seized the Moslem and brought him
to Ugudey's Court. After having examined the circumstances
of the case, Ugudey decided "that this poor man has observed
the commandment of the Ydsa and this Turk has infringed
it". The Moslem's life was spared and the Turk was
executed. (3)
Speaking of Chaghatay, Chingiz Khan's third son, al-Juwayni
says: "And he enacted minute Yasas that were an intolerable
imposition upon such as the Taziks (=Iranian Muslims), e.g.

(1) Juwayni (Boyle), II, p. 573 and note 72.

(2) Ibid., I, p. 25.
(3) Ibid., I, pp. 206-207.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 DAVID AYALON

that none might slaughter meat in the Moslem fashion nor sit
by day in running water, and so on. The Yasa forbidding the
slaughter of sheep in the lawful manner he sent to every land;
and for a time no man slaughtered sheep openly in Khorasan,
and Moslems were forced to eat carrion". (1)
Thus al-Juwayni, who, unlike al-'Umari and al-Maqrizi, does
not include the prohibition of slaughtering animals in his
chapter on the Ydsa, also does not ascribe it specifically to
Chingiz Khan. He only speaks in the most general terms of
the Mongols who made such a Ydsa "when they first rose to
power", which is a very flexible expression (the same is true of
the prohibition of dipping in water-"It is laid down in the
Yasa and custom of the Mongols") (2). What is certain is
that the main driving force behind the implementation of
both this prohibition and the prohibition of ablution was
Chaghatay, who used his position as guardian of and chief
authority on the Yasa, in order to carry them out as severely
as he could. Both these prohibitions were doomed to failure,
especially in countries where the Muslims constituted a majo-
rity. (3) The anecdote about Ugudey, related above, clearly
implies that even in the vicinity of the Great Khan's court
Muslim slaughter had been prohibited only publicly, and
whoever interfered with that practice when made privately
incurred the disfavour of the Supreme ruler, and might even
be executed and blamed of infringing the Ydsa! The maximum
that Chaghatay could achieve was to prevent temporarily
public Muslim slaughter in a certain area. The gesture towards
Berke during Mongka's election demonstrates most strikingly
the immense gap existing between reality and between what
had been considered an ordinance of the Ydsa (on Berke Khan
and the Ydsa see also section B). The Oirat way of killing
animals shows that even amongst the Mongols that alleged
ordinance was not always observed.

(1) Ibid., I, p. 272.

(2) Ibid., I, p. 204.
(3) In fact, this prohibition had been short-lived even in China (see d'Ohsson,
pp. 490-493).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 121
The inescapable conclusion to be derived from the actual
attitude of the Mongols to slaughtering and ablutions is that
either the ordinances concerning them never constituted part
of the Ydsa, or that the Ydsa had been violated. The first
alternative undermines the credibility of our sources' information
on the contents of the Ydsa. The second alternative under-
mines the sacrosanct and uninfringible character of that code.
There are good grounds to support both alternatives, as I shall
try to show later in this study.
The exemption of certain categories of religious people from
taxes, etc., is alluded to on several occasions in al-Juwayni's
chronicle. (1) The word Ydsa is never mentioned in connection
with them. Only once is it stated that these exemptions
were given by the hukm of Chingiz Khan and of Ugudey.
Unlike al-'Umari and al-Maqrizi, al-Juwayni mentions the
exemption not only of Muslim, but also of Christian and pagan
religious leaders. On the other hand, he never outlines
anything comparable to the detailed list of scholars, religious
people and members of the professions connected with the
Muslim religion and with Muslim institutions provided by these
two authors. He mentions only the sayyids (the descendents
of 'Ali b. Abi Talib) and the imams.
III. The fact that al-'Umari attributes to al-Juwayni's
chronicle a considerable number of items which are not found
there (2), is very extraordinary. Before trying to explain this
strange phenomenon, the insistence with which the later author
attributes all his data to the earlier should be pointed out.
Al-'Umari refers to al-Juwayni as his source of information on
Chingiz Khan several pages before he starts his account of
the Ydsa. (3) After this reference he does not refer in these
pages to any other source. In the passage dealing with the
Yasa he speaks of al-Juwayni as being his authority at its very
opening. (4) Throughout that passage he mentions the same

(1) Juwayni (Boyle), I, pp. 15-16; II, p. 599, 606. See also ibid., I, p. 97;
II, pp. 539-40.
(2) All the items are enumerated in the full version of this study.
(3) Masdlik al-Absdr, B. N. ms. no. 5867, fol. 34b, 1. 4.
(4) Ibid., fol. 36a, 11. 11-12.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 DAVID AYALON

author as his source of information another eight times. (1)

The pages immediately following the passage on the Ydsa,
those dealing with the sons of Chingiz Khan (2), are also based
exclusively on al-Juwayni. Al-'Umari concludes his citation
from that source with the words: "This is what al-Juwayni
has said" (hadhd md dhakarahu al-Sahib 'Ala' al-Din) (3),
and only then he starts citing other sources. Had we not
possessed al-Juwayni's chronicle, we could not have suspected
that al-'Umari had ascribed to him things he never said.
I can see only three possibilities for the explanation of this
extraordinary phenomenon. The first is that al-Juwayni's
chronicle has not come down to us in full. The second is that
al-'Umari did not draw from al-Juwayni directly but rather
through an intermediary or intermediaries who might have
misled him. The third is that he drew from additional sources,
which he did not name, yet ascribed everything to al-Juwayni
alone.
In the present state of our knowledge the second possibility
seems to me to be by far the most likely. What can be said
in favour of the first possibility is that in the MSS upon which
Muhammad Qazwini based his edition of al-Juwayni there are
blanks which suggest, as he states, an intention to make later
additions. There are also a number of references by al-Juwayni
to non-existent chapters in his book. (4) This situation can,
however, be quite satisfactorily explained by al-Juwayni's
heavy administrative and other duties, which prevented him
from filling the blanks he left or writing the chapters to which
he refers. In addition, it is very improbable that in those
missing chapters (5) there was any suitable place for including
a set of items ascribed to the Ydsa and dealing with crime and
punishment. Neither does a comparison of Mirkhond's (6)

(1) Ibid., fols. 36a, 1. 15, 36b, 1. 5, 36b, 1. 7, 37a, 1. 12, 37b, 1. 9, 37b, 1. 10, 37b
1. 15, 38a, 1. 8.
(2) Ibid., fols. 39a, 1. 12-40a, 1. 6.
(3) Ibid., fol. 40a, 11. 5-6.
(4) See Boyle's introduction to al-Juwayni, vol. I, pp. xxvi-xxvii.
(5) They are enumerated by Boyle, ibid., p. xxvi.
(6) See Mirkhond/Langles, Notices et Extraits, vol. V, 1795, pp. 205-216.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 123
and Bar Hebraeus' (1) data on the Ydsa, which also come from
al-Juwayni, encourage such a possibility. In any case, before
decisive proofs to the contrary are produced, the possibility
of lost parts of al-Juwayni's chronicle in general, and of their
containing Ydsa items in particular, cannot be seriously
considered.
There are certain indications in favour of the third possibility.
One of the items in al-'Umari's passage on the Ydsa is the
prohibition to tread on the thresholds of the Mongols' tents
on entering them. His wording is wa-ld yala' 'atabat al-
khirkad. (2) Now this wording is identical with that which
al-Nuwayri uses in his account of the visit of Sultan Baybars'
delegation to Berke Khan's Court, where the etiquette and
regulations on entering the Khan's tent is described. (3) The
possibility cannot be excluded that al-'Umari copied that item
from al-Nuwayri, and extended it over all the Mongols' tents. (4)
This is, however, an isolated instance; a far more extensive
reading of the sources of the early Mamluk period (of which
so much is still unpublished) has to be made in order to verify
this third possibility. (5)
As for the second possibility, here, I believe, we tread on
much firmer ground. Whereas al-Maqrizi copied from a text
written in his own mother tongue, and, therefore, any change

(1) On Bar Hebraeus' evidence on the Ydsa see below.

(2) Masalik, B. N. ms. no. 5867, fol. 38b, 1. 8.
(3) Nuwayri, in Tiesenhausen's Recueil de Materiaux relatifs ia lhistoire de la
Horde d'or, Saint P6tersbourg, 1884, vol. I, p. 54, 11. 15-16, and note 7. Ibn
'Abd al-Zahir, from whom al-Nuwayri must have copied, says yadiisu bi-rijlihi
instead of yata'u (see F. Sadeque, Baybars the First of Egypt, OUP, Pakistan, 1956,
p. 115, 1. 2 of the text in Arabic).
(4) The repeated mention of the prohibition of treading on the threshold by
William of Rubruck and Piano Carpini shows that it had been exercised not only
by the ruler of the Golden Horde, but also by other Khans, including the Great
Khan. It cannot be established, however, whether this had been the practice
in all the Mongols' tents or not. In any case, there is no proof that the prohibition
in question constituted part of the Ydsa.
(5) The fact that there is an almost identical sentence on the horsepost in
al-'Umari's passage on the Ydsa, and in Ibn al-Tiqtaqa's Kitdb al-Fakhri (both
of whom quote al-Juwayni as their source) might prove to be of considerable
importance. This question is discussed in a detailed note in the full version of
the present study.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 DAVID AYALON

he made in it could not be but deliberate, or at least conscious,

al-'Umari made a rendition or a summary from a foreign
language. Moreover, al-Juwayni's style is very elaborate and
presents formidable difficulties to those who attempt to
reproduce this chronicle in another language. (1) The lack
of any tradition in the Mamluk Sultanate of translating or
summarizing from the Persian language, and particularly from
Persian historical sources, must have increased these difficulties.
As for al-'Umari, there is no indication that he knew that language
at all! A more likely possibility is that he was helped in
his presentation of al-Juwayni's data on the Mongols by
contemporary informants, a considerable number of whom
were Persians or who had lived in Iran for a long time. (2)
These interpreters might well have been not particularly
reliable, or knowledgeable or accurate. They could add to
or cut from al-Juwayni's original or distort it, willingly or
unwillingly, without al-'Umari's being able to check them, or
his being ready to take the trouble to do so. (3) The fact that
al-'Umari did not translate al-Juwayni word for word but
only summarized him in a certain way, only increased the
chances of deviations from the original. (4)

(1) See Boyle in his introduction to al-Juwayni, vol. I, p. xxviii.

(2) See Lech's very good list of oral sources (pp. 29-37). For the full title of
his study see below.
(3) Al-'Umari does speak of how carefully he checked his sources of information
(Masdlik al-Abscr, vol. I, ed. Ahmad Zaki, Cairo, 1924, pp. 2,1. 6-3,1. 6, and B. N.
ms. no.5867, fols. 5a, 1. 12-6a, 1. 6). His stress, however, is on the oral sources;
of the written sources he mentions primarily the geographical literature, which
is overwhelmingly in Arabic. The accuracy of a considerable part of the informa-
tion he received, according to his own assertion, from oral sources, is quite uncer-
tain. Often its importance is due not so much to its unquestionable reliability
as to the unconventional way in which he gathered it.
(4) How much is lost and even distorted by summarizing or dropping words and
sentences can be learnt from al-Qalqashandi's numerous quotations from
al-'Umari's works, and this in spite of the fact that al-Qalqashandi wrote in the
same language as the first-named author, and in spite of his conscientiousness
and of his thorough knowledge of al-'Umari's writings. How much more was
al-'Umari vulnerable to error, distortion and to unwarranted additions and
omissions, when he had to reproduce in Arabic a most difficult source, written in
another language, which he does not seem to have known, and when that source,
outside the chapter on the Mongols, had been of little value to him?

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 125
Thus, the whole series of items which al-'Umari attributes
to al-Juwayni's chronicle but which are not there-and this
includes practically the whole of what is called Mongol criminal
law-hangs in the air. Furthermore, the considerations
brought up here greatly undermine the claim that these items
constituted part of the Ydsa. (1)
The comparison between al-'Umari's and al-Maqrizi's texts
on the one hand, and between al-'Umari's and al-Juwayni's
texts on the other, makes it abundantly clear that al-'Umari's
passage on the Yasa is a most vital and a most central link
in the study of what is considered to be Chingiz Khan's law
and of its contents. The fact that that passage has been
neglected and overlooked for a very long time has had extremely
unfortunate effects upon the study of this subject for it is
impossible to study the evidence on the Ydsa properly without
knowing the most important fact about it, namely, al-Maqrizi's
dependence on al-'Umari and al-'Umari's dependence on al-
Juwayni, to whom he also attributed things which the latter
never said.
The reason why al-'Umari's passage has not attracted even
a fraction of the attention it deserves goes back, to a great
extent, to the fact that the study of the Ydsa has been conducted
with complete, or almost complete, disregard of the chronological
order of the sources dealing with it, and of their dependence on
each other. (2) When, at long last, K. Lech published
al-'Umari's text, rightly stressing its great importance, he still
offered a wrong theory about the position of al-'UmarI's text
between those of al-Juwayni and al-Maqrizi. But before
examining that theory it is necessary to discuss the work of
another student of the Ydsa, namely, Vernadsky.
I shall dwell here on two aspects of Vernadsky's work:
a) his view of Abii al-Faraj Bar Hebraeus as a source on the
Ydsa;

(1) Lech's unacceptable theory on this subject is discussed below.

(2) In the full version of this study, in a part entitled "The Unfortunate Lot
of al-'Umari's Passage on the Yasa", the inattention of students of the subject to
the connection between the various sources is systematically examined. Here
this part is omitted.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 DAVID AYALON

b) his contribution to the study of al-Juwayni's data on it.

a) Vernadsky repeatedly claims in his studies that Bar
Hebraeus' version on the Ydsa's contents and that of al-Juwayni
should be considered as independent versions, deriving from an
earlier common source. The following passage represents this
claim very well. The author says: "Bar Hebraeus' statement
seems, at first glance, to be a mere abridgement of al-Juwayni's
evidence but I consider it more likely that both of them
depended on an earlier source which might have been a written
record of the Ydsa. It is probable that Bar Hebraeus had
a fair knowledge of Uighur and consequently could have used
the Uighur copy of the Yasa". (1)
Vernadsky had been decisively influenced in forming this
view by a remark made by E. A. Wallis Budge in his introduction
to his translation of Bar Hebraeus (he refers to that remark
in the above cited passage). In the main part of this remark
Budge states: "It is very probable that he (i.e. Bar Hebraeus)
could read Uighur, and perhaps even speak it... The laws
of Chingiz Khan (see p. 354) appear to have been translated
from some document verbatim"(the italics are mine-D.A.). (2)
This theorizing by both Budge and Vernadsky is utterly
unfounded, because no proof whatsoever exists that Bar
Hebraeus had any knowledge of Uighur; that the Ydsa had
ever been translated into Uighur or any other language, or
that there is any source dealing with the Yasa's contents in
any detail prior to al-Juwayni's chronicle (and as long as it
remains unknown it must be considered non-existent).
Furthermore, both scholars failed to notice that their theory
is exploded by Bar Hebraeus' own words, pronounced in a

(1) "The scope and contents of Chingiz Khan's Yasa", HJAS, vol. III, 1938,
p. 341 and note 24 on the same page. See also "Juwaini's version of Chingiz
Khan's Yasa", Annales de l'Institut Kondakov, vol. IX, 1939, pp. 33-34; "The
problem of the Reconstruction of Chingiz Khan's Yasa", Actes du XXe Congres
International des Orientalistes, Louvain, 1940, p. 220; The Mongols and Russia,
New Haven, 1953, p. 100 and the following pages. See also: O sostave Velikoy Yasy
Chingis Khana, Brussels, 1939.
(2) The Chronology of Gregory Abu'l Faraj Bar Hebraeus, vol. I, OUP, 1932,
p. XLVI.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 127
context which could not be more conspicuous for he opens his
passage on the Ydsa with the statement that by Chingiz
Khan's order books in the Mongol language, including "the
following laws which he made", were written in Uighur charac-
ters. (1) Then he enumerates these laws. (2) Thus Bar
Hebraeus, like our other sources, knows only of a Ydsa written
in the Mongol language and in the Uighur script (he never
speaks again on that subject anywhere else in his book).
Again, like all the other sources dealing with the Ydsa, he does
not claim ever to have seen it. Had he seen it in a Mongol
or in any other language-to say nothing of having copied
from it-he would have had every incentive, not only to make
this fact known, but also to stress it in every possible way.
As a matter of fact, even a superficial comparison between
the chronicles of Bar Hebraeus and al-Juwayni shows how
extensively the first drew from the second. D'Ohsson, who
made systematic use of both sources, has already established
this fact. (3) But what is even more important is Bar Hebraeus'
own admission. Speaking of al-Juwayni he says: "And he
composed a marvellous work in Persian on the Chronology of
the kingdoms of the Saljuks and Khawarazmians, and
Ishmaelites and Mongols; what we have introduced into our
work on those matters we have derived from this book" (italics
are mine-D.A.). (4) This admission destroys the whole
basis of Vernadsky's theory on Bar Hebraeus' independence of
al-Juwayni, if such a thing is still needed. There is, therefore,
no justification for his lamenting the fact that Bar Hebraeus
had been neglected as a source on the Ydsa, and for his ascribing
such neglect to a contemptuous reference to that chronicler's
work, made by d'Ohsson. (5)

(1) Ibid., p. 354.

(2) Ibid., pp. 354-355.
(3) Histoire des Mongols, I, p. XLVI. See also B. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran,
p. 12; Boyle's introduction to al-Juwayni, I, p. xxvIIi.
(4) The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, vol. I, p. 473. Quatrembre had already
referred to this statement of Bar Hebraeus as early as the year 1809 (see: "Memoire
historique sur la vie et les ouvrages d'Ala-ed-din Ata-Melik djouainy", Mines de
l'Orient, Vienna, 1809, p. 233). Quatrembre, however, did not make a comparison
between al-Juwayni's and Bar Hebraeus' texts, as d'Ohsson did.
(5) "The Scope, etc.", op. cit., p. 341.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 DAVID AYALON

b) Vernadsky's main contribution to the study of the

Yasa-and this is no mean a one-is that, in a number of
studies (1), he revived the interest in al-Juwayni as a source
on this subject, after a long period of neglect (actually from the
time of d'Ohsson). The most valuable part of these studies
is the translation into Russian and English of al-Juwayni's
chapter on the Ydsa (the Russian translation was made by
V. Minorsky). (2)
Vernadsky's work on the subject suffers, however, from some
severe shortcomings, the most important of which is that he
confined himself to al-Juwayni's chapter on the Ydsa alone,
and did not collect the important data pertaining to the Ydsa's
contents, as well as to other aspects of it, scattered in other
parts of his chronicle (see also section B of this study). This
gave him a very one sided and blurred picture of what al-
Juwayni really says about the Ydsa. A major outcome of this
state of affairs was that he considered al-Maqrizi and al-Juwayni
not only as completely independent sources, but also as dealing
with basically different aspects of the Ydsa's contents. (3)
This resulted in his compilation of a list of ordinances-based
on these two and on other sources-and in their classification
in a way which is entirely unconvincing. (4) The main reason
why al-Juwayni's data on the Yasa is so important, irrespective
of whether it is reliable or accurate or not, was not noticed by
him.
We shall now examine Lech's theory. The contrast between
Lech's solidity and thoroughness and Vernadsky's rather
shaky and not-too-profound approach is very evident.
Yet each of them erred in more or less the same way in connection
with a theory he formed about the Ydsa. In order to support
their respective theories they had to suggest the existence of

(1) See the references above.

(2) "Juwayni's version", op. cit., p. 34. Vernadsky's English translation
is now superseded by that of Boyle's in his translation of al-Juwayni's chronicle.
(3) See e. g. "The Scope, etc.", pp. 339-40; "The problem, etc.", pp. 219-220;
"Juwayni's version", p. 33; "The Mongols and Russia", pp. 100-101. The same
idea is also expounded in other parts of these studies.
(4) "The Scope, etc.", pp. 342-359: "The Mongols and Russia", pp. 99-110. See
also the references above.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 129
a hypothetical, or, to be more exact, an imaginary translation
of that law.
I shall reproduce here two passages from Lech's book (1),
where he expounds his theory.
A. Auf den ersten Blick mag diesen Nachrichten nur geringe Bedeutung zukom-
men, da sie auf -0UWAINi basieren. Ein Vergleich zeigt aber (S. 22), daB maBgebliche
Partien, obwohl als Zitat angegeben, dort iiberhaupt nicht nachzuweisen sind.
Das gilt besonders fir zahlreiche Paragraphen des Ginkiz tan-Kodex, die sich
nur zum Teil in der uns heute vorliegenden Edition des Ta'riz-i gahdn-guadi
finden (2). Die an sich sekundaren Angaben -'UMARI'S gewinnen damit entschieden
an Wichtigkeit und erweisen sich uberraschend als die innerhalb des arabischen
Literaturbereichs alteste und umfangreichste Sammlung von ydsa- Fragmenten.
Ihre Authentizitat scheint uberdies durch den spateren -MAQRIZI: Hitat, Bd. II,
S. 220:25-S. 221:12, vollauf bestatigt zu werden, der sich bei seinen, mit -'UMARI
mitunter wortlich iibereinstimmenden Ausfuhrungen iiber einen gewissen Abf
HaBim Ahmad b. al-Burhan angeblich direkt auf ein in Bagdad befindliches Exem-
plar der ydsa bezieht; siehe hierzu unten Kom. I, Anm. 42 (').
B. Die Bedeutung unseres Textes beruht nicht zuletzt darauf, da13 er uns die
wohl grOBte bis jetzt bekannt gewordene Fragmentensammlung aus der yasa
Ginkiz Han's bietet. Sie ubertrifft sogar noch die bekannte Zusammenstellung
bei MAQRIZI:-Hitat, Bd. II, S. 220 : 25 - S. 221 : 12, die iiber einen Gewahrsmann
angeblich direkt auf einen in der Bagdader Mustansiriya aufbewahrten Codex
zuriickgehen soil. Diese zweifache voneinander unabhangige und trotzdem in der
Mehrzahl der Falle fast gleichlautende tberlieferung einer Anzahl von Strafbes-
timmungen der ydsa laI3t vermuten, hier tatsachlich w6rtliche lfbersetzungen aus
dem mongolischen Original vorliegen zu haben (4).

In the two above-cited passages Lech does not even hint at

the possibility that al-Maqrizi simply copied from al-'Umari,
to say nothing of attempting to reject such a possibility,
although this is the most obvious thing to do. His theory
on the independence of al-Maqrizi's evidence from that of

(1) Klaus Lech, Das Mongolische Weltreich, Al-'Umari's Darstellung der mongo-
lischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masdlik al-absdr fl mamalik al-amsdr, Asiatische
Forschungen, Band 22, Wiesbaden, 1968. Lech's book is a very important contri-
bution to the study of Mongol history. His edition of al-'Umari's text is excellent.
It is based on threee manuscript copies, and the edition of the section on the Ydsa
is much superior to mine, which is based on a single copy, and a late one at that.
I learned of Lech's work only when I had almost completed the writing of sections
A and B of the present study.
(2) Here Lech refers to those items which al-'Umari ascribes to al-Juwayni,
but which are not found in his chronicle.
(3) Lech, op. cit., p. 43.
(4) Ibid., p. 197, note 42.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 DAVID AYALON

al-'Umari, and on the dependence of both of them on "wortliche

Ubersetzungenaus dem Mongolischen Original" (the italics are
mine-D.A.), is based wholly and solely on the assumption
that Ibn al-Burhan had been the medium through which
al-Maqrizi received his data on the Ydsa's contents. Since
this assumption has been proved to be wrong (1), and since
the real source from which al-Maqrizi copied has been established
beyond any possible doubt, these two facts are more than
sufficient to disprove Lech's theory completely.
There is, however, a whole set of additional improbabilities,
or even impossibilities, which such a theory involves and which
have to be discussed here. According to Lech's theory the
copy which Ibn al-Burhan is said to have seen was written
in Arabic, a thing which al-Maqrizi never claims. The same
theory also implies that Ibn al-Burhan not only read the text
of the Ydsa in Arabic, and imparted its contents from memory
or from some notes he might have jotted down, but also
actually copied it verbatim, handing over a copy to al-Maqrizi;
for how otherwise could al-Maqrizi's wording be identical or
almost identical with that of al-'Umari? Lech speaks of
verbatim translations from the Mongol original, which implies
more than one such translation. Now how is it possible that
two independent verbatim translations of a certain text into
the same language would be so similar, to the point of almost
complete identity? (According to the theory under discussion
one of these translations must have been used by al-'Umari
and the other by al-Maqrizi). If Lech thinks that there were
two copies of the same translation of the Ydsa, he definitely
does not say so. But whatever the case may be, Lech expects
us to believe that there existed two copies of the Ydsa's
translation (or translations) into Arabic, and yet this fact had
never been noticed by anybody.
To all these arguments against the validity of Lech's theory
others can easily be added: the identity in wording in al-'Umari's

(1) It is astonishing how readily Lech accepts what he considers to be the

evidence of Ibn al-Burhan, a person about whom he himself admits he knows
nothing ("einen gewissen Abu Hashim").

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 131
and al-Maqrizl's texts is not confined to those items which are
attributed to al-Juwayni's chronicle and which are not there,
but embraces also those items that are there. (1) Furthermore,
these latter items appear in al-Maqrizi in the same order as
in al-'Umari, in spite of the fact that al-'Umari (or his interpreter
or interpreters) gathered from al-Juwayni's chronicle the items
which are not included in his chapter on the Ydsa, and arranged
them arbitrarily. Thus the items mentioned by al-Juwayni
throughout his book could be copied by al-Maqrizi only from
al-'Umari. If so, how is it possible that al-Maqrizi copied
from al-'Umari only the items included in al-Juwayni's chronicle,
ignored those that were not included there, copied these latter
from the source seen by Ibn al-Burhan, and at the end both
the language and the contents of al-Maqrizi's items were
identical with the language and the contents of the corresponding
items in al-'Umari! (2) Such is the tangle of improbabilities
and impossibilities into which Lech's theory inevitably leads. (3)
We learn from Lech that he is working on a study of the
Ydsa, which, as he promises, will double the number of the
"fragments" of that law known hitherto. (4) I have no doubt
that a scholar of his ability and erudition will be able to produce
a much augmented collection of Mongol ordinances, customs
and usages and correlate the evidence on its various items in
a most convincing way. I very much doubt, however,
whether these will be any justification for calling that collection
"The Great Ydsa of Chingiz Khan" (I shall return to this

(1) With the obvious exception of the items drastically abbreviated by

al-Maqrizi.
(2) Lech does not allude to the vital problem of the language barrier which
al-'Umari had to surmount in order to render al-Juwayni's text in Arabic. We
are thus expected to believe that a slipshod summary or rendition from Persian
into Arabic (al-'Umari's text) will become more or less identical in its wording
with what Lech considers to be a translation from Mongol into Arabic (al-Maqrizi's
text).
(3) A view expressed by Lech about the better quality of al-'Umari's rendition
of al-Juwayni's chapter on the Ydsa over that of the Persian original as it has come
down to us (p. 22 of his book. See also p. 68 in that book) is, on the whole, inad-
missible. The general, and unclear, character of his statement makes it difficult
to discuss it at the present stage.
(4) Lech, op. cit., p. x. See also ibid., p. 197, end of note 42.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 DAVID AYALON

point at the end of section A of this study). What is absolutely

certain is that any study of the Yasa which is based on Lech's
theory will lead the research on this subject in the wrong
direction.
The results of my research into the relationships among the
various Muslim sources dealing with the Ydsa must be disap-
pointing to students of the subject, for it has been proved that
in reality we have only one source which provides detailed
data on the contents of the Ydsa (or, to be more precise, on
what the author of that source claims to be the contents of
that code). All the other authorities: Bar Hebraeus (1),
al-'Umari, al-Qalqashandi (2), al-Maqrizi, Mirkhond, as well as
undoubtedly a number of others, drew directly or indirectly
from this same author. This fact immensely increases the
importance of al-Juwayni's evidence on the subject but at
the same time makes it far more difficult to check its veracity.

Al-Juwayni as a source on the Ydsa

Al-Juwaynl's uniqueness as a source on the Ydsa's contents
is by no means his only merit, for throughout his book are
scattered rich data on other aspects of the Ydsa, particularly
on the attitude of the Mongols towards it (see section B).
Furthermore, this data is very helpful in establishing the
meaning of the term Yasa, or, to be more exact, the nebulous
character of that meaning (on this subject more will be said
below).
There are a great number of advantages in using al-Juwayni
as a source on the Ydsa, as well as on other aspects of Mongol
history. As an early writer on the Mongols (he wrote his
chronicle in the sixth decade of the thirteenth century); as a
very learned scholar; as a person who, like his father and
brother, occupied high offices in the Mongol administration;
and as a man who had twice visited East Asia (including the

(1) For the purpose of the study of the Ydsa there is full justification for
considering Bar Hebraeus' chronicle as a "Muslim source".
(2) Subh al-A'shd, IV, pp. 310, 1. 11-312, 1. 5. Al-Qalqashandi copied his passage
on the Ydsa from al-'Umari and mentioned there both the name of his immediate
source and that of al-Juwayni.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 133

Mongol capital, Qaraqorum) he was in a particularly good

position to write an authoritative history of the early decades
of the Mongol Empire, especially at the time of Chingiz Khan's
early successors.
At the same time, however, al-Juwayni has many grave
defects. (1) One of these is that he does not mention his source
of information on the Ydsa. Another is that he was not a
contemporary of Chingiz Khan's time, when the code is said
to have been compiled (2) (he was born in 1226, on the eve of
that Khan's death). A more grave defect is that al-Juwayni's
was a very biased and partisan source. D'Ohsson's scathing
criticism of him is undoubtedly exaggerated, and much of
what had been said in his defence by later scholars is certainly
true. Yet after making many allowances in his favour, he
still remains a partisan panegyrist of his Mongol masters.
His claim of the existence of complete unity and harmony
amongst all of Chingiz Khan's descendants, in spite of their
great and growing numbers, and in contrast to the situation
prevailing within all the other dynasties, can be easily disproved
even by his own evidence. In fact, the antagonisms within
the Mongol royal family, which sapped its power, had already
begun at the time of Chingiz Khan himself. Much of what
he says about the attitude of the Mongols towards the Muslims
is often nauseating in its servile flattery. His claim that
"many" (!) of the Ydsa's ordinances are in conformity with
the shard'a (3) is entirely unsubstantiated. He does not bring
even one instance in support of this claim. None of the
Mamluk authors who drew from him shared his view in this
matter. (4)

(1) Al-Juwayni's merits and demerits are discussed in the full version of this
work with much greater detail than here.
(2) What Boyle says about al-Juwayni's account of the Mongol conquests
in the Muslim countries in Chingiz Khan's reign (EI2, II, p. 607a) applies to other
aspects of his history for that reign, including the compilation of the Ydsa.
(3) Juwayni (Boyle), I, p. 25 (Qazwini's edition, I, p. 18, 1. 7).
(4) Al-'Umari renders that statement by al-Juwayni in a mitigated form:
"Some laws of it are in conformity with the Muhammadan sharL'a" (B. N. ms.
no. 5867, fol. 36b, 11. 6-7). Al-Qalqashandi alters al-'Umarl's statement thus:
"Maybe a little of it is in conformity with the Muhammadan sharz'a, but most of
it is contradictory to it" (Subh al-A'shd, IV, pp. 310, 1. 12-311, 1. 1). Al-Maqrizi
rejects any conformity between the two codes.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 DAVID AYALON

Concerning al-Juwayni's pro-Mongol bias it should be stressed

that he did not favour all the Mongols evenly. His main
allegiance was to one branch of the Royal family and to its
supporters. This was the branch of the youngest son, Tuluy,
which al-Juwayni and other members of his family served
and which had already established its supremacy among the
Mongols at the time when he compiled his chronicle. His
partisanship to that branch was unbounded, and it is reflected
in particular strength in the way he describes and interprets
the attitude of the Mongols in general, and of Chingiz Khan's
descendants in particular, towards the Ydsa. This point
will be one of the central subjects in section B of the present
study.
Al-Juwayni's bias is not the only factor which detracts from
the trustworthiness or accuracy of his information on the
Ydsa. Another factor is the looseness, and sometimes the
lack of clarity, in his writing on the subject. The chapter on
the Ydsa is very much longer than the real substance which
it includes necessitates. The presentation of the ordinances
is sometimes confusing. Although in the heading of the whole
chapter and in its opening sentences only Chingiz Khan is
mentioned as the promulgator of the Ydsa's ordinances, inside
the chapter the lack of preoccupation with titles is not attributed
directly to Chingiz Khan, but is described as one of the laudable
customs ('ddad) of the Mongols. (1) The non- confiscation of
a dead man's inheritance is also stated to be a Mongol custom
( 9,j). (2) Particularly striking is the fact that the three
major sections of the chapter on the Yasa, which occupy its
greater part, namely, the organization of the army, of hunting
and of the horse-post could easily be taken out of that chapter
and form a separate entity with no reference to any kind of
law. The term Yasa, or a corresponding term, is never
mentioned by al-Juwayni in connection with these three
institutions. (3) As for hunting, al-Juwayni only states that

(1) Juwayni (Boyle), I, p. 26 (Qazwini's edition, I, p. 19 11. 1-2).

(2) Ibid., I, p. 34 (Qazwini's edition, I, p. 25, 1. 7).
(3) Certain prohibitions connected with the army are mentioned by al-Juwayni
as Ydsa (ibid., I, p. 32), but not the organization of the army.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT << YASA M>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 135

Chingiz Khan "paid attention to the chase and used to say"

that "it was a proper occupation for the commanders of armies;
and that instruction therein was incumbent on warriors and
men-at-arms". (1) There is no mention here of Chingiz Khan's
promulgating hunting as a law. Al-Juwayni's description of
these institutions goes far beyond the time of Chingiz Khan,
with the addition of some anecdotes about his successors.
The Ydsa element gets lost in this detailed description, which,
although extremely important in itself, does not seem to have
much relevance to the title of the chapter. The fact that,
according to the title, the chapter deals with "The Laws
Chingiz Khan framed and the Ydsas which he Promulgated" (2),
cannot serve at all as a guarantee that al-Juwayni would
literally adhere to it. There are other items in the same
chapter, the Ydsa character of which is quite unclear.
A very strong support to the argument that the organization
of the army did not constitute part of the law attributed to
Chingiz Khan is to be found in the way The Secret History of
the Mongols mentions both of them. This history speaks quite
often, and sometimes at considerable length, about Chingiz
Kh5n's organizing his army as well as of his bodyguard (the
day watch and the night watch). (3) Yet never is this account
connected in any way with the making or with the contents of
the Mongol law. Even in the year 1206, when the law was
already established, according to the claim of that chronicle,
the military reforms of Chingiz Khan are described separately. (4)
The account of the creation of the law in that year runs as
follows.
Weiter beauftragte er (i. e. Chingiz Khan) den gigihutuhu mit den Prozess-sachen
aller Hoheren: ,Bestrafe die Diebstahle im ganzen Volk und klare die Betrugsfalle
auf! Die, welche T6tung verdient haben, laB tften, die, welche Geldbufle verdient
haben, la13Bufie zahlenls Weiter gab er diese Verfiigung: (Die Teilungssachen und
die Prozef3sachen des ganzen Volkes soil er in ein Blaubuch mit Schrift ein-

(1) Ibid., I, p. 27.

(2) Ibid., I, p. 23.
(3) E. Haenisch, Die Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen, Leipzig, 1941, pp. 81
(paragraph 191), 95 (par. 202), 108-112 (pars. 224-229), 147 ff. (par. 278).
(4) Ibid., pp. 95-116 (pars. 202-234).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 DAVID AYALON

schreiben und als Heft zurechtmachen. Und bis in meine fernste Nachkommenschaft
darf man, was gigihutuhu nach Beratung mit mir festgesetzt und in blauer Schrift
auf weif3em papier als Buch zurechtgemacht hat, nicht wieder andern. Die Leute,
welche es iindern, sollen strafbar sein! (1).

The personality of Sigihutuhu is very interesting. He was

found by Temushin (the later Chingiz Khan) as a small boy
in an abandoned camp of the Tatars, the Mongols' enemies.
He brought him to his mother, Hoe'lun, who adopted him as
her sixth son (Temushin was the eldest of her five sons). (2)
A great friendship and mutual loyalty developed between the
two "brothers". Chingiz Khan trusted him to such a degree,
that he considered him to be his "eye and ear". (3) Yet he
is never said to have had any part in shaping the Mongol
army. (4)
The "Blue Book" is divided, according to the Secret History,
into two major categories: a) Matters pertaining to division,
which seems to have had a very wide sense (5), but which must
have included division of spoils and property; b) Matters
pertaining to trials. Unfortunately, this chronicle does not
mention any particular item of either of these two categories.
Therefore, the ordinances of the "Blue Book" cannot be
compared at all with the ordinances which, according to
al-Juwayni, were included in the Ydsa.
A very important aspect of the Secret History's evidence
is that, unlike al-Juwayni, it does not attribute to Chingiz
Khan himself the invention of the ordinances of the Mongol
law, to say nothing of the compilation of that law in the form
of a book. Al-Juwayni says that "God Almighty" bestowed
upon Chingiz Khan such faculties that he had had no need to

(1) Ibid., p. 95 (par. 203). Cp. also p. 168. See also R. Grousset, L'Empire
Mongol, Paris, 1941, p. 183 and note 1; Le Conqudrantdu Monde, Paris, 1944, p. 212.
(2) Ibid., pp. 41 (par. 135), 42 (par. 138).
(3) Ibid., pp. 95 (par. 202), 128-9 (par. 252).
(4) Members of the night watch could act as judges in trials presided by
gigihutuhu: "Weiter sprach er (i. e. Chingiz Khan): Zur Hilfe bei gigihutuhu fur
die Prozessentscheidungen soil man Leute aus den Nachtwachen bestimmen, die
mit ihm gemeinsam das Verhbr vornehmen" (Ibid., p. 115, par. 234). On gigihu-
tuhu see also ibid., pp. 103 (par. 214) and 119 (par. 242).
(5) See ibid., pp. 96-97 (par. 203).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >> OF CHINGIZ KHAN 137
learn anything from the experience of earlier rulers like the
Chosroes, the Pharaohs or the Caesars. According to him
"all that had been written concerning the customs and usages"
of those rulers "was by Chingiz Khan invented from the page
of his own mind". (1) About the making of the Ydsa he
says: "In accordance and agreement with his own mind he
established a rule for every occasion and a regulation for every
circumstance; while for every crime he fixed a penalty".
Al-Juwayni continues, telling how Chingiz Khan ordered these
ordinances to be written down on rolls, calling the rolls "theGreat
Book of the Yasas". (2) In the Secret History most of the task
of making the Mongol law is ascribed to Sigihutuhu. It was
he who "festgesetzt" the contents of the "Blue Book", although
he had first to consult Chingiz Khan. This is a very different
picture from that depicted by al-Juwayni about Chingiz Kh5n's
role in making the Yasa, and a much more realistic one. (3)
Further, according to the Secret History Sigihutuhu's role was
not confined to the making of the "Blue Book". He was
appointed Supreme Judge as well by Chingiz Khan. The fact
that al-Juwayni mentions Sigihutuhu's name only in passing (4),
and in no connection with either the Mongol law or with the
Mongol judiciary, is, in my view, most instructive.
From the "Secret History" we learn yet another important
fact. The organization of the horse-post is ascribed by it
not to Chingiz Khan, but to his son and successor Ugudey. (5)

(1) Juwayni (Boyle), I, p. 23.

(2) Ibid., I, p. 25.
(3) For the terms Yasa, yasaq in the Secret History in the sense of "order"
or "law" see e. g. paragraphs 74 (Pelliot, pp. 16, 134; Haenisch, pp. 13-14), 153
(Pelliot, pp. 47, 175; Haenisch, p. 54), 227 (Pelliot, pp. 88, 89; Haenisch, p. 111),
278 (Pelliot p. 117; Haenisch, p. 150). The term Yargui also appears in the Secret
History: paragraphs 203 (Pelliot, 78; Haenisch, 97), 234 (Pelliot, 92; Haenisch,
115). In the first instance this term is mentioned in connection with the "Blue
Book". In both instances it appears in connection with gigihutuhu. In
P. Pelliot's posthumous Histoire Secrete des Mongols, Paris, 1949, the full Mongol
text (282 paragraphs) is published (pp. 5-120). Only 185 paragraphs of it are
translated into French (pp. 121-196).
(4) Juwayni (Boyle), I, p. 135 and note 8; II, p. 406.
(5) Haenisch, pp. 152 (par. 279), 153 (par. 280, 281).

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138 DAVID AYALON

Al-Juwayni does not ascribe it to any Mongol personality in

particular, but to the Mongols in general. Yet he includes it
in his chapter on Chingiz Khan's Ydsa!
The study of al-Juwayni's version of the Ydsa is complicated
by two other handicaps:
a) The fact that he places a number of its items outside the
chapter dedicated to it. His reasons for including certain
items in that chapter and excluding others is difficult to explain.
It is also impossible to decide whether he attributed a different
degree of importance to each of those two kinds of items.
b) The nebulous character of the term Ydsa. Because al-
Juwayni's chronicle is the first Muslim source speaking about
the Ydsa, and because it refers to it so frequently, it is certainly
the best medium we possess for the clarification of this term.
The systematic study of the term as it appears in this chronicle
yields important and interesting results. At the same time it
demonstrates how easily the different, sometimes unclear and
sometimes overlapping meanings of the term might be confused
not only by the reader but by the author as well. (1) ( Ysa could
mean a "law" or an "ordinance" of Chingiz Khan or of one of
the khans descended from him. It might also mean a "law"
ro a "custom" of the Mongols in general). This confusion
in terminology may have greatly facilitated the attribution
to Chingiz Khan's Ydsa elements and items which did not
belong to it at all. (2)
On the basis of all the above-mentioned considerations there
are very good reasons to assume that al-Juwayni easily drifted,
time and time again, in his chapter on the Ydsa from the
description of what he believed to be its contents to the
description of various Mongol customs, usages, ordinances and
institutions with which he had been familiar; and he made
little effort to disguise these drifts. The fact that the Ydsa
had been, in all probability, a secret document, could only
increase al-Juwayni's uncertainty about its real contents.

(1) This confusion is noticeable in al-Juwayni's chapter on the Yasa as well

as in other parts of his chronicle, where this term is mentioned.
(2) The term Yasa is treated in Appendix A of the full version of this study.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE GREAT < YASA >>OF CHINGIZ KHAN 139
The form, or forms, in which the contents of the Ydsa have
come down to us cannot give the vaguest idea of how its items
were arranged in the original Mongol text. Al-Maqrizi followed
al-'Umari's order very slavishly, but al-'Umari not only did
not follow the order of al-Juwayni's chapter on the Yasa closely,
but also collected items from other parts of that author's
chronicle, as well as from other sources, and inserted all of them
in his own passage in an order of his own making. Yet this
completely jumbled order has been serving, through al-Maqrizi,
as a major guiding line to students of the subject in their
arrangement of the ordinances of the Ydsa! (1) It is very
doubtful whether al-Juwayni's own order in his chapter on the
Ydsa can serve as a much safer guide, for the reasons already
stated.
The general conclusion of this lengthy examination of the
sources dealing with the contents of the Ydsa is that in reality
we possess only one major first-hand source; moreover, this
single source is full of defects and shortcomings. (2) The
great impact that this source had on later historians rules out
their works as independent instruments by means of which
al-Juwayni's evidence on the Ydsa can be checked. On the
contrary, the defects of this single source were only increased
and augmented in those later works. It is, therefore, very
unfortunate that Rashid al-Din has so little to tell us about
the Ydsa's contents. For whereas his original contribution to
the history of Chingiz Khan's immediate successors is minimal
(he mainly copied from al-Juwayni) (3), his original contribution
to the history of Chingiz Khan's own time seems to be very
substantial. It is a great pity that he did not complement

(1) See most of the scholars referred to in notes 2 and 3, next page.
(2) In addition to those enumerated, the hasty way in which the chronicle
was written, according to its author's own admission (Juwayni, I, p. 152), should
be mentioned. Our comments on al-Juwayni's trustworthiness pertain, of course,
mainly to those subjects in which his bias had inevitably been involved. There
is a great amount of information of a more neutral character in his chronicle, the
veracity of which need not necessarily be questioned.
(3) See Boyle's introduction, p. xxvII; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 45; E. Blochet,
Introduction a l'Hisloire des Mongols de Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din, Leyden, 1910,
p. 110.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 DAVID AYALON

his rich data on that ruler's sayings or maxims (bilik) with

corresponding information on the Ydsa.
Under the existing circumstances it would be far safer and
far more remunerative from a scholarly point of view to consider
the items ascribed to the Yasa as historical raw material and
treat them as such. For my argument is not that these
items are necessarily wrong in themselves. (1) My argument
is only that their being part of Chingiz Khan's Ydsa is quite
questionable. For the same reason there is, in my view,
little justification for calling what the Mediaeval chronicles
include under the title of Ydsa by the name of "fragments"
of that code. (2) Moreover, the attempts to meticulously
piece together all the bits of data on what is considered to be
the contents of the Ydsa, and to classify them (3), are of very
little use, and definitely do not conduct the study of the subject
in the right direction. The main outcome of these attempts,
based to such a degree on the jumbled order of al-'Umari-
al-Maqrizi, is the creation of the false impression that we
have-or at least are in a position to reconstruct-the Law
of Chingiz Khan, with all its elaborate details.
This examination of al-Juwayni's evidence on the Ydsa is
not terminated here. Other aspects of that evidence will be
treated in section B.
David AYALON
(Jerusalem)

(1) They might, after examination, prove to be right or otherwise. Comparisons

made since d'Ohsson with independent contemporary or near contemporary sources,
like the books of Piano Carpini, William of Rubruck and Marco Polo, as well as
with later evidence, sustain part of the data of al-Juwayni and of other Muslim
writers. See e. g. d'Ohsson, I, p. 408 and note 2, pp. 410-411 and note 1 in
p. 411; Marco Polo (Yule's translation), vol. I, cp. pp. 266-7 with p. 268; Riasanov-
sky, pp. 37 if.; Boyle's introduction, pp. xxvII-xxvIII.
(2) This term is frequently used by scholars studying the subject. See e. g.
Langles, Notices et Extraits, V, p. 217; Riasanovsky, pp. 30, 34; Vernadsky, The
Mongols and Russia, p. 102; Vladimirstov, Le Regime Social, p. 12; Lech, in the
passages cited from his book, above.
(3) See e. g. Langles, Notices, etc., pp. 205-216; Alinge, Mongolische Gesetze,
pp. 119-120; Riasanovsky, pp. 83-86; Vernadsky, The Scope, etc., HJAS, III,
1938, pp. 337-360; The Mongols and Russia, pp. 99-100.

This content downloaded from 137.30.242.61 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:45:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions