Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (82 page)

An exception to the rule: exclusive ownership and its influence on the quality of construction

The figure who played the most important role in the restoration of
was the Mamluk amir Badr al-Dīn Bīlīk al-Khaznadār
. Much has been written about this remarkable personage by contemporary chroniclers and modern historians; the following is a summary of a few of his acts that concern the fortress of
.
In 1260, when Baybars ascended the throne, he nominated Bīlīk al-Khaznadār as his
nā’ib
(viceroy),
⁶⁴
the highest rank in the Mamluk sultanate after the sultan himself. At the time Bīlīk al-Khaznadār was only eighteen years old.
⁶⁵
was given to him together with Banias and the surrounding area. Several chronicles mention this but the terminology used differs and does not allow us to reach a clear answer as to whether the land became his private possession (
milk
, freehold appanage) or an
, that cannot be passed on to an heir.
⁶⁶
appears to present the only case where the sultan did not directly nominate the governor
of the fortress. The amir aktūt al-Khaznadārī was chosen by Bīlīk from among his own Mamluks to govern the fortress. This procedure was not repeated; under Qalāwūn the
nā’ib
of
was appointed by the sultan, as was the custom in the rest of the realm.
⁶⁷
Again in contrast to the sultan’s usual method, the restoration of the fortress was initiated by Bīlīk.
⁶⁸
The sultan did not overrule this decision, perhaps because of the great confidence he had in this amir. Although Bīlīk probably owned the property, it is doubtful how much time, if at all, he actually spent on the site, since he held the post of
nā’ib al-sultana
until his death (16
I 676/August 1277).
⁶⁹
The fact that the fortress belonged to the second in command to the sultan had considerable influence on the rank of the amirs who commanded it. In addition, it seems that the building force was carefully chosen and possessed higher professional abilities than those employed on other sites. Expense was obviously not spared and thus the construction work at
was of an exceptionally high quality.

The monumental inscription (Figure 4.2) found on the site lists the officers in charge of the building and gives the precise names of craftsmen who took part in the reconstruction of the fortress. Baybars and Bīlīk are listed at the beginning, with their titles, but probably only the last five men mentioned in the inscription (see diagram below) were actually present on the site and participated in the construction work. Not surprisingly in the Mamluk period, those of military rank received greater honor than the skilled craftsmen. Thus the
nā’ib
of the fortress, Baktūt, comes third and another Mamluk officer, the amir Sanjar, is directly after him. The professional civilian craftsmen are presented after the military men. The first civilian is a certain
, who carries the titles of
ustādh
and
muhandis
. The exact profession of the
muhandis
in the Mamluk period is rather vague. According to Mayer the term used at the time to denote an architect was
shādd al-‘amā’ir
or
bannā’
or
muhandis
. The
mi’mâr
(stonemason) was probably the lowest rank among the professional craftsmen.
⁷⁰
Doris Behrens-Abouseif concluded that the term
muhandis
refers to land surveyors, engineers and perhaps contractors.
⁷¹
She proposed a definition of the social class of each group: while the building supervisors belonged to the Mamluk ruling class, the skilled craftsmen often remained anonymous and came from the lower social classes. Rabbat suggests that the term
muhandis
is probably closest to the definition of architect: “it is the only term that indicates the professional craftsmen with a wide range of technical aptitudes and theoretical knowledge that we associate today with a designer-engineer. Basically, a
muhandis
was a surveyor with a primary training in geometry and perhaps hydrography …”
⁷²