and blemmyae were real was beside the point; they represented the extremes of human possibility, the furthest ends of the racial spectrum. The medieval theory of climate was used to place races in intermediate positions along spectrum, usually from north to south.72 Those living in the frigid northern climate zone were supposed to have pale skin, lank hair, a dull intellect, and a cold temperament. Those living in the tropical southern climate zone were supposed to have dark skin, wooly hair, foolish minds, and a hot temperament. The temperate climate zone in the middle was supposed to produce beautiful, reasonable, and well-balanced people. Since the theory of climate zones was drawn from ancient Greek sources, particularly Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters, Places, it was part of the intellectual inheritance shared by the entire Mediterranean world. Of course, most medieval authors tended to locate the temperate zone close to their own homes, wherever that might be.
The association between race and climate theory explains why notaries and scribes used racial and geographical categories (de progenie russiorum vs. de partibus Russia) interchangeably in legal descriptions of slaves.73 When legislators in Florence tried to define slave status, they struggled to articulate a difference between religious, racial, and geographical categories. Thus they permitted Florentines to own and sell any person “who is not of the Catholic and Christian faith … the aforesaid is understood concerning slaves [who were] infidels by origin of their birth, or born from the race of the infidels, even if at the time when they were brought to the said city, court, or district they were of the Christian faith, or even if at some time afterwards they were baptized.… [A person] is presumed to have been infidel by origin if he or she arose from infidel places and race.”74
When Genoa instituted an inspection regime in Caffa in the early fifteenth century to ensure that no Christians were being exported to the Islamic world, the inspectors asked slaves first about their race (natio), apparently considered equivalent to asking about their religion.75 In cases of doubtful status, the question was not whether the slave’s race was different from the master’s but how far along the spectrum of racial difference the slave fell. The people of the Black Sea were perceived as distant from the people of the Mediterranean: “certainly if it were not for the Genoese who are there, it would not appear that the people [of Caffa] have any lot with us.”76 This is why in Italy, the enslavement of Italian Christians caused outrage, the enslavement of Greek Christians caused discomfort, and the enslavement of Bulgar and Russian Christians was ignored. Although all three categories should have been legally protected from enslavement in Italy, Bulgars and Russians were further along the spectrum of racial difference than Greeks, and therefore it was more socially acceptable to enslave them.
Race and Slavery in the Late Medieval Mediterranean
We have established that racial categories were a factor in determining slave status in the late medieval Mediterranean, even though racial difference was not the ideological basis of slavery. We have also established that late medieval people perceived race not in binary terms but as a profusion of human diversity signifying the endlessly fertile creativity of God in nature. Yet, although the number of racial categories was potentially infinite, only a few of them were strongly associated with slavery in the late medieval Mediterranean. Medieval scholars who produced lists of enslaveable people did not necessarily agree on which races were enslaveable and which were not, but the act of compiling lists demonstrated their belief that it was possible to divide the infinite races of humanity into two categories, the enslaveable and the free.77
According to Mamluk-era shurūṭ manuals (collections of model contracts), the list of enslaveable people could be divided into Turks and Sūdān. Turks were supposed to be light-skinned northerners originating anywhere from Europe to China. They could be further subdivided into Qiyāṭ, Naymān, Mongol, Kipchak, Khita’i, Circassian, Russian, Alan, Bulgar, Tatar, Āq, Chaghatai, Georgian, Greek, and Armenian categories, among others.78 Thus a Circassian Turk was not biracial but a light-skinned northerner (a Turk in the general sense) originating from Circassia (a Circassian in the specific sense). To make matters more confusing, Turk could also be used in a specific sense as a synonym for Kipchak. Sūdān (literally meaning “blacks”) referred to dark-skinned southerners originating anywhere from Africa to India. They could be subdivided into Ethiopian, Abyssinian, Takrūrī, Nubian, Zaghāwī, Dājūwī, Bajāwī, Indian, Khalanjī, Zanjī, Yemeni, Sarūwī, and muwallad (mulatto) categories, among others.79 The two sets of criteria, skin color and geography, that distinguished the Turks from the Sūdān were linked by the medieval theory of climate.
Legally, misrepresenting the racial category of a slave would not invalidate his or her sale, whereas misrepresenting religion or gender would.80 According to jurists, this was because religion affected slaves’ legal status and gender affected their function, whereas race did neither. However, Mamluk slave-buying guides included lists of enslaveable races and their stereotypical qualities precisely because it would guide the buyer in choosing the right slave for the right function. Unlike shurūṭ manuals, Mamluk guides for slave buyers divided the list of enslaveable people into three categories: Arabs, ʿAjam, and Sūdān.81 Sūdān referred to dark-skinned southern slaves, as before. Arabs rarely appeared as slaves during the Mamluk period, but they may have been included for the sake of ethnographic completeness or as a legacy from earlier models of the genre.82 ʿAjam could refer to all non-Arabs; to all northern, light-skinned non-Arabs; or to Persians specifically. A fifteenth-century slave-buying manual defined ʿAjam in terms of language: “absolutely everybody who differs from the Arab tongue, such as the Persians and the Turks and the Greeks and the Armenians and the Sūdān and the Berber and the rest of them, although this name specifies the Persian people conventionally.”83
The recognized subdivisions of ʿAjam shifted over the course of the Mamluk period. In an anonymous thirteenth-century slave-buying guide, ʿAjam included Persians, Turks, Kurds, Rūmī,84 Armenians, Franks, Alans, Indians (al-hind), and Berbers. In the fifteenth century, al-‘Ayntābī added Circassians, Daylamites, Zaranj, and more Indians (al-sind). Circassian slaves had served in Egypt since the thirteenth century or earlier, but their addition to the list of enslaveable races in the fifteenth century was probably a result of their rise to political power in the late fourteenth century. The inclusion of Indians, al-hind and al-sind, among the ʿAjam is also notable because the shurūṭ manuals tended to categorize them as Sūdān.85
Contemporary observers noticed certain trends in the racial composition of the Mamluk slave population. Circassian, Rūmī, Kipchak, and Turk were the most common categories used for slaves. Tatar, Mongol, Turkman, Kurd, Armenian, Cypriot, Frankish, Indian (hind), and Ethiopian (ḥabashī) categories were used less frequently. Chinese, Russian, Samarqandi, and West African (takrūrī) categories were represented by single individuals.86 One notable trend, according to medieval observers, was the shift in the mamluk population from Kipchak Turks to Circassian Turks at the end of the fourteenth century, as discussed in Chapter 5. Another notable trend was the preference of most sultans and amirs for slaves of the same race as themselves. The perception that political factions were based on racial solidarity was widespread in Mamluk sources, even though modern historians have shown that factions presented as racial often included individual mamluks of various races.87 The two trends were linked by the suggestion that Sultan Barqūq precipitated the shift away from Kipchaks by favoring Circassians like himself.88 Barqūq’s wife, Ird, a Turk, was said to have warned him against this course: “make your army a variegated one of four races, Tatar, Circassian, Anatolian and Turcoman, and then you and your descendants can rest easy,” because no single racial faction would be able to dominate Mamluk politics.89
Medieval Christian philosophers explored the idea of enslaveable races via Aristotle’s theory of natural slavery discussed in Chapter 1. Searching for examples of natural slavery in their own
