THE KHAQANID FAMILIES OF THE EARLY CABBASID PERIOD.

• Author: GORDON, MATTHEW S.

The present article seeks to tally the known members of two prominent families of the early [[blank].sup.[supset]]Abbasid caliphate, and to identify their ethnic origins. All indications are that the family of Khaquan [[blank].sup.[supset]]Urtuj was of Turkish origins but that the family joined the [[blank].sup.[supset]] military voluntarily. The family of Yahya b. Khaquan, by contrast, probably was of Iranian origin, and there is compelling evidence that Yahya and his offspring were members of the Abna of Baghdad.

THE GOAL OF THE PRESENT ARTICLE is modest: to survey available information on two prominent families of the early [[blank].sup.[supset]]Abbasid caliphate, those of Khaqan [[blank].sup.[supset]]Urtuj and Yahya b. Khaquan. The two men bore the name Khaquan, and both were public figures in Samarra, the [[blank].sup.[supset]]Abbasid capital for much of the third/ninth century. Small wonder, then, that they and their families are often confused in the secondary literature. [1] The first task is to provide a full tally of all known members of the two families, duly separated. The second task is to identify the ancestry of the two men. The Khaquanid name might suggest that both families were of Turkish origin. Of Khaqan [[blank].sup.[supset]]Urtuj there is little doubt: he certainly was. Interest in the question of his ethnicity lies in the fact that some of the Turks of Samarra seem to have entered imperial service voluntarily, that is, not as slaves nor, in some cases, as soldiers.2 The case of Yahya b. Khaqan is more complicated, however. The following discussion will show that the family came from Marw, where at a certain point they became clients (mawali) of a branch of the Azd. Compelling evidence also identifies Yahya as a descendant of one Musa b. Subayh b. Marzuq, a participant in the [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbasid dawla. On this basis it can be argued that, first, the family, in all likelihood, was of Iranian origins and, second, that Yahya and his offspring were members of the [Abna.sup.[contains]] community of Baghdad.

1. KHAQAN [[blank].sup.[subset]]URTUJ AND FAMILY

   1. Khaqan [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj is the form of his name given by the two earliest sources. [3] [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj lent his name to al-Jawsaq al-Khaqani, a familiar if frequently misunderstood name for those acquainted with the history of Samarra. [4] The sources indicate only that he was of Turkish origins, of noble stock, and that he was a member of al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim's inner circle.

      The earliest reference to his Turkish origins, from al-[Mas.sup.[subset]]udi, is to his son: al-Fath b. Khaqan al-Turki. [5] Later writers, such as Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir and al-Dhahabi, also use the nisba "al-Turki." [6] Finally, Ibn Taghribirdi refers to [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj explicitly as min awlad al-Atrak. [7] As for [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj's noble origins, there is the reference by Ibn al-Nadim who, in his brief tarjama of al-Fath, describes him as having been "from among the princes" (min awlad al-muluk). He makes no mention of the family's ethnic origins, however. [8]

      Regarding his relations with al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim, the earliest information is contained in al-[Ya.sup.[subset]]qubi's account of the foundation of Samarra in approximately 221/836. The account itself, which probably dates to the mid-part of the Samarran period, indicates that [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj was one of four individuals charged by al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim with the creation of specific sites in the new imperial center. Two of the other men, Ashinas and Wasif, were among the Turks purchased in Baghdad by al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim for his well known slave corps sometime prior to the move to Samarra. [9] The fourth individual was al-Afshin, a member of the Iranian princely house of Ushrusana. The sites assigned to [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj, Ashinas and Wasif were inhabited largely if not exclusively by Turkish soldiers, that assigned to al-Afshin mostly by his compatriots from Ushrusana. The three Turkish commanders, according to al-[Ya.sup.[subset]]qubi's unique report, were expected to abide by various regulations concerning the Turkish rank and file, including their physical isolation from the rest of the settlement's populace, and the distribution of slave women to the soldiers. [10]

      The location of [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuj's area clearly suggests close relations with al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim: it adjoined the caliphal compound, and, specifically, the Jawsaq palace. His close ties to the court are made explicit, however, only by Ibn Taghribirdi who says he was highly thought of by al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim ([mu.sup.[subset]]azzaman [[blank].sup.[subset]]inda al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim). [11] Ibn Taghribirdi seems to imply that, as a result, the caliph saw to it that his son, [Ja.sup.[subset]]far (the future al-Mutawakkil), and [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuij's son, al-Fath, became constant companions. Other writers, however, indicate that it was al-Fath himself who impressed the caliph. [12]

      Al-Sull alone refers to [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuij's deathdate in 233/847- 48. [13] This appears to be the extent of the information available on [[blank].sup.[subset]]Urtuij's. Of his offspring, the sources mention three, all males: Muzahim, an unnamed brother perhaps called [Ja.sup.[subset]]far, and the prominent al-Fath.

   2. Muzahim b. Khaqan was a military officer, like many of his Turko-Islamic peers. He first appears in relation to Wasif's campaign against Byzantium in 248/862-63, [14] where he is said to have commanded Wasif's vanguard. He subsequently appears on several other campaigns: suppressing a revolt in an area of modern-day Jordan; [15] joining al-[Musta[subset]]in in Baghdad during the civil war of 251/865; [16] suppressing an [[blank].sup.[subset]]Alid revolt in Kufa in the same year; [17] and marching against the Byzantines during the reign of al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tazz. [18]

      The civil war of 251/865-66 marked a turning point in his career. The conflict pitted the reigning caliph, al-[Musta.sup.[subset]]in (r. 248-52/862-66), against his first cousin, Muhammad b. [Ja.sup.[subset]]far (al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tazz, r. 251-55/865-69). Muzahim initially backed al-[Musta.sup.[subset]]in in Baghdad. He is described, at one point, entering the city in dramatic fashion, accompanied by his two sons (unnamed) and a large military force. After receiving robes of honor, he went on to serve al-[Musta.sup.[subset]]in for a short period. [19] He evidently had a change of heart, however, and, for unspecified reasons, marched to Samarra where he offered his support to al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tazz. His decision, reminiscent of a similar step by [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah b. Bugha the Younger earlier that year, [20] may have been a tactical decision, that is, a way to back the [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbasid contender that looked most likely to emerge victorious from the civil war. There is, in any case, n o indication of a special relationship between al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tazz and Muzahim so, presumably, the move was opportunistic.

      It is tempting to consider that al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tazz offered Muzahim the governorship of Egypt. In any case, he was sent to the province in 252/866 to support the resident governor against a provincial uprising. Ibn Taghribirdi says that Muzahim was "head of the Turkish, more specifically Baghdadi, cavalry" at the time. [21] Early the next year, Muzahim was himself chosen to govern the province, a position he held until his death at the end of 254/868. [22] Much of his time in office was dedicated to bringing order to the Egyptian countryside. [23]

   3. [Ja.sup.[subset]] (?) b. Khaqan, an unnamed brother of Muzahim b. Khaqan, is mentioned in connection with the latter's campaign in Egypt in 252-53. [24] Zambaur lists a [Ja.sup.[subset]]far, as well as a son, [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah, for whom he provides a death date of 296 A.H. The source of his information is unclear. [25]

   4. Ahmad b. Muzahim b. Khaqan succeeded Muzahim but died only months after his father. The cause of death is not indicated. No other descendants of Muzahim are known. Ahmad, in turn, was succeeded by Azjur al-Turki who, at that point, was head of the Egyptian shurta. [26]

   5. Al-Fath b. Khaqan was, according to our sources, the most influential of al-Mutawakkil's advisors. [27] Only Ibn Taghribirdi, however, identifies the origins of their relations: he states that al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim saw to it that al-Fath and the future al-Mutawakkil were raised together. [28] Earlier accounts offer no such explanation. Al-Isfahani provides an anecdote attributed to Ibn al-Dahhak, the prominent poet, that treats the relationship between al-Fath--identified as a ghulam [29]--and al-Wathiq. It states that al-Fath was close to al-Wathiq as a young man and continues with a brief passage on an encounter between al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim and al-Fath, a passage which later authors provide in isolation. [30] In al-Isfahani's version, al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]tasim, impressed by the boy's quick mind, "adopts" al-Fath (wa-tabannahu). It then states that al-Wathiq retained the relationship and that al-Mutawakkil enhanced it. [31]

      A range of anecdotal evidence indicates that al-Fath and al-Mutawakkil were inseparable. [32] Little surprise, then, that al-Fath's last act of service was to place himself between the caliph and the latter's assassins in 247/861-62. The two men are said to have died within moments of one another. [33]

      In contrast to his brother Muzahim, al-Fath devoted his efforts to political and cultural matters. [34] In their sketches of al-Fath's life, the medieval biographers describe him as a poet, [35] bibliophile, [36] and key advisor to al-Mutawakkil. He is also said to have authored two works, Kitab al-bustan and Kitab al-sayd wa'l-jawarih, neither of which survives. [37] As is to be expected, none of these accounts treats...