Talk:Khalidi Library

The years don't make sense

@Huldra: please check, something there is wrong. The building is given with a 14th c. date ("792AH/1389CE"), but for the builder, Amir Husam, to be the father-in-law of Baibars I, it must have built it in the 13th c., not the 14th. Unless they built it a century after his death and moved his bones into the new turba. I wonder. I've checked and Aramco clearly says his daughter married that Baibars, and Aramco can't be wrong, or can it? And in any case, Baibars II died in 1310, so not a great son-in-law either for a man who died at the other end of that century. Something is fishy here. Ah, look: E. Wager (1988, p. 76) might have the answer: he writes that it was originally a Crusader bldg, turned into a Mamluk mausoleum in 1246-79, and RENOVATED in 1390. The library was est. at the end of the 19th c. and moved after a family quarrel in 1947. The 3 tombs belong to Barakat Khan, who died in 1246, and his 2 sons. So daddy kicked the bucket in 1246 and the bereaved family adapted the Crusader ruins (because this was 2 short years after these very Kharizmians had completely gutted all of Jerusalem) to house his remains. 35 years later, in 1279, the last of the two joins him in the turba. In AH 792, which is probably more accurately = 1389/90 CE (that covers both versions), somebody renovates the building. All good. What I don't remember now is if Khalidi Library (al-Khalidiyya, or Khalidiye) moved back in after moving out in 1947, I just know that it's active as a study library, so not a public one. Wager was good for his time, Burgoyne is more recent, so between these 2 one can figure out the answer. As it is now it requires time travel, and Barakat Khan practiced a different sport (polo). Arminden (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Burgoyne (User:Arminden do you have the book??) there were no less that 5 five different phases of contruction of the present building: 2 pre-Mamluk, 2 Mamluk (one between 663/1265 and 679/1280, and the other is dated by inscription 792/1390), 1 Ottoman. So yeah; the incription dated 792/1390 refers to a restoration. Barka Khan died 644 [1246]. The info in the article about him is correct. It can be added that he was married to a half-sister of As-Salih Ayyub, and that the daugther who married Baibars became the mother of Al-Said Barakah. The founder of the waqf was probably one of Barka Khan's sons Huldra (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So it pretty much confirms what I had. Careful with AH to CE, if the exact date was given, one can translate to a single CE year; if not, it must be left as, for instance, 1279/80, which would explain the slight differences. But I'm sure you know that already, plus Burgoyne is a specialist, and is of much more recent date than Wager. It's interesting that the oldest Mamluk phase starts in 1265, so Barka Khan, who had died 19 years before that (1246), must have been buried in the courtyard of a damaged Crusader building - damage of his own making - unless this was a rare case of a building that survived the Kharizmian all-out sack of the city. Anyway, "The building was restored in...1389 CE as the burial site of...Barkah Khan" cannot be correct, even his sons were already buried there by that time - unless it's meant to say: the building was expanded, something like a mosque or madrasa was added, so as to make the turba grander in his memory. Also, according to Wager, "the Khalidi Library was and continues to be housed..." is also inaccurate, if the library did indeed move out in 1947 (and hadn't been restored to its old place by the time of Wager guide in the 80s). No idea what happened, but the building has more recently been very nicely restored and maybe they have moved the books back in. Anyway, their FB page offers 1899 as the year it was est. A, here you go: doesn't say anything about 1947-67, but claims that after the Six-Day War they closed until 2018. What the heck, JPost has now introduced registration? Anyway, JP isn't really a RS, maybe they cut corners. I would trust Wager with the 1947 information, so that leaves us with 47-67 out in limbo. Maybe the Khalidis fed the JP journalists with a more 'diplomatic' version of the family story and they didn't want to upset the host or din't think to check it up.

Burgoyne: no, I don't seem to have the book. Arminden (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)