Phaeded wrote
I understand all of this is conjecture, but there needs to be some hypothesis bridging the spatial-temporal gap of “Mamluk” and card-production in Europe. Cards existed prior to the military involvement of Muslims in either Sicily or on the Italian peninsula, so its necessarily a logical possibility.
How do we know that playing card existed in Sicily or the Italian peninsula prior to the military involvement of Muslims there? That would be of the time of Frederick II's conflict with the Pope, i.e. 1250 or so. That is quite dubious, given that Ghengis Khan's army only arrived in the Middle East around that time.
It is also seems to me uncertain that Muslims with military expertise would as slaves been entrusted with combat responsibilities in Italian Christian armies, even ones fighting only other Christians, because of a general antipathy to Muslims by the papacy and the secular authorities in Italy after 1300. In Taylor's book, examples stop after 1300. It is not ruled out, because Christians might have liked to see in practice what Muslim military technique was like, but it needs some verification.
I have been reading Rosenthal's book. The problem of Islamic cards in the Mediterranean area--even including Persia--seems, from what he provides, to be essentially the same as that of Christian cards: what is the verification of their existence there before 1377?
There is the word
kanjifah, which occurs in the
Arabian Nights. But the fact that games of
kanjifah are not talked about at all, unlike the games of chess and
nard suggests that the word might be a later interpolation. Also, the
Arabian Nights wasn't all written at the same time. The Persian original was very short, contributing the frame story and a few others. Many stories were added, starting in the 13th century, in Egypt and Syria, including after 1377.
The word occurs in the Persian dictionary--of 1892, Rosenthal tells us (note 267, p. 63). That date makes it "very important to know the date of the earliest recorded date of
kanjifah and to have references to passages clarifying its use" (same note). He adds (not quoted by Franco)
In the article cited (p. 264), R. Ettinghausen refers to a Persian occurrence from the fifteenth century.
Ettinghausen also speaks, based on information provided by Laila Serageddin, of their use, under the name
kanjifah, "for heavy gambling involving considerable sums of money" pp. 62-63). Rosenthal does not say where this was, although he does, in footnote 264 (not quoted by Franco), give the date: 1417-18. That is enough after 1377 as not to rule out Persian acquisition of playing cards (in Persian,
ganjifah) from the West or from the Mamluks. There remains the problem of accounting for the term,
ganjifah or
kanjifah, itself. But that remains in any case, no matter when it came into use. If it indeed comes from the Chinese (itself problematic), it could just as easily have come via the Mamluk homelands of the Black and Caspian Seas in the 15th century as from Persia in the 14th.
There is also the absence of playing cards in discussions where it might be expected to occur, such as the legal discussions of what games were forbidden and which were merely sinful. Even placing bets on the outcome of horse racing or chess games, practices that both were very popular, is discussed. Rosenthal gives many examples, but none mention or suggest cards. There was even a Mamluk sultan, reigning 1346-1347, killed for his excessive indulgence in games--polo, the "stick game", and wrestling, who "encouraged gambling (
qimar) and all kinds of gambling sports", in Rosenthal's words (p. 54; that he was Mamluk is stated p. 157). Cards are not mentioned.
On the other hand, it may not be surprising that cards are not mentioned in legal arguments. These arguments depend on precedent, and the precedents are all from the centuries immediately following that of the Prophets, stopping around the 9th century. (But none of the contemporary examples that give rise to the reference to precedent involve cards either.)
If the Mamluks did have cards by the first half of the 14th century, the spread of cards to Muslims elsewhere, including lands with Christians, is not a problem. Games whose main justification was gambling (as opposed to useful training for war, for example) were prohibited, but enforcement was lax. Rosenthal (p. 110):
The truth is that we do not hear much about gamblers being punished by either the legal authorities or the political authorities. Social conditions affecting gambling appear to have prevented most gambling offenses from reaching the courts.
It was mainly when someone filed a complaint, and then when the complaint involved the person's neglect of his important duties, such as supporting his family, was someone prosecuted. A compulsive chess player could be prosecuted in similar circumstances. On the other hand, Rosenthal does mention occasional raids on gambling establishments. It seems rather like the situation during Prohibition in the U.S. There was no lack of liquor and establishments that served liquor, much of it smuggled in from Canada, often with the connivance of American customs agents, even if there were raids and scandals that made headlines.However liquor was mentioned by name; in medieval Egypt, playing cards remain unmentioned. Perhaps they were allowed only to Mamluks, because of their foreign origin and high status.
Given the war in Spain between Muslims and Christians it would not surprise me that Mamluk mercenaries were employed, although documentation would certainly help. From them it would be easy for card games to spread to the non-military Muslim populations and to Muslims in Christian territory (including prisoners of war put into slavery), and then to Christians. The cards themselves would be brought by the mercenaries themselves at first and then made locally, perhaps initially by Arab artisans from elsewhere. But all this remains on the level of conjecture.
Even the Muslim origin of the term
naibi is not conclusive regarding their Muslim origin, I think. Two games are mentioned in the summer 1377 Florentine records, zara and naibi. "Zara" is a word that probably derives from a Muslim source. If you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see it suggested that "hazard" comes from the Turkish "zara". "Zara" is a dice game. I find it highly unlikely that cubic dice,
dadi in Italian, were not known in Italy before the late 14th century. Their documentation in Europe is widespread. Perhaps
zara was an Arab or Turkish game.