Download PDF | The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century.
551 Pages
Preface
The writing of this book arose from the convergence of two interests that have long intrigued me: the Hellenization of the Levant in antiquity and the centuries-long confrontation of Byzantine and Islamic societies, the joint heirs of this semi-Hellenized Levant. The decline of Byzantine Hellenism and the phenomenon of Islamization in Anatolia from the eleventh through the fifteenth century focus on that area and time within which these two interests converge for the last time. Perhaps this under¬ taking is inordinately ambitious, encompassing as it does a vast geo¬ graphical and chronological span and cutting across three disciplines (those of the Byzantinist, Islamist, and Turkologist).
Now that this work is finished the words that Helmut Ritter spoke to me in an Istanbul restaurant in 1959, and which then seemed to be a challenge, take on a different meaning. This renowned orientalist told me, simply and calmly, that it would be impossible to write a history of this great cultural trans¬ formation. My own efforts have, of necessity, been restricted to certain aspects of this huge problem. Scholarship badly needs new, detailed histories of the Seljuk, Nicaean, Trebizondine states, and of many of the Turkish emirates. There has been no comprehensive history of the Rum Seljuks since that ofGordlevski (1941), 1 ofNicaea since those ofMeliarakes and Gardner in 1898 and 1912, of Trebizond since that of Miller in 1926.
The archaeology of Byzantine and Seljuk Anatolia is still in its infancy, and the mere establishment of the principal events and their dates in these four centuries remains unachieved. Unwritten also is the history of Arabo-Byzantine relations and confrontations in Anatolia, though the monumental work of Marius Canard on the Hamdanids represents a substantial beginning. The story of the decline that Islamization occasioned in the Armenian, Georgian, and Syrian communities of eastern Anatolia, though absolutely essential, is yet to be written. Finally a comparative study of the folklore and folk cultures of the Anatolian Muslims and Christians would do much to fill the wide gaps in historical sources. The number and extent of these scholarly desiderata surely indicate how imperfect and insufficient the present work must be. I have concentrated on the fate and Islamization of the Greek population in Anatolia to the exclusion of the other Christian groups. There has been no attempt to present a conventional chronological history of events, but rather the approach has been topical.
It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the support of several institutions which greatly facilitated my research. The Middle East Center of Harvard University enabled me to begin the investigation as a Research Fellow of the Center in 1959-60. A grant from the Harvard Center and Dumbarton Oaks subsequently allowed me to spend a summer at Dumbarton Oaks in this early stage. The interest and sympathy of former Chancellor Franklin Murphy and the director of the UCLA library, Dr. Robert Vosper, resulted in the constitution of a respectable Byzantine collection of books and periodicals absolutely essential for research in Byzantine history, and which had previously been lacking on the UCLA campus. The UCLA Research Committee and the Center for Near Eastern Studies, by their unstinting generosity, made it possible for me to work at those institutions in the United States and abroad which would provide me with the necessary materials. Thanks to a grant of the Social Science Research Council in 1962-63, I spent one semester at Dumbarton Oaks and one semester in Greece and Turkey where I enjoyed the facilities of the Gennadius Library, the Center for Asia Minor Studies, and the kindness of the members of the history faculty of the University of Ankara. As the work neared an end, William Polk, Director of the Middle East Center, and William McNeill, chairman of the history department, invited me to spend 1966-67 at the University of Chicago where they provided me with the badly needed leisure to finish the basic writing.
I am particularly indebted to my colleagues at UCLA who in meetings of the Near Eastern Center, the Medieval and Renaissance Center, the faculty seminar of the history department, and in individual encounters contributed to the sharpening of the work’s focus as well as to the improve¬ ment of its contents. Milton Anastos, Amin Banani, Andreas Tietze, Gustave von Grunebaum, and Lynn White came to my assistance in certain specialized areas, and more important listened to what must have seemed an endless outpouring of Anatolica with a patience that would easily rank them among the Byzantine saints and Muslim dervishes of Anatolia.
I am also grateful to Andreas Tietze who took time from his busy schedule as chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages to read through the manuscript. His great knowledge and kindness saved the book from many errors. I wish to express my gratitude to Peter Charanis with whom I frequently discussed many of the problems entailed in the writing of this book, and to whose research on Byzantine ethnography I am much indebted. Thanks are also due to Osman Turan and Halil Inalcik who, with their unsurpassed expertise in things Seljuk and Ottoman, have been so kind as to discuss with me many particulars related to Byzantino-Turcica, who supplied me with copies of their writings, and who gave me encouragement. The studies of Paul Wittek and Claude Cahen have been of particular value and aid, and those of Richard Ettinghausen have been helpful in the area of art history. I wish to thank my editor, Shirley Warren, who performed admirably with a difficult manuscript and also the editors of the new Encyclopedia of Islam for permission to reproduce the statistical chart from the article “Anadolu,” by Franz Taeschner. I have dedicated the book to my father and mother, who first imbued me with a love for the historical past, who educated me with great patience and expense, and who gave me every encouragement.
The problems of transliteration and of geographical names have been such that there is no conceivable system that would satisfy everyone. Basically I have followed the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam in the transliteration of Islamic names. The Turkish equivalents for the names of Byzantine towns and villages will frequently be found in the key to the map. Though to some my treatment of transliteration and of geographic names will seem cavalier, I shall be satisfied if I have conveyed the mean¬ ing rather than a particular philological form.
I. Byzantine Asia Minor on the Eve of the Turkish Conquest
Since the fall of North Africa, Egypt, and the Levant to the Arabs and the occupation of Italy by the Germanic peoples and of much of the Balkans by the Slavs, Byzantium had been restricted to the southern confines of the Balkan peninsula, Anatolia, the isles, and southern Italy. 1 Of these areas, Anatolia was by far the largest, most populous, and economically the most important. Unfortunately, almost nothing in the way of popu¬ lation statistics for Anatolia has survived, but aside from the factor of its great size, there are other indications that Asia Minor was the most populous region of the empire. 2 So long as Anatolia continued to be an integral part of the empire, Byzantium remained a strong and com¬ paratively prosperous state. Once Anatolia slipped from Byzantine control, the empire became little more than a weak Balkan principality, competing with Serbs and Bulgars on an almost equal footing.
With the decline of medieval Hellenism in Anatolia, there arose a Turkish-Muslim society that is at the base of the Seljuk state and Ottoman Empire. This new society differed from those of the Asiatic steppe and from that of the Islamic Middle East because it arose in a Byzantine milieu. Consequently, the related Anatolian phenomena of Byzantine decline and Islamization are essential to a basic understanding of both Turkish and Byzantine societies. For the student of cultural change, the Islamization of Asia Minor has a twofold interest.
Specifically it represents the last in a long series of rcligio-linguistic changes to which Anatolia had been subjected over the centuries. Broadly considered, the Islamiz¬ ation and Turkification of the Anatolians in the later Middle Ages, along with the Christianization and Hispanization of Iberia, constitute one of the last chapters in the history of cultural change in the Mediterranean basin. Since antiquity the inhabitants of the Mediterranean world had been subject to a remarkable variety of transforming cultural forces: Hellenization, Romanization, Arabization, Christianization, and Islam¬ ization. To these were now added Turkification.
As the subject of this book is the cultural transformation of Greek Anatolia between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, one must begin with a descriptive analysis of Byzantine society in the peninsula on the eve of the Turkish invasions. This will entail a discussion and partial descrip¬ tion of administrative, military, and ecclesiastical institutions, towns, rural society, demography, roads, ethnography, and religion. 3
Administrative Institutions
Certain political, economic, and religious institutions characterized Anatolian society prior to the drastic upheavals of the eleventh century which caused serious dislocation of this society. These institutions produced an element of homogeneity in the life of the inhabitants of this immense area and at the same time integrated them effectively into a Constantinopolitan-centered organism. The system of the themes, by which the civil administration became subordinate to the thematic strategus, dominated the administrative and military activity of the Anatolians. At the time of the death of Basil II (1025), there existed in Anatolia approximately twenty-five provinces, mostly themes but in¬ cluding also duchies and catepanates, largely under the direct control and administration of the strategoi. 4
Though the administrative apparatus placed the provincial bureaucracy under the tutelage of the military, it also acted as a partial check on the absorption of the free peasantry by the landed magnates and thereby assured the empire of military, social, and fiscal strength. The thematic system served as a vital impetus to and support of the existence of the free peasant society, which in turn not only served as a balance to the landed aristocracy, but fought the Arabs and was a major contributor to the imperial tax collectors. 5
The strategus, as supreme authority in the theme, was a veritable viceroy. Nothing could be done in his province, save for the assessment and collection of taxes, which were effected by agents directly under Constantinople, without his consent. His most important function was to command the army of the theme. Much has been said about the efficacy and importance of these local armies drawn from the inhabitants of the provinces, but there is little information as to their numbers. The Arab author Abu’l-Faradj Kudama ibn Djafar noted that the levy of the Anatolian themes in the first half of the ninth century was approximately 70,000.® By the tenth century, however, there is every indication that the size of Byzantine military forces must have increased markedly. The conquest of new lands in the east witnessed the creation of new provinces and army corps, whereas the intensification of the Byzantine offensive efforts similarly demanded an increase in the size of the armies. Perhaps the remarks of Leo VI, that the armies ought not be too large, is a reflection of this expansion. 7
Beside the men the government recruited from the local soldiery, there were other sources of military personnel in the provinces. These included a variety of ethnic groups that the emperors settled as distinct military bodies throughout Anatolia. Theophilus, by way of example, settled 2,000 Persians in each theme (though these seem to have been incorporated into the thematic levies); Mardaites were settled around Attaleia, possibly by Justinian II; there were also bodies of Slavs and Armenians. 8 In addition the government stationed tagmata of imperial troops in certain of the Anatolian districts. 9 This superimposition of foreign bodies of soldiers in the provinces increased the military manpower of a given province considerably. With the addition of the Mardaites to the forces of the Cibyrrheote theme, the military strength of the district may have been as large as 10,000. 10
Other large themes very probably had as large a military force, if not larger, with the consequence that the military manpower stationed in Anatolia during the tenth and early eleventh centuries must have far surpassed the 70,000 thematic levies mentioned by the Arab sources for the early ninth century. The success of Byzantine arms against the Arabs during this period is in part to be explained by the effectiveness of this Anatolian manpower, and the importance of these Anatolian forces emerges from the obvious correlation between thematic decline and the Turkish invasions in the eleventh century. The professional mercenaries who took the place of the indigenous thematic soldiers in this period of crisis were ineffective replacements and were unable to halt the Turks.
The military apparatus in Anatolia had an important role in the pro¬ vincial economic life. It contributed to the local economy by paying out salaries in gold to the officers and soldiers who lived in Asia Minor, and stimulating local industry, commerce, and agriculture by its expenditures. The government was able to feed into the business life of the Anatolians a comparatively steady and significant sum of coined money in the form of the military roga. One can gain some idea as to the sums of money involved in military pay from the sources of the ninth and tenth centuries. During the reign of Leo VI the generals of the more important themes received the following cash payment:
The pay of the thematic soldiers in comparison with that of the officiers was quite small, and yet the overall expenditure on military salaries was very substantial, as emerges from the incidental accounts of the period. In the early ninth century, the military pay chests of the themes of Armeniacon in Anatolia and of Strymon in Europe amounted to 1,300 and 1,100 pounds of gold respectively, or 93,600 and 79,200 gold solid! each. 12 On the basis of these figures it seems likely that the government paid out between 500,000 and 1,000,000 solidi annually to the soldiery of Asis Minor. 13 The soldier was also entitled to part of the spoils of war, and in many instances pensions were given to disabled soldiers and to the widows of the slain. 14
The army and navy required supplies, armament, and provisions on their frequent expeditions. Though the government undoubtedly acquired many of the necessary items by taxes in kind on the populace, the authorities also paid out cash to artisans and merchants to provide a wide assortment of items and services. Craftsmen were hired to make weapons of every type for the armed forces, to sew the sails for the ships, to caulk the boats; merchants sold the government the cloth for the sails, rope, bronze, wax, lead, tin, oars, foodstuffs, and other necessary
materials. 15 The administration saw to it that salaried craftsmen special¬ izing in the production of military weapons were maintained in the principal towns, 16 and their production was quantitatively significant. 17 The military organization of Byzantium, and the passage of armies through the provinces, thereby played a stimulating and significant role in the economic prosperity of Anatolia. 18
Towns and Commerce
By late Roman and early Byzantine times there had developed in Anatolia a large number of thriving cities and lesser towns with a considerable commercial life and money economy. 19 The question has often arisen as to the continuity of this urban character of much of Anatolia into the middle Byzantine period. To what extent, if at all, did Anatolia continue to be the possessor of extensive urban settlements down to the period when the Turks first appeared ? This question is doubly important, first in that it bears on the relative importance of the area for Byzantine civilization and strength, and second because it is closely related to the problem of Muslim urban developments in Anatolia during the later period.
Some students of the question have maintained that between the seventh and ninth centuries the polis of antiquity, and so cities generally, underwent a disastrous decline. 20 . But actually there seems to have been no such abrupt decline or hiatus during the seventh century in Anatolia, though the Slavic invasions in the Balkans did cause a marked decline of many of the towns of the western half of the empire. This condition in the Balkans served to put in even bolder relief the economic and political importance of the continuity of towns and cities in Anatolia.
It is quite possible that a number of the towns may have decreased in size by the late seventh or the eighth century, 21 or possibly have shifted their locations slightly to more strategic positions on higher ground, 22 or been “ruralized,” but this does not mean that they did so to the point of becoming insignifi¬ cant as an urban phenomenon. It is doubtful that Byzantium could have survived as a centralized state without a money economy and towns, and it is even more doubtful that the Greek language and Byzantine Christi¬ anity could have spread and penetrated to the extent they did in Anatolia. Obviously what had happened to the Byzantine urban settlements in the Balkans did not occur in Anatolia. The raids of the Arabs were, in spite of their frequency, transitory affairs (when one compares them to the Slavic invasions of the Balkans which not only effaced cities but also Christianity, or to the Turkish invasions). 23
What were the characteristics of these Byzantine cities in the eleventh century? When one speaks of cities he thinks primarily in terms of autonomous municipal institutions. This is certainly the case of the town in antiquity, where there were also divisions of the citizenry according to tribes, and finally a walled enclosure. Obviously the Byzantine towns of Anatolia in the eleventh century would hardly fit such a description, at least insofar as the meager sources permit conjecture. The existence of autonomous, independent institutions in the municipalities of antiquityhad been threatened from the moment the Hellenistic monarchs had placed their epistates or representative in the polis to oversee its foreign affairs.
The crisis of the third century further undermined these institutions, as is witnessed by the attempts of Diocletian to stabilize them. So in the fifth century the city, as it had evolved, at least in Asia Minor, did not preserve the city type of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The later militarization of the provincial administration through the implemen¬ tation of the thematic system consummated the end of urban autonomy, for the affairs of the town were subjected to the strategus who was appointed from Constantinople. The novel of Leo VI abolishing the remnants of urban autonomy simply put into legal language a state that had come into being previously and that had been in the process of formation for centuries. 24 Nevertheless, the populace of Byzantine towns does not seem to have been quiescent in political matters and it frequently expressed its will in riots and political outbursts, first through the demes, and later through the guilds. 25
The “aspect” of the eleventh-century Byzantine town was characterized by institutions of a different sort. These institutions were largely thematic and ecclesiastical, both ultimately centering in Constantinople. Con¬ sequently, the city in the early eleventh century was the seat of a strategus with his immediate retinue (or of one of his subordinates) appointed by Constantinople. These officials presided over routine matters of admini¬ stration and juridical business as well as over military and police affairs, though the lesser officials were local inhabitants. 26 Alongside the officials of the military administration were those of the ecclesiastical hierarchymetropolitans and the bishops.
The integration of the ecclesiastical administrative set up into that of the provincial government is not as well known as the parallelism existing between the structure of the earlier provincial administration and the structure of the hierarchical administra¬ tion. The church had modeled its administration along the lines of the civil administration of the fourth and fifth centuries. In this manner those cities that were the centers of the provincial administration became the centers of the ecclesiastical organization. The council of Chalcedon in 451 decreed that cities or poleis would be the seats of bishops, and con¬ sequently the concept of a polis or city became inseparably associated with the presence of a bishop, and the exact reverse was also true; wherever there was a bishop there had to be a city. Justinian I restated this one century later: We decree that every city ... shall have ... its own and inseparable ... bishop. 27
The episcopal powers and rule in provincial administrative organization were to remain important until the end of the Byzantine Empire and beyond. By the sixth century the bishops were participating in the elections of local urban officials, were important in city finances, and were often the recipients of imperial gifts bestowed upon the city. 28 One can say that episcopal authority became a refuge of the last vestiges of urban autonomy, though the eastern bishops, because of the authority of the centralized state, never attained the power of the western Latin bishops. 29 Not only did the bishops take some part in these strictly governmental matters, but they seem to have had charge of performing many services that today one generally, though not exclusively, connects with the state: education, care for the sick, the aged, the orphaned, and others in need. In short they cared not only for the souls of the provincials but for their bodies as well.
The Byzantine town of Asia Minor in the eleventh century was, then, characterized by the presence of the members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (bishops or metropolitans), and by the presence of the strategus or his representatives. In addition there were other characteristics of the towns—the presence of trade or commercial activity whether with foreign states or with neighboring towns and villages. The Byzantine polis had resident a number of local craftsmen as well as merchants both indigenous and foreign. This particular aspect of the town as a center of craftsmen and merchants and of industry and commerce is not well documented. According to some scholars this basic element for the existence of towns was seriously lacking in the eighth and ninth centuries. 30 But such arguments are based largely upon the silence of the sources, sources that are not only rare but are also Constantinople-centered. Archaeology has not yet progressed to the point where it can be of service in regard to the extent of urban life in Byzantine Anatolia during the period under consideration. If one looks at the scattered references of the tenth and eleventh centuries, however, it becomes obvious that neither trade nor commerce, neither craftsmen nor merchants, were absent from Asia Minor during this period. 31
Ephesus was a lively harbor town with a panegyris or trade fair that yielded ioo pounds of gold in annual taxes during the reign of Constantine VI (780-797). 32 Incidental information concerning the economic activity of the city emerges from an eleventh-century hagiographical composition in which we get a glimpse of what must have been a very busy town. The monks of the monastery on Mt. Galesium near Ephesus are constantly going to the K&crrpov (Ephesus) for the various needs of the monastery. 33 Books are purchased there, 34 and the monks are permitted to attend the fair, 35 though this is felt to be something of a formidable temptation for the brethren. Craftsmen and merchants of various sorts appear: a painter, a plasterer, a nauclerus, and there is also mention of a state bakery. 36 This commercial activity was of more than a local nature, as there is mention of Saracens, Jews, Russians, and Georgians. 37 These incidental bits of information indicate that eleventh-century Ephesus was no sleepy hollow but was rather a center of both local and international trade. It is interesting to note that when Alexius I accorded the Venetians com¬ mercial privileges, Ephesus was one of the cities that Venetian merchants could visit. 38 Its plain was fertile, well watered, and the nearby sea was a rich fishing ground. 39
The western Anatolian coast was dotted with natural harbors that seem to have been active maritime centers in the tenth and eleventh centuries, though possibly not on the same scale as Ephesus. The monks of Mt. Athos sailed to Smyrna to purchase necessities, and shipping con¬ stantly plied the lanes between Smyrna and Constantinople and the isles in the eleventh century. 40 Phygela served as a debarkation point to and from Crete 41 as well as a commercial center and depot for naval stores. 42 Phocaea and Strobilus were among the important ports of Anatolia in which Venetian merchants were to be allowed to trade late in the eleventh century. Miletus and Clazomenae were undoubtedly of similar importance. 43
The hinterland of these towns in the Thracesian theme produced much grain, the surplus of which was exported to regions in Phrygia, which produced only barley. 44 The towns farther north were also centers of lively trading activity. Nicomedia, a central emporium with state khans for the residence of the merchants, 45 exported livestock to the capital and served as the market for villagers in the vast rural area around the city. These ccypoyerrovES came to town to sell their own produce, to buy what they needed, 46 and also to visit the church of the Archangel Michael. Prusa, an important market for grain and livestock, was in addition famed for its thermal baths. 47 Its neighbor, Nicaea, was an equally active commercial center and mart for local farming products. 48 The city contained granaries for the agricultural produce of the rural environs 49 and an active colony of Jewish merchants. 50 The tenthcentury Theophanes Continuatus refers to Nicaea as rich and heavily populated. 51 It is pertinent that the Arab geographer al-Mukaddasi mentioned the presence of Muslims in the cities of Bithynia, some probably there for purposes of trade. 52
Though the literary references to the town are scanty, the archaeological finds indicate that in the eleventh century Pergamum was the site of some local industry, 53 and its neighbor Adramyttium was a town of more than respectable size. 54 Abydus, Cyzicus, Lampsacus, and Pylae enjoyed a certain prosperity because of their favorable location along the land and maritime routes leading to Constantinople. 55 Pylae possessed £evo 5 oxeioc or Khans for the merchants, 56 and the town specialized in the export of swine, cattle, horses, and asses to Constantinople. 57 Pythia (the Turkish Yalova), embellished since the time of Justinian I with public baths and buildings, became a famous resort town that Constantinopolitans visited for the cures of the warm baths. 58 The whole region of northwest Anatolia was unusually favored, commer¬ cially, by its proximity to a large market in Constantinople, by the presence of large towns and centers of population, by numerous harbors, and by the existence of fairly rich and large villages. 59 Great numbers of merchant vessels touched at such ports of call as Cyzicus, Lampsacus, Nicomedia, Helenopolis, Abydus, Cius, Chalcedon. 60
Attaleia remained throughout the whole period the principal naval base and commercial station that the Byzantines possessed in southern Anatolia, visited by great numbers of ships. 61 It was the most convenient harbor between the region of the Aegean and Cyprus and points eastward, and travelers and merchants voyaging between the two areas usually stopped at Attaleia. 62 It was not only an important center for the deposit of naval stores and grain but an international trading center 63 where in addition to the local merchants one could expect to see Armenians, 64 Saracens , 65 Jews , 66 and Italians . 67 The Arab accounts of the ninth and tenth centuries describe the district of Attaleia as densely populated and rich in cereals. Its agricultural produce found ready markets in the less fertile regions of the Anatolian plateau . 68
The northern Anatolian coast was the scene of similarly energetic commerce and industry. Heracleia engaged in a brisk trade with Constantinople 60 and with Cherson, which needed its grain . 70 To the northeast was Amastris, a more important commercial center. Nicetas the Paphlagonian, describing Amastris as the “eye” of Paphlagonia, relates that the “Scyths” who lived on the north coast of the Black Sea were in frequent and intense commercial relation with the inhabitants of the city . 71 Its merchants were quite active as early as the ninth century, and probably earlier . 72 The combination of local industry, trade, and the produce of the soil made Amastris one of the more prosperous towns on the Black Sea . 73 Sinope, the site of the church of St. Phocas, was important as a grain port and naval base , 74 and also as the sponsor of the great panegyris, or commercial fair, held on the feast day of St. Phocas . 75 Slightly to the southeast was another grain port, Amisus, which traded extensively with the Chersonese . 76 Cerasus, which participated in this maritime intercourse with the “Scyths” and the other Pontine cities, was one of the major textile centers of northern Anatolia, supplying Constantinople with linen cloth . 77
Certainly the most important of the Anatolian cities on the Black Sea, in terms of population, wealth, commerce, and industry, was Trebizond . 78 It was situated in the vicinity of the fertile grain-producing regions of Paipert and Chaldia 79 and served as a storage center and market for the region’s grain . 80 But significant as it was in the grain trade, Trebizond was more important as a commercial center in which converged trade routes coming by sea from Cherson and by land from the Caucasus, Central Asia, Syria, Constantinople, and Anatolia.
There were several market fairs held each year , 81 the most important of which was the panegyris of St. Eugenius, the patron saint of Trebizond, instituted in the region of Basil I . 82 Merchants and travelers from all parts of the Middle East were to be seen buying and selling goods in Trebizond and visiting the shrine of St. Eugenius for cures: Arabs, Armenians, Greeks , 83 Russians, Colchians , 84 Jews , 85 Georgians , 86 and Circassians . 87 The Trebizondines were engaged in a vast international commerce between east and west. The Kachaks, a Caucasian people, came to the city to purchase Greek brocades and other textiles . 88 The tenth-century Arab Istakhri relates that most of the Greek textiles and brocades in his day were imported into the Islamic world via Trebizond. Aside from the grain that Trebizond sent to the imperial capital on the Bosphorus, very impor¬ tant were the perfumes and other exotic items that entered the empire via the emporium of Trebizond. The trade of the region furnished a further source of revenue to the state by virtue of the customs duties that the commerciarioi levied . 89
Bona and Oenoe were smaller towns of some commercial note, the latter as a ship building center and naval base . 90 This whole tier of Pontic towns participated in a vital commercial and industrial life, a fact reflected by such authors as Theophanes and Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The former relates that when Constantine V wished to rebuild the acqueduct of Valens in Constantinople during a severe drought, he transported craftsmen and builders from western Asia Minor and Pontus . 91 Also, the exports of grain, wine, and other commodities were not only necessary for Constantinople but were absolutely essential to the existence of the Chersonites.
The latter, in return for the goods that the Greek merchants brought them, sent to Pontus such items as hides and wax which they acquired from the Patzinaks. Constantine Porphyrogenitus tells his son that in case the Chersonites should revolt, imperial agents should be sent to the coasts of the provinces of Armeniacon, Paphlagonia, and Bucellarion to take possession of the Chersonite ships, arrest the crews, and confiscate the cargoes. The merchant ships of these provinces were to be prevented from going to Cherson with their much needed cargoes. For if the Chersonites do not journey to Roumania and sell the hides and wax that they get by trade from the Pechenegs, they cannot live. If grain does not pass across from Aminsos and from Paphlagonia and the Bukellarioi and the flanks of the Armeniakoi, the Chersonites cannot live . 92
Prior to the Seljuk invasions, the Byzantines possessed in eastern Anatolia a number of comparatively prosperous commercial towns. One of the most important of these and located to the southeast of Trebizond was Artze, a fairly large town 93 inhabited by numerous merchants, including not only local Syrians and Armenians but also many others . 94 The town possessed and traded in all types of goods and wares that were produced in Persia, India, and the rest of Asia . 95 Theodosiopolis in the vicinity seems to have been an important caravan town that traded with the Georgians in the early tenth century . 96
Many of its inhabitants moved to the town of Artze where commercial conditions were more favorable, but after the Turkish sack of Artze much of the populace returned to Theodosiopolis. Ani, one of the most recently acquired cities of the empire in eastern Asia Minor, was an important and very populous emporium, with great numbers of churches and grain silos . 97 At the easternmost extremity was the town of Manzikert, also recently acquired . 98 Melitene, a large commercial town 99 that had been incorporated into the empire during the reign of Romanus I, was later repeopled primarily with Jacobite Christians 100 and to a lesser degree with Armenians and Greeks . 101
The few remarks that emerge from the sources reveal that this town was inhabited by wealthy merchants . 102 Nisibis and Edessa were com¬ paratively populous and wealthy , 103 obviously dependent for much of their prosperity on trade with Syria . 104 Antioch, though actually not in Asia Minor, was very important in the economic life of the empire and especially in the commercial activities of the Anatolian towns. It was one of the important points at which commerce flowed between the domains of Byzantium and Islam. This trade had no doubt always existed and the wars and razzias only temporarily interrupted it . 105 Though much of this trade with the Muslim east was transacted in northern and eastern Asia Minor, a considerable portion of it must have entered into and passed through southern and central Anatolia. Anazarba and Podandus in the tenth and eleventh centuries were populous and prosperous, with thickly inhabited and productive clusters of villages in their environs . 106 The highland town of Tzamandus was also wealthy and of good size . 107
Adana, Tarsus, Mopsuestia, and Seleuceia were significant towns charac¬ terized by commercial enterprise . 108 Caesareia, favored by its location on the commercial route connecting Mesopotamia-Syria with Anatolia, the seat of one of the most important Greek metropolitanates and an important point of religious pilgrimage, was the principal town of Cappadocia . 109 Nigde, Archelais, and Heracleia, though certainly not as large as Caesareia, also drew their livelihood from their position on the road system of southern Anatolia. West of Caesareia was the city of Iconium, the administrative, communications, religious, and commercial focal point of south-central Anatolia . 110 Chonae and Laodiceia, west of Iconium, were urban agglomerates that lived from the traffic passing along the road leading from Iconium to the Maeander River valley. Located near the sources of the river, they were possessed of well-watered and productive countrysides.
The lakes were well stocked with fish, the valleys supported livestock and a host of agricultural products which included liquorice, cardamum, myrtle, figs, and other fruits . 111 Chonae, a town of respectable size, enjoyed a certain commercial prosperity as a result of the great trade fairs held at the panegyris of the Archangel Michael. Merchants traveled long distances to do business at this event, and the faithful came on pilgrimage to see the great church of the Arch¬ angel with its mosaics . 112 Laodiceia, famed for its textiles in late antiquity, doubtlessly continued to produce these materials during the Byzantine period, for when Ibn Battuta saw the city in the early fourteenth century, he observed that the Greek textile workers were still making excellent clothes and materials . 113
Northwest of Iconium, along the road to Dorylaeum, existed a series of smaller towns that served as administrative, ecclesiastical, and military centers. These included Laodiceia Cecaumene, Tyriaeum, Philomelium, Synnada, Polybotus, Acroenus, Amorium, Gaborcion, Santabaris, Nacoleia, Cotyaeum, Trocnada, and Pessinus . 114 Amorium, before its celebrated sack by the Arabs in the ninth century, was one of the larger Anatolian towns, 115 and the presence of Jews in the city during the early ninth century is possibly an indication that Amorium was the site of considerable commercial life. 116 It has been assumed that the city had all but disappeared as a result of the Arab destruction.
Attaleiates, however, who is very careful in the nomenclature that he applies to cities, towns, and villages, still refers to Amorium as a -TroAiTeia in the eleventh century. 117 The largest and most important of the plateau towns in northwestern Anatolia was Dorylaeum. Located at the point of egress from and entrance to the plateau, its plain watered by the streams of the Bathys and Tembris, the city enjoyed the advantages that strategic location and generous nature bestowed. The fields produced rich harvests of grain and the rivers abounded in fish, the villages were densely populated and the city was embellished with stoas, fountains, and houses of illustrious citizens. 118 Between Dorylaeum and Nicaea were the lesser towns ofMalagina, Pithecas, and Leucae. 119
The northern rim of the plateau contained a number of towns, the most important of which was Ankara. 120 Slightly to the east was Saniana (a military base), and farther north were Gangra and Castamon. Euchaita, midway between the Halys and Iris rivers, was a center of commercial note and evidently of some size. Its fair attracted merchants from afar with the result that the city prospered. 121 Amaseia, much as Ankara and Euchaita, was a town of importance as a result of its strategic location in the mountain passes (Psellus speaks of it as a famous city, “the city men¬ tioned by every tongue”. 122 ) Its rural neighborhood, though chopped up by precipitous mountains, was nevertheless well watered and productive. Like so many other towns in northeastern Anatolia, Amaseia was located in a metalliferous region and the mines seem to have been worked in Byzantine and Seljuk times. 123 Doceia, Neocaesareia, Sebasteia, Coloneia, Nicopolis, and Argyropolis were important administrative, ecclesiastical, and commercial centers of the conventional Anatolian type. 124
Anatolian towns were subject to ever-present and powerful currents of trade and commerce. In spite of the aridity of the historical sources, it seems quite clear that Greek, Armenian, Jewish, Russian, Chersonite, Circassian, Georgian, Muslim, and Italian merchants traversed the maritime and hinterland trade routes. Maritime commerce came to the Anatolian coastal cities along the entire Black Sea, Aegean, and Mediterranean littorals. In the north the trade followed the coastal towns ultimately reaching Constantinople in the west or Trebizond in the east. Much of this commerce must have deployed itself along the river valleys and mountain passes leading from the littoral to the towns of the plateau.
The maritime commerce of the coastal towns was tied up with Constantinople, Cherson, and the Caucasus while the commerce of the Aegean coastal centers was connected with the Greek peninsula and the islands as well as with Constantinople. The sea trade of Attaleia was supplied by Egypt, Cyprus, Antioch, and the Aegean. The major land route from the east entered the various border cities from Antioch in the south to Trebizond in the north. Again, some of this commerce was sea borne from Trebizond to Constantinople and to other harbors, or from Antioch to Attaleia and other ports. But at the same time a good portion of this commerce found its way into the cities of the plateau via the Cilician Gates and other routes. 125
There is evidence for the existence of well-developed local industry in the Anatolian towns. The Anatolians manufactured brocades and various textiles of linen, wool, silk, and cotton; they wove carpets, pro¬ duced glassware and pottery, incense, bows, arrows, swords, shields, nails, rope, and other naval supplies; and they built ships. Certainly they must have produced many of the everyday items that they needed in their own urban and rural life. Various types of craftsmen, specialized labor, and merchants are mentioned on rare occasion in the texts and in¬ scriptions. 126 The peninsula was a major region of the Byzantine mining industry, producing silver, copper, iron, lead, possibly some gold, marble, alum, and semiprecious stones. 127 Food production played a very important role in the commerce of the towns, the Byzantine villages being more closely connected to the towns than was the case with many areas in western Europe. 128
The towns served as markets for the produce of the peasants most important items of which were grain, fish, wine, fruit, legumes, nuts, livestock, and lumber. Each town had its group of villages, the inhabitants of which brought these products to town, very often during the big fairs held on the feast day of the saints. 129 Here the villagers sold their produce and bought the products of local or foreign industry. 130 Many of these villages were quite large and thriving. 131 Thus, parallel to the larger movements of trade, there was generated also this smaller local trade between the villages and the towns, which was just as important in some respects as the larger scale trade. In this manner the farmers and herdsmen received cash for their goods. The towns in turn were able to dispose of the villagers’ produce both by sale among the townsmen and by selling it to merchants of Constantinople and other cities.
Great Landed Families
One of the critical phenomena in the history of Anatolia was the evolution of the great landed families, whose deeds permeate the chronicles and legal literature of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Possessed of vast estates and high official position in the provincial administration and military, they were largely responsible for the social and historical development in Asia Minor prior to the Seljuk invasions. Most of the families rose to power and eminence via the armies and then consolidated their position by an economic expansion that was largely, though not exclusively, based on the acquisition of great land holdings.
These magnates, by virtue of their control of the provincial armies, wielded great power. Very often the exercise of the strategeia in a particular province tended to become semihereditary in a particular family, as in the case of the Phocas’ and the theme of Cappadocia. Aside from control of these thermatic armies, the large estates of the aristocracy enabled them to maintain large bodies of private troops. So long as the government was able to check their more extreme political and economic abuses, this provincial aristocracy contributed to the defense and expansion of Byzantium in the east. In the eleventh century, however, this powerful class played a crucial role in the decline of the state. 132
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق