Download PDF | Mark Whittow - Social and Political Structures in the Maeander Region of Western Asia Minor on the Eve of the Turkish Invasion. 1-3-University of Oxford (1987).
1013 Pages
SHORT ABSTRACT
The thesis is a contribution to two of the crucial problems of middle Byzantine history: the social and political structure of the provinces, and the explanation of the rapid fall of Asia Minor to the Turks at the end of the 11th century. These problems are approached through a study of the Maeander region of western Asia Minor.
Part one describes the geography of the region and shows it to have been a naturally fertile area, of great potential importance to the Empire. In the Roman period it had been very prosperous ; the subsequent decline cannot be explained by geological or climatic factors.
Part two surveys the archaeological evidence. The ancient city sites remained occupied at a sometimes very low cultural level through the early (7th -8th century) and middle (9th-11th century) Byzantine periods. A general move of settlements’ to apparently more secure sites with natural defences did not take place until the 12th-13th centuries in the face of the Turks. Up to the end of the 11th century the city sites remained the focus of what was most active in the provincial society of the Maeander region.
Part three looks at the region's elites. The strategoi and judges who ruled the theme of the Thrakesioi, which makes up the western two-thirds of the region, were outsiders appointed by the Imperial government in Constantinople and only in the region on short term appointments. Several major figures at the Imperial court owned land in the region but only as absentee landlords. When crisis came between 1071 and 1080 these outsiders abandoned the Maeander to the Turks. The church played an important role, but the resident local elite were a comparatively humble group, isolated from Constantinople, and lacking the influence to force the Imperial government into defending their interests
LONG ABSTRACT
Two of the major problems which any Byzantine historian must consider are first the nature of society in the provinces, and second the reasons for the rapid collapse of Byzantine Asia Minor to the Turks at the end of the 11th century.
The first is important because during the 7th to 11th centuries Byzantium was a large territorial Empire controlling the greater part of Asia Minor as well as extensive areas of the Balkans and southern Italy. Most of the surviving evidence familiar to historians tends to focus on Constantinople and the Imperial court. Indeed the modern use of the adjective byzantine to refer to particularly devious court politics underlines how one aspect of Byzantine life has coloured the image of an entire culture. However dominant Constantinople may have been, the city was only a tiny area of an Empire which stretched from Armenia to the Adriatic; and its population, however privileged, was a minority among the peoples of the provinces. The latter as sources of manpower, revenue, food and materials were vital to the Empire's existence; and the nature of the Byzantine state was shaped by the relationship between the provinces and Constantinople. A history of Byzantium
C. CAHEN, 'La premiere penetration turque en Asie Mineure (seconde moitie du XIe sitcle)', B XVIII (1948) 5-67; Pre-Ottoman Turkey London (1968) 1-109.
W. C. BRICE, 'The Turkish colonisation of Anatolia’, Bulletin of John Ryland's Library XXXVIII (1955) 18-44.
G. DAGRON, 'Minorites éthniques et religieuses dans 1' orient byzantin a la fin du Xe et au XJe siécle: 1' immigration syrien ', TM VI (1976) 177-216.
J. KODER, F. HILD, Hellas und Thessalia Vienna (1976); F, HILD, M. RESTLE, Kappadokien Vienna (1981); P.
SOUSTAL, Nikopolis und Kephallenia Vienna (1981); K. BELKE, Galtien und Lykaonien Vienna (1984).
A. BRYER, D. WINFIELD, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos 2 vols., Washington (1985).
written wholly from a Constantinopolitan perspective is bound to be missing an essential part of its evidence. An understanding of the social and political structures of the provinces, and how they related to Constantinople and each other is a necessary goal of Byzantine studies.
The second problem leads from this in that the fall of Byzantine Asia Minor in the 1070s and early 1080s cannot simply be attributed to a single battle at Manzikert in 1071, the effeteness of the Byzantines, the feebleness of Michael VII, or even the universal superiority of mounted nomads over a_ settled population. Important studies, including those by C. Cahen,[1] W. Brice[2] and G. Dagron,[3] have clarified some of the issues, but an essential aspect must have lain in the structure of Byzantine provincial society. The fall of Byzantine Asia Minor was in large part a failure to defend itself, and such a failure is likely to have had its roots in how society throughout Anatolia and the surrounding mountains and coastal plains was organized.
Research has already moved from a pre-occupation with Constantinopolitan politics, and several distinguished provincial studies have appeared. In particular one should note the work of members of the Austrian academy on the Tabula Imperii Byzantini, of which so far four volumes have appeared,[4] and A. Bryer and D. Winfield's major study of the Pontos.{[5] In both cases, however, these are archaeological, monumental and topographic studies, and the social and political dimension has still to be provided. When that is done the events of the 1070s, as indeed of many other periods of Byzantine history, will become much more intelligible.
The Maeander region of western Asia Minor, defined as the valleys of the Maeander, Cayster and Hermos rivers with their surrounding mountains, is a particularly suitable area for exploring these issues. First, the region has a geographical coherence which marks it apart from its neighbours, but nonetheless it is sufficiently large to raise the topic above that of a narrow local history. Second, because about two-thirds of the region was recovered from the Turks in the late 1090s. and for the most part remained in Byzantine hands until the beginning: of the 14th century, a comparatively large body of evidence has survived. This includes Saints' Lives (of which those of St. Paul of Latros, St. Luke the stylite, St. Nikephoros of Miletos and St. Lazaros of mount Galesion stand out as of major importance), documentary materials from mount Latros, the Xerochoraphion, the Nea Moni on Chios and the monastery of St. John on Patmos, and the inscriptions on lead seals, in addition to the more familiar historical sources which contain asubstantial number of references to events in the region.
The Maeander region is also well suited to such a= study because from the 17th century onwards it was relatively open to western travellers and scholars, attracted first by trade and the religious significance of the seven churches of Asia, and then increasingly by the fame of the region's Greek and Roman sites. The travellers' accounts are a valuable source for the region before roads, railways and drainage projects transformed the environment, but their antiquarian researches were also the impetus for the archaeological excavations which began at several sites in the late 19th and early 20th century. Today there are excavations in progress at Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, Hierapolis, Didyma, JIasos and Aphrodisias. Several other sites received partial exploration in the past.
These projects were all begun by classical archaeologists and the remains of the Byzantine period have been treated with comparative neglect. Yet there has been more arehaeology carried out in the Maeander region than in any other province of the Byzantine Empire. Even if the results to a Byzantine historian are somewhat disappointing, it is preferable to the near absence of excavation which is the familiar problem elsewhere.
In using this material I have tried to build on the seminal work of C. Foss. Even where I disagree or contradict his conclusions he deserves the credit for raising many of the issues and pointing to the evidence in the first place. His publications, in particular those on Sardis and Ephesos, marked a Major step forward in Byzantine studies.
Part one of the thesis defines the Maeander region and describes its geography. It also notes the climatic and geographical division between the lower Maeander region consisting of the valleys and adjacent hills of the lower Maeander itself, the Lykos, the Cayster and the Hermos, and the upper Maeander region, on intermediate zone between the coastal plains and the high Anatolian plateau, drained by the Maeander river system and separated from Anatolia to the east by the mountains of the Ak dag and the Burgaz dag. Both parts of the region contain extensive areas of fertile agricultural land, but in the lower Maeander this is an outstanding feature making it one of the major agricultural areas of the eastern mediterranean. As a result of the Maeander region was of great potential importance to any state that controlled it.
In the Roman period the Maeander supported a thriving urban culture which made the region one of the wealthiest and most developed parts of the Roman world. Since the 18th century the region has enjoyed similar prosperity, but during the Byzantine period the Maeander seems to have been poorer and of less importance. Since the Roman prosperity lasted until the end of the 6th century, the move of the Empire's capital from Rome to Constantinople offers no explanation. Similarly geological and climatic change are not a solution. Heavy erosion and siltation have always been a feature of region's great river valleys, and the process is still evident today. The climate may have altered in the late Roman/early Byzantine period, but in so far as the topic is accessible to a historian rather than a climatologist the changes seem not to have been on a scale to have major economic consequences. It follows that the rise and fall of the region's prosperity can only be explained in terms of social and economic developments. It also follows that archaeological evidence for the region's general level of prosperity will have a close relationship with other evidence for social and political stuctures. Both are necessary for an understanding of the region during the Byzantine period.
Part two of the thesis surveys the archaeological material. No written sources can replace this essential evidence. In particular Constantine Porphyrogenitos' De Thematibus and the list of the twenty cities of Asia that it contains is seriously misleading, and can serve as a warning of the some of the problems of Byzantine quellenkritik.
However the archaeology has strict limitations. There has been no rural archaeology or survey work; and excavation has with two small exceptions, at Sebaste in the Banaz ovasi, and the Pegin kale south of Milas, been confined to the sites of classical cities and temples. Until comparatively recently the medieval evidence tended to be destroyed without record. Even where it has been recorded the techniques used have been those appropriate to fairly substantial stone buildings. Since even until recently the common building materials were mud _ bricks sometimes with a wooden frame, and mud and wood rooves, it is quite probable that a great deal of Byzantine settlement has been missed. The problem is compounded by the ignorance of Byzantine pottery types. Even the most obvious can only be dated within broad margins.
With these problems in mind I have reassessed the evidence available to Foss, looked at the results of recent excavations and sites that he did not examine, and spent several months over four years looking at cities, castles and other Byzantine settlement sites throughout the Maeander region. My conclusions would suggest amuch more positive interpretation than Foss' published work would allow.
His rather gloomy picture is given particular force by the example of Sardis where it appeared that the city was abandoned in favour of a hill-top refuge castle. In fact it is clear that the castle was a major Imperial fortress built in the late 7th century at the height of Byzantium's struggle for survival against the Arabs. The evidence for Sardis itself suggests that it may have struggled on at a low cultural level still on its ancient site. In any case the acropolis castle is not an example of a changing settlement pattern in the early Byzantine period.
This pattern is repeated over the lower Maeander region as a whole. The ancient city sites seem to have remained the principal centres of population up to at least the end of the lith century. There is no evidence for a move to more secure sites, nor for the establishment of a network of mountain refuge where a dispersed population could find safety. On a remarkable number of ancient city sites there is evidence for occupation through the Byzantine period.
In the upper Maeander region there has been almost no excavation but several city sites may have been occupied. More important, it can be shown that whatever the population live, they had retreated to hill-top fortresses and they continued to farm the upper Maeander plains.
We are still in the early stages of understanding the Byzantine town, but the evidence surveyed here, showing the continuity of ancient city sites as central places through the Byzantine period up to the Turkish invasions, suggests they should be accorded an important role in provincial society. Compared to Roman cities or even to contemporary Constantinople they would have appeared underdeveloped. The physical remains are in general unimpressive, but that is a feature of many European towns at this period, and would be quite consistent with the Maeander towns as the seat of important members of the local elite.
Part three considers the role of the ecclesiastical and lay elites in the Maeander region. The role of the secular church, which is often underestimated, is discussed, but the main interest of this section concerns the lay elite The lower Maeander region fell entirely within the theme of the Thrakesioi, and made up the southern two-thirds of the theme, including those areas that were most fertile and populous. The upper Maeander was part of the theme of the Anatolikoi of which it formed about one fifth.
Up until at least the end of the 10th century the lower Maeander as part of the Thrakesioi was ruled by strategoi, the military governors of the themes. Recent work has revealed a more developed civil administration than has sometimes been described, but in the middle Byzantine period the strategos was nonetheless the overall governor of the region in matters of civil as well as military. From the late 10th century onwards his role was largely taken over by the judge who provided the theme with a civil governor. Neither of these positions was filled by local men. They were outsiders appointed in Constantinople as part of that political world centred on the Imperial court. They were in the theme for a few years before moving on to another province or taking up a post in the capital.
Others who were major political figures at the Imperial court owned land in the Maeander region, but they did not amount to a provincial aristocracy. There ae no evidence to show any important political figure building up an interest in the lower Maeander which would then support his political position in Constantinople - indeed there is a significant body of evidence to the contrary. Land could be valuable in the Maeander but there is nothing to suggest it was anything other than an economic asset and an appropriate investment for large court salaries.
The upper Maeander came under the authority of the strategoi and judges of the Anatolikoi who are outside the scope of this thesis. A number of important political families, prominent in the second half of the 11th century, such as that of Botaneiates, seem to have had their roots there. Yet in fact an analysis of the events which led to the loss of the region to the Turks suggests this was of little consequence in either Constantinopolitan or provincial politics.
In the 1070s Nikephoros Botaneiates was in the upper Maeander because he had been appointed doux of the Anatolikoi and the hostility of the Doukai made it convenient to stay in the theme. Eventually as the pressures of being cut off in the provinces grew, and the Doukas regime in Constantinople became weaker, Botaneiates left the region to seize the Imperial throne. It is a striking feature of these years that he had no interest in defending the upper Maeander against the Turks or in setting himself up as a semi-independent provincial ruler. In turn the region seems to have had little interest in him. Very few accompanied Botaneiates in his attempt on the Imperial throne, and were it not for Turkish support the expedition would have lacked all military credibility. The actions of Botaneiates suggest that in the upper Maeander as elsewhere in the region there were wealthy absentee land-owners with no vital interests involved.
By contrast the resident local elite as revealed principally through Saints' Lives were a humble group of small land-owners, lesser officials, soldiers, ship-owners and churchmen. Within local society they could be influential but in comparison to the Constantinopolitan officials and generals who came to the region from outside they were poor and powerless.
This leads to two major conclusions. Firstly, that the Maeander region lacked a provincial aristocracy who could bind together the interests of the province and of Constantinople. (The church could not provide an alternative). This is an important factor which shaped provincial society and made it less able to unite in self-defence against the Turks. Secondly, the known Byzantine towns in the region were rather undeveloped places, but that should not indicate a lack of importance. rt would be quite consistent with the status of wealth of that local elite who were resident in the Maeander and dominated its provincial society
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق