Von den Hunnen zu den Türken – Reiterkrieger in Europa und Zentralasien. From the Huns to the Turks The oaths of Asians in Byzantine service in the 11th–12th centuries 9783948618247

Citation preview

Von den Hunnen zu den Türken – Reiterkrieger in Europa und Zentralasien From the Huns to the Turks – Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central Asia Internationale Konferenz am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum – Leibniz Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Mittelalterforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle

Mainz, 25. –26. April 2018 Herausgeber Falko Daim, Harald Meller und Walter Pohl

23

2021

TAGUNGEN DES L ANDESMUSEUMS FÜR VORGESCHICHTE HALLE

Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle Band 23 | 2021

Von den Hunnen zu den Türken – Reiterkrieger in Europa und Zentralasien From the Huns to the Turks – Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central Asia Internationale Konferenz am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum – Leibniz Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Mittelalterforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle Mainz, 25. –26. April 2018

Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle Band 23 | 2021

Von den Hunnen zu den Türken – Reiterkrieger in Europa und Zentralasien From the Huns to the Turks – Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central Asia Internationale Konferenz am Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum – Leibniz Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Mittelalterforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle Mainz, 25. –26. April 2018

herausgegeben von Falko Daim, Harald Meller und Walter Pohl Halle (Saale) 2021

asbfbdvfnbsvnbsdvfsnbd

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://portal.dnb.de abrufbar. isbn

978-3-948618-24-7

issn

1867-4402

Wissenschaftliche Redaktion Redaktion der englischen Texte Übersetzung Übersetzung Vorwort Organisation und Korrespondenz Technische Bearbeitung Vor- und Nachsatz

Nele Lüttmann ∙ Leipzig Nele Lüttmann ∙ Leipzig, Louis D. Nebelsick ∙ LDA Halle (Saale) Nele Lüttmann ∙ Leipzig Dr. Carola Murray-Seegert ∙ Oberursel (Taunus) Nele Lüttmann ∙ Leipzig Birte Janzen, Brigitte Parsche © Gestaltung: Birte Janzen, nach Vorlagen aus den Beiträgen Albrecht, Compareti, Daim und Preiser-Kapeller Für den Inhalt der Arbeiten sind die Autoren eigenverantwortlich.

©

Papier Satzschrift Umschlag Titelseite Schmuckseite 7 Umschlag Rückseite Konzept und Gestaltung Layout, Satz und Produktion Druck und Bindung

2021 by Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale). Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt unzulässig. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen sowie die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

alterungsbeständig nach din/iso 9706 FF Celeste Pro, News Gothic Pro Kopie einer Silberschale (Detail), Eremitage Sankt Petersburg; Foto © RGZM Mainz; Gestaltung Birte Janzen goldene Zierscheibe mit dem Haupt Christi, Limons (Frankreich); Foto Falko Daim (siehe Beitrag Seite 195) Kreuz von der Schale 21 aus dem Schatz von Sânnicolau Mare (ungarisch: Nagyszentmiklós), Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien Carolyn Steinbeck • Berlin Birte Janzen, Brigitte Parsche Löhnert Druck • Markranstädt

Inhalt / Contents

9 Vorwort der Herausgeber /Preface of the editors

Zentralasien Central Asia 15 Gergely Csiky

The transformation of horse riding in the steppes during the 1st millennium AD. Considerations on the spread of stirrups in Eurasia 29 Johannes Preiser-Kapeller

Large-scale imperial urbanism in early medieval Eurasia (7th–9th century CE): an essay across the nomad-sedentary divide 47 Matteo Compareti

Huns and Turks in »Sino-Sogdian« funerary monuments and Sogdian paintings 59 Sören Stark

A »Rouran perspective« on the northern Chinese frontier during the Northern Wei Period. Some thoughts on the Yihe-nur tombs (Inner Mongolia)

Rund um das Schwarze Meer Around the Black Sea 91 Nick Evans

The womb of iron and silver: Slavery in the Khazar economy 101 Richard Foltz

The Caucasian Alans between Byzantine Christianity and traditional paganism 109 Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger

»Türkische Dreiecke« in der Überleitungszone und die Datierung einiger Höhlenkirchen Kappadokiens 125 Rustam Shukurov

The oaths of Asians in Byzantine service in the 11th–14th centuries

Die mitteleuropäischen Steppenreiche The Central European Steppe Empires 137 Bence Gulyás

Ethnical identification of the steppe people – a methodological approach 155 Timo Stickler

Der Einfluss der Hunnen auf die Entwicklung des spätrömischen Reiches – und umgekehrt 165 Walter Pohl

The Avars in a Central Eurasian perspective 171 Tivadar Vida

The process of the settlement of the Carpathian Basin by the Avars and their configuration of power 191 Falko Daim

Objects and motifs. On visual communication in the Avar Empire 215 Nad’a Profantová

Luxus aus dem Süden. Das Depot aus Domoušice, Bez. Louny, und die Fernkontakte Böhmens im 8. Jahrhundert 239 Panos Sophoulis

The Bulgar paradox: A horse-powered (?) elite in the Balkans 247 Todor Chobanov

Medieval temples of a pre-Christian religion and their priests 271 Ádám Bollók and János B. Szabó

Árpád’s people: Early Medieval steppe society and national ancestors. 9th century Hungarian history as reflected in chapter 38 of the De administrando imperio 283 Stefan Albrecht

The Magyar raids – a common European trauma?

asbfbdvfnbsvnbsdvfsnbd

asbfbdvfnbsvnbsdvfsnbd

Vorwort der Herausgeber / Preface of the editors Falko Daim, Harald Meller und Walter Pohl

Was ist eigentlich Europa? Historisch gesehen speist sich das gängige europäische Selbstbild hauptsächlich aus der »Alten Welt«, der griechischen und römischen Kultur, die mit der nordischen in Wechselwirkung standen. Tatsächlich ist jedoch die Verbindung unseres Subkontinents mit Zentralund Ostasien ebenso wichtig. Denn Vieles, was uns heute selbstverständlich erscheint, wie Hühner, Zitrusfrüchte, Kiwis, Reis, Seide, Papier, Schach oder Buchdruck, kam ursprünglich aus dem Fernen Osten, meist wohl vermittelt über Händlernetzwerke. Eine große Rolle spielten aber auch Migrationsschübe; Zuwanderungen, welche die europäische Kultur bereicherten – wenn sie auch nicht immer friedlich abliefen. Die eurasischen Nomaden, die hier mit den unterschiedlichsten Verbündeten ankamen, brachten freilich auch andere Lebensformen und Gesellschaftsmodelle mit und hatten sich mit der lokalen Bevölkerung auseinanderzusetzen. Die Anpassungsprozesse zu beobachten, ist besonders spannend. Die radikalste Form war die Transformation ganzer Staaten zu christlichen Königreichen, wie dies den Bulgaren und Ungarn gelungen ist. Zumindest seit dem Neolithikum gab es immer wieder Zuwanderungen von Nomaden aus den eurasischen Steppen nach Europa, wie neuere Forschungen beweisen. Ihre Lebensweise ermöglichte die Viehzucht auf Weiden, die sich nur sehr langsam regenerieren. Nicht alle nomadischen Gruppen verfügten auch über Reittiere, doch diejenigen, die Pferde oder Kamele hatten, konnten ihren Aktionsradius massiv erweitern, lernten, vom Sattel aus zu jagen – und bei Bedarf zu kämpfen. Spätestens seit den Skythen bildeten sich dann auch hochspezialisierte Berufskämpfer in hierarchischen Ordnungen heraus, von Herodot die Königsskythen genannt. Die hohe Mobilität, gepaart mit hoher Kampfkraft, erlaubte es dann den verschiedenen Herrschaftsverbänden in kurzer Zeit gewaltige Reiche zu errichten. Im Gegensatz zu den »einfachen« Viehhirten in der Steppe, die in Bescheidenheit lebten, konnte die Elite mächtiger Nomadenreiche enorme Vermögen anhäufen, teils durch Handel mit Vieh, Pelzen und Sklaven, doch auch durch Tribute, Raub und Erpressung sowie durch die Stellung von Hilfstruppen. Wie Reiterkrieger mit den benachbarten Reichen interagierten, lässt sich vor allem anhand der Hunnen, Awaren, Bulgaren und Ungarn studieren. Ihre reiche archäologische Hinterlassenschaft – alleine etwa 100 000 Grabfunde aus dem Karpatenbecken – aber auch zahlreiche Schriftquellen, vor allem von römischen, byzantinischen und westlichen Chronisten, beleuchten nicht nur die hohe Politik und konkrete Ereignisse, sondern durch die materielle Hinterlassenschaft auch das tägliche Leben der Bevölkerung. So wissen wir von den Verhandlungen des byzantinischen Kaisers mit dem awarischen Khagan, der Rolle von Jahrgeldern, den Kriegszügen, erfolgreichen und gescheiterten TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

What, exactly, is Europe? Historically, the common European self-image is fuelled mainly by the »Old World« – the Greek and Roman cultures that interacted with the Nordic ones. However, the connection of our subcontinent with Central and East Asia is equally significant. Many things that we take for granted today, such as chickens, citrus fruits, kiwis, rice, silk, paper, chess, and printing, originally came from the Far East, primarily through networks of traders. However, migration surges also played a significant role; waves of immigration that enriched European culture – even if they were not always peaceful. The Eurasian nomads, who arrived here with a wide variety of allies, also brought along other ways of life and social models and therefore had to come to terms with the local population. It is stimulating to observe the processes of adaptation. The most radical form was the transformation of entire states into Christian kingdoms, which the Bulgarians and Hungarians accomplished. At least since the Neolithic period, as recent research proves, there have been repeated migrations of nomads from the Eurasian steppes to Europe. Their way of life made it possible to raise livestock on pastures that regenerated only very slowly. Not all nomadic groups possessed mounts, but those who did have horses or camels could expand their radius of action massively; they learned to hunt from the saddle – and fight if necessary. Since the Scythians at the latest, highly specialised professional fighters developed in hierarchical military orders, such as those Herodotus called the »Royal Scythians«. Their extraordinary mobility paired with great combat strength made it possible for the various ruling federations to establish enormous empires rapidly. In contrast to the »simple« cattle herders of the steppe who lived modestly, the elite of these powerful nomadic empires accumulated enormous fortunes, partly through trade in cattle, furs, and slaves, but also through tribute, robbery, and extortion, as well as by providing auxiliary troops. The ways in which mounted warriors interacted with neighbouring empires can be seen above all on the basis of the Huns, Avars, Bulgarians, and Hungarians. Their rich archaeological legacy – around 100,000 grave finds are known from the Carpathian Basin alone – but also the numerous written sources, especially by Roman, Byzantine, and Western chroniclers, shed light not only on high politics and concrete events but also, through the material legacy, on the daily life of the population. Thus, we learn of the negotiations of the Byzantine emperor with the Avar khagan, the role of annuities, war campaigns, successful and failed sieges, whereas archaeological evidence reveals the supra-regional cultural contacts existing below the chroniclersʼ threshold of perception. Here we discover details related to cattle breeding, agriculture, horticulture, crafts, and trade,

10

FA L K O D A I M , H A R A L D M E L L E R U N D W A LT E R P O H L

Belagerungen, während uns archäologische Zeugnisse die überregionalen Kulturkontakte unter der Wahrnehmungsschwelle der Chronisten zeigen. Wir erfahren viele Details zur Viehzucht, zu Acker- und Gartenbau, zum Handwerk, dem Handel, aber auch zu Fragen lokaler Identitäten kleiner dörflicher Gemeinschaften. Das Kunsthandwerk erlaubt uns, über visuelle Kommunikation innerhalb der Herrschaftsgrenzen aber auch darüber hinaus nachzudenken. Die europäische Geschichtsforschung über die Steppenvölker hat sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten vor allem mit der Auswertung und Neuinterpretation der Schriftquellen befasst. Dabei ging es nicht zuletzt darum, sich von den uralten Wahrnehmungsmustern der Steppenvölker aus der Sicht der Sesshaften zu befreien. Informationsstand, Intentionen und Berichtshorizont unserer Texte müssen erwogen werden, bevor auf kurzen Quellenstellen große Hypothesen aufgebaut werden. Vor eurozentrischen Vorurteilen müssen wir uns hüten, wobei gerade die Erforschung der zentraleurasiatischen Steppenvölker für globalgeschichtliche Ansätze sehr geeignet ist. In diesem Sinn waren die Steppenvölker des Mittelalters immer schon ein Thema der »Global Middle Ages«. Die Archäologie hatte indessen einen gewaltigen Zuwachs an Daten zu verzeichnen, durch nationale Forschungsinitiativen, vor allem aber durch Rettungsgrabungen, die infolge von Straßenbauprojekten und Baulanderschließungen notwendig waren. Gleichzeitig wurden allerdings auch die Auswertungsmethoden weiterentwickelt. Zu den traditionellen Partnern der Archäologie, die Humanbiologie, Archäozoologie und Archäobotanik kamen vor allem die Materialwissenschaft hinzu, die hilft, Rohstoffe und Verarbeitungstechnik zu erforschen, ferner Informatik, Statistik, Archäogenetik und viele andere. Die Liste der Nachbardisziplinen, mit denen das archäologisch-historische Bild immer mehr ausdifferenziert wird, wird stetig länger. Während sich die europäische Archäologie hauptsächlich erfolgreich mit den nomadischen Kulturen vor Ort befasste, wurden auch in Zentral- und Ostasien bedeutende Fortschritte erzielt. Vor allem das wechselhafte Verhältnis Chinas zu den Steppenreichen im Norden wird immer klarer und damit auch der Beitrag der Nomaden zur chinesischen Kulturentwicklung im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Die frühmittelalterlichen Steppenvölker reagierten nicht nur auf die politische und kulturelle Entwicklung in China, sondern folgten auch ihrer eigenen Dynamik, wie Nicola Di Cosmo gezeigt hat. Dabei unterschieden sich die Entwicklungslinien der einzelnen Steppenreiche durchaus, kein Fall glich einem anderen. Das können wir auch bei den europäischen Steppenvölkern des Mittelalters feststellen. Die Zusammenhänge und Verbindungen zwischen den eurasischen Nomadenkulturen und den verwandten europäischen Entitäten, den Steppenreichen im Karpatenbecken und an der unteren Donau, zu studieren, ist eine besondere Herausforderung. Bedeutende Gelehrte, wie Joachim Werner, István Bóna und Csanád Bálint haben dazu publiziert, aber im Grunde genommen stehen wir hier immer noch am Anfang. Freilich hat das hat auch mit sprachlichen Problemen und chronologischen Unsicherheiten zu tun, aber davon sollte man sich nicht abschrecken lassen. Nach erfolgreichen Forschungsprojekten des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz im Bereich der

but also to questions of the local identities of small village communities. In addition, their craftwork lets us speculate about visual communication, both within the dominion boundaries and beyond them. In recent decades, European historical research on the steppe peoples has been primarily concerned with the evaluation and reinterpretation of written sources. Not least, this was a matter of freeing the field from the age-old perceptual pattern that viewed the peoples of the steppe from the perspective of the sedentary. The level of information, the intentions, and the reporting horizon of our texts must be considered before grand hypotheses are constructed on the basis of brief source passages. We must beware of Eurocentric prejudices, whereby the study of the Central-Eurasian steppe peoples is particularly suitable for global-historical approaches. In this sense, the steppe peoples of the Middle Ages have always been a topic of the »Global Middle Ages«. Meanwhile, archaeology has experienced tremendous growth in data through national research initiatives, particularly as a result of rescue excavations necessitated by road-building projects and land development for new construction. At the same time, however, evaluation methods have evolved. The traditional partners of archaeology, human biology, archaeozoology, and archaeobotany were joined by material science, which aids the investigation of raw materials and processing technology, computer science, statistics, archaeogenetics, and many others. The list of neighbouring disciplines, with which the archaeological-historical picture is becoming increasingly differentiated, grows ever longer. While European archaeology was mainly successful in dealing with nomadic cultures on local soil, significant progress was also made in Central and East Asia. In particular, Chinaʼs chequered relationship with the steppe kingdoms to the north is becoming increasingly clear, and with it, the contribution of nomads to Chinese cultural development in the Early and High Middle Ages. Not only did the early medieval steppe peoples react to political and cultural developments in China, but they also followed their own dynamics, as Nicola Di Cosmo has shown. At the same time, the lines of development of the individual steppe kingdoms differed, with no two cases resembling each other. We can also see this in the European steppe peoples of the medieval period. Studying the connections and links between the eastern nomadic cultures and the related European entities, that are the steppe kingdoms of the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube, is a special challenge. Eminent scholars, such as Joachim Werner, István Bóna, and Csanád Bálint have published on this topic, but basically, we are still at the beginning. Admittedly, this also has to do with linguistic problems and chronological uncertainties, but we must not let these difficulties deter us. After successful research projects of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz in Avar, Byzantine, and Hungarian archaeology, it was decided in 2017 to host an international conference to bring together experts of the European equestrian nomads and the Central Asian steppe peoples in order to promote integrated research. The conference »From the Huns to the Turks. Mounted warriors in Europe and Central Asia« was held at the Electoral PalTA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

VORWORT

awarischen, byzantinischen und ungarischen Archäologie wurde 2017 beschlossen, eine internationale Tagung auszurichten, um Experten der europäischen Reiternomaden und der zentralasiatischen Steppenvölker zusammenzubringen und so integrierte Forschung zu fördern. Die Konferenz »From the Huns to the Turks. Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central Asia« fand am 25. und 26. April 2018 im Kurfürstlichen Schloss in Mainz statt. Sie wurde finanziert von der Gesellschaft der Freunde des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums und dem Institut für Mittelalterforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, bei denen sich der Initiator sehr herzlich bedankt. Der Tagungsband sollte allerdings am Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorge schichte Halle (Saale) erscheinen, wo seit mehreren Jahren in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Max-Planck-Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte massive Zuwanderungen aus dem Osten in das heutige Mitteldeutschland erforscht werden. Offenbar waren Migranten im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. die Träger der Schnurkeramik- und auch Glockenbecherkultur. Die Region spielte aber auch im Frühmittelalter in der Auseinandersetzung der Reiternomaden mit »dem Westen« eine wichtige Rolle. Hier trafen awarische Krieger zwei Mal auf die Franken (562, 566), hier erlitten die Ungarn 933 bei Riade an der Unstrut ihre erste größere Niederlage, bevor 955 der entscheidende Sieg Ottos des Großen auf dem Lechfeld vor Augsburg erfolgte und letztlich zur Staatengründung führte. 2022/23 wird das Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte auch auf der Grundlage der hier vorgelegten Forschungen die Ausstellung »Reiternomaden in Europa. Hunnen, Awaren, Ungarn« (Arbeitstitel) zeigen und damit die faszinierende Welt der europäischen Nomadenkrieger in den Blick rücken. Wir möchten allen, die zum Gelingen der Tagung in Mainz beigetragen haben, sehr herzlich danken und auch allen, die mit der Herausgabe des vorliegenden Sammelbandes befasst waren, stellvertretend seien Frau Manuela Schwarz, Frau Birte Janzen und Frau Nele Lüttmann genannt. Die östlichen Reitervölker haben Europa mehr geprägt, als man sich bisher vorstellen konnte und wollte. Ihre Lebensform und Wirtschaftsweise ist keine Frühform einer gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung. Sie ist nicht besser oder schlechter als die der sesshaften Nachbarn. Aber sie ist anders, und kulturelle Diversität ist ein hohes Gut. Womit wir wieder bei der eingangs gestellten Frage wären.

ace in Mainz on April 25 and 26, 2018. It was funded by the Gesellschaft der Freunde des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums and the Institute for Medieval Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, to whom the initiator expresses his sincere thanks. However, the conference proceedings are to be published at the State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt – State Museum of Prehistory Halle (Saale), where massive migrations from the East to present-day Central Germany have been researched for several years in cooperation with the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Apparently, migrants in the 3rd millennium BC were bearers of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures. However, the region also played a significant role in the Early Middle Ages regarding the equestrian nomadsʼ confrontation with »the West«. It was here that Avar warriors twice met the Franks (562, 566), and here that the Hungarians suffered their first major defeat (Riade an der Unstrut, 933), before Otto the Greatʼs decisive victory in 955 at the Lechfeld outside Augsburg, which ultimately led to the founding of the state. In 2022/23, also based on the research presented here, the State Museum of Prehistory Halle (Saale) will present an exhibition with the working title »Mounted Nomads in Europe. Huns, Avars, Hungarians«, thus bringing to the fore the fascinating world of the European nomadic warriors. We wish to express our sincere thanks to all those who contributed to the conferenceʼs success in Mainz and to all those who were involved in the editing of the present anthology; in particular, we would like to mention Mrs Manuela Schwarz, Ms Birte Janzen, and Ms Nele Lüttmann. The equestrian peoples of the East have shaped Europe more than anyone would have imagined. Their way of life and economy is not an early form of social development. It is neither better nor worse than that of their sedentary neighbours. Nevertheless, it is different, and cultural diversity is a valuable asset, which brings us back to the question posed at the beginning: What, exactly, is Europe?

Falko Daim Harald Meller Walter Pohl

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

11

The oaths of Asians in Byzantine service in the 11th–14th centuries Rustam Shukurov

Zusammenfassung

Summary

Die Eide der Asiaten in byzantinischen Diensten im 11.–14. Jahrhundert

The article deals with the initial stages of the entry of barbarians into the new Byzantine life and aims to provide a typology of various models and ways of adapting barbar ians. It analyses the similarities and differences in the adaptation of two main types of barbarians: 1) foreign allies and mercenaries who did not accept Byzantine citizenship; 2) barbarians who took Byzantine citizenship and thus became Romans. Foreigners of the first type were subject to the ius gentium. Barbarians who took Byzantine citizenship were included in the ius civile space and became Roman citizens with all the ensuing legal consequences. This paper discusses in detail the oaths that Muslims pronounced when entering Byzantine service. Paradoxically, the Muslim oaths were composed of elements used in Byzantine anti-Islamic polemics, and therefore were a construct of Byzantine polemists.

Dieser Beitrag behandelt die Anfangsphase der Aufnahme von Barbaren in das neue Byzantinische Reich. Ziel ist es, eine Typologie verschiedener Modelle und Arten sich anpassender Barbaren zur Verfügung zu stellen. Untersucht werden Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede in der Anpassung zwischen den beiden Haupttypen der Barbaren: 1) ausländische Bündnispartner und Söldner, die die byzantinische Staatsangehörigkeit ablehnten; 2) Barbaren, die die byzantinische Staatsangehörigkeit annahmen und deshalb Römer wurden. Ausländer des ersten Typs unterlagen dem ius gentium. Barbaren, die die byzantinische Staatsangehörigkeit annahmen, wurden im Rahmen des ius civile behandelt und waren somit römische Staatsbürger mit allen sich draus ergebenden rechtlichen Konsequenzen. In dem Artikel werden die Eide, die von den Muslimen bei Eintritt in byzantinische Dienste abgelegt wurden, ausführlich erörtert. Paradoxerweise setzen sich diese Eide aus Textteilen zusammen, die in der byzantinischen anti-islamischen Polemik verwendet worden sind und sind daher als Konstrukt byzantinischer Polemiker zu verstehen.

In the 11th and 12th centuries, Byzantines suffered almost a simultaneous attack of the Turkic tribes from two directions: the »northern« Turks or, in Byzantine terms, »Scythians« in the Balkans, and the »eastern« Turks or »Persians« in Anatolia1. The »Scythians« – that is mostly Turks (Pechenegs, Uz, and Cumans) and also Alans and later Mongols  – were nomadic and steppe peoples, alien to settled and especially urban life, who predominantly confessed pagan cults. Having devastated vast territories and causing a great havoc in sedentary agricultural areas, they, however, proved to be unable to establish control over most economically and strategically important regions of the Balkans, a considerable part of which was well-urbanised and densely populated. The Byzantine military machine, relying upon the network of fortified urban centres and strongholds, succeeded in annihilating, ousting out of the Balkans, and adopting and assimilating the invading nomads. »Scythians« could preserve their identity and reproduce themselves in steppe 1 The present study was completed in the

framework of the project no. 19-29-07549 »Human capital of the Middle Ages: typol-

spaces only, in amorphous proto-state political entities. Due to this, »Scythian« invasions did not lead to any significant Turkification, nomadisation, and de-Christianisation of the Balkans. The invasion in Anatolia of the »Persians«, among whom Muslims dominated, was significantly different from the usual paradigms of nomadic conquests known to the Byzantines. In Anatolia, Byzantium encountered a complex combination of nomadic migration and sedentary conquering techniques. The nomads represented only a part of invading enemy; along with the nomads, many Iranians, Arabs, and sedentary Turks, having a significant potential for social and political self-organisation, entered Anatolia. Unlike Pechenegs or Cumans in the Balkans, the Muslim conquerors of Anatolia did not avoid cities and urban life. Muslim sedentary states in Anatolia gave special power to nomadic conquests, directing the vectors of nomadic raids and consolidating their success by incorporating new lands into the structures of sedentary state formations. This

ogy, structures, strategies of its increment (Western Europe, Byzantium, Middle East)« funded by Russian Foundation for Basic

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

Research (RFBR). My special thanks are due to Artemy Streletsky for his comments and suggestions.

126

R U S TA M S H U K U R O V

structural complexity of the Muslim invasion of Anatolia contributed, in particular, to the failure of Byzantine attempts to re-conquer Anatolia. Naturally, many Asian conquerors, both »Scythians« and »Persians«, changed fronts and found themselves inside Byzantine society. The first and the most essential difference must be drawn between the two types of free barbarians entering the Byzantine society. First, these were foreign allies and mercenaries (σύμμαχοι and μισθοφόροι) who did not take Byzantine allegiance. The second type was represented by those who became the subjects of the Byzantine emperor and thus turned out to be Romans. The foreigners of the first type were subjected to ius gentium, while those taking Byzantine allegiance were included into the space of ius civile. This fundamental difference in legal status was sometimes explicitly emphasised by Byzantine authors, as for instance did Nikephoros Bryennios, telling apart the »alien and hired« »Scythians« on the one hand, and those who »had long ago defected under the dominion of the Romans« on the other2 . In this paper, I would like to focus on the initial stage of the barbarians entering into the new Byzantine life as mercenaries and allies. In accordance with ius gentium, foreign allies and mercenaries concluded treaties with the Roman officials and often with the emperor himself. The core element of the formal procedure was oath-swearing by the barbarians. The problem of oath in Pre-Modern times has been attracting an increasing attention of scholars for the last few decades. The oath-taking practices have been especially well studied for Biblical Judaism, Ancient Greece and Rome, and the Medieval West3. The oath itself has been gifted with a brilliant philosophical and socio-anthropological interpretation by Giorgio Agamben. Agamben (2011, 70–71) underscored the function of oath as a powerful instrument of maintaining social order that initiates »the ethical – and not simply cognitive – connection that unites words, things, and human actions«. In Byzantine studies, the interest to oaths has raised very recently and only first steps have been done in appraising its role in Byzantine life4. At the same time, it has already become obvious that oath-taking was an important element of Byzantine political and social life inherited from the Hellenistic and Roman past. Oaths were sworn by civic officers and clergy to the emperor, and the latter may have taken oaths to his subjects. According to the classification of the turn of the 14th century author Manuel Moschopoulos, hired soldiers and officials took »imperial oath« (βασιλικὸς ὅρκος) to the Byzantine emperor and received money for their service, while the Roman commoners swore to their ruler »civic oath« (πολιτικὸς ὅρκος), a sort of social contract (Levi 1902, 64–67; Angelov 2007, 321–326; Patlagean 2007, 2 Bryennios, Hyle Historias 233.8–9: »οὐ τῶν ξέων καὶ μισθοφόρων, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρὸ πολλοῦ αὐτομολησάντων ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλείαν Ῥωμαίων«. 3 See, for instance: Prodi 1992; Esders 2003;

Sommerstein/Fletcher 2007; Auzepy/ Saint-Guillain 2008; Ziegler 2008; Sommerstein/Bayliss 2013; Sommerstein/Torrance 2014. 4 Svoronos 1952; Laiou 2002; Akropolites, 327–328 (commentary to § 69); Angelov

189–190). Below I would like to discuss specific types of »imperial oaths« (using Moschopoulos’s term), which were taken by »Scythian« and »Persian« allies and mercenaries.

The »Scythian« oaths Information concerning the oaths taken by »Scythians«, who entered Byzantine service, is quite scant in the 11th–14th century sources. However, we do have some scattered and laconic testimonies. In 1065, Romanos Diogenes, then the commander in Serdica, concluded an alliance with the neighbouring Pechenegs asking them to confirm it by an oath (Attaleiates, Historia 178–179)5. In 1081, the caesar John Doukas, who supported the revolt of Alexios I Komnenos against Nikephoros III Botaneiates, took into service a Pecheneg horde on behalf of Alexios; the Pechenegs, becoming allies (σύμμαχοι) of the new emperor, took »an oath according to their customs« (τὸ εἰθισμένον αὐτοῖς τὸν ὅρκον)6. John VI Kantakouzenos, in July 1331, referred to receiving an oath from and concluding an agreement with a »Scythian« (Tatar) army (Kantakouzenos, History 465). The hired »Scythians« may have been put on oath for the second time if their loyalty was questioned or the initial contract terms had changed. In the eve of the Mantzikert battle (1071), Attaleiates, on behalf of Romanos IV Diogenes, had some »Scythian« mercenaries swear oaths »in their traditional manner« (κατὰ τὸ πάτριον αὐτούς) to confirm their loyalty to the emperor after some of their compatriots defected to the Saljuqs (Attaleiates, Historia 288–289). In 1302, the mercenary Alans, who got tired of hardships of military life, were made swear by the emperor not to leave the service for the subsequent three months (Pachymeres, Historia 344–347 [X,19]). As follows from aforementioned examples, the »Scythians« took an oath to the Byzantine authorities according to their own »customs« and in »traditional« manner. Constantine the Porphyrogennetos in the same vein asserts that the Pechengs of the Dnieper and the Dniester regions, concluding agreements, took their oaths »according to their customs«. Constantine uses for »custom« the word τὸ ζάκανον derived from законъ, an Old Slavonic term for »custom, law, faith«7. Apparently, all these cases imply that »Scythians« pronounced their customary oaths in their own language and used their traditional pagan rituals. The use of foreigners’ native language and custom in some juridical procedures and also in swearing oaths was normal for Ancient Greco-Roman and Byzantine legal practice8. The closest parallels here are the Latin-language oaths of Western mercenaries and crusaders taken to Alexios I Komnenos (Pryor 1984).

2007, 310–347; Patlagean 2007, 163–192; Auzepy/Saint-Guillain 2008 (especially the articles of O. Delouis, C. Leveleux-Teixeira, J.-C. Cheynet). 5 Attaleiates called them »Sauromatai«, judging by general context, most likely implying that they were Pechenegs. 6 Anna Komnene, Alexias II.6.8.7–8. Anna calls them just Turks, however, they were most probably Pechenegs.

7 Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Impe-

rio a 8.15–17 (p. 54–57). For commentaries on this passage, see: Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio, 145–146; Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio b 290. For законъ and ζάκανον, see also: Vasmer 1950–58 (1986), 75. 8 See, for instance: Berger 1953, 716; Clackson 2012.

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

T H E O AT H S O F A S I A N S I N B Y Z A N T I N E S E R V I C E I N T H E 11T H –14 T H C E N T U R I E S

To my knowledge, the only Byzantine author of the period under discussion, who tells some more details on the »Scythian« oath-taking, was the Athenian metropolitan Michael Choniates (c. 1140–1220). The editio princeps of the catechetical discourses of Choniates (written between 1182 and 1205) surviving only in two Moscow manuscripts (Mosq. Synod. gr. 230 and gr. 262) has recently been published by Alexey Kryukov (2015). Choniates’s Catechetical Discourse, comparing the virtues of Christian Romans to those of barbarians, includes a curious passage on »Scythian« customs. In particular, Choniates wonders: »Whose oaths are more firm: ours or those of ›Scythians‹ (taking into account that the holy Gospel and the venerable Cross do confirm Christian oath-taking, while an air-blown skinbag, a specially prepared tuft of grass, and a dog cut in half with a sword do seal a »Scythian« oath)?«9. In other words, Choniates directly indicates that »Scythians« in their oath-taking kept using pagan rituals and elements of their pagan beliefs. Nonetheless, Choniates admits that »Scythian« oaths may be more reliable, because barbarians are not only faithful to them, but also the words »yes« and »no« are like a binding vow (πίστις ἐνώμοτος) for them (Kryukov 2015, 2:135–136). The two last »Scythian« rituals, referred to by Choniates, are explainable and have parallels in other sources. Cutting of a dog in half is a quite popular »Scythian« rite, which was practised by Bulgars, Hugarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and other Turkic tribes. Archaeological evidence exists as well for dog sacrifices in the Balkans (Sophoulis 2012, 80 note 169). The rite was known to the Byzantines at least since the 9th century, being referred to by the Continuator of Theophanes (Bulgars, c. 816), Nicholas I Mystikos (Pechenegs, 915/16), and quite vaguely by Theophylaktos of Ohrid (Bulgars, beg. 12th century)10. Apparently, such an oath-taking practice was quite a routine procedure, well-known to the Byzantines, and normally authors did not consider necessary to go into details. On the contrary, the Latin witnesses of the rite, – such as Theotmar of Salzburg (900), Giovanni Carpini (c. 1253), and Jean de Joinville (c. 1309), – were much impressed with the ritual and continued describing it, sometimes at large, up to the 14th century 11. The use of a tuft of grass for confirming an agreement as noted by Choniates was ascribed by Ignatios the Deacon to the Bulgarian khan Omurtag during his peace making with Leo V in c. 81612 . The third rite involving the use of »an airblown skin-bag« can hardly be reliably interpreted so far13. One may add, however, that Choniates’s belief about the »Scythian« unquestioning fidelity to their oath was not shared by all Byzantines. For instance, Michael Psellos was sure that Pechenegs »taken in the mass, are a nation to be feared, and a treacherous one. Treaties of friendship exercise 9 Kryukov 2015, 2:135.8–11: »Τί δὲ τὰ τῆς εὐορκίας, παρ’ ἡμῖν ἢ τοῖς Σκύθαις βεβαιότερα, καίτοι χριστιανικῶν μὲν ὅρκων ἱερὸν εὐαγγέλιον καὶ προσκυνητὸς σταυρὸς ἐμπεδοῦσι μεσεύοντα, σκυθικὸν δὲ ὅρκιον κρατύνει πεφυσσημένος ἀσκὸς, καὶ χόρτου παρηρτυμένος σφάκελλος, καὶ κύων ξίφει διχοτομούμενος.« 10 Kryukov 2009, 42–44; Kryukov 2015, 1:228–

232; Theophanes Continuatus, 50.9–13 (I.20) (Kryukov gives a more plausible understand-

no restraining influence over these barbarians, and even oaths sworn over their sacrifices are not respected, for they reverence no deity at all, not to speak of God. To them all things are the result of chance, and death they believe to be the end of everything. For these reasons they make peace with great alacrity and then, when they find it necessary to resort to war, they at once violate the terms of their treaty«14.

The »Persian« oaths The Muslim allies and mercenaries of Byzantium used different procedures of vow-taking that included Muslim religious formula and quotations from the Koran. Starting with the late 11th century, the Byzantines extensively hired Anatolian Turks for military service including those who identified themselves as Muslims (Brand 1989). It is obvious that such alliances with Muslim mercenaries were confirmed by taking and receiving oaths. However, for the 11th to 14th centuries, we have little direct references to oath-taking by the Muslims at our disposal. There are a few references to accidental exchange of oaths between the Roman subjects and foreigners. For instance, in the 11th century, Kekaumenos describes an oath-exchange between an Arab pirate party and the inhabitants of the city of Demetrias in Thessaly (ὀμνύουσιν ἀμφότεροι), which sealed their peaceful agreement; however, soon the credulous Greeks regretted their trust severely, when the pirates seized and looted the city (Kekaumenos, Strategikon 200–204). Nikephoros Gregoras mentions the Turkic Anatolian commander Melik who before 1305 took an oath to the emperor Andronikos II, however, later he forswore and defected to the Catalans (Gregoras, Byzantine History 254.3–17; PLP, no. 17761; Shukurov 2016, 190). Although narrative sources are rather scarce, because, one may think, the oath-taking of Muslim allies was too routine, there survives, in the 13th–15th century Anatolia and the Balkans, a series of documents issued by Muslim chanceries, which include Muslim oaths as a part of their peace and alliance treaties with Byzantine and Latin authorities. Most known documents were written in Greek or Latin and were issued by the Saljuq sultanate, the Aegean principalities, and the Ottoman state. By their type, these ˛ documents are peace and trade agreements ( ahd-nāma), official letters, and decrees granting security or privilege (amān-nāma). Hans Theunissen has published a detailed diplomatic study of these documents, in particular, describing their types, structure, and standard formulae15. As we shall see below, the production of Muslim chanceries in Anatolia and the Balkans may shed retrospective light on possible shapes of the oaths taken by Muslim mercenaries

ing of the passage); Nicholas Mystikos, Letters 310–311 (Ep. 66) and 554 for commentary and bibliography; Theophylaktos of Ohrid, Encomium §28.9–10 (τοῖς κυσὶ θυσίας προσέφερον); Sophoulis 2012, 80. 11 Kryukov 2009, 41; Kryukov 2015, 1:227–228; for Theotmar, see: Pohl 2013, 80. 12 Kryukov 2009, 44–45; Kryukov 2015, 1:231– 232; Ignatios the Deacon, Vita Nicephori 206.26–207.8.

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

13 For possible explanations, see: Kryukov

2009, 45–46; Kryukov 2015, 1:232. 14 Psellos, Chronographia 126–127 (»Michael

VI«, LXIX). English translation: Psellos, Chronographia a 243. 15 For more details and further bibliography, see: Ménage 1965; Delilbaşı 1983; Zachariadou 1983, 177–239; Delilbaşı 1993; Theunissen 1998.

127

128

R U S TA M S H U K U R O V

and allies in the Byzantine service in the 12th–14th centuries. The elaborated versions of Muslim vow in such documents included the following elements, which may have been reproduced with some variations: the ruler swears 1) by the God of heaven and earth; 2) by the prophet Muham· mad; 3) by the Koran and sometimes by the seven mu shaf; ·· 4) by all the prophets; 5) by the Muslim faith; 6) by the soul of his forefathers, his father, his children, and the oath-taker’s own soul; 7) by his sword16. It has been suggested that the four 14th–16th century documents with extensive oaths were influenced by the practice of the Byzantine and Latin chanceries not only in their diplomatic structure, but also in the contents of sacramental Islamic oaths. Victor Louis Ménage has argued that »this wording [of the elaborated versions of oaths] goes far beyond the formulation which in Islam is fully binding«; original and most common Islamic oaths were as simple as »wa’llāhi wa bi’llāhi wa ta’llāhi« (»by God, by God, by God«). Further on, Ménage (1980, 376; 382 notes 21–22) suggests that these extensive oaths included »a series of calques upon Christian oaths, introduced under pressure from Christian […] negotiators.« Ménage’s interpretation has been shared by Elizabeth Zachariadou (1983, 185), but recently questioned by Theunissen. The latter insists that the tradition of extensive oaths already existed in the Saljuq practice and, »although Christian influence in the wording of the oaths can not be entirely ruled out«, Ménage’s suggestion that Muslim oaths evolved under Christian influence seems unlikely (Theunissen 1998, 295). However, there exist some additional arguments in favour of Ménage’s interpretation which have been neglected by both Ménage and Theunis˛ sen and others who analysed ahd-nāma. ˛ First, we have at our disposal a standard ahd-nāma formulary used by the chancery of the Saljuqs of Anatolia ˛ (»Sūrat-i ahd-nāma«). The text of the formulary is found in · ˛ a manual for official letter-writing by Hasan b. Abd · al-Mu’min Khūyī which was compiled before 1309/131017. The document represents a sample of a person’s pledge of fealty to an amīr, that is, the ruler or commander (Khūyī, Formulary 44–45). It contains the following oaths starting in Arabic and continuing in Persian (in the following translation I have underlined Arabic parts). 1. The intitulatio-oath: »By God, Seeking out, Triumphant, Overtaking, Withering, who is ›no other god but He‹, by God whose Oneness is one of His glorious attributes and his Eternity is one of the traits of His pure essence« (Khūyī, Formulary 44). ‫باهلل الطالب الغالب المدرک المهلک الذى ال اله اال هو بخدايى که‬ ٠…‫وحدانيت از صفات منزه اوست و صمديت نعوت ذات مطهر او‬

16 Theunissen 1998, 189–207; 294–296 with

further bibliography. 17 Khūyī, Formulary »Önsöz«; on the author and his writings, see also: Turan 1958, 174– 175. 18 Quatremere 1837–45, 184; Holt 1995, 89. See also Friedman 2018, 76–77.

2. The sanction-oath: »By God, […] I will place my soul under the command ›Those who break covenant with God after ratifying it‹ (Koran II:27; XIII:25) and will fall apart from God the Exalted, and I have made angels and the souls of prophets testify this my sturdy oath and firm vow« (Khūyī, Formulary 45). ‫ نفس خود را در معرض » الذين ينقضون عهد هللا من بعد‬...‫باهلل‬ ‫ميثاقه « اندازم از خداى تعالى بي زار باشم درين قسم مبر و يمين‬ ٠‫محکم ماليکة و ارواح انبيا را اشهاد کردم‬ ˛ Thus, the Saljuq ahd-nāma includes the standard formula »by God« (bi’llāh), an element of shahāda (»there is no other god but God«), a relevant Koranic citation, confirming that in the case of perjury the oath-taker falls apart from God, and an appeal to angels and prophets to become witnesses of the pledge. This Saljuq oath is considerably shorter than ˛ later ahd-nāmas and its wording is in full accordance with Persian rhetoric of the time. In its basic parameters it is very close to pledges of fealty known from the Mamluk and Andalus legal spaces. In particular, its epithets of God parallel that of the Mamluk chancery (tālib, ghālib, mudrik, muh· lik)18, while the inclusion of a part of shahāda parallels Andalus oaths (Vicens 2014, 125–129; Astakhov 2016, 58–59). A Koranic verse with similar meaning normally was cited by the Turks in their 16th-century oaths (шерть) to the Russian rulers: »fulfill the covenant of God when you have taken it« (Koran XVI:91; Moiseev 2014, 88). As one may see, the Saljuq vow differed considerably from the set of oaths in ˛ later ahd-nāmas. The oaths of the later Anatolian and Ottoman rulers include some odd elements requiring explanation. The earliest examples of extensive oaths, which probably directly influenced later Ottoman instruments, are represented by two documents: a Latin translation of the Greek treaty between the Duca di Candia Giovanni Sanudo and the emir of Menteşe Ibrāhīm (1337) and Greek treaty between the Hospitallers of Rhodes (?) and the emir of Aydın Khidr · (Hızır) (1346) (Zachariadou 1983, 190–204; Theunissen 1998, 89–90; 95–96). Both documents include similar sacramental elements and oaths, while the latter is much more extensive. The high degree of detailing in Khidr’s document · of 1346 and its original Greek language allow more precise search for possible parallels in other sources. The treaty of 1346 contains the following formulae partly in Arabic (in Greek script) and partly in Greek (lines are given according to Zachariadou’s edition)19: 1. basmalla (line 1, Arabic); 2. standard oath wa’llāhi wa bi’llāhi wa ta’llāhi (line 1, Arabic); 3. the shahāda testimony (line 2, Arabic);

19 The instrument is cited according to Zachari-

adou 1983, 201–204; for more detailed analysis of its Muslim formulae, see: Zachariadou 1962. See also Preiser-Kapeller 2015, 130–131 who provided an English translation of the treaty. I have collated the original Greek text of the treaty with the original manuscript

from the British Library and made some minor emendations reflected in my quotations of the original below: Harley MS 5624, fol. 421–422.

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

T H E O AT H S O F A S I A N S I N B Y Z A N T I N E S E R V I C E I N T H E 11T H –14 T H C E N T U R I E S

4. benediction upon Muhammad (μουχάμμετ) and his · household (lines 2–3, Arabic); 5. Koran CXII, the entire Sūrah »al-Ikhlās« (lines 3–5, · Arabic); 6. thereupon follows a long sequence of oaths in Greek: »I swear by God, swear by God, swear by God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them, swear by God, the living and immortal, who never died and dies not, swear by God having neither beginning nor end, swear by God having power over life and death, swear by God who begat not nor was begotten, swear by God who created His angels and archangels, swear by God who has blessed and multiplied the race of the Muslims, swear by God who sent into the world 124 000 prophets of whom ˛ the first is Adam and the last Muhammad son of Abd· Allāh (μωάμεδ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀβδουλᾶ), the great prophet rasūl and apostle of God, who founded the great faith and law of the Muslims, swear by Mecca, [which is] the great abode of God and also the sepulchre of our prophet Muhammad (μωάμεδ), swear by God who sent from · heaven to the world the four Books: the old one of Moses called Torah (Ταβρέτ), the Psalter of David called Zabūr (Ζαπούρ), the Gospel of Jesus called Injīl (Ἰντζίλ), [and] the Furqān of Muhammad (μωάμεδ) – the seven kurāsas and · mushafs, the great religion and law of the Muslims – ·· upon which I have put my hand and swear before the face of God, swear by God who gave to me headship and power over the Muslims […]« (lines 11–31)20; 7. the sanctio-oath enumerates disasters which betide the oath-taker if he violates his vow (God will destroy him, his house, his children etc., he will apostatise Islam and even »burn« Mecca, and will be separated from the Prophet and his law) (lines 73–81)21; 8. the concluding clause comprises the standard Muslim oath and shahāda (as above sections 2–3) and a mixed Turkic and Greek invocation to God (lines 83–86). Although some of these formulae are not found in the Saljuq ˛ sample ahd-nāma, they are not alien to general Anatolian Muslim practice. The clauses 1–4, partly 7 (except »burning« Mecca), and 8 are quite acceptable for a Muslim chancery. The extensive prayer for Muhammad (ta sliyah) in clause 4 · · was normal for Mamluk and Andalus oaths (Holt 1995, 89; Burns/Chevedden 1999, 49; 163; 166). The reference to the Koran as »the seven kurāsas and mushafs« in section 6 ·· seems to be normal Muslim wording implying the seven parts of the Koran (also called manzīl) that are to be read each day of a week. In the mid-13th century, the famous religious teacher and poet Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, in his »Mathnawī-yi ˛ ma nawī« (Rumi, Mathnawi 237 bayt 3964), made a caliph to swear by the seven mu shafs: ·· ‫هفت مصحف آن زمان برهم نهاد *** خورد سوگند و چنين تقرير داد‬

20 I have slightly revised the English transla-

tion in Preiser-Kapeller 2015, 130–131. 21 English translation: Preiser-Kapeller 2015, 131. 22 Ménage suggested that the reference to the seven mus hafs in Ottoman oaths »in some ··

»He then put the seven mu shafs on top of each other, ·· And took the oath, and thus confirmed [his words]« 22 .

Byzantine origins of Muslim oaths The most problematic are the oaths in the sections 6 and 7, in which some elements are quite unexpected for a Muslim oath. The oddities are as follows: – The expression »God, who made heaven, and earth, and sea, and everything in them« (»τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς«, lines 11–12) is the exact quotation of Psalm 145:6 (146:6): »τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς«. – The expression »His angels and archangels« (»ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρχαγγέλους«, lines 16–17) is definitely Chris-

tian. – The expression »[God] has blessed and multiplied the race of the Muslims« (»ἔδωκε τήν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὸν πληθυσμόν εἰς τὸ γένος τῶν μουσουλμάνων«, lines 17–18) is a close paraphrase of Genesis, 17:21 »εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ αὐξανῶ αὐτὸν καὶ πληθυνῶ αὐτὸν σφόδρα« (»[I] have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly«). This is a part of God’s promise to Abraham about his son Ishmael. Although, the identification of Ishmael’s descendants with the Muslims may have been acceptable for both Muslims and Christians, the very inclusion of this paraphrase of the Septuagint could be normal only for a Christian. – The statement »Mecca, [which is …] the sepulchre of our prophet Muhammad« (»Μεκκὲ… τὸν τάφον τοῦ προφήτου · ἡμῶν Μωάμεδ«, lines 22–23) is wrong, because the grave of Muhammad is located in Medina. This expression defi· nitely belonged to a Byzantine Christian who reproduced a common Byzantine fallacy attested by the epics Digenes Akrites (10th–13th centuries) and Chalkokondyles (15th century)23. Moreover, one may notice in the sections 6 and 7 a direct influence of Byzantine anti-Islamic polemics and especially of the Byzantine Abjuratio, that is, the ritual formulae which were uttered by the Saracens abandoning Islam and embracing Christianity. – The document’s epithets of Muhammad strongly remind · one of the wordings of the Abjuratio, which was formulated by the 9th century at the latest (Montet 1906). Khidr’s · oath reads »πρόφητον ρασοὺλ καὶ ἀπόστολος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ Μωάμεδ καὶ ὁ νόμος καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία αὐτοῦ« (lines 80–81 in the section 7 and also lines 20–22); the Abjuratio’s anathemas describe Muhammad similarly as »ἀπόστολος ·

sense answers the four gospels«, thus, implying a Christian influence (Ménage 1980, 376). However, as the example from Rūmī shows, it was hardly the case: this type of oath-taking was known in the 13th century at least in Muslim Anatolia.

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

23 Digenis Akritis, 258–259; 278–279;

Chalkokondyles, Histories 202–203. The localisation of Muhammad’s tomb in Mecca · was borrowed by Western authors, cf.: Tolan 2008, 19–34.

129

130

R U S TA M S H U K U R O V

θεοῦ καὶ πρόφητον« (Abjuratio 1887, 128.6; Montet 1906, 148.19) and his teaching as »διδασκαλία καὶ νομοθεσία«24. – Remarkably, in the sections 6 and 7 of the instrument, the name Muhammad is given in its archaic Hellenised spel· ling as Μωάμεδ, which, along with its variants, was used in the Abjuratio formulae, in early Byzantine writings on Islam, and in the anti-Islamic Byzantine polemics25. Μωάμεδ was almost exclusively reserved for designating the Islamic prophet and used mostly in church literature. In contrast to this Hellenised and ecclesiastical spelling, Khidr’s instrument spells the name of Muhammad differ· · ently when it is found outside the Greek sacramental formulae: the Arabic citation of shahāda imitates twice original Arabic phonetics (Μουχάμμετουν, lines 3–4; 84) and once switches to Persian and Turkic accentuation (Μουχαμμέτ, line 3)26; the spelling of the name of Khidr’s · father in intitulatio reflects the Anatolian pronunciation of the time as Μουχαμάτ (line 7). Therefore, in its Greek sacred formulae in the sections 6 and 7, the document reproduces Byzantine ecclesiastical shape of the name, while in its other parts it transcribes the original phonetics of the name in Arabic, Persian, and Turkic. One may conclude that, evidently, the Greek passages with Μωάμεδ were borrowed in a ready-made form from an older Byzantine source (we shall come back to this important suggestion later). – The document’s focus on Mecca as an oath-object (sections 6 and 7) seems rather unusual for Muslim tradition (see also above), but it becomes more explicable from the perspective of abjuration formulae and the commonplace topics of anti-Islamic polemics. In the ritual of abjuration, Mecca, as the location of the main Muslim sanctuary and the centre of Islamic sacred rituals, is anathematised three times (Abjuratio 1887, 132.5–6,9,19; Montet 1906, 153.15,21; 154.8). Symptomatically, Mecca is designated in our document as »the great abode of God« (μέγαν/μεγάλον οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ, lines 22 and 78, sections 6 and 7 above), which echoed the wording of the Abjuratio’s formulae τῷ θεῷ οἶκος προσευχῆς (Abjuratio 1887, 132.4; Montet 1906, 153.12–13)27. – The quotation of the Sūrah CXII in full in clause 5 seems rather odd in the general context of the vow since Sūrah content hardly seems fully relevant here. Instead, as we ˛ have seen above, the Saljuq ahd-nāma and Russian шерть quote more relevant Koranic verses (Koran II:27; XIII:25; XVI:91). Khidr’s document twice refers to the · Sūrah CXII. The section 5 quotes it in full in Arabic: »κοὺλ οὐ άλλααχοῦ• ἄχατουν• ἄλλαχοῦ• σσέμετοῦ• λὲμ γελὴτ• βολὲμ γιίουλὲτ• βολὲμ γιεκοῦν λεχοῦ κοὺφ οὐὲν ἀχάτ« (lines 4–6)28. Further on, in section 6, its part is cited in Greek: »οὔτε ἐγέννησεν οὔτε ἐγεννήθη« (»begat

not nor was begotten«, lines 15–16). The instrument’s insisting references to the Sūrah CXII may become more understandable only when taking into account its role in Byzantine anti-Islamic theology. In the abjuration rite, an anathema was addressed specifically to the Sūrah CXII citing it almost in full; the relevant part of the anathema is worded very similarly »οὐκ ἐγέννησεν οὐδὲ ἐγεννήθη« (Abjuratio 1887, 134.3; Montet 1906, 155.24–26). The abjuration formula borrowed the Sūrah’s text from a Greek translation of the Koran. The Sūrah CXII was, in particular, cited and discussed in detail by Niketas of Byzantium in the 9th century (Förstel 2000, 116–119; 128; Høgel 2010, 117). It was also referred to by other Church authors who critically interpreted the Sūrah’s term samad »eternal · and unwavering«, which Byzantines preferred to translate as ὁλόσφυρος »all-hammered, massive«29. – Finally, as it seems, Khidr swore his oaths to the Christi· ans putting his hand on the physical book of the Koran as it follows from section 6: »upon which [that is, the Koran] I have put my hand and swear before the face of God« (»εἰς ἃ ἔθηκα ἐπάνω τὴν χεῖρά μου καὶ ὀμνύω ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ», lines 28–29). It was not a Muslim tradition and definitely was imposed by the Christians. Interestingly, borrowing of this Christian procedure of vowing by the Muslim ritual occurred in the historical areas where the Christian power was dominant. Similarly, Muslims swore oaths by putting a hand on the Koran in the Crusader states (Assizes of Jerusalem) and in Aragon since at least the 13th century, as well as in the Muscovite Rus’ since at least the 16th century 30.

A hypothesis The set of Khidr’s oaths discussed in this article represents a · flaky mixture of the standard Islamic formulae and the alien Christian themes and expressions, some of which are clearly polemically oriented. It would be tempting to suggest that this massive layer of Christian imagery and wording was introduced into the instrument’s text by a well-educated Greek notary of a Muslim ruler. However, the hints to anti-Islamic polemics and, especially, to the ritual of abjuration allows to put forward an alternative and more complex explanation. My hypothesis is that some or most Christian elements in the aforementioned oaths were derived from an older formulary of Muslim oaths produced by the Byzantine chancery 31. The core of this hypothetical original source consisted of the clauses that alluded to polemical anti-Islamic dogmatics and, especially, abjuration formulae: the focus on Mecca (as a counterpart of the Christian Holy Land), on

24 Abjuratio 1887, 128.20–21; cf. also 129.19,26–

27 »Οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ« is also found in the Sep-

27; 131.43; Montet 1906, 149.16–17; cf. also 151.12,21; 155.14. 25 See TLG, s.v. Μωάμεθ. 26 In Zachariadou’s edition, readings of the name Muhammad in these particular · instances are inaccurate and are corrected here after the manuscript (Harley MS 5624, fol. 421r.3–4 and fol. 422r.15).

tuagint. 28 Accentuation in some words is amended after the manuscript (Harley MS 5624, fol. 421r.5–6). 29 Bartholomaios, Confutatio Agareni § 5.12; Nicetas Choniates, Historia 213–216; 220; LBG, s.v. ὁλόσφυρός. 30 Burns/Chevedden 1999, 184–185; Arapov

2002 (19th -century Russian practice); Moiseev 2014; Vicens 2014, 133–134; Friedman 2018, 72–73. 31 For the known Byzantine oath formularies, see: Sathas 1877, 652–653; Svoronos 1952, 108.

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

T H E O AT H S O F A S I A N S I N B Y Z A N T I N E S E R V I C E I N T H E 11T H –14 T H C E N T U R I E S

the Sūrah CXII, on the figure of the prophet Muhammad, as · well as the archaic spelling of his name, and finally the quotations from the Psalms and Genesis. The using of these motifs for construing a sample oath for Muslims seems absolutely logical: a Byzantine jurist devised the formulary, basing it on Byzantine beliefs about the most sacred and venerable objects for a Muslim. Probably, the initial formulary supposed that a Muslim, while swearing, put his hand on the physical copy of the Koran. In the 14 th century, the Greek chancery of Aydın used this old formulary for preparing a treaty with the Latins. The existence of such a formulary in Byzantine legal tradition can hardly be questioned. The fact is that Khidr’s · treaty itself was converted into a formulary by an anonymous redactor (at the end of the 14th to the first half of the 15th century) who entitled it »Ὅρκος τῶν Μουσουλμάνων πρὸς Χριστιανούς« (line 1 in Harley MS 5624, fol. 421r). The name of the addressee and place-names of the original treaty were omitted to impart a generalising sense to the text. Very likely, the anonymous Byzantine redactor considered Khidr’s text as the most complete and appropriate for · further usage. It is worth noting that the Aragonian Crown in the 13th and 14th centuries and the Muscovite Rus’ since the 16th century onwards produced oath-formularies for their Muslim subjects and extensively employed them in routine judicial practice32 . Apparently, sample oaths were intended for Muslim allies and mercenaries in Byzantine service. In addition, it is possible that the Byzantine authorities might have had a need in such an oath-formulary also during the reconquest of East Anatolia, Syria, and Armenia in the 10 th–11th centuries, when numerous Muslim groups and individuals found themselves under Byzantine rule. We have evidence that, in these newly conquered areas, some Muslim individuals were admitted into Byzantine administrative system and acquired offices and titles. For instance, in the 11th century, a certain Muhammad Abū al-Na sr al- Sālihī, who occupied · · · ·

32 Konev 2006; Moiseev 2014, 88; Vicens 2014,

120–129 (»Siete Partidas«, III.11.21); Astakhov 2016, 60.

the Byzantine office of bestarches, is known from his bilingual Arabic and Greek seal 33. Judging by his name, he was Muslim. When Muhammad Abū al-Na sr al- Sālihī was about · · · · to enter Byzantine service, he had to go through the formal admission procedure that included oath swearing. In his case, it definitely had to be a Muslim oath, probably, of a type discussed above. It is quite difficult to date the appearance of the hypothetical formulary of Muslim oaths, which underlie the Aydın instrument; however, it is obvious that it appeared well before the 14th century, probably in the period of time starting with the 9th century (approximate date of the Abjuratio) onwards.

Conclusion I have started this article with the brief description of a cardinal cultural difference between »Scythians« and »Persians«. This difference entailed dissimilarity in the predominant patterns of their adaptation in Byzantium. As we have seen, the cases of »Scythian« and »Persian« oaths represent two different paradigms. The »Scythian« oaths and relevant pagan rituals were devised by the »Scythians« themselves, they existed in oral form only, and were never written down and formalised. The Byzantine oaths taken by Muslims, as I have attempted to show, were the creation of the Byzantine chancery, which heavily relied upon polemical dogmatics, and were formalised and written down. The noted dissimilarity between the two paradigms may be explained by the fact that the Byzantines were quite disinterested in learning more about the paganism of the Turkic nomads. Contrarily, Islam exercised a constant attraction for Byzantine intellectuals and authorities, who accumulated profound information about the Muslims and their faith and were thoughtful and cautious in dealing with them.

33 No. BZS.1955.1.4570 at the Dumbarton Oaks

Library and Collection, Washington (formerly DO 55.1.4570), its inscription reads: ‫ || دمحم رصنوبا ىحلاصل‬Βεστάρχη(ς)___

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

Μουχουμέτ; (25.10.2020).

131

132

R U S TA M S H U K U R O V

Sources cited Abjuratio 1887 Abjuratio, Nicetae ordo qui observatur super iis qui a Saracenis ad nostram Christianorum puram veramque fidem se convertunt. In: J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Ser. Latina 140 (Paris 1887) 124–136. Akropolites George Akropolites, The History. Intro., transl., and comm. by R. Macrides (Oxford 2007). Anna Komnene, Alexias Annae Comnenae Alexias. Ed. by A. Kambylis/ D. R. Reinsch. Corpus Fontium Hist. Byzantin., Ser. Berolinensis 40 (Berlin, New York 2001). Attaleiates, Historia Michael Attaleiates, The History. Transl. by A. Kaldellis/D. Krallis (Cambridge MA 2012). Bartholomaios, Confutatio Agareni Bartholomaios von Edessa, Confutatio Agareni. Ed. by K.-P. Todt (Würzburg, Altenberge 1988). Bryennios, Hyle Historias Nicéphore Bryennios, Histoire. Ed. by P. Gautier (Bruxelles 1975). Chalkokondyles, Histories A. Kaldellis (ed.), The Histories of Laonikos Chalkokondyles. Book 1 (Cambridge MA 2014). Digenis Akritis Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions. Ed. and transl. by E. Jeffreys (Cambridge 1998). Gregoras, Byzantine History Nicephori Gregorae byzantina historia 1. Ed. by L. Schopen (Bonn 1829–1855).

Harley MS 5624 Harley MS 5624, Ὅρκος τῶν μουσουλμάνων πρὸς χριστανούς. British Library, fol. 421–422. Ignatios the Deacon, Vita Nicephori Ignatius Diaconus, Vita Nicephori. In: C. de Boor (ed.), Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica (Leipzig 1880) 139–217. Kantakouzenos, History Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri IV, Vol. 1. Ed. by L. Schopen (Bonn 1828). Kekaumenos, Strategikon Кекавмен, Советы и рассказы: поучение византийского полководца XI века. Ed. and transl. by G. G. Litavrin (Sankt-Peterburg 2003). Khūyī, Formulary ˛ Hasan b. Abd al-Mu’min Khūyī, Formulary. · In: A. S. Erzi (ed.), Selçukiler Devrinde âid Inşâ ˛ Eserleri Ia.Hasan b. Abdi’l-Mu’min el-Hoyi, · Rusumu’r-Resa’il ve Nucumu’l-Faza’il (Ankara 1963) 1–46. Nicetas Choniates, Historia Nicetas Choniates, Historia. Ed. by J. L. van Dieten (Berlin, New York 1975). Nicholas Mystikos, Letters Nicholas I Mystikos Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Ed. by R. J. H. Jenkins/ L. G. Westerink (Washington DC 1973). Pachymeres, Historia A. Failler (ed.), Relations Historiques. 4 Livres X–XIII (Paris 1999). Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio 2. Commentary. Ed. by

R. J. H. Jenkins/F. Dvornik/Gy. Moravcsik (London 1962). Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio a Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio. Greek text ed. by Gy. Moravcsik, engl. transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins. Corpus Fontium Hist. Byzantin. 1 (Washington 1967). Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio b Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Об управлении империей. Ed. by G. G. Litavrin/ A. P. Novosel’cev (Moskva 1991). Psellos, Chronographia Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), vol. 2. Ed. by É. Renauld (Paris 1929). Psellos, Chronographia a Michael Psellos, Chronographia. Transl. by E. R. A. Sewter (London 1953). Quatremere 1837–45 É. Quatremere, Histoire des sultans mamlouks de l’Égypte (Paris 1837–45). Rumi, Mathnawi The Mathnawí of Jalálu’ddín Rúmí 6. Containing the translation of the fifth and sixth books. Ed., transl., and comm. by R. A. Nicholson (London 1934). Theophanes Continuatus Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur libri I–IV. Ed. by M. Featherstone/J. S. Codoñer (Boston, Berlin 2015). Theophylaktos of Ohrid, Encomium

tures: Bilingual Surrender Treaties on the Crusader-Muslim Frontier under James the Conqueror (Leiden 1999). Clackson 2012 J. Clackson, Language maintenance and language shift in the Mediterranean world during the Roman Empire. In: A. Mullen/P. James (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds (Cambridge 2012) 36–57. Delilbaşı 1983 M. Delilbaşı, Ortaçağ’da Türk hükümdarları tarafından batılılara ahidnamelerle verilen imtiyazlara genel bir bakış. Belleten XLVII,185, 1983, 95–103. Delilbaşı 1993 M. Delilbaşı, Greek as a Diplomatic Language in the Turkish Chancery. In: N. G. Moschonas (ed.), Η επικοινωνία στο Βυζάντιο: πρακτικά του Β Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, 4–6 Οκτωβρίου 1990 (Athens 1993) 145–153. Esders 2003 S. Esders, Sacramentum fidelitatis. Treueidleistung, Militärorganisation und Formierung mittelalterlicher Staatlichkeit. Unpubl. Habilschr. Ruhr-Univ. Bochum (Bochum 2003). Förstel 2000 K. Förstel, Niketas von Byzanz. Schriften zum Islam (Würzburg 2000). Friedman 2018 Y. Friedman, Learning the religious concepts of the Other: Muslim-Christian treaties in the Latin East. In: Y. Friedman (ed.), Religion and

peace. Historical aspects (London 2018) 67–83. Høgel 2010 C. Høgel, An early anonymous Greek translation of the Koran. The fragments from Niketas Byzantios’ Refutatio and the anonymous Abjuratio. Collect. Christiana Orient. 7, 2010, 65–119. Holt 1995 P. M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260– 1290). Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden 1995). Konev 2006 A. J. Konev, Шертоприводные записи и присяги сибирских »иноземцев« конца XVI–XVIII вв. Вестник археологии, антропологии и этнографии 6, 2006, 172–177. Kryukov 2009 A. M. Kryukov, Византийцы и их соседи в проповедях Михаила Хониата. In: Причерноморье в средние века (SanktPeterburg 2009) 36–43. Kryukov 2015 A. M. Krykov, Ученая традиция и провинциальные реалии в гомилиях митрополита Афинского Михаила Хониата (1182–1205 гг.). Unpubl. PhD Diss. Moscow State Univ. (Moskva 2015). Laiou 2002 A. Laiou, The Emperor’s word: chrysobulls, oaths and synallagmatic relations in Byzan-

Θεοφύλακτος Ἀχρίδος οἱ δεκαπέντε μάρτυρες τῆς Τιβεριούπολης. Ed. by P. Vlachakos (Thessalo-

nike 2008).

Bibliography Agamben 2011 G. Agamben, The Sacrament of Language. An Archaeology of the Oath (Homo Sacer II, 3) (Stanford 2011). Angelov 2007 D. Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330 (Cambridge 2007). Arapov 2002 D. Ju. Arapov, Присяга мусульман в российских законодательных актах и юридической литературе XIX в. IVS ANTIQVVM = Древнее право 2,10, 2002, 252–262. Astakhov 2016 M. A. Astakhov, Клятвы в дипломатических отношениях Арагонской короны и Гранадского эмирата в XIV–XV вв. Одиссей 1, 2016, 49–64. Auzepy/Saint-Guillain 2008 M.-F. Auzepy/G. Saint-Guillain (eds.), Oralité et lien social au Moyen Âge (Occident, Byzance, Islam): parole donnée, foi jurée, serment (Paris 2008). Berger 1953 A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia 1953). Brand 1989 C. Brand, The Turkish Element in Byzantium, 11th–12th centuries. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43, 1989, 1–25. Burns/Chevedden 1999 R. I. Burns/P. E. Chevedden, Negotiating Cul-

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

T H E O AT H S O F A S I A N S I N B Y Z A N T I N E S E R V I C E I N T H E 11T H –14 T H C E N T U R I E S

tium (11th–12th c.). Mél. Gilbert Dagron 14 (Paris 2002) 347–362. LBG, s.v. ὁλόσφυρός s. v. ὁλόσφυρός. In: E. Trapp (ed.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.–12. Jahrhunderts. Faszikel 5 (Wien 2005) 1122. Levi 1902 L. Levi, Cinque lettere inedite di Emanuele Moscopulo (Cod. Marc. Cl. XI, 15). Stud. Italiani Filol. Class. 10, 1902, 55–72. Ménage 1965 V. L. Ménage, Seven Ottoman Documents from the reign of Mehemmed II. In: S. Stern/ J. Aubin (eds.), Documents from Islamic Chanceries (Oxford 1965) 81–118. Ménage 1980 V. L. Ménage, The English Capitulation of 1580: a Review Article. Internat. Journal Middle East Stud. XII, 1980, 373–383. Moiseev 2014 M. V. Moiseev, Шертные грамоты в контексте русско-ногайских отношений в XVI веке, Средневековые тюрко-татарские государства 6, 2014, 84–90. Montet 1906 E. Montet, Un rituel d’abjuration des musulmans dans l’église grecque. Rev. Hist. Religions 53, 1906, 145–163. Patlagean 2007 É. Patlagean, Un Moyen Âge grec. Byzance IXe –XVe siècle (Paris 2007). PLP, no. 17761 E. Trapp (ed.), Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit 7. Maatē – Mitōnas (Wien 1985). Pohl 2013 W. Pohl, Ritualized Encounters: Late Roman Diplomacy and the Barbarians, Fifth–Sixth Century. In: A. Beihammer/S. Constantinou/ M. Parani (eds.), Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives (Leiden 2013) 67–86.

Preiser-Kapeller 2015 J. Preiser-Kapeller, Liquid Frontiers: A Relational Analysis of Maritime Asia Minor as a Religious Contact Zone in the Thirteenth– Fifteenth Centuries. In: A. C. S. Peacock/ B. de Nicola/S. Nur Yıldız (eds.), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia (Aldershot 2015) 117–146. Prodi 1992 P. Prodi, Il sacramento del potere. Il giuramento politico nella storia costituzionale dell’Occidente (Bologna 1992). Pryor 1984 J. H. Pryor, The Oaths of the Leaders of the First Crusade to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus: fealty, homage – πίστις, δουλεία. Parergon N. S. 2, 1984, 111–141. Sathas 1877 K. Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη 6 (Venezia 1877). Shukurov 2016 R. Shukurov, The Byzantine Turks, 1204–1461 (Leiden 2016). Sommerstein/Bayliss 2013 A. H. Sommerstein/A. J. Bayliss (eds.), Oath and State in Ancient Greece (Berlin, Boston 2013). Sommerstein/Fletcher 2007 A. H. Sommerstein/J. Fletcher (eds.), Horkos. The Oath in Greek Society (Bristol 2007). Sommerstein/Torrance 2014 A. H. Sommerstein/I. C. Torrance (eds.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (Berlin, Boston 2014). Sophoulis 2012 P. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 (Leiden, Boston 2012). Svoronos 1952 N. Svoronos, Le serment de fi délité à l’empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionelle. Rev. Études Byzantines 9, 1952, 106–142. Theunissen 1998 H. P. A. Theunissen, Ottoman-Venetian Diplo-

˛ matics: the Ahd-names. The Historical Background and the Development of a Category of Political-Commercial Instruments together with an Annotated Edition of a Corpus of Relevant Documents. Electric Journal Orient. Stud. I,2, 1998, 1–698. TLG, s.v. Μωάμεθ s.v. Μωάμεθ. In: M. Pantelia (dir.), The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. (12.11.2020). Tolan 2008 J. V. Tolan, Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages (Gainesville 2008). Turan 1958 O. Turan, Türkiye selçukluları hakkında resmî vesikalar. Metin, tercüme ve araştırmalar (Ankara 1958). Vasmer 1950–58 (1986) M. Vasmer, Этимологический словарь русского языка. 2. E – Muž. Transl. and ed. by O. N. Trubachev/B. A. Larin (Heidelberg 1950–58 [Moskva 1986]). Vicens 2014 B. Vicens, Swearing by God: Muslim OathTaking in Late Medieval and Early Modern Christian Iberia. Medieval Encounters 20, 2014, 117–151. Zachariadou 1962 E. Zachariadou, Μία ελληνóγλωσση συνθήκη του Χηδήρ Αϊδίνογλου. Byzantin. Zeitschr. 55, 1962, 254–265. Zachariadou 1983 E. Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe and Aydin (1300–1415) (Venezia 1983). Ziegler 2008 Y. Ziegler, Promises to Keep. The Oath in Biblical Narrative (Leiden, Boston 2008).

Address Prof. Dr. Rustam Shukurov Moscow State University Ulitsa Kolmogorova, 1 Moscow 119991 Russia [email protected] and Institute for Medieval Research Austrian Academy of Sciences Hollandstraße 11–13 1020 Vienna Austria [email protected]

TA G U N G E N D E S L A N D E S M U S E U M S F Ü R V O R G E S C H I C H T E H A L L E • B A N D 23 • 2 0 21

133

Bislang erschienene Bände in der Reihe »Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle«

Die Reihe der Tagungsbände des Landesmuseums wurde 2008 ins Leben gerufen. Anlass dazu war die Konferenz »Luthers Lebenswelten«, die im Jahr 2007 in Halle (Saale) ausgerichtet wurde. Bereits der zweite Tagungsband widmete sich mit dem Thema »Schlachtfeldarchäologie« dem Mitteldeutschen Archäologentag, der seit 2008 jährlich vom Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt veranstaltet und zeitnah publiziert wird. Dem

großen Anteil internationaler Autorinnen und Autoren entsprechend, erscheinen viele Beiträge dieser Reihe in englischer Sprache mit deutscher Zusammenfassung. Mit dem zuletzt erschienenen Tagungsband konnten die Vorträge der Internationalen Tagung »Rituelle Gewalt – Rituale der Gewalt« in zahlreichen Artikeln renommierter Forscher verschiedenster Fachdisziplinen vorgelegt werden.

Band 17

Band 18

Band 19

Band 20/I

Band 21/I

Band 22/I

Band 1/2008 Harald Meller/Stefan Rhein/Hans-Georg Stephan (Hrsg.), Luthers Lebenswelten. Tagung vom 25. bis 27. September 2007 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-22-3, € 39,00 € 9,00 Band 2/2009 Harald Meller (Hrsg.), Schlachtfeldarchäologie. Battlefield Archaeology. 1. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 09. bis 11. Oktober 2008 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-41-4, € 35,00 Band 3/2010 Harald Meller/Kurt W. Alt (Hrsg.), Anthropologie, Isotopie und DNA – biografische Annäherung an namenlose vorgeschichtliche Skelette? 2. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 08. bis 10. Oktober 2009 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-53-7, € 29,00 € 9,00 Band 4/2010 Harald Meller/Regine Maraszek (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa I. Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-54-4, € 32,00 € 9,00 Band 5/2011 Harald Meller/François Bertemes (Hrsg.), Der Griff nach den Sternen. Wie Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reichtum kamen. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) 16.–21. Februar 2005. ISBN 978-3-939414-28-5, € 128,00 € 29,00 Band 6/2011 Hans-Rudolf Bork/Harald Meller/ Renate Gerlach (Hrsg.), Umweltarchäologie – Naturkatastrophen und Umweltwandel im archäologischen Befund. 3. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 07. bis 09. Oktober 2010 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-64-3, € 32,00 € 16,00 Band 7/2012 Harald Meller/Regine Maraszek (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa II. Internationale Tagung vom 19. bis 21. November 2010 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-939414-90-2, € 32,00 € 16,00

4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-00-2, € 69,00 € 34,00 Band 10/2013 Harald Meller/Christian-Heinrich Wunderlich/Franziska Knoll (Hrsg.), Rot – die Archäologie bekennt Farbe. 5. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 04. bis 06. Oktober 2012 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-01-9, € 49,00 € 24,00 Band 11/2014 Harald Meller/Roberto Risch/ Ernst Pernicka (Hrsg.), Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. Metals of power – Early gold and silber. 6. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19. Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-13-2, € 119,00 Band 12/2015 Harald Meller/Helge Wolfgang Arz/ Reinhard Jung/Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 2200 BC – A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world? 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. Oktober 2014 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-29-3, € 109,00 Band 13/2016 Judith M. Grünberg/Bernhard Gramsch/ Lars Larsson/Jörg Orschiedt/Harald Meller (Hrsg.), Mesolithic burials – Rites, symbols and social organisation of early postglacial communities. Mesolithische Bestattungen – Riten, Symbole und soziale Organisation früher postglazialer Gemeinschaften International Conference Halle (Saale), 18th–21st September 2013. ISBN 978-3-944507-43-9, € 81,00 Band 14/2016 Harald Meller/Hans Peter Hahn/ Reinhard Jung/Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), Arm und Reich – Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. Rich and Poor – Competing for resources in prehistoric societies. 8. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 22. bis 24. Oktober 2015 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-45-3, € 89,00

Band 8/2012 François Bertemes/Harald Meller (Hrsg.), Neolithische Kreisgabenanlagen in Europa. Neolithic Circular Enclosures in Europe. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7. bis 9. Mai 2004 in Goseck (Sachsen-Anhalt). ISBN 978-3-939414-33-9, € 59,00 € 29,00

Band 15/2016 Harald Meller/Alfred Reichenberger/ Christian-Heinrich Wunderlich (Hrsg.), Alchemie und Wissenschaft des 16. Jahrhunderts. Fallstudien aus Wittenberg und vergleichbare Befunde. Internationale Tagung vom 3. bis 4. Juli 2015 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-48-4, € 49,00

Band 9/2013 Harald Meller/François Bertemes/ Hans-Rudolf Bork/Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? 1600 – Cultural change in the shadow of the Thera-Eruption?

Band 16/2017 Harald Meller/Susanne Friederich (Hrsg.), Salzmünde – Regel oder Ausnahme? Salzmünde – rule or exception?

Internationale Tagung vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2012 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-11-8, € 75,00 Band 17/2017 Harald Meller/Falko Daim/Johannes Krause/ Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), Migration und Integration von der Urgeschichte bis zum Mittelalter. Migration and Integration from Prehistory to the Middle Ages. 9. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 20. bis 22. Oktober 2016 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-61-3, € 49,00 Band 18/2018 Harald Meller/Detlef Groneborn/ Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), Überschuss ohne Staat. Politische Formen in der Vorgeschichte. Surplus without the State. Political Forms in Prehistory. 10. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 19. bis 21. Oktober 2017 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-83-5, € 69,00

Band 21/2019 Harald Meller/Susanne Kimmig-Völner/ Alfred Reichenberger (Hrsg.), Ringe der Macht. Rings of Power Internationale Tagung vom 09. bis 10. November 2018 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-97-2, € 79,00 Band 22/2020 Harald Meller/Roberto Risch/Kurt W. Alt/ Francois Bertemes/Rafael Micó (Hrsg.), Rituelle Gewalt – Rituale der Gewalt. Ritual Violence – Rituals of Violence. 12. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 10. bis 12. Oktober 2019 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-948618-06-3, € 109,00

Band 19/2019 Harald Meller/François Bertemes (Hrsg.), Der Aufbruch zu neuen Horizonten. Neue Sichtweisen zur europäischen Frühbronzezeit. Abschlusstagung der Forschergruppe FOR550 vom 26. bis 29. November 2010 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-948618-03-2, € 59,00 Band 20/2019 Harald Meller/Susanne Friederich/ Mario Küßner/Harald Stäuble/Roberto Risch (Hrsg.), Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement Archaeology. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale). ISBN 978-3-944507-94-1, € 149,00

Erhältlich im Buchhandel oder direkt beim Verlag Beier & Beran Thomas-Müntzer-Straße 103 08134 Langenweißbach Deutschland Tel. +49 37603/36 88 [email protected] https://archaeologie-und-buecher.de/