Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long-Distance Trade in Early Medieval Landscapes (Ca. 6th-12th Centuries) (Medieval and Post-medieval Mediterranean Archaeology, 4) 9782503599816, 2503599818

Citation preview

r ich es be yon d t h e hor i zon

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l

.

N EA

D POST MED AN IE

.

.

ES MEDIE ERI VA

.S

Y

L

ARCHAEOLO G

m e di t er r a n e a n a rch a eology ser i es

. .

EDITERR AN LM VA

.

m. p.m a. s . i v.

Published with the support of f r i t z t h ysse n st i f t u ng für Wissenschaft forderung

Cover illustration Packing method for long-distance trade in Chinese pottery found on the Belitung shipwreck: Guangdong jar used as container for smaller bowls (cf. p. 129ff ). Photo: M. Flecker, courtesy of the Asian Civilisations Museum.

*

*

*

R ICH E S BE YON D T H E HOR I Z ON

* long -dista nce t r a de i n e a r ly m e di eva l l a n dsc a pes (c a . 6t h-12t h ce n t u r i es)

* e di t e d by H AG I T NOL

*

H

F

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es – i v

*

Series editor prof. dr . joa n i ta v room Leiden University (nl)

*

e di tor i a l boa r d Prof. John Haldon, Princeton University (usa) Dr. Archibald Dunn, University of Birmingham (uk) Prof. Sauro Gelichi, University of Venice (it) Prof. Scott Redford, soas University of London (uk) Prof. Enrico Zanini, University of Siena (it)

*

Editorial consultant se ba st i a a n bom m e lj é

*

Typesetting & book design st ev e n bol a n d

*

English proof-reading & copy editing a n ja ru t t e r

*

© 2021 br epol s pu bl ish e r s n.v. , t u r n hou t, be lgi u m All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. pr i n t e d i n t h e eu on aci d -f r e e pa pe r d/2021/0095/385 isbn (print) 978-2-503-59981-6 e-isbn (online) 978-2-503-59982-3 doi (book) 10.1484/m.mpm as-eb.5.128663 issn 2565-8719 e-issn 2565-9723

*

*

*

Contents List of contributors

*

joa nita v room (ser ies editor) – Preface list of ar eas, empir es a nd per iods discussed in this volume

*

h agit nol (editor) Long distance trade in the Early Medieval period: A general introduction

7 9 16

17

* rou t es a n d su pr a-r egiona l con n ect ions nata lie kontn y Arabo-Islamic geographies: Indian Ocean trade in Ibn Khurradādhbih’s Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik (fl. 884 CE)

37

ster en n le m aguer-gillon 67 Elusive remains: Identifying incense trade routes in western Asia from biodegradable commodities (ca. 7th-13th centuries) dashu qin & justin ching ho Chinese ceramic exports to Africa during the 9th-10th centuries: Product characteristics, scale and temporal variations chinese glossary gua ngca n xin Maritime trade in Southeast Asia during the 9th-10th centuries: A study of the Belitung and Cirebon Shipwrecks

95

109 129

joa nita v room 149 From Xi’an to Birka and back: Constantinople as a nodal point in Early Medieval long-distance contacts (ca. 6th-12th centuries)

5

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

* r egions a n d si t es h agit nol 203 Rolling stones: Distribution patterns of marble, basalt and beach rock from Early Medieval Israel (ca. 7th-11th centuries) or it sh a mir & a lisa baginsk i Trade and transfer: Early Medieval textiles from excavations in Israel (9th-13th centuries) textile glossary

235

248

r a lf w iechm a n n 269 Advancing into unknown lands: The numismatic material of Groß Strömkendorf near Wismar during the Early Viking age (ca. 8th-9th centuries)

* list of figur es

299

a bstr acts 305 Abstracts of papers submitted to the workshop Long-Distance Trade in Early Medieval Landscapes (9th-12th Centuries): New Methods and Approaches in Archaeology (Hamburg, September 2019), but not included in this volume. index

311

*

6

*

*

*

List of contributors *

alisa baginski studied weaving and textile design at Bezalel Art Academy as well as Art History and Islamic Art and Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). She worked as curator at the Museum of Islamic Art, as lecturer and curator of the textiles collection at Shenkar College, and as textile expert at the Israel Museum. Recent publication: Chimu: Imperial Riches from the Desert of Peru (with Y. Fleitman). justin ching ho is a PhD student at the School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University (China), under the supervision of Prof. Dashu Qin. His research project focuses on exported Chinese ceramics. natalie kontny is a research associate and PhD candidate at the dpt. of Islamic studies at Universität Hamburg (Germany). Her earlier research focused on the notion of the western Indian Ocean in Arabo-Islamic sources. She is now part of the DFG Emmy Noether research group ‘Social Contexts of Rebellion in the Early Islamic Period (score)’. sterenn le maguer-gillon is an archaeologist specialised in the incense trade in the Indian Ocean and in the Arabian Peninsula. Affiliated to the Centre Français de Recherche de la Péninsule Arabique (cefrepa) in Kuwait and the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (cnrs), ‘Orient & Méditerranée’ in Paris, she has participated in many archaeological missions in Yemen and the Gulf area. She is teaching ‘Arts, history and culture of the Arab-Persian world’ at Institut Catholique de Paris (France).

7

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

hagit nol holds a postdoctoral fellowship at Université libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) where she conducts research on the distribution of early mosques. Her PhD thesis at Universität Hamburg focused on settlement patterns in central Israel/Palestine during the 7th-11th centuries. Her research interests include landscape archaeology, early Islam, and the socio-economic history of the early Middle Ages. dashu qin is a professor of the School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University (China). He specializes in historical archaeology, in ceramic archaeology and in maritime trade research. Over the years he has directed archaeological excavations and research in China and in Africa. orit shamir holds a PhD from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Israel) since 2007. She is the head of the department of Museums and Exhibits at the Israel Antiquities Authority. She specializes in ancient textiles, loom weights and spindle-whorls from the Neolithic to the Medieval period in Israel. She has published over 150 articles and chapters; see: antiquities.academia.edu/OritShamir. joanita vroom is Professor of the Archaeology of Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia at the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University (The Netherlands), specializing in Medieval and Post-Medieval archaeology in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (including the Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader and Ottoman periods). Her research focusses on the social-economic (production and distribution) and cultural aspects (cuisine and eating habits) of ceramics in these societies. See: www.academia.edu/JoanitaVroom. ralf wiechmann, PhD, studied Prehistory, History of Fine Arts, and European Ethnology in Kiel and Munich (Germany). Since 1994 he works as curator and since 2003 as deputy director at the Museum of Hamburg History (department of Medieval History and Numismatics). His main areas of research are the history of Hamburg, and money history of northern Germany and Scandinavia during the Viking-age. guangcan xin has obtained her PhD from the National University of Singapore, following degrees from Peking University (China). She is currently working at the China National Center of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Her research focuses on Chinese trade along the Maritime Silk Road. Her research interests include Southeast Asian archaeology, underwater archaeology, ceramic archaeology, and art history.

8

*

*

*

Preface Joanita Vroom

*

Sometimes archaeology is not only a matter of dedicated study and hard work, but also a matter of surprises and even moments of delightful astonishment. This certainly is the case when one suddenly encounters spectacular objects of long-distance trade in places where one expects it the least. In December 2019, I had such an experience when I visited the exhibition Sunken Treasures / Gezonken schatten (07.09.2019 – 28.06.2020) in the Keramiek Museum Princessehof at Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. This exposition showed items which had been discovered in seven shipwrecks found along the maritime Silk Roads, ranging in date between 800 and 1900. The oldest shipwreck on display in this Frisian museum sank in the 9th century (probably around the year 826) off the coast of Belitung Island in present-day Indonesia.1 Apparently, its cargo contained at least 60.000 objects, of which various types of Chinese ceramics made up 98 percent of the total.2 These included under glaze painted Changsha Wares from Hunan Province (central China), white glazed Porcelains from more northern located kilns, as well as some products of green glazed Yue Wares from Zhejiang province (which were ­manufactured in south-eastern China). What came as a surprise to me, was that these objects where on their way also to far away locations such as the Middle East and the Byzantine Empire. Most of the treasure trove from the Belitung shipwreck is nowadays based in the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore. The finds in this collection include not only high-quality glazed ceramics from China (and perhaps from ‘Persia’, or rather from the Middle East), but also golden and silver gilded objects, copper mirrors, items made of Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 9-15

©

FHG 9

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128664

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

stone, wood, ivory, resin, glass and lacquer, as well as organic materials (see for an overview, table 1).3 The Singapore Museum houses at the moment a total of 53.227 artefacts from the 9th-century Java Sea shipwreck, of which the majority of its cargo contained small Changsha bowls painted with motifs (e.g., lotus flowers, birds in flight) that were appealing to foreign customers.4 Due to their huge quantity, these bowls must not only have been used as saleable merchandize, but also as suitable ballast on ocean-going ships. During the Tang Dynasty (618-907), a number of locally made ceramic products started to be exported beyond the borders of this Early Medieval empire. These exports initially included white glazed Porcelains and a few products of tri-coloured glazed Sancai Wares of a simple style - shown for example by finds of this last pottery type with a splashed decoration at Samarra in Iraq and Fustāt in Egypt where they were roughly dated to the late 8th - 9th centuries.5 This was a time when the production of ‘second generation Sancai Wares’ started to be made for export, although this elite pottery was originally created as funerary ware and as architectural elements on Chinese buildings. Some of the most prolific pottery kilns in the Tang era were located inland, at production sites in northern and central China (among which Gongxian and Xing) from where the ceramics were transported to the nearest port of Yanghzou (located at the mouth of the Yangtze River). In particular during the Late Tang period (in the 9th century), more varieties of Chinese ceramics, specifically Changsha Wares, Yue Wares and northern white glazed Porcelains, were exported at a larger scale to various sites in Western Asia. Chinese imported pottery from these kilns have been found in Iran (Sīrāf, Hormuz and Susa), Iraq (Samarra), Yemen (al-Shihr), Oman (Sohar) and Egypt (Fustāt). These export products were probably distributed by Arab-style sailing ships (known as dhows) of which the hull’s planks were stitched together by rope made from sea hibiscus and coconut hair, with supplementary wadding around the joints and sealing these with lime.6 In fact, no nails or dowels were used on such dhows, which were constructed either in the Persian Gulf or in India with timbers originating from Africa (such as Afzelia sp. of the Legume family) and India (such as teak).7 These ‘sewn ships’ visited on their way to the destinations in the West intermediate ports along the coasts of India and South East Asia, among which Guangzhou and Yanghzou, the two key harbours in China at the time. Hence, the picture emerges of an extensive long-distance exchange system that stretched across the Indian Ocean, where cabotage shipping took place along interim entrepôts (like Sīrāf in Iran, Mantai on Sri Lanka, and Palembang the capital of the Srivijaya kingdom on Sumatra) which received substantial quantities of various imported commodities.8 Apart from delicately made Chinese tablewares, the Belitung Shipwreck also revealed large olive-green glazed jars in which such vulnerable glazed ceramics were

10

v ro om – pr e fac e

stacked for safety reasons during sea transport in Early Medieval times. These containers are also known as Guangdong or Dusun stoneware jars, because they started to be manufactured in the mid 8th to 9th century at kilns in Guangdong Province in southern China.9 From the port of Guangzhou (a vital hub in the South China Sea with large communities of Persian-Arab merchants), these transport jars were distributed rather for their contents than for their value: they contained not only glazed bowls, but probably also sauces and spices (like star anise or Illicium anisatum).10 To date, the Guangdong containers have not only been found in the Indian Ocean, in eastern Pakistan and in the Persian Gulf (e.g., at Kush, Hulaylah and Sīrāf ), but also at Socotra Island (south of Yemen) and in eastern Africa (e.g., Shanga and Manda).

The archaeological record suggests that the long-distance contacts of the West with India and China through the Persian Gulf intensified even more in the 9th century during the rule of the Abbasid Caliphs (750-1258). In effect, the Chinese imports stimulated the manufacture of Early Islamic glazed tablewares, which were probably locally produced at the port city of Basra in southern Iraq following fashions deriving from China. The extent of this East-West trade is illustrated by the wide distribution of two groups of glazed ceramics made during the Abbasid Caliphate: the so-called White Opaque Glazed Wares with cobalt-blue painted decoration and Lustre Wares. From principal ports in the Persian Gulf (such as Basra and Sīrāf) these Early Islamic tablewares started to be transported to sites in Egypt, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the east African coast and possibly even south Africa. In fact, the Iraqi Lustre Wares with metallic-looking iridescent painted designs in copper- and silver-rich pigments were the global Abbasid products par excellence in such long-distance networks. Pottery finds clearly indicate that one century later the Middle East witnessed a renewed penetration of ceramic products coming from China. As this pottery especially reached Egypt under Fatimid rule (973-1171), the long-distance exchanges with India and China continued by now directly over the Red Sea and no longer through the Persian Gulf. During this period, one may notice among the various ceramics coming from China to Fatimid Egypt, especially larger quantities of Yue Wares from workshops in Zhejiang Province (close to the port of Minghzou, or present-day Ningbo), of white glazed Porcelains from kilns in southern China (e.g., Fanchang, Xicun near Guangdong), as well as a new type of black painted glazed porcelain. Last but not least, I would like to mention another proof of long-distance trade which filled me with archaeological astonishment. It concerns a Chinese Marbled Ware sherd of the Tang Dynasty found in the heart of the Byzantine Empire (330-1453). This fragment was discovered in the Castle of Methoni on the coast of the south-western

11

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Peloponnese (Greece), where it was tentatively dated between the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century.11 It is quite striking that Chinese pottery reached a Byzantine port in the eastern Mediterranean at such an early date. The find in Methoni suggests that already during this period there existed some sort of communication between these two distant places, either along the terrestrial Silk Roads, or by cabotage shipping along the maritime Silk Roads. Another possibility is that the pot travelled by diplomatic or military channels as part of a ‘tributary trade’ system from the East to the West, as there are written reports from the 7th century mentioning Chinese embassies to Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire.12 In short, the presence of Chinese ceramics in the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East and even more to the North in Byzantine territory, and the extensive spread of Abbasid Lustre Wares from southern Iraq to communities as distant as eastern Africa and China surely attest as striking examples to the vitality of commercial trade and exchange over vast distances during the Early Middle Ages in Eurasia. The Indian Ocean perspective on long-distance contacts is also discussed in this volume by means of Arabo-Islamic maps and incense trade routes. Moreover, the contributions on distribution patterns of stone products or textiles in the Near East as well as of numismatic material in Viking sites further enlighten our view of Early ­Medieval regional, interregional and supraregional connections. It is only quite recently that the extent and depth of these contacts are beginning to be fully understood. Therefore, it is certainly not too much to state that all the chapters in the current volume Riches beyond the Horizon: Long-distance Trade in Early Medieval ­Landscapes contribute enormously to this exciting, sometimes even astonishing field of study. Leiden, July 2021

12

v ro om – pr e fac e artefact finds

types

provenance

total

Ceramic tableware (under glaze painted stoneware)

Changsha

Hunan Province, China

50.589

Ceramic storage jars (glazed stoneware)

Guandong

Guangdong Province, China

1.592

Ceramic tableware (glazed and painted stoneware)

Gongxian

Henan Province, China

256

Ceramic tableware (olive-green glazed stoneware)

Yue

Zhejiang Province, China

218

Ceramic tableware (with green decoration)

Sancai? Gongxian?

Henan Province, China

185

Ceramic tableware (white porcelain)

Xing

Hebei Province, China

119

Earthenware

17

Golden and silver gilded objects

Probably China

66

Copper mirrors from Yanghzou, China

55

Objects made of stone, wood, ivory, resin, glass, and lacquer

A small blue glass bottle from the Middle East

56

Other ceramic types

‘Persia’

3

Bronze, lead and copper objects

Rope, ink plates, organic materials, coral, minerals, filling

Copper mirrors; copper-alloy bowls, scale weights and a scale bar; silver bowls, spoons, flask; cast-iron cauldrons

Two pieces of black coral; a small dice made of bone or horn; an ink-stone; anise-seed; aluminium oxide-rich mineral

71

53.227

total

table 1 – The amounts of finds recovered from the 9th-century Belitung Shipwreck (Indonesia), which are currently at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore (after Murphy 2019, 154, note 2).

13

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

not es 1

2

5

See for a more detailed discussion of this

Guy 2001-2002, figs. 6-9 show splashed

shipwreck, the chapter of Xin in this

green and white stoneware vessels, which

volume.

probably were produced at Gongxian

The amounts of objects recovered from this

(Henan Province); cf. Nor­thedge and

shipwreck vary per author; see for example,

Kennet 1994, 34, who refer to San­cai Wares

Guy 2001-2002, 17, who mentions 60.000

in 9th-century contexts of Samarra and

found artefacts, among which Changsha

Fustāt.

Wares (56.500), Yue Wares (200), white

6

Murphy 2019, 25, fig. 3.

glazed porcelains (350) and white-green

7

Flecker 2001, 347.

stonewares (200) from China versus others

8

Flecker 2001, 349-52.

who mention 67.000 finds (see the chapters 9

See for images, the chapter of Qin & Ho in

of Qin & Ho and of Xin in this volume).

this volume.

3

Murphy 2019, 19, note 2.

10

Flecker 2001, 349 and plate 13.

4

See for images, the chapter of Qin & Ho in

11

Kontogiannis 2002, 43.

this volume.

12

See the chapter of Vroom in this volume.

* bi bl iogr a ph y Flecker, M. 2001. A ninth-century AD Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesia: First evidence for direct trade with China, World Archaeology 32.3, 335-54. Guy, J. 2001-2002. Early Asian ceramic trade and the Belitung (Tang) cargo, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 66, 13-28. Northedge A. and D. Kennet 1994. The Samarra horizon, in: E.J. Grube (ed.), Cobalt and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery, Oxford, 21-35. Kontogiannis, N.D. 2002. A fragment of a Chinese marbled ware bowl from Methoni, Greece, Byzantinistica 4, 39-46. Murphy, S.A. 2019. Tang, in: K. Gaillard & E. van den Berg (eds.). Gezonken schatten / Sunken Treasures, Zwolle, 18-41.

14

v ro om – pr e fac e

fig. 1 – Two stoneware jars from Guangdong, southern China, found at the 9th-century shipwreck off the coast of Belitung Island in present-day Indonesia (Photo: J. Vroom).

15

*

*

*

LIST OF A R E A S , E M PI R E S A N D PER IODS discusse d i n t h is volu m e

* ch i n ese e m pi r es sui dynasty 581-618 Capital: chang’an tang dynasty 618-907 Capital: chang’an. the five dynasties and ten kingdoms 907-979 song dynasty 960-1279 Capitals: bianjing (960-1127), Capitals: lin’an (1127-279).

*

t h e isl a m ic at e wor l d a n d t h e c a l i ph at es umayyads 661-750 Capital: damascus abbasids 750-1258 Capital: baghdad fatimids 909-1171 Capital: cairo (from 973) mamluks 1250-1517 Capital: cairo

*

sou t h e r n eu rope a n d t h e m e di t e r r a n e a n e m pi r es romans 27 bc-476 Capitals: rome, Capitals: constantinople ( from 330) byzantines 395-1453 Capital: constantinople crusaders 1095-1291 Capitals: jerusalem (1099-1187), (the latin kingdom of jerusalem) acre ( from 1191)

*

w est e r n eu rope a n e m pi r es a n d et h n ic grou ps merovingian dynasty 5th century-751 Capitals: tournai / paris carolingians 750-887 frisians Region: present north west germany & the netherlands vikings Central region: scandinavia Additional areas: iceland, greenland, ireland, scotland, normandy, south baltic coast & central russia

*

16

*

*

*

Long-distance trade in the Early Medieval period: A general introduction Hagit Nol

*

Objects move. They are carried by animals, they are pushed by roots, they fly with the wind, some have machines that operate them, but chiefly they are moved by people. Archaeologists are intrigued by objects that move between settlements and regions. They explain it according to the discourse and interests of their time and discipline. Mainly, object mobility reflects migration or immigration of groups and individuals, exchange between communities, booty or tax, or trade by specialists. The distribution of objects reflects social networks. These networks worked on levels that are more difficult to detect and include the transfer of ideas and the exchange of technologies and ideologies. The spatial dispersion of objects might also reflect an actual distribution mechanism. In that case, different economic engines and operations made the movement of objects possible. In short, every object found by an archaeologist or displayed in a museum represents much more than itself. ‘long dista nce’ a n d ‘t r a de’ a s a rch a eologic a l probl e ms This volume discusses objects that travelled ‘long distance’. One of the unique advantages of archaeology is the certainty about the archaeological context, namely the spot in which an object was found in the ground or at sea before being removed to the laboratory, the museum, the storage, or into the hands of quick thieves. In order to examine the distance that an object travelled until reaching its archaeological discovery, one must first determine its provenance and then the routes it has passed through. Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 17-36

©

FHG 17

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128665

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

While these parameters seem straightforward, in most cases they are assumptions that should be demonstrated. Provenances are preferably identified by clear archaeological contexts of production and with the assistance of the exact sciences. Other methods of identification – typological categorisation of end artefacts based on shape or decoration, or detection of recipes and techniques – are less secure for that purpose. Evidently, technological knowledge is being transferred and professional craftsmen can migrate.1 Production contexts are characterized by waste and deformed end products, by specific tools and installations (to be interpreted), and by a relatively high number of end products of the same material or shape.2 The examples in this volume include the production of pottery which is characterized by kilns, by a high number of vessels made from the same ware in the proximity of these kilns and sometimes by a potter’s signature. The volume also comprises the production of textiles, which involves designated tools such as loom weights and combs, the production of stone artefacts, manifested in quarries and half-finished objects, and the minting of coins which in some cases carry the name of a mint that can be identified with regions or places. However, most of these methods are circumstantial and do not reveal the whole story. Another set of tools which archaeologists use to identify the source of artefacts are laboratory-based and include petrography and geochemistry. These techniques require specialists and particular equipment which are unaffordable to many projects. In addition, they rely on databases and proxies which can be partial and/or too general, so they are best used to verify or disprove former hypotheses. Thin section petrography is a relatively common method to apply to pottery, in which the scientist looks through a microscope on a thin section of a sherd, identifies the mineral fragments which constitute it, detect specific characteristics of the grains (e.g., size, shape and texture), and then compares the composition to possible areas with a similar geological compound.3 In archaeology, the method is applied also to worked-stone artefacts (e.g. marble).4 Pottery and stone, along with metals and glass, can be examined also by isotopic analyses. In very general terms, each field of specialisation employs a number of techniques to measure isotope ratios of artefacts of the same type (i.e. shape, material and period), and then compares it with results from possible raw materials, craft waste or other artefact groups.5 Regarding metals, most look ‘isotopically’ similar around the globe, so their provenances cannot be determined. Lead is an exception, but it can also be assigned only to relatively wide geographical domains (e.g. the British Isles and France as a single unit).6 Rock elements seem to be more promising for provenance questions, as the data from sites can be compared to published results from quarries.7 Glass can also point to areas of production via the chemical composition of artefacts

18

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

in comparison to similar objects and to raw glass. On sites of south Africa, for example, glass beads from the 7th-10th century (the Zhizo beads) seem to originate from Iran.8 It is also believed that raw glass from Egypt and the Levant has reached Western Europe in the Roman and the Medieval periods.9 An interesting direction which uses similar methods is archeozoological studies into fish in Western Europe. A comparison of contemporary habitats of specific fish (e.g., hake, cod) with the presence of their remains in archaeological contexts, together with the latter’s cut marks and distribution analyses, implies the distance they could travel as a fresh commodity or as a salted product. These studies can also suggest periods of intensive fishery and fish farming.10 The summary of the results portrays a longue durée picture of local fishing and import in specific regions.11 After establishing the provenance of an object, the next step is to identify the routes it travelled before its archaeological discovery. One line of inquiries revolves around transportation means, by land, river or sea, and its efficiency regarding route length and directions. Another set of questions involves distribution centres or central marketplaces. Inter alia, scholars examine whether merchants completed long-distance routes themselves, or commuted between several major marketplaces.12 Regarding the latter, the documentary evidence from the Geniza demonstrates both scenarios. According to these texts, the Indian Ocean trade in the 11th-12th centuries was conducted between Fustāt (Egypt) and Aden (Yemen), and between Aden and ports in India. Often, North African merchants (based in Fustāt) lived several years in India, and from there frequently travelled to Aden. In some cases, however, they travelled back and forth between India and North Africa and Spain.13 The techniques which assist archaeologists in answering such questions are, first, the study of shipwrecks or intensive archaeological surveys of ancient roads and routes. In addition, they use more interpretive methods such as a comparison with ancient geographies and itineraries, and spatial analyses through Geographic Information Systems (gis) or Social Network Analysis tools. In theory, coin hoards from the same period and from varied sources might point to the stops in which its content was gradually assembled.14 The contributions in this volume make use of at least one of these approaches. Particular attention is given to routes in literary sources, to shipwrecks, and to spatial distributions. The distance that commodities travelled can then be measured and put under the suggested division of regional or interregional exchange systems. Luuk De Ligt, and the contributors of Trade and Markets in Byzantium edited by Cécile Morrisson that followed him, present trade in pre-industrial societies, mainly in periodical markets and fairs. These events vary in length, character, and distribution territory. Accord-

19

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

ing to De Ligt, local fairs last one or two days, serve a limited territory of 50 km or a day’s sailing and act mainly as a direct exchange between producers and consumers. Regional fairs continue a week or two, serve an area of 300 km or ten days of journey, and provide exchanges of monetary value between specialized producers and traders and between traders and consumers. Commodities that characterize this level of exchange include foodstuffs, pottery, wood, iron, leather etc. Interregional fairs take place for three to eight weeks and serve transactions of high value products and export-import for a distance farther than 300 km.15 Michael McCormick gives an alternative categorisation, viz. ‘micromovements’ up to 100 km, intermediate movements up to 500 km, and ‘long-distance’ movements for anything beyond that.16 The division between these distance groups is subjective or etic, and not necessarily valid. Thus, ‘it is important to note that all forms of trade were closely intertwined and morphed into one another’.17 u r ba n spaces, lu x u ry goods a n d e l i t es In historical archaeologies, it is common to interpret artefacts that travelled long-distance as luxuries. Luxury goods can be defined as products which are not required to fulfil immediate needs; exceptional in their composition or source and hence relatively expensive; and assist specific individuals or groups to stand out.18 In extreme cases, a ruler may initiate laws that prohibit most of the population from acquiring or wearing specific commodities in order to reserve them for himself and his entourage.19 The link between luxury goods and long-distance trade follows a chain of axioms, some are flawed, and most have very little evidence to support them with certainty. The first axiom many archaeologists accept is that commodities that travelled far are more expensive than locally produced ones. This is based at least partially on a human geography model by von Thünen from 1826, which was later developed into the central place theory. The model measures the cost-effects of a product being transported from/to a market-centre.20 The purchase price of a product is thus thought to represent production, transportation, and marketing costs and will increase in accordance with the distance from its provenance.21 This is believed to be one of the reasons for choosing sea routes and river ways for conveyance, as they are quicker and more efficient.22 Also according to this logic, ‘once distribution costs exceeded revenues from sales, a commodity would no longer be traded’.23 Studies on distribution patterns of pottery from the 5th to the 15th century in Europe and the Levant show that the relatively more common types were traded locally to a distance of 20-50 km, or regionally to a maximum distance of 100-150 km.24 This is a very partial picture, based on few examples and on pottery alone. The trend, however, can support the paradigm: more common ceramics which are relatively cheap

20

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

cannot be distributed far. According to that logic, commodities that did travel far should be highly expensive. This paradigm nevertheless, as engraved as it is, must be justified. We know in fact little about the ways ancient societies valued commodities and should expect variations of contexts.25 The second axiom many scholars accept is that only the well-to-do can afford expensive commodities. Hopkins argues in contrast that most members of society in pre-industrial economies purchase rather expensive goods (e.g. textiles), only not by the same amount.26 Moreover, expensive commodities could be purchased as an investment, and/or for professional purposes. As an example, metals are an expensive resource, the production of which necessitates great manpower. A big share of their trade is as a raw material for the manufacture of secondary products.27 In fact, the production of alloys entails various metals from a number of provenances.28 The third and fourth axioms are that elites (in a very rough definition, socially and politically leading groups and individuals) choose imported and other expensive commodities as a marker of social distinction, so that imported goods signify luxury.29 Yet, some finds raise doubts to the automatic association between the two. The silver coins that have travelled from present Iraq and Iran into Scandinavia are not related to luxury, but to a weighting and/or payment system.30 Moreover, according to the Geniza documents, in Fustāt in the 11th-13th centuries, cheese which originated in Crete, at least 1000 km away as the crow flies, was purchased by the poor.31 Taxel thence stresses the importance of frequencies in archaeology, and suggests that luxurious vessels are imported and also rare.32 Nevertheless, the example of rotary querns from lava rocks, which could have travelled hundreds of kilometres and were scarce on many sites seems to contradict also this assumption.33 Ethnographic and historical evidence suggest a very different reality, in which elites distinct themselves by high quantities of more ‘ordinary’ goods.34 Texts which relate to the Byzantine and Islamic regimes’ diplomacy and patronage systems point to gifts which consist of large numbers of coins or precious metals, silk and other textiles, horses and craftsmen, and more rarely, of relics.35 Indeed, Wickham shows how elites in the Mediterranean at the beginning of our time frame purchased large quantities mainly of local and regional commodities.36 In summary, artefacts that travelled interregionally do not represent luxuries or elites at face value. Other contexts that scholars frequently associate with interregional mobility are ‘towns’ or ‘urbanization’. The two terms are rarely defined but are generally related to administrative, economic and political centralism. Cities or towns in historical archaeologies are sometimes additionally imagined as relatively big settlements with a marketplace, fortifications, a church or a mosque, a gridiron or another pre-planned

21

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

layout, activities which include ‘industrial’ production and the absence of agriculture. Conversely, their opposites are imagined to be defined by agriculture-related activities and the lack of other features and are called ‘rural’. In Islamic archaeologies, scholars focus on ‘positive’ characteristics of sites they believe to be cities (e.g. a grid layout) to justify their aptness for the definition. In western European disciplines in particular, an emphasis is given to the point in time in which a site became ‘urban’. Following these paradigms, the links between towns and long-distance trade mainly relate to massive production and to marketplaces and distribution.37 The problems with this concept of urbanism and the dichotomy approach are numerous. Sociologists and historians reiterate that there is no single definition for ‘the city’ that could work in diversified contexts or even from different perspectives. Thus, when possible, scholars should become acquainted with the terminology that communities used in their research periods at different times to describe their settlements and with the characteristics that differentiated settlement types according to these descriptions.38 Second, in order to assign unique characteristics to sites and to understand their networking and regional roles, one must apply area studies to the smallest scale possible. Investigating the relatively big settlement sites in isolation cannot answer these particular questions.39 Notably the regional overview indicates how both production and agriculture can be found in varied site types and diverse levels of centralism.40 Third, in the long term, settlements changed their physical layout, their economy, and their regional roles.41 In short, archaeologists should acknowledge the limitation of their own categorisation and the possible invalidity of site typology. Most importantly, sites that seem central economically might not be settlements, or at least have not started as ones.42 Thus, the above concepts of urbanism limit our understanding of interregional exchange systems. An alternative set of interpretations to interregional mobility is to be found between top-down and bottom-up perspectives. In the former, long-distance trade is a state-controlled operation, whereas in the latter, trade is a result of free-market driven economies.43 One midway approach accepts the free-market economy but stresses encouragement by customs-collecting authorities.44 Another intermediate interpretation sees the role that elites played in the economy as individuals.45 For example, the Umayyad caliph Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 724-748) was criticized in a text from the late 9th century for influencing the wheat and barley prices by his large crop production.46 One hypothesis is that the elite members try to lower costs of luxury products by massive production which benefits them for the short-term.47 Additional views focus on the privileges the state applies for itself, or the parallel role of diplomats as private merchants.48 In China in 995, for instance, an imperial edict prohibited of-

22

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

ficials from purchases from foreign merchants, seemingly in order to create an import monopoly for the state.49 A similar picture derives from the Byzantine administration until the 9th century, with restrictions on private purchases of silk, and a special office for these acquisitions.50 The military interpretation for fortification as means of defence in warfare still reign supreme, followed by their interpretation as symbolic representations of power. Nevertheless, this can certainly be replaced to trade-related readings that involve the bottom-up protection of goods and/or top-down customs. In Germany, some of the bigger castles are interpreted today as multi-functional, including economic, administrative, sacral and symbolic roles.51 More distinctively, in India on the coast of the Arabian Sea, market sites were fortified.52 Similarly, the relation between chaining river ways or harbours and trade is sometimes considered.53 The scarce studies on forts and/or harbours which were privately owned by local leaders also imply their economic context. In Iran in the 10th century, for example, local lords were rewarded by their overlords with castles, which were often set on important trade routes.54 This is not geographically unique. In central Europe, a high number of small settlements from the 9th and 10th centuries with relatively simple fortifications, a church, and craft remains were interpreted as residences of local nobles.55 Their economic interpretation, however, is not yet common. long -dista nce t r a de i n t h e 9t h-12t h ce n t u ry This volume is the result of a two-day workshop which was held in September 2019 in the University of Hamburg.56 The workshop hosted scholars from China, the USA, South Africa, Israel, and Europe who study long-distance trade in Early Medieval Africa and the Indian Ocean, the Near East and Northern Europe. Its first aim was methodological: to present varied approaches and archaeological analysing tools for the distribution of goods and the distance they travelled. The second aim was to perceive the research space as one possible unit, beyond geopolitical definitions and disciplinary boundaries. In such a context, we hoped to advance a better historical understanding of the period’s economy and networks, the different methods of goods exchange, and the similarities and differences between the regions. In spite of the geographic and terminological particularities, this primary investigation indeed showed the intellectual and academic importance of widening our research areas. It became clear that the ways and directions in which objects moved in early medieval times are much more complex than they seem within single disciplinary frames. At the same time, interdisciplinary discussions encourage innovations and allow for critique, both of which refine our research results.

23

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The papers are deliberately diversified in a number of categories. Geographically, half of them deal with the Indian Ocean and the other half with the Mediterranean and Europe. Second, some of the papers give an interregional perspective while others focus on one site or one region. Most significant is the find type that the paper analyses: pottery, coins, textiles, stone objects, or botanical remains. Each of the papers also utilizes different analysis methods to identify provenances and routes. This variation does not enable a comprehensive picture of economy on the three continents. A result close to that aim will hopefully be achieved in a decade. However, the collection does give the reader a glimpse into world archaeology and a ‘taste’ from empirical researches. The structure of the volume follows the breadth of the perspectives, starting with the interregional overviews of the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, continuing with a small region, and concluding with the sites perspective. It is also accompanied by a world map which portraits most noted sites (Fig. 1), and a glossary of regimes and archaeological periods. When one compares disciplines in archaeology, especially the ones that deal with Early Medieval times, it becomes clear that some have embraced economic questions more than others. The leading discipline in this respect is Viking-age archaeology (the 8th or 9th to the 11th century), in particular in Scandinavia. The topic of long-distance trade is engraved in the discipline’s infrastructure, as some of the artefacts found there derive from distant provenances, and it is believed that the inhabitants of the central sites were traders (and/or pirates).57 Traded artefacts from beyond the horizon include silver coins from England and the Islamic world, lava millstones from south-central Germany, as well as glass and rock-crystal beads from the Islamic world and the Far East.58 The paper of Ralf Wiechmann discusses the beginning of this economic culture. Based on the numismatic evidence from Groß Strömkendorf in northern Germany, he portrays its connections with closer and farther regions. The advantages of coins for answering economic questions are multiple. First, their production region is sometimes clear from their inscriptions or from the analysis of distribution patterns. Second, the spatial distribution points to some of their usage patterns. Third, studies into dies imply the real numbers of coins from specific types and mints. Moreover, coins are detected in Western Europe outside excavation in relatively big numbers, which can be counted and compared. The silver and copper coins which were found at Groß Strömkendorf came from England to the west and from varied regions in the Islamic world to the south-east. On the basis of the quantity found Wiechmann interprets the coins as currency and suggests that they were brought and used at the site by different communities of merchants.

24

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

Moving eastwards, historians and archaeologists that focus on Southern and Eastern Europe look at economic relations within their sphere and at the links between the Byzantine Empire and its neighbours. Legal texts and chronicles, together with archaeological research, reveal an abundance of mines both for stone and metal, glass workshops in Constantinople, silk production in varied locations, slave trafficking (in the 8th and 9th centuries), and possible trade as far as the Rhine and Danube as implied by Byzantine gold coins.59 The limited archaeological research which was mediated to us from the former Sovjet-Union presents amphorae which were produced in the regions of Kiev and Cherson in present Ukraine, if not farther, and were found on sites in northern Russia, at least 1000 km away. Notably, sherds were unearthed both on central sites and on sites which were interpreted as ‘villages’. Inscriptions on these vessels clearly indicate their having transported wine and oil.60 Regarding trade in the Mediterranean, Wickham argues that in principal, it was divided between its Muslim territories and the Christian ones and operated mainly east-west.61 The paper by Joanita Vroom presents this wide perspective, showing a marked change in trade directions in the long term. In the period of the 4th-8th centuries, ceramics which were produced in the Aegean were distributed as far as China and Japan in the east, East Africa in the south, and England and Ireland in the west. These were containers which are assumed to have transported mainly wine, oil and grains, along with fine tableware. The pottery was accompanied by additional artefacts, such as coins and glass. A complete transformation can be observed in the 9th-11th centuries, when the direction of transportation shifted to the north. Artefacts from the Byzantine Empire are found in Russia, Ukraine, Germany and Scandinavia, whereas epigraphic evidence demonstrates the opposite direction. The paper also points to the metropolis of Byzantium – Constantinople – as a possible hub for production and distribution of certain commodities, with clear evidence of the dissemination of amphorae from adjacent Ganos (Marmara Sea) in the 10th-11th centuries. Moving south and east, one of the most astonishing phenomena in our time frame is the Chinese pottery. At least from the 9th century onward, ceramics produced in China were spread to extremely far distances, as far as the Near East, East Africa and even Europe.62 Scholars divide these 9th-10th-century Chinese ceramic exports into four main types and provenances. These include the Changsha Wares from Hunan, Yue green glazed wares from Zhejiang, Guangdong green glazed wares, and White Porcelain (supposedly from northern China). Evidently, these pottery types were produced purposely for export, as they are rarely found on sites in China itself, other than the kiln sites where they were made. Two papers in this volume present different perspective of the phenomenon.

25

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The paper by Dashu Qin and Justin Ching Ho discusses the presence of Chinese ceramics in Egypt and East Africa. In the first part, they analyse the possible routes which connected China with Africa and the Middle East according to Chinese literary sources of the 8th century. These suggest early links between the two regions. Nevertheless, the identification of many of the toponyms or kingdoms from these texts is not straightforward and is still under debate. In the second part, they compare the numbers and distribution of the earliest Chinese pottery in Fustāt and on sites in Kenya and Tanzania during the 9th and 10th centuries. They show clear trends in the import of the four main types and shifts in production areas. As examples, Changsha Ware signifies the 9th century, in limited numbers and only in Fustāt and on major coast sites, whereas the Yue Ware represents the 10th-11th centuries, in larger numbers and with a wider distribution, also inland. Therefore, the authors argue, these four types of exports cannot be interpreted as static or equal groups. The export trends are related to shifts of production and to political changes within China. The paper by Guangcan Xin provides the volume with the maritime perspective. In her paper, she presents in detail two shipwrecks from the 9th and 10th centuries that were found in the Java Sea near Indonesia. The first one, the Belitung Shipwreck, is assumed to be an Arabian vessel, based on its timber and on its construction technology. Its cargo is composed mainly of pottery, having the four exported types, mostly Changsha Ware (83 percent of the sherds). The second shipwreck, near Cirebon, probably originated in South Asia, according to its timber. Its cargo comprises Chinese pottery, chiefly Yue Ware, but many more objects and raw materials, such as metals and precious stones. The unique archaeological circumstances of shipwrecks allow a glimpse into modes of distribution and transportation, for example, the efficient packing methods of small objects. Xin raises methodological questions regarding the identification of the departure, stopover and destination ports of ships on the basis of their cargo. She suggests, first, to look not necessarily at the bulk of the components but the whole assemblage. Second, she recommends consulting the written sources. Three papers in this volume have to do with Islamic Archaeology, a discipline which is still in its infancy in regards to economic research questions. A pioneering work by Alan Walmsley from two decades ago was not pursued to any great extent by other scholars. In that article and in later works, Walmsley focuses on varied economic elements through archaeology of the 7th-9th centuries, mainly in the Levant, including long-distance traded items, the local distribution of pottery, the distribution and usage of copper-alloy coins, and marketplaces.63 The three papers span the time frame from the 7th-9th to the 11th-13th centuries. Moreover, they make use of archaeological finds that are utilized not very often: textile, fauna remains, and stone artefacts.

26

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

The paper by Sterenn Le Maguer-Gillon indicates the relations between regions on the Indian Ocean. Methodologically, it offers a solution to the ‘archaeology of absence’ (namely, the evidence of perishable remains) by connecting a number of source sets. The author introduces botanical surveys from the contemporary landscape of Asia and Africa and identifies plants which were used as incense according to ancient texts. Then, she presents two sorts of archaeological evidence: resinous remains and a number of containers made of clay, soapstone or metal. Both find types are interpreted as incense-related through the ethno-historical evidence and by implications of modern societies. The comparison of botanical data and archaeology allows the reconstruction of incense provenance and possible networks. Whereas residues in a temple in Nanjing (China) point to a link with East Africa, the finds in Unguja Ukuu (Zanzibar) imply a local source. However, Le Maguer-Gillon suggests that both local and foreign incense indicate luxury goods. Orit Shamir and Alisa Baginski list nine Medieval sites in Israel/Palestine and Sinai, most near the Dead Sea, where textiles were unearthed. They elaborate on the materials of the textiles as well as their weaving and decorating techniques. These technical details imply whether the textiles were produced locally or elsewhere, and if the latter, their origin. The local productions are identified by quantity, after analysing their temporal trends. For example, cotton becomes a common material in Israel/ Palestine in the 7th century. Other local characteristics in this period are the usage of blue dye and a chequered decoration. Imports are identified as uncommon specimens in the region, such as silk. The provenance of the imports is identified through a comparison of the data to other regions and to historical information. This suggests the connection of Israel/Palestine regionally with Egypt and Syria, and interregionally with Asia Minor and India. My own paper discusses elements made of stone in central Israel in the 7th-11th centuries. Through spatial distribution maps, it aims to detect the distribution centres from which these elements reached the research area. Identifying the centres can confirm or invalidate the distance that commodities have travelled and the length of their networks. I focus on objects made of three stones: marble, basalt and beach rock. Each has a different provenance and thus is assumed to have traveled a different distance. The chapter demonstrates similar distributions of items of the same function from varied raw materials and different distribution methods to different objects from a single material. It also indicates the difficulties posed by reuse and recycling which can make the identification of provenances irrelevant. Finally, it suggests changes in trends over time, with the introduction of beach rock at a relatively late stage. The distribution maps imply that at least one type of object, marble columns, travelled to the research area directly from afar.

27

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The paper by Natalie Kontny provides a completely different direction of inquiry to long-distance trade issues through a critical reading of textual evidence. Ibn Khurradādhbih’s book, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik (‘The Book of Routes and Realms’), is one of the earliest geographical works from Arabo-Islamic texts that has survived until today. Still, his relatively rich descriptions of the Indian Ocean trade are not sufficiently utilized in modern research. Kontny extracts from the text information about the Indian Ocean routes, the traded commodities and the main actors in that space. This paper thus fills the gap that archaeology leaves regarding perishable goods and traveling directions. It also enables questions and answers that only texts can initiate, such as maritime trade agents or the way they perceived the maritime space. Her other emphasis, however, is on some of the challenges that historians face when reading an ancient literary text: its accuracy, its audience and perspectives, or the influence and reflection of its former sources. Too often archaeologists tend to use written sources at face value. This paper reminds us to approach these texts with caution. conclusion I started the introduction arguing that the location where an object is discovered is known. In this volume, we follow a number of methods to identify also the provenance of that object. However, the routes the object has taken, the number of life cycles it went through, or the main motivation for its journey/s, are still unknown. In particular, we cannot know the price of the object, or if it acted as a luxury good, without asking a contemporary witness. We can only presume from the context that many of the wonderful silk textiles that Shamir and Baginski have published were collected by rags merchants. These textile fragments may have been gathered for recycle, the ‘end of the road’. The collection might have been conducted with great efforts involving long-distance trade and hence does not represent consumption and distribution of primary use. The information about the journeys artefacts have gone through cannot always be provided by texts. This volume demonstrates some of the gaps between the two sources. Kontny, for example, shows that Ibn Khurradādhbih overlooked the Red Sea while archaeological evidence point to it as an important route. This gap signifies the limited overview of ancient authors or editors which could never portray reality as a whole. From the other end, Qin and Ho discuss how Chinese texts from the 8th century preceded the pottery of the 9th century in Africa. This gap demonstrates the inability of archaeology to document small volumes and perishable elements. Twenty sherds of a specific ceramic type are already a significant number. This implies that only ‘successful’ trends that continued over the long term are visible in archaeology.

28

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

When both historians and archaeologists accept these limitations, some of the clashes between the sources (or the ‘truths’ they tell) can be avoided. In other words, each source must be used under its own restrictions. There are some tentative conclusions that the assemblage of papers in this volume can offer. First, maritime transportation was clearly significant for long-distance trade. Second, it can be suggested that very big centres such as Fustāt distributed bulks of goods to smaller centres, and these centres distributed it to their surroundings. Nonetheless, these two conclusions are drawn from the state of archaeological investigations, which are very much based on excavations in big centres and along coasts. Moreover, it is almost impossible to reconstruct the routes to and from distribution centres. The papers on coins in Groß Strömkendorf and on worked stone in Israel indicate that the dichotomy between regional and interregional is not justified. Distribution has operated in this period at various distance-levels, perhaps even through the same channels. Most importantly, the distribution mechanism is connected to the production system, something very significant as we see with Chinese ceramics. More sets of Big Data from varied sites, and comparisons between them, will help determining how far distribution was influenced not only by production but also by consumers and ‘market needs’.

fig. 1 – Map with the main sites mentioned in this volume (H. Nol).

29

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

not es 1

See e.g., Horton 2004; Chirikure 2017, 3.

24 McCormick 2002, 14-17; Walmsley 2012;

See also Udovitch 1999.

Gabrieli et al. 2014; Travé Allepuz et al.

2

Costin 1991.

2015; Shapiro 2019. For a comparison

3

Stoltman 2001. Recent studies for the

with hoard coins in northern France, see

12th-14th centuries in Israel and Jordan are

Wickham 2005, 802-03.

Gabrieli et al. 2014; Shapiro 2015.

25 See Kilger 2007, in particular 259-61.

4

See e.g., al-Bashaireh and al-Housan 2019.

26 Hopkins 1978, 54. See examples from the

5

See Pollard and Heron 2008.

6

Ibid, 302-39.

7

See, e.g. al-Bashaireh and al-Housan 2019

Scandinavia and England is believed to

for marble; Glukak and Rosenberg 2013 for

originate in the Near East: Whitehouse

basalt.

2003; Skre 2011, 427.

8

Robertshaw et al. 2010, 1903.

9

Whitehouse 2003.

10 Barrett et al. 2008; Morales-Muñiz and Llorente-Rodriguez 2020. I am grateful to

11

27 Hopkins 1978. For example, raw glass in

28 See e.g., bronze production in Nigeria, the 9th century, at Chirikure 2017, 10. 29 See e.g., Cipolla 1956, 56-57; Hodges 2012, 6. 30 Kilger 2007, 288-91. See also Ralf

Laura Llorente-Rodriguez for the detailed

Wiechmann on the nummismatic material

introduction and references.

of Groß Strömkenhof in this volume.

For fishing in Medieval England, see

31

Barrett 2018.

32 Taxel 2014, 135.

12 See e.g., Chaudhuri 1985, 37-39; Ray 2004, 13

Geniza: Udovitch 1999, 687.

Goitein 1973, 19.

33 For querns in Scandinavia and the

46; Laiou and Morrisson 2007, 84.

Netherland, see e.g., Wickham 2005, 683-

Udovitch 1999.

85; Sindbæk 2007, 123-25.

14 McCormick 2002, 11.

34 Van der Veen 2003, 420.

15

35 Cutler 2001.

De Ligt 1993, 3-22; Morrisson 2012, 4-5.

16 McCormick 2002, 5.

36 Wickham 2005, 707, 804-05.

17 Chirikure 2017, 4.

37

and the discussion by Le Maguer-Gillon in

38 39

For Sweden, see Tesch 2016, 128. For North and Central Africa, see Chirikure 2017, 8-9.

20 Smith 1976, 7-9. 21 Hodder 1974, 346.

Nol 2020, with references. See for the terminology also Kalmring 2016.

this volume. 19 Oikonomidès 1986, 33; Jacoby 2004, 206.

See e.g., Hodges 2012, ix-xi, 96-98; Morrisson 2012, 8.

18 Van der Veen 2003. See also Müller 2008

40 For crafts in ‘rural’ sites in Scandinavia, see Hodges 2012, 98; Hartvig 2016. For

22 Cipolla 1956, 54-55. See also Hopkins 1978,

agriculture in ‘urban’ sites in Israel/

45.

Palestine, see Avni 2014, 196. For the

23 Walmsley 2012, 313.

30

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

historical and terminological perspective,

49 Chaudhuri 1985, 52.

see Nol 2020.

50 Oikonomidès 1986.

41 Notable changes in Central European sites 51

Ettel 2013, 279.

are represented, for example, in Müller 2010. 52

Ray 2004, 46.

53

42 For markets adjacent to temples in India,

Kedar 2012, 21-22; Kalmring 2016, 16.

see Ray 2004, 45. For castles or bridges

54 Paul 2017, 59.

which grew into ‘spontaneous cities’, see

55

Herold 2012, 79; Ettel 2013, 274.

Elisséeff 1980, 91.

56

The workshop was funded by the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, with the support of the

43 For the Mediterranean and Europe in the

Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte

3rd-8th centuries, see Whittaker 1983;

and Universität Hamburg.

Wickham 2005, 718-19, 822-23; Whittow 2013. For Mesoamerica, see Golitko and

57

See e.g., Brink and Price 2008.

Feinman 2015 with references.

58

Sindbæk 2007; Skre 2007, 18-23, 2011, 42529.

44 Whittow 2013, 154; Kalmring 2016, 16-17. 59

45 On private agricultural projects of the

Jacoby 2004; Laiou and Morrisson 2007,

Umayyads and Abbasids, see Lecker 1989;

29-30, 77, 122-23; Brubaker and Haldon

Heidemann 2011, 49. For monasteries and

2011, 516-18.

aristocratic landowners in Western Europe, 60 Noonan and Kovalev 1997. 61 Wickham forthcoming.

see Wickham 2005, 800-01.

62 For a summary of South Asian and still

46 Al-Dūrī 1969, 9-10. 47 Van der Veen 2003, 409.

further destinations, also in later periods,

48 Whittaker 1983; Cutler 2001, 266; Lev

see Mikami 1988; Qin and Yuan 2015. 63

2012, 149.

31

See e.g., Walmsley 2000, 2012.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y Avni, G. 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford. Al-Bashaireh, Kh. and A.Q. al-Housan 2019. Provenance of marble elements from the Middle Church at Hayyan Al-Mushrif, northeast Jordan: A multidisciplinary approach, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11, 2237-47. Barrett, J.H. 2018. Medieval fishing and fish trade, in: C. Gerrard and A. Gutiérrez (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Later Medieval Archaeology in Britain, Oxford; doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198744719.013.5. Barrett, J., C. Johnstone, J. Harland, W. Van Neer, A. Ervynck, D. Makowiecki, D. Heinrich, A.K. Hufthammer, I. Bødker Enghoff, C. Amundsen, J. Schou Christiansen, A.K.G. Jones, A. Locker, S. Hamilton-Dyer, L. Jonsson, L. Lougas, C. Roberts and M. Richards 2008. Detecting the medieval cod trade: A new method and first results, Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 850-61. Brink, S. and N. Price (eds.) 2008. The Viking World, Abingdon. Brubaker, L. and J. Haldon 2011. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: A History, Cambridge. Chaudhuri, K.N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge. Chirikure, S. 2017. Documenting precolonial trade in Africa, The Oxford Research Encyclopedia, African History. 1-24; doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.68. Cipolla, C.M. 1956. Money, Prices, and Civilization in the Mediterranean World, Princeton. Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production, Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1-56. Cutler, A. 2001. Gifts and gift exchange as aspects of the Byzantine, Arab, and related economies, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55, 247-78. Al-Dūrī, A.A. 1969. The origins of iqtāʿ in Islam, al-Abhāth 22, 3-22. Elisséeff, N. 1980. Physical lay-out, in: R.B. Serjeant (ed.), The Islamic City: Selected Papers from the Colloquium held at the Middle East Centre, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge, United Kingdom, from 19 to 23 July 1976, Paris, 90-103. Ettel, P. 2013. Frankish and Slavic fortifications in Germany from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, in: J. Baker, S. Brookes and A. Reynolds (eds.), Landscapes of Defense in Early Medieval Europe, Turnhout, 261-84. Gabrieli, R.S., D. Ben-Shlomo and B.J. Walker 2014. Production and distribution of Geometrical-Painted (hmgf) and Plain Hand-Made Wares of the Mamluk period: A case study from northern Israel, Jerusalem and Tall Hisban, Journal

32

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

of Islamic Archaeology 1.2: 193-229; Online appendix: www.equinoxpub.com/ home/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Gabrieli-Ben-Shlomo-and-Walker-Appendix-27Jan15.pdf. Gluhak, T.M. and D. Rosenberg 2013. Geochemical discrimination of basaltic sources as a tool for provenance analyses of bifacial tools in the southern Levant: First results from the Jezreel Valley, Israel, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1611-22. Goitein, S.D. 1973. Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, Princeton. Golitko M. and G.M. Feinman 2015. Procurement and distribution of pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican obsidian 900 BC-AD 1520: A social network analysis, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22, 206-47. Harving, A. 2016. Starup Østertoft – a landing place and settlement with a church from the 11th-12th centuries, in: L. Holmquist et al. (eds.), New Aspects on Viking-Age Urbanism c. AD 750-1100, Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Swedish History Museum, April 17-20th 2013, Stockholm, 173-81. Heidemann, S. 2011. The agricultural hinterland of Baghdād, al-Raqqa and Samarrā .͗ Settlement patterns in the Diyār Muḍar, in: A. Borrut (ed.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides, Paris, 43-57. Herold, H. 2012. Fortified settlements of the 9th and 10th centuries AD in central Europe: Structure, function and symbolism, Medieval Archaeology 56, 60-84. Hodder, I. 1974. Some marketing models for Romano-British coarse pottery, Britannia 5, 340-59. Hodges, R. 2012. Dark Age Economics. A New Audit, London. Hopkins, K. 1978. Economic growth and towns in classical Antiquity, in: P. Abrams and E.A. Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies, Cambridge, 35-77. Horton, M. 2004. Artisans, communities, and commodities: Medieval exchanges between northwestern India and East Africa, Ars Orientalis 34, 62-80. Jacoby, D. 2004. Silk economics and cross-cultural artistic interaction: Byzantium, the Muslim world, and the Christian West, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58, 197-240. Kalmring, S. 2016. Early northern towns as special economic zones, in: L. Holmquist, S. Kalmring and C. Hedenstierna-Jonson (eds.), New Aspects on Viking-Age Urbanism c. AD 750-1100; Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Swedish History Museum, April 17-20th 2013, Stockholm, 11-21. Kedar, B.I. 2012. Prolegomena to a world history of harbor and river chains, in: R. Gertwagen and E. Jeffreys (eds.), Shipping, Trade and Crusade in the medieval Mediterranean, Studies in Honor of John Pryor, Surrey, 3-37. Kilger, C. 2007. Wholeness and holiness: Counting, weighing and valuing silver in the Early Viking period, in: D. Skre (ed.), Means of Exchange. Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, Aarhus, 253-325.

33

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Laiou, A.E. and C. Morrisson 2007. The Byzantine Economy, New York. Lecker, M. 1989. The estates of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀs in Palestine: Notes on a new Negev Arabic inscription, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52, 24-37. Lev, Y. 2012. A Mediterranean encounter: The Fatimids and Europe, tenth to twelfth centuries, in: R. Gertwagen and E. Jeffreys (eds.), Shipping, Trade and Crusade in the Medieval Mediterranean, Studies in Honor of John Pryor, Surrey, 131-56. Ligt, L. de 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam. McCormick, M. 2002. Byzantium on the move: Imagining a communications history, in R. Macrides (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World (2nd ed. 2017), London, 3-29. Mikami, T. 1988. The ceramic road, in: T. Mikasa (ed.), Cultural and Economic Relations between East and West: Sea Routes, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 2, Wiesbaden, 1-7. Morales-Muñiz, A. and L. Llorente-Rodriguez 2020. Ichthyoarchaeology, in: C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, 2nd ed., Cham; doi: 10.1007/9783-319-51726-1_2124-2. Morrisson, C. (ed.) 2012. Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, dc. Müller, U. 2008. Luxus und Lifestyle – Konzepte, Funde und Befunde am Beispiel von Schleswig, in: M. Gläser (ed.), Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchäologie im Hanseraum vi: Luxus und Lifestyle, Lübeck, 357-76. Müller, U. 2010. Case study 3: Trading centres – Hanseatic towns on the southern Baltic Coast: Structural continuity or a new start?, in: B. Ludowici, H. Jöns, S. Kleingärtner, J. Scheschkewitz and M. Hardt (eds.), Trade and Communication Networks of the First Millennium AD in the Northern Part of Central Europe: Central Places, Beach Markets, Landing Places and Trading Centres, Hannover, 115-40. Nol, H. 2020. Cities, ribāts and other settlement types in Palestine from the seventh to the early thirteenth century: An exercise in terminology, Al-Masāq; Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 32.3, 243-74; doi: 10.1080/09503110.2019.1692555. Noonan, T.S. and R.K. Kovalev, 1997. Prayer, illumination, and good times: The export of Byzantine wine and oil to the north of Russia in pre-Mongol times, Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 8, 73-96. Oikonomidès, N. 1986. Silk trade and production in Byzantium from the sixth to the ninth century: The seals of kommerkiarioi, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40, 33-53. Paul, J. 2017. Hasanwayh b. al-Husayn al-Kurdī (r. ca. 350–369/ca. 961–979). From freehold castles to vassality?, in: D.G. Tor (ed.), The Abbasid and Carolingian Empires. Comparative Studies in Civilizational Formation, Leiden, 52-70. Pollard, A.M. and C. Heron 2008. Archaeological Chemistry: Edition 2, Cambridge. Qin, D. And J. Yuan (eds.) 2015. Ancient Silk Trade Routes: Selected Works from Symposium on Cross Cultural Exchanges and Their Legacies in Asia, Singapore.

34

nol – a g e n e r a l i n t roduc t ion

Ray, H.P. 2004. The beginnings: The artisan and the merchant in early Gujarat, sixth-eleventh centuries, Ars Orientalis 34, 39-61. Reiter, S.S. and K.M. Frei 2019. Interpreting past human mobility patterns: A model, European Journal of Archaeology 22, 454-69. Robertshaw, P., M. Wood, E. Melchiorre, R.S. Popelka-Filcoff and M.D. Glascock 2010. Southern African glass beads: Chemistry, glass sources and patterns of trade, Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1898-912. Shapiro, A. 2012. Petrographic analysis of the Crusader-period pottery, in: E.J. Stern, ʿAkko i: The 1991-1998 Excavations. The Crusader-Period Pottery. Part 1: Text, iaa Reports 51, Jerusalem, 103-26. Shapiro, A. 2019. Petrographic examination of selected pottery vessels from the al-Watta quarter, Safed (Zefat), ʿAtiqot 97, 225-33. Sindbæk, S.M. 2007. Networks and nodal points: The emergence of towns in early Viking age Scandinavia, Antiquity 81, 119-32. Skre, D. (ed.) 2007. Kaupang in Skiringsaal, Kaupang Excavation Project Publication Series 1, Norske Oldfunn 22, Aarhus. Skre, D. 2011. The inhabitants: Origins and trading connexions, in: idem (ed.), Things from the Town: Artefacts and Inhabitants in Viking-Age Kaupang, Kaupang Excavation Project Publication Series 3, Norske Oldfunn 24, Aarhus, 417-41. Smith, C.A. (ed.) 1976. Regional Analysis. Vol i., Economic Systems, New York. Stoltman, J.B. 2001. The role of petrography in the study of archaeological ceramics, in: P. Goldberg, V.T. Holliday and C.R. Ferring (eds.), Earth Sciences and Archaeology, Boston, 297-326. Tesch, S. 2016. Sigtuna: Royal site and Christian town and the regional perspective, c. 980-1100, in: L. Holmquist, S. Kalmring and C. Hedenstierna-Jonson (eds.), New Aspects on Viking-Age Urbanism c. AD 750-1100, Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Swedish History Museum, April 17-20th 2013, Stockholm, 115-38. Travé Allepuz, E., P.S. Quinn and M.D. López Pérez 2015. To the vicinity and beyond! Production, distribution and trade of cooking greywares in medieval Catalonia, Spain, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 8, 1-16. Udovitch, A.L. 1999. Fatimid Cairo: Crossroads of world trade – from Spain to India, in: M. Barrucand (ed.), L’Égypte Fatimide son art et son histoire. Actes du colloque organisé à Paris les 28, 29 et 30 mai 1998, Paris, 681-91. Van der Veen, M. 2003. When is food a luxury?, World Archaeology 34, 405-27. Walmsley, A. 2000. Production, exchange and regional trade in the Islamic east Mediterranean: Old structure, new systems?, in: I.L. Hansen and C. Wickham (eds.), The Long Eighth Century, Leiden, 265-343.

35

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Walmsley, A. 2012. Regional exchange and the role of the shop in Byzantine and Early-Islamic Syria-Palestine: An archaeological view, in: C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, D.C., 311-30. Wickham, C. 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages, Oxford. Wickham, C. forthcoming (=2022). Islamic, Byzantine and Latin exchange systems in the Mediterranean, 750-1050 CE, in: S. Heidemann and K. Mewes (eds.), The Reach of Empire. The Early Islamic Empire at Work, vol. 2, Studies in the History and Culture of the Middle East 37, Berlin. Whitehouse, D. 2003. ‘Things that traveled’: The surprising case of raw glass, Early Medieval Europe 12, 301-05. Whittaker, C.R. 1983. Late Roman trade and traders, in: P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins and C.R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade in the Ancient Economy, London, 163-80. Whittow, M. 2013. How much trade was local, regional and inter-regional? A comparative perspective on the Late Antique economy, in: L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity, Late Antique Archaeology 10, Leiden, 133-65.

36

*

*

*

Routes and supra-regional connections *

37

*

*

*

Byzantine golden coin of Emperor Anastasius i (r. 491-518) found at Xi’an in China (see detail in Vroom, fig. 3 on page 195 in this volume).

*

*

*

Arabo-Islamic geographies: Indian Ocean trade in Ibn Khurradādhbih’s Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik ( fl. 884 ce) Natalie Kontny

*

The Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik (kmm) (‘The Book of Routes and Realms’) attributed to Ibn Khurradādhbih ( fl. 884 CE) is one of the oldest Arabo-Islamic geographical works. It served as a main reference for later geographers from the 10th century onwards.1 In his detailed study of the kmm, Zadeh remarks that modern scholarship has frequently treated early Arabo-Islamic geographical works ‘as documentary evidence for the reconstruction of history’, i.e. as straightforward data, in order to answer historical questions.2 However, while Arabo-Islamic geographical sources include rich details on various topics, their contents should nevertheless be approached with caution.3 The aim of the present paper is two-fold. First, it will illustrate the importance of Ibn Khurradādhbih’s work for the study of early Islamic and possibly even pre-Islamic history using the Indian Ocean trade as a case study, for which the kmm is a particularly valuable source because unlike other such works it includes material on regions outside the Islamic realm (mamlakat al-Islam).4 Nonetheless, the kmm has not yet been fully exploited for the study of the Indian Ocean.5 The present article, thus, presents a first overview of what the kmm has to say on the Indian Ocean and its trade. Second, this paper will adopt a source-critical approach to the kmm. The Indian Ocean material is thus not used as data to be mined for historical information, but is considered as part of the text’s general scope and context which should be approached holistically (internal strategies). Moreover, the discussion will analyse the material from an interdisciplinary perspective (external strategies). As a spin-off, this article suggests ways of aptly using the kmm Indian Ocean material for historical studies. Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 39-66

©

FHG 39

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128666

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The first section will briefly address the person of Ibn Khurradādhbih as well as the extant text of the kmm and contextualise it within the genre of Arabo-Islamic geography. The second part will focus on the Indian Ocean and its trade as presented in the source, including a discussion of trade routes, commodities, and agents of trade. Throughout that discussion, the article will identify challenges and questions arising from the material that impede the straightforward use of historical data. The third section will take a closer look at some of these challenges. The analysis will show that the kmm presents the Indian Ocean as an arena of trade and connectivity. Some information included in the kmm might stem from pre-Islamic periods, however, which has serious ramifications for our understanding of the history of the region. i bn k h u r r a dā dh bi h a n d t h e «k m m» Very little is known about Ibn Khurradādhbih – even his full name remains disputed.6 Although his birth and death dates are uncertain, he was certainly active in the late 9th century. It is assumed that he descended from an influential family of Persian origin and spent his career in Baghdād and Sāmarrāʾ in the service of the ruling Abbasid Dynasty. The scarce biographical sources for Ibn Khurradādhbih identify him as the director of the postal and intelligence services (sāhib al-barīd wa-l-khabar) for the district of al-Jibāl (northwest Iran).7 Apart from that, he is presented as part of the administrative elite in the imperial chancery, a role that gave him access to a broad array of information.8 He was also known as a boon companion and confidant to the caliph al-Muʿtamid (r. 870-892).9 Of his nine works, only two appear to have survived: one of these is his geographical work, the kmm, which is extant in at least two manuscripts of considerable difference. In 1889, Michael J. de Goeje published a critical edition of the kmm in the Leiden series of Arabo-Islamic geography, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum (bga), building primarily on these two manuscripts.10 De Goeje argued on that basis that the kmm was the product of a two-stage editorial process carried out by Ibn Khurradādhbih himself.11 Until recently, de Goeje’s theory was generally accepted.12 However, recent scholarship has challenged this consensus, emphasising the polyvalent and polygenetic nature of early Arabo-Islamic texts as ‘neither static nor fixed’.13 Arabo-Islamic geography offers an extremely rich corpus of written sources.14 The development of the genre is closely connected to Islamic empire-building and to the Arabic language but also built on pre-Islamic traditions.15 It was influenced by Hellenistic, Indian, Mesopotamian, and Persian geographical tenets which were discussed, adopted, and appropriated.16 Nevertheless, the imperial and administrative concerns of the Abbasid caliphate played a pivotal role in the development of the discipline, as

40

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

extensive caliphal patronage shows.17 As the first work of descriptive geography in Arabic and a template for later authors, Ibn Khurradādhbih’s kmm illustrates the diversity and discourses of the genre in its formative period.18 Before contextualising the kmm, a short overview of its content will be given.19 In the foreword, Ibn Khurradādhbih presents his work as a translation of Ptolemy’s work – which it is not – and dedicates it to an unnamed ruler.20 This foreword and some introductory remarks on the shape of the world and its first rulers are followed by a section on al-Sawād (Iraq, esp. the Euphrates-Tigris region), which is presented as the centre of the Islamic realm and of the world as a whole. The kmm refers to al-Sawād with the Persian-Sasanian term dil-i Ērānshahr, translated as qalb al-ʿ Irāq (heart of Iraq).21 The structure of the work’s main body adheres to the division of the known world into an eastern (al-mashriq), western (al-maghrib), northern (al-jarbī or al-shamāl), and southern (al-tayman or al-junūb) quarter as envisioned by the Persian tradition. It thus compromises four chapters. Within this main part, the text focuses in particular on the network of routes that cross the lands under Muslim rule and connect it with other regions. The description of this network is interspersed with material about the stopping points along the routes, such as ports or cities. This includes poetry about the landscape, historical insights, or anecdotes about the inhabitants. Several maritime spaces are presented within the four regional chapters. The final section includes miscellaneous material on topics such as postal stations, a group of Jewish merchants called al-Rādhāniyya, the sources of rivers, or the wonders of the world.22 Above all, the kmm can be considered an administrative road book.23 The administrative approach, which seems to be Ibn Khurradādhbih’s main outlook, can be summarized as ‘geography in the service of the state’, concerned as it is with routes, taxation, and control of the Islamic realm.24 The routes together with the distances between different places form the main content of the kmm. Within the four regional chapters, the material is mostly organised according to administrative divisions, which are referred to by their Persian terms.25 Moreover, the kmm also includes information on tax revenues and the imperial postal system as well as information on non-Islamic realms such as the Byzantine Empire. Much of the material seems to stem from archival data to which Ibn Khurradādhbih had access because of his administrative position. This includes, for example, Sasanian administrative sources.26 The kmm was probably an important source for Qudāma b. Jaʿfar (d. 948), who also held a position in the imperial chancery and composed a work called Kitāb al-Kharāj wa-sināʿ at al-kitāba (‘Book of the Land Tax and the Craft of Writing’), which includes several chapters of Arabo-Islamic geography.27 However, Qudāma restructured Ibn Khurradādhbih’s information: he excluded all non-administrative

41

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

material, such as travellers’ reports, and separated the material on the Islamic realm from information on non-Islamic lands.28 The kmm, on the other hand, discusses the non-Islamic lands as part of its main four chapters. The inclusion of regions outside the Islamic realm, the material of which ranges from fabulous stories over local products to detailed maritime routes, distinguishes Ibn Khurradādhbih’s work from other Arabo-Islamic geographical treatises. The following three distinctive aspects of the kmm are considered as important for the discussion of the Indian Ocean material. First, the literary dimension of the kmm has received considerable attention in recent scholarship. This applies especially to its poetry and to the material that possibly came from pre-Islamic Arabian and Sasanian sources.29 As a caliphal boon companion, Ibn Khurradādhbih moved in an elitist courtly context in which recreation and edification played an important role, which might explain the appearance of miracle stories and other wondrous tales in his kmm.30 In that, he differs from other contemporary administrators like Qudāma and al-Yaʿqūbī (d. 897), who excluded such material.31 Second, whereas the inclusion of literary material seems to be owed to Ibn Khurradādhbih’s individual circumstances, the reference to Ptolemaic tenets in the kmm is due to the general intellectual milieu of his time. While the reference to Ptolemy in the foreword seems unfounded, some introductory remarks on the earth’s shape and extent as well as short references to different methods of dividing the earth bear witness to Ibn Khurradādhbih’s awareness of e.g. mathematical geography.32 However, the kmm is overall heavily influenced by the Persian geographical tradition.33 For instance, the presentation of maritime spaces as integral parts of the four ‘cardinal’ regions differs considerably from Ptolemy’s approach. This departure from the dominant mathematical approach is a main reason for considering Ibn Khurradādhbih’s kmm the first work of Arabo-Islamic descriptive geography.34 The nearly contemporary Qudāma, by contrast, presents maritime bodies in a separate chapter, according to the structure of Ptolemy’s Geography.35 Finally, a trend in Arabo-Islamic geographical works to confine or focus their scope on the Islamic realm seems to have started already at the time when Ibn Khurradādhbih composed his work.36 The kmm, as noted already, nevertheless refers to customs, beliefs, and many other aspects concerning the lands and people outside the Islamic realm. It is here that the universalist aspect of the kmm, which might have also been driven by commercial interests, becomes apparent.37 Much of the discussion about Arabo-Islamic geography, however, has been dominated by works often referred to as the Balkhī school or Atlas of Islam tradition, which more explicitly make the concept of the mamlakat al-Islam their focus.38

42

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

Most of the considerable amount of information on the Indian Ocean and its trade in the kmm is contained in a thirteen-page section exclusively devoted to the subject, which forms part of the chapter on the eastern quarter of the world.39 However, the miscellaneous material at the end of the work includes relevant information, as well. The section on the Rādhānite merchants who were allegedly active in this region is particularly important as it gives an overview of their maritime and terrestrial trading routes and mentions the commodities in which they traded.40 Thus, the following section is devoted to the discussion of the available data concerning the Indian Ocean in the kmm. t h e i n di a n oce a n a n d i ts t r a de i n t h e «k m m» In the kmm, maritime spaces are considered part of the so-called Great Sea (al-bahr al-kabīr), which is in a general way divided into an eastern and a western part.41 The Western Sea (al-bahr al-gharbī) corresponds roughly to the Mediterranean Sea.42 The Eastern Sea (al-bahr al-sharqī) refers to the space of the Indian Ocean including the modern Red Sea and Persian Gulf as well as other more easterly sub-spaces, such as the Bay of Bengal or the South China Sea.43 The important role of the Indian Ocean as a maritime space is acknowledged in the kmm. It is perceived as a coherent space that is an integral part of the eastern quarter, on which the kmm puts significant emphasis.44 According to Ibn Khurradādhbih, the centre of the world is situated between two great bodies of water, the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. This centre is referred to as Iraq or Ērānshahr and corresponds to the centre of Abbasid power in Ibn Khurradādhbih’s time. Compared to other bodies of water, Ibn Khurradādhbih’s information on the Indian Ocean is quite comprehensive. It is said to reach from the city of al-Qulzum (ancient Clysma/Suez) to a region east of China, which is referred to as al-Wāqwāq.45 The kmm stresses the connective function of this vast maritime space that is defined as being adjacent to al-Zanj (East Africa), al-Habasha (Ethiopia), and Fārs (southwestern Iran) (Fig. 1).46 This very broad conception of the Indian Ocean as a maritime body corresponds with the modern maritime space. At the same time, however, the kmm shows an awareness of the ‘in-betweenness’ of the Abbasid caliphate, awarding seas a function as ‘marker[s] of geopolitical and/or ethnocultural boundaries.’47 The kmm also presents the Indian Ocean as a trade arena, including considerable information on agents, commodities, and routes. In the kmm, trade is considered almost exclusively a maritime activity, while the text in general consists mainly of overland routes within and between regions ruled by Muslims. In these terrestrial sections,

43

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

trade (identified e.g. by the explicit mentioning of commodities) does not feature.48 In contrast, the maritime routes of both the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean refer to products available at stops along the routes and these sections feature concluding remarks on the goods that are traded.49 Moreover, the kmm indicates that there are maritime spaces in which no trade is conducted because they cannot be navigated.50 The sections on maritime spaces follow a different structure and include many more details on individual places, commodities, local products and populations as well as historical events. Let us now turn to the information on agents of the Indian Ocean trade, commodities, and routes. We will also look at some of the questions arising from this material, which will be picked up again below. Agents of the Indian Ocean trade – Compared to commodities and routes, we learn rather little about the agents of the Indian Ocean trade. Judging from the material included, however, it seems that some is first-hand evidence provided by seafarers and merchants themselves. The kmm refers directly to the expertise of seafarers (al-bahriyyūn) in an account of the acquisition of pepper in Mūlay (Kollam) or when discussing the use of Sappan wood roots acquired on the Jazīrat al-Rāmī (northwest Sumatra) against poison.51 Furthermore, the end of the section features a short account on the tides in the Indian Ocean that refers directly to navigators (ishtiyāmū l-bahr).52 Other pieces of information might also originate from the practical experience of seafarers or travellers, although this is not explicitly mentioned. For example, details on riverine networks in al-Hind (India) and al-Sīn (China) that enable the transport of commodities to the hinterland seemingly indicate on-site expertise.53 Similarly, much of the information on trade products was probably derived from people working in this field. This also applies to reports that can be classified as ‘sailor’s yarn’ or fantastic stories, such as the account of an island in Southeast Asia which was said to be home to the Muslim Antichrist (al-dajjāl).54 Seafarers’ accounts also provide information on pirates, another group of agents in the maritime trade. There are at least three passages in which the kmm identifies people as thieves or robbers (lusūs) engaging in piracy.55 Merchants, on the other hand, are hardly mentioned at all; the term tujjār (merchants) appears only once in the Indian Ocean section and nothing is revealed regarding the identity or activities of these merchants.56 An exception to this is the group of traders referred to as Rādhānites. They are presented as a group of polyglot Jewish merchants operating a large-scale trade network that also included the Indian Ocean. However, they are not referred to in the Indian Ocean section itself.57

44

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

Commodities of the Indian Ocean trade – Regarding commodities, on the other hand, the kmm includes an abundance of information. In the main part on the Indian Ocean, there are two sets of information about items available in the Indian Ocean region. The first one can be deduced from the description of routes, as they feature different items that were either available at specific places and/or being traded along these routes. The second set is included at the end of the chapter, which may represent a summary of Indian Ocean commodities.58 Interestingly, many of these items are also said to be traded by the Rādhānites.59 Apart from that, however, these different sets of information do not fully correspond with each other (see Appendix). How can we account for and deal with such inconsistencies? Other questions arise from the location and nature of commodities mentioned. Many studies have emphasised that the early Indian Ocean trade cannot have been a luxury trade only.60 That being said, most of the commodities in the kmm appear to be of higher value due to their exotic origin, such as spices and aromatics. The item that is most frequently mentioned is aloes wood (ʿūd), which is known to have had diverse uses, e.g. as perfume, incense, or for furniture-making; it apparently originated in various places in the Indian Ocean region. The kmm also includes information on the quality of this product depending on place of origin, emphasizing the high quality of aloes wood from al-Sanf (Champa, southern Vietnam).61 Other woods – some of which are known to have been used for shipbuilding like teak wood (sāj) and coconut wood (nārjīl) – are also mentioned in the kmm.62 In general, products and commodities are more frequently mentioned for regions outside the Abbasid Empire, especially for al-Hind and lands east of it. However, these items also feature staple goods such as crops, rice, and more infrequently barley and wheat. Can we deduce from this information that rice was imported to the Abbasid Empire from China? We will return to this question later in the article. Routes of the Indian Ocean trade – The kmm presents three main Indian Ocean routes which connected the centre of the Abbasid caliphate also with far-flung regions (Fig. 2). While Baghdād is depicted as the hub for the terrestrial routes, the routes over the Indian Ocean all originate from al-Basra.63 The places along these routes are presented consecutively, and usually the distance from one stopover point to the next is meticulously recorded. This sequence is at times interrupted by digressions with other pieces of information. The first route (R1) seems to follow the road from al-Basra to ʿUmān along the coast of the Gulf (al-tarīq min al-Basra ilā ʿ Umān ʿalā l-sāhil).64 Most of the places mentioned along R1 cannot be identified today, as the kmm does not provide any further details. Compared to the two other routes, R1 appears particularly dense and

45

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

the proportion of presently unidentifiable locations is very high. Trade is not explicitly mentioned and R1 closely resembles land-based itineraries in the kmm. The second route (R2), titled ‘the path to the East by the sea’ (al-masāfa ilā l-Mashriq fī l-bahr), leads from al-Basra through the Persian Gulf to the South Arabian port of ʿAdan.65 Like R1, it follows the western, Arabian Gulf coast, although different places are mentioned as stops and it is clearly to be travelled by ship. For this route, not only the distances between places is being given but also trade-related information. A longer passage on the port of ʿAdan, the route’s terminal point, may serve as an example: it is referred to as one of the main ports (marāqī l-ʿ uzzām) in the Indian Ocean and as a place where commodities from al-Sind (present-day Pakistan), al-Hind, al-Sīn, al-Zanj, al-Habasha, Fārs, al-Basra, Judda (Jeddah), and al-Qulzum can be found.66 The third route (R3) runs along the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf down to India.67 In India, it splits into three branches. The furthest extension of this route goes to Qantu in China, while one of the two other branches terminates at Jazīrat al-Rāmī (northwest Sumatra) and the other presumably goes around the Indian sub-continent up to the region of Kāmurūn (Assam).68 R3 is explicitly presented as a trade route and contains the vast majority of the trade-related material; it also presents a continuous long-distance trade route between Iraq and China.69 The three routes display considerable differences: First the description of R1, which differs from R2 and R3 regarding the additional information given. R1 does neither include the distances from one stop to the next nor is there any information on places or commodities. It is not clear whether this route was travelled by land or sea (Fig. 3). From the information of the kmm alone, it is impossible to decide whether trade played any role along R1 or how it was travelled. Unlike the description of R1, the ones of R2 and R3 give distances for every leg of the routes. Interestingly, R2 is measured exclusively in farsakh (parasang), a quite precise unit of length.70 For R3, however, several different units have been employed. From the Indian subcontinent onwards, i.e. from Thārā (on the Makran coast), given as the border between Fārs and al-Sind, to Qantū (Yangzhou or Hangzhou in China), the kmm switches from farsakh to masīra which indicates a rough estimate of the travel time required. For areas at a greater distance from the centre of Abbasid power, Ibn Khurradādhbih clearly accepts a less exact scale. Similarly, in each route description, the distances between stops seem to increase the further away a route leads from Iraq. The fabulous, scandalous or fantastic anecdotes are being told almost exclusively about places that are further away, i.e. along R3: there are two islands said to be inhabited by cannibals; a legend of Adam’s Peak is given at length when Sarandīb (Sri Lanka) is mentioned; and a paragraph on the kings of India is included.71

46

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

R2 and R3 outline a maritime trade network in the Indian Ocean, spanning Iraq as the centre of Abbasid control as well as South Arabia, India, Southeast Asia, and China (Fig. 4). However, this trade-route network does not include ports in the Red Sea or on the African coast, though both these regions are being explicitly mentioned in the kmm’s broader conception of the Indian Ocean as a maritime space. On the one hand, the information on ʿAdan provided in R2 indicates that the port must have had trade relations with the Red Sea region, i.e. Judda and al-Qulzum, as well as with al-Zanj and al-Habasha. These connections are, however, not specified in the maritime routes. On the other hand, the Red Sea and the African ports are not mentioned as stops, the regions do not feature in the account of Indian Ocean routes, and the kmm gives little or no additional information about them.72 Were these regions or maritime sub-spaces not part of the maritime trade network? In the chapter on the southern quarter, on the other hand, coastal routes include Judda and al-Jār (both in modern Saudi Arabia) as stops. However, it does not become clear from the kmm material how these routes relate to the Indian Ocean ones. Products or commodities are rarely mentioned along these routes and no port city is presented as an entrepôt in which goods were bought, sold, or transhipped.73 Similarly, the two maritime trade routes ascribed to the Rādhānites in the miscellanea material of the kmm include stops in the Red Sea, i.e. al-Qulzum, al-Jār, and Judda (Fig. 5).74 The Rādhānite maritime routes go beyond the Indian Ocean, reaching from Firanja (Land of the Franks) in the west to China.75 Compared to R2 and R3, they are much more imprecise and only give rough directions to the East. Interestingly, neither Rādhānite maritime route features al-Basra.76 What possible explanation is there for this diversity? The next section will focus on the questions that emerged from an analysis of the kmm material on agents, commodities, and routes in the Indian Ocean. How can we use it for a historical study of the Indian Ocean region in the early Islamic period? r isi ng to t h e ch a l l e nge of t h e «k m m»: i n t e r na l a n d e x t e r na l st r at egi es While the kmm conveys an abundant amount of information on trade and geography, much of this material poses considerable challenges with regard to its interpretation and is not easily reconciled with each other. To address these issues, this article suggests two main strategies, one source-critical and the other interdisciplinary drawing e.g. on archaeological insights. The first strategy is based on the source itself. Many questions can be answered by a holistic approach to the kmm, i.e. by not considering it a database. Close reading and consideration of the work’s formative context might rec-

47

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

oncile some of the supposed contradictions within the kmm Indian Ocean material. As is in the nature of close reading, we need to consider the polyvalent and polygenetic nature of written sources in general. Regarding the kmm, the extant manuscripts are not completely identical – they partly include different material and data, and we cannot be certain of the ‘original’ structure and layout. Critical editions of these sources can be a helpful tool as they indicate the textual differences – de Goeje’s edition of the kmm is a good example. The second strategy is to take into account external sources, e.g. archaeological and historical ones. The above discussion of other Arabo-Islamic geographical treatises, for example, has yielded possible reasons for the inclusion of non-administrative material.77 Archaeology, as will be discussed below, often offers an alternative approach to some of these questions by focussing on the material evidence of trade goods. Finally, it needs to be emphasised that a combination of both strategies is required in most cases. Internal strategies – As mentioned above, detailed textual analysis suggests answers to some questions, such as the supposedly contradicting sets of information on the commodities in the kmm. It seems that the kmm differentiates between locally grown or available products and imported goods. In nearly all cases, the kmm identifies local products with bi- or fī (meaning ‘in’ or ‘at’).78 Other items are said to come from (min) a particular place, which suggests that they were imported.79 The resulting list of trade goods actually matches the ones associated with the Rādhānite trade from the East. Moreover, this interpretation implies that, for example, staple goods were products instead of commodities. This seems to be more plausible than them being exported from China to the Abbasid Empire: rice had already been cultivated in Iraq before the establishment of the Islamic Empire.80 The availability of rice in Iraq is also mentioned in the kmm. Ibn Khurradādhbih includes a tax list for the Sawād region, which features rice as tax in kind.81 This instance illustrates very well the pitfalls of accepting the information in geographical sources as straightforward data. At the same time, we should keep in mind that many written sources were commissioned works and thus might be biased due to economic dependency or political preferences.82 In the case of the kmm, we have observed that an overall administrative-imperial outlook guides its contents. The adoption of the looser measure of masīra in the context of regions outside of Abbasid control might indicate two things: first, distances do not seem to have been the most important information in the work in general. The kmm is not a practical guide to navigation or travel, but rather a collection of relevant information from an administrative-imperial perspective.83 Second, the distances outside Abbasid jurisdiction might not have been as important from this imperial perspective or were not as well known in the imperial chancery.

48

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

As the first work of Arabo-Islamic descriptive geography, the kmm presents an early stage of geographical writing in Arabic. While pre-Islamic geographical thought had an influence on the developing genre generally and on Ibn Khurradādhbih specifically, many facts were just not yet known.84 At the same time, literary elements found their way into Arabo-Islamic geographical works, including the kmm.85 Most importantly, Ibn Khurradādhbih had access to a wide range of sources, and it is an established fact that the kmm includes pre-Islamic material.86 This article argues that pre-Islamic historical material can also be identified regarding the Indian Ocean. One example is the information on al-Habasha, most of which stems from earlier sources or at least pertains to pre-Abbasid times. The kmm refers to the king of al-Habasha as al-Najāshī, most frequently identified with the Aksumite king Armah (r. 614-631), and indicates that Yemen was ruled by the Habasha for 72 years, i.e. by the Aksumite Empire.87 This aspect will be picked up in the discussion on external strategies again. Finally, a closer look at the structure of the text indicates some explanations. The Rādhānite section, which has triggered numerous scholarly debates for years, seems to cast doubt on the Indian Ocean material because of the differences regarding the maritime routes, for example.88 In a similar case, it has been argued that the inclusion of this material in the miscellanea might indicate Ibn Khurradādhbih’s own doubts about the account.89 The exclusion of the Rādhānites from the Indian Ocean section despite their being presented as important trade agents may therefore be understood as a conscious decision by the author-compiler. In other cases, the visualisation of the material helps to clarify the content and highlights inherent problems. Both the schematic depiction of R1-3 (Fig. 2) and the mapping of the maritime network (Fig. 4) illustrate, on the one hand, the connectivity of the described network within and beyond the Abbasid caliphate with the Muslim-founded city of al-Basra as its main centre. On the other hand, the map of R1 (Fig. 3) as well as the schematic depiction (Fig. 2) highlight that there are major problems with regard to the identification and locations of places that the kmm mentions along these routes. External strategies – While the visualisation of the routes is based on the kmm alone, the mapping requires a broader approach. Let us take the place Bullayn/Bullīn, in the south of the Indian subcontinent where R3 trisects, as a case study (Fig. 6). A comparison of different cartographic reference works illustrates how difficult it can be to identify these ancient places: the main cartographical resource in Islamic studies, the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (tavo), does not offer a map on the Indian subcontinent, while the Historical Atlas of South-Asia does not feature Bullayn/Bullīn.90 The revised version of the Historical Atlas of Islam locates Bullīn on the south-western coast of the Indian subcontinent.91 In contrast, one of the most prolific

49

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

authors on Muslim India, S. Maqbul Ahmad, locates it in the neighbourhood of the former Tanjore district on the east coast of India.92 In his later work, for which he considers more written sources, he identifies Bullayn with Nagapattinam on the Coromandel coast.93 The most recent contribution to this discussion was made by Jairus Banaji: based on the kmm, which locates the place between Mūlay on the Malabar Coast and the so-called Great Gulf (al-lujjat al-ʿazam), which has been understood as reference to the Bay of Bengal, Banaji identifies the Vaigai Delta in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka as the most likely location. Referring to archaeological, historical, and philological evidence, he argues that Alagankulam, the ancient key port of that area, must be Bullīn.94 Indeed, the continuing course of R3 to Sarandīb makes it more likely that Bullīn was located on the southeast coast of India. However, up to now it has been assumed that the port of Alagankulam ceased operating in the 4th/5th century. Consequently, Banaji himself considers his suggestion a tentative one that still needs to be substantiated by archaeological work.95 All this illustrates a common dilemma which can be referred to as knowledge imbalance or circularity. Most places that can be identified have been thoroughly studied; many of them have been excavated, and often historical and linguistic studies have been carried out.96 These better-known places are often presented as important trading spots, for instance, which serves to justify their study. In many cases, scholarly interest is based on the a priori expectation that there is something worth uncovering. This expectation is often derived from the depictions of a particular site in the written sources which in the frequent absence of clear documentary evidence are often taken at face value.97 Conversely, places that are not described in full detail in the written sources or that have not been identified are often considered historically obscure and little effort is undertaken to learn more about them. Such seems to be the case with most of the places the kmm mentions along R1. This phenomenon also pertains to the general relation between written and material evidence. Archaeology has played an important role for historical studies, especially regarding economy and trade. However, this has also led to the problematic use of material evidence to fill gaps left by texts instead of approaching both these source types as independent evidence of equal value.98 Looking at some of the most frequently mentioned commodities of the Indian Ocean trade in the kmm, such as incense, the archaeological study of e.g. incense burners facilitates a means to prove their presence and use, even in absence of direct physical remains.99 Another case is the question of agents, on which the kmm has little to say, perhaps because such details were not considered pertinent to a book on routes and administrative structures. Unfortunately, archaeology is of little help here, so we have to turn to yet another source type: docu-

50

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

ments may help to get a better understanding of who the people were that participated in the Indian Ocean trade. For example, the study of letters provides valuable insights to the agents’ backgrounds and identities.100 One of the most peculiar findings of this study is that the trade arena described by the Indian Ocean routes does not represent all regions that the kmm itself refers to in its general conception of the Eastern Sea (al-bahr al-sharqī) as maritime space (Fig. 1). The Red Sea and African ports do not feature in the emerging trade-route network and the kmm gives little or no additional information about them. A possible explanation is that the situation the kmm presents can be attributed to conditions predating the emergence of Islam when the region was under Sasanian rule (from at least the 4th century). This interpretation takes into account the different sources and materials involved in the kmm’s composition. With regard to the historical material on al-Habasha, it has been shown that pre-Islamic material also plays a role with regard to the Indian Ocean region. While direct Sasanian presence in eastern Arabia remains controversial, it is generally agreed that they controlled the Gulf and that much trade was conducted by their Arab vassals. The Red Sea, in turn, was dominated by the Aksumite Empire, which was allied with the Byzantines and supplied the Mediterranean region with long-distance trade goods.101 Thus, in pre-Islamic times, the western Indian Ocean was a segmented space. While the kmm gives little indication for active trade in the Red Sea or at the eastern African coast and excludes these regions from the Indian Ocean trade network, other sources, especially archaeological ones, show that these regions formed part of a well-integrated trade network during the early Islamic period.102 Because of the inclusion of pre-Islamic, predominantly Sasanian material, it has been argued that overall ‘[t]here is very little to suggest that everything in the Masālik [kmm] was designed to present a current picture of Abbasid society as it existed when Ibn Khurradādhbih composed his geography.’103 While this illustrates the caution needed when approaching the kmm Indian Ocean material, Ibn Khurradādhbih’s work is still relevant for the study of the Abbasid Indian Ocean trade. The centrality of al-Basra for the trade-route network, for example, indicates that not all data pertain to the pre-Islamic era. Moreover, reference to the goods available in ʿAdan as well as the Rādhānite maritime routes and the coastal routes along the Arabian Peninsula suggest a connectivity to the western maritime sub-spaces of the Indian Ocean. However, the kmm does not reveal the relations of these seemingly separate routes. The kmm is thus best seen as navigating the spectrum between an official chancery document and a courtly context of amusement and edification, with the end result composed of several different historical layers. A source-critical approach to the kmm

51

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

that also considers insights from other sources has the potential to disentangle these layers and to contribute to a better understanding of the Indian Ocean and its trade in both pre-Islamic and Islamic times. su m m a ry a n d conclusion The kmm represents an important and fruitful source for the study of the Indian Ocean and its trade. It presents a dynamic network in the Indian Ocean spanning from Iraq to South Arabia, India, Southeast Asia, and China. This notion of connectivity makes clear that the vast Indian Ocean was not perceived as a barrier but as a ‘travelling corridor.’104 This article shows that trade and commerce in the kmm are closely connected to maritimity. The Indian Ocean especially is depicted as an arena of trade in which al-Basra and the Abbasid Empire have a central role. Overall, the kmm is primarily an administrative road book and shaped by imperial concerns. It is therefore not surprising that routes constitute its main topic even concerning maritime spaces. The Indian Ocean material, furthermore, illustrates the variety of information included in the kmm. It is also its universalist dimension which seems to account for much of the Indian Ocean material, such as the reference to rice or the inclusion of areas outside Muslim control. Thus, the kmm is a product of its specific context, i.e. the Abbasid period, compiled by a member of the Abbasid imperial elite. However, the kmm contains material of different types and from different periods. With regard to the region and people of al-Habasha, it can be concluded that the kmm material pertain to the pre-Islamic, Sasanian period. This suggests that earlier data might also have been employed regarding other aspects of the Indian Ocean and its trade and might be an explanation for the unclear role of the Red Sea and African ports. Moreover, this implies that the spatial concept of the Indian Ocean and the trade arena emerging from the maritime routes do not entirely correspond. The question of whether we have here a depiction of trade conditions during the Sasanian period, however, requires further research. If anything this contribution has shown that the adoption of a source-critical approach to Arabo-Islamic geographical sources can be particularly rewarding. If we want to make proper sense of the information these works convey, we require a multidisciplinary perspective that takes into account insights gained from a range of other fields and source types.

* 52

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

ack now l e dg m e n ts This article was written while I was a research associate for the chair of pre-modern Islam at Universität Hamburg, currently held by Prof. Stefan Heidemann, to whom I would like to extend my thanks. I am very grateful to Zayde Antrim, Hannah-Lena Hagemann, and Hagit Nol for their thought-provoking and helpful comments on subsequent drafts. Moreover, I would also like to thank Antonia Bosanquet and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. Needless to say, all remaining shortcomings are my own.

53

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on arabic term

english translation

abnūs afwāh ʿ anbar aruzz

ebony aromatics / spices ambergris rice

baqr baqqam

fiyala ghidār hadīd

cows Sappan wood / brazilwood mules crystal herbs / greens lecanora cinnamon riding animal gold pearls fruits pepper sword / coloured silk? elephants porcelain iron

hajar (al-sīniyyu) hamīr harīr hayyāt

(Chinese) stones donkeys silk snakes

hinta

wheat

ibil ʿ itr jawāmis jūzbawwa kabāba (shajar al-) kāfūr karm karkadann khawlanjān khayzurān kīmkhaw lūʾ lūʾ mākāfūr mās

camels essence / perfume buffaloes nutmeg cubeb camphor (trees) vine rhinoceros galangal bamboo damask pearls camphor water diamonds

bighāl billawr buqūl dādhī dār sīnī dawābb dhahab durr fawākih filfil firind

available in … al-Wāqwāq Sarandīb ʿAdan; (al-bahr al-sharqī) Bābattan; al-Sinjilī and al-Kabashkān; Kaylakān, al-Lallawā and Kanja; Jazīrat Bālūs; al-Qimār; Lūqīn; Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū al-Sanf Jazīrat al-Rāmī

Sarandīb Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū

imported from … / traded by … al-Wāqwāq al-Yaman

the southern region al-Yaman Sarandīb the southern region al-Sīn; Rādhānites

Ūrinshīn Kāmurūn; al-Wāqwāq; al-Shīla Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū Mūlay; Sarandīb

Ūrinshīn; Abīna Lūqīn Jazīrat Alankabālūs

al-Wāqwāq Sarandīb Mūlay; Sindān al-Sīn al-Hind al-Sīn

Lūqīn Lūqīn al-Rāmī? al-Zābij Kaylakān, al-Lallawā and Kanja; Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū al-Bahrayn Sarandīb Ūrinshīn; Jazīrat al-Rāmī; al-Sanf

Jazīrat Bālūs; Jazīrat Tiyūmah Jazīrat Khārk Jazīrat al-Rāmī; Kāmurūn Jazīrat al-Rāmī; Jazīrat Kilah

al-Yaman al-Sīn

al-Hind al-Hind al-Hind; Rādhānites

al-Sīn al-Sind al-Sīn

Jazīrat Kīs; Sarandīb Sarandīb

54

al-Hind Sarandīb

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s arabic term

english translation

māshiyya mawz

cattle bananas

misk nakhl

musk (date) palms

nārjil

coconuts

qanā qaranful qasab al-sukkar

reed (?) cloves sugar cane

qāqulla qumus al-mansūja qust rasās (al-qalaʿ iyy) sāj samak sammūr sandal sandalān shaʿ īr sīlbanj sunbādhaj

cardamom woven textile wrappings costus lead teak fish sable sandalwood sandalwood (?) barley ? (probably a narcotic?) grindstone / whetstone / emery spikenard saddles cloth cloth made from hemp

sunbul surūj thiyāb thiyāb almuttkhadha min al-hashīsh thiyāb alqutuniyya almukhmala ʿ ūd wars

available in … Jazīrat Kīs Jazīrat Alankabālūs; Jazīrat Bālūs; Jazīrat Jāba / Jazīrat Harlaj ʿAdan; Sarandīb al-Bahrayn; Jazīrat Khārk; Jazīrat Lāwān; Jazīrat Abrūn; Jazīrat Kīs Sarandīb; Jazīrat Alankabālūs; Jazīrat Bālūs; Jazīrat Jāba/ Jazīrat Harlaj Ūtkīn; Sindān; Mūlay Shalāhit Jazīrat Bālūs; Jazīrat Jāba / Jazīrat Harlaj; Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū

washī yāqūt zarʿ

Yemenite dye-yielding plant (Memecylon) embroidered fabric gemstones crops

zibād

cibet

al-Sīn; Rādhānites

al-Hind al-Sin al-Hind

al-Hind al-Wāqwāq Jazīrat Kilah Sindān Jazīrat Alankabālūs; (al-bahr al-sharqī)

al-Sind Jazīrat Kilah

al-Sīn Shalāhit al-Hind Khānfū; Khānjū; Qāntū Sarandīb

al-Sīn Sarandīb

Shalāhit al-Sīn al-Yaman al-Hind

velvet-like cotton cloth

aloes wood

imported from … / traded by …

al-Hind

ʿAdan; Samandar; Sarandīb; Jazīrat Tiyūmah; al-Qimār; al-Sanf

Sarandīb Jazīrat Khārk; Jazīrat Lāwān; Jazīrat Abrūn; Jazīrat Kīs; Ūtkīn; Samandar Sarandīb

al-Sīn; al-Hind; Rādhānites al-Yaman al-Yaman Sarandīb

table 1 – List of local products and commodities featuring in the KMM Indian Ocean material, including the commodities imported from the East by the Rādhānites (N. Kotny).

55

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

not es 1

Throughout this article, references to the

translations of the kmm, see Montgomery

kmm will be made to the 1889 Arabic

2005, 202-9 and Zadeh 2013, 10-20.

edition of M.J. de Goeje. All dates will be

11

Based on the differences between the two

given in accordance to the Common Era

extant manuscripts, de Goeje suggests

(CE).

that the original version of the kmm

2

Zadeh 2013, 16.

was written in 847 and reworked by Ibn

3

On approaches to Arabo-Islamic sources

Khurradādhbih until 887. See kmm, xx-xi.

in general, see Donner 2010. On the 4

12

geographical sources, see Silverstein 2020.

90f. Montgomery also accepts the two-

In other, mostly later Arabo-Islamic

stage theory (2005, 198).

geographical works, mamlakat al-Islām

13

Zadeh 2013, 9.

is used as a distinctive concept, see, e.g.

14

Silverstein 2020, 32.

Antrim 2012, 100f. Ibn Khurradādhbih

15

Heck 2002, 95-100 and Silverstein 2020, 30.

neither uses the term nor has a definite spatial concept of the ‘Islamic realm’. His

16

Empire, i.e. lands under Abbasid control.

17 18

Ahmad 1965, 579; Hopkins 1990, 301; Miquel 1967, 2f.; Silverstein 2020, 36.

and Hourani (esp. 69-72). Moreover, Ahmad (1989, 3-30) bases his evaluation

Heck 2002, 111-13; Miquel 1967, 331-38; Silverstein 2020, 34-36.

Two of the few major Indian Ocean studies referring to the kmm are Chaudhuri 1985

Ahmad 1965, 576-78; Miquel 1967, 69-74; Silverstein 2020, 32-36.

frame of reference seems to be the Abbasid 5

See, e.g. Ahmad 1965, 579 and Miquel 1967,

19

This article cannot provide a comprehensive

of medieval Indian port cities on Ibn

overview on Arabo-Islamic geography. For

Khurradādhbih’s text.

surveys, see Ahmad 1965; Hopkins 1990;

6

Zadeh 2018.

Miquel 1967. More recent approaches to

7

It has been argued that Ibn Khurradādhbih

geography as a genre are Antrim 2012;

also held the position for the entire

Heck 2002; Silverstein 2020; Zadeh 2011.

Islamic realm, see, e.g. Hadj-Sadok 1971.

8

20 kmm, 1. The forewords in the two extant

However, Zadeh argues that this is ‘merely

manuscripts are completely different,

conjecture’ (2011, 17).

however; see Montgomery 2005, 202-9.

Antrim 2012, 102-04; Zadeh 2011, 17-19,

21

9

10

kmm, 5. On this, see also Antrim 2012, 102f.

23-30. On Ibn Khurradādhbih’s biography, see

22

The miscellanea is found in kmm, 114-38.

Bosworth 1998; Hadj-Sadok 1971; Zadeh

23

Heck 2002, 114f.; Miquel 1967, 87-90;

2011, 16-19 as well as 2013, 64-67 and 2018.

Silverstein 2020, 36f. Antrim sees the kmm

For a general overview of the manuscripts

as a road book, but questions its actual

as well as the (partial) editions and

administrative value: Antrim 2012, 106f.

56

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

40 kmm, 153-55. For an overview on the

24 Heck 2002, 95; Silverstein 2020, 32. 25

Rādhānites, see Pellat 1995.

See also e.g. Antrim 2012, 102f.; Heck

41 kmm, 4f.

2002, 114.

42 kmm, 92f.

26 On this, see also e.g. Heck 2002, 115;

43 kmm, 17, 61, 70f.

Silverstein 2020, 36f.

44 On this, see also Ahmad 1965, 579-81;

27 Section vi of Qudāma’s work forms part of

Antrim 2012, 103f.; Hopkins 1990, 309.

the geographical genre. On Qudāma and

45 kmm, 69. The definition of al-Wāqwāq is

his work, see Heck 2002. 28

29

30 31

Heck 2002, 107, 115-17. See also Silverstein

fraught with difficulties; see Ferrand et al.

2020, 37. Kahlaoui discusses the kmm’s

2002.

approach to the Mediterranean with an

46 kmm, 61.

emphasis on its administrative, imperial

47 Kahlaoui 2018, 37.

outlook (2018, 51-55).

48 An exception is the material on the

The literary aspects of the kmm are

Rādhānites which will be discussed below.

discussed in Montgomery 2005 and Zadeh

Products are mentioned very rarely along

2013.

terrestrial routes and without clarifying

Miquel 1967, 90-93.; Zadeh 2011, 24-31 and

whether these were traded or not. For

2013, 21f., 41-44.

examples along the route from Mecca to Yemen, see kmm, 134-36.

See also Heck 2002, 118f.; Silverstein 2020,

49 For the commodities of the Mediterranean,

36f. 32

Silverstein 2020, 32-34; Zadeh 2011, 20-24.

33

Montgomery 2005, 207f-09; Silverstein

see kmm, 92f. 50 It seems that one corresponds roughly to the North or Norwegian Sea and the other

2020, 34-36; Zadeh 2011, 21-25.

to the Atlantic Ocean, see kmm, 93.

34 Hopkins 1990, 308f.; Silverstein 2020, 36. 35

Heck 2002, 109f.

51

kmm, 62f., 65.

36

An example for this is al-Yaʿqūbī’s work;

52

kmm, 70. kmm, 63f., 69.

see Heck 2002, 116-19.

53

37

Ahmad 1965, 582-84; Heck 2002, 123f.

54 kmm, 68.

38

The Balkhī school refers to a category of

55

kmm, 60-62.

scholarship on geography that includes

56

kmm, 66.

al-Balkhī, al-Istakhrī, Ibn Hawqal, and to

57

On the Rādhānites in the kmm, see also Silverstein 2007, esp. 95-97.

a lesser degree, al-Muqaddasī; see Ahmad 1965, 581f.; Antrim 2012, 108-10; Hopkins

58

kmm, 70f.

1990, 312-15; Miquel 1967, 292-330. On the

59

kmm, 153.

problems with this and other categories,

60 See, e.g. Chaudhuri 1985, 17-21; Pearson 2010, 321.

see Heck 2002, 97-100 and Silverstein 39

2020, 37f.

61

kmm, 59-71.

62 See also Hourani 1995², 89ff.

57

kmm, 68.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

63

78 In one case, the verb nabata (to grow,

On al-Basra, see Pellat 1960. On the

plant, cultivate) is used (kmm, 62).

centrality of Baghdad, see, e.g. Ahmad

79 The second set of information uses min

1965, 579, 582; Antrim 2012, 102f.

throughout; see kmm, 70.

64 kmm, 59f. 65

kmm, 60f. The route name (‘to the East’) is 80 See also Canard 2002, 153-55; Decker 2009, 194-204.

ambiguous as it terminates in ʿAdan. 81

66 kmm, 61.

see Antrim 2012, 103f. and Zadeh 2011,

67 The two manuscripts of the kmm give different information on R3: one has al-

19. Heck (2002, 124) also argues that

Basra as the route’s starting point, the other

the universalist dimension might be a

refers to al-Ubulla; see kmm, 62.

reason for Ibn Khurradādhbih to include information on products.

68 kmm, 61-71.

82 The kmm is dedicated to an unnamed ruler

69 On this, also see, e.g. Chaudhuri 1985, 34-

(kmm, 1); Montgomery 2005, 202-06;

58; Pearson 2010, 321f. 70 Farsakh is an originally Persian measure of

Zadeh 2013, 60-62. 83

distance that was adopted in Islamic times

Heck 2002, 113f.; Silverstein 2020, 36; Zadeh 2011, 16-19.

and means roughly six kilometres. 71

kmm, 10-12. On the administrative focus,

84 The confusion about the place called

kmm, 65-68.

al-Wāqwāq illustrates the interplay of

72 Al-Zanj, for example, is not further

geographical knowledge and spatial

mentioned in the kmm except for a brief

perception. See Ferrand et al. 2002

comment on its hot weather; see kmm, 85

170.

Zadeh 2011, 39-41; 2013, 53-55.

86 See, e.g. Zadeh 2011, 24-31;2013, 21f., 41-44.

73 The kmm features routes from Mecca to

87 kmm, 17, 83. On the king al-Najāshī,

Yemen (134-36) as well as from Oman and Egypt to Mecca (147-51) which (partially)

see van Donzel 1993. On the Aksumite

follow the coast.

Empire, see Haas 2012. 88

74 The kmm presents in total four Rādhānite

For an overview, see Pellat 1995.

89 Montgomery 2005, 185-87; Silverstein

trade routes. The first two are maritime

2007, 97.

routes, while the third and fourth are

overland routes and will thus not form part 90 Collaborative Research Centre 19 of Universität Tübingen 1977-1994;

of the present discussion (kmm, 153-55). 75

Schwartzberg 1992², 33.

On the Rādhānites’ connections to China, 91

see Silverstein 2007.

Kennedy 2002², 60.

92 Ahmad 1960, 114f.

76 Al-Ubulla is mentioned instead. However, al-Basra features in the third Rādhānite

93

route (land-based); see kmm, 155.

94 Banaji 2015, 117-19. Banaji suggests Ballīn

Ahmad 1989, 22. instead of Bullayn/Bullīn as given by de

77 See above (pp. 3-5) and Heck 2002, 115-19

Goeje (kmm, 63).

and 123f.

58

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

95

101 Daryaee 2003; Haas 2012; Pearson 2010,

Banaji 2015, 119.

esp. 317-19; Wiesehöfer 1998.

96 The (partial) identification and/or location

of the places named in figures of this article 102 Damgaard 2011, esp. 237-46; Horton 1996, esp. 394-418. See on this subject

rests on a variety of additional studies. 97 Donner 2010, esp. 627-29, 633f.

also Chaudhuri 1985, 56-59; Pearson

98 Andrén 1998, 120-31, 135-49.

2010, 321-25, 331-34.

99 See, e.g. LeMaguer 2015.

103 Zadeh 2013, 34.

100 See, e.g. Friedman and Goitein 2007;

104 Kahlaoui 2018, 38f. See also Chaudhuri 1985, 21-23.

Margariti 2014.

59

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y Ahmad, S.M. 1960. India and the Neighbouring Territories in the ‘Kitāb nuzhat almushtāq fi’khtirāq al-āfāq’ of al-Sharīf al-Idrīsī, Publications de la Fondation De Goeje 20, Leiden. Ahmad, S.M. 1965. Djughrāfiyā, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. ii, Leiden, 575-87. Ahmad, S.M. 1989. Arabic Classical Accounts of India and China, Shimla. Andrén, A. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology, New York. Antrim, Z. 2012. Routes and Realms: The Power of Place in the Early Islamic World, Oxford. Banaji, J. 2015. ‘Regions that look seaward’: Changing fortunes, submerged histories, and the slow capitalism of the sea, in: F. de Romanis and M. Maiuro (eds.), Across the Ocean. Nine Essays on Indo-Mediterranean Trade, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 41, Leiden, 114-26. Bosworth, C.E. 1998. Ebn Kordādbeh, Abu’l-Qāsem ʿObayd-Allāh, in: E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. viii, Costa Mesa, 37-38. Canard, M. 2002. Rice in the Middle East in the first centuries of Islam, in: M.G. Morony (ed.), Production and the Exploitation of Resources, The Formation of the Classical Islamic World 11, Aldershot, 153-67. Chaudhuri, K.N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge. Collaborative Research Centre 19 of the Universität Tübingen (gen. ed.). 1977-1994. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. tavo, Wiesbaden. Damgaard, K. 2011. Modelling Mercantilism: An Archaeological Analysis of Red Sea Trade in the Early Islamic Period (650-1100 CE), unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Copenhagen, 2011. Daryaee, T. 2003. The Persian Gulf trade in Late Antiquity, Journal of World History 14.1, 1-16. Decker, M. 2009. Plants and progress: Rethinking the Islamic agricultural revolution, Journal of World History 20, 187-209. Donner, F.M. 2010. Modern approaches to early Islamic history, in: C.F. Robinson (ed.), New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. i, Cambridge, 625-47. Donzel, E. van 1993. Al-Nadjāshī, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. vii, Leiden, 862-64.

60

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

Ferrand, G., G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville, G.R. Tibbetts and S.M. Tooraw 2002. Al-Wākwāk, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. xi, Leiden, 103-08. Friedman, M.L. and S.D. Goitein 2007. India Traders of the Middle Ages. Documents from the Cairo Geniza ‘India Book’, Études sur le judaïsme medieval 31, Leiden. Hadj-Sadok, M. 1971. Ibn Khurradādhbih, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. iii, Leiden, 839-40. Haas, C. 2012. Axum, in: R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Malden, ma; doi: org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12024. Heck, P.L. 2002. The Construction of Knowledge in Islamic Civilization. Qudāma b. Jaʿ far and his Kitāb al-Kharāj wa-sināʿat al-kitāba, Islamic History and Civilization 42, Leiden. Hopkins, J.F.P. 1990. Geographical and navigational literature, in: J.D. Lathman, R.B. Serjeant and M.J.L. Young (eds.), Religion, Learning and Science in the ʿAbbasid Period, The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature 3, Cambridge, 301-41. Horton, M. 1996. Shanga: The Archaeology of a Muslim Trading Community of the Coast of East Africa, The British Institute in Eastern Africa, Memoir no. 14, London. Hourani, G.F. 1995². Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Medieval Times, Princeton (2nd rev. and expanded ed. under supervision of J. Carswell; 1st ed. Princeton, 1951). Ibn Khurradādhbih, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum 6, Leiden 1889. Kahlaoui, T. 2018. Creating the Mediterranean: Maps and the Islamic Imagination, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: The Near and Middle East 119, Leiden. Kennedy, H. (ed.) 2002². An Historical Atlas of Islam, Leiden (2nd rev. ed.; 1st ed. by W.C. Brice, Leiden, 1981). LeMaguer, S. 2015. The incense trade during the Islamic period, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 45, 175-84. Margariti, R.E. 2014. Aden and the Indian Ocean Trade: 150 Years in the Life of a Medieval Arabian Port, Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks, Chapel Hill. Miquel, A. 1967. Géographie et géographie humaine dans la littérature arabe des origins à 1050, La géographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle 1, 2nd ed., Paris. Montgomery, J.E. 2005. Serendipity, resistance, and multivalency: Ibn Khurradādhbih and his Kitāb al-masālik wa-l-mamālik, in: P.F. Kennedy (ed.), On Fiction and Adab in Medieval Arabic Literature, Wiesbaden, 177-232.

61

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Pellat, C. 1960. Al-Basra, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. i, Leiden, 1085-86. Pellat, C. 1995. Al-Rādhāniyya, in: P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. viii, Leiden, 363-67. Pearson, M. 2010. Islamic trade, shipping, port-states and merchant communities in the Indian Ocean, seventh to sixteenth centuries, in: D.O. Morgan and A. Reid (eds.), The Eastern Islamic World, Eleventh to Eighteenth Centuries, The New Cambridge History of Islam 3, Cambridge, 315-65. Schwartzberg, J.E. (ed.) 1992². A Historical Atlas of South Asia, New York (2nd ext. ed.; 1st ed. Chicago, 1978). Silverstein, A. 2007. From markets to marvels: Jews on the maritime route to China ca. 850-ca. 950 CE, Journal of Jewish Studies 58.1, 91-104. Silverstein, A. 2020. Geography in Arabic, in: K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas and E. Rowson (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, vol. 2020.3, Leiden, 30-44. Wiesehöfer, J. 1998. Mare Erythraeum, Sinus Persicus und Fines Indiae. Der Indische Ozean in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, in: S. Conermann (ed.), Der Indische Ozean in historischer Perspektive, Asien und Afrika 1, Hamburg, 9-36. Zadeh, T. 2011. Mapping Frontiers across Medieval Islam: Geography, Translation, and the ʿAbbāsid Empire, London. Zadeh, T. 2013. Of mummies, poets, and water nymphs: Tracing the codiological limits of Ibn Kurradādhbih’s geography, in: M. Bernards (ed.), ʿAbbasid Studies iv. Occasional Papers of the School of ʿAbbasid Studies, Leuven, July 5 – July 9, 2010, Cambridge, 8-75. Zadeh, T. 2018. Ibn Khurdādhbih, in: K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas and E. Rowson (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, vol. 2018.6, Leiden, 92-97.

62

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

fig. 1 – Map of the Indian Ocean (al-bahr al-sharqī) as presented by the kmm reaching from al-Qulzum to al-Wāqwāq east of China (N. Kontny).

63

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 2 – Schematic overview of the three main Indian Ocean routes (R1-3) in the kmm (N. Kontny).

64

kon t n y – a r a b o -i s l a m ic g eo g r a ph i e s

fig. 3 – Maps illustrating the uncertain course of R1. It is also due to the density of unidentifiable places, e.g. along the Arabian Gulf coast, that the course cannot be reconstructed (N. Kontny).

fig. 4 – Map of the Indian Ocean trade network resulting from R2 and R3 (N. Kontny).

65

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 5 – Maritime trade network and routes of the Rādhānite merchants according to the kmm. One route (left) operated via the Red Sea; the other route (right) follows the Euphrates and Tigris before it continues via the Gulf (N. Kontny).

fig. 6 – Map of the Indian subcontinent showing the possible locations of Bullayn/ Bullīn (R3) (N. Kontny).

66

*

*

*

Elusive remains: Identifying incense trade routes in western Asia from biodegradable commodities (ca. 7th-13th centuries) Sterenn Le Maguer-Gillon

* i n t roduct ion The word ‘incense’ refers to any substance that produces a fragrant smoke when burnt. Thus, this definition includes various products of vegetal or animal origin. They are classified in three main groups: resins (frankincense, mastic, etc.), woods (sandalwood, agarwood, etc.), and animal substances (ambergris, musk, etc.). Incense has been traded since Antiquity, in particular for the rituals involved in polytheist cults in Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Ancient Greece, and finally Rome. The substances growing in the Mediterranean area were the first to be used in Greece and the Levant: resins from Pinaceae and Pistacia trees (e.g. terebinth) (Fig. 1). In Egypt, however, frankincense was used much earlier, as illustrated by the expedition led by Queen Hatshepsut to the ‘Land of Punt’ (15th century BC) in order to bring back frankincense and myrrh.1 By the 9th or 8th century BC, the frankincense resin from Boswellia sacra growing in southern Arabia and in the Horn of Africa was starting to replace the local resins progressively. As a consequence, the trade between South Arabia and the Mediterranean world increased thanks to the domestication of the camel for the transportation of goods.2 Since imported exotic substances were preferred over local resins to fulfil the same purpose, i.e. offerings to the gods, frankincense can be defined as a luxury good. In most dictionaries, the definitions of the concept of ‘luxury’ stress the non-essential nature of goods. A luxury good can be defined as a commodity that is difficult to acquire, rare, expensive, exotic, and/or is unnecessary regarding the needs of daily life. In The Idea of Luxury (1994), Christopher Berry explores the concepts of needs and luxuries. He states that luxuries are to be viewed as ‘objects of desire’, which Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 67-94

©

FHG 67

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128667

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

give physical or bodily satisfaction, and are usually associated with physical or sensory enjoyment.3 Incense generally fits this definition and can be difficult to acquire due to its distribution (Fig. 1). However, the status of ‘luxury goods’ changes over time.4 For example, frankincense was considered a luxury good in 1st-century Rome. Pliny the Elder (d. 79) complained that the elites consumed too much frankincense during funerals instead of offering this expensive substance to the gods.5 Pliny considered incense and perfumes as ‘luxuries’ because they instantly evaporated and could not be passed on to heirs, contrary to pearls or gems, for example.6 At this time, incense had not only a symbolic meaning in a ritual context: the elites wanted to show their social rank by publicly burning large quantities. In early Christianity, frankincense had a negative connotation, being associated with paganism. Moreover, the idea of utilising incense as a sacrifice to God was strongly condemned by early Christian writers, especially the Apologists.7 It was finally reintroduced in funerary practices in the 4th century, and the earliest archaeological evidence of the use of censers in churches date from the 6th century.8 Therefore, frankincense was not a luxury good at this time but could rather be perceived as a necessary product on liturgical grounds. In the medieval Islamic world, the elites abandoned frankincense for more exotic substances such as agarwood, musk and ambergris.9 These originated from the Far East and were traded by sea (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Beside their exotic quality, their strong and animal-like scent was probably more fashionable at this time, though this question has not been investigated yet. According to Chaudhuri, pre-Industrial trade is based on three factors: a high level of technology, geographical determinism, and consumer taste or social conventions.10 The second factor highlights the fact that some products only have one source of supply: this is the case of many fragrant products, giving them their inherent rarity value (Fig. 1). The further the goods are from the market, the more expensive they are. This explains why frankincense lost its luxury status in the parts of the Islamic world where it was produced, while the demand for frankincense increased in China. If it was first to fulfil Buddhist rituals, the elites also burnt large quantities of incense to show their social status.11 On the other hand, musk and ʿūd (agarwood) were equally expensive in both areas. The trade in luxury goods in the Indian Ocean such as porcelains or precious metal has been well documented by archaeology, as they can be easily identified. That is more difficult regarding perishable goods such as food or fragrant substances that decay fast and rarely survive within the archaeological record. How can we retrace the trade of perishable luxury goods such as incense? To understand the trade in incense in the early Islamic period, which is the focus of this paper, I will use different types of data. First, botanical studies give us a good

68

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

understanding of the natural and cultivated distribution of the substances that were traded. I will refer to the most recent botanical studies in order to map the distribution of the incenses used in the Islamic world between the 7th and the 13th century. Second, written sources indicate which substances were used, the ways they were used and their origin (real or supposed). The literary and historical sources help us to understand the use of incense in a secular context, mainly receptions. These texts allow us to understand the luxury nature of incense. The lexicographical works describe the substances and, sometimes, indicate their geographical origins. While the main purpose of pharmacological treatises is to indicate the medicinal properties of the substances, sometimes they identify their geographical origin too. However, the descriptions and supposed origins of the products were sometimes erroneous, and it is not possible to rely on this documentation only. Additionally, we need to include archaeological data. This includes both the surviving incense-related artefacts themselves as well as the much rarer incense residues found in archaeological contexts. For the period covered by the present paper, residue analysis from three sites will be presented: Unguja Ukuu in Tanzania, Sharma in Yemen, and Nanjing in China (Fig. 1). Incense burners are indirect markers of incense use. Islamic incense burners were generally made of ceramic, softstone or copper alloy. They can be found across the whole medieval Islamic world, and in different social contexts. I will focus on two case studies: the first one is al-Shihr, a port of trade located on the southern coast of Yemen, and the second one is Sīrāf, also a port, located on the Iranian shore of the Persian Gulf. The written sources present the use of incense in wealthy contexts, that is to say among the elites, from the princely courts to rich merchants. Archaeology fills a gap in assessing the use of incense in lower social contexts. t y pes of i nce nse: i de n t i f ic at ions a n d or igi ns What were the main substances used as incense in the medieval Islamic world? I will present fourteen products described in the medieval Arabic texts as incense. The identifications are based on Lucien Leclerc’s translation of Ibn al-Baytār’s al-Jāmiʿ li-mufradāt al-adwiya wa-l-aghdhiya (‘Compendium on Simple Drugs’) written in the 13th century.12 Though Leclerc related the medieval Arabic names to modern botanical taxonomy, not all identifications are accurate, as its translation dates from the end of the 19th century. To complete these identifications and to map their distributions area, I refer to the Plants of the World online database set up by the Kew Royal Botanic Gardens (United Kingdom).13 The generic word for incense in Arabic is bukhūr (or bakhūr). It refers to any substance used for fumigations or mixtures (wood chips, scented water, etc.) used as in-

69

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

cense. The dried sap of frankincense is called in Arabic lubān or kundur. It exudes from different species of Boswellia trees, mainly Boswellia sacra growing in the south of the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa (Fig. 1).14 Other species such as B. papyrifera (Ethiopia) and B. serrata (India) also produce resins that are used as incense.15 Myrrh, in Arabic murr, exudes from the Commiphora myrrha tree growing in the western part of Yemen and in the north of Somalia. It can be used as incense but in the literary sources this product is praised for its healing properties and was mainly used as a balm.16 Other Commiphora species also produce resins that were appreciated in fumigations. This is the case of the muqul, the resin of Commiphora wightii (= C. mukul) growing in India and Pakistan.17 Agarwood, in Arabic ʿūd al-bukhūr and commonly referred to as just ʿūd, comes from different species of Aquilaria trees distributed throughout South Asia, from the Himalayas to Borneo. The most common species on the market is Aquilaria crassna, native to Mainland Southeast Asia (Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam). Sandarūs is the African copal, a polymerised resin from Hymenaea trees, especially Hymenaea verrucosa which is native from Kenya to Mozambique and Madagascar. However, sandarūs can also refer to dammar, the resin of the tree family Dipterocarpaceae in India and East Asia. Dammar can also be found fossilised in the ground. The resin is used as incense as well as in other functions such as varnish. Sandalwood, in Arabic sandal, is Santalum album which grows in India and in Malaysia. Next, camphor (kāfūr) is obtained by distilling roots, twigs or bark chips from two different trees. The first one is Cinnamomum camphora, native to China and Japan. The second one is Dryobalanops aromatica of Sumatra, Malaysia and Borneo. Most of the camphor traded to the Middle East in the early Islamic period would have come from this last species. Indeed, kāfūr is the Arabic form of the Sanskrit karpūram, from the Malaysian kapur where the plant grows.18 Bunk corresponds to the νάσκαφθον of the Greeks (see, for example, Dioscorides).19 This product is not clearly identified but, according to medieval Arabic authors, it grew in Yemen at the time.20 Costus, in Arabic qust, is the root of Saussurea costus growing in the Himalayas and Kashmir. Ladān is the gum-resin of various species of cistus, a plant growing in the Mediterranean area. Ḍarw (or kamkām which is the Arabic form for Cancanum) is the resin produced by different species of Pistacia trees. Terebinth (P. terebinthus) and mastic (P. lentiscus) are well documented and were widely traded, but the resins from P. atlantica or P. khinjuk were probably used locally, though they might have been traded as substitutes to mastic. Besides incense of plant origin, some might also be derived from animals: musk, ambergris and ‘blattes de Byzance’. Musk is the glandular secretions from Cervidae (deers). The famous Tibetan musk is produced by Moschus chrysogaster living in Tibet.

70

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

Another musk of great quality is from Moschus moschiferus native to eastern Siberia, northern Mongolia, northern China, and Sakhalin.21 Ambergris, in Arabic ʿanbar, is a secretion created in the stomach of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) during the digestion of the hardest parts (like the beak) of squids or cuttlefish. This secretion is expelled by natural means and can generally be picked up on the shores of the Indian Ocean, especially East Africa and Yemen.22 Finally, Arabic written sources mention azfār al-tīb, which is also referred to in the Western literature as ‘blattes de Byzance’. It is the opercula of different types of seashells commonly found in the Indian Ocean and in the Red Sea.23 Table 1 lists the aromatic substances used as incense according to the medieval Arab textual sources, with their Greek, Latin and English names where it applies, and their identification and origin according to recent studies. It stresses that one term in Arabic can actually refer to different products of different geographical origins. It also shows the introduction of new substances into the Middle East during the early medieval period: ambergris, musk, camphor, sandalwood, and copal had been unknown in this area in Antiquity.24 These new products reached the West thanks to the development of trade between East Asia and the Islamic world. t h e w r i t t e n sou rces Ambergris, musk, camphor, sandalwood and copal do not appear in Ancient Greek and Latin texts, probably because they were not traded at that time in that area. The earliest mentions can be found in pre-Islamic textual sources such as Syriac pharmacological works.25 In pre-Islamic and early Umayyad poetry, musk, ambergris and agarwood are the pre-eminent aromatics extolled by the poets.26 Camphor does not appear in poetry: it is praised for its anti-aphrodisiac properties by pharmacologists, therefore it is not associated with love and eroticism.27 Finally, the Quran mentions camphor and musk respectively in sura 76:5 and sura 83:26 as a reward for the most virtuous believers. This short overview shows the general evolution of taste regarding incense in the Middle East from the pre-Islamic period, ca. 5th-6th century to the 7th century. The texts also describe the use of incense, for example in al-Masʿūdī’s (d. 956) Kitāb al-Murūj al-dhahab or in the Cairo Geniza documents. Al-Masʿūdī describes the receptions for lawyers organized by the Caliph al-Maʾmūn (r. 813-833). After lunch, incense burners (majāmir) circulated among the guests to perfume themselves with the scented smoke.28 In the One Thousand and One Nights, the use of incense is mentioned on many occasions. Shlomo Dov Goitein, who studied the texts from the Cairo ­Geniza (11th-13th centuries), explains that incense burners were used in Jewish do-

71

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

mestic contexts and referred to as mabkharah and majmarah. The first one was used to deodorise the room before a meal and the second one was probably used during the Sabbath.29 Information about fragrant substances, such as their origin or medicinal properties, can be found in different types of medieval Arabic textual sources. I will focus on some of the main lexicographical, geographical and medical works written from the 9th to the 12th century. Five works will be presented in the following paragraphs to illustrate the discussion, with examples of the description of frankincense, ambergris and camphor, and ʿūd. These texts offer detailed descriptions of incense and remain today among the most important ones for studies dealing with the history of pharmacology and trade. The main goal of the lexicographical works is to discuss the correct spelling and the meaning of plant names, but they also provide botanical descriptions and information about their geographic origin. The two main lexicographical works dealing with plants are both entitled Kitāb al-Nabāt wa-l-shajar (‘The Book of Plants and Trees’). The earliest was written by al-Asmaʿī at the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century and the second one by Abū Hanīfa al-Dīnawarī in the 9th century. These books are considered as ‘the main source of knowledge about the botanical nomenclature of Classical Arabic’.30 Abū Hanīfa al-Dīnawarī wrote a chapter dedicated to exudates, resins and saps produced by plants located in Arabia and beyond. Though their description of frankincense trees is accurate, the information about their distribution is incomplete. Al-Asmaʿī says that ‘just three things can only be found in Yemen: frankincense [lubān], wars and aʾsb’. Abū Hanīfa al-Dīnawarī says that ‘frankincense only grows in the land of al-Shihr’, in Yemen.31 Although the area of al-Shihr is indeed a region where B. sacra grow, it is not the only one (Fig. 1). The Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind (‘Accounts of China and India’) is a travel book that combines two works written by two different authors. The first, written in 851, is anonymous, though attributed to Sulaymān al-Tājir (‘Sulayman the Merchant’), who was at least one of the informants of the author.32 The author of Book two, written in 915, has been identified as Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī.33 Little is known about him, except that we can deduct from his nisba (the adjective that describes him) that he came from, or at least was an active merchant in, the port city of Sīrāf in Iran. This work represents a very interesting source regarding the trade in the 9th and 10th centuries as it is a first-hand documentation from traders themselves. Yet, some pieces of information regarding fragrant substances are incomplete or erroneous. About ambergris, the first book of the Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind says that it can be found in the ‘Sea of Harkand’ (Bay of Bengal), and that it ‘grows on the seabed as plants do, and if the sea becomes rough, it is cast up from the bottom as if it were mushrooms or truffles’.34 Later, Abū

72

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

Zayd al-Sīrāfī is right in associating ambergris with whales, but the rest of his description is highly fanciful: ‘The best quality ambergris came from Barbarā [northern Somalia] and on the shores bordering the land of the Zanj [Swahili coast], as well as at al-Shihr and the adjoining coast: it is found in the form of “eggs”, rounded and bluish-grey. […] If the whale known as the bāl sees this floating ambergris, it swallows it; when it reaches its stomach it causes the death of the whale, which when floats on the surface of the water. There are people who keep a lookout for this from boats and who know the times these ambergris-swallowing whales are to be found. When they catch sight of one, they haul it ashore with iron grapnels attached to stout ropes […] in order to cut it open and extract the ambergris from it’.35 About frankincense, Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī writes: ‘On this sea that extends to starboard of India, from the view point of a ship leaving Oman, lies the land of al-Shihr. In it are the places where frankincense grows’.36 Pharmacological and medical treatises also give valuable information on aromatics, not only about their medical properties but also about their origin. Between the 9th and the 13th centuries, more than one hundred authors wrote at least one treaty dealing with the drugs known in the medieval Arab world. From this body of sources, only a quarter has survived the ages until now.37 The Nestorian physicist and translator Yūhannā b. Māsawayh (d. 857) wrote the Kitāb Jawāhir al-tīb al-mufrada (‘Book on the Simple Aromatic Substances’) in which he makes a distinction between five main aromatic substances, al-usūl (musk, ambergris, agarwood, camphor and saffron), and 24 other aromatics, al-afāwīh.38 For each aromatic substance, Ibn Māsawayh indicates its origin, the natural realm it belongs to (animal, plant or mineral), the different sub-species and qualities, and the medicinal uses. For example, he recounts that ambergris is a plant growing in the deep ocean, or that it is the excrement produced by a sea-animal, or that the sea foam creates it.39 About the origin of ambergris, Ibn Māsawayh shares the same opinion as the author of the first book of the Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind. It would be interesting to investigate whether the Abbasid scholars collected information from merchants sailing in the Indian Ocean. Sahlān b. Kaysān (d. 990) was the Melkite physicist of the Fatimid Caliph al-ʿAzīz bi-Allāh (r. 975-996). He wrote the Mukhtasar fī-l-tīb describing four main aromatic substances (al-usūl) and 26 compounds (al-murakkabāt): ‘I only cited musk, ambergris, agarwood and camphor as they are the main aromatic substances (al-usūl) from which the different mixtures are made’.40 His work is based on Ibn Māsawayh’s Kitāb

73

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Jawāhir al-tīb al-mufrada. He inclines towards the fantastic when he explains that the camphor and sandalwood trees can only be identified during summer: indeed, the snakes shelter from the heat under these trees. Then the local population can mark the trees with arrows in order to extract the scented substances during winter.41 This reminds us of Herodotus describing the frankincense trees protected by snakes.42 The sense of marvel and danger associated with fragrant substances has been commonplace since Antiquity. They were meant to increase the price of the products by conveying fantastic stories and make them look even rarer and more difficult to acquire; this could be considered the ancestor of marketing through storytelling. The information regarding the distribution of incense given by textual sources is too imprecise to map their trade. Moreover, they are written from the point of view of Middle Eastern sources (either Syriac or Arabic) and emphasize the importance of imported incense from East Asia. From these sources only, we could deduce that the circulation of incense went only in one direction, that is, from East to West. Incense residues found in archaeological contexts give us another picture. a rch a eologic a l r e m a i ns Two types of archaeological remains give significant information regarding the incense trade: incense residues and incense burners. The first ones are the rarest and only three sites will be presented. The incense burners are widely attested on Islamic sites, but I will only focus on al-Shihr (Yemen) and Sīrāf (Iran), two Medieval ports. Incense residues – Incense residues are rarely found in archaeological contexts. The first reason may be their high value as a traded product, so they were not wasted. In the late 13th century, Marco Polo wrote that the lord of al-Shihr (Yemen) bought one qantar of frankincense for ten gold bezants, and then sold it to the merchants for forty bezants.43 This profit benefited the Rasūlid Sultan in Aden. Indeed, we know from Rasūlid income registers that frankincense was one of the main sources of income for the Rasūlid administration.44 The other reason may be the taphonomy: perhaps frankincense degrades faster than other resins. For example, copal is polymerised (a fossilisation process).45 Nonetheless, three sites yielded incense resin for the period between the 8th and the 12th century (Fig. 1). The first one, Unguja Ukuu, is located on the southwest coast of the island of Zanzibar in Tanzania. The settlement was established in the 5th or 6th century on a narrow peninsula between the Uzi mangrove to the east and Menai Bay to the west and its main period of occupation was in the 7th-10th centuries.46 A fragment of a brass incense burner was found in a trench located 10 m from the current

74

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

seashore at a depth of 75 to 110 cm.47 The associated material comprised local ceramics (Early Tara Tradition/Triangular Incised Ware or TT/TIW) from the 7th to 10th century and Sassano-Islamic Turquoise glaze pottery, a type produced between the 7th and the 9th century in Mesopotamia. Finally, C14 analyses on samples from this context narrowed the dating to between the early 7th and early 8th century. The fragment of the incense burner is a flat disk about 60 mm in diameter. An amorphous residue on its surface was analysed using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Chemical analysis revealed it to be copal from Hymenaea verrucosa Gaertn., a variety growing in East Africa and Madagascar, and more specifically in Zanzibar. This result reveals that copal was used as incense in East Africa as early as the 7th-8th centuries. The incense burner itself was probably imported and belonged to wealthy merchants, which shows that the development of trade in the Indian Ocean introduced to East Africa new objects related to new practices.48 Copal is also attested in all the archaeological levels of Gedi, in Kenya, from the 11th to the early 17th century.49 Copal was also found in the archaeological levels of Shanga, in the Lamu archipelago, also located in Kenya. The levels from the 11th to the 13th century especially yielded the most important quantities of archaeological copal.50 In these cases, however, the use of copal is not documented, but they stress the use of copal on different sites of East Africa from where it was then traded. The Yemenite site of Sharma is located on the shore of the Indian Ocean, in the province of Haḍramawt (Yemen). It was excavated by Axelle Rougeulle from 2001 to 2005. Sharma was created ex nihilo ca. 980 and then abandoned around year 1180. This entrepôt is not described in the textual sources as involved in the frankincense trade although it is located in the Boswellia sacra growing area. Nonetheless, resin was found in all the archaeological levels during the excavations, demonstrating that resinous incense was used during the entire period of occupation of Sharma.51 More than one hundred samples were analysed. The chemical analysis revealed that two thirds of them were copal, whereas only eighteen percent of the residues were frankincense.52 The copal identified comes from Hymenaea verrucosa trees growing in East Africa and Madagascar. The copal residues were found complete, meaning they were not used as incense in Sharma, contrary to frankincense. Frankincense was found as far afield as China, in the Chang Gan temple located in Nanjing, about 270 km south of Shanghai. This temple was erected during the Northern Song Dynasty (960-1127).53 Its underground palace also dates from the Northern Song Dynasty and yielded material linked to Buddhist ritual such as golden coffins, silk, glass, and spices. A preliminary study showed that two different types of aromatic substance were used on the site. The first category includes woods and barks, amongst

75

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

them agarwood. The second category includes resins and gums such as frankincense. The five samples analysed by the archaeological team belong to the second category. According to the material associated, the resins can be dated to 1011.54 They were found in various places, such as a silver box, a silver coffin, a plated silver bottle, a glass bowl and a piece of silk. The samples were compared to a reference sample of frankincense from Ethiopia, and the Raman spectrometry analysis resulted in a match.55 However, it is impossible to determine if the gum-resins analysed are saps from B. sacra or B. papyrifera, both native to Ethiopia. It only proves the gum-resins found in the temple have the same chemical markers as frankincense, that is to say triterpenoids. This discovery demonstrates the importance of gum-resin, most probably frankincense, in the Buddhist funerary practices in 11th-century China. Considering the luxury goods associated with it, its use most likely was related to wealth. Incense burners – As such a low number of residues are found in archaeological contexts, examining incense burners further adds to our understanding of the use and trade of incense. Indeed, incense burners are a marker of the use of incense generally, but not exclusively, in domestic contexts. Precious incense burners, generally from copper alloy inlaid with silver or gold, were used at princely courts, and a very few incense burners were found in mosques. The majority of non-precious burners have been found in structures which were interpreted as merchants’ houses, like the one in Sīrāf. In a context dated to the Islamic period, an incense burner can be defined as any container used to burn fragrant substances in order to perfume a secular space, although not exclusively (mosques were also perfumed with incense, but it did not play a liturgical role, as it does, for instance, in Christianity).56 In Arabic, they are commonly referred to as mabkharah, majmarah, maqtarah or madkhan from the early Islamic period to the present day.57 Some parallels can be drawn with objects in use today (Yemen, Sultanate of Oman and others) (Fig. 2). On the Arabian Peninsula of today, it is very common to receive guests in rooms scented by incense burners.58 The incense burner gets passed from hand to hand and guests perfume their hair and clothes with the fragrant smoke. There can be issues with the identification of incense burners found in archaeological records. Incense burners could have been used as braziers (for cooking or heating, to give common examples), and braziers as incense burners. Establishing a systematic typology of incense burners gives us a good tool to identify this type of object with relative certainty. This typology is based on the intrinsic characteristics of the object such as the presence of a container for charcoal and incense, sometimes with traces of burning, a handle to carry the object while hot and feet to avoid direct contact of the hot container with a surface.

76

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

Incense burners are generally made of clay, soft stone or metal.59 Clay incense burners are the most common ones and were used in socially modest contexts. They are found in archaeological levels from the earliest times of Islam until the modern day and in all Islamic lands during the Medieval period. Clay incense burners are either square or cylindrical in shape. They are generally decorated with incised or painted patterns, or a combination of both (Fig. 3). Softstone generally refers to a variety of metamorphic rocks rich in magnesium like chlorite, steatite (talc), or combinations of both with various other minerals.60 The common characteristic is that they are all relatively soft and easy to carve, which has made softstone an attractive commodity since the Bronze Age. Outcrops are attested in the Zagros Mountains, in Kerman and in Baluchistan, in the Hajjar Mountains in the east of the Arabian Peninsula, in northern Yemen and in the Hijazi Mountains running north to south (Fig. 4). The softstone production runs from the 8th to the 11th century. For this period, softstone vessels and other objects, among them incense burners, can be found on important Islamic sites like Fustāt (Egypt), Amman and Aqaba (Jordan), Samarra (Iraq), Sūsā and Sīrāf (Iran), and in many sites in the Arabian Peninsula where softstone outcrops are attested. Indeed, such incense burners have widely circulated due to the trade from the softstone mines located in the Arabian Peninsula and in Iran. Trade in Arabia corresponds to the pilgrimage route (hajj). Incense may have been traded with the incense burners. Softstone ones are generally cylindrical with four legs and a handle, although a few examples are square (Fig. 5). The case of metal incense burners, however, seems a special one. First of all, they are scarcely found in archaeological contexts but rather come from museums or private collections. Indeed, they were considered luxury objects as they were made of precious metal and used by elites and at princely courts. They were manufactured in well-documented workshops such as Fustāt or Hamadān in present Iran.61 For the latter, we know from Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī (fl. 10th century) that ‘the people of Hamadān received as a privilege the skill to craft mirrors, spoons, incense burners (mijāmar), gold-plated iron metal cups’.62 Metal incense burners evolved in time and according to regions. The most ancient ones are cylindrical in shape with a domed cover (Fig. 6). They were produced in Egypt and spread in the Islamic world as far as Iran. Later, animal-shaped incense burners were particularly appreciated at the Seljuk courts between the 11th and the 12th century (Fig. 7). They adopted the shape of a bird or a feline. This overview assesses the use of incense at all levels of medieval Muslim society. It is, however, difficult to precisely identify the origin of the substances used as incense: were they local or imported? To illustrate this, I will focus on two examples: the site of al-Shihr in Yemen and the site of Sīrāf in Iran.

77

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Case studies – Al-Shihr is a port of trade located in Haḍramawt (Yemen), 50 km east of the modern city of al-Mukallā. Between 1996 and 2007, six archaeological campaigns were led by Claire Hardy-Guilbert (cnrs). The excavations were mainly conducted on the Tell of Al-Qariyah, uncovering dwellings dating from the late 8th century to the modern day. According to thirteen Arabic sources, this area was known as Shihr al-lubān (‘the land of frankincense’).63 Chinese authors also describe al-Shihr as an important trading port. In the Tang Shu, the official history of the Tang Dynasty, Sheguo (one of the Chinese transliterations for al-Shihr) is located on the maritime trade route from Guangzhou to the west of the Indian Ocean.64 In the early 13th century, Chau Ju-Kua, Superintendent of Maritime Trade in Fu-chien, writes in his Chu-fan-shï that: ‘Ju-hiang [“milk incense”], or hün-lu-hiang, comes from the three Ta-shï [Arab] countries of Ma-lo-pa [Mirbāt], Shï-ho [al-Shihr] and Nu-fa [Zafār], from the depths of the remotest mountain valleys.’65 Although no trace of any resin was found, the excavations yielded 60 sherds of incense burners divided into nine types.66 All are made of clay. The earliest objects are square in shape with four legs (Fig. 8). They are decorated with a frieze of incised triangles, a common feature in Yemenite pottery. Some of them have a handle, particularly useful in incense burners and braziers for transport while there is burning coal inside. These items were found in all site phases, indicating use of incense in a domestic context for all the periods of occupation. Though no chemical identification was undertaken, it is presumed that they were mainly used to burn the resin from the Boswellia sacra trees growing in the hinterland (Fig. 1). Al-Shihr and Sharma are both located in the Boswellia sacra growing area, and the two sites were also occupied simultaneously for two centuries: they offer two different examples of the incense trade. While al-Shihr was famous for producing and trading frankincense, no resin was found in an archaeological context. Nonetheless, the presence of ceramic incense burners provides evidence of the use of incense, even though they do not give much information about the substances burnt. Sharma offers a rather different example: while we know no text describing the entrepôt of Sharma as involved in the trade of incense, the substances that were found and identified on the site, along with the twelve pottery incense burners recovered during the excavations, show evidence that frankincense was used there, and that the merchants of Sharma were involved in the import of copal from East Africa or Madagascar.67 Softstone incense burners were also used in domestic contexts, as is illustrated by the site of Sīrāf in Iran, excavated by David Whitehouse from 1966 to 1973.68 The oldest reference to the toponym Sīrāf that has been identified with the archaeological site is from the Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind in the 9th century. According to the author, the

78

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

‘China ships take their cargoes on board at Sīrāf’, indicating Sīrāf played an important role in the Indian Ocean network.69 Al-Istakhrī, a geographer, wrote in the 10th century that Sīrāf was a trading entrepôt and he enumerated the goods originating from Eastern Asia transiting through the port-city, among them ʿūd, ambergris, camphor, sandalwood and other spices.70 Two centuries later, Ibn al-Balkhī also recounts that among the goods sent through Sīrāf were many fragrant substances such as ʿūd, camphor, sandalwood and other perfumes and spices.71 Yet, these textual sources remain silent about what incense was used by the population of Sīrāf, and how it was used. Archaeological finds overcome this issue. Indeed, there are 77 complete or fragmented softstone incense burners among the finds from Sīrāf.72 Of the softstone incense burners, 83 percent were found in structures which were interpreted as ‘merchant houses’ and which were abandoned in the late 10th or early 11th century (site F).73 The houses at Site F were large (up to 27 m in length for house E) and embellished with fine stucco decoration. They reflect the fortune of the merchants as noticed by al-Istakhrī.74 The incense burners from Sīrāf are carved by hand and present a rough interior and a smoothed and decorated exterior. Two main types are attested. The first is cuboid with four short legs (Fig. 9). The decoration is made of incised lines on the top of the inner corners and on the outer sides. The second type is a circular, polygonal or multi-foiled container supported by four legs (Fig. 9). It has a horizontal handle which can be either circular or polygonal in section. The decoration varies from simple incised lines to more complex, with twisted lines or Doric-style columns. Thus, the presence of incense burners in these rich dwellings illustrates the use of incense in a wealthy domestic context. The use of incense was a sign of status and prestige because it meant burning an exotic luxury product It sheds light on the use of incense in a port described as a hub for the fragrant exotic substances trade, while the texts are silent about this use. conclusion To understand the trade of incense, a luxury product rarely found in archaeological contexts, a multidisciplinary approach allows for valuable conclusions. In the absence of incense residue in most archaeological contexts, the presence of incense burners testifies to its use. Textual sources help us to list the substances that were used in different contexts: for medical purposes, in princely courts or in domestic contexts. Comparing these datasets helps to distinguish between exotic incense that was considered a luxury and usually traded from Southeast Asia, from local incense like frankincense, commonly used in its area of production. In medieval China however, frankincense was considered a luxury good where it was imported and was a source of income where

79

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Boswellia sacra grow, like in al-Shihr. The site of Sharma yielded one of the most exhaustive assemblage of imported Chinese ceramics from excavated sites in the Indian Ocean so far, proving the strong commercial relation between this entrepôt and China.75 We can presume that East African copal may have transited through the Sharma warehouses before being shipped to the Far East, probably China.76. Written sources point to a shift in trade networks in the 5th-6th centuries. New substances from Southeast Asia are introduced in the Middle East, as we can see in pre-Islamic poetry and early Islamic texts. A closer look at the etymology offers valuable information about the circulation of knowledge and trade. The circulation of camphor from Malaysia to the Middle East can be traced back through the etymology of the Arabic word kāfūr (camphor), transmitted through Sanskrit and Pehlevi, shedding light on the role of Indian and Persian merchants as middlemen. It would be interesting to investigate the etymology of other substances such as ambergris and sandalwood, which would help to understand when exactly they were introduced to the Middle East and through which networks.

* ack now l e dg m e n ts I am very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly helped to improve this paper. I warmly thank Ben Saunders, Seth Priestman and Alastair Northedge for having proofread this article. Needless to say, the remaining mistakes are all mine.

80

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns arabic name

greek name

latin name

english name

ónyx (ὄνυξ) náskafthon (νάσκαφθον) kankamon (καγκαμον)

unguis odoratus

ʿ anbar

azfār al-tīb bunk ḍarw, kamkām

cancanum

kāfūr

lādan lubān, kundur

ladanon (λαδανον) líbanos/libanōtós (λίβανος/ λιβανωτός)

ladanum olibanus/ incensum/ thus

misk

murr

musk

smýrnē/mýrra (σμύρνη/μύρρα)

muqul

qust (lihīat al-tīs, chakwās?) sandal

kóstos (κόστος)

myrrha

myrrh

bdellium

guggul

costus

costus sandalwood

sandarūs

ʿ ūd

source of the product and geographical origin ambergris Sperm whale bile (Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus); Indian Ocean ‘blattes de Byzance’ Mollusc opercula; Indian Ocean Identification unknown. Yemen? lentisk or mastic Pistacia terebinthus L. and P. lentiscus L. (Mediterranean area); P. atlantica Desf. Iran to Maghrib; P. khinjuk Egypt and West Arabia camphor Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J.Presl., China and Japan; Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn., Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo. ladanum/ Cistus spp. Mediterranean area. labdanum frankincense Boswellia spp. African Horn, Southern Arabia, India.

copal, dammar

agálochon (ἀγάλοχον)

agarwood

Musk-deer: Moschus chrysogaster H. Tibet; Moschus moschiferus L. China, Siberia. Commiphora myrrha (Nees) Engl. Somaliland, Yemen. Commiphora wightii Arn. Bandhari (= C. mukul) in India and Pakistan. Saussurea costus (Falc.) Lipsch. Himalaya and Kashmir. Santalum album L. India, Malaysia. Hymenaea (synonym Trachylobium). East Africa, Madagascar. Dipterocarpaceae India, East Asia. Different species of Aquilaria genus tree. South-East Asia.

table 1 – The aromatic substances used as incense according to the Arabic textual sources with the correspondences in Greek, Latin and English, and the today botanical identification and distribution area (S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

81

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

not es 1

This expedition is narrated in the relief

16

Ibn al-Baytār iii, 300.

sculptures in the mortuary temple of

17

Ibid, 331.

Hasthepsut in Deir el-Bahari, ca. 1455 BC.

18

Ducène 2015, 163.

2

De Maigret 1997, 315.

19

Ibn al-Baytār, i, 277.

3

Berry 1994, 12.

20 Ibn Māsawayh, 23.

4

Van der Veen 2003, 409.

21

King 2017, 12.

22

Buquet 2015, 114.

of Poppea’s funerals for which Nero burnt

23

McHugh 2013.

‘the equivalent of a year’s production of

24 These substances are not mentioned in

5 Pliny xii, 82-83. Pliny gives the example

frankincense’ to honor the death of his

Dioscorides’ Materia Medica, but they do

beloved wife.

appear in Byzantine medical texts of the 6th century (Amar et al. 2014, 549).

6 Pliny xiii, 20. 7

Caseau 2007, 75.

25

See Gignoux 2012.

8

B. Caseau, Chronologie de l’introduction

26 King 2008, 188.

de l’encens dans les églises chrétiennes,

27

‘L’encens: Le sens du rite’ workshop, Paris,

28 Al-Masʿūdī iv, 2726.

Ibn al-Baytār, 127-30.

Sorbonne Université, 5 September 2017.

29

Goitein 1983, 137.

9

King 2008, 189.

30

B. Lewin in its introduction to Abū Hanīfa

10

Chaudhuri 1985, 17.

11

Schafer 1963, 170.

31

Ibn al-Baytār iii, 200.

12

Ibn al-Baytār’s work, al-Jāmiʿ li-mufradāt

32

Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī xviii-xix.

al-adwiya wa-l-aghdhiya, is remarkable.

33

Ibid, xix-xx.

Indeed, it is the most complete book of

34 Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī, 4.

botany written in Arabic that has survived,

35

Ibid, 65.

compiling 2324 notes. Even though he

36

Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī, 63.

uses quotations of previous works (e.g.,

37

M. Meyerhof in the introduction to Ibn

Dīnawarī, Ibn Sīnā), Ibn al-Baytār did also

38

Ibn Māsawayh, 6.

undertake his own survey in North Africa,

39

Ibid, 8.

Syria, Arabia and as far as Mesopotamia.

40 Ibn Kaysān, 17. Original translation from

al-Dīnawarī’s Book of Plants, v.

Maymūn’s Šarh asmāʾal-ʿ uqqār viii.

Dioscorides, Al-Asma‘ī, Abū Hanīfa al-

13 http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/

the Arabic text.

14

Thulin and Warfa 1987.

41 Ibid, 186.

15

The resin from B. papyrifera from Somalia

42 Herodotus iii, 107-12.

is today largely exported and it is the main

43 Marco Polo 2004, ii, 495. A quantar or

resin used in Catholic and Orthodox

qintār, from the Latin ‘centarion’, is a

churches. B. serrata is less in demand.

traditional weight composed of 100 ratls,

82

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

64 Chau Ju-Kua, 116, 121.

varying with countries and periods (see Atiya 1934). A bezant is a gold or silver

65

Chau Ju-Kua, 195. Hün-lu-hiang is attested since the 3rd century and is a deformation

Byzantine coin. 44 Vallet 2010, 247-48.

of the Sanskrit word kundurika (ibid;

45 Regert et al. 2015, 398.

Schafer 1963, 170). This etymology

46 Crowther et al. 2015, 376.

confirms the Indian origin of the Arabic

47 Ibid, 376.

word kundur (synonym of lubān), adopted

48 Crowther et al. 2015, 386.

in Arabic through Persian. Mirbāt and

49 Pradines 2010, 235.

Zafār are located in the region of Dhofar

50 Horton 1996, 251.

(Sultanate of Oman).

51 Regert et al. 2015, 395. 52

66 Hardy-Guilbert and Le Maguer 2010, 53.

Ibid, 398.

67 Rougeulle 2015, 382. Pottery sherds were

53 Yu et al. 2007, 2012; Zhou et al. 2012, 1505.

also used in Sharma to burn frankincense.

The Chang Gan temple was excavated by

68 Whitehouse 2009.

a team from the City Museum of Nanjing

69 Abū Zayd al-Sīrāfī, 8. ‘China ships’ refers to

between 2007 and 2010. It is located under

Gulf vessels specializing in the trade with

the foundations of the Da Bao En temple.

China. Marākib al-Sīn can be understood

This later temple was built by the royal

as Chinese ships, ships sailing to China, or

Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and was the

ships with Chinese products. See Hourani

biggest of Nanjing.

1951, 75-76; Lev 2012, 144.

54 Zhou et al. 2012, 1505. 55

70 Al-Istakhrī 1870, 154, cited by Van

Ibid, 1506. These analyses merely prove that

Renterghem 2018, 225.

the samples from Nanjing are frankincense, 71

Ibn al-Balkhī 1995, 328, cited by Van

not that they originated from Ethiopia.

Renterghem 2018, 225. 72 These objects are curated in the British

56

Le Maguer 2011, 181.

57

Le Maguer 2015b, 144-45.

Museum. I studied this materiel in 2010

58

Kanafani-Zahar 1983, 93. Many thanks to

thanks to St John Simpson (curator in the

Marion Breteau who brought my attention

Dpt. of the Middle East) and Seth Priestman (British Museum research fellow).

to this publication. 59

This paragraph is a summary of the

73

Whitehouse 1969, 53.

typology of incense burners given in Le

74 Al-Istakhrī 1870, 127-28, cited by Van Renterghem 2018, 226-27; Whitehouse

Maguer 2011. 60 David-Cuny and Azpeita 2012, 18.

2009, 34. According to al-Istakhrī,

61

merchant’s houses of Sīrāf were built with

For Fustāt, see Aga-Oglu 1945, 29.

62 Al-Faqīh, 515.

teak wood imported from Southeast Asia

63

and wood imported from East Africa.

See Hardy-Guilbert and Ducatez 2004; Hardy-Guibert and Le Maguer 2010; Le

75

Maguer 2015a, 258.

76 Regert et al. 2015, 401.

83

Zao 2015, 292.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y pr i m a ry l i t e r at u r e Al-Asmaʿī, Kitāb al-Nabāt wa-l-shajar, ed. by L. Cheikho, in: A. Haffner and L. Cheikho (eds.), Dix anciens traités de philologie arabe, 2nd ed., Beirut 1914, 17-62. Chau Ju-Kua, Chau Ju-Kua. His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Entitled Chu-fan-chï, transl. by F. Hirth and W. Rockhill, Saint-Petersburg 1911. Al-Dīnawarī, Abū Hanīfa, Kitāb al-Nabāt (‘The Book of Plants’), ed. by B. Lewin, Bibliotheca Islamica 26, Wiesbaden 1974. Herodotus, Histoires, transl. by P.-E. Legrand, 11 vols., Paris 1932-1955. Ibn al-Balkhī, Fārsnāmeh, ed. by M. Rastegār Fasāʾī, Teheran 1995. Ibn al-Baytār, Traité des simples, transl. by L. Leclerc, 3 vols., Paris 1877-1883. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī, Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. by Y. al-Hādī, Beirut 1996. Ibn Kaysān, Sahlān, Muhtasar fī al-tīb, ed. by P. Sbath, in: Abrégé des arômes par Sahlān Ibn Kaysān, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte 26, 1944, 183-213. Ibn Khurradādhbih, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum 6, Leiden 1889, reprint 1967. Ibn Māsawayh, Yūhannā, Kitāb Jawāhir al-tīb al-mufrada, ed. by P. Sbath, in: Traité sur les substances simples aromatiques par Yahanna Ben Massawaïh, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte xix, 1937, 5-27. Ibn Maymūn, Mūsā, L’explication des noms de drogues. Un glossaire de matière médicale composé par Maïmonide, ed. and transl. by M. Meyerhof, Mémoires présentés à l’Institut du Caire 41, Cairo 1940, reprint in the Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Islamic Medicine 63, Frankfurt 1996. Al-Istakhrī, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Viae Regnorum, Descriptio Ditionis Moslemicae, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum I, Leiden 1870, reprint in the Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Islamic Geography 34, Frankfurt an Main 1992. Marco Polo, Le devisement du monde. Le livre des merveilles, transl. to English by A.C. Moule and P. Pelliot, 2 vols., London 1938, transl. to French by L. Hambis, Paris 1955, rev. by S. Yérasimos, Paris 1998, 2nd ed. 2004. Al-Masʿūdī, ʿAlī b. al-Husayn, Les prairies d’Or, transl. by C. Barbier de Meynard and A. Pavet de Courteille, 5 vols., Paris 1861-1877, rev. by C. Pellat, Paris 1961-1997. Pliny the Elder, Histoire Naturelle, transl. by A. Ernout, 37 vols., Paris 1947-1998. al-Sīrāfī, Abū Zayd, Accounts of China and India, transl. by T. Mackintosh-Smith, New York 2017.

84

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

Voyage du marchand arabe Sulayman en Inde et en Chine, rédigé en 851 suivi de remarques par Abû Zayd Hasan (vers 916), transl. by G. Ferrand, Paris 1922. secon da ry l i t e r at u r e Aga-Oglu, M. 1945. About a type of Islamic incense burner, The Art Bulletin 27, 2845. Amar Z., E. Lev and Y. Serri 2014. On Ibn Juljul and the meaning and importance of the list of medicinal substances not mentioned by Dioscorides, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Societies 24, 529-55. Atiya, A.S. 1934. Ratl, in: M.T. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset and R. Hartmann (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition, reprint 1993, vol. vi, Leiden, 1129. Berry, C.J. 1994. The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation, Cambridge. Buquet, T. 2015. De la pestilence à la fragrance. L’origine de l’ambre gris selon les auteurs arabes, in: J. Bonnéric (ed.), Histoire et anthropologie des odeurs en terre d’Islam à l’ époque médiévale, Bulletin d’études orientales 64, 113-34. Caseau, B. 2007. Incense and fragrances: From house to church. A study of the introduction of incense in the early Byzantine Christian churches, in: M. Grünbart, E. Kislinger, A. Muthesius and D. Stathakopoulos (eds.), Material Culture and Well-Being in Byzantium (400-1453), Vienna, 75-92. Chauduri, K.N. 1985. Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge. Crowther, A., M.-A. Veall, N. Boivin, M. Horton, A. Kotarbo-Morley, D.Q. ­Fuller, T. Fenn, O. Haji and C.D. Matheson 2015. Use of Zanzibar copal (Hymenaea verrucosa Gaerth.) as incense at Unguja Ukuu, Tanzania in the 7-8th century CE: Chemical insights into trade and Indian Ocean interactions, Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 374-90. David-Cuny, H. and J. Azpeita 2012. Failaka Seals Catalogue, volume i: Al-Khidr, Kuwait. Ducène, J.-C. 2015. Des parfums et des fumées: Les parfums à brûler en Islam médiéval, in: J. Bonnéric (ed.), Histoire et anthropologie des odeurs en terre d’Islam à l’ époque médiévale, Bulletin d’études orientales 64, 159-78. Goitein, S.D. 1983. A Mediterranean Society, vol. iv: Daily life, Berkely. Hardy-Guilbert, C. and G. Ducatez 2004. Al-Šihr, porte du Haḍramawt sur l’Océan Indien, Annales Islamologiques 38, 39-53. Hardy-Guilbert, C. and S. Le Maguer 2010. Chihr de l’encens (Yémen), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21, 46-70.

85

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Horton, M. 1996. Shanga: The Archaeology of a Muslim Trade Community on the Coast of East Africa, London. Hourani, G.F. 1951. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Medieval Times, Princeton. Kanafani-Zahar A.S. 1983. Aesthetics and Ritual in the United Arab Emirates. The Anthropology of Food and Personal Adornment among Arabian Women, Beirut. King, A. 2008. The importance of imported aromatics in Arabic culture: Illustrations from pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 87, 17589. King, A. 2017. Scent from the Garden of Paradise. Musk and the Medieval Islamic World, Islamic History and Civilisation series 140, Leiden. Le Maguer, S. 2011. Typology of incense-burners of the Islamic period, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41, 173-95. Le Maguer, S. 2015a. Le commerce de l’encens de l’encens de la chute des royaumes sudarabiques à l’arrivée des Portugais dans l’océan Indien (ive-xvie siècles): Une étude pluridisciplinaire, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2015. Le Maguer, S. 2015b. Une archéologie des odeurs: identifier les encens et leurs usages au Proche et Moyen-Orient (viiie-xiie siècles), in: J. Bonnéric (ed.), Histoire et anthropologie des odeurs en terre d’Islam à l’ époque médiévale, Bulletin d’études orientales 64, Beirut, 135-58. Lev, Y. 2012. A Mediterranean encounter: The Fatimids and Europe, tenth to twelfth centuries, in: R. Gertwagen and E. Jeffreys (eds.), Shipping, Trade and Crusade in the medieval Mediterranean, Studies in Honor of John Pryor, Surrey, 131-56. Maigret, A. de 1997. The frankincense road from Nājrān to Maʿān: A hypothetical itinerary, in: A. Avanzini (ed.), Profumi d’Arabia, Rome, 315-32. McHugh, J. 2013. Blattes de Byzance in India: Mollusk Opercula and the history of perfumery, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 23, 53-67. Pradines, S. 2010. Gedi, une cité portuaire swahilie: Islam médiéval en Afrique orientale, fifao 60, Cairo. Regert, M., M. Salque, T. Devièse and A.-S. Le Hô 2015. Les résines végétales de type copal et encens: Caractérisation, exploitation et circuits commerciaux, in: A. Rougeulle (ed.), Sharma: Un entrepôt du commerce médiéval sur la côte du Haḍramawt (Yémen, ca. 980-1180), British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs 17, Oxford, 395-416. Renterghem, V. van 2018. Siraf d’après les sources arabes et persanes, in: C. Hardy-Guilbert, H. Renel, A. Rougeulle and E. Vallet, Sur les chemins d’Onagre: Histoire et archéologie orientales: Hommage à Monik Kervran, Oxford, 221-33.

86

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

Rougeulle, A. (ed.) 2015. Sharma: Un entrepôt du commerce médiéval sur la côte du Haḍramawt (Yémen, ca. 980-1180), British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs 17, Oxford. Schafer E.H. 1963. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. A study of T‘ang Exotics, Berkeley. Thulin, M. and A.M. Warfa. 1987. The frankincense trees (Boswellia spp., Burseraceae) of northern Somalia and southern Arabia, Kew Bulletin 42, 487-500. Vallet, E. 2010. L’Arabie marchande: État et commerce sous les sultans Rasūlides du Yémen (628-858/1229-1454), Bibliothèque historique des pays d’Islam I, Paris. Veen, M. van der 2003. When is Food a Luxury?, World Archaeology 34, 405-27. Whitehouse, D. 1969. Excavations at Siraf: Second interim report, Iran 7, 39-62. Whitehouse, D. 2009. Siraf I: History, Topography and Environment, the British Institute of Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs Series i, Oxford. Yu, N., Y. Song, Y.M. Yang, Q.L. Ma and C.S. Wang 2012. Study on the glasswares discovered in the underground palace of the Da Bao En Temple in the North Song Dynasty (AD 960-AD 1127) in Nanjing, China, Science China Technological Sciences 55, 2006-12. Zhou, L., D. Shen, J. He, Y. Wei, Q.L. Ma and Z. Hu 2012. Multispectroscopic studies for the identification of archaeological frankincense excavated in the underground palace of Bao’en Temple, Nanjing: Near infrared, midinfrared, and Raman spectroscopies, Journal of Raman Spectrometry 43, 1504-09.

87

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 1 – Map showing the distribution area of the substances used as incense and the sites that have yielded resins between the 8th and the 12th century AD (S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

88

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

fig. 2 – A modern clay incense burner from Dhofar with incised and painted decoration (Sultanate of Oman) (Photo: S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

fig. 3 – Two square incense burners made of clay with four legs and incised decoration. Left: Madurah (Yemen), 9th century AD, Museum of Say’ūn. Right: Sūsā (Iran), 9th-13th century AD, Paris, Musée du Louvre (MAO S. 1452) (Photos: S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

89

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 4 – Map of the softstone outcrops (after David-Cuny and Azpeita 2012, 19).

90

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

fig. 5 – Softstone circular incense-burner with four legs. Sūsā (Iran), 9th-10th century AD. Paris, Musée du Louvre (MAO S. 628) (Photo: S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

91

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 6 – Cast bronze incense burner with domed cover. Incised and pierced decoration. Iran, 8th-9th century AD. New-York, Metropolitan Museum (1976.102) (public domain).

92

l e m agu e r- g i l l on – e lus i v e r e m a i ns

fig. 7 – Cast brass incense burner in shape of a bird. Engraved and pierced decoration. Iran, 12th century AD. New-York, Metropolitan Museum (1972.87) (public domain).

93

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 8 – Two pottery incense burners from al-Shihr. Up: Upper part of a square incense burner (shr02 2899.1) belonging to type c3, 9th-11th century AD. Bottom: square incense burner with four legs and a handle (shr99 2331.I) belonging to type c4, 11th century AD (Hardy-Guilbert and Le Maguer 2010, figs. 2/3 and 3/8).

fig. 9 – Two softstone incense burners from Sīrāf. Left: Square incense burner with incised decoration, 9th-11th century (2007-60-01, 10286, British Museum). Right: Circular incense burner with four legs and a handle with incised decorations, 9th-11th century AD (2007-6001, 10362, British Museum) (Drawing: S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

94

*

*

*

Chinese ceramic exports to Africa during the 9th-10th centuries: Product characteristics, scale and temporal variations Dashu Qin & Justin Ching Ho

* i n t roduct ion China is a nation with a long coastline, although it was hardly a maritime nation. For a long period in history, the sporadic seafaring activities were not trade-oriented but instead mostly for diplomatic missions or religious pilgrimages to bring back Buddhist sutras from overseas. During that time, maritime trade had a limited effect on the country’s economy. Archaeological records have shown that Chinese ceramics dating earlier than the 8th century were found in Southeast Asia but only in very small quantities. The majority of these ceramics were Yue wares of China’s southern coastal region.1 They are interpreted as tributary goods and/or personal belongings of emissaries, travellers or sutra collectors. The large-scale export of Chinese ceramics signifies the rise of maritime trade from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean region, starting around the second half of the 8th century to the early 9th century. This was also the start of China joining the maritime trade system, in China’s foreign interaction, from the land Silk Road to the maritime trade routes. Maritime trade reached its first peak during the 9th and 10th centuries, when Chinese export ceramics had already reached East Africa and even regions of southern Africa, and became an essential part of globalisation, with considerable scope.2 This East African terminus in Chinese ceramic trade remained unchanged for many centuries until the early 15th century, when the maritime voyages of Admiral Zheng He (1371-1433) led to new breakthroughs.3 The emergence, scale and periodic changes in the maritime interaction between China and Africa and the West Indian Ocean region in the 9th to 10th centuries Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 95-128

©

FHG 95

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128668

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

have recently drawn much interest in academia. However, the topic has not yet been systematically investigated. Since the beginning of the 20th century, excavations of numerous ancient sites along the coastlines of the West Indian Ocean have uncovered Chinese export ceramics of the 9th to 10th centuries, spanning the late Tang Dynasty, Five Dynasties and the early Northern Song Dynasty. Some scholars have grouped the Chinese ceramics of that period found in East Asia, Southeast Asia, West Asia, the Middle East and East Africa into four major types.4 Labelled as the ‘Four Groups’, they include Changsha wares from Hunan, Yue green glazed wares from Zhejiang, Guangdong green glazed wares, and Xing Kiln White Porcelain from northern China. Recent archaeological research and shipwreck discoveries, however, show that the 9th to 10th centuries should not be considered as a single phase for Chinese export ceramics. There were continual variations in scope, characteristics and ceramic types. Furthermore, the export wares during these two centuries were also more complex than the ‘Four Groups’ (mentioned above). This paper will first examine ancient Chinese texts from the second half of the 8th to 9th centuries and will argue that China already possessed a preliminary knowledge of Africa and of sailing routes, which in turn suggests the possibility of earlier trade between both regions. Subsequently, based on excavated material in Africa, 9th- to 10th-century Chinese ceramics found there will be examined by category and quantity. These investigations will form the basis of discussion on the variations in scope, characteristics and periodic changes of Chinese ceramics in the maritime trade of that era. It is our aim to show that the export trends can also be connected to political developments within China.5 h istor ic a l docu m e n ts on ch i na’s ce r a m ic e x port to A f r ic a The earliest Chinese ceramics discovered in Africa were from the first half of the 9th century, slightly later than those found in the Tigris-Euphrates river region of West Asia. Concomitant with the archaeological finds, literary records of the period also documented the interactions between Tang Dynasty China and foreign lands. These include both official and private communications, and navigation routes, all of which were recorded in considerable detail. Scholars have researched the sources of Sino-foreign interaction for a long time. Back in the late 1940s, the Dutch scholar Jan J.L. Duyvendak had already conducted detailed investigations of the literature.6 Further research progress has been made in recent years, and three ancient Chinese text collections are considered the most important sources related to Sino-African interaction. They comprise texts written by the geographer Jia Dan, the traveller Du Huan and the poet and writer Duan Chengshi.

96

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

Routes according to Jia Dan – Jia Dan (730-805) was a renowned geographer during the Tang Dynasty. He was an appointed feudal provincial of Fenzhou and Liangzhou, a military commissioner of Shannan, the Chamberlain for Dependencies and the prime minister during the late Tang Dynasty in 793. Jia Dan was an avid reader throughout his life. He was interested in geography, and had personally surveyed Guanzhong, Shannan and other regions. While serving the Tang Court, he had accumulated different kinds of topographical data from ethnic minorities, foreign emissaries and Tang Dynasty envoys, through his occupational advantage. According to ‘Art and Literature’ of the New History of the Tang Dynasty, vol. 58, he wrote many geographic treatises on geography and drew a number of maps.7 His works represent the contemporary level of geographic science, as well as reflecting the maritime traffic at the time. Among his works, the Huanghua Sida Ji (‘Routes Leading Abroad from China’) was the most important, documenting the routes to other countries during the late Tang Dynasty. The work itself is now lost, but the part documenting the routes is preserved in ‘Geography’ of the New History of the Tang Dynasty, vol. 43. Jia Dan recorded seven routes from the Tang Dynasty border,8 five of which are land routes linking Tang Dynasty China with foreign regions. The other two are the sea-routes ‘Dengzhou to the Koryo and Bohai Kingdoms’ and ‘Guangzhou to Foreign Countries’ and provide the most important information that depicted the maritime traffic of the Tang Dynasty. In another text, ‘Route from Guangzhou to Overseas Countries’, Jia Dan records the two specific routes and nautical times from Guangzhou to Baghdad. The first one is the ‘East Coast Route’, which portrays the route from Guangzhou to Bagdad via the Persian Gulf. The route can be divided into three sections. The first section is from Guangzhou to Jugang, the capital of the Srivijaya Kingdom, east of Sumatra Island of the Strait of Malacca. This route is recorded in detail, with the direction, distance and travel time to each destination estimated at half a day or two to three days (Fig. 1). The second section is from Sumatra Island to the Heling (Kalingga) Kingdom on the middle of Java Island. At the time, when the Huanghua Sida Ji was recorded, the Heling Kingdom was the most important place for Chinese export trade. Consequently, this section was the busiest route during that period, and many 9th to 10th century shipwrecks were discovered in the Java Sea region. The third section of that route is from Sumatra Island, through the Strait of Malacca, Sri Lanka, alongside the west coast of the Indian subcontinent to the Ubulla Kingdom (east of Basra, Iraq) of the Persian Gulf. From there, presumably by switching to a smaller boat, one sailed against the current of the Euphrates River, passing Moluo (present-day Basra), after which one finally reached Fuda (present-day Baghdad, Iraq), capital of the Maomen Kingdom (‘Arab Empire’). The travel time from

97

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Malacca to the Persian Gulf, was much longer than the first section, yet the account is very vague, with the location time and nautical distance off by ten or twenty days, along with unclear location records. In summary, it is quite clear that the voyage from Guangzhou to Baghdad required a total of 87 days (Fig. 2).9 The second route recorded by Jia Dan was known as the ‘West Coast Route’. It was the path from the East African coast to the coastal regions of the Persian Gulf – starting from the southern Samran Kingdom along Africa’s eastern coast to the Arabian Peninsula, then travelling along the peninsula’s eastern coast to enter the Persian Gulf and finally joining up with the ‘East Coast Route’ in the Wula Kingdom (Fig. 3). There is still much debate regarding the exact location of the Samran Kingdom.10 Jia Dan describes the route sequence as starting from the south to north, and requiring 48 days. Hence, the likelihood of Samran to be located in eastern Africa is very high. Archaeological discoveries of Tang Dynasty remains suggest that Kilwa Island off Tanzania, or the Lamu Archipelago of Kenya, are the most probable locations.11 Africa according to Du Huan – It is generally believed that the first Chinese traveller to visit Egypt and record his travels was Du Huan of the Tang Dynasty – nephew of the renowned author Du You (735-812). In ‘Border Defense’ of Tong dian (‘Comprehensive Institutions’), Du You mentions that ‘Du Huan followed the Zhenxi military commissioner Gao Xianzhi to the west,12 reached the West Sea in 751, returned from Guangzhou by merchant ship in 762, and wrote his travel notes’. This is the only record about Du Huan. During his decade abroad, he travelled to many places in the Middle East and Africa. Upon his return, Du Huan wrote Jing xing ji (‘Travel Notes’). The original book was lost but around fifteen hundred words of it were quoted in Tong dian and other works have been preserved. Du Huan’s Jing xing ji records significant information about Africa, especially on East Africa. He writes that, ‘The Fulin Kingdom was also called Da Qin [an ancient Chinese name of the Roman Empire and the Near East Region], across the mountains located miles away to the west of the Shan Kingdom. The Nü Kingdom was also said to be in the west, with women impregnated by water and giving birth. Molin Kingdom was in the southwest of Qiusaluo Kingdom, two thousand Lis [500 m] past the north desert. Their people had dark skin, their customs were rough. The kingdom was lacking in of rice and wheat, and had no grass and wood. Horses ate dried fish. People ate dates similar to Persian dates and miasma was rampant’.13

98

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

Similar accounts could be found in ‘West Regions’ of the Xin Tang shu (‘New History of the Tang Dynasty’), vol. 221.14 The location of the ‘Molin Kingdom’ is under debate. Duyvendak suggests that according to the New History of the Tang Dynasty, ‘Molin’ is ‘Malindi’.15 However, a large-scale excavation conducted from 2010 to 2013 by the Peking University Archaeology Team at Malindi Old Town and at Mambrui (Kenya) proved that the region cannot be identified as ‘Molin Kingdom’ mentioned in Jing xing ji. Instead, the Molin Kingdom is likely to be located within modern-day Somalia.16 African nations according to Duan Chengshi – Duan Chengshi’s (803?-863) Youyang zazu (‘Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang’) was the most comprehensive source of Africa during the Tang Dynasty. In his work, Duan notes African nations included ‘Xiaoyi’ (Siut, south of Egypt), ‘Rengjian’ (Utica, the ancient coastal city north of Tunis), ‘Xida’ (unknown, possibly referring to Sudan), ‘Dagan’ (Dakhel Oasis, a sand island of the Sahara Desert), ‘Wusili’ (Misr, Egypt) and many other places.17 The Indian Ocean trade in the texts – From the late 8th- to 9th-century ancient Chinese sources, it is known that China had a certain understanding of Africa, and possibly developed trade through indirect channels. Maritime trade during that time mainly relied on monsoons for navigation, requiring two years to travel from China to Baghdad and back. One can assume this duration was too long for a merchant, hence most merchant ships did not complete the entire route. In other words, Arabic merchant ships did not sail directly to China, and Chinese merchant ships rarely sailed to the Persian Gulf. From the 9th to 10th century onwards, three trade circles can be defined between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. The first trade circle was from the coastal ports of China to the Strait of Malacca and into Java; the second trade circle was from the Strait of Malacca to the Persian Gulf; and the third was from the Persian Gulf to the coastal areas of East Africa. The two important junction points in these trade circles were likely the areas controlled by the Srivijaya Kingdom of Sumatra Island (Indonesia) and areas centering around Sīrāf (Fig. 4). This demonstrates that the mode of maritime trade during that period was through a relay network of intermediary ports, also known as entrepôts.18 Direct nautical routes from China to Baghdad were either non-existent or a rare occurrence. It can therefore be determined that the Chinese still had to develop direct trade between China to Africa or the Persian Gulf, with Chinese rarely arriving at Africa. Hence, Du Huan would collectively refer to the African places he visited as ‘Da Qin’, which was the name of the Roman Empire. The merchants active in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea during that time were mostly Persian and Arabic traders.

99

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The above ancient texts demonstrate that China was already using indirect methods to understand Africa. Furthermore, trade from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean could be divided into three trade circles. The maritime trade the Chinese directly participated in probably contained the first and second sections of the ‘East Coast Route’, and trade activities in the Indian Ocean region were conducted by Persian and Arab merchants. t y pes of 9t h to 10t h ce n t u ry ch i n ese ce r a m ics fou n d i n A f r ic a The 9th-to 10th-century Chinese ceramics found in Africa are of the following types: Changsha wares, Yue green glazed wares, Guangdong green glazed wares and White Porcelain of northern China. Generally, these four types are similar to the ‘Four Groups’ mentioned by previous scholars but as time progressed, changes can be seen in the status and number of different ceramic types, indicating that they cannot be viewed as homogeneous. Changsha Wares – The Changsha Kiln site was located in the city of Changsha, Wancheng district. It is situated next to the Shizhu lake of the town of Dingzhi, at the edge of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River – the Xiang River in Hunan Province. The ceramics produced here were known as Changsha Wares. The site has been excavated numerous times. The latest research results show that the Changsha Kiln’s firing period started from the late 8th century to the early 10th century. While production ceased for a couple of decades in the late 9th century, the kiln prospered mainly in the 9th century.19 The ceramics produced on site are known as Changsha Wares. The main product was a green glazed ware, with copper-green and iron-brown painted motifs and moulded appliqué floral decorations (Fig. 5). The Changsha Wares were designated mainly for export. On the one hand, they were frequently found overseas and in important Chinese trade ports, and on the other hand, they are sparse within Chinese sites. Many vessels had West Asian cultural styles, leading some scholars to believe that the Persian-Arab merchants living in Guangzhou had gone to the Changsha Kiln to place orders.20 Such goods were likely exported toward West Asia and Africa. However, based on current archaeological findings, a substantial amount of Changsha Wares are found in East Asia (Japan) as well as on many locations in Southeast Asia, indicating they were not specifically made for Islamic areas. In Africa, Changsha wares have been found at the following sites so far: Fustāt (Egypt), Manda, Shanga (Kenya) and Unguja Ukuu (Tanzania). A different picture

100

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

emerges, on the other hand, both from Sīrāf (Iran) and a number of shipwrecks discovered in the Indian Ocean. From 1912 to the 1990s, archaeology teams from Egypt, the United States, France, Japan and other countries had conducted long-term, large-scale excavations in Fustāt. These delegations have discovered large quantities of Chinese wares, numbering over twenty thousand sherds.21 From 1964 to 1978, the American Research Center in Egypt (arce) formed a team with George T. Scanlon of The American University in Cairo in charge of an eight-year excavation.22 In 1973, Bo Gyllensvärd processed the ceramic material excavated by arce. However, due to errors made by Scanlon in dating the layers, only a small portion of relevant ceramics (Yue Wares of the 10th to 11th centuries) were included.23 Research conducted by Japanese scholars from the 1960s to the first decade of the 21st century on the assemblage of 700,000 ceramic sherds from Ali Bahgat’s excavation (1912-1920) yielded 12,736 Chinese ceramics. Out of this significant number, only 10 sherds could be identified as Changsha painted bowl sherds (Fig. 6).24 Two major sites were excavated in Kenya and yielded Chinese ceramics. The first, the Manda site, is located at the north of Manda Island, Lamu Archipelago, on the northern coast of Kenya. Excavated in 1966, 250,000 ceramic sherds were found, twenty of which were Changsha Wares.25 The second site is Shanga, about 20 km away, southwest of Pated Island of the Lamu Archipelago. From 1980 to 1988, Mark Horton of Cambridge University conducted six excavations at the site, detailing its layout, time period and characteristics. These excavation results were published in 1981 and 1996 as excavation final reports (in 1981 and 1986), enabling fellow archaeologists and scholars to understand the general outlook of the site. Horton dates the site from 760 to 1425, and further divided it into eleven time periods. Based on the large quantity of imported pottery and ceramic remains found, it can be said that Sino-African trade had reached a small peak in Periods 2 to 3 (780 to 920). The artefact remains of the Shanga site were abundant, with more than 200,000 pottery and ceramic sherds. Among them, more than 90 percent were of local pottery with sherds of bowls and jars, and only 389 sherds of Chinese ceramics. Of these, more than 30 Changsha brown and green bowl sherds with brown and green paint were found.26 From 2010 to 2013, the Peking University Archaeology Team conducted an in-depth investigation on these Chinese ceramics. As considerable time had passed from the excavation, some of the sherds had since been lost, leaving 335 specimens for the new investigation. From these, nineteen are 9th to 10th century Changsha Ware sherds, seventeen belong to the late Tang Dynasty period (the 9th century), and two are from the Five Dynasties period (the early 10th century) (Fig. 7).27

101

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The site Unguja Ukuu is situated on the southwest coast of Tanzania, Zanzibar Island. Excavations were conducted in 1984, and showed that the site was active during the 9th-11th centuries. A large amount of ceramics was unearthed at the site, 5 percent of which were Chinese. A few sherds of Changsha Ware bowls with brown paintings were found on the surface.28 In summary, Changsha Wares were rarely found at African sites, mainly discovered at the more developed sites in northern Africa (such as Fustāt), and in coastal areas of East Africa. Even in the whole West Indian Ocean region, only around thirty sites were discovered with limited amounts of Changsha Wares (Table 1).29 The Sīrāf site in Iran had the most finds. The British archaeologist David Whitehouse conducted large-scale excavations at the site from 1966 to 1973, while he was still a Fellow in Near Eastern Archaeology at Oxford University. In his excavations, around 800 sherds of Far Eastern ceramics were found, of which 232 were Changsha wares.30 Notably, Sīrāf was the terminus of the ‘Route from Guangzhou to Overseas Countries’ mentioned in the Huanghua Sida Ji and was the most important trading port of the Persian Gulf prior to the serious earthquake of 990 AD. Although the number of sherds from Sīrāf was clearly higher than on other sites, it was still limited. Such a phenomenon is confusing, as the number of 9th-century Changsha Wares found in Africa and the West Indian Ocean region is smaller by far from those found in shipwrecks of the Southeast Asian waters. The Belitung Shipwreck (sunk around 826) which was found in the Java Sea, yielded 67,000 artefacts, more than 56,500 of which were Changsha Wares (Fig. 8).31 This ship was believed to have sailed towards Oman from Java.32 Another example is the 9th century Châu Tân Shipwreck found at Quang Ngai, Vietnam. Found in 2009, a large number of Changsha Wares were discovered.33 The huge quantity of Changsha Wares recovered from shipwrecks like these sharply contrasts with those found at ancient sites in the West Indian Ocean region, with the notion of 9th-century Changsha Wares largely shipped to the West Indian Ocean region becoming a paradox. The reasons behind this gap require further investigation and discussion. Yue Green Glazed Wares – The Yue Kilns are located in the eastern region of Zhejiang Province, close to the port of Mingzhou (today’s Ningbo city). This was a very important ceramic production area – China’s earliest mature green glazed stoneware was produced in this kiln during the 1st century. Henceforth, its production techniques were leading all across China. The Yue Kilns reached their second period of prosperity in the 9th century, when the Shanglin Lake area became the production centre of Yue Wares for the whole country. In the mid 9th century, the Yue Kilns began to manufacture Mi-se (‘secret colour’) wares, which later became imperial products, exclusively

102

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

for the use of the royal court. The Yue Kilns had reached their peak during the mid to late 10th century. The predominant products were pure green glazed wares, decorated with incised and carved patterns. The Yue Wares found at the Cirebon Shipwreck are typical representations of this period (Fig. 9). The prosperity of the Yue Kilns had a major connection with large-scale export activities during this time.34 The number of ancient sites in Africa where Yue Wares were found is slightly higher than those with Changsha Wares. However, the amount of Yue Ware sherds which were excavated on each site was still limited, most of them dating from the 10th to the mid 11th century. The largest assemblage of Yue Wares was found at Fustāt. Among the 12,736 pieces of Chinese ceramic sherds investigated by Japanese scholars, 941 pieces were Yue Wares (Fig. 10). In comparison to the ten pieces of Changsha Wares, Chinese ceramics increased tremendously. The unearthed Yue Wares date from the 10th to the first half of the 11th centuries. Among the 335 pieces of Chinese ceramic sherds found at the Shanga site surveyed by the Peking University Archaeology Team, 40 pieces were Yue Wares. Among them, three belong to the 9th century and seventeen to the 10th century (Fig. 11). The other twenty sherds are dated to the first half of the 11th century. Similarly, Yue Wares were found at the Manda site, although limited in number, with less than five sherds. Evidently, African sites which yielded Yue Wares doubled those with Changsha Wares. This was similarly the case at the sites of the West Indian Ocean (Table 2). Moreover, the number of Yue Ware sherds found on each site is higher than that of Changsha Wares. The Fustāt site of Egypt in particular had a total discovery of 941 sherds. These Yue Wares date to the 10th to the first half of the 11th century. Guangdong Green-glazed Wares – Unlike the Yue Wares in Zhejiang Province, which started being produced in the 1st century, the ceramic industry in Guangdong was a relatively late development, starting only in the mid 8th to 9th century.35 The initiation of the production and the rapid growth can be attested to the development of maritime trade. Most of the green-glazed vessels from Guangdong were different types of storage jars. As none of the 9th- to 10th-century Chinese storage jars excavated in Africa is unbroken, there was great difficulty in identification and confirmation. We can nevertheless refer to the complete storage jars of the Belitung shipwreck (Fig. 12a, 12b) and the Cirebon Shipwreck (Fig. 12c) as useful references. From these case studies, it is believed that some of the green-glazed sherds found at Fustāt, Egypt were Guangdong Green Glazed Wares (Fig. 12d), and some of them were storage jars. During their survey at the Shanga site, The Peking University Archaeology Team also found some 9th- to 10th-century Guangdong storage jar sherds (Fig. 12e).

103

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

White Porcelain of northern China – The 9th- to 10th-century White Porcelain export ware was produced at several kiln sites in the northern Chinese region. The large quantity of green-splashed white wares recovered from the Belitung Shipwreck were likely made in the Gongxian Kilns of Henan Province. However, White Porcelain of that period found in Africa originated from the Ding Kiln as well as from the Xing Kiln (both in Hebei Province) and Fanchang Kiln (in Anhui Province). There was also Xing Kiln White Porcelain found at Africa. Originally, it was suggested that products from the Xing Kiln had dominated White Porcelain exports to the West Indian Ocean. Recent excavations at the kiln site have revealed that the production of Xing Wares reached its peak from the second half of the 8th to the first half of the 9th century, and its significance was gradually replaced by Ding Kilns. Therefore, most of the White Porcelain found in Africa were likely Ding Wares. Indeed, of the 139 White Porcelain sherds found at Fustāt (Fig. 13),36 most were Ding Wares, with 72 plain White Porcelain applied with lustre painting (Fig. 14:1). Some of these products were likely transported from Egypt to southern Europe across the Mediterranean, for example to the palace of Alcazaba de Almería, where Ding Luster Ware was discovered (Fig. 14:2).37 In addition, shipwreck data revealed that from the mid 10th century onwards, northern Chinese White Porcelain was replaced by the Fanchang Wares of Anhui beside the Yangtze River in southern China. One single sherd from a Fanchang Kiln White Porcelain bowl was unearthed at Manda (Fig. 15). In summary, the 9th-to 10th-century Chinese export ceramics in Africa were mainly concentrated in port sites as well as in important trade centres such as Fustāt and Sīrāf. In the coastal regions of Kenya, surveys were conducted on Chinese ceramics unearthed from a total of 37 archaeological sites. The 9th-century Chinese ceramics were mostly found in the Lamu Archipelago region while mainland sites barely had any. The 10th-century ceramics were found at sites in coastal areas such as Mambrui and the Gedi Ruins, where limited quantities of Yue Wares were unearthed. ch a nges i n t h e va r i et i es a n d sc a l e of ch i n ese ce r a m ics e x port e d to a f r ic a i n t h e 9t h to 10t h ce n t u r i es Based on the 9th- to 10th-century Chinese ceramics found in the African and West Indian Ocean regions, the ‘Four Groups’ categorisation of ceramics in this period mentioned by previous scholars was basically correct. However, the main export products changed as time progressed. Among the export ceramic wares mentioned, the most important types are Changsha Wares and Yue Wares. It is evident that the main export cargoes of ceramics changed during the 9th to the 10th century. Changes in

104

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

export variety are visible through the study of cargoes recently recovered from several excavated shipwrecks. In 1998, a Tang Dynasty shipwreck was discovered off the coast of Belitung Island in the Java Sea, Indonesia. Over 67,000 pieces of artefacts were discovered. This was the largest discovery of Tang Dynasty ceramics found overseas, providing complete and comprehensive information about the structure of a maritime ship and also the detail of its cargo. According to the date incised on a Changsha bowl, the wreck dated to the second year of Baoli’s reign (826) in the Tang Dynasty.38 Among the 67,000 excavated artefacts, more than 84 percent were Changsha Wares (56,500),39 along with more than 800 pieces of northern White Porcelain and only 200 pieces of Yue Wares (only 0.2 percent). In 1997, the Intan Shipwreck was discovered near the Intan sea bed oil field, 150 km north of Jakarta. Based on the inscriptions on silver ingots and other data recovered from the wreck, the excavation report suggested that the ship was dated between 918 and 960, or possibly a few years later.40 The number of officially documented ceramics from the excavation was 7,309. Among them, 4,855 pieces (66.4 percent) are a type of crude small yellowish-green glazed jar (including one type with four lugs) produced in Guangdong. Other types include Yue Wares, a small amount of Fanchang White Porcelain, fine pottery from Southeast Asia and pottery from the Middle East.41 The proportion of Yue Wares is 20 percent to 30 percent, whereas no Changsha Wares were found. In other words, the proportion of Yue Wares in the Intan Shipwreck is relatively high. According to research done by Flecker, Yue Wares were mainly used by the upper class. The small jars made in Guangdong were mainly used by the upper-middle class.42 From 2003 to 2005, the Cirebon Shipwreck was discovered and salvaged 100 nautical miles off the north coast of Java at a depth of 54 m. The total number of artefacts recovered exceeded 490,000 pieces.43 Some of the most important artefacts were Chinese cultural relics, which included around 350,000 pieces of ceramics, mostly Yue Wares numbering over 300,000. According to the underglaze inscription on a Yue Ware bowl, the ship was believed to have sunk just after 968. Yue Wares were the most important cargo onboard, completely replacing Changsha Wares as well as Guangdong Green Glazed Wares. Following this evidence, and the distribution of ceramic types on African sites, it is evident that Changsha Wares were the most important export wares in the 9th century, whereas Yue Wares became predominant in the 10th century. This is further verified by the fact that there were only ten pieces of Changsha Ware of the 9th century from Fustāt, in contrast to 941 unearthed pieces of Yue Ware of the 10th to mid 11th century.

105

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Changes in White Porcelain exports to Africa also became more apparent. In the first half of the 9th century, White Porcelain of the Xing Kiln and Gongxian Kiln were the main export products. From the fourth quarter of the 9th century to the first half of the 10th century, Ding Ware White Porcelain was mainly exported. In the second half of the 10th century, the Fanchang Kilns, located in Anhui Province beside the Yangtze River, were exporting white glazed wares (Figs. 16:1-3). By the 11th century, some Guangdong Xicun Kiln White Porcelain objects were also found in Fustāt and in other parts of Africa (Fig. 16:4). The transformation in export products can be generally attributed to Chinese domestic political events and trends which have led to the rise and decline of ceramic kilns and of export trading ports. In the fourth quarter of the 9th century, the Huangchao Rebellion (875-884) disrupted the administrative system in the Hunan district, plunging Hunan into chaos and causing the Changsha Kilns to cease production for a few decades. During the early Five Dynasties period, the Changsha Kilns resumed production for a while. However, the Chu Kingdom that ruled Hunan was hostile to the Kingdoms of Wu and Southern Tang, both of which controlled the lower branch of the Yangtze River. The Changsha Kilns hence lost access to its outward transportation channel – the Yangzhou port situated at the mouth of the Yangtze River. The port of Yangzhou had always been an important port for the export of Changsha Wares in the 9th century. From the 10th century, Changsha Wares were no longer exported and the kiln quickly declined. From the Five Dynasties period to the early Northern Song Dynasty, the production standard and scale of the Yue Kilns grew rapidly. At the same time, the port of Mingzhou (Ningbo) also developed steadily during the 10th century, and eventually became the most important port for nearby and distant ocean trade. Close to Ningbo, the number of kilns around Dongqian Lake reached more than twenty sites. Their production attained a period of prosperity, exporting many products which resulted in Yue green glazed wares becoming the leading export ceramic of the time. Similarly, in the 10th century, the decline of the Yangzhou port and hence its loss of access to the sea resulted in the decline of export of northern Chinese White Porcelain. White wares of the Anhui province Fanchang Kilns, located on the bank of the Yangtze River channel, had therefore substituted their northern Chinese counterparts, and were largely exported overseas in the second half of the 10th century. Furthermore, judging from the discovery of Changsha Wares and Yue Wares in the West Indian Ocean, the number of archaeological sites where 9th-century Changsha Wares were found is relatively small and were mostly concentrated in trading ports or important trade hubs. The number of sites with 10th-century Yue Wares had more

106

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

than doubled, extending from the Eastern African coast inland. The number of ceramics found also doubled. From what can be seen, China began its large-scale maritime trade from the end of the 8th century, especially after long-distance trade, the 9th century was then a period of maritime trade development and a peak was reached in the second half of the 10th century. In 990, the Kingdom of Srivijaya in Sumatra was engaged in a long, drawn-out war with the Mataram Kingdom of Java and the Chola Kingdom of India, which blocked the Strait of Malacca – the vital passage connecting the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. As a result, Chinese ceramics found in the Indian Ocean region decreased dramatically, signifying the decline of trade between China and the West Indian region. It was not until the first half of the 13th century that a new stage of development began but the export of ceramics then had completely changed.44 Some Chinese ceramics from the second half of the 11th century to the 12th century were found on the Fustāt site of Egypt and the coastal areas of Kenya. As the quantity was relatively small, they might have been transported by land through today’s Kra Canal to the Jeddah port on the west side of the Malay Peninsula, and then entered the Indian Ocean trade circle.45 conclusion Through the compilation and analyses of Chinese historical sources and ceramics of the 9th to 10th centuries, as well as incorporating the data of South China Sea shipwrecks, the following summaries are made. First, Chinese ceramics were exported by sea and by land during the second half of the 8th century. The sea route was to the Persian Gulf and Japan, while the land route was towards Central Asia and the Korean Peninsula. By the 9th century, trade locations had expanded to North and East Africa. This showed that China was beginning to integrate into the global trade network. Moreover, based on historical texts, both the Chinese court and more common folk were interested in, and had a good understanding of Africa. At the same time, Chinese goods reached Africa in the 9th century, and there were indications that African slaves and goods had arrived in China even earlier. Although trade between China and Africa was intermediary, their mutual knowledge and market needs led to the early interaction of both regions. Second, the first Chinese ceramics discovered in Africa were from North African trade hubs and East African island regions, dating back to the first half of the 9th century. The Chinese ceramic finds and sites of that period are very limited in number. The 10th century saw a rapid growth of finds and sites. The number of Chinese ceramics then becomes a few times higher than that of the 9th century. At the same

107

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

time, sites with such finds extend to southern Africa, in Madagascar and the Comoros Islands, as well as inland sites of East Africa. The export of Chinese ceramics reached its first peak in the 10th century but reached its trough during the 11th and 12th centuries. Finally, scholars long believed that Chinese ceramics of the 9th and 10th centuries belong to the ‘Four Groups’ – Changsha Wares, Yue Wares, Guangdong green glazed wares, and Xing Kiln White Porcelain. However, new archaeological discoveries and careful dating of these export ceramics have pointed out that there were changes in Chinese export ceramic varieties. The significant 9th century export products were the Changsha Wares of Hunan while the Yue Wares of Zhejiang dominated the 10th century. Regarding White Porcelain, exports started with the products of the Gongxian Kilns of Henan province to the Xing Wares of Hebei province, then replaced by Ding Wares and eventually concluded with products from the Fanchang Kilns in Anhui province. Such changes were related to the place of usage, to local preference, and to the rise and decline of major trade ports. Yet, the largest influence was related to changing circumstances in the condition of the production area. In summary, these factors led to the variation of Chinese ceramics seen in Sino-African trade throughout the 9th and 10th centuries.

108

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

ch i n ese glossa ry a

Guangzhou 广州

Anhui 安徽

Guanzhong 关中 Gudai nanhai diming huishi 古代南海地名汇释

b Baoli 宝历

h

Baochuan 宝船

Hai bo lai tian fang, si lu tong da shi 海舶来天

Bohai 渤海

方, 丝路通大食 Henan 河南

c

Heling (Kalingga) Kingdom 诃陵国

Changsha Wares or Changsha Kiln 长沙窑

Honglu Qing 鸿胪卿

Châu Tân Shipwreck 新州沉船

Huang Chao Rebellion 黄巢起义

Chu Kingdom 楚国

Huanghua Sida Ji 皇华四达记

Cixi 慈溪

Hunan 湖南

d

j

Da Qin 大秦

Jia Dan 贾耽

Dagan 怛干

Jing Xing Ji 经行记

Dashi 大食 Dengzhou 登州

l

Ding Wares or Ding Kilns 定窑

Li 里

Dongqian Lake 东钱湖

Liangzhou 梁州

Du Huan 杜环 Du You 杜佑

m

Duan Chengshi 段成式

Maomen 茂门 Mingzhou 明州

f

Mise 秘色

Fanchang Wares or Fanchang Kiln 繁昌窑

Molin Kingdom 摩邻国

Fang Nansheng 方南生

Moluo 末罗

Fenzhou 汾州 Fuda 缚达

n

Fulin Kingdom 拂菻国

Ningbo 宁波 Nü Kingdom 女国

g Gao Xianzhi 高仙芝

q

Gongxian Kilns 巩县窑

Qiusaluo Kingdom 秋萨罗国

Guangdong 广东

Quang Ngai 广义

109

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

r

x

Rengjian 仍建

Xiangjiang River 湘江 Xiaoyi 孝亿

s

Xicun Kiln 西村窑

Samran Kingdom 三兰国

Xida 悉怛

Shan Kingdom 苫国

Xin Tang Shu 新唐书

Shanglin Lake 上林湖

Xing Kiln 邢窑

Shangwu Yinshu Guan 馆商务印书馆

Xun 埙

Shannan 山南 Shi Tong 十通

y

Southern Tang Kingdom 南唐国

Yizhi Yu Baohu Yanjiu 遗址与保护研究 Youyang Zazu 酉阳杂俎

t

Yue Wares or Yue Kiln 越窑

Tianfang 天方 Tong Dian 通典

z Zhejiang guji chubanshe 浙江古籍出版

w

社

Wanyou Wenku 万有文库

Zhejiang 浙江

Wenwu 文物

Zheng He 郑和

Wu Kingdom 吴国

Zhonghua shuju 中华书局

Wula 乌剌

Zhongwai shidi kaozheng 中外史地考

Wusili 勿斯离

证

110

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a n

country

site

dates

1

Egypt

Fustāt

2

Kenya

Shanga

642-14th century 8th-early 15th century 9th–mid-11th century

3

Manda

4 5 6 7

Qatar Bahrain Yemen

8 9

Oman Iran

al-Na′man Jidd al-Hajj Al-Shihr Sharmah Sohar Nishapur

10

Minab

11 12 13 14

Bostaneh Tel Muveh Ziarat Shilau

15

Sīrāf

16

Tel-i Sabz

17 18 19 20 21 22

Bibi khatun Shah Abdullah Tel Moragh Sirjan Tell Zibid Susa

23

Pakistan

24 25

Banbhore Mansoura Rotto kot

26

Iraq

Samarra

27

Tanzania

Unguja Ukuu

28 Saudi Arabia 29 United Arab Emirates 30 Jordan

Dhahran Khatt Aqaba

Late 10th-late 12th century Early Islam 6th-11th century Mid-8th century Early Islam Early Islam Before 11th century Before 11th century Before 11th century Early Islam

archaeological changsha chinese research ware (sherds) ceramics 1912-1988 10 12736 1981-1992

>30

1966

25

1973-1974 1993-1999 1996-1998

1 1 1 1

1980-1986 1936-1939

>28 2 (+3?)

1969-1971

4

1969-1971 1969-1971 1969-1971 1969-1971

unknown 2 2 1

1966-1974

232

1933

1

1969-1971 1960 (one season) 1969-1971 1969-1971 early 20th century

unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 1

Early Islam Early Islam Umayyad and Abbasid periods Abbasid 1951, 1958-1965 period 738-1258AD (thirteen seasons) Abbasid 1980 period 836-10th 1910-1913 century 9th-mid 11th 1984, one additional century season 1969-1971 Umayyad?

389

>2380

>800

3-16 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 2 1

table 1 – Changsha Wares excavated at ancient sites in the Western Indian Ocean Region (D. Qin & J.C. Ho).

111

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on number of yue ware sherds

1-4

5-10

11-20

21-50

>50 941

unknown

site

country

Minab Tavuneh Gurzeh Neran Dayyir Bibi Khatoun Bushehr Ali Est Al-Shihr Soqotra Kiungamwini Gedi Kimimba Mpiji Unguja Ukuu Dembeni Mahilaka Mafruban Mambrui Kush Ayla Banbhore Ratto Kot Ruvan Ziarat Sīrāf Shanga Sohar Sharma Manda Sanje ya Kati Fustāt

Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Qatar Yemen Yemen Kenya Kenya Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Mayotte Madagascar Iran Kenya U.A.E. Jordan Pakistan Pakistan Iran Iran Iran Kenya Oman Yemen Kenya Tanzania Egypt

Sayhut Tumbe Pate Ras Mkumbuu Mtambwe Mkuu, Mwali Mdjini

Yemen Tanzania Kenya Tanzania

total number of ceramic sherds

number of chinese ceramic sherds

proportion proportion of chinese of yue wares ceramics in chinese ceramics

0.90%

16333

517 49

0.30%

1.1% 10.2-20.4%

around 200000

389

0.5-0.9% 0.12%

8.0%

35515

more than 1330

3.75%

1.6-3.7%

10500 around 700,000

126 12736

1.20% 1.82%

>39.7% 7.39%

Tanzania Comoros

table 2 – Archaeological sites in the Western Indian Ocean Region with excavated Yue Ware (D. Qin & J.C. Ho).

112

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

not es 1

Qin and Ren 2018, 96-111.

of Tanzania, and this theory is more widely

2

Qin 2013, 32-49.

accepted (see Cen 1945; Chen et al. 1986).

3

Scholars previously thought the furthest

The authors believe that due to Dar es

destination of Zheng He’s maritime

Salaam being established much later, the

voyages was Kenya and Tanzania of East

toponym of Samran probably refers to East

Africa (see Shen 2004, 96-110). However,

Africa’s island regions, such as the Lamu

recently some scholars believe the voyages

Archipelago of Kenya or Kilwa of Tanzania.

reached as far as southern Africa and even

11

Chittick 1974.

the Americas (see Menzies 2002). Yet,

12

Regarding the following of Gao Xianzhi,

this claim has not been widely recognised.

this was the renowned Battle of Talas in

While the notion of Zheng He reaching

751, where the Tang Dynasty’s Protectorate

the Americas remains controversial, it was

General to Pacify the West fought a battle

probable the fleet sailed to southern Africa,

with the Abbasid Caliphate and allies

hence regarded as a ‘possible breakthrough’.

of the Central Asian kingdoms, west of

4

Ma 1993, 87-94.; Guy 2001-2002, 17.

Congling (today’s Pamir Mountains), on

5

This paper is based on the lecture notes

the border of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan,

of Prof. Qin Dashu at the international

in the Taraz region. The Tang Dynasty

academic symposium ‘Long-Distance

army was defeated, losing more than

Trade in Early Medieval Landscapes’,

twenty thousand men, (see Wang 1992,

hosted at Universität Hamburg in

185). Du Huan was held captive in the

September 2019. Upon the invitation of

Middle East as a prisoner of war, and stayed there for ten years.

Prof. Joanita Vroom and Mrs. Hagit Nol for publication, further amendments and

13

Du You, 1041.

expansions were made.

14

Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, vol. 221, ‘West Regions’, 6261.

6

Duyvendak 1949.

7

Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, 1506.

15

Duyvendak 1949.

8

Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, vol. 43, ‘Dili

16

Qin and Ding 2018, 205-13.

Zhi’ (‘Geography’), 1146.

17

Duan Chengshi, vol. 4, ‘Anomalies of the

9

10

Borders’, 46.

In regards to the location names recorded in the Huanghua sida ji (‘Routes Leading

18

Qin and Xiang 2011, 307-336.

Abroad from China’), see Qin and Xiang

19

Li 2016, 2-23.

2011, 307-36.

20 Ma 1993, 87-94.

Some scholars believe that Samran is in

21

Idemitsu Museum, 1984; Qin 1998, 679-90.

today’s Yemen, formally known as Aden

22

Regarding the excavation conducted by the

(see Zhang 1987, 743-801). Other authors

American Research Center in Egypt, see

believe that it was located at Dar es Salaam

Scanlon 1985; Scanlon and Kubiak 1989.

113

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

36

Hsieh 2008, 121, fig. 22.

24 Tadanori 2008.

37

Ibid.

25

38

There is a green glazed brown painted bowl

23

Gyllensvärd 1973. Chittick 1984.

26 Horton et al. 1996, 243.

of Changsha Ware in the shipwreck. The

27

Qin 2013, 47-66.

under glazed inscription on the exterior

28

Horton and Clark 1985, 169. This report

of the bowl reads: ‘July 16th of the second

did not account for the number of

year of Baoli reign’. After comparing with

excavated Changsha Wares.

other archaeological materials, the date of

The table used here, listing the sites with

the cargo is roughly the same as this year

Changsha ceramics discovered, will be

(see Hsieh 2002, 1-60).

29

published in Zhao, forthcoming.

39

30

Tampoe 1989, 75; Petrie et al. 2009.

40 Flecker 2002, 101.

31

Hsieh 2002, 1-60; Krahl et al. 2010, 1-46.

41 Ibid, 121.

32

Flecker 2001, 335-54.

42 Flecker 2002, 101.

Hsieh 2002, 52.

33 Noriko et al. 2017, 106-22; Do 2016, 59-82.

43 Adi 2007, 151-54; Liebner 2014.

34 Qin and Ren 2018, 96-111.

44 Qin and Fan 2017, 141-86.

35

45 Xiang 2018, 76-84.

Huang 2007, 46-58.

114

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

bi bl iogr a ph y Agung, A. 2007. Documentation of the 10th century shipwreck salvage in the Sea of Cirebon, Palace Museum Journal 2007.6, 151-54. Cen, Z. 1945. Tang routes from the Persian Gulf bay head to Central Africa, The Eastern Miscellany 41, 46-51 (in Chinese), reprint in Zhongwai shidi kaozheng (‘Verification on Chinese and Foreign Historical Places’) 2, Beijing 1962, 401-14. Chen, J.F. Xie and J. Lu 1986. Gudai nanhai diming huishi (‘Annotation of Ancient Nanhai Place Names’), Beijing. Chittick, N. 1974. Kilwa: An Islamic Trading City on the Eastern Africa Coast, Nairobi. Chittick, N. 1984. Manda: Excavations at an Island Port on the Kenya Coast, Nairobi. Do, T.G. 2016. Diplomacy, trade and networks: Champa in the Asian commercial context (7th-10th centuries), Moussons 27, The Sea Beyond all Borders: The Link between Southeast Asian Countries, 59-82. Du You, Tong dian (‘Comprehensive Institutions’), 200 vols., Hangzhou 2000. Duan Chengshi, Youyang zazu (‘Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang’), edited by N. Fang, 30 vols., Beijing 1981. Duyvendak, J.J.L. 1949. China’s Discovery of Africa: Lectures Given at the University of London on January 22 and 23, 1947, London. Flecker, M. 2001. A ninth-century AD Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesia: First evidence for direct trade with China, World Archaeology 32, 335-54. Flecker, M. 2002. The Archaeological Excavation of the Tenth Century Intan Shipwreck, Java Sea, Indonesia, bar is 1047, Oxford. George, A. 2015. Direct sea trade between Early Islamic Iraq and Tang China: From the exchange of goods to the transmission of ideas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 25, 1-46. Guy, J. 2001-2002. Early Asian ceramic trade and the Belitung (‘Tang’) cargo, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 66, 13-27. Gyllensvärd, B. 1973. Recent finds of Chinese ceramics at Fostat. i, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 45, 91-171. Horton, M.C. and C.M. Clark 1985. Archaeological survey of Zanzibar, Azania 20, 167-71. Horton, M.C., H.W. Brown and N. Mudida 1996. Shanga: The Archaeology of a Muslim Trading Community on the Coast of East Africa, vol. xiv, Nairobi. Hsieh, M. 2002. A discussion of the Chinese ceramics recovered from the wreck of the Batu Hitam, Taida Journal of Art History 13, 1-60 (in Chinese). Hsieh, M. 2008. A brief discussion on jars with wedged lugs, in: idem (ed.), Notes on Ceramics, Taipei (in Chinese).

115

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Huang, H. 2007. A preliminary study of the ceramics of the Song-Yuan period unearthed from Hong Kong, Archaeology 6, 46-58 (in Chinese). Idemitsu Museum of Arts 1984. The Inter-Influence of Ceramic Art in East and West, Tokyo (in Japanese and English). Krahl, R., J. Guy, J. Raby and K. Wilson (eds.) 2010. Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington. Li, J. 2016. Introduction to Changsha Kiln, in: Beijing Art Museum (ed.), Compilation of Chinese Ancient Ceramics Kilns: Changsha Kiln, China, Beijing, 2-23 (in Chinese). Liebner, H.H. 2014. The Siren of Cirebon: A Tenth-Century Trading Vessel Lost in the Java Sea, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, 2014. Ma, W. 1993. Some Islamic elements in the decoration of Changsha Ware, Wenwu (‘Cultural Relics’) 5, 87-94 (in Chinese). Menzies, G. 2002. 1421: The Year China Discovered The World, London. Noriko, N., A. Toru, K. Jun, N. Takenori and T.L Lien 2017. Nishimura Masanari’s study of the earliest known shipwreck found in Vietnam, Asian Review of World Histories 5, 106-22. Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, Xin Tang shu (‘New History of the Tang Dynasty’), 225 vols., Beijing 1975. Petrie, C.A., D. Whitehouse, D.S. Whitcomb and T.J. Wilkinson 2009. Siraf: History, Topography and Environment, Oxford. Qin, D. 1998. Chinese ceramics discovered in the Fustat site of Egypt, in: Traditional Culture Center of Peking University, Peking University Centennial Cultural Studies, Archaeology Volume, Beijing, 679-90 (in Chinese). Qin, D. 2013a. China’s first ceramic export trade peak – focus on the volume and characteristics of ancient Chinese ceramics foreign trade in the 9th and 10th centuries, Palace Museum Journal 2013.5, 32-49 (in Chinese). Qin, D. 2013b. Archaeological investigations of Chinese ceramics excavated from Kenya, in: D. Qin and J. Yuan (eds.), Ancient Silk Trade Routes: Cross Cultural Exchange and Legacy in Southeast Asia, Singapore, 47-66 (in Chinese). Qin, D. and Y. Ding 2018 Mambrui and Malindi, in: S. Wynne-Jones and A. LaViolette (eds.), The Swahili World, Abingdon, 205-13. Qin, D. and J. Fan 2017. Study on the trade of the Yuan Dynasty Chinese ceramics and related issues about Sinan Shipwreck, National Museum of Korea Art Journal 92, 141-86. Qin, D. and L. Ren 2018. Yue Kiln green wares found in the early maritime trade period of the 9th-10th centuries and related issues, Yizhi yu baohu yanjiu (‘Research on Heritages and Preservation’) 2, 96-111

116

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

Qin, D. and K. Xiang 2011. Sri Vijaya as the entrepôt for Circum-Indian Ocean trade: Evidence from documentary record and materials from shipwreck of the 9th-10th centuries, Études Océan Indien 46-47, 307-36. Scanlon, G.T. 1985. Fustat Expedition: Final Report, vol. 1: Filters, Indiana. Scanlon, G.T. and W.B. Kubiak 1989. Fustat Expedition: Final Report, vol. 2: Fustat-C, Indiana. Shen, F. 2004. The Eastern African voyage of the Zheng He treasure fleet, Zhenghe yanjiu bainian lunwenji (‘Hundred Years of Research on Zheng He: A Selection of Essays’), Beijing, 96-110. Tadanori, Y. 2008. The Road of Blue and White: The East-West Cultural Exchange as seen on the Chinese Ceramics, Tokyo. Tampoe, M. 1989. Maritime Trade between China and the West: An Archaeological Study of the Ceramics from Siraf, Oxford. Wang, X. 1992. History of the Political Relationship between the Tang, Tibet and Arabic Empires, Beijing (in Chinese). Xiang, K. 2018. A view on 9th-10th century entrepôt phenomenon of Chinese ceramic trade – focusing on Southeast Asian regions, Southeast Culture 6, 76-84 (in Chinese). Zhang, G. 1987. Haibo lai tianfang, silu tong dashi (‘Ocean Vessel from Afar, Silk Road to Dashi’), in: Y. Zhou (ed.) History of Sino-Foreign Cultural Interactions, Zhengzhou, 743-801 (in Chinese). Zhao, B. forthcoming. Changsha Ware: A typical commodity of the maritime trade of Indian Ocean – South China Sea region in the 9th century, Wenwu (‘Cultural Relics’) (in Chinese).

117

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 1 – The first stage of the ‘East Coast Route’ (Guangzhou – Malacca Strait) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005ai [r00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division).

118

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

fig. 2 – The second stage of the the ‘East Coast Route’ (Malacca Strait – Persian Gulf ) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005ai [r00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division).

fig. 3 – The route of the ‘West Coast Route’ (East Africa – Persian Gulf ) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005ai [r00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division).

119

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 4 – Schematic diagram of three maritime trade circles from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean (H.H. Liebner).

120

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

1

5

2

3

6

4

7

fig. 5 – Changsha Wares of different shapes and decorations: 1 – Ewer with applied date palm and pagoda patterns, Belitung Shipwreck (Asian Civilizations Museum); 2 – Ewer with painted phoenix design (Hunan Provincial Museum Collection); 3 – Jar with painted cloud pattern (Hunan Provincial Museum Collection); 4 – Changsha painted kettle with an Arabic script, the site of Yangzhou City (Yanghzou Municipal Museum); 5 – Bowl with painted flower design, the site of Yangzhou City (Yangzhou Municipal Museum); 6 – Green glazed box, the Changsha Kiln site (Hunan Provincial Museum); 7 – A bird-shaped whistle (Xun), Belitung Shipwreck (Hunan Provincial Museum).

121

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 6 – Changsha Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt (Photo: Y. Tadanori).

fig. 7 – Changsha Ware sherds, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

122

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

fig. 8 – Changsha Wares, Belitung Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin). 1 – Changsha Ewers, statues and a Bird-shaped whistle (Xun) | 2 – Changsha Ewers in the storage room | 3 – Changsha Painted Bowls.

fig. 9 – An assortment of Yue Wares, Cirebon Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin).

123

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 10 – Yue Wares sherds, Fustāt, Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin). 1 – 9th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt; 2 – 10th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt; 3 – 10th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt; 4 – Yue Ware sherds dating back to the first half of the 11th century, Fustāt, Egypt.

fig. 11 – Yue Ware sherds, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

124

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

fig. 12 – Guangdong Green-glazed Jars 1 – A large Guangdong green-glazed jar, Belitung Shipwreck (Asian Cilizations Museum); 2 – Medium and small-size Guangdong green-glazed jars, Belitung Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin); 3 – Guangdong green-glazed jars, Cirebon Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin); 4 – Sherds of Guangdong green-glazed jars, Fustāt, Egypt, obverse and reverse views (Photo: Y. Tadanori); 5 – Sherds of Guangdong green-glazed jars, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

125

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 13 – 9th-/10th-century Ding Kiln White Porcelain, Fustāt, Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art Collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin).

126

qi n & ho – c h i n e se c e r a m ic e x p ort s to a f r ic a

fig. 14 – 10th-century Ding Ware sherds with lustre painting decoration (Photo: M. Xie). 1 – Ding Ware sherd, Fustāt, Egypt; 2 – Ding Ware sherds, Alcazaba de Almería, Spain.

fig. 15 – Fanchang Kiln White Porcelain bowl, Manda, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

127

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 16 – 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun Kiln White Porcelain sherds unearthed in Africa. 1-3 – 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun White Porcelain sherds, Fustāt Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art Collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin); 4 – 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun White Porcelain sherd with painted decoration, Malindi Old Town site, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

128

*

*

*

Maritime trade in Southeast Asia during the 9th-10th Centuries: A study of the Belitung and Cirebon Shipwrecks Guangcan Xin

* i n t roduct ion The Belitung and Cirebon Shipwrecks are 9th- and 10th-century merchant ships that sunk off the coast of Java, Indonesia.1 The two shipwrecks were found near each other and both have provided substantial evidence of prosperous maritime trade activities in the late Tang Dynasty and the Five Dynasties period (ca. 10th century). Comparing the two shipwrecks presents apparent differences in terms of both the hull structure and the cargo (Table 1). This may suggest an important change of long-distance sea-going trade in Southeast Asia from the 9th to 10th centuries, as they have been seen as representative ships of their times so far. This paper first aims to discuss Chinese export trade during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) and the era of the Five Dynasties (907-960). The large amount of Chinese porcelain recovered from the wrecks indicate a burgeoning production of ceramics as an export commodity. Moreover, commercial interests drove the Arab and Southeast Asian civilizations to be the dominant forces in the Indo-Pacific trading zone of that time. The issues of departure and destination ports will also be touched upon. The following sections will introduce each of the two shipwrecks in detail. t h e be l i t u ng sh i p w r eck In 1998 and 1999, a 9th-century shipwreck was found and salvaged off the coast of Belitung Island in Indonesia. With the presence of a ‘black reef ’ 150 meters northwest of the wreck, it is assumed that the ship struck this reef and subsequently sank. The Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 129-148

©

FHG 129

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128669

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

reef has given the Belitung wreck its second name: Batu Hitam (‘Black Rock’ in Indonesian) Shipwreck. The remains of the ship were discovered 17 m below the surface. Hull Structure of the Belitung Shipwreck – The ship’s hull is 18 m in length and 6.4 m in width. The keel is well preserved at 15.3 m in length. The ship was constructed by stitching together the ribs and planks with coir ropes, and with mortise and tenon joints where necessary. The coir ropes are approximately 16 mm in diameter. These would have passed through holes drilled into the planks and would have been sewn onto the keel and ribs. These holes are densely spaced, each with an average space of 5 to 6 cm from one to the next. The keel and stem are connected by mortise and tenon joints, and the hull itself does not make use of wooden dowels or iron fastenings. Finally, the ship exhibits remnants of a lime-like compound along the hull’s margins and joints, which would have functioned as a filler and adhesive. The origin of the ship can be reconstructed. First, such sewn boat construction techniques were popular in the Arabian Peninsula and on the Indian subcontinent. Second, a chemical analysis of the samples extracted from the hull’s planks has provided three wood species: doussie, African juniper, and teak. The former two were cut in Africa, while the latter was milled in South and Southeast Asia. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the ship was built somewhere where shipbuilding relied on imported timber, such as the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, the sunken ship was likely not a Chinese junk type, but rather an Arabian dhow, similar to Omani ships (Fig. 1).2 The ships built during the Tang Dynasty showed remarkable development in maritime technology according to the written sources. One historical record notes: ‘there is a saying “no ship’s load capacity could exceed ten thousand dan [an ancient Chinese unit of weight]”’.3 This means that the largest ship could carry a load of approximately eight or nine thousand dan. During the Dali and Zhengyuan Reigns, from 766 to 804, Yu Da Niang’s ships were the largest.4 They could be used for entertainment, funeral processions, weddings, and other non-commercial use. Offices and berths could house hundreds of sailors on the ships. These ships would make annual trips between Jiangxi in the south and Huainan in the north. Their profits were commensurate to the size of their cargo, which would often necessitate ‘ten thousand loading[s]’.5 Cargo of the Belitung Shipwreck – The Belitung Shipwreck has yielded a wide variety of artefacts from its salvaged cargo, including ceramics, metal ware, lacquer ware, woodenware, glassware, and the remnants of consumable commodities (Fig. 2).6 Despite this variety, ceramic objects comprise the largest category, with over 67,000 artefacts, constituting more than 95 percent of the ship’s cargo. Outside of China, these are among the largest ceramic caches from the Tang Dynasty period. This number should

130

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

further be adjusted to account for those artefacts looted by local fishermen in the intervening centuries before a modern salvage could be initiated. The ceramic categories present in the Belitung Shipwreck are typical of those exported during the 9th- and 10th-century Tang Dynasty. Traditionally, the exported pottery is divided into four groups according to their provenance: Hunan’s Changsha Wares, Zhejiang’s Yue green Wares, Hebei Xing’s white Wares, and Guangdong’s green Wares (Fig. 3).7 Changsha Wares comprise the largest portion of the ceramic artefacts salvaged from the Belitung, with more than 56,000 pieces. Yue green wares come in close second. Outlier ceramic artefacts include blue and white Wares, white wares with green decorations, and green lead-glazed wares.8 When comparing these ceramic artefacts recovered from the Belitung Shipwreck to those from recent archaeological sites, their provenance can be linked to kilns in Xing, Gongyi, or Xiangzhou. Ceramic wares with inscriptions of dates are known as ‘chronological ceramics’ and could be used to date the Belitung’s cargo. To date, one Changsha bowl with colored paintings has been determined to be a chronological ceramic artefact. Its exterior side has the Chinese characters ‘Bao Li Er Nian Qi Yue Shi Liu Ri’ (宝历二年七 月十六日) written in intaglio markings (Fig. 4).9 This artefact is also unique in that it is a chronological ceramic from the Tang Dynasty period, which are rarely recovered. Therefore, the Belitung wreck can be dated to around 826 (year 2 of the Baoli Reign, Tang Dynasty). We get a clue as to the Belitung’s possible loading methods from several historical accounts. In the second volume of Zhu Yu’s Pingzhou Ketan (1111-1117), there is an item titled ‘law of ship navigation’ which says, ‘the ships are always 10 zhang [an ancient Chinese unit, approximately 3.3 m] long and 10 zhang wide. Each merchant has his own occupation for several chi [an ancient Chinese unit of length]. The merchant sleeps above his own cargo, which would be stored under his body. The cargo is mostly ceramics, which are stacked together. Smaller items were stored inside bigger ones. There were rarely any spaces between them’.10 This method of nesting items into each other according to their dimensions was also used for the cargo of the Belitung ship. The clearest example are the Guangdong green jars, which were commonly used as containers for the smaller objects (Fig. 5).11 Shipping routes of the Belitung Shipwreck – Another interesting aspect in the Belitung Shipwreck is its possible sailing routes. Although the route can never be recovered in great detail, general theories have been put forth as to the ship’s departure point

131

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

and destination. Since most of the ship’s cargo consisted of products made in China, and the shipwreck was found far from China in the Java Sea, it is believed that the Belitung loaded up and departed from a Chinese port before sailing to Java. There is no solid evidence for this, but a closer examination of the cargo’s provenance as well as written sources provide interesting possibilities. These options will be discussed in the following. Some scholars believe that Yangzhou is a likely port for departure. This assumption is based, first, on the great quantity of Changsha ceramics recovered from the Belitung and on Yangzhou being the largest domestic distribution port for Changsha ceramics. Distribution from Yangzhou depended on water routes, transporting goods/ceramics along the middle and lower stream of the Chengjiang River. Current archaeological sites in China which yielded Changsha Ware artefacts include docks, watercourses, wells, tombs, and urban sites – are all distributed along main rivers and their tributaries. To get from these sites to the coast and beyond, they would likely travel through Yangzhou as the nearest port city that connects to the Chengjiang River. Indeed, most Changsha ceramics have been recovered from archaeological sites at Yangzhou.12 Some more evidence support Yangzhou as the exit port of the Belitung Shipwreck. Blue and white ceramic sherds from the Belitung have also been discovered at the Henan Gongyi kiln site and the Yangzhou urban site. Moreover, the ship’s cargo contained ‘Jian Xin’ copper mirrors which were produced in Yangzhou. The set of artefacts recovered from the Belitung match those recovered from Tang Dynasty period Yangzhou. This analysis of the provenance and spread of artefacts from the Belitung makes Yangzhou port a strong candidate as its port of departure.13 Yet this evidence is far from conclusive, and another strong candidate for the Belitung’s point of departure is the port at Guangzhou, approximately 1500 km from Yangzhou by land. The green jars that were used to store smaller objects and spices were made in Guangdong kilns. Therefore, the Belitung might have loaded the entire cargo in one go, in Guangzhou port. The purpose of the voyage being overseas trade, it might be impractical to unload cargo picked up from Yangzhou port in order to repack it with new cargo for a second loading at Guangzhou port. A more practical alternative would be to send Yangzhou goods to Guangzhou by land-based transportation and then load the ships for overseas trade. In this scenario, Guangzhou would function as the main port for maritime trade for the Southeast Asian market. In other words, trade ships would have no need to sail northwards to obtain commodities from across China. Guangzhou as the Belitung’s port of departure also helps explain why the Guangdong green jars from its cargo have not been found at the Tang Dynasty Yangzhou

132

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

port site. It is unfortunate that archaeological excavations have revealed only few artefacts from the Tang Dynasty at Guangzhou, especially when compared to Yangzhou. Such material evidence could have served to substantiate or repudiate either city as a port of departure. Did each trade port in China function in a fixed direction as ships made journeys to markets overseas, or did Chinese policy at the time allow trade ships to freely move back and forth between trading ports controlled by China? This is not an easy question to answer – however, besides the archaeological artefacts there are various written sources that can be used to illuminate several plausible theories. There are plentiful Tang Dynasty documents that might provide a written record of the movement of ships destined for foreign trade. These include Xin Tang shu (‘New History of the Tang Dynasty’), Daocheng Ji Junguozhi, and Zhongguo Yindu Jianwen Lu, among others. These are either official compilations of history or literary notes written in several different languages. We can use these historical accounts as important guides. The book Huanghua sida ji (‘Routes Leading Abroad from China’) has been partially included and edited in the Xin Tang shu. It was written by the renowned geographer Jia Dan (730-805), the Prime Minister of the Tang court during the Zhengyuan Reign. As a document set forth by a high-level bureaucrat, we can consider it uniquely credible. The author outlines two major voyage routes of the period: the ‘nautical route from Dengzhou to Korea via the Bohai Sea’ going northwards to Korea and Japan; and the ‘nautical route from Guangzhou to maritime countries’, going southwards to Southeast Asia. Of the southern route he says: ‘if sailing south-eastwards from Guangzhou via sea routes, it is 200 miles to Tunmenshan […] if going northward over land for 1000 miles, it is Baghdad, the capital of the Arab Empire’.14 The nautical route Jia Dan describes passes through more than one hundred countries and regions. Its starting place would have been Guangzhou port, from which it would have passed through the south China Sea, Southeast Asian waters, the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the south end of the Indian Peninsula, Sri Lanka, the Persian Gulf, Africa, and finally Europe. In the Tang Dynasty book Guo shi bu (‘Supplement to the History of the State’), Li Zhao writes: ‘Seafaring ships from the south seas are foreign vessels. They come to Annam and Guangzhou each year’.15 Similar records could be found in contemporary historical accounts from other languages. In Arabic literature, there are the Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik (‘The Book of Routes and Realms’) written by the geographer Ibn Khurradādhbih,16 and Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind (‘Accounts of China and India’) possibly written by the Arab merchant Sulaymān al-Tājir. Both accounts were completed in the 9th century and have descriptions of nautical trade routes from the Persian Gulf to Guangzhou

133

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

which are virtually identical to those recorded by Jia Dan. The French sinologist Paul Pelliot has made further textual research. He asserts that Tang Dynasty ‘Guangzhou is the start point of the nautical routes toward the south sea’.17 In short, the above-mentioned historical record allows the following conclusions: Guangzhou served as departure port for the southern nautical trade route in Tang Dynasty China; because the Belitung Shipwreck is regarded as a merchant ship sailing south towards Southeast Asia, its departure port was most likely Guangzhou; finally, it sunk near Palembang in Sumatra. Duration of voyage and maritime trade mode – The above-mentioned historical accounts also state that Tang Dynasty-era nautical trade voyages relied on seasonal monsoons. These monsoons would allow trade ships to use the ocean currents driving these storms and achieve a higher cruising speed. A direct trip from the Persian Gulf to Guangzhou would require more than six months. The merchant ships could take advantage of the northeast monsoon by setting off in September or October of each year. They would arrive at the Malabar Coast in India by November or December for a short stop-over. This would be necessary given the annual storms looming over the Bay of Bengal during those months. After that, they would make port in Kedah, Malaysia, in January of next year for a short stop-over. Unlike the previous stop, this one would be necessary to wait for the southwest monsoon and its current northwards toward the South China Sea. Using these seasonal currents, trade ships would make annual trips to Guangzhou. After finishing their trade activities, the merchant ships would start their return in October, November, or December of the following year, with the favorable currents of the northeast monsoon. They would use these to sail down China’s coast to the Malay Peninsula. In January of the following year, they would pass the Bay of Bengal. In February or March, they would arrive at port of Sīrāf, on the south bank of the Persian Gulf. In April they would sail to the at port of Muscat in Oman, making optimal use of the southwestern Winds of the monsoon season. Thus, Arab merchant ships would need approximately one and a half years to complete a round-trip journey to Guangzhou from the Persian Gulf. Whether or not large-scale maritime trade was conducted using a ‘round journey sailing’ method during the 9th and 10th centuries is up for debate. Some scholars believe it feasible, if time-consuming. Others think that an entrepôt method would have been more economically efficient. In this mode, the long journey between Guangzhou and the Persian Gulf would be divided into sections by entrepôt ports. Not one merchant ship would finish a complete round-trip journey, but rather sail between certain entrepôt ports.18

134

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

t h e ci r e bon sh i p w r eck The Cirebon Shipwreck was also discovered in the waters of the Java Sea. It is an enormous vessel with an equally impressive loading capacity. Its location is approximately 100 sea miles from Cirebon in Indonesia. It sunk sometime in the 10th century, at least one hundred years after the Belitung ship. In 2001, local fishermen discovered evidence of the wreck and reported it to the Indonesian Department of Cultural Heritage. Excavations were conducted from 2003 to 2005 by an Indonesian company. Hull Structure of the Cirebon Shipwreck – The Cirebon’s wreck measures 3 to 5 m high, 90 m long, and 60 m wide, all approximately 57 m beneath the surface. The whole structure comprised 26 con­joined plank strakes. The planks were edge-fastened by dowels and reinforced by frames (Fig. 6).19 The com­pany has salvaged more than 490,000 artefacts, spanning 521 categories of varied materials. The remains of the ship’s hull are about 31 m long and 10 m wide. The ship was produced in Sumatra or Kalimantan according to the timber provenance, thus the hull was likely constructed somewhere in Southeast Asia.20 Cargo of the Cirebon Shipwreck – When compared with the Belitung, the Cirebon Shipwreck is distinct in the diversity and complexity of its cargo. The artefacts recovered include more than three hundred thousand pieces of Chinese ceramic wares, of varying provenances. The largest group among them are the Yue green Wares (Figs.7 and 8).21 However, there are also a few white ceramic wares from kilns in Anhui and Henan Provinces. Other Chinese artefacts include large quantities of silver ingots, copper coins, lead currencies from the Southern Han Dynasty (917-971), copper mirrors, lacquer ware, among other objects. Artefacts of Southeast Asian provenance include Malay tin ingots, bullion, and spears, Thai kendi-jugs and jars (Fig. 9), Sumatran gold wares and ornaments (Fig. 10), copper musical instruments, statues used in Buddhist and Hindu rites, copper mirrors from Java, to name a few.22 Middle Eastern artefacts include Syrian and Persian glass bottles. There are tons of Central Asian lazurite, as well as rubies and sapphires from Sri Lanka.23 In brief, the artefacts exhibit the full gamut of 9th-century Indo-Pacific trade, from commodities to raw materials. This latter group includes materials used for processing, such as crystal, glass, lead, tin, gemstones, as well as organic matter like resin, spices, opium, rhinoceros ivory, and so on. The destination of the Cirebon Shipwreck – While the majority of the Belitung’s cargo is of Chinese origin, the Cirebon Shipwreck contains artefacts of a wide variety, exac-

135

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

erbating the difficult task of determining its port of departure. However, researchers can determine the ship’s destination with reasonable certainty through an analysis of the characteristics of the metal objects as a set group. This is believed to be Java. An early 10th-century Javanese inscription carved in stone, the Sugih Manek, lists commodities that were traded locally in two tax-free villages. These include tin, copper, iron, brass, and iron.24 The sources of these metals are varied, comprising Malaysia, China, and the Indo-China Peninsula, and possibly East Africa and Myanmar.25 The metals were all imported by the Javanese as crucial to the functioning of their society. A Chinese work titled Zhu Fan Zhi (‘Records of Foreign People’) from the 13th century notes many foreign customs and commodities. This text also mentions trade in Java: ‘foreign merchants come for trading activities. They sell commodities including gold and silver objects, gold wares, silver wares, five-coloured silk, black textiles, Ligusticum wallichii, Angelicae radix, cinnabar, copper, alum, borax, arsenic, lacquer wares, iron ding-type vessels, green porcelain, and white porcelain’.26 As non-native commodities necessary for Javanese society, raw materials such as those contained in the Cirebon Shipwreck would have to have been imported from abroad. Therefore, Java would have been an ideal destination market for the Cirebon and her cargo. discussion a n d conclusion This paper aims to compare two Tang Dynasty trading vessels that sunk around the same time, in the same area, and were carrying a great deal of cargo. The Belitung sank around the 9th century, while the Cirebon sank around 10th century. Although similar in circumstance and purpose, they were different in their hull structure and the composition of their cargo. Both ships are recognized as examples of the flourishing maritime trade of that time, particularly in the quantity of Chinese ceramics, and their cargo helps paint a vivid picture of the remarkable feats of navigation involved in the trading activities of the late Five-Dynasties period. A few rough conclusions can be drawn. First, Chinese ceramics emerged as an export category around the mid-8th century. There was a rapid development in terms of export scale, reach of markets, and manufacturing quality – after which Chinese ceramic export can be said to have reached its first peak in history. This ‘golden age’ for trade along what has come to be known as the Maritime Silk Road was achieved far earlier than subsequent navigation epochs dominated by European maritime prowess. The Hunan Changsha Kiln was a pioneer in producing ceramic goods specifically manufactured for overseas markets. Second, maritime trade became prosperous from overseas stimulation. Huge demands from foreign markets were the most likely motive for an increase and re-

136

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

finement of production. Meanwhile, maritime trade gradually developed around the Persian Gulf under the Abbasid Empire (750-1258). These Arab merchants fostered advances in navigation and shipbuilding technology as a way to increase profitable trade. As the crossroads between China and the Arab powers, Southeast Asia took advantage of its essential geographical location in regard to maritime trade. There, the Srivijaya Empire (existing on Sumatra between the 7th and 13th centuries) monopolised key trade routes and resources, began to thrive, and soon became an important sea power. Thus, the Arab and Southeast Asian merchants would come to play an important role in facilitating trade and cultural exchange between East and West.27 Last but not least, the Belitung Shipwreck captures an early moment in Tang Dynasty maritime trade, where the goods being traded and those participating in the trading had not yet developed to the extent that they would a few generations later, as with ships like the Cirebon. Third, the different cargoes from the two shipwrecks may suggest a change of trade mode at the time. There is a large proportion of earthenware made in Southeast Asia in the Cirebon cargo which is absent from the Belitung one. It may suggest that the intra-regional trade boomed within Southeast Asia during the 10th century. Before the 10th century, however trading exotic commodities from China, India and the Near East to Southeast Asia was more likely the major mode of ocean-going trade.28 As a representative shipwreck of the 9th century, the Belitung one is a good example of this kind of trade mode.

* ack now l e dg m e n ts This paper is sponsored by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China’s essential project ‘Research on China’s Marine Heritage’, Approval No. 06JJD780002 (中国教育部人文社会科学研究重大项目“中国海洋遗产研究”, 项 目批准号：06JJD780002). I would like to thank Dr Stephen A. Murphy and Mr Denisonde Simbol for providing me with photos of the Belitung Shipwreck, and Dr Horst Liebner and Director Luc Heymans for assisting with photos of the Cirebon Shipwreck.

137

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on shipwreck cargo Chinese Ceramics (by kilns)

belitung shipwreck Changsha Ware, Xing Ware, Gongxian Ware, Yue Ware, white wares, Guangdong Ware

cirebon shipwreck Yue Ware, Guangdong Ware

Cups, plates, ornaments

Ornaments

Earthen wares Gold

Southeast Asian wares

Silver

Boxes, bottle, ingots

Ingots

Bronze/Copper

Mirrors, coins, scale, spoon

Mirrors, coins

Iron

Concretions

Tin

Ingots

Glass

Bottles

Flasks, containers

Other Objects

Grindstone and roller, pestle, mortar, aromatics and drugs, nuts

Rock crystal and quartz, gems, beads, aromatics and drugs, chemicals and minerals

table 1 – General comparison of the cargoes from the Belitung and Cirebon Shipwrecks (G. Xin).

138

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

not es 1 Krahl et al. 2010; Liebner 2014; Chong

13

J. Li 2009.

and Murphy 2017.

14

Ouyang and Song (compiled 1060), 1153.

2

Flecker 2010, 101-19; 2017a, 40.

15

Li, 22.

3

There is no consensus on how to convert

16

See Kontny, this volume.

dan into kilograms so far. There is one

17

Pelliot 2003, 177.

scholar who forwarded the opinion that

18

Ibid; Qin 2013, 32-49; Xiang 2018.

1 dan equals 30 kg.

19

Liebner 2014, 376.

For an interpretation of these ships see

20 Tirtamarta 2007.

4

Torck 2009, 132-34.

21

Liebner 2014, 96-98.

5

Li (compiled 806-820), 62.

22

Ibid, 236, 294.

6

Louis 2010, 87; Qi 2017, 188.

23

M. Li 2007.

7

Krahl 2017, 87.

24 Sarkar 1959, 145-60.

8

Guy 2010.

25

9

Flecker 2017b, 33.

10

Zhu, 133.

26 Zhao, 55.

11

Kan 2017, 54.

27

Wilson and Flecker 2010.

12

Hsieh 2002.

28

Miksic 2007.

Wisseman Christie 1991, 36. See also idem 1998, 352.

139

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y Chong, A. and S.A. Murphy (eds.), 2017. The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore. Flecker, M. 2010. A ninth-century Arab shipwreck in Indonesia: The first archaeological evidence of direct trade with China, in: R. Krahl, J. Guy, J.K. Wilson and J. Raby (eds.), Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington, 101-19. Flecker, M. 2017a. A Middle Eastern ship in Southeast Asia, in: A. Chong and S.A. Murphy (eds.), The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore, 40-43. Flecker, M. 2017b. The origin of the Tang Shipwreck: A look at its archaeology and history, in: A. Chong and S.A. Murphy (eds.), The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore, 22-39. Guy, J. 2010. Rare and strange goods: International trade in ninth-century Asia, in: R. Krahl, J. Guy, J.K. Wilson and J. Raby (eds.), Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington, 19-28. Hsieh, M. 2002. Notes on the Chinese ceramics from the Batu Hitam Shipwreck, Taida Journal of Art History 13, 1-60 (in Chinese). Kan, S. 2017. Ceramics from Changsha: A world commodity, in: A. Chong and S.A. Murphy (eds.), The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore, 44-61. Krahl, K., J. Guy, J.K. Wilson and J. Raby (eds.), 2010. Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington. Krahl, R. 2017. Green, white, and blue-and-white stonewares: A precious ceramic cargo, in: A. Chong and S.A. Murphy (eds.), The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore, 80-105. Li, J. 2009. Huxiang Ceramics ii, The Changsha Volume, Changsha (in Chinese). Li, M. 2007. World arena on the 10th century Java Sea – observations on the metal sources in Cirebon Wreck, Palace Museum Journal 2007.6, 78-90 (in Chinese). Li Zhao, Tang guo shi bu, vol. ii, Shanghai 1983. Liebner, H.H. 2014. The Siren of Cirebon: A Tenth-Century Trading Vessel Lost in the Java Sea, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, 2014. Louis, F. 2010. Metal objects on the Belitung Shipwreck, in: R. Krahl, J. Guy, J.K. Wilson and J. Raby (eds.), Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington, 85-91. Miksic, J.N. 2007. Fine-paste wares on the Cirebon Shipwreck: Origin, destination, and significance, Palace Museum Journal 2007.6, 107-14 (in Chinese). Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, Xin Tang shu, 225 vols., Beijing 1975.

140

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

Pelliot, P. 1904. Deux itinéraires de Chine en Inde à la fin du viiie siècle, Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 4, 131-413, transl. by Feng Chengjun, in: Feng Chengjun’s Collective Translation Works, Beijing 2003, 175-309. Qi, D. 2017. Gold and silver on the Tang Shipwreck, in: A. Chong and S.A. Murphy (eds.), The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century, Singapore, 184-99. Qin, D. 2013. China’s first ceramic export trade peak – focus on the volume and characteristics of ancient Chinese ceramics foreign trade in the 9th and 10th centuries, Palace Museum Journal 2013.5, 32-49 (in Chinese). Sarkar, H.B. 1959. Corpus of the Inscriptions of Java, vol. ii, Calcutta. Tirtamarta, A.A. 2007. Cirebon wreck excavation with its various cargos – approximately from the 10th century, Palace Museum Journal 2007.6, 151-54 (in Chinese). Torck, M. 2009. Avoiding the Dire Straits: An Inquiry into Food Provisions and Scurvy in the Maritime and Military History of China and Wider East Asia, East Asian Maritime History 5, Wiesbaden. Wilson, J.K. and M. Flecker 2010. Dating the Belitung Shipwreck, in: R. Krahl, J. Guy, J.K. Wilson and J. Raby (eds.), Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington, 35-37. Wisseman Christie, J. 1991. States without cities: Demographic trends in early Java, Indonesia 52, 23-40. Wisseman Christie, J. 1998. Javanese markets and the Asian sea trade boom of the tenth to thirteenth centuries A.D., Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41.3, 344-81. Xiang, K. 2018. The extraterritorial transit ports phenomenon of China’s ceramic trade in the 9th-10th centuries: Focusing on Southeast Asia, Southeast Culture 2018.6, 76-84 (in Chinese). Zhao Rukuo, Zhu Fan Zhi, ed. by Y. Bowen, Zhufan Zhi’s Explanations, Beijing 1996. Zhu Yu, Pingzhou ketan, ed. by L. Weiguo, Tang and Song Historical Notes Series, Beijing 2007.

141

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 1 – Modern reconstruction of the Belitung Ship (Photo: J. Tsantes and R. Harrell, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery).

fig. 2 – Gold plate unearthed from the Belitung Shipwreck site (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection).

142

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

fig. 3 – White bottle from the Belitung Shipwreck site (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection).

143

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 4 – Changsha bowl with Bao Li inscriptions (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection).

fig. 5 – Packing method on the Belitung ship: Guangdong jar used as container for smaller bowls (Photo: M. Flecker, courtesy of the Asian Civilisations Museum).

144

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

fig. 6 – Drawing of the Cirebon Shipwreck hull’s remains (Liebner 2014, fig. 3.2-7; drawing: Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd and D. Visnikar).

fig. 7 – Green-glazed bowl with inscriptions (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-23; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd).

145

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 8 – Green-glazed Lotus jars (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-27; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd).

146

x i n – m a r i t i m e t r a de i n sou t h e a s t a s i a

fig. 9 – Southeast Asian Fine Paste earthenware jar (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-199; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd).

147

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 10 – Gold ornament (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.3-54; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd).

148

*

*

*

From Xi’an to Birka and back: Constantinople as a nodal point in Early Medieval long-distance contacts (ca. 6th-12th centuries) Joanita Vroom

* i n t roduct ion One of the most famous Byzantine world maps can be found in a 6th-century work on geography known as Χριστιανικὴ Τοπογραφία (Christian Topography). This richly illustrated book, one of the earliest treatises in geography by a Christian author, was written by Kosmas Indikopleustes, a Greek merchant and traveller who ended up as a monk and hermit in Egypt. His name literally means ‘Kosmas who has sailed to India’, and his work was at least partly based on his own personal experiences travelling the Red Sea and Indian Ocean in the early 6th century. His map of the world, of which an early 11th-century version survives, shows a vast ocean with a rectangular landmass in the middle, in which one can distinguish the ‘Romanikos Kolpos’ (‘Roman Gulf ’) or Mediterranean basin, together with the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea (Fig. 1).1 Kosmas made his extensive travels to India during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (r. 527-565) (see Fig. 2 for the territorial boundaries in this period). Although his belief that the earth was flat did not find many followers in the Byzantine world, his descriptions of the regions around the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf, including Ethiopia, Eritrea, India, and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), were an invaluable source of information. He not only listed ports along the sea routes and mentioned the goods traded there, but also reported of his personal experiences in these distant regions in surprising detail.2 Furthermore, as chronicler of Byzantine geographical knowledge he understood that beyond India and Sri Lanka, both visited by him, lay the unknown lands of the Far East. Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 149-200

©

FHG 149

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128670

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The Christian Topography is a clear indication that during Kosmas’ lifetime, the eastern Mediterranean played a key role in proto-global networks extending from faraway places in eastern Asia and southern Arabia to Atlantic sites in north-western Europe. But what was moving where along these networks? Has material evidence been found for these networks? Can they be documented by archaeology in the first place? And more specific: what happened with the exchange systems outside the eastern Mediterranean basin between the 4th and the 7th centuries, and during the subsequent 8th and 9th centuries? This last period is still considered by many as literal ‘Dark Ages’, not least because not much is known about trade during these centuries.3 In fact, synthetic studies of 8th- and 9th-century material culture in general are still scarce. It is my intention to search for answers to these questions by presenting here a first general overview of the distribution of Late Roman and Early Medieval ceramic finds beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire.4 This was also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, and was one of the Medieval superpowers in the eastern Mediterranean from circa 330 to 1453.5 The focus is on long-distance distribution of pottery and other goods (direct or indirect) beyond the boundaries of the Empire, and even beyond the periphery with its obvious border trade.6 My interest is thus in Byzantine finds well beyond the Empire, which range from ‘exotic’ ceramics and other goods in the West (the Atlantic coast, Britain, Ireland) and in the North (Scandinavia, Russia), to remote finds in the East (India, China, Korea) and in the South (Red Sea, Africa). The story is told from the perspective of the political, cultural, military and economic heart of the Byzantine Empire: its capital Constantinople as a connective hub and nodal point in long-distance exchange networks which reached from Xi’an in China to Birka in Sweden. Consequently, it is my objective to present a survey of Late Roman and Early Medieval pottery finds in the areas to the East, the South, the West, and the North far beyond the Empire. dist r i bu t ion of ce r a m ics a n d ot h e r goods ou tsi de t h e by z a n t i n e e m pi r e The map in Figure 3 shows find spots of Byzantine artefacts (dots) outside the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire and across three continents; that is to say, in Eurasia and in Africa.7 When looking at previously published maps of Byzantine finds found outside the Empire, it is clear that most of these were located just outside the frontiers (in neighbouring regions), and that they are in essence traces of border traffic, in particular in the case of coin finds.8 My intention is to look further afield, beyond the immediate borders, and to document Byzantine finds really outside the Byzantine sphere of ­influence.

150

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

This overview does not claim any form of completeness, as it proved to be quite a task to assemble a first comparative overview of traded materials and their find spots in remote places outside the Byzantine Empire. It is my aim to concentrate as much as possible on the distribution of solidly dated Byzantine amphorae and tablewares of known provenances, from archaeological contexts and roughly dating between the 4th and 11th centuries.9 Additional evidence is provided by other Byzantine finds made of durable and easily traceable materials (such as glass and metal) and by trade-related objects (weights, scales, coins of definite Byzantine origin). These are used to broaden the archaeological horizon and as useful proxies for tracing contacts with the wider world.10 East of the Byzantine Empire – The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (or Periplus Maris Erythraei) is a 1st-century Greco-Roman navigational guide written in koine Greek that listed trading opportunities and port sites in the Red Sea, along the Horn of Africa, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.11 Furthermore, we know from written documents and maps (among those in Kosmas Indikopleustes’ The Christian Topography and the Tabula Peutingeriana) that Byzantine scholars in the Mediterranean were aware of the existence of parts of south-eastern Asia beyond India and Sri Lanka.12 Additionally, Chinese sources recorded Early Byzantine embassies, entertainers and merchants being present in China and south-eastern Asia, among them various Byzantine embassies to China during the Tang Dynasty (618-907) in 643, 667, 701, and possibly 719.13 In the course of these diplomatic meetings, Byzantine purple glass seems to have been brought to China, and glass vessels of this period are indeed present in the Municipal City Museum at Xi’an (once known as Chang’an, or ‘eternal peace’), which was China’s capital during the Tang Dynasty and the Silk Road’s easternmost end.14 With respect to exported Byzantine ceramics, the easternmost ones have so far been found in India, often together with large numbers of contemporary gold, bronze and copper coins (see Table 1).15 Late Roman amphorae, among them the Late Roman Amphora (LRA) 1 from the eastern Mediterranean (Cilicia and/or Cyprus) for wine transport, arrived in India between the late 4th and early 7th centuries (Fig. 4). To date, Late Roman transport jars were found on coastal and inland sites in the Gujarat and Maharashtra regions (for instance at Katheswar, Ngara and Elephanta), as well as at Pattanam, Arikamedu and Tissamaharama in southern India and Sri Lanka.16 These amphorae often arrived in India with other ceramic containers. In fact, some amphora fragments previously thought to come from the eastern Mediterranean, were actually sherds of ‘torpedo jars’ from Mesopotamia. These large Partho-Sasanian jars have a neck-less upper part, no handles, and a hollow base with a ‘torpedo-fuse poínt’

151

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

(or Spitzfuss) at the bottom. They can be up to about 83 cm tall and often contain bitumen on the inside, probably for the transportation of wine. Three sea routes of maritime wine transport to India in Late Antiquity were suggested by Roberta Tomber: one directly from the Persian Gulf (torpedo jars), another one via an entrepôt at Qana in Yemen (torpedo jars as well as some Late Roman amphorae), and a last one directly from the Red Sea (Late Roman amphorae).17 In her view, Late Roman vessels could have reached India via a separate route (through Qana), whereas the Sasanians held control over the Persian Gulf and dominated the silk trade.18 Apart from the distribution of Late Roman amphorae in the Indian Ocean, of particular interest is also the recovery of a small flask known as a Saint Menas ampulla from the pilgrimage site of Abu Mina (northern Egypt) at Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan.19 This small pilgrim’s flask shows on one side the saint in praying position flanked by two kneeling camels. The vessel from Samarkand can be dated to the 6th7th century. This find may have come by the overland route to this central Asian city, perhaps with a pilgrim visiting one of the Nestorian monasteries near Samarkand.20 Furthermore, a 5th-century glass beaker on a ring foot has been found at Kara-Agatsj in western Kazakhstan.21 This piece in pale greenish glass is decorated on the lower part with wavy lines of glass trails, and is probably an eastern Mediterranean product. Similar examples were found in rich nomad graves in Fergana and the Tiensjan-mountains in eastern Uzbekistan and southern Kirgizia; areas which due to ethnic and cultural relationships were in contact with populations in southern Russia and western Kazakhstan.22 There is a variety of Byzantine imports in the Far East, ranging from glassware, metal objects and textiles to numerous amounts of golden and bronze coins (and their imitations).23 The most easterly Byzantine artefacts have as yet been recovered in China, Korea, Thailand and Japan. Mediterranean glass vessels, made of silica and soda-lime, were for instance found in 2nd- to 6th-century tombs at Jingpan (Xinjiang), Beipiao (Liaoning), Jingxian (Hebei), Nanjing (Jiangsu) and Xi’an/Chang’an (Shaanxi) in China, as well as in late 4th- to early 6th-century tombs of the Silla Kingdom at Hwangnam Daechong (in Korea).24 These imported glass objects were either deeply coloured or bleached in order to imitate rock crystal.25 In Japan, not only two multi-layered glass beads (made with natron, a raw material that was typical for Mediterranean production) were identified in a 5th-century tomb at Nagaoka (near Kyoto)26 but a cushion cover with two lions under a tree (apparently from Byzantine Syria) was also recognized in the mid 8th-century imperial Shoso-in Repository at Nara.27 Likewise astonishing is the retrieval of a 5th- or rather 6th-century Byzantine bronze lamp from Egypt at Pong Tuk in central Thailand, about 30 km west of Nakhon Pathom, at the site of a Buddhist architectural complex.28

152

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

In the Maldives in the centre of the Indian Ocean, a hoard of 5th- to 6th-century Byzantine gold coins was discovered in 1986 on Gan Island, at the site of an old monastery on Haddhummathi Atoll.29 Written sources mention even travels undertaken by Maldivians between the 5th and 7th centuries, such as visits to Rome and China.30 South of the Byzantine Empire – German excavations at the Himyarite highland capital of Zafar in South Arabia (Yemen) yielded circa 500 fragments of ‘Byzantine-style’ ceramics. Among these were imported lamps, jugs and ‘Aila/Aqaba amphorae’, container jars which originate from kilns in the northern Red Sea coastal port of Aqaba (in present-day Jordan; see Fig. 4).31 These finds suggest the existence of a significant network between these two cities, which both took advantage of the Indian Ocean exchange from the 3rd to 8th centuries (see Table 2).32 Aila/Aqaba amphorae are cigar shaped jars with small handles and a strongly ribbed body, roughly dated to the 4th-7th centuries.33 One 7th-century specimen from the Gulf of Aden (Yemen) has a red-painted titulus pictus of a Byzantine monogram on the outside referring to an ecclesiastical workshop and thus suggesting a close relation between the Church and possibly monastic production.34 Besides Zafar and Aden, imported Aila/Aqaba amphorae were also found at other sites in Yemen (Qana), in Egypt (Berenike, Abu Sha’ar/Hurghada, Elephantine Island), in the southern Red Sea (a shipwreck near the island of Black Assacra), in eastern Africa (Adulis, Matara, Asmara, and Aksum) and in India,35 as well as on the late 6th-century Iskandil Burnu shipwreck in Turkey (Bodrum), and even in North Africa (Carthage) and in Spain.36 The content of these amphorae is still unknown, although wine, garum (fermented fish sauce), dates, and various agricultural products have been suggested.37 Near the island of Black Assarca, off the coast and north of Adulis, the recovery of the cargo of a small 6th/7th-century merchant ship revealed large numbers of Aila/ Aqaba amphorae (plus a variant), a type of ‘globular pilgrim-flask’ amphorae (or costrels) and some lids (thin plain disks) from kilns at Aila/Aqaba.38 Two lids were found in situ in the amphora mouths: one rested on the lip inside a globular amphora rim and was set in a resinous substance (similar to lining from the inside of Aila/Aqaba sherds, suggesting wine transport), while another one that was fixed in the rim of a ‘globular pilgrim-flask’ amphora had been recycled from another vessel.39 In addition, a few glass fragments of stemmed goblets were found, as well as two fragments of unidentified pottery types and a counter balance weight for a steelyard.40 A key region for understanding Red Sea exchange is the Aksumite Kingdom in Ethiopia/Eritrea, which increased as an important actor from the 4th to early 7th centuries (Fig. 5).41 It was not only an important point of trans-shipment in the Red

153

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Sea and Indian Ocean networks (in particular for the export of ivory and gold), but also a trading partner of the Byzantine Empire (shown by diplomatic approaches by the Emperors Constantius ii and Justinian i).42 Imported Byzantine amphorae were found at its capital Aksum which can be dated between the late 4th/5th and early 7th centuries.43 These included Aila/Aqaba amphorae (also found at other Aksumite sites, such as Adulis, Matara and Asmara),44 LRA 1 amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean (also found at the Nubian fortification of Bakhit),45 and a table amphora (Adams’ ‘Utility Ware U2’) from Aswan, Egypt.46 Moreover, imports of glass objects and wheel-made fine ware were recovered at Aksum, among them African Red Slip Ware bowls from northern Tunisia (dated to the mid 4th century onwards).47 Besides amphorae, weights and copper-alloy metal objects were recovered at Aksum, its port Adulis and at Matara (among them a copper-alloy lamp and ewer).48 Up the Nile, 170 Byzantine bronze vessels have been excavated in royal tombs at Ballana and Qustul in Lower Nubia (near the Egyptian-Sudan frontier), as well as LRA 3 amphorae from western Turkey.49 Further south, along the east African coast, ceramics from Byzantium, Persia and India seem to have been found at Ras Hafun (Somalia), at Fukuchani (on the northern coast of Zanzibar island) and at Unguja Ukuu (on the southern coast of Zanzibar island).50 At this last site, excavations yielded Early Byzantine wheelmade ceramic imports (one red-slip ware sherd and one cooking ware rim) and alabaster from Egypt, as well as some Mediterranean glass fragments from a level dated to circa 500 by radiocarbon dating.51 The two pottery sherds probably came from Egyptian or from North African workshops and can be dated to the 5th-6th centuries.52 In the same area (as part of the Zanzibar Archipelago), Byzantine coins of the Emperors Constantine (r. 335-337), Justin i (r. 518-527), Justinian i (r. 527-565) and Heraclius (r. 610-641) were recovered on Pemba Island and on the opposite Tanga coast (in present-day Tanzania).53 This region is believed by some scholars to have been ‘Azania’, which was visited by Mediterranean traders; the Chinese identified this territory as ‘Zesan’.54 Ptolemy mentioned Rhapta as the capital of Azania and the southernmost trading port (as noticed in the Periplus).55 Remarkable were some glass finds from the Mediterranean in this region. Excavations at the fishing village of Kivinja on the central Tanzanian coast yielded, for instance, glassware that could be dated by radiocarbon dating to the 5th-6th centuries.56 On the nearby Mafia Island (Tanzania), high walls of structures included glass fragments which seem to have been made in 6th-century Syria.57 More to the west, a few Byzantine imports and contemporary imitations can be distinguished in central Saharan regions as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, a late 6th- to early 7th-century Late Roman amphora fragment from North

154

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Africa was recovered at Aghram Nadharif,58 and 4th- to 5th-century glass vessels and beads from the Mediterranean or Egypt were recovered in the Saharan oasis belt of the Wadi al-Ajal (in south-western Libya).59 In addition, a golden Byzantine coin (solidus), minted between 395-400 in Milan, is nowadays presented in the archaeological Museum of Rabat in Morocco.60 Its weight (4.55 grams) became not only the standard for weighing gold in the trans-Saharan trade, but its presence north of the Sahara also shows the importance of striking such coins with West African gold from the 4th century onwards.61 In the West African Sahel, 3rd- to 7th-century graves at Kissi located in a metallurgical region specialised in iron production (in north-eastern Burkina Faso) yielded not only 5th- to 7th-century copper-alloy objects (such as anklets) made of metal that originated from North African and eastern Mediterranean ore sources, but also glass and carnelian beads which were chemically traced to the eastern Mediterranean (Syria-Palestine region) and the Middle East.62 Finally, amphora rim-neck fragments were found at sites near Douentza and Timbuktu (Mali), which seem to be imitating Late Roman amphorae from Carthage (such as the types known as ‘Keay 1b and 59’ and ‘Sidi Jdidi 2’, dating between circa 450 and 600).63 In this trade network, Sub-Saharan Africa seemingly supplied the Mediterranean with raw materials (such as gold, copper, iron, ivory), and received manufactured goods (such as glass vessels and beads) in exchange throughout the first millennium. West of the Byzantine Empire – Despite the fact that the Oceanus Britannicus was regarded by Roman and Byzantine scholars as the extreme western part of the earth, there were certainly contacts between the Byzantine Empire and north-western Europe between the 5th and 7th centuries – the period immediately following the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain. Various types of Late Roman amphorae and Red Slip Wares from the Mediterranean (mostly products from the eastern Mediterranean, followed by those from North Africa) were reaching south-western Britain, Scotland, and Ireland (Fig. 6). The date range of most of these ceramic imports seems as yet to be limited to no more than hundred to hundred-fifty years, between circa 450/475-550/600 (see Table 3).64 One of the earliest excavations in south-western Britain was at Tintagel Castle on the Atlantic coast of North Cornwall, where work started in the 1930s on and around the site of a 12th-century castle by the Devon archaeologist Courteney Arthur Ralegh Radford.65 At this site, often associated with the legends around King Arthur, i­ mported pottery from the Mediterranean was revealed. These included LRA 1 amphorae from Cilicia and/or Cyprus (known in British publications as ‘Type Bii’), LRA 2 amphorae from the Aegean (‘Type Bi’), and less common ones such as LRA 3

155

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

amphorae from western Turkey (‘Type Biv’), LRA 4 amphorae from Gaza, and amphorae from North Africa (‘Type Bv’).66 The fine wares mostly consisted of African Red Slip Ware (Hayes’ forms 91C, 99A and 99B) and of Phocaean Red Slip Ware (also sometimes described as ‘Late Roman C’) from western Turkey (Hayes’ form 10? or 3E?). More recent excavations at Tintagel (in 2016-2017) yielded 5th- and 6th-century buildings of a relatively large size, pottery and glass finds, as well as a 7th-century slate window ledge inscribed with a mix of Latin, Greek and Celtic words, names and symbols.67 Tintagel was initially interpreted by Ralegh Radford as the site of a high-status Celtic monastery, but later by the other excavators as a princely fortress and trading settlement dating to the 5th and 6th centuries.68 While examining the pottery finds from Tintagel, Charles Thomas remarked that the quantity of these imports was larger than from any other site in Britain or Ireland. He suggested that the original total of imports may well have been ‘on a scale of one or more complete shiploads, with individual ships perhaps carrying a cargo of six or seven hundred amphorae.69 This evidence led him to believe that Tintagel was a site where ships docked to deposit their Mediterranean cargo during the Early Middle Ages. Another important excavation showing Mediterranean contacts was at the Celtic hill fort site of Dinas Powys in Glamorgan in southern Wales, which yielded indications of metalworking.70 The site was excavated by Leslie Alcock between 1954 and 1958, and revealed wooden structures and a substantial amount of high-status metalwork and jewellery. Furthermore, there were finds of glass and imported pottery, dating between the 5th and 7th centuries, among which were African Red Slip Ware from North Africa (Hayes’ forms 91C, 99C and 75?). Additionally, Alcock carried out excavations at the hillfort site of South Cadbury Castle in the County of Somerset, which is thought to have been in use from circa 470 until sometime after 580.71 Besides the recovery of a ‘Great Hall’ of 20 by 10 metres, pottery fragments from the eastern Mediterranean were discovered, indicating some sort of link, and perhaps trade, with southern Europe. Apart from hilltop fortified elite-associated sites, imports of Byzantine amphorae and fine wares were also found at British monastic sites, harbours, beach markets and settlements (often including seasonal markets). Among these I mention here: Longbury Bank, Dyfed (South Wales), Bantham (Devon), Mothecombe (South Devon), Pevensey Castle (East Sussex) and Shadwell London.72 In addition, the upper part of a 5th- or 6th-century Late Roman Amphora 1 was recovered in the 1970s in the sea bed of Plymouth Sound (Devon) with a dark brown residue on the inside.73 Chemical analysis of this residue showed that it was ‘a clear, red resin’ and that ‘the amphora was used to transport red wine’.74

156

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

In eastern Scotland, at the fortified site of Rhynie, fragments of imported LRA 1 and LRA 2 amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean were found on excavations in 2011, as well as glass fragments from western France. The excavators have speculated that the settlement may have been a royal site occupied by Pictish kings between the 6th and 8th centuries.75 A different pattern of Mediterranean imports seems to occur in Ireland. More sherds of Phocaean Red Slip Ware (in particular Hayes’ form 3, dated to the late 5th-early 6th century) were found here than fragments of African Red Slip Ware. These fine ware fragments from western Turkey were often identified at high-status hill forts, among them those of Collierstown 1 (County Meath), Garranes in the Cork Harbour area, Clogher (County Tyrone) and Mount Offaly Cemetery at Cabinteely (County Dublin).76 They seem to occur together with LRA 1 amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean, because sixteen find-spots with this amphora type have so far been identified in Ireland due to intensive roadbuilding schemes.77 Furthermore, four sites (Garranes, Clogher, Mount Offaly Cemetery, Stalleen) yielded fragments of LRA 2 amphorae from the Aegean, while only the promontory fort of Loughshinny, Drumanagh Headland (County Dublin) revealed sherds of North African amphorae.78 In short, when combining the (re-)distribution patterns of fine wares and amphorae the clustering of find spots shows traffic links along the southern and eastern coasts of Ireland, with a density along the coast of County Dublin (where a considerable port must have been situated).79 The Late Roman pottery finds from the Mediterranean show that Britain, Scotland, and Ireland were no isolated outposts, but regions with long-distance contacts with the Byzantine Empire (particularly in the 6th century). A story in the Life of St. John the Almsgiver (610-620) seems to confirm this, as it mentions a ship that after taking grain to Britain returned to Alexandria with tin cargo.80 To date, there are two sea-faring theories, resulting from possibilities of exchange of tin from Cornwall and of iron from Ireland for oil, wine or even grain from the Mediterranean.81 It has been suggested that the journey from Byzantium to western Europe was direct via the Straits of Gibraltar and the Atlantic Ocean, without stops on the way, deriving from the exceptional pottery percentages in the British assemblages (71 percent of eastern Mediterranean imports versus 19 percent of North African imports) and from the relative absence of comparable finds along the Atlantic Coast.82 Another theory assumes a more complex exchange system with a route over sea, which included stops for exchange of goods and refuelling of resources. This favours a route along the coast of Portugal and south-western France towards Britain.83 Recent evidence from Atlantic sites in south-western France, north-western Spain and Portugal seems to offer new views of Mediterranean pottery imports to

157

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

north-western Europe. Examples of 7th-century amphorae have already been recorded in western France, among them a sherd of a Late Roman Amphora 2 at Nantes, as well as a fragment of a Late Roman Amphora 1 in Brittany (l’Île Lavret, Bréhat) and another one at Vaas (Pays de la Loire).84 Larger quantities of Late Roman amphorae were identified more to the south-east, in particular at Marseille,85 and to the southwest, above all at Toulouse and Bordeaux. Excavations in this last city yielded not only Byzantine coins but also various types of amphorae and fine wares from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. These included Phocaean Red Slip Ware (LRC), African Red Slip Ware (including late 7th-century forms), fragments of Late Roman Amphora 4, of Late Roman Amphora 1, of Late Roman Amphora 5, of Late Roman Amphora 2 and of Late Roman Amphora 3.86 In addition, Spanish amphorae seem to have been present at Toulouse as well during the 5th century.87 Apart from these cumulative finds in France, more imports were identified on sites along the northern and western shores of Spain and Portugal. At Vigo in north-western Spain, for instance, various examples of Phocaean Red Slip Ware/LRC and late (7th-century) forms of African Red Slip Wares were found, as well as many LRA 1 amphorae.88 At Braga (Portugal), we may notice a comparable pattern, with finds of African Red Slip Ware and LRC (form 3) and of amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa but with two additional sherds of Cypriot Red Slip Ware/ LRD from Cyprus/southern Turkey.89 More Atlantic sites with similar-looking Mediterranean imports are A Coruña (Galicia), Gijón (northern Spain), and Coimbriga and Tróia in Portugal.90 However, we also need to keep an open eye for other hypothetical exchange systems, such as an alternative inland route from the Mediterranean via rivers (among them the Rhine) to the west.91 On the continental side of the British Channel, for instance, cowrie shells from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean and red garnet from India and Ceylon used in jewellery were found in 6th- and 7th-century cemeteries of the Merovingian period in north-western Europe.92 Also, several bead-types (like amethyst) came from India and the eastern Mediterranean to north-western Europe in this period,93 as did oriental imports of coins, weights, textiles, jewelry (earrings), buckles, decorative pins and metal objects, crosses and weapons.94 At least 120 Byzantine copper-alloy basins, ewers and other domestic utensils were exported in the late 6th and 7th centuries to north-western Europe and south-eastern Britain, where they became known as ‘Coptic vessels’.95 A 6th- to 7th-century dish with an openwork ring foot and incised equal-armed cross on the exterior bottom probably came (with other small finds dating to circa 500-700) from a funerary context in the vicinity of Ewijk (in Gelderland).96 Two more bronze examples

158

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

with openwork feet are known from the same Dutch River area near Nijmegen, and were possibly transported from the Mediterranean via the Alpine passes and over the Rhine.97 A comparable 6th- to 7th-century bronze vessel from a grave in King’s Field, Faversham (UK), contained hazelnuts, showing that these prestige goods can be associated with an elite life-style.98 A ‘Coptic’ jug was excavated at the chamber grave at Krefeld-Gellep (Germany) with an inscription containing the name of the buried king. More metal vessels are known from graves near the rivers Saône and Seine. The richest ones are known from Anglo-Saxon burials in eastern Britain, such as the Sutton Hoo ship burial,99 which yielded a hammered and decorated brass bucket with Greek inscription (suggesting an eastern manufacture) as well.100 A map published by the historian Michael McCormick shows the spread of Byzantine and Arab coins in north-western Europe.101 If we go into more detail, it is notable that from a total of circa 198 Byzantine gold, silver, copper, and bronze coin finds in the Netherlands, at least 84 were golden solidi and tremissis, which can be dated to the 6th and 7th centuries and predominantly came from eastern Mediterranean mints (like Constantinople). They were found as stray finds, in graves and in two hoards, one of them the prominent Drenthe hoard from Zeegse with 41 coins (see Table 4).102 Most of the gold coins (2/3) occur in the northern coastal areas of Frisia (often due to large-scale agricultural activities), followed by finds near the Dutch river zones (around the Rhine, Waal and Lek). Intriguing in this respect was also the recovery, on a late 6th- to 7th-century cemetery at Lutlommel (northern Belgium), of a wooden box containing four bronze square weights with incised Greek letters (also known as exagia solidi), which were used by Byzantine money changers for the weighing and determination of smaller commodities (such as coins, spices and precious metals).103 Furthermore, two Byzantine bronze coin weights and an enigmatic silver bowl of Eastern/Mediterranean origin (with engraved and gilded motifs of plants and animals) were recently recovered at the late 6th to early 8th-century settlement of Oestgeest (western Netherlands), which was a nodal point for exchange along the river Rhine.104 Finally, I would like to mention nine ‘St. Menas ampullae’ or small pilgrim flasks from Abu Mina (northern Egypt), dated to the 6th to early 7th century, which have been identified in Britain so far.105 Most of these have an unknown archaeological context, but one flask from Meols (western Britain) was recovered in an area near the find of three 6th-century Byzantine copper coins.106 Two more examples probably came from the Anglo-Saxon royal site of Faversham (south-eastern Britain), together with various metal objects, garnets, beads and four golden coins (tremissis) with attached loop.107

159

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

North of the Byzantine Empire – Apart from trade and diplomatic gifts, there were other forms of Early Medieval exchange, among them piracy, invasions, raids, tribute-gathering, but also migration and re-settlement. A good example are the Vikings (‘i Viking’ means plundering), who suddenly burst from the North into Europe since the late 9th century with a series of terrifying attacks on the coasts and rivers of Britain, Scotland, Ireland, France, and the Low Countries. To the west, these raids (dominated by Danes and Norwegians) were followed by settlement of more permanent colonies to the west of the Faeroe Islands, to Iceland, Greenland, and the North American continent.108 To the east, Viking traders and mercenaries from Sweden ­apparently sailed as far as they could down the navigable Russian rivers (the Lovat, Dvina, Dnepr, and Volga, among others) on their way to Constantinople and the Islamic Caliphates. These Viking activities in the East lasted about 450 years, from circa 650 to 1100 (see Table 5 and Fig. 7). A telling example is the ‘Varangian Guard’ (Greek: Τάγμα τῶν Βαράγγων, ‘the axe-bearing barbarians’109), a Viking elite unit of the Byzantine Army which functioned from the 10th to the 14th centuries, the members of which served as personal bodyguards to the Byzantine Emperors.110 These mercenaries were generally composed of Germanic peoples, specifically Swedish Vikings and Anglo-Saxons (who found employment in Constantinople after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066-1075). However, Vikings provided the earliest members of the Varangian Guard, probably mostly those who were also known as the Rús (Vikings who descended from Sweden and lived in present-day Ukraine and Belarus).111 They were in Byzantine service from as early as 874, well before the Varangian Guard was first formally constituted under the Emperor Basil ii (r. 976-1025) in 988, following the conversion to Orthodoxy of the Kievan Rus by Grand Prince Vladimir i of Kiev in the same year. An illustration of the Varangian Guard can today be seen in the late 12th-century Skylitzes Chronicle (National Library, Madrid), in which fifteen guards surround the Imperial Palace and most of these carry long-shafted battle-axes of a Medieval northern European type.112 Noteworthy in this respect are three Byzantine lead seals found at Ribe, Tissø (Denmark) and at Hedeby/Haithabu (northern Germany), which bear the name of the official (patrikios) Theodosios who was ‘the head of the Byzantine armoury and military recruitment office’ in the 9th century.113 Most of the Varangians came from eastern Sweden according to the majority of stone memorials, also known as ‘runestones’, which were raised during the Viking age. These Varangian runestones commemorate various fallen warriors through carved runes, and mention voyages to the East (‘Austr’) or the Eastern route (‘Austrvegr’), or to more specific eastern locations (such as ‘Garðaríki’, which is today Russia and the Ukraine).114 Varangian runestones referring to Byzantium (‘Grikkiar’, meaning

160

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Greeks) were mainly found in central Sweden (around Lake Mälaren, Uppland and Södermannland).115 One example of a runestone with an inscription from Angarn Church in Uppland commemorates a man called ‘Tóki’, who died in Greece.116 Apart from runestones mentioning travellers to Byzantium, the Scandinavians also left runic inscriptions (or graffiti) in Byzantium itself. Conspicuous are, for instance, the runes with a Scandinavian name (‘Halvdan’) engraved into a marble balustrade of the Hagia Sophia Church at Constantinople.117 The most renowned rune carvings in Byzantium are three different inscriptions on the 4th-century BC marble lion from Piraeus, Greece, which was taken as war booty to Venice. One can distinguish a long text band incised on the lion’s left leg and flank, which has a similar form to a text on a runestone from Orkesta (north-east of Stockholm).118 These graffiti are probably the oldest ones, dated to the first half of the 11th century, and they are assumed to have been carved by members of the Guard serving in this part of the Byzantine Empire.119 Apart from runestones and graffiti, we know from excavated contexts that around 2717 Middle Byzantine coins were found in northern Europe – probably traded for their value of gold, silver, and copper. A total of circa 69 golden solidi (dated to the 9th and 10th centuries) were recovered in Norway, Sweden, Gotland, Poland, Slovakia, Russia and the Ukraine.120 In Sweden only, there is a total of 543 Byzantine coins and 60 imitations, dated to between the mid 6th and 11th centuries.121 Early Byzantine bronze coins of the 6th and 7th centuries were, for instance, found in northern Sweden and Finland, from Dalarna province north to Västerbotten.122 It has been suggested that these earlier coins arrived in this region as a result of high-quality furs (undoubtedly together with amber and slaves) between Scandinavia, the Mediterranean and the East.123 As far as Byzantine gold coins (or their imitations) are concerned, it is very well possible that they were melted to raw material in these distant regions, or re-used in jewellery as pendants, rings or necklaces as a form of wealth-display, such as in a 7th-century chain found in Johannishus (southern Sweden).124 Famous is also the Hon Hoard from southeastern Norway, which was deposited in the second half of the 9th century and included two solidi-pendants and a golden chain-link with Greek inscription.125 In the same period (circa 560/570-750/800), more Byzantine-related objects reached eastern Sweden from the south, such as imports of amethyst beads, ivory rings, shell beads, cowrie shells, golden foil strips woven into silk, cameos and metal artefacts (among them a ’Coptic’ ladle).126 Early Byzantine high-quality metal finds can be traced along this ‘eastern’ exchange system, among them two late 5th- to early 6th-century silver bowls from Kriimani and Varnja (in north-western Estonia), a

161

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

group of early 7th-century silver patens or dishes from the Kama region west of Perm (central Russia), 24 stamped silver vessels (550-565) from the Ural Mountains, a late 6th-century silver washing set from Mala Pereshchepina (Ukraine), late 6th- and early 7th-century silver objects from Martynovka (Ukraine) and a 7th-century golden brooch from Glodosy/Kirovograd (Ukraine).127 In order to control the trade routes to the far South, the Vikings apparently used the Russian river system by the early 9th century as a highway for long-distance contacts with Byzantium and with Arab merchants of the Abbasid Caliphate. Byzantine objects found in 9th- to 10th-century layers in eastern European sites included reliquary crosses, finger rings, weapons, buckles, silk, glass artefacts and bracelets, lead seals, coins and pottery.128 Within this last category, various types of glazed pottery and amphorae appeared on sites from 950 onwards, among them the Günsenin I/ Saraçhane 54 amphorae from Ganos (Sea of Marmara, south of Constantinople) dated to the 10th-11th centuries (in particular the 11th century).129 This amphora type was not only distributed to the Crimea, Ukraine and Russia, but also ended up in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) and Sweden (Fig. 8). To date, fragments and/ or more complete examples of this Middle Byzantine amphora type were, for instance, recovered at Birka/Björkö Island, Sigtuna, Nyköping, Lund (Sweden), Hedeby/ Haithabu (northern Germany), Polotsk (Belarus), Staraya Ladoga, Novgorod, Beloozero, Gnëzdovo/Smolensk, Old Rayzan, Trepol’ye (Russia), Shestovitsa, Vyshgorod and Kiev (Ukraine).130 Within the Birka/Björkö Island material, a body fragment of this amphora type was smoothed on all sides and re-used as a ceramic stopper.131 In a Viking burial mound at Gnëzdovo (central Russia), another Byzantine amphora type has been found with a Cyrillic graffito on the shoulder mentioning the name of the owner (‘Gorun’).132 It was found with many other finds, among them Arabic coins (dated to 848-949, 907/908), scales, weights, and an imported small one-handled jug, covered with a light green glaze on the upper part.133 This amphora type was documented by the Russian archaeologist Vladimir Koval in a finds catalogue as his ‘type V’ together with an amphora from Kiev.134 The last one looks very similar to a Middle Byzantine amphora type from a 10th- to 11th-century pottery workshop at Chalkis on the Island of Euboea (central Greece), that is currently studied by me and other team members.135 From the same workshop at Chalkis originates a new Middle Byzantine amphora type with incised decoration (often of animals) that has as yet been found at Kiev and Sarkel.136 Furthermore, a dish from a cremation grave at Gnëzdovo was decorated with a fantastic creature inside a central medallion,137 a 10th-century parallel of which, made of Glazed White Ware II, was recovered at the Great Palace excavations in Constantinople.138 More examples of Glazed White Ware II, a local production of Constantinopo-

162

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

litan fine ware, were recovered at Gnëzdovo, Novgorod, Kiev, and Shestovitsa.139 One of these is a small plate, the second one is a fragment decorated with a checkerboard motif, and the third one is a cup decorated with geometrical motifs that look similar to a fragmented jug from Kiev.140 Interesting is also the find of some fragments of Glazed White Ware II or III at excavations in Birka and Sigtuna (eastern Sweden), which could be dated to the second half of the 11th century.141 One green glazed cup from Sigtuna was deposited later, during the first half of the 12th century.142 More sherds of a brown-glazed variant seem to have been found at Trondheim (Norway) in an early 11th-century context.143 The excavations at Sigtuna also yielded fibulae, pectoral crosses, ivory combs with non-figurative and bird motifs, glass vessels, and amphorae from Byzantium.144 In addition, a Byzantine lead seal dated to 1033 was found at Sigtuna, carrying the image and name of John the Baptist on the obverse and a Greek inscription on the reverse.145 Finally, fragments of another glazed ware from Constantinople with a colourful painted decoration, the ‘Polychrome Ware’ of the late 10th to early 12th centuries, have been discovered so far at Sarkel, Kiev, Vyshgorod, Old Rayzan, Gnëzdovo, Polotsk and Novgorod.146 This last site yielded a small Polychrome Ware cup, decorated with a painted cross on the interior bottom, in a late 10th-century occupation level, as well as the bottom of a Polychrome Ware dish in a mid 10th-century context.147 In short, Byzantine glazed fine wares and amphorae reached Ukranian and Russian major regional centres (such as Kiev, Gnëzdovo, Novgorod) in substantial quantities, and occasionally Scandinavian sites in smaller amounts. The ceramic containers transporting wine and oil were exported from the Aegean via the Black Sea to Kiev and other ports of entry into the lands of the southern Rus, from where they were either re-distributed to smaller settlements and hamlets in the region, or to towns in the north. Apparently, the distribution of these bulk goods was quite an important element of Kievan trade, and the wide-spread drinking of wine even resulted in the construction of wine cellars by the ruling elite and by more common consumers.148 The import of wine amphorae came with a plethora of drinking vessels, ranging from expensive ones made of silver, bronze or glass to bone, horns and even wooden cups. Furthermore, olive oil and wine were not only used for consumption, but also for religious purposes (church service, communion, blessing, anointment of the sick), healing, illumination (lamps) and craft production (jewellery-making, icon-painting) in Rus society.149 It seems that, conversion to Orthodoxy and technological transfer were also important components of the Byzantine-Rus relations after 989, as is shown by the development of a glass industry in Kiev for the production of tesserae for wall mosaics in churches and monasteries.150

163

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

conclu di ng r e m a r k s The aim of this chapter was to present a first overview of long-distance movements of pottery and related finds from the Byzantine Empire and its capital to the wider world. Constantinople was a prime transit hub in inter- and extra-regional exchange networks that at various times extended across nearly all of Eurasia and North Africa. The distribution of Byzantine amphorae, tablewares and other goods to India, eastern Africa, south-western Britain, and Scandinavia is clear evidence of the vitality of commercial trade and long-distance exchange during the Early Middle Ages. Apart from amphorae and tablewares, also metal objects, glass vessels, lead seals, gold coins and weights were moving in the same period beyond the Byzantine Empire to remote places, in particular during the Early Byzantine period between the 4th and 7th centuries. On the basis of primary ceramic data (mainly finds of amphorae, but also of tablewares) and of secondary additional information (finds of glass vessels, metalware, coins and other artefacts), it seems possible to distinguish differences in the networks, both geographical and over time. In fact, there seem to have been quite different exchange systems at work beyond the eastern, southern, western, and northern frontiers of the Empire, while the finds also clearly suggest a fundamental change of overall orientation of Byzantine long-distance trade over time. To the East, post-Roman contacts continued until the 7th century. Sherds of Late Roman wine amphorae from the eastern Mediterranean and of the odd Aila/Aqaba type from southern Jordan (dated to late 4th/5th to 7th centuries) were recovered on various sites in western and southern India and Sri Lanka. These transport containers may be linked to return trade in raw materials (such as silk, gems, precious metals, and spices). Alternatively, delicate glass vessels and beads of the same period (circa the 3rd and 5th centuries) ended up as luxury items in grave contexts in the Far East (China, Korea, Japan). Other Early Byzantine prestige exports were high-quality silk textiles, metal objects and gold coins, which were found in Japan, Thailand, and the Maldives. To the South, Early Byzantine amphorae from the port of Aqaba (southern Jordan), roughly dated to the 4th- to 7th-century and probably filled with wine, were spread as part of the Red Sea trade system to sites in eastern and southern Egypt, Yemen, South Arabia, Ethiopia, and even south-western India. With the amphorae also came other types of pottery, such as vessels from Aqaba, tablewares from North Africa, western Turkey, and Egypt (recovered on sites from South Arabia to southern Zanzibar). Furthermore, metal wares (among them weights and balances), coins, glass vessels, and beads ended up in South Arabia, Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Tanzania, Libya, Morocco, and Burkina Faso. However, all these items were not later than the 7th century. Middle Byzantine finds have not been identified in these regions (South and East), probably

164

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

due to the impact of the Justinian Plague, the political and economic rivalry with Sasanian Persia, and the effect of the Arabic invasions on long-distance trade. To the West, we can distinguish a similar pattern. Here, we see a wide diffusion of small amounts of various types of Late Roman amphorae and Red Slip Wares from the Mediterranean (mostly types from the eastern Mediterranean, followed by those from North Africa), but never later than the 7th century. These ceramic vessels were reaching sites in north-western Spain, the Atlantic Ocean, south-western Britain, Scotland, and Ireland. They seemed to have accompanied shipments of state-procured wheat, likely as secondary consignments of commercial value. One may assume that Mediterranean oil and wine were traded for tin from Cornwall and for iron from Ireland. In other areas (south-eastern Britain, the Netherlands, Germany), the finds of Early Byzantine metal vessels, gold, silver and copper coins, and coin weights from the Mediterranean suggest the existence of an alternative river-based exchange route (such as the Rhine as a main way of transport) by which they came to the West. To the North, on the other hand, the increase in imports of Byzantine pottery started much later. Although coins, silverware and jewellery already reached the Ukraine, Russia, and eastern and northern Sweden during the 6th and 7th centuries – probably through the trade in furs, amber, and slaves – the really substantial imports of commodities from Byzantium started from the 9th century onwards. This is not only shown by finds of Byzantine lead seals in Denmark and northern Germany, but also by the recovery of fragments of wine amphorae from Ganos (produced south of Constantinople) at sites in Ukraine, Russia, northern Germany, and eastern Sweden. Together with these amphorae came also glazed and decorated tablewares from Constantinople. The Russian river system acted clearly as an ideal highway between the Mediterranean and the Baltic for long-distance transport of the wine amphorae, the content of which was both for consumption and for religious use in Communion. In short, the archaeological record clearly shows that from the 7th century onwards, the Byzantine Empire witnessed a contraction of long-distance contacts with the East, South and West, but after the 8th century a renaissance of contacts with the North. This material evidence thus seems to underline what we know from the historical sources. The 7th and 8th centuries were a period of great turmoil and crisis for the Empire, marked by the almost catastrophic wars with the combined Avar-Sassanid-Slavic forces from the East as well as by the power struggle with the Arabs to the South. This probably resulted in a clear rupture in the orientation of the Byzantine long-distance networks in the 7th-8th centuries, after which only the exchange system to the North through the Russian river system recovered. On the basis of the archaeological finds, a first hypothetical impression has been presented here of which Byzantine exports ended up in which faraway places, though I

165

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

did not discuss in much detail why and by whom these trade networks were functioning. It is necessary to note that the artefacts and commodities from Byzantium circulated not necessarily only through commerce, but could also have been distributed as a result of other exchange mechanisms, such as high-status gifting practices, diplomatic and political gifts, the payment of tribute, loot and pillage. Some Byzantine products (such as high-quality glass and metal objects) were considered as very desirable luxuries by foreign elites, as is shown by the recovery of such items in (often princely) burials far outside the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire (in north-western Europe, eastern Africa and the Far East). High-status diplomatic gifts from Byzantium were, for instance, silk textiles and garments, gold- and silverware, jewellery, spices, drugs, weapons, belts, purple painted shoes, semi-precious stone and ivory objects and even relics, while St. Menas ampullae probably travelled as pilgrims’ souvenirs.151 Indeed, one should not forget the role of the church in the Byzantine economy. This role ranged from the agricultural production of bulk goods (wine, olive oil) by monastic communities to long-distance trading activities by the clergy to ecclesiastic sites far away. This kind of exchange enterprises related to the Byzantine church (whether or not linked to production on church estates, or associated with Christian pilgrimage sites) caused ceramic products to travel from Constantinople to Scandinavia, or from Egypt to Samarkand, just as regular commercial trade did. Who moved along these routes? Traders, diplomats, pilgrims, missionaries, scholars, armies, mercenaries, slaves, and goods surely did, but beliefs, ideas, pandemics, and technology travelled over the networks as well. Novel Byzantine glass making techniques were introduced to distant regions (Kiev), while raw materials (tin, iron, gold, ivory) were imported from the West and the South to the Empire, after which beads, coins, jewellery and other objects were manufactured in Byzantine towns. The city of Alexandria was, for instance, a centre of the large-scale manufacturing of cloth, glass, carved ivory and papyrus, as well as of the carving of imported rock crystal from India.152 The question whether the long-distance exchange over the Byzantine trade networks functioned in a direct way between locations of demand and supply, or rather in an indirect way along various intermediate stations is not easy to answer on the basis of the archaeological record. The availability and desirability of some commodities changed with the formation of each new political and socio-economic arrangement and structure in the eastern Mediterranean and beyond. In addition, changing geopolitical and climate constellations in the Indian Ocean, Arabia, West Asia, and Europe (600-1600) had certainly socio-economic repercussions for the Byzantine economy and thus for the Byzantine Empire as a whole, which was obviously connected to several proto-global exchange systems. These tantalising questions are beyond the scope of this paper, but should certainly be in the spotlight of future research.

166

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k site name Katheswar

region Western India

PrabhasSomnath Nagara

Western India

Ajabpura

Western India

Hathab

Western India

Kamrej

Western India

Elephanta

Western India

Pattanam

South-western India South-central India South-eastern India

Karur Arikamedu

Tissama­ harama Samarkand

Western India

Sri Lanka Uzbekistan

Kara-Agatsj Western Kazakhstan Jingpan Western China Beipiao Eastern China Jingxian Central China Nanjing Central China Xi’an Central China

amphorae fine fares glass LRA 1; Aila/Aqaba (late 4th - 7th c.) LRA 1 (late 4th-early 7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (5th - 7th c.) LRA 3 (late 4th-early 7th c.) LRA 1 (late 4th-early 7th c.) LRA 1; Aila/Aqaba (late 4th – 7th c.) LRA 1; LRA 2; LRA 7; Aila/Aqaba (late 4th - 7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (5th-7th c.) ‘North African’ (late 4th-early 7th c.) LRA 1 handle (5th c.); ‘North African’ (late 4th- early 7th c.) ‘Late Roman types’ (late 4th- early 7th c.) St. Menas ampulla (6th-7th c.) Beaker (5th c.)

Central Thailand

Gan Island

Maldives

coins / other

Copper coins Gold and copper coins (450-640) Gold and copper coins (300-640)

Cup (ca. 3rd c.) Vessels (ca. early 5th c.) Vessels (ca. late 5th c.) Cup (ca. 4th-early 5th c.) Cup (pre 8th c?.)

Hwangnam Korea Daechong Nagaoka Japan Nara Japan Pong Tuk

metal

Golden soliduspendant (491-518)

Vessels (late 4th-5th c.) Beads (pre 5th c.?) Cushion cover (mid 8th c.) Bronze lamp (5th-6th c.) Gold coins (5th c.)

table 1 – Summarised information of Byzantine finds from sites to the East of the Byzantine Empire (mentioned in the text). Abbreviations: LRA 1 = Late Roman Amphora 1; LRA 2 = Late Roman Amphora 2; LRA 3 = Late Roman Amphora 3; LRA 7 = Late Roman Amphora 7 ( J. Vroom).

167

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on site name Berenike

region Eastern Egypt

Shensef

Eastern Egypt

Abu Sha’ar Marsa Nakari Zafar

Eastern Egypt Eastern Egypt Yemen

Gulf of Aden Shabwa Qana

Yemen Yemen Yemen

Black Assarca Island Adulis

Eritrea

Matara

Eritrea

Asmara Aksum

Eritrea Ethiopia

Bakhit Ballana & Qustul

Sudan Sudan

Ras Hafun Unguja Ukuu

Somalia South Zanzibar

Fukuchani Pemba Island + Tanga Coast Kivinja

North Zanzibar Fragments (?) Tanzania Tanzania

Mafia Island

Tanzania

Ayhran Nadharif

South-western Libya South-western Libya

Wadi al-Ajal

Eritrea

Rabat

Morocco

Kissi

Burkina Faso

amphorae LRA 1; LRA 3; LRA 4; LRA 7; ‘North African’; Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) LRA 1; LRA 3; Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) LRA 4; ‘North African’; Aila/ Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) + lids ‘Globular pilgrim-flasks’ LRA 1; LRA 2; ‘North African’; Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.)

fine wares RSW

glass

metal

Stemmed goblets

Counter balance weight Copper cast objects Copper cast objects

Objects

Weights, copperalloy lamp and ewer

coins / other

ARS; CRS

Lamps, jugs (4th-7th c.)

RSW Unknown types RSW

Aila/Aqaba (4th-7th c.) LRA 1; Aila/Aqaba ARS bowls Egyptian ‘table amphora’ (mid 4th c.+) (4th – 7th c.) LRA 1 (4th-7th c.) 200-300x LRA 1; LRA 3; LRA 4 (4th-7th c.)

1x Fine Ware; 1x Coarse Ware (5th-6th c.)

33 silver pieces; 170 copper vessels; lamps (6th c.+) Bronze vessels Fragments (Ca. 500)

Alabaster from Egypt

Coins (4th-7th c.) Fragments (5th-6th c.) Fragments (6th c.)

‘North African’ (late 6th-early 7th c.) Vessels and beads (4th5th c.) Golden olidus (395-400) Beads (5th-7th c.)

Copper-alloy objects (anklets) (5th-7th c.)

table 2 – Summarised information of Byzantine finds from sites to the South of the Byzantine Empire (mentioned in the text). Abbreviations: LRA 1 = Late Roman Amphora 1; LRA 2= Late Roman Amphora 2; LRA 3 = Late Roman Amphora 3;168 LRA 4 = Late Roman Amphora 4; LRA 7 = Late Roman Amphora 7; RSW = Red Slip Wares; ARS = African Red Slip Ware; CRS = Cypriot Red Slip Ware ( J. Vroom).

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k site name Tintagel Castle, Cornwall

region South-western Britain

amphorae LRA 1; LRA 2; LRA 3; LRA 4; ‘North African’; ‘Spanish’; ‘Portuguese’?

fine wares glass ARS forms 91C, Fragments 99A-B; PRS form 10 and 3E?

Dinas Powys, Glamorgan South Cadbury, Somerset

South-western Britain South-western Britain

‘Eastern Mediterranean’

ARS forms 91C, 99C, 75?

Longbury Bank, Dyfed, Wales Bantham, South Devon Mothecombe, South Devon Plymouth South, Devon Pevensey Castle, East Sussex Shadwell London

South-western Britain South-western Britain South-western Britain South-western Britain South-western Britain South-eastern Britain Eastern Scotland Ireland

‘Eastern Mediterranean’

Rhynie, Aberdeenshire Collierstown, Meath Garranes, Cork Clogher, Tyrone Dublin Bay Area: Mt.Offaly, Loughshinny Stalleen, Meath Tipperary Ile-de-Bréhat, northern coast of Brittany Nantes, Brittany Vaas, Loire Bordeaux

Toulouse A Corũna

‘Eastern Mediterranean’

coins/other Copper coin (6th c.); slate window inscribed with Latin and Greek Copper coin (7th c.) Copper coins (6th c.); gold coin?

Fragments

LRA 1; 2x LRA 4; 1x LRA 2; 2x ‘North African’ 5x LRA 1; 2x LRA 2

PRS form 3 (2x)

1x LRA 1 (5th-6th c.) 1x ‘Eastern Mediterranean’

ARS forms 91, 99, and 75? 3x LRA 3; Spatheion from North ARS form Africa 50/50A LRA 1; LRA 2 9x LRA 1; LRA 1

PRS PRS PRS

Ireland

LRA 1; LRA 2 LRA1; LRA 2; ‘North African’ LRA 1; LRA 2; ‘North African’

Ireland

LRA 2

Ireland North-western France

LRA 1; ‘North African’ 1x LRA 1

Western France France South-western France

1x LRA 2 1x LRA 1 6x LRA 1; 2x LRA 2; 1x LRA 3; 12x LRA 4; 4x LRA 5; ‘North African’; ‘Spanish

South-western France North-western Spain

‘Eastern Mediterranean’ ‘Spanish’

Ireland Ireland

Fragments

metal

PRS

ARS forms 90, 91C, 99A, 103, 104, 105, 109A; PRS form 3C

PRS form 3

169

Fragments

Golden solidus (late 4th c.)

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on site name Gijón

region amphorae Northern Spain 1x LRA 1

fine wares

Vigo

North-western Spain

LRA 1; ‘Eastern Mediterranean’

Late ARS (7th c.) PRS

Braga

Portugal

‘Eastern Mediterranean’ ‘North African’

ARS; PRS form 3 CRS (2x)

glass

metal

coins/other

Beaker; fragments

Silver plate (641-651)

Golden solidi and gold ingot (6th c.)

Conimbriga

Portugal

PRS

Tróia

Portugal

ARS forms 91B-C PRS form 3 (1x)

Dorestad

Central Netherlands

Oegstgeest

Western Netherlands

Silver decorated bowl; 2x coin weights (late 6th-early 8th c.)

Ewijk

Eastern Netherlands

Dish/basin (late 6th-7th c.)

Krefeld-Gellep

Western Germany

Dish/basin with inscription; helmet

Lutlommel

Northern Belgium

Sutton Hoo Ship, Suffolk

Eastern Britain

Faversham, Kent

Eastern Britain

St. Menas ampulla (6th-7th c.)

Meols, Cheshire

Western Britain

St. Menas ampulla (6th-7th c.)

Silver coinpendants Wooden box with four bronze weights (6th-7th c.)

Dishes/basins; bowls; brass bucket; silver cup & ladle; silver spoons

Golden soliduspendant set in mount (late 4th-early 5th c.)

Dish/basin (with hazelnuts); inscribed jug (late 6th-7th c.)

4x golden coins (tremissis) with attached loop (6th c.) Copper coins (6th c.)

table 3 – Summarised information of Byzantine finds from sites to the West of the Byzantine Empire (mentioned in the text). Abbrevations: LRA 1 = Late Roman Amphora 1; LRA 2 = Late Roman Amphora 2; LRA 3 = Late Roman Amphora 3; LRA 4 = Late Roman Amphora 4; LRA 7 = Late Roman Amphora 7; RSW = Red Slip Wares; ARS = African Red Slip Ware; PRS = Phocaean Red Slip Ware; CRS = Cypriot Red Slip Ware ( J. Vroom).

170

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k present-day country

amount of byzantine gold coins

amount of gold coins found in hoards

The Netherlands

84

57

Germany

68

14

Great Britain

43

8-17

Belgium

12

7

table 4 – Amounts of Byzantine gold coins (ca. 491-650) found in north-western Europe (data provided by Drs. A. Pol). site name Dalarna & Härjedalen Hon

region Northern Sweden Norway

Kriimani and Varnja

North-western Estonia

Kama region

Central Russia

Ural Mountains

Central Russia

Mala Pereshchepina Martynovka

Ukraine

Glodosy

Ukraine

Ribe

Denmark

Tissø

Denmark

Hedeby

Northern Germany Southern Sweden

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Eastern Sweden

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Johannishus

amphorae

fine wares

glass

Eastern Sweden

Nyköping

Eastern Sweden

Lund

Eastern Sweden

coins/other Copper coins (6th-7th c.) Hoard with golden solidi pendants

Silver bowls (late 5th-early 6th c.) Silver dishes (early 7th c.) 24x silver stamped vessels (550-565) Silver washing set Necklace of gold (582-602) coins (582–646) Silver objects (late 6th-early 7th c.) Golden brooch (7th c.) Lead seal (9th c.) Lead seal (9th c.) Lead seal (9th c.) Necklace of coins (11th c.)

Ukraine

Birka/Björkö Island Sigtuna

metal

GWW II

Beads

GWW II (III?) (late 11th-early 12th c.)

Vessels

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

171

Fibulae; pectoral crosses

Ivory combs; Lead seal (1033)

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on site name Trondheim

region Norway

amphorae

Staraya Ladoga

North-western Russia North-western Russia

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Beloozero region (e.g. Minino)

North-western Russia

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Polotsk

Belarus

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Gnëzdovo

Western Russia

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos; other type with Cyrillic graffito

Old Rayzan

Western Russia

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Trepol’ye

Western Russia

Šhestovitsa

Ukraine

Vyshgorod

Ukraine

Middle Byzantine type from Ganos Middle Byzantine type from Ganos Middle Byzantine type from Ganos

Kiev

Ukraine

Middle Byzantine types from Ganos and from Chalkis

Sarkel

Ukraine

Middle Byzantine type from Chalkis

Novgorod

fine wares GWW II (early 11th c.)

glass

GWW II: Polychrome Ware (late 10thearly 12th c.) ‘Glazed pottery’

Beads

Beads; vessels

Polychrome Ware (late 10th-early 12th c.) GWW II (10th c.) Polychrome Ware (late 10th-early 12th c.) Polychrome Ware (late 10th – early 12th c.)

metal

coins/other

Bronze balance weights; parts of scales

Silver miliaresion; golden solidus pendant (976-1024)

Scales; weights

GWW II Polychrome Ware (late 10th-early 12th c.) GWW II: Polychrome Ware (late 10th-early 12th c.) Polychrome Ware (late 10th-early 12th c.)

table 5 – Byzantine finds from sites to the North of the Byzantine Empire (summary of data mentioned in the text). Abbreviations: gww ii = Glazed White Ware II ( J. Vroom).

172

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

not es 1 The Christian Topography originally

were produced in huge quantities in

consisted of five books, but soon expanded

restricted geographical areas, often near

to ten and eventually to twelve books at

rich agricultural regions, and exported en

around 550 AD. Three nearly complete

masse; cf. Riley 1979; 1981; Peacock and

manuscripts are known to exist. The

Williams 1986; Reynolds 2010; Reynolds

earliest is from the 9th century, and is in

and Vroom 2018. 5

the Vatican Library; two closely related manuscripts are from the 11th century,

describe a wide range of commercial

one probably originally from the Iviron

transactions (the buying and selling of

monastery of Mount Athos, and the other

goods and services), although other

from Saint Catherine’s Monastery at

distribution possibilities (diplomatic gifts,

Sinai (Egypt). The authorship of this last,

pilgrimages, raids) are discussed as well; cf. Mundell Mango 2009, 3.

richly illustrated 11th-century manuscript 6

has been attributed to ‘Kosmas, a monk’;

2

3

4

The term ‘trade’ is used here to broadly

‘Local’ refers to pottery production at a

cf. Clark 2008, 10-11. The manuscript

certain site and its direct surroundings;

has, since the Middle Ages, been in the

‘regional’ refers to the manufacture of

collections of the Holy Monastery of Saint

pottery in a particular region (often

Catherine as Codex 1186 (fols. 66v-67r

with limited geological differences, and

show the map discussed here); see also

thus hardly any fabric differences in the

Weitzman and Galavaris 1990, 52-62.

wares made in this region); ‘interregional’

From the Byzantine Empire to the east

implies pottery distribution relating to

went, for instance, purple, silver, glass,

or occurring between different regions;

copper, tin, wine, linen, and papyrus, while

‘intra-regional’ refers to exchange within

from the east came silk, ivory, precious

the same region or within the same

stones, shells, spices, and aromatics; see also

economic zone; cf. Vroom 2003; 2005;

Borell 2008, fig. 14.

De Ligt 1993, 56-105 on local, regional

All centuries in this chapter are of the

and interregional Roman fairs / markets.

Christian era, unless otherwise stated. For

Furthermore, Richard Hodges (1982, 15-

8th-century Byzantine pottery finds, see

16) has drawn attention to an alternative

Vroom 2005; 2011.

tiered hierarchy of markets proposed by

In this paper, the terms ‘Late Roman’ or

Skinner. At the lowest level, ‘the minor or

‘Late Antique’ are used for the period

incipient standard market’, there is a simple

roughly between the 4th-7th centuries. See

exchange of peasant-produced goods and

for Late Roman tablewares, Hayes 1972;

no imported items. The next stage, ‘the

Costa et al. 2018. Late Roman amphorae

standard market’, is the point at which

173

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on



surplus generated at peasant level early



Cutler 2001.

to flow more freely and imported goods cease to be distributed. A level above,

14

140. For an example of such a glass vessel in

on the major route ways and possesses

the Xingping Municipal City Museum at

an important wholesaling and regional

Xi’an, see Mater 2011, 77. 15

area.

16

amphorae finds, see Tomber 2008, fig. 21.

artefacts (especially silverware) found in

Furthermore, Aila/Aqaba amphorae of the

northern Russia, but possibly traded first

5th to 7th century from southern Jordan

into [?? in?] Central Asia.

were recovered at Pattanam (in south-

Mundell Mango 1996; 2001a, fig. 5.1;

western India); cf. Will 2004; Cherian et

2001b; 2009, fig. 1.1. See also Caitleen

al. 2007; 2009; Selvakumar et al. 2009; Tomber 2009.

Mundell Mango’s map at Green 2017 [last

17

Tomber 2007, 984.

accessed 22 March 2020].

18

Qana was an important supplier of

More solid dates for ceramic finds are

frankincense in southern Arabia, and was

often dependent on the study of complete

abandoned in the early 7th century; cf.

and quantified pottery assemblages

Sedov 1992; 2010a; 2010b; Heldaas Seland

from well-stratified contexts, and this

2014, 376.

is unfortunately not always the case for

19

of this St. Menas ampulla in Lurje and

Consequently, some dates can only be

Samosyuk 2014, 219.

10 Although I do not discuss the monetary side of trade, I do present some coin finds

20 See also Naymark 2001. 21

Kropotkin 1970, number 1023, pl. 76.7.

22

See Asan Torgoev’s description of this glass beaker in Lurje and Samosyuk 2014, 247.

in remote places.

12

Huntingford 1980. See also Casson 1989

23

Thiery and Morrisson 1994; Hobbs

for a translation of and a commentary on

1995; Alram 2001; Ying 2005. For a

this text.

golden solidus of the Byzantine Emperor

These written texts include earlier

Anastasius i (r. 491-518), minted between

accounts, among them Ptolemy’s volume

491-518 at Constantinople, in Xi’an

Geography of the 2nd century, which

Municipal Museum, see also Mater 2011,

mentions parts of Southeast Asia; cf.

78.

Power 2012, 6-14. 13

See Andrey Omelchenko’s description

several sites mentioned in this paper. general and provisional.

11

For an overview of Late Roman

The dots in the box in Figure 3 represent

Green’s modifications and additions to

9

Bopearachchi 1992; 1998. See also Darley 2013.

market’, dominates the marketing of a vast

8

See e.g., Thiery and Morrisson 1994, 132,

the ‘the central market’ lies strategically

function. At the highest level, ‘the regional

7

gift exchange in Byzantium in general,

24 See e.g., Yiayao 1984; 2004, 57-65; Kinoshita 2009, 254 and fig. 17.1; Lee and

Mundell Mango 2009,10; see for gifts and

174

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

25

Leidy 2013, 124-30 (in particular, pls. 67-

40 Idem, 87-88.

68); Kwangshik 2014, 1-22.

41

Mundell Mango 2001, 89.

42 Phillipson 2009, 355.

Heldaas Seeland 2014, 381.

26 See e.g., Janssens 2013, 447-40. See for the

43 See e.g., Munro-Hay 1989, 314; Williams

glass beads from Japan: The History Blog

2000. Published examples can be seen in

2012 [last accessed 5 May 2020].

Phillips 2000, i, 196; ii, 326-28, 335, 394-95,

Ogata 2012, fig. 9. See also Feltham 2010,

figs. 283:a-c, 290:j, 343:a; Manzo 2005, 63,

fig. 10.

fig. 23. See also Peacock 2007, 95-96 and

Borrell 2008, figs. 1-6.

Phillipson 2009, 360, fig. 24.4.

27 28

29 Mohamed unpublished, fig. 8.

44 See e.g., Paribeni 1907, 551; Zahn 1913, 208;

30 Mohamed unpublished, 12.

Anfray and Annequuin 1965, 80, pl. lvii 4

31

(Tomb ‘d’ at Matara); Anfray 1990, 118.

See for the Zafar finds, Damgaard 2009, 87-88; Raith et al. 2013. The Nabataean/

45 Phillips 2014, 262. See also for Bakhit,

Roman/Byzantine city at Aqaba is often

Emery and Kirwan 1938, vol. ii, pl. 111: 11-

referred to as ‘Aila’, while the adjacent Early

12; Williams 2000, 496.

Islamic walled town is called ‘Ayla’; cf.

46 Phillipson 1998, 65-67, fig. 23, lower right.

Parker 1996, 232; 2009; Whitcomb 2001.

See for the mentioned ware, Adams 1986,

This amphora type was also previously

ii, 545, dated between 500-850.

coined ‘Aila-Axum’, but the term ‘Aila/

47 Phillipson 2009, 360, fig. 24.4. See also Phillips 1998, fig. 23 and pl. 3; 2014, 262.

Aqaba amphora’ seems now more standard in publications referring to the local

48 Mundell Mango 1996, 153-54; 2001a, 89-90 and fig. 5.2.

products of this city. 32 Raith et al. 2013, 337. See also Yule 2013.

49 Emery and Kirwan 1938, fig. 100.

33

Pieri 2007, fig. 1:4; 2012, fig. 2.2.

50 Smith and Wright 1988, 125; Chami

34 Pieri 2007, fig. 3:2; 2012, fig. 2.13.

and Msemwa 1997, 675; Horton and

35

Middleton 2000, 32, 43-44.

E.g. Paribeni 1907, 55; Zahn 1913, 208; Melkawi et al. 1994; Anfray 1990, 18;

51

Williams 2000; Tomber 2004; 2009, 48;

52

Keay 1986, 356, 358, 471; Alpözen et al.

53

38

See e.g., Parker 1998, 390-91; 2009, 83;

54 Ntandu n.d.

Peacock 2007, 103-04; Heldaas Seeland

55

Freeman-Greenville 1962, 3.

2014, 383.

56

Chami 1988, 349-87. In additon, ParthoSasanian glazed ceramics were found here

Pedersen 2008; Pedersen and Brandmeier

as well.

2016. 39

Chittick 1976; Ntandu n.d. See also Boivin et al. 2013, fig. 2.

1995, 101. 37

Juma 1996, 153-54 and fig. 3. See also Pollard and Kinyera 2017, 933.

Pedersen 2000; 2008. 36

Juma 1996; 2004. See also Chittick 1966; 1986.

Gempeler 1992, 191; Hayes 1996, 159-61;

Pedersen 2008, 87.

57

175

Chami 1999.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

58

Liverani 2005, 242, 248, and 368. A

71 Alcock et al. 1995.

comparable example was excavated at

72 Reed et al. 2011.

Early Byzantine Leptis Magna. See also in

73

59 Duckworth et al. 2015, 635. In this

of ProMare, UK, at Duggan 2013 [last accessed 30 April 2020].

central Saharan region, an early oasis

74 The chemical analysis of the residue was

farming civilization existed, known as the

carried out by Prof. Steve Hill at Plymouth

Garamentes of Fazzan; cf. Mattingly 2011.

University. See the online description

60 Messier and Fili 2019, 109, fig. 7.2. See

of this amphora by Duggan 2013 [last

also Morrisson 2016, fig. 9.16 for the

accessed 30 April 2020].

distribution of Byzantine gold coin finds in 61

North Africa.

75

Messier and Fili 2019, 107. According

76 Kelly 2010,44 and fig. 3.

to Timothy Garrard (1982, 457), this

77 Kelly 2010, 58-60 and fig. 5.

weighing system was even transmitted via

78 Edwards 2004, 70; Kelly 2010.

trans-Saharan trade to West Africa, where

79 Kelly 2010, fig. 5.

it was still used in the Akan region, Ghana,

80 Mundell Mango 2001, 96-99.

until the 19th century.

81

Grigg 2015.

Thomas 1993, 93-96; Campbell 2007; Campbell and Bowles 2009, fig. 20.5; Salter

62 Magnavita 2009, 79-104, figs. 9 and 12; 2013, figs. 1-2. See also Fenn et al. 2009,

63

This amphora fragment (12a10) was published online by the ships Project

general, Goodchild 1967.

2009, fig. 21.1.

137-39; Robertshaw et al. 2009, 111-13;

82

Thomas 1959, 105; 1981; Fulford 1989.

MacDonald 2011, 79-80, table 5 and pl. 5.

83

The third possibility is the transport of pottery via rivers in France; for such an

MacDonald 2011, 76, pl. 3, who mentions

approach, see Theuws 2012.

that the Douentza-Timbuktu region has been the southern terminus of an impor­

84 Pieri 2005, 49-53.

tant trans-Saharan trade route, along which

85

also ran the Tuareg caravan trade of salt.

86 Amiel and Berthault 1996.

Pieri 2005, 7.

64 Campbell and Bowles 2009, 299.

87 Idem, 256.

65

88

Radford 1939.

66 See for an excellent overview of the Mediterranean pottery finds in Britain,

Fernández 2010; 2014.

89 Quaresma and Morais 2012, 375. 90 See e.g., López Pérez 2004; Magalhães

Duggan 2016, ch. 2: The pottery. See also

2012, 365-70; Fernández Ochoa et al. 2006,

for these main amphora types, Vroom

143.

20142

, 52-59.

67 Duggan 2016, ch. 2.

91

Cf. Theuws 2012.

92 F. Theuws, De boer en de koning in

68 Radford 1939; 1956; Morris 2018.

vroegmiddeleeuws Noordwest-Europa,

69 Thomas 1993, 71.

a lecture given at Leiden University, 24

70 Alcock 1963.

oktober 2014; cf. Drauschke 2007.

176

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

93



Pion and Gratuze 2016; Langbroek 2018,

contain a symmetrical balance scale; see

109.

also for this find, Theuws 2012, 35, note 33.

94 See for instance, Drauschke 2011 for finds in Early Medieval graves in southern

Similar looking boxes with weights were

Germany, which yielded precious stones,

sometimes found in shipwrecks: Morrisson

pearls, cauri shells, ivory, metalware,

2012, fig. 15.5 (from the 6th-century

golden helmets, and swords. Further

shipwreck of La Palud, France); Polat 2016

examples of north-western- southern

(392, fig. 5 (from the ‘ýk22’-shipwreck

exchange systems in Early Medieval Europe

from the Theodosian Harbour at Yenikapι,

were Byzantine silk fragments from the

Istanbul). See also for more examples, Pitarakis 2012, 407-10.

Mediterranean which sometimes can be found in important tombs such as the one

104 Bruin 2018, 22, 24 and fig. 6.

of the Carolingian Emperor Charlemagne

105 Bangert 2007, fig. 3, showing a map with recorded finds of these ampullae in Britain.

in Aachen (Germany), the 11th-century shrine of St. Knud at Odense (Denmark)

95

shows that the wooden box could also

106 Bangert 2007, 30, fig. 4 and note 12;

and the mid 11th-century tomb of King

Moorhead 2009, 265-66 and table 1.

Edward the Confessor in Westminster

107 Bland and Loriot 2010, 241-42; Morrisson

Abbey (Britain); cf. Piltz 1998a, fig. 5.

2014 mentions 37 gold and twenty copper

Mango Mundell 2009, 230 and fig. 15.5:1-3

coins (dated to 491-721) from mostly

(6th- and 7th-century exports to Europe).

eastern Mediterranean mints in Britain.

96 Willemsen 2018, 57 and figs. 1-2.

108 The mobility of their sea-worthy ships

97 Peddemors and Swinkels 1989, 74.

made this fast long-distance expansion

98 Willemsen 2018, 57 and fig. 3.

possible; cf. Piltz 1998b, 103 and fig. 7.

99 Other important burial sites with rich

109 The term ‘Varangian’ derived from the Old

grave goods in Britain are the grave of

Norse word várar, which means ‘men of

Prittlewell Prince (600-650) and of

the pledge’; cf. Lind 2016, 409.

Taplow Prince (7th century). See also

110 See for instance Shepard 2016; Jakobsson 2016.

Williams 2011. 100 Mundell Mango 2001a, 91; 2009, 233 and

111 The word ‘Rús’ possibly derived from

fig. 15.6 (more of these brass buckets were

Ruotsi, the Finnish name for the Swedes.

found in the west, at Winchester and on

Those who were living away from their

the Isle of Wight).

homelands and were at first based in

101 McCormick 2001, 348, map 12.1.

Novgorod and then in Kiev, gave Russia its

102 I would like to thank Dr. Arent Pol

name and probably its first centralized state

and Femke Lippok for providing this

(which developed in the second half of the

information. See also Lafaurie and

9th century).

Morrisson 1987.

112 From Joannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, Codex Matritensis Graecus

103 Bostraeten 1965, 81-84 and fig. 18 which

177

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on



123 Zachrisson 2010; Jankowiak 2016. A

Vitr. 26-2, fol. 26v, National Library,

bronze Buddha was, for example, excavated

Madrid. See also Scheel 2016, 57, fig. 3.1.

at Helgö in eastern Sweden, showing that

113 Androshchuk 2013, 95 and fig. 31:3, 31:5-6 with further literature; Piltz 1998a, 35. fig.

the Scandinavians had extensive trade

11. See also Horsnæs 2009 for Byzantine

contacts with Kashmir (in northern India)

golden solidi (dated to the 4th-6th

as early as the 6th and 7th centuries.

centuries) found in Denmark, in particular

124 Audy 2016, 156, fig. 6.7.

on the small island Bornholm in the Baltic

125 Piltz 1998a, fig. 2; Androshchuk 2013, 9596 and fig. 31:8.

Sea.

126 See Ljungkvist 2010, who presents sites in

114 See for instance Bäck 2016, maps 11.4-6 and Källström 2016, map 7.1. The oldest

Sweden with Byzantine related finds.

of the runestones from ‘the lands of the

127 See e,g., Quast and Tamla 2010; Naymark

Greeks’ are six stones in the style rak, a

2001; Seipel 1993, 251; Mundell Mango

style which is dated to the period before

2009, 226-27. 128 See Androshchuk 2013, 91-130 with further

1015. The youngest runestones, in the style

literature.

Pr5, such as Ed runestone u 104 (presently in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford), are

129 Hayes 1992, 75; Günsenin 1989; 1993, 195.

dated to the period 1080-1130, after which

See for its distribution in the Mediterranean,

runestones largely fell out of use.

Vroom 20142, 94-95; 2016, fig. 1. Apparently,

115 Källström 2016, 169-70, map 7.1.

this amphora type is also known in Russian

116 Källström 2016, 172, fig. 7.1. 117 Blid 2016, 208 and fig. 1.

literature as ‘Bulgakov 3,1k’. 130 See e.g., Mühle 1991, 61, note 184 and 273;

118 Snædal 2016, figs. 8.3-4 and in particular

Roslund 1997, fig. 20:1-3 and fig. 21:1-2;

figs. 8.11A-B. See also Källström 2016, 185.

Kelm 1997, 185-97 and fig. 1; Bäck 2016,

119 Snædal 2016,189-90.

figs. 11.2 and 11.9; Koval 2010, fig. 53, pls.

120 See for an overview, Jankowiak 2016, table

62-64 (his ‘type I’); and Volkov 2006, 146

5.1. Noteworthy is an Arabic coin minted

and figs. 9.1-3, also known as ‘group 1: the

in 776/7 and found at Peterhof (north-

Trebizond group’ at Novgorod (although

western Russia), which was inscribed with

this amphora type was not produced at

its owner’s Greek name ‘Zacharias’; cf.

Trebizond).

Androshchuk 2013, 93 and fig. 31:1.

131 This stopper was recognized by me as

121 Hammarberg et al. 1989, 9; Androshchuk

coming from the Günsenin 1/Saraçhane

2013, 114. However, Horsnæs 2008, 238

54 amphora from Ganos. This happened

mentions 146 golden solidi (dated to

in 2018 when I was looking at the Birka/

the 5th and early 6th centuries) found in

Björkö Island pottery finds in the Swedish

Sweden, as well as 582 Byzantine coins

History Museum at Stockholm, and I would

found in Öland and Gotland.

like to thank Dr. Thomas Eriksson, Dr.

122 See Zachrisson 2010, fig. 1.

Mathias Bäck, and Prof. Mats Roslund for

178

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k



138 See Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004, 100, 162, and

their help and permission to look at these

pl. 47:25.

finds. See also for an image of this stopper, Bäck 2016, fig. 11.6 (although its provenance

139 Koval 2010, 103-06, 108, 111-12, 115, fig.

is not from the Khazars or from the Volga

40:4-7. See also for Glazed White Wares,

Bulgars, as suggested by the author, but from

Hayes 1992, 12-34; Vroom 2012, 355-59;

a Byzantine production centre).

20142, 62-63, 74-77.

132 I would like to thank Prof. Vladimir Koval

140 Koval 2010, 116, fig. 39:8-10; Androshchuk

for the information on this graffito. For an image of the amphora, see Koval 2010,

2013, 102 and fig. 33:4-6. 141 Roslund 1997, 268-69 and fig. 16:1-3.

pl. 72:1; Androshchuk 2013, 102 and fig.

See also Bäck 2016, fig. 11.8, the last

33:1. According to some scholars, another

ones were recognized by me in 2018 as

specimen of this amphora type was

fragments of Glazed White Ware ii from

excavated from a grave in Kiev, although this container seems to be a different type

Constantinople. 142 Roslund 1997, 268, fig. 16.

with a different fabric and shape; cf. Karger 143 Reed 1990, 72. 1958, 168; Koval 2010, pl. 72:2. 133 Koval 2010, pl. 72:1 and fig. 52:8. See also

144 Roslund 1997, figs. 2, 11, 13-15. 145 Edberg 1999, fig. 1. See for this also Piltz

Androshchuk 2013, 102 and fig.33:1, 33:3. 134 Koval 2010, fig. 52:8-9 (his ‘type V’).

1998a, fig. 6. 146 See e.g., Koval 2006, 184; 2010, 115-19, fig.

135 See Vroom et al. forthcoming.

39 and pl. 42; Lavysh 2010, 227 and fig. 13.

136 See for this example from Kiev, Koval

Polychrome Ware was also found at Kerch

2010, 168-69, fig. 61:6 and pl. 73:4. Apart

and Taman Peninsula (which were part of

from Kiev it was also recovered at Sarkel;

the Byzantine Empire).

2

cf. Vroom 2014 , 70-71 (still described as

147 Koval 2006, 184 and fig. 10.5:8; 2010, 116,

‘Unglazed Incised Ware’, although I now

fig. 39:7 and pl. 44:1.

know it is a Middle Byzantine amphora

148 Noonan and Kovalev 1999.

type).

149 Ibidem.

137 This dish was found together with many

150 Noonan et al. 1989; Noonan and Kovalev 1997.

other finds, among them an Arabic coin (905/906); cf. Volkov 2010, 116, fig. 39:8;

151 Daim 2011, 75.

Androshchuk 2013, 103.

152 Mundell Mango 2001, 89.

179

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y Alcock, L. 1963. Dinas Powys: An Iron Age, Dark Age and Early Medieval Settlement in Glamorgan, Cardiff. Alcock, L, S.J. Stevenson and C.R. Musson 1995. Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The Early Medieval Archaeology, Cardiff. Alpözen, T.O., A.H. Ozdas and B. Beerkaya 1995. Commercial Amphorae of the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, Bodrum. Amiel, C. and F. Berthault 1996. Les amphores du Bas-Empire et de l’Antiquité tardive dans le sud-ouest de la France: Apport à l’étude du commerce à grande distance pendant l’Antiquité, Aquitania 14, 255-63. Androshchuk, F. 2013. Vikings in the East. Essays on Contacts Along the Road to Byzantium (800-1100), Uppsala. Anfray, F. 1990. Les Anciens Ethiopiens. Siècles d’Historie, Paris. Anfray, F. and G. Annequin 1965. Matara, deuxième, troisième et quatrième campagnes de fouilles, Annales d’Ethiopie 6, 49-92. Audy, F. 2016. How were Byzantine coins used in Viking-age Scandinavia?, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 141-68. Bäck, M. 2016. Birka and the archaeology of remotion: Early Medieval pottery from Byzantium and beyond in eastern Scandinavia, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 255-80. Bangert, S. 2007. Menas ampullae: A case study of long-distance contacts, in: A. Harris (ed.), Incipient Globalisation? Long-Distance Contacts in the Sixth Century, Oxford, 27-33. Bland, R. and X. Loriot 2010. Roman and Early Byzantine Gold Coins Found in Britain and Ireland, With an Appendix of New Finds from Gaul, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 46, London. Blid, J. 2016. What Scandinavians may have seen and experienced in Miklagarȭr: The urban fabric of Constantinople during the Middle Ages, in: L. Holmquist, S. Kalmring and C. Hedenstierna-Jonson (eds.), New Aspects on Viking-Age Urbanism c. 750110, Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Swedish History Museum, April 17-20th 2013; Theses and Papers in Archaeology b:12, Stockholm, 203-09. Boivin, N., A. Crowther, R. Helm and D.Q. Fuller 2013. East Africa and Madagascar in the Indian Ocean world, Journal of World Prehistory 26, 213-81. Böhlendorf-Arslan, B. 2004. Glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Türkei, 3 vols., Istanbul.

180

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Bopearachchi, O. 1992. Le commerce maritime entre Rome et Sri Lanka d’après les donnes numismatiques, Revue des Études Anciennes 94, 107-21. Bopearachchi, O. 1998. Archaeological evidence on changing patterns of international trade relations of ancient Sri Lanka, in: O. Bopearachchi and D.P. Weerakkody (eds.), Origin, Evolution and Circulation of Foreign Coins in the Indian Ocean, Manohar, 133-78. Borrell, B. 2008. The early Byzantine lamp from Pong Tuk, Journal of the Siam Society 96, 1-26. Bost, J.P. 2012. Les monnaies, in: L. Maurin (ed.), Un quartier de Bordeaux du Ier au viiie siècle: Les fouilles de la Place Camille-Jullian 1989-1990, Bordeaux, 395-410. Bostraeten, H.C. van 1965. De Merovingische begraafplaats te Lutlommel, Archaeologia Belgica 86, Brussels. Bruin, J. de 2018. Living in Oegstgeest, 575-725 AD, in: M. Kars, R. van Oosten, M.A. Roxburgh and A. Verhoeven (eds.), Rural Riches & Royal Rags. Studies on Medieval and Modern Archaeology Presented to Frans Theuws, Zwolle, 20-25. Campbell, E. 2007. Continental and Mediterranean Imports to Atlantic Britain and Ireland, AD 400-800, cba Research Report 157, York. Campbell, E. and C. Bowles 2009. Byzantine trade to the edge of the world: Mediterranean pottery imports to Atlantic Britain in the 6th century, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 297-313. Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Princeton. Chami, F.A. 1988. Early iron-working communities on the East African Coast: Excavations at Kivinja, Tanzania, in: M.C. Kusimbia and S.B. Kusumba (eds.), New Approaches in Later East African Archaeology, masca Papers in Science and Archaeology Series 5, Philadelphia, 349-87. Chami, F.A. 1999. The Early Iron Age on Mafia Island and its relationship with the mainland, Azania 34, 1-10. Chami, F. and P. Msemwa 1997. A new look at culture and trade on the Azanian Coast, Current Anthropology 38, 673-77. Cherian, P.J., V. Selvakumar and K.P. Shajan 2007. The Muziris Heritage Project excavations at Pattanam, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 4, 1-10. Cherian, P.J., G.V. Ravi-Prashad, K. Dutta, D.K. Ray, V. Selvakumar and D.K. Shajan 2009. Chronology of Pattanam: A multi-cultural port site on the Malabar coast, Current Science 97, 236-40. Chittick, N.H. 1966. Kilwa: Six early coins from near Tanga, Azania 1, 156-57.

181

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Chittick, N.H. 1976. An archeological reconnaissance in the Horn: The British Somali Expedition, 1975, Azania 11, 117-33. Cirelli, E. 2008. Ravenna. Archeologia di una cittá, Florence. Cirelli, E. 2014. Typology and diffusion of amphorae in Ravenna and Classe between the 5th and the 8th centuries AD, in: N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou and V. Kilikoglou (eds.), LRCW 4. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, bar is 2616.i, Oxford, 541-52. Clark, T.L. 2008. Imagining the Cosmos. The Christian Topography of Kosmas Indikopleustes, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 2008. Costa, S., P. Reynolds and J. Vroom 2018. Pottery, Roman and post-Roman, in: O. Nicholson (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford, 1217-20. Cutler, A. 2001. Gifts and gift exchange as aspects of the Byzantine, Arab, and related economies, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55, 247-78. Damgaard, K. 2009. A Palestinian Red Sea port on the Egyptian road to Arabia: Early Islamic ‘Aqaba and its many hinterlands, in: L. Blue, J. Cooper, R. Thomas and J. Whitewright (eds.), Connected Hinterlands. Proceedings of the Red Sea Project iv, Held at the University of Southampton, September 2008, Oxford, 85-98. Daim, F. 2011. Diplomatische Geschenke in der Archäologie, in: B. Fourlas and V. Tsamakda (eds.), Wege nach Byzanz, Mainz am Rhein, 75-77. Darley, R.R. 2013. Indo-Byzantine Exchange, 4th to 7th Centuries. A Global History, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham, 2013. De Ligt, L. 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Dutch Monographs on Ancient History xi, Amsterdam. Drauschke, J. 2007. Byzantine and ‘oriental’ imports in the Merovingian Empire from the second half of the fifth to the beginning of the eighth century, in: A. Harris (ed.), Incipient Globalisation? Long-Distance Contacts in the Sixth Century, Oxford, 53-73. Drauschke, J. 2011. Zwischen Handel und Geschenk. Studien zur Distribution von Objekten aus dem Orient, aus Byzans und aus Mitteleuropa im östlichen Merowingerreich, Freiburger Beiträge zur Archaologie und Geschichte des Ersten Jahrtausends 14, Rahden Westfalen. Duckworth, C.N., D.J. Mattingly and V.C. Smith 2015. From the Mediterranean to the Libyan Sahara: Chemical analyses of Garamantian glass, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7, 633-39. Duggan, M. 2012. The pottery, in: A. Agate, M. Duggan, S. Roskams and S. Turner, Early medieval settlement at Mothecombe, Devon: The interaction of local, regional and long-distance dynamics, Archaeological Journal 169, 370-79.

182

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Duggan, M., 2013. Amphora (12a10), http://www.shipsproject.org/Finds/ Fd_12A10Amphora.html. Duggan, M. 2016. Ceramic imports to Britain and the Atlantic Seaboard in the fifth Century and beyond, Internet Archaeology 41. doi: org/10.11141/ia.41.3. Edwards, N. 2004. The Archaeology of Early Medieval Ireland, London. Edberg, R. 1999. Cosmas, John the Baptist and King David: Two leaden seals from Sigtuna, Sweden, Laborativ Arkeologi 12, 45-50. Emery, W.B. and L.P. Kirwan 1938. The Royal Tombs at Ballana and Qustul, London. Fenn, T.R., D.J. Killick, J. Chesley, S. Magnavita and J. Ruiz 2011. Contacts between West Africa and Roman North Africa: Archaeometallurgical results from Kissi, northeastern Burkina Faso, in: S. Magnavita, L. Koté, P. Breunig and O.A. Idé (eds.), Crossroads / Carrefour Sahel. Cultural and Technological Developments in First Millennium BC/AD West Africa, Journal of African Archaeology Monograph Series 2, Frankfurt am Main, 119-46. Fernández, A. 2010. Rías Baixas and Vigo (Vicus Eleni), in: C. Carreras and R. Morais (eds), The Western Roman Atlantic Façade. A Study of the Economy and Trade in the Mar Exterior from the Republic to the Principate, bar is 2162, Oxford, 229-37. Fernández, A. 2014. El comercio tardoantiguo (ss. iv-vii) en el noroeste peninsular a través del registro cerámico de la Ría de Vigo, Oxford. Fernández Ochoa, C., F. Gil Sendino, A.Villar Calvo, N. Fernández Rodríguez, G. Alvarez Toledo and O. Morán Fernández 2006. La villa romana de Veranes (Gijón, Asturias): Aportaciones preliminares sobre la transformación funcional del asentamiento en la tardía Antigüedad, in: C. Fernández Ochoa, M. Lopes and J. López Quiroga (eds.), Formas de ocupación rural en la Gallaecia y en la Lusitania durante la Antigüedad tardía y la alta Edad Media, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 31–32, 2005–2006, Madrid, 137-94. Feltham, H. 2010. Lions, silks and silver: The influence of Sasanian Persia, Sino-Platonic Papers 206, 1-51. Fulford, M.G. 1989. Byzantium and Britain: A Mediterranean perspective on post-Roman Mediterranean imports in Western Britain and Ireland, Medieval Archaeology 33, 1-6. Freeman-Greenville, G.S.P. 1962. The East African Coast. Select Documents from the 1st to the Earlier 19th Century, Oxford. Garrard, T. 1982. Myth and metrology: The early Trans-Sahara trade, Journal of African History 23, 443-61. Gempeler, R.G. 1992. Elephantine 10. Die Keramik römischer bis früharabischer Zeit, Archäologischen Veröffentlichungen 43, Mainz am Rhein.

183

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Goodchild, R.G. 1967. Byzantines, Berbers and Arabs in 7th-century Lybya, An­ tiquity 41, 115-24. Green, C.R., 2017. A very long way from home: Early Byzantine finds at the far ends of the world, https://www.caitlingreen.org/2017/03/a-very-long-way-from-home.html. Grigg, J. 2015. The Philosopher King and the Pictish Nation, Dublin. Günsenin, N. 1989. Recherches sur les amphores byzantines dans les musées turcs, in: V. Deroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, BCH Supplement 18, 267-76. Günsenin, N. 1993. Ganos: Centre de production d’amphores à l’époque byzantine, Anatolia Antiqua 2, 193-201. Hammarberg, L., B. Malmer and I. Zachrisson 1989. Byzantine Coins Found in Sweden, London. Hayes, J.W. 1968. A seventh-century pottery group, in: R.M. Harrison and N. Fιratlι, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul: Fifth preliminary report, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22, 202-16. Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J.W. 1992. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. II: The Pottery, Princeton. Hayes, J.W. 1996. The pottery, in: S. E. Sidebotham and W. Wendrich (eds.), Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden, 147-78. Heldaas Seeland, E. 2014. Archaeology of trade in the western Indian Ocean, 300 BC-AD 700, Journal of Archaeological Research 22, 367-402. The History Blog, 2012. Roman jewelry found in ancient Japanese tomb, http://www. thehistoryblog.com/archives/17691. Hocker, F.M. 1995. A ninth-century shipwreck near Bozburun, Turkey, INA Quarterly 22.1, 12-14. Hodges, R. 1982. Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Towns and Trade A.D. 600-1000, London. Horsnæs, H.W. 2009. Late Roman and Byzantine coins found in Denmark, in: M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Moravia Magna, vol. V: Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and the 10th Century, Kraków, 231-70. Horton, M. and J. Middleton 2000. The Swahili. The Social Landscape of a Mercantile Society, Oxford. Huntingford, G. 1980. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, London. Janssens, K.H.A. (ed.) 2013. Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass, vol. I, Chichester. Jakobsson, S. 2016. The Varangian legend: Testimony from the Old Norse sources, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking

184

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 345-62. Jankowiak, M. 2016. Byzantine coins in Viking-age northern lands, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 117-39. Juma, A.M. 1996. The Swahili and the Mediterranean worlds: Pottery of the Late Roman period from Zanzibar, Antiquity 70, 148-54. Juma, A. 2004. Unguja Ukuu on Zanzibar. An Archaeological Study of Early Urbanism, Uppsala. Kallström, M. 2016. Byzantium reflected in the runic inscriptions of Scandinavia, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 169-86. Karger, M.K. 1958. Drevnij Kiev, vol. i, Moscow. Keay, S. J. 1986. Late Roman Amphorae in the Western Mediterranean, bar is 1960, Oxford. Kelm, R. 1997. Eine Byzantinische Amphorenscherben aus Haithabu, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27, 185-87. Kelly, A. 2010. The discovery of Phocaean Red Slip Ware (PRSW) form 3 and Bii Ware (LR 1 amphorae) in sites in Ireland – an analysis within a broader framework, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 110.C, 35-88. Kinoshita, H. 2009. Foreign glass excavated in China, from the 4th to 12th centuries, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 253-61. Koval, V.Y. 2006. Eastern pottery from the excavations at Novgorod, in: C. Orton (ed.), The Pottery from Medieval Novgorod and Its Region, Abingdon, 161-92. Koval, V.Y. 2010. Oriental Ceramics in Rus’, 9th-17th Centuries, Moscow (in Russian). Kropotkin, V.V. 1970. Roman Imports in Eastern Europe (2nd century BC-5th century AD), Moscow (in Russian). Kwangshik, C. 2014. Silla Art and the Silk Road, International Journal of Korean History 19, 1-22. Langbroek, M. 2018. Early Medieval amber beads in northern Gaul, in: M. Kars, R. van Oosten, M.A. Roxburgh and A. Verhoeven (eds.), Rural Riches & Royal Rags. Studies on Medieval and Modern Archaeology Presented to Frans Theuws, Zwolle, 105-09. Lavysh, K. 2010. Finds of Byzantine glass and ceramics on the territory of Belarus: Well-known and new facts, Series Byzantina 8, 213-29.

185

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Lee, S. and D.P. Leidy 2013. Silla: Korea’s Golden Kingdom, New York. Lind, J.H. 2016. Christianity on the move: The role of the Varangians in Rus and Scandinavia, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 409-40. Liverani, M. (ed.) 2005. Aghram Nadharif. The Barkat Oasis (Sha’abiya of Ghat, Libyan Sahara) in Garamantian Times. The Archaeology of Libyan Sahara, vol. ii, Florence. Ljungkvist, J. 2010. Influences from the Empire: Byzantine-related objects in S­ weden and Scandinavia – 560/570-750/800 AD, in: F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), ­Byzans – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 3: Peripherie und Nachbarschaft, Mainz am Rhein, 419-41. López Pérez, M.C. 2004. El comercio de terra sigillata en la provincia de A Coruña, Brigantium 16, 5-525. Lurje, P. and K. Samosyuk (eds.) 2014. Expeditie Zijderoute. Reis naar het Westen: Schatten uit de Hermitage, Amsterdam. MacDonald, K.C. 2011. A view from the South: Sub-Saharan evidence for contacts between North Africa, Mauritania and the Niger, 1000 BC-AD 700, in: A. Dowler and E. R. Galvin (eds.), Money, Trade and Trade Routes in Pre-Islamic North Africa, British Museum Research Publication 176, London, 72-82. Magalhães, A.P. 2012. Late sigillata from fish-salting workshop 1 in Tróia (Portugal), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 42, 363-71. Magnavita, S. 2009. Sahelian crossroads: Some aspects on the Iron Age sites of Kissi, Burkina Faso, in: S. Magnavita, L. Koté, P. Breunig and O.A. Idé (eds.), Crossroads / Carrefour Sahel. Cultural and Technological Developments in First Millennium BC/AD West Africa, Journal of African Archaeology Monograph Series 2, Frankfurt am Main, 79-104. Magnavita, S. 2013. Initial encounters: Seeking traces of ancient trade connections between West Africa and the wider world, Afriques 4, 1-13. Makarov, N. 2009. Rural settlement and trade networks in northern Russia, AD 900-1250, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 443-61. Manzo, A. 2005. Aksumite trade and the Red Sea exchange network: A view from Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum), in: C.M. Starkey (ed.), People of the Red Sea. Proceedings of Red Sea Project ii, held in the British Museum, October 2004, bar is 1395, ­Oxford, 51-66. Mater, B. 2011. De gouden eeuw van China: Tang-dynastie (618-907 na Chr.), Assen.

186

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Mattingly, D. 2011. The Garamantes of Fazzan: An early Libyan state with Trans-Saharan connections, in: A. Dowler and E.R. Galvin (eds.), Money, Trade and Trade Routes in Pre-Islamic North Africa, British Museum Research Publication 176, London, 49-60. McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce AD 300-900, Cambridge. Melkawi, A., K. ‘Amr and D. Whitcomb 1994. The excavation of two seventh century pottery kilns at Aqaba, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 447-68. Messier, R.A. and A. Fili 2019. Sijimasa’s role in the African gold trade, in: K. Bickford Berzock (ed.), Caravans of Gold, Fragments in Time. Art, Culture, and Exchange Across Medieval Saharan Africa, Princeton, 107-21. Mohamed, N. unpublished. Maldivian seafaring in the pre-Portuguese period, http:// qaumiyyath.gov.mv/docs/whitepapers/history/seafaring.pdf (uploaded in 2005). Moorhead, S. 2009. Early Byzantine copper coins found in Britain: A review in light of new finds recorded with the Portable Antiquities Scheme, in: O. Tekin (ed.), Ancient History, Numismatics and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean World, Istanbul, 263-74. Morris, S. 2018. Inscribed seventh-century window ledge unearthed at Tintagel, The Guardian, 15 June 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/15/inscribed-7th-century-window-ledge-tintagel-cornwall. Morrisson, C., 2014. Byzantine coins in Early Medieval Britain: A Byzantinist’s assessment, in: R. Naismith, M. Allen and E. Screen (eds.), Early Medieval Monetary History. Studies in Memory of Mark Blackburn, Farnham, 207-42. Morrisson, C. 2016. Regio dives in omnibus bonis ornata: The African economy from the Vandals to the Arab conquest in the light of coin evidence, in: S.T. Stevens and J.P. Conant (eds.), North Africa under Byzantium and Early Islam, Washington, 173-98. Mühle, E. 1991. Die städtischen Handelszentren der nordwestlichen Ruś. Anfänge und frühe Entwicklung altrussischer Städte (bis gegen Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts), Stuttgart. Mundell Mango, M. 1996. The Byzantine maritime trade with the East (4th-7th centuries), ARAM 8, 139-63. Mundell Mango, N. 2001a. Beyond the amphora: Non-ceramic evidence for Late Antique industry and trade, in: S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Oxford, 87-106. Mundell Mango, M. 2001b. The centre in and beyond the periphery: Material culture in the Early Byzantine Empire, in: Pré-Actes. xxe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Collège de France – Sorbonne, 19-25 août 2001, Paris, 202-208.

187

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Mundell Mango, M. 2009. Byzantine trade: Local, regional, interregional and international, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 3-14. Munro-Hay, S. 1989. Excavations at Aksum, London. Naymark, A. 2001. Sogdiana, its Christians and Byzantium: A Study of Artistic and Cultural Connections in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2001. Ntandu, C. unpublished. The find of ancient trade materials on the northern coast of Tanzania, www.academia.edu/15058591. Noonan, T., R. Kovalev and H. Sherman 1989. The development and diffusion of glassmaking in pre-Mongol Russia, in: P. McCray and W. D. Kingery (eds.), Prehistory and History of Glassmaking Technology, Westerville, 293-314. Noonan, T.S. and R.K. Kovalev 1997. Prayer, illumination, and good times: The export of Byzantine wine and oil to the north of Russia in pre-Mongol times, Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 8 (1995-1996), 73-96. Noonan, T.S. and R.K. Kovalev 1999. Wine and oil for all the Rus’! The importation of Byzantine wine and olive oil to Kievan Rus’, Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 9 (1997-1998), 118-52. Paribeni, R. 1907. Ricerche nel luogo dell’antica Adulis, in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Monumenti Antichi. Studi miscellanei, vol. xviii, Milan, 437-572. Parker, S.T. 1996. The Roman ‘Aqaba Project: The 1994 campaign, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40, 231-57. Parker, S.T. 1998. The Roman ‘Aqaba Project: The 1996 campaign, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42, 375-94. Parker, S.T. 2009. The Roman port of Aila: Economic connections with the Red Sea littoral, in: L. Blue et al. (eds.), Connected Hinterlands. Proceedings of the Red Sea Project iv, held at the University of Southampton, September 2008, Oxford, 79-84. Peacock, D.P.S. 2007. Pottery from the survey, in: D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds.), The Ancient Red Sea Port of Adulis, Eritrea. Results of the Eritro-British Expedition 2004-5, Oxford, 79-108. Peacock, D.P.S. and D.F. Williams 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, London. Peddemors, A. and L.F.J. Swinkels 1989. ‘Koptisch’ vaatwerk uit de omgeving van Nijmegen, in: P.J.R. Modderman, Schatkamer van Gelderse Oudheden, Nijmegen, 74-75. Pedersen, R.K. 2000. Under the Erythraean Sea: An ancient shipwreck in Eritrea, The ina Quarterly 27.2/3, 3-12.

188

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Pedersen, R.K. 2008. The Byzantine-Aksumite period shipwreck at Black Assarca Island, Eritrea, Azania 43, 77-94. Pedersen, R.K. and R. Brandmeier 2016. Nabataean seafaring and the search for shipwrecks in the Red Sea, in: N.I. Khairy (ed.), Studies on the Nabataean Culture ii, Amman, 11-24. Phillipson, D.W. 1998. Ancient Ethiopia. Aksum: Its Antecedents and Successors, London. Phillips, J. 2000. Overview of pottery development, in: D.W. Phillipson (ed.), Aksum 1993-7, London, 453-50. Phillipson, D.W. 2009. Aksum, the entrepot, and highland Ethiopia, 3th-12th centuries, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 353-68. Pieri, D. 2005. Le commerce du vin oriental à l’ époque byzantine (ve-viie siècles). Le témoignage des amphores en Gaule, Beirut. Pieri, D. 2007. Les centres de production d’amphores en Mediterranée orientale durant l’Antiquité tardive: Quelques remarques, in: M. Bonifay and J.-C. Tréglia (eds.), LRCW 4. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry, bar is 1662.ii, Oxford, 611-25. Pieri, D. 2012. Regional and interregional exchanges in the eastern Mediterranean during the Early Byzantine period, in: C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, 27-49. Piltz, E. 1998a. Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia, in: E. Piltz (ed.), Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia. Acts of a Symposium at Uppsala University, June 15-16 1996, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology cxxvi, Jonsered, 27-51. Piltz, E. 1998b. Varangian companies for long distance trade. Aspects of interchange between Scandinavia, Rus’ and Byzantium in the 11th-12th centuries, in: E. Piltz (ed.), Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia. Acts of a Symposium at Uppsala University, June 15-16 , Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology cxxvi, Jonsered, 85-115. Pitarakis, B. 2012. Daily life at the marketplace in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, in: C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, 399-426. Pion, C. and B. Gratutze 2016. Indo-Pacific glass beads from the Indian subcontinent in Early Merovingian graves (5th-6th century), Archaeological Research in Asia 6, 51-64. Pollard, E. and O.C. Kinyera 2017. The Swahili Coast and the Indian Ocean trade patterns in the 7th–10th Centuries CE, Journal of Southern African Studies 43.5, 927-47. Power, T. 2012. The Red Sea from Byzantium to the Caliphate, AD 500–1000, Cairo.

189

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Quaresma, J.C. and R. Morais 2012. Eastern Late Roman Fine Ware imports in Bracara Augusta (Braga,Portugal), Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 42, 373-83. Quast, D. and U. Tamla 2010. Two fifth century AD Byzantine silver bowls from Estonia, Estonian Journal of Archaeology 14, 99-122. Radford, C.A.R. 1939. Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, London. Radford, C.A.R. 1956. Imported pottery found at Tintagel, Cornwall, in: D. Harden (ed.), Dark Age Britain. Studies Presented to E.T. Leeds, London, 59-70. Raith, M., R. Hoffbauer, H. Euler, P. Yule and K. Damgaard 2013. The view from Zafar. An Archaeometric study of the Aqaba Late Roman period pottery complex and distribution in the 1st Millennium CE, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 6, 320-50. Reed, I.W. 1990. 1000 Years of Pottery. An Analysis of Pottery Trade and Use, Trondheim. Reed, S., P. Bidwell and J. Allan 2011. Excavation at Bantham, south Devon, and post-Roman trade in south-west England, Medieval Archaeology 55, 82-138. Reynolds, P. 2010. Hispania and the Roman Mediterranean, AD 100-700. Ceramics and Trade, London. Reynolds, P. and J. Vroom. 2018. Amphorae, in: O. Nicholson (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford, 65-66. Riley, J.A. 1979. Typology of the Hellenistic and Roman coarse pottery of Berenice, in: J.A. Lloyd (ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Supplements to Libya Antiqua 6.2, Tripoli, 112-236. Riley, J.A. 1981. The pottery from cisterns 1977.1, 1977.2 and 1977.3, in: J.A. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the University of Michigan, vol. vi, Ann Arbor, 85-124. Robertshaw, P., S. Magnavita, M. Wood, E. Melchiorre, R. Popelka-Filcoff and M. Glascock 2011. Glass beads from Kissi (Burkina Faso): Chemical analysis and archeological interpretation, in: S. Magnavita, L. Koté, P. Breunig and O.A. Idé (eds.), Crossroads / Carrefour Sahel. Cultural and Technological Developments in First Millennium BC/AD West Africa, Journal of African Archaeology Monograph Series 2, Frankfurt am Main, 105-18. Roslund, M. 1997. Crumbs from the rich man’s table: Byzantine finds in Lund and Sigtuna, c. 980-1250, in: H. Andersson, P. Carelli and L. Ersgård (eds.), Visions of the Past. Trends and Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archaeology, Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 19, Lund, 239-97. Salter, C.J. 2009. Early tin extraction in the south-west of England: A resource for Mediterranean metalworkers of Late Antiquity?, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and In-

190

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

ternational Exchange, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Farnham, 315-22. Scheel, R. 2016. Concepts of cultural transfer between Byzantium and the north, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 53-87. Sedov, A.V. 1992. New archaeological and epigraphical material from Qana (South Arabia), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3, 110-37. Sedov, A.V. 2010a. Les fouilles de secteur 3: La synagogue, in: J.F. Salles and A.V. Sedov (eds.), Qani: le port antique du Hadramawt entre la Méditerranée, l’Afrique et l’Inde Fouilles russes 1972,1985–1989, 1991, 1993–1994, Turnhout, 87-122. Sedov, A.V. 2010b. Place of Qāni’ in the Rome-Indian sea-trade, J.F. Salles and A.V. Sedov (eds.), Qani: le port antique du Hadramawt entre la Méditerranée, l’Afrique et l’Inde Fouilles russes 1972, 1985–1989, 1991, 1993–1994, Turnhout, 453-74. Seipel, W. (ed.) 1993. Gold aus Kiew. 170 Meisterwerke aus der Schatzkammer der Ukraine. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, Vienna. Selvakumar V., K.P. Shajan and R. Tomber 2009. Archaeological investigations at Pattanam, Kerala: New evidence for the location of ancient Muziris, in: R. Tomber, L. Blue and S. Abraham (eds.), Migration, Trade and Peoples, Part 1: Indian Ocean Commerce and the Archaeology of Western India, British Association for South Asian Studies, London, 29-41. Shepard, J. 2016. Small worlds, the general synopsis, and the British ‘way from the Varangians to the Greeks’, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 3-35. Smith, M. and H. Wright 1988. The Ceramics from Ras Hafun in Somalia, Azania 23, 115-41. Snædal, T. 2016. Runes from Byzantium: Reconsidering the Piraeus lion, in: F. Androshchuk, J. Shepard and M. White (eds.), Byzantium and the Viking World, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 16, Uppsala, 187-214. Theuws, F. 2012. River-based trade centres in early medieval northwestern Europe: Some ‘reactionary’ thoughts, in: S. Gelichi and R. Hodges (eds.), From One Sea to Another. Trading Places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages, Proceedings of the International Conference Comacchio, 27th-29th March 2009, Turnhout, 25-46. Thierry, F and C. Morrisson 1994. Sur les monnaies Byzantines trouvées en Chine, Revue numismatique 36, 109-45. Thomas, C. 1959. Imported pottery in Dark Age western Britain, Medieval Archaeology 3, 89-111.

191

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Thomas, C. 1981. A Provisional List of Imported Pottery in post-Roman Western Britain and Ireland, Redruth. Thomas, C. 1988. Tintagel Castle, Antiquity 62, 421-43. Thomas, C. 1993. Tintagel. Arthur and Archaeology, London. Tomber, R. 2007. Rome and Mesopotamia – importers into India in the first millennium AD, Antiquity 81, 972-88. Tomber, R. 2008. Indo-Roman Trade. From Pots to Pepper, London. Tomber, R. 2009. Beyond western India: The evidence from imported amphorae, in: R. Tomber, L. Blue and S. Abraham (eds.), Migration, Trade and Peoples. Part 1: Indian Ocean Commerce and the Archaeology of Western India, London, 42-57. Volkov, I,V. 2006. Amphorae from Novgorod the Great and comments on the wine trade between Byzantium and Medieval Russia, in: C. Orton (ed.), The Pottery from Medieval Novgorod and Its Region, Abingdon, 145-59. Vroom, J. 2003. After Antiquity. Ceramics and Society in the Aegean from the 7th to the 20th Century A.C.: A Case Study from Boeotia, Central Greece, Archaeological Studies Leiden University 10, Leiden. Vroom, J. 2005. New light on ‘Dark Age’ pottery: A note on finds from south-western Turkey, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 39, 249-55. Vroom, J. 2011. The other Dark Ages: Early Medieval pottery finds in the Aegean as an archaeological challenge, in: R. Attoui (ed.), When did Antiquity End? Archaeological Case Studies in Three Continents, bar is 2268, Oxford, 137-58. Vroom, J. 2012. From one coast to another: Early Medieval ceramics in the southern Adriatic region, in: S. Gelichi and R. Hodges (eds.), From One Sea to Another. Trading Places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages, Proceedings of the International Conference Comacchio, 27th-29th March 2009, Turnhout, ­337-52. Vroom, J. 20142. Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean. An Introduction and Field Guide. Second & Revised Edition, Turnhout (1st ed. Utrecht 2005). Vroom, J. 2016. Byzantine sea trade in ceramics: Some case studies in the eastern Mediterranean (ca. seventh - fourteenth centuries), in: P. Magdalino and N. Necipoğlu (eds.), Trade in Byzantium. Papers from the Third International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul, 157-77. Vroom, J., E. Tzavella and G. Vaxevannis 2018. Exploring daily life in the Byzantine Empire: Pottery finds from workshops in Chalkis (Euboea, Greece), ca. 10th/11th13th c., in: The 12th International Congress on Medieval & Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics, aiecm3, Athnes, 21-27 October 2018. Weitzman, K. and G. Galavaris 1990. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Illuminated Greek Manuscripts, Princeton.

192

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

Will, E.L. 2004. Mediterranean amphoras in India, in: J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the Inter­ national Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29 2002, ­Aarhus, 433-41. Willemsen, A. 2018. A ‘Coptic’ bowl from Ewijk and its cemetery context, in: M. Kars, R. van Oosten, M.A. Roxburgh and A. Verhoeven (eds.), Rural Riches & Royal Rags. Studies on Medieval and Modern Archaeology Presented to Frans Theuws, Zwolle, 56-59. Williams, G. 2011. Treasures from Sutton Hoo, London. Williams, D.F. 2000. Petrology of imported amphorae, in: D.W. Phillipson (ed.), Archaeology at Aksum, Ethiopia, 1993-7, London, 494-96. Ying, L. 2003. Western Turks and Byzantine gold coins found in China, Transoxiana 6. http://www.transoxiana.org/0106/lin-ying_turks_solidus.html. Ying, L. 2005. Solidi in China and monetary culture along the Silk Road, The Silk Road 3.2, 16-20. Yule, P. 2013. Late Antique Arabia. Zafar, capital of Himyar. Rehabilitation of a ‘Decadent’ Society, Wiesbaden. Yule, P. (ed.) 2013. Zafar, Capital of Himyar. Rehabilitation of a ‘Decadent’ Society, Excavations of the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 1998–2010 in the Highlands of the Yemen, Abhandlungen Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft 29, Wiesbaden. Zachrisson, A.I. 2010. Vittnesbörd om pälshandel? Ett arkeologiskt perspektiv på romerska bronsmynt funna i norra Sverige, Fornvännen 105, 187-202. Zahn, R. 1913. Die Kleinfunde, in: D. Krencker (ed.), Deutsche Aksum Expedition, vol. ii, Berlin, 199-231.

193

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 1 – Map from The Christian Topography by Kosmas Indikopleustes, 6th century, Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sinai (Egypt), Codex 1186 (fols. 66v-67r) (after Weitzman and Galavaris 1990, 52-62).

fig. 2 – Map of the Byzantine Empire in 555 AD ( J. Vroom; G. Fontana).

194

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

fig. 3 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the East of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1).

195

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 4 – Distribution map of Late Roman Amphorae 1 (yellow dot) and of Aila/Aqaba amphorae (red dot) in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean ( J. Vroom; map after Tomber 2007, fig. 1).

196

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

fig. 5 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the South of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1).

197

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 6 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the West of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1).

198

v ro om – f rom x i ’a n to bi r k a a n d b ac k

fig. 7 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the North of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1).

199

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 8 – Distribution map of Byzantine amphora finds (among which the Ganos amphora) in Russia and in Scandinavia ( J. Vroom; map after Androshchuk 2013, fig. 30).

200

*

*

*

Regions and sites *

201

*

*

*

Islamic silver coin of the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur (ca. 143 AH/760 AD) found in northern Germany (see detail in Wiechmann, fig. 4 on page 193 in this volume).

*

*

*

Rolling stones: Distribution patterns of marble, basalt and beach rock from Early Medieval Israel (ca. 7th-11th centuries) Hagit Nol

* i n t roduct ion Ancient economy deals, at one end, with goods, prices, means of exchange and taxes. At the other end, it observes spaces of exchange, social networks and human participants in production and distribution, including landlords, workers and slaves, merchants and consumers. One research direction is long-distance trade which this volume discusses. Long-distance trade often means commodities that travelled between continents or overseas and then were purchased or exchanged. In theory, it necessitates large-scale production, sophisticated transportation and a wide range of economic activities along with far-reaching social networks, varied economic policies and laws, and risk management. This process stands supposedly in contrast to the distribution system of local products. Nevertheless, ‘long-distance’ is a relative term, and its definition is rarely explicit. According to Luuk De Ligt and supporters, local exchange is limited to a territory of 50 km from a fair or a market, or to a day sail. Regional exchange is defined as taking place within a radius of 300 km or about six days by sea, while the concept of interregional transactions (of high value products and imports) is assigned to farther distances.1 In this paper, I will argue that the dichotomy between on the one hand local and on the other hand regional or interregional exchange is not always justified. The case study, I will discuss, will make it clear that similar distribution systems can work for commodities which derive from varied provenances. Moreover, in this case the distribution centre they have arrived from previous to the research area is unknown, as is consequently the real distance they travelled. Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 203-234

©

FHG 203

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128671

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

One of the primary sources for economic questions in history is archaeology. Archaeological inquiries can successfully follow the processes of manufacture and distribution of non-perishable artefacts, the exploitation of natural resources, the different economic roles that sites had in a single region, and the varied destinations or geographical domains of finds. In the disciplines of Late Antique and Early Islamic archaeology the main focus is on glass and pottery production installations (e.g. kilns), or the long-distance distribution of ceramic containers (e.g., amphorae). Petrographic examinations of artefacts is rare.2 Moreover, artefacts from individual sites are hardly ever summarized in distribution maps.3 Thus, the treatment archaeological evidence receives does not yet fulfil its potential in answering economic questions. One difficulty in the definition of long-distance trade is taking into account the real routes that commodities traveled, or the number of stops they made on the way. Ideally, artefacts that are found far away from their known source imply far-reaching networks that allowed this exchange. Yet, if the transportation involved stops where cargo changed hands, then the distance per se becomes irrelevant for understanding realistic networks. Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell suggest that ‘small-scale movement’ agents also moved cargo of high-value from distant origins, in order to fill up spaces in their carriers.4 Ben Russell argues in return that in the case of large objects made of stone, this ‘tramping’ method does not apply and cargo was shipped from its source toward its final destination.5 A related challenge is posed by the ‘world’ of spolia and secondary use. Artefacts go through a complex lifecycle after their primary use which includes hoarding or storage, reuse, and recycling.6 Archaeological and historical evidence both show that used commodities could be traded afar. As examples, letters from the Geniza mention commerce in older coins and this is also seen in analyses of Islamic coin hoards in eastern and northern Europe.7 Other examples are the shipwreck of Serçe Limani in Turkey which, in the 11th century, carried more than half a ton of glass waste from Syria, along with raw glass, or the 36 fragmentary granite columns which were found on a 3rd-century shipwreck in Methone, Greece.8 Trade in secondary used artefacts and trade in waste change the interpretation and the dating of these finds and thence of their exchange networks. In short, even if the place of production or of origin is known and the archaeological context for the artefact’s discovery is clear, there is no straight line between the two, spatially or temporally. r ese a rch qu est ion a n d m et hod This paper presents the distribution of objects made of basalt, marble and beach rock from sites of the 7th to the 11th century in one area in central Israel. The chief aim

204

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

of the paper is to detect the distribution contexts from which these objects reached the research area. This will help in defining ‘long distance’ and in understanding the practice of exchange systems for objects of varied distances. Another purpose is to highlight the economy of artefacts and raw materials that seldom enjoy the archaeological spotlight, especially in historical periods.9 Stone objects which were found in the research area comprise architectural elements, some of which bear inscriptions, vessels, and tools. The raw materials for these finds are mainly kurkar, limestone and basalt, but marble, beach rock and ‘soapstone’ were also used. The advantages of stone finds are, first, their abundance in the regional archaeological context; second, in some cases, their isotopic signature which enables the certain identification of their provenance; and third, the variety of their sources at diverse distances. The three types of rock that were chosen for this paper have a different possible provenance each: beach rock which is local, basalt which derives from northern Israel, and marble which originates in Turkey. The main difficulty with stone finds lies in dating them.10 The first problematic aspect is typological, since similar elements were produced and used for centuries, such as columns, milling stones or weights. The second problem relates to the popularity of employing used stones or recycling stones (e.g., lime). These practices apparently justified trade in used-stones which makes inquiries into ‘provenance’ almost irrelevant. Third, in excavations, stone objects are commonly found without a clear stratigraphy due to their size. Dating quarries is also a difficult task, as quarrying techniques changed little for centuries. Quarries are generally dated by adjacent settlements and harbours, and areas within are dated by in situ half-carved elements, graffiti or portable artefacts.11 This problem will be demonstrated for the research area, but a solution is also proposed. The data in this research are analysed through gis mapping. Spatial patterns, including clusters of specific activities and trade routes, can imply production and distribution directions.12 David Clarke defines the main interests of spatial archaeology as ‘the way in which the elements are located in space and their spatial interaction’. Methodologically, one hopes to detect trends, patterns of correlations, or geometric orders. Then, models are created in order to understand the patterns and their dynamics in the research area. This method operates on the micro level within sites and on the macro level between sites.13 Ian Hodder emphasizes the importance of concentrating not only on similarities between present characteristics but also on absences and contrasts.14 Notably, the method is designed to observe patterns, not to explain them. Theories, models and historical contexts are utilized only at a later stage.15 This methodological choice should be explained, as a growing number of scholars analyse spatial patterns through statistics and modelling (e.g. social network analy-

205

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

sis).16 One of the clear advantages of the mathematical methods in spatial analyses is in enabling quantitative comparisons between sets of data. For example, context X which was found with 1000 sherds of Ware Y can be mapped and compared to context Z with 100 sherds of the same ware. The small numbers of stone objects made quantitative measurements in this study impractical, so all find-spots with relevant evidence are equally counted as ‘one’. From network analysis, I borrow the term ‘node’ as a neutral unit of archaeological inquiry, i.e. excavation areas in big digs, small excavations, or survey sites. Importantly, the varied spatial approaches suffer from a lack of temporal context. In particular, they tend to overlook processes such as recycle or secondary use.17 Balancing the data with clear contexts from controlled excavations is usually advisable. Despite the discovery situation of most stone objects in the research area outside stratigraphic contexts, temporal aspects were considered. In the first section of this paper, I discuss the archaeological studies in the area of study, the region’s landscape, and stone objects which were found at its sites. Three excavations are described in detail to understand the usage of stone artefacts and their archaeological contexts. Next, I focus on the raw materials, their provenance, their presence in the Levant, and their relation to maritime transportation. Then, distribution maps of stone objects are presented according to type, raw material, and chronology. Lastly, the patterns and the region’s exchange systems will be interpreted. t h e r ese a rch a r e a The research area is a triangle on the Mediterranean coast which lies between the modern municipalities of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, Ashdod and Ramla in Israel. Its maximal dimensions are 41 km north-south and 21 km west-east and its general geographical definition is the Southern Coastal Plain. Archaeological research in the area has been intensive, involving surveys and excavations. Up until 2014, these studies have discovered a total of 364 nodes with remains from the 7th-11th century (Fig. 1), more than 120 of which are in modern Ramla or neighbouring Mazliah (Fig. 2). At least twenty excavations have been published as final reports and others have been published as interim reports. The research area is also composed of eleven ‘maps’ (10x10 km squares) from the Archaeological Survey of Israel, six of which have been published as of 2014. All the nodes in the following maps and analyses relate to the research area in the studied period. Nodes are dated chiefly according to pottery. The main types are dated to the 6th-early 8th century (the Byzantine and Umayyad periods) and the mid 8th to the 10th or 11th century (the Abbasid and Fatimid periods). In theory, the stone artefacts

206

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

cannot be dated more precisely than the whole period of 400 years. Nonetheless, one set of analyses will be made based on nodes which were exclusively dated to one of the phases. They will present temporal changes for one type of objects and the continuity of others. The western section of the research area is characterized by sand dunes, many of them now stabilized, covering level strips and low ridges of calcareous eolianite sandstone (kurkar). Its eastern part is composed of longitudinal valleys and kurkar foothill plains, covered with alluvial sediments and dark clay soils such as hamra. The coast is characterized by layers of beach rock.18 Quarries in most of the research area in ancient or modern times have yielded kurkar, sand, and hamra. To the east, limestone and chalk quarries also exist.19 Four streams drain off large basins from the Palestinian National Authority and eastern Israel to the sea in the west (Fig. 3). Among these are the Yarqon River (Arabic: Nahr al-ʿAwja), Nahal Ayalon (Wādī Musrāra), Nahal Soreq (Nahr Rūbīn) and Nahal Lakhish (Wādī Sukhrīr). Except for times of floods, the three latter streams are dry. However, it is believed that this is at least partially the result of modern human activities in the early 20th century.20 For example, Nahr Rūbīn was reported as intensively flowing during winter and partly during summer by 19th-century travellers.21 Furthermore, the Mamluks built stone bridges over each of the streams (near Yavne, Ashdod, and Lod) in the 13th century, an act that supports the notion of high river discharges, at least seasonally.22 The information about stone finds in excavation reports is limited. Excavations often retrieve only fragments from fills, while many reports mention stone elements with no further details. After an introduction of the main stone objects in the research area, a fuller description of three sites with relevant finds is presented. The sites begin with Ofer Park in Ramla, followed by excavations in Ashdod-Yam and Yavne-Yam. These examples demonstrate on the one hand possible in situ contexts, and on the other hand the challenges in reading archaeological contexts of reuse and recycle and in dating stone elements. Grinding, pounding and pressing tools are part of the find assemblage. Querns of Late Antiquity or later periods in Israel/Palestine may include the ‘hour glass mill’, the square ‘hopper rubber’ type, or huge round and flat querns of 1 m diameter or more which are attributed to watermills. Still, the most common type of millstone in the research area is the ‘rotary querns’. It is flat, round, measures 0.25-0.45 m and is made of basalt or beach rock.23 Other popular vessels which also relate to grinding are basins made of limestone, marble, or basalt. They include a type with three legs, and a four-handle marble basin. Other stone objects include weights which are attributed to oil pressing.

207

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Most portable architectural elements found in our archaeological contexts were made of stone, usually local stone such as limestone or kurkar. Flagstones might be of marble, e.g. the Pool of the Arches in Ramla, or beach rock, as in Rehovot.24 Beach rock pavement was also found on the bottom of two coastal wells.25 Other building elements, made of local stone or marble, are columns, capitals and column-bases. Ofer Park (31°55’28.49”N, 34°51’29.30”E) is a neighbourhood on the western edges of Ramla. The salvage excavation unearthed two living phases with structures and installations in a complex stratigraphy. Walls showed marble bases and, once, a cross-decorated limestone fragment in secondary use.26 The fills were found to hold pottery, bone and metal objects, and glass. The pottery has been dated to the 9th-11th century, whereas coins could be dated to the 7th-8th century, suggesting their long usage.27 The excavation further unearthed fragments of a marble column, basalt basins, two basalt rotary querns inside a built installation, two beach rock rotary querns, and thin marble slabs bearing epitaphs.28 These inscriptions are dated to the 9th-10th century.29 The architectural techniques, involving sunken jars together with a specific mortar, date it to the 9th century.30 Ashdod-Yam is a fortified-square structure of 40x60 m, made of well-dressed kurkar stones, on the coast (31°46’50.68”N, 34°37’19.45”E). The excavation was conducted after the covering dune had moved. The site’s unclear stratigraphy only allowed dating it generally to the 7th/8th-13th centuries but a relative chronology could be established for the architecture.31 First, the external structure was built, including two parallel gates and eight towers, as well as a southern row of chambers and a bath complex. The bath is composed of two bathtubs, one paved with marble, and a furnace roofed with a basalt stone.32 Next, a rectangular mosque was built, followed by an eastern row of rooms and a second well. The well, more than 5 m deep, was lined with kurkar bricks and paved with flat beach rock. Two marble columns stood next to the well – likely to assist in some pumping operation. The last element in the construction was a subterranean structure, maybe a related water reservoir.33 The portable artefacts include pottery, coins, fishing gear and a great number of glass bottles.34 Stone vessels, most derived from fills, comprise fragments of two basalt mortars, a four-handle marble basin, and four more basins.35 Yavne-Yam (31°55’22.52”N, 34°41’35.33”E) is a multi-period site on the coast. It is located on a natural anchorage which was favourable for anchoring in seasons other than winter.36 The site includes a complex with 5th-6th-century remains and an Early Islamic fortified-square structure. The early complex is composed of domestic and industrial-commercial finds, various installations and a bathtub paved with marble. A fragment of a basalt hour glass quern was unearthed in the complex.37 The square

208

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

structure includes a wall and a tower, the caldarium of a bathhouse, and an extramural staircase.38 Marble columns were unearthed apparently in two locations: one in the sea, under the square structure, and three others near the early complex. The latter are reported to be similar in design and size.39 The columns bear graffiti in Arabic with texts which are related to the Islamic religion and firmly dated to the 8th century. However, the excavators assume the pillars to originate from an earlier date, and hypothesize that they once formed part of a church.40 Based on the analyses which follows below, I will offer another interpretation to these columns. m a r bl e , ba sa lt a n d be ach rock Basalt is a volcanic rock. In the eastern Mediterranean, deposits of lava are known in Greece and the Aegean islands, in Anatolia, in northern Syria, in Cyprus, from northern Israel to southern Jordan, and in Egypt.41 In archaeological contexts in Israel, there is a distinct division between areas adjacent to basalt deposits which used it as their main construction stone, and farther removed areas where it can mainly be found in the form of grinding tools. A seminal study on basalt querns from the 1st11th centuries in the Levant was published in 1993, according to which the rotary type shows a clear provenance from the neighbourhood of Tiberias for most specimens, with an additional source near the Dead Sea for one adjacent site.42 More recently, a study of the basalt from a 7th-century site near Jerusalem confirms the provenance of Tiberias during that period.43 Lava rock seems to be a preferred raw material for rotary querns in a much wider geographical context. That includes, for example, the Serçe Limani shipwreck which has used or sold querns likely from Milos, Greece.44 Likewise, querns from the Eifel region in west-central Germany were found on Early Medieval sites as far afield as Scandinavia and England.45 This shows, first, the widespread usage of that raw material for the same function and form, and second, the distance that it travelled in order to enable that particular purpose and choice. Beach rock can be found along the coast in Israel. It forms in the tidal area by the compaction of sands with pebbles and with deposits of seashells or ancient and modern refuse. The stone was employed in Palestine for construction purposes until the beginning of the 20th century.46 A single ancient quarry of beach rock was found on the Israeli coast, for big millstones of 1 m diameter, near Acre (Fig. 4). Similar quarries, often dated to Medieval periods, were revealed along the Mediterranean coast, in Greece, Italy, France and Spain.47 Even though artefacts and construction stones from beach rock are found in archaeological contexts, one single research in Israel about its usage is an MA thesis on beach rock saddle-querns.48

209

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

As opposed to the situation with basalt and beach rock, much research has been devoted to marble artefacts and their trade. Still, the literature revolves almost exclusively around the Roman period, roughly from the 1st to the 4th century. Marble has the farthest source of the three stones, as its mines are located in western Turkey and Greece. White marble in particular, the one most used in Israel/Palestine and in Jordan, comes from Marmara.49 Scholars commonly argue that no mining was conducted in marble quarries after the 4th century. The reason is assigned to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the main contractor and consumer of marble.50 Scholars also believe that the common practices of using spolia from the Roman period onward, along with usage of other materials in decoration or construction, supports the interpretation of a shortage in marble which was caused by the end of quarrying.51 Nevertheless, there is no solid evidence for a cessation of quarrying at that time, and later quarrying and shipping activities which are connected to Christian practices are well known.52 Therefore, quarrying was perhaps exercised on a smaller scale which left fewer traces, also in the sea.53 Still, primary texts which discuss marble quarrying or shipping should be considered with caution. Geologically, marble is defined as a calcareous rock that underwent physical and chemical transformations (metamorphism) but many other rocks have similar characteristics or a similarly smooth appearance.54 Thus, references to ‘marble’ (Arabic: rukhām), or even to marble mines in south-central Palestine in the 10th century, may not refer to what is considered marble in present geology.55 One of the rare exceptions in the research of marble artefacts in the Levant after the 4th century is a typological study of four-handled basins made of white marble which have been dated to the 6th-7th century. The spatial distribution of the basins is clear: along the coast from present Syria to Cyprus and Southern Israel, with rare examples more than 80 km inland.56 One production centre of these vessels might be Caesarea while others are unknown.57 In Caesarea, besides a relatively high number of these basins, five specimens demonstrate different stages of production.58 Also in Caesarea, a workshop for opus sectile pavements, including marble pieces, has been discovered.59 Decorative marble elements found in during the 7th-11th-century contexts in Israel are often assumed to have originated in an adjacent – earlier – Christian church or monastery, as we learnt also in the example from Yavne-Yam.60 This is obviously possible. However, since our knowledge of the alternatives in Israel/Palestine during that period is limited (i.e. the decoration of churches, the furnishing of mosques or other public structures, or the elements which were used in private dwellings), this is yet a speculation. Moreover, finds that are interpreted as ‘chancel screens’ or ‘altars’,

210

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

to give common examples, might as well be lattices and tables that have been used in non-ecclesiastical contexts.61 In fact, the limited archaeological publications from Early Islamic contexts suggest that designated marble elements were utilized in contexts other than churches. For example, several column bases and column drums were found inside and around the Early Islamic mosque in al-Qastal, Jordan, all from the same ‘pale grey marble’.62 Even more distinct are marble panels in Khirbat Minya, a highly decorated structure (perhaps a palace) from the 8th century in Israel/Palestine, some were carved for the structure.63 Another related subject is the transportation of varied stones by sea. The publications of shipwrecks point to the possible preference of specific elements and specific raw materials in this transportation method. One study examines 73 published shipwrecks with stone cargo in the Mediterranean Sea, from the 2nd to the 7th century.64 According to it, shipped artefacts were made of marble, basalt, granite, limestone, or sandstone. They included mainly blocks (53 percent) but also columns (26 percent), column drums, bases, and capitals, as well as marble sarcophagi, statues, and veneer panels. Marble slabs are mentioned once, stone vessels three times, and no querns are noted.65 One of the interesting points here is the contrast to inland archaeology which rarely notes stone blocks, the main maritime stone artefact. The distribution map of marble basins mentioned above suggests that transportation was mainly by sea.66 Therefore, the rarity of stone vessels and absence of querns on Roman-period shipwrecks can be explained chronologically (a material culture more common in later periods), by reference to transportation methods and archaeological methodology (mostly big shipwrecks are observed), or with respect to production reasons, for example that basins and querns were produced locally from imported blocks, which can also explain the absence of blocks from excavation reports inland.67 Closer to our time frame and geography, additional underwater surveys and excavations reveal artefacts from basalt, marble and kurkar along the Israeli coast. Unlike Russell’s finds, these studies present a fairly high percentage of finished artefacts such as basins and querns. Of basalt, a shipwreck has been found near Hadera with a cargo of 70-80 rectangular stones possibly from the 7th-8th century, more than 100 huge millstones from the 14th-17th century have been recovered near Atlit, and near Herzeliya, a number of hour glass querns have been excavated. These findings indicate the transportation of basalt by sea, but their provenance has not been tested. Close by, a shipwreck with 35 marble flagstones and with white marble basins, along with amphorae and coins of the 7th century, was revealed. Last, a shipwreck from around the 7th or 8th century has been found, loaded with kurkar blocks.68

211

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

spat i a l dist r i bu t ion of ston e obj ects Of 364 nodes in the research area, 65 had marble remains, 37 had basalt, and 8 beach rock. Twenty-eight of the nodes with basalt also had marble (75 percent). Five of the eight nodes with beach rock also had marble and basalt, and one had basalt. The relative abundance of stones on the same nodes could be caused by multiple reasons: consumption by specific groups, distribution, disposal, private or industrial hoarding, recycling projects, or consumption of the recycled material. A cross-reference of marble and basalt (Fig. 5) shows nodes with no basalt in a number of sub-regions. The first two are around Tel Yavne and adjacent to Ashdod-Yam. These two sub-regions were mainly just surveyed, so the absence of basalt could be explained by faulty sampling. However, the map also presents the absence of basalt on excavated nodes between Ramat Hahayal and Rishon Leziyyon, and south of Mazliah. The nodes with beach rock remains are divided into three with pavement, and five with rotary querns (Fig. 6). Two nodes are on the coast, with similar pavement inside the well. It can be assumed that at least one quarry for beach rock was located somewhere between them. The third node with beach rock pavement, Weizmann Institute, is about 15 km distance from Yavne-Yam, which supports the suggested quarry location. The other nodes are situated on an imagined line from Holot Yavne through Ramla to Kafr Jinnis, with no direct relation to the shore. This spatial pattern implies that our imagined quarry on the coast produced also querns. However, the quarry for larger millstones near Acre suggests that querns required a particular beach rock stone and some specialization in quarrying, which local conditions might not have answered.69 In that case, Ramla could have distributed to its surroundings beach rock querns which could have been supplied from anywhere. Marble finds were divided into columns, bases, capitals, slabs, panels, other possibly-decorative elements (including screens and thin columns), vessels, and ‘general architecture’. Most categories did not show any clear pattern by themselves, with the exception of marble vessels (Fig. 7). The vessels are distinctively concentrated around Ramla and near Ashdod. The two clusters have no visible connection. Moreover, the Ramla cluster has no visible relation to the coast. The following two maps present the similar distribution of decorative elements and of columns and their supplements (i.e. drums, bases, and capitals) (Fig. 8) and of the latter and marble slabs (Fig. 9). In these cases, relevant artefacts can be found in different areas, but the highest presence has been recorded between Yavne Yam and Maghār, and from Mazliah to the north. Different patterns resulted for basalt artefacts, starting with their distribution in the northern part of the research area (Fig. 10). Basalt objects were divided into rotary querns, grinding basins or bowls, and other finds. The map of basalt rotary querns

212

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

shows dispersed evidence, with some concentration around Mazliah. The closest sites to the current coastline are 4-5 km distant. Grinding basins, on the other hand, are found on the coast and on sites that were absent in former maps, such as Jaffa and Tell Qasile. Except Ramla and Tel Ashdod, all sites had either querns or basins. The pattern becomes even more evident by cross-referencing grinders and querns with marble vessels (Fig. 11). Almost as before, all sites had one stone or the other except Ramla and Tel Ashdod which had all three, and Weizmann Institute with two. Comparing the data with the hydrographic reconstruction provides one possible explanation for several patterns. A map of the marble architectural elements (Fig. 12) shows that the cluster from Yavne-Yam to the south-east correlates with the channels of the Soreq stream. Furthermore, individual nodes are adjacent to other streams (e.g. Kafr Jinnis on the Ayalon). In fact, except for Ashdod-Yam on the coast and its neighbour Tel Ashdod (about 3 km from the Lakhish stream), Ramla and the nodes around it form the only cluster that is not situated on a stream. Similar results are displayed on the next map, showing watercourses and rotary querns (Fig. 13). The Ramla cluster and dispersed nodes which are situated on a watercourse are noticeable also here. In contrast with this situation, there are no querns by the Soreq stream. Basalt and marble grinders, however, tend to relate to the coast more than to streams (Fig. 14). For a possible chronological interpretation, the stone objects are cross-referenced with nodes which are dated to relatively shorter periods. Dating through pottery results in 66 nodes which are dated exclusively from the 6th to the early 8th century (henceforth the 7th century) and 116 nodes dated to the 9th-11th centuries (henceforth the 9th century) (Fig. 15). Nodes which had sequences with other nodes up to 550 meters are considered one site. Chiefly, the number of sites with and without specific raw materials or objects was counted in every phase excluding Ramla. The primary disposal of pottery and stone objects is not identical, but might give a sense of the period at least in extreme situations. Most cross-references did not issue distinctive numerical results. As examples, marble columns were found in two out of seven 7th-century sites (28 percent) and in three 9th-century sites (43 percent), and basalt grinders were found in five out of eight 7th-century sites (62 percent) and in four 9th-century sites (50 percent). This suggests the general continuity in usage of some objects. However, the number of sites diversified more with regards to beach rock querns, basalt rotary querns and marble vessels. Marble vessels were found in three out of ten 7th-century sites (30 percent) and only in a single 9th-century site (10 percent). The basalt querns were found on three out of seven 7th-century sites (43 percent) and on one or two 9th-century sites (14/28 percent) (Fig. 16). Most distinctively, beach rock querns appear outside of Ramla only on the three 9th-century sites (Fig. 17).

213

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

A somehow different case is presented with marble as a whole. The map (Fig. 18) shows that most sites with marble could not be dated to one exclusive phase. However, the number of sites with marble was reduced from eleven to nine in the 9th century. More importantly, five of the nine sites had marble at a distance of 300 meters or more from the 9th-century node. This is most evident with Tell Qatra, 500 meters from Gedera (Fig. 19). The pattern might represent the removal of marble from 7th-century neighbourhoods for secondary use in the later period. discussion a n d conclusion This chapter aimed to identify the exchange systems which have led to the archaeological contexts of objects from marble, basalt and beach rock in central Israel. The distribution maps were designed to identify any spatial pattern, but chiefly to define possible trade routes and distribution centres. I was hoping to also learn of interregional routes and systematic recycling. The results are more modest and some questions remain unanswered. All distribution maps indicate clusters around Ramla. Additional clusters include the surroundings of Ashdod and a cluster along the Soreq stream. These patterns cannot be interpreted alone. Based on the absence of half-finished objects, noticeable debris, or the density of similar objects in the research area, it may be concluded that manufacture was not conducted on any of these sites. Thus, the clusters and imagined routes represent distribution or consumption contexts. Notably, consumption can be of artefacts in secondary use, as in the in situ context of marble pavement in the bathtub in Ashdod-Yam. Standardization in function and design, on the other hand, such as the marble columns in Yavne-Yam, is the best possible representation of primary use. As such, the graffiti on the columns provides their terminus post quem to the 8th century, unlike the excavators’ interpretation.70 The clusters around Ramla are not much of a surprise, as the site was a distinct hub and its finds represent the complete material culture of the region. The cluster changed, however, with the various artefacts and spread in different directions. Another cluster is apparent around Ashdod-Yam and Tel Ashdod. A concluding map for the distribution of grinding and milling objects from the three raw materials (Fig. 20) enables the reconstruction of two centres, Ramla and Tel Ashdod, which distributed goods to a radius of 14 km. Whereas Tel Ashdod might have got its goods from sea through Ashdod-Yam, the possible routes through which artefacts arrived at Ramla are not visible. According to that interpretation, the sites Yavne-Yam and Jaffa on the coast, along with Tell Qasile and Ramat Hahayal on the Yarqon River, operated in a different way. First, they are located outside the two distribution systems, and second,

214

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

they show only grinding objects from basalt. These sites might be related to a distribution center up north, unless one of them acted as such. The map cannot advise whether the distributed goods were used or new. The reason for the consumption of only one type of grinding stone on most sites (e.g. basalt rotary querns or marble vessels) remains unexplained as well. The excavation in Ofer Park in Ramla, where multiple grinding objects were unearthed along with sunken jars, might represent a unique agricultural site which enjoyed its proximity to the distribution centre.71 Another distribution operation is suggested for architectural elements. The plausible primary use of marble columns in Yavne-Yam and the distinct cluster of marble elements from Yavne-Yam along the Soreq suggest a designated operation. This is supported by underwater studies which found columns near the site, and the clear evidence for the transportation of marble by sea in general. In theory, the transportation along the Soreq could have been achieved in an active water stream, by utilizing the watercourse when it was dry, or by traveling along the riverbanks. However, the heavy weight of marble elements makes the wet route option plausible. The exchange of kurkar blocks into the opposite direction could also have taken place, from Maghār or other quarries in that area. Somewhere near Yavne-Yam at least one quarry for beach rock existed, and distributed flagstones (directly or through Yavne-Yam) to a distance of 15 km. The comparison of stone objects from sites with 7th-8th-century pottery or 9th-11th-century pottery resulted in little correlation. This negative outcome implies the continuity of usage for most artefacts, new or used. The columns in Yavne-Yam, imported designedly to the site in the 8th century or later, further imply how the distribution system was active at that time. However, marble objects were clearly removed from many neighbourhoods of the 7th-8th century to later ones on the same sites. Some objects changed their purpose or were recycled, such as a grinding basin carved from a marble column in Ramla.72 One context in Mazliah, involving a number of varied decorative elements from marble, implies a hoard and supports the spatial trend.73 Still, it cannot be concluded whether usage and trade in used elements was based on the dismantling of churches or other public structures in particular. In short, trade in used goods took place perhaps in parallel to the distribution of new ones. Notably, rotary querns from beach rock, although limited in numbers, seem to be a 9th-11th-century phenomenon. This might be the result of shortage in basalt rotary querns, which was also implied in the temporal examination. Our data and the spatial analysis do not provide evidence for distribution centres from which stone artefacts arrived to distribution sites in the research area. In principle, marble columns could have travelled to Yavne-Yam directly from the quarry in Marmara, 1000 km away, which would reflect interregional exchange, just as basalt

215

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

vessels could have arrived at Ashdod-Yam by sea from Tiberias through Acre, more than 200 km away, and thus reflect regional exchange. Nonetheless, the production of marble basins in Caesarea, at 60 km distance to Ramla, means that there is no direct link between Marmara and sites in central Israel where marble basins were found. Furthermore, milling objects from various raw materials went through the same distribution systems in Ramla and Tel Ashdod. This highlights the need to look beyond ‘provenances’ and to understand distribution trends. This study demonstrates the advantages of a spatial perspective and the benefits of considering new raw materials. The stone objects we looked at obviously played only a small part in the rich world of material culture, comprising inter alia pottery, glass, metal, textile, bone and wood. Chiefly, stone objects are daily life finds, not too pretentious, which travelled relatively long distances. It is time that research benefits from these highly useful attributes.

* ack now l e dg m e n ts This chapters composes part of my PhD dissertation which was submitted to Universität Hamburg. I am grateful to Yoram Neri, Ehud Galili, Danny Rosenberg, Khaled al-Bashaireh, Oscar Aldred, Markus Ritter, Yana Tchekhanovets, Yeshu Dray, Anja Rutter and the two anonymous reviewers for their kind help.

216

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

not es 1

24 Toueg and Arnon 2018, 142, fig. 17;

De Ligt 1993, 3-22; Laiou 2012; Walmslay

Bouchenino 2007.

2012. 2

See e.g., Cohen-Weinberger 2013.

25 Vunsh et al. 2013, 2014.

3

Walmsley 2012.

26 Kletter 2005, 57-63, fig. 10, fig. 25.

4

Horden and Purcell 2000, 369-70.

27

See Nol 2019, 46-47.

5

Russell 2011, 149.

28

Kletter 2005, 90-91.

6

Schiffer 1987, 7.

29

Sharon 2005a.

7

Goitein 1973, 94; Kovalev 2015.

30

Nol 2019, table 2, table 6.

8

Van Doorninck 2009; Russell 2011, 148.

31

Nahlieli 2008; Raphael 2014, 19-20.

9

Rosenberg, Rowan and Gluhak 2016, 4.

32

Nahlieli 2008; Israel Antiquities Authority

10

Ibid.

Archives: Excavation Files: Ashdod-Yam,

11

See e.g., Ward-Perkins 1980; Brown and

Dov Nahlieli, Yumna Masarwa and Miki

Harrell 1995; Attanasio et al. 2008.

Ein Gedy, A-2658/1998. Nahlieli 2008; Vunsh et al. 2013.

12

See e.g., Costin 1991, 42.

33

13

Clarke 1977, 10.

34 Raphael 2014.

14

Hodder and Hutson 20032, 167-90.

35

Idem, 61-62.

15

Ibid; Gattiglia 2015, 2-6.

36

Galili 2009, 16-17.

16

See e.g., Brughmans 2013; Nakoinz 2013.

37

Fischer and Taxel 2014, 220-27.

17

Schiffer 1987, 14; Hodder and Hutson

38

Idem, 215, note 1.

20032, 171.

39

Fischer and Taxel 2014, 234, note 7, fig. 23;

18 19

Galili and Sharvit 1991.

Singer 2007, 23-30; Almagor and Perat 2012, 20-22, 48, 99-117.

40 Fischer and Taxel 2014, 238; Sharon 2005b.

A Survey of Deserted Quarries, The

41

Quarries Rehabilitation Fund, http://

42 Idem, appendix a.

www.kasham.org.il/seker.php?act=cat

43 Segal 2017.

(Hebrew), last accessed on 1.4.17. The

44 Runnels 2004.

Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, fig. 6-7.

research area answers the survey areas: gdr 45 Parkhouse 1997; Sindbæk 2007. 10-ii, asd 10-i, and rsh iv-7. Adjacent:

46 Almagor and Perat 2012, 97-101.

lod 8-iii. See also Sasson 2003, 32-33;

47 Galili and Sharvit 2001; Antonioli et al. 2017.

Glick 2009; Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad

48 Neri 1994.

2013.

49 Fischer 1998, 245-52; al-Bashaireh 2011;

20 Skutelsky and Perelmuter 2012, 22.

al-Bashaireh and al-Housan 2019.

21

Sasson 2008.

22

Petersen 2010, 297-98.

23

Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993; Frankel 2003; Antonioli et al. 2017, 6.

50 Greenhalgh 1989, 134. See also WardPerkins 1980, 63. 51

217

Greenhalgh 1989, 134-36.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

52 53

Idem, 145, table 8.1.

See e.g., Attanasio et al. 2008, 9;

65

Castagnino Berlinghieri and Paribeni 2011.

66 Gwiazda 2014.

Russell 2011, 143.

67 For ships, see Russell 2011, 143.

54 Attanasio et al. 2006, 17.

68 Ronen and Olami 1978, site 109; Ne’eman

55

See al-Maqdisī, 184.

et al. 2000, site 32, site 44, site 52; Galili et

56

Gwiazda 2014.

al. 2007.

57

Ibid.

69 For Acre, see Galili and Sharvit 2001.

58

Patrich and Shadmi 2008, 351-54.

70 Fischer and Taxel 2014, 238.

59

Dray 2011.

71

72 Haddad 2010, fig. 14. Cf. Patrich and

60 See e.g., Milevski and Rapuano 2001;

Shadmi 2008, 354, no. 126.

Gorzalczany and ʿAd 2010; Taxel 2013, 176. 61

See Fischer and Taxel 2008, fig. 14:1.

Kletter 2005.

73

At Gorzalczany and ʿAd 2010. Compare

62 Addison 2002, 488-89.

the 13th century hoard in Acre in

63

Stern 2010 and the refuse contexts in

Ritter 2017, 217-18.

Tchekhanovets 2016.

64 Russell 2011.

218

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

bi bl iogr a ph y Addison, E. 2000. The mosque at al-Qastal: Report from al-Qastal Conservation and Development Project, 1999-2000, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44, 477-91. Almagor, G. and I. Perat 2012. Israel Mediterranean Coast, 3rd ed., Geological Survey of Israel Report GSI/28/2012 (in Hebrew). Attanasio, D., M. Brilli and M. Bruno 2008. The properties and identification of marble from Proconnesos (Marmara Island, Turkey): A new database including isotopic, EPR and petrographic data, Archaeometry 50, 747-74. Attanasio, D., M. Brilli and N. Ogle 2006. The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles, Rome. Al-Bashaireh, K. 2011. Provenance of marbles from the octagonal building at Gadara ‘Umm-Qais’, northern Jordan, Journal of Cultural Heritage 12, 317-22. Al-Bashaireh, K. and A.Q. al-Housan 2019. Provenance of marble elements from the Middle Church at Hayyan Al-Mushrif, northeast Jordan: A multidisciplinary approach, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11, 2237-47. Bouchenino, A. 2007. Rehovot, Weizman Institute of Science, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=640&mag_id=112. Brown, V.M and J.A. Harrell 1995. Topographical and petrological survey of ancient Roman quarries in the eastern desert of Egypt, in: Y. Maniatis, N. Herz and Y. Basiakos (eds.), The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity, Dorest, 221-34. Brughmans, T. 2013. Thinking through networks: A review of formal network methods in archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 623-62. Castagnino Berlinghieri, E.F. and A. Paribeni 2011. Byzantine merchant ships and marble trade: New data from the central Mediterranean, Skyllis 11, 64-75. Clarke, D.L. 1977. Spatial Archaeology, London. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2013. Petrographic analysis of three Early Islamic impressed jar handles, in: R. Toueg, Ramla, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5439&mag_id=120. Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production, Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1-56. Doorninck Jr., F.H. van 2009. The Voyage, in: G. Bass, R.H. Brill, B.I. Lledo and S.D. Matthews, Serçe Limani, an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. II: The Glass of the Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, College Station, 3-5.

219

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Dray, Y. 2011. Opus Sectile workshop revealed in Caesarea, in: E. Ayalon, A. Izdarechet and Y. Porath (eds.), Mikhmanē Kësâryā (Caesarea Treasures): Summaries and Research on Caesarea and its Vicinity, vol. ii, Jerusalem, 35-42 (in Hebrew). Fischer, M. 1998. Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade, Konstanz. Fischer, M. and I. Taxel 2008. Rural settlement in the vicinity of Yavneh in the Byzantine period: A religio-archaeological perspective, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350, 7-35. Fischer, M. and I. Taxel 2014. Yavne-Yam in the Byzantine-Early Islamic transition: The archaeological remains and their socio-political implications, Israel Exploration Journal 64, 212-42. Frankel, R. 2003. Mills and querns in Talmudic literature – a reappraisal in light of archaeological evidence, Cathedra 110, 43-60 (in Hebrew). Galili, E. 2009. Ancient harbors and anchorages in Israel after five decades of underwater research, Qadmoniot 137, 2-21 (in Hebrew). Galili, E. and J. Sharvit 1991. Yavne-Yam anchorage, the finds of the maritime survey, in: M. Fischer (ed.), Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim, 111-20 (in Hebrew). Galili, E. and J. Sharvit 2001. A millstone quarry on the ʿAkko coastline, ʿAtiqot 42, 73*-78* (in Hebrew). Galili, E., J. Sharvit and B. Rosen 2007. Herzliyya beach, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=507&mag_id=112. Gattiglia, G. 2015. Think big about data: Archaeology and the Big Data challenge”, Archäologische Informationen 38, 113-24. Glick, A. 2009. Tell Qasile (west), Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1234&mag_id=115. Goitein, S.D. 1973. Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, Princeton. Gorzalczany, A. and U. ʿAd 2010. Ramla (south), Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=1418&mag_id=117. Greenhalgh, M. 1989. The Survival of Roman Antiquities in the Middle Ages, Trowbridge. Gwiazda, M. 2014. Marble vessels from Jiyeh (Porphyreon), Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 23, 527-41. Haddad, E. 2010, Ramla, railroad, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1496. Hodder, I. and S. Hutson 20032. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge (rev. ed.; 1st ed. by I. Hodder, 1986).

220

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

Horden, P. and N. Purcell 2000. The Corrupting Sea, 12th ed. 2010, Malden. Kletter, R. 2005. Early Islamic remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla, ʿAtiqot 49, 57-99. Kogan-Zehavi, E. and S. Hadad 2013. A building and an olive press from the Byzantine-Abbasid periods at Khirbat el-Thahiriya, ʿAtiqot 71, 84-112 (in Hebrew). Kovalev, R.K. 2015. When and what regions of the Islamic World exported Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian silver coins to Early Viking-age Northern Lands?, in: T. Talvio and M. Wijk (eds), Myntstudier: Festskrift till Kenneth Jonsson, Stockholm, 68-83. Laiou, A.E. 2012. Regional networks in the Balkans in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, in: C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, 125-46. Ligt, L. de 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam. Al-Maqdisī, Muhammad ibn Ahmad, Ahsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿ rifat al-aqālīm, ed. By M.J. De Goeje, Description Imperii Moslemici, 2nd ed., Leiden 1906. Milevski, Y. and Y. Rapuano 2001. Kh. Kfar Jinis, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113, *65-*66. Nahlieli, D. 2008. Ashdod-Yam, New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5, 1575-76. Nakoinz, O. 2013. Spatial models of interaction and economic archaeology, Metalla 20, 107-15. Ne’eman, Y., S. Sender and E. Oren 2000. Archaeological Survey of Israel: The Map of Mikhmoret (52) and the Map of Hadera (53), Jerusalem. Neri, Y. 1994. Archaeological and Geological Aspects of Beachrock Saddle-Querns Utilization in Antiquity, unpublished master thesis, University of Haifa, 1994. Nol, H. 2019. Dating Early Islamic sites through architectural elements: A case study from central Israel, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 6.1, 41-80. Parkhouse, J. 1997. The distribution and exchange of Mayen lava quernstones in early Medieval Northwestern Europe, in: G. De Boe and F. Verhaeghe (eds.), Exchange and Trade: Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge 1997 Conference, vol. iii, Zellik, 97-106. Patrich, J. and T. Shadmi 2008. The stone vessels, in: J. Patrich, Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, Areas cc, kk and nn. Final Reports. vol. I: The Objects, Jerusalem, 345-65. Petersen, A. 2010. Medieval bridges of Palestine, in: U. Vemeulen and K. D’Hulster (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras vi, Leuven, 291-306. Raphael, S.K. 2014. Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, bar is 2673, Oxford. Ritter, M. 2017. Der umayyadische Palast des 8. Jahrhunderts in Ḫirbat al-Minya am See von Tiberias: Bau und Baudekor, Wiesbaden.

221

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Ronen, A. and Y. Olami 1978. Archaeological Survey of Israel: The Map of Atlit (26), Jerusalem. Rosenberg, D., Y. Rowan and T. Gluhak 2016. Introduction. Leave no stone unturned: Perspectives on ground stone artefact research, Journal of Lithic Studies 3 (Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the Association for Ground Stone Tools Research), 1-15. Runnels, C. 2004. The querns, in: G. Bass, R.H. Brill, B.I. Lledo and S.D. Matthews, Serçe Limani, an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. ii: The Glass of the Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, College Station, 255-62. Russell, B. 2011. Lapis transmarinus: Stone-carrying ships and the maritime distribution of stone in the Roman Empire, in: D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds.), Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 139-55. Sasson, A. 2003. Maghar: A village of caves from the Ottoman period in the Coastal Plain, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 21, 11-38. Sasson, A. 2008. Lower Nahal Soreq (Wādī Rūbīn) during the Ottoman period and the British Mandate, in: A. Gal, H. Lahav and U. Ramon, Palmahim Survey, Tel Aviv, 85-88 (in Hebrew). Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Salt Lake City. Sharon, M. 2005a. New inscriptions from the salvage excavation at Ramla, ʿAtiqot 49, 123-25. Sharon, M. 2005b. Arabic inscriptions from Yavne-Yam, in: M. Fischer (ed.), Yavne, Yavne-Yam and Their Surroundings, Tel Aviv, 253-58 (in Hebrew). Singer, A. 2007. The Soils of Israel, Berlin. Sindbæk, S.M. 2007. Networks and nodal points: The emergence of towns in Early Viking age Scandinavia, Antiquity 81, 119-32. Skutelsky, O. and M. Perelmuter 2012. Gaʿagūʿ îm le-nāhal (Reviving Streams and Wetlands in Israel), Tel Aviv (in Hebrew). Stern, E.J. 2010. A thirteenth century hoard of marble spolia at Acre (Israel), Marmora 6, 151-61. Taxel, I. 2013. Rural settlement processes in central Palestine, ca. 640-800 C.E.: The Ramla-Yavneh region as a case study, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369, 157-99. Tchekhanovets, Y. 2016. Spoils and spolia: Large marble assemblage from Givati excavations, Jerusalem, Liber Annuus 66, 269-300. Toueg, R. and Y.D. Arnon 2018. Ramla, the Pool of the Arches: New evidence for the water inlet into the pool, ʿAtiqot 93, 125-61. Vunsh, R., O. Tal and D. Sivan 2013. Horbat Ashdod-Yam, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. http://www.hadashot-ESI.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2294.

222

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

Vunsh, R., O. Tal, D. Sivan and M. Fischer 2014. Yavne-Yam, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=7483&mag_id=121. Walmsley, A. 2012. Regional exchange and the role of the shop in Byzantine and Early-Islamic Syria-Palestine: An archaeological view, in: C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington, 311-30. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1980. Nicomedia and the marble trade, Papers of the British School at Rome 48, reprint 1992, in: H. Dodge and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), Marble in Atiquity, London, 61-105.

223

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 1 – Excavated and surveyed nodes in the research area (H. Nol).

fig. 2 – Modern Ramla and its surroundings (H. Nol).

224

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

fig. 3 – A schematic reconstruction of water streams in the research area (H. Nol).

fig. 4 – A beachrock quarry for big millstones near Acre, Israel (E. Galili).

225

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 5 – Basalt and marble in the research area (H. Nol).

fig. 6 – Distribution of beachrock remains (H. Nol).

226

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

fig. 7 – Distribution of marble vessels (H. Nol).

fig. 8 – Distribution of decorative elements, columns and column elements from marble (H. Nol).

227

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 9 – Distribution of marble slabs, columns and column elements (H. Nol).

fig. 10 – Distribution of grinding vessels made of basalt (H. Nol).

228

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

fig. 11 – Cross-referencing marble vessels and basalt grinders (H. Nol).

fig. 12 – Distribution of marble architecture in relation to streams (H. Nol).

229

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 13 – Distribution of rotary querns in relation to streams (H. Nol).

fig. 14 – Distribution of basalt and marble grinders in relation to streams (H. Nol).

230

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

fig. 15 – Distribution of nodes exclusively dated to the 7th-8th or 9th-11th centuries (H. Nol).

fig. 16 – Cross-referencing basalt querns with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol).

231

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 17 – Cross-referencing beachrock querns with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol).

fig. 18 – Cross-referencing marble with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol).

232

nol – rol l i ng s ton e s

fig. 19 – Cross-referencing marble with 9th-century pottery around Gedera (H. Nol).

233

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 20 – Distribution of grinding objects around Ramla and Tel Ashdod (H. Nol).

234

*

*

*

Trade and transfer: Early Medieval textiles from excavations in Israel (9th-13th centuries) Orit Shamir & Alisa Baginski

*

i n t roduct ion This study presents the Early Medieval textiles from excavations in Israel and neighbouring areas (9th-13th centuries). It identifies the origin of these textiles, namely, if they were produced locally or were imported, and reconstructs the cultural connections they display. This is the first time that all the fabrics of the period, from the region, are placed and analysed together. In this paper, we compare their characteristics (e.g., materials and weaving techniques), detect similarities and differences between fabrics of the varied sites, and explain these patterns. In comparison to other archaeo­ logical fields of study in Israel, such as those focussed on pottery and metals, textile research is relatively new. In the following, the textiles of nine sites (or clusters) from Israel and its immediate surroundings (henceforth, Israel) are introduced. These include (from north to south) Caesarea, Qarantal Cave 38, Qasr el-Yahud, additional Judea Desert caves (Patrich’s excavations and the ‘Operation Scroll’), Qumran Caves, Wadi Murabba’at, Mezad Zohar, Avdat’s Saints Cave, and the Coral Island (Fig. 1). Although only a few artefacts are intact, we can usually assume their use through comparisons to the written sources, to ethno-archaeology, and to intact specimens from Egypt. The fabrics comprise wool, goat hair, silk, linen, cotton and mixed materials. They also introduce varied weaving techniques. Their technical details include material, size, number of threads (per cm), threads’ spin direction, weaving technique, density, colour, decoration and supplements, sewing and quality. A glossary at the end of the paper elaborates on the varied techniques and summarizes terms such as ‘wrap’, ‘Z-spun’, Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 235-268

©

FHG 235

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128672

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

‘tabby’ or ‘twill’. These data were then compared to earlier textiles from Israel and to textiles from other countries. Sites which yielded textile remains are, for example, Quseir al-Qadim (al-Qusayr al-Qadīm), Fustāt and Naqlun’s cemetery in Egypt. The comparison illuminates which of the textiles are common in the region during specific periods, and therefore are likely to be local, which are exceptional, and which can be associated with other regions. The Medieval textiles are chiefly compared to textiles from the Arava, southern Israel, in the Early Islamic period (7th-8th centuries). These have been discussed widely in our previous publications.1 The main materials that are common in this period are wool, cotton (with a growing trend), linen (in a decline) and goat hair, in contrast to silk, which is rare.2 Linen textiles are characterized by S-spun, wool S-spun outnumbers Z-spun, whereas cotton is mostly Z-spun. The common weaves include plain weave and its variations: balanced tabby, warp-faced tabby, and weft-faced, a single twill and two weft-faced compound tabbies. Dyeing threads rather than fibres became common from the 7th century. More frequent decorations and designs include bands, brocaded textiles, checks and grids and warp-ikat. Cut-to-shape garments gain in popularity.3 The most important Early Islamic site for these is Nahal Omer. It yielded cotton and silk textiles and weaving and decoration techniques such as weft-faced compound tabbies and warp-ikat,4 in addition to cut-to-shape tunic – the earliest known so far in Israel.5 Those textiles raise questions regarding their provenance and the route they took to their new owners. Unlike pottery, textile production rarely leaves diagnostic debris in the archaeological record (e.g. wooden looms). Thus, textile scholars identify the origin of textiles through sites with a concentration of textile finds which indicate the dominant material, spin direction, or weaving techniques; by their earliest known location; by a comparison to the written sources; and via other artefacts in the archaeological context which relate to production, such as spindle whorls. Regarding distribution maps of textile finds, one should take extreme caution. Textiles are rarely preserved except under special climatic conditions or in a microenvironment which allows normally perishable organic materials to survive. The dry environment of the Judea desert (caves, burials, and sites) has minimal bacterial activity and is ideal for the preservation of textile fibres of all sorts. c a esa r e a A Christian grave under the pavement of the Crusader cathedral in Caesarea was excavated in 1995 by Yosef Porath. It was dated to the 11th century. The burial was in a wooden coffin with iron nails, where small remains of textiles were discovered (Fig. 2).

236

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

The fragments consisted of several layers, one on top of the other, partly carbonated and very fragile. They were interpreted as coffin lining and the shrouds and/or vestments of the deceased. Two fragments consist of a silk tablet woven band, which is brocaded with a gilded membrane lamella wound on a silk core. Another two fragments are a sheer silk tabby and a silk tabby brocaded with similar gilded threads as those of the tablet woven band. Using splendid silks in burials was customary for high-ranking church dignitaries as well as for secular aristocrats in medieval Europe. The bands brocaded with gilded lamella in particular signify high social status both in the church and outside. In both cases, they would have been buried in the cathedral. As the Caesarea band resembles so closely the above-mentioned European bands, it can be assumed that it was produced there.6 j e r icho c av e 38 i n t h e qa r a n ta l cl i f f A significant number of textile fragments were unearthed in ‘Cave 38’ during the 1993 excavations by the Israel Antiquities Authority in the Qarantal cliff above Jericho. The 768 textile fragments, 34 basketry fragments, and 93 cordage fragments were dated to the early 9th to late 13th centuries, based on radiocarbon analysis of the fragments along with coins and typology of pottery and glass from the cave.7 The textiles were found in one of several connected spaces (Area F). The absence of related artefacts, together with the character of the fragments which will be discussed shortly, indicate that they were collected and stored in the cave and that no textile production or textile repairs were conducted there. The context was thus interpreted as storage. One possible interpretation is that rag collectors or merchants gathered these fragments for the paper-making industry. The growing industry, at least from the 9th century, prompted the usage of waste from local cotton manufacturing and other textile materials.8 Letters in the Geniza which originated in Palestine and were examined as to their material demonstrate that they were principally produced from cotton, but were sometimes mixed with flax, wool, or other materials.9 All 768 fragments of textile found at the cave were analyzed.10 The textiles are torn, cut, and patched, and many have been reused, sometimes more than once. Many are composed of several different textiles, or several pieces of the same materials, stitched together. Others were cut into rectangles, odd shapes, or strips. All pieces are small (measuring 5x5 cm on average) and worn. Some fragments were stained and some were partly burnt. Some of the reused textiles are of high-quality materials and designs, including fragments of once splendid silk fabrics. It can be assumed that most of these fragments were originally parts of clothing such as tunics and later their decorations were cut in order to decorate other garments.

237

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

The tunics resemble those from Qasr el-Yahud which will be discussed later. Other garments from Cave 38 are trousers, coifs, wrappers, and small bags. The textiles materials from Cave 38 are made of cotton, linen, silk, wool, goat hair, and mixed materials such as linen and cotton (Table 1). Most of the weaving techniques and decorations have parallels in Egypt and therefore are interpreted as imports from Egypt, but a number of fragments may derive from Asia Minor, Syria. The largest group of textiles is made of cotton (38 percent) of which most are Z-spun (92 percent). A similar pattern is observed from the Coral Island, as we shall see, and other sites in Egypt.11 All cotton fragments are woven in various forms of tabby. Most are undyed, but some patterns of blue are present. Another big type from the assemblage is linen textiles (34 percent), of which most are S-spun (79 percent). This pattern accords with two Egyptian sites but not with two others.12 The most frequent weaving technique of the linen fragments is tabby and most textiles are undyed. Nine linen textiles are decorated with coloured silk tapestry bands. The motifs in two are of swimming birds (ducks?) (Fig. 3). Many such textiles from Egypt have been dated to the 10th and 11th centuries, also eleven from Fustāt.13 A unique fabric with 134 examples (18 percent) used an S-spun linen warp and a Z-spun cotton weft. Flax fibres are longer, stronger, and smoother than cotton ones, making linen a very good candidate to create a new and solid warp able to support on the loom the weight of the whole fabric in tension. Cotton, on the other hand, is softer and more elastic, ideally suited for the weft. Moreover, the opposing spin directions enabled the yarns to interlock more firmly.14 There are relatively few wool fragments, of which most are S-spun in the warp and Z-spun in the weft. Similar fragments were discovered in Fustāt.15 Most are undyed. Two are 2/1 twills, but others are woven in various techniques of tabby. One fragment of a coloured pile carpet with symmetrical knots (Fig. 4) was probably imported from Asia Minor, based on similar designs and weaving. Cave 38 yielded 38 pure silk textiles. Two textiles are block-printed plain weave without any twist of the fibres (I-spun), of which one has blue geometric motifs printed on an ivory background (Fig. 5). Another piece is woven in the unique soumak technique which probably originates in Asia Minor.16 The most significant group consists of eighteen compound-weave silk fragments. Four are monochrome but the others have coloured patterns in blue (Fig. 6), green, red, and brown on the undyed ground or vice versa. The patterns are geometric, floral, or interlaced and in several cases include birds, animals, or an Arabic inscription. Textiles woven in tabby or lampas techniques are mostly bicolour and bear motifs. Five fragments which were stitched together are made of blue and cream silk in weft-faced compound tabby (Fig. 7). The fragments of the last specimen are luxury fabrics woven on sophisticated looms, such as the draw-

238

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

loom which is capable of weaving complex patterns. Silk compound-weaves have been discovered in Egypt and one specimen was found in 6th-century Avdat, Israel.17 qa sr e l -ya h u d The textiles from Qasr el-Yahud (Arabic: Qasr al-Yahūd) are precious witnesses of Christian burial customs during the 8th-9th centuries and of Egyptian clothing. The site is situated on the west bank of the Jordan River, east of Jericho (Fig. 8). It is believed to be the site where Jesus was baptized by John and has a long tradition of ‘washing of the lepers’, noted already by late antique and medieval authors.18 Describing the baptism ceremony, the Piacenza Pilgrim wrote in the 6th century that ‘some wear linen and some other materials which will serve as shrouds for burial’.19 Another source mentions that in 1172 about sixty thousand pilgrims visited the Baptism site.20 A pilgrim named Felix Fabri writing at the end of the 15th century describes the pilgrims dipped in the waters dressed in special clothing that was brought from their homeland particularly for that purpose.21 A rescue excavation was carried out on the site in 1983 by anthropologist Joe Zias.22 A mass grave of around three hundred men, women and children was discovered, of which 34 skeletons were retrieved. Some skeletal remains show pathological changes which indicate Hansen’s disease (leprosy) and tuberculosis. The initial diagnosis was later confirmed through a polymerase chain reaction analysis (pcr) which gave positive results of mycobacterial dna.23 Anthropological evidence indicates that the individuals were probably Egyptian in origin, and structural analysis of the skulls proved that some were Nubian. Moreover, some of the burial customs at this site, such as placing seeds of Egyptian Balsam (Balánites aegyptiaca) (Fig. 9) supports their Egyptian origin.24 Notably, parts of the tree are known to be used for the treatment of varied illnesses.25 Thus, one can presume that these individuals have travelled a long distance to the site, hoping to wash away their illness. The preservation of the textiles from the excavation is relatively good but some were damaged by body fluids. The biggest textile measures 155x119 cm all over. In total, 259 specimens were discovered. Radiocarbon dating of one textile resulted in 787-877, which conforms to other characteristics of these textiles. The usage of the textiles is varied and comprises tunics, head scarves, bandages, shrouds, and mats (Table 2). The examination of the textiles illustrates how deceased were buried in their clothes, were sometimes wrapped with a shroud, and probably laid on a mat. The shrouds are usually big rectangular pieces in secondary use. The status of the deceased from Qasr el-Yahud is implied by these clothes – most were undyed and undecorated, of simple materials and weaving technique. On the other hand, the textiles were

239

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

almost not mended or patched which suggests that the pilgrims used new cloth for their journey. As will be discussed later, the textiles from Qasr el-Yahud are distinctively foreign. Chiefly, the usage of Z-spun linen textiles and S/Z-spun (S in the warp and Z in the weft) cotton are untypical compared to textiles from Israel.26 Moreover, no weaving techniques more complex than plain weave is detected, a characteristic which stands in contrast with other sites in Israel from the 5th century onwards. The following tables present the spin direction and weaving techniques of the 175 linen and 84 cotton textiles from the site. In addition, we discuss their colours and other elements which stood out. The linen textiles are mostly S-spun (76 percent), whereas 17 (10 percent) are Z-spun (Table 3). They are woven in simple weave (plain weave tabby) (Table 4). All the threads are undyed cream, beige or brown. However, a single linen textile is decorated with a woolen band in red and brown and woolen squares (Fig. 10). Another unique example is a bleached linen textile which is decorated with two bands of a foliated tapestry made of brown wool and white linen (Fig. 11). This might be part of a ‘Coptic’ woven-to-shape tunic, the only one on the site. With cotton textiles, most are S-spun (38 percent) or S-spun in the warp and Z-spun in the weft (42 percent) (Table 3) and are woven in the simple weaving technique (Table 3). Their colour is undyed cream or beige, expect for three pieces in faded blue and four that are decorated with ‘selfbands’. Evidence of patching is not extensive. t h e j u de a n dese rt c av es The Judean Desert lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. Hundreds of natural and artificial caves were found across its landscape, concealing archaeological contexts for living, burial, and refuge. Due to the arid climate, organic artefacts are abundant and well preserved, among them textiles, basketry, and cordage.27 The textiles were discovered in a survey from 1983-1991 under the direction of Joseph Patrich,28 in excavations in 1993 in the northern Judean Desert (‘Operation Scroll’).29 The Medieval textiles are dated to the 9th-13th century, according to radiocarbon analysis and to their characters. Unlike most other sites, these caves provided relatively simple textiles in material, weaving techniques, and dyeing methods. They consist of Z-spun cotton, a few S-spun linen, wool and textiles made of a linen warp and a cotton weft. Most of the textiles are in a tabby weave whereas two wools are in twill 2/1. It can be assumed that the tabby wool was produced locally, but the twill pieces resemble contemporary fragments from Europe and imply a foreign (European?) origin.30 Most of the textiles are undyed, but some are dyed blue or decorated with blue stripes and very few specimens

240

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

are decorated with red stripes. Blue is the dominant dye of the Medieval period and could have been produced locally, as indigo was grown in the area.31 Red dye could equally have been produced locally from madder. The wool textiles in tabby technique may have functioned as rugs but the twill 1/2, as well as the cotton and linen pieces, were used as garments.32 qu m r a n c av es Excavations at Qumran’s Cave 11 by Gerald Lankester Harding and Roland de Vaux in 1956 and later by Joseph Patrich yielded eleven Z-spun cotton 9th-11th-centuries textiles.33 The radiocarbon analysis confirms this dating.34 These finds prove that during this period there was human activity and people visited these caves, some probably to find scrolls.35 wa di m u r a bba’at Wadi Murabba’at (Arabic: Wādī Murbbaʿāt) is a deep ravine descending from the Judaean Desert towards the Dead Sea, some 18 km south of Qumran. Five caves were excavated along the valley by Harding, de Vaux, and Dominique Barthélémy in 1952 following the discovery of documents by locals. The artefacts recovered in the caves were dated from the Chalcolithic (4500 BC) till modern times. These include textiles mainly from the Chalcolithic and early Roman period (1st-3rd centuries) which were studied and cataloged by Grace Mary and Elisabeth Crowfoot and were examined also by us. Thirty-two textiles from linen, cotton, and silk were dated to the 11th-13th centuries.36 Of importance are four linen textiles decorated with silk. These are assumed to have originated in Egypt according to their parallels as we discussed above. One blue linen textile, a part of a tunic, is decorated with a silk tapestry band in yellow, brown, light blue, blue and cream. Another piece has a brocading of Kufic Arabic letters in dark brown and traces of red silk (Fig. 12). A third textile shows silk tapestry in brown and red and a scroll with curling leaves (Fig. 13), and a final linen fragment is embroidered with dark brown silk. m ez a d zoh a r Zohar Fort is located 2 km west of the Dead Sea and was excavated in 2004 by Tali Erickson-Gini. The numismatic, ceramic and architectural evidence indicate that it was established late in the 12th century and continued to be occupied in the 13th-14th centuries. C14 confirmed the date of the textiles as the 13th century. Ceramic jars

241

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

from the site which are commonly interpreted as being used for sugar production imply the connection between the site, Ghor es-Safi (Ghawr al-Sāfī) east of the Dead Sea, and the Mediterranean coast.37 Twenty textile fragments were discovered on site. Six fragments were found below a collapse layer, seven accompanied two adult skeletons in the lower level of the fort, and two were found in the man-made cave dug alongside the road. The fragments are made of wool (8), goat hair (1), wool mixed with goat hair (2), linen (4), cotton (4), and S-spun linen warp and a Z-spun cotton weft (1) (Fig. 14).38 The majority of textiles have a plain weave or its variations. Two textiles of wool mixed with goat hair show more complexity with a compound weave made by supplementing weft.39 The cotton threads are Z-spun. The one shown in Fig. 15 is decorated with grids in blue and white. The largest textile is knit of goat hair and measures 29x21 cm (Fig. 16). This might have been a bag which belonged to one of the deceased. Unlike weaving, knitting does not require a loom or any other equipment, which make it also accessible to nomadic societies. In the process of single-needle knitting, the end of the yarn is sewn, to create one stitch, and then by tightening the loop it sits next to the previous stitch.40 This type of knitting, which is a slow technique similar to sewing, was a forerunner of the faster method of knitting with two or more needles. This item is decorated with embroidery in a diamond pattern of yellow and red wool threads. This fragment is stitched to a wool textile, probably a lining of a bag. The textile evidence of Mezad Zohar points to its high locality. The first aspect is materials, wool and goat hair, which are locally and even domestically available. In some cases, their fibres were mixed in order to strengthen the thread. In comparison to their usage in earlier periods, wool and hair goat were used less frequently. The example from Cave 38, with only 3 percent wool, demonstrates their rarity. The typical linen textiles found in the country are local. The weave is neither warp-faced and delicate nor as dense as those from Egypt, and the fibre is less glossy, with a yellow colour. The simple weaves and materials support the local interpretation. A third characteristic is the dyes, which were analyzed by Naama Sukenik: all derive from local plant species (e.g. madder, indigo). A fourth support comes from the function identification of the wool and mixed wool textiles. These examples are crude and thick and thus may have served as floor furnishing. On the other hand, the possible bag from goat hair is similar to ‘Coptic’ bags or purses from Egypt. av dat – t h e c av e of t h e sa i n ts Several excavations were conducted on the Cave of the Saints at the site Avdat (Oboda). The textiles were discovered during an excavation in 1993 by Ofer Katz on behalf

242

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Permit no. A-1923).41 They were dated with C14 to 1169-1242, whereas other finds were dated to the 6th-7th centuries.42 The gap in the dates could be explained by later use. Eighty textile fragments were discovered. They are fragmentary, torn, cut, patched and/or reused. They are made of cotton (28, 35 percent), linen (4), wool (18, 22 percent), wool mixed with goat-hair (24) and linen warp with cotton weft (3). The small number of linen fragments stands in contrast to other sites in the region. The combination of a linen warp and a cotton weft is known from Cave 38, as well as a few fragments from Quseir al-Qadim.43 Wool textiles show no preference in a spin direction. They are woven in variations of tabby, except for one which required a more complex loom. Similar textiles were found at the Coral Island and Quseir al-Qadim.44 One is a weftfaced tabby, decorated with supplementary wefts and a tapestry of triangles near the selvedge. Six have dyed threads: green, blue, and shades of red and brown. The high proportion of crude wool and/or goat-hair textiles (which were probably used as floor coverings), is remarkable with known parallels only on the Coral Island. Most cotton textiles are Z-spun (93 percent) and tabby weaves. Most cotton fragments are also dyed (89 percent), with half of them in shades of red, and one in purple. One fragment is brocaded with blue, red and cream threads in a lozenge pattern, which resembles other earlier and contemporary textiles from Israel.45 Three cotton fragments are printed in very low quality, two in blue on a cream background (Fig. 17) and one in purple. Printed cotton textiles were discovered also at Quseir al-Qadim, Fustāt and on the Coral Island.46 Printed cotton textiles principally originate in Yemen or India.47 However, these from Avdat are crude and of low quality, which suggest a local imitation. The relative proportions of raw materials used in the textiles may reflect both sociological and historical factors. The crude wool/goat-hair fragments probably represent rugs, indicating that the owners of the textiles were local Bedouin, who were the only inhabitants of the area in the Mamluk period.48 cor a l isl a n d The Medieval fortress on Coral Island (Jazīrat Firʿawn) is located in the Red Sea, south of Elat (Israel) and Tābā (Egypt). The island, a solid granite rock, is situated beside a shallow lagoon. Excavations were carried out on the site from 1975 to 1981 by Avner Goren and dated it to the 13th century, based on pottery and C14.49 About one thousand five hundred textile fragments were unearthed, along with seven hundred basketry fragments, and seven hundred pieces of cordage. Most of the textiles were discovered in refuse contexts, in contrast to basketry and cordage fragments which were chiefly recovered from structures. This pattern was interpreted as a sudden de-

243

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

sertion of the island in which the inhabitants had taken their valuable textiles and left mats and similar items. Of these, 236 textiles were analyzed by the authors. They display a variety of materials: cotton, linen, wool, silk, and silk with cotton. Most of them were parts of garments such as turbans, scarfs, and robes. Twenty-two textiles from Coral Island have silk warps and hidden cotton wefts, a specific weave known as mulham. The silk warp has coloured stripes, while the weft is either undyed or light blue. One mulham is decorated with a very delicate silk tapestry band of fine brown scrolls on a beige ground (Fig. 18). Another one is a sleeve of a delicate mulham tunic which was lined with plain undyed cotton fabric (Fig. 19). The relatively large number of mulham textiles is unique to Coral Island: none was discovered at Quseir al-Qadim, eleven specimens were found at Fustāt, and one at Cave 38. Based on a number of texts, this technique was perhaps utilized in order to avoid regulations for men on pure silk.50 Besides, the technique offered an economical way to make the most of silk yarns, which was significantly more expensive than cotton or linen. Since mulham textiles are first mentioned in literary sources of the 9th century about Iraq and Iran, they might have originated there and then spread through the Islamic world.51 According to sources from the 10th and 11th century such as al-Muqaddasi, it was also produced in Palestine at places such as Ghazza and al-Ramla in our region.52 Three textiles from the Coral Island are resist-dyed blue on an undyed background. One example bears a replicated pattern of small rosettes which is placed in the centre of a diamond-shaped grid. Another textile has red floral motifs of rosettes, stems, and leaves on a beige background (Fig. 20). discussion, su m m a ry, a n d conclusion The Medieval sites in Israel yielded a variety of textiles but no spinning and weaving implements were preserved - in contrast to earlier periods. The provenance of textiles suggested by a comparison to parallels from other regions and from the area in earlier periods points to diverse origins. As we showed and will emphasize in this section, the main elements to identify provenance are material, spin direction, the complexity of weaving, decoration, dye sources, and specific designs. The resulting picture, however, is not always that clear. Cotton is the first material to discuss. Cotton textiles were not found in significant numbers in Israel before the 7th century. However, Gregory of Tours reports on cotton cultivation in the late 6th century, which implies that it was known and practiced.53 The site Nahal Omer (7th century) was the first to yield a great number of cotton textiles (251) and a high percentage (61 percent), and technological characteris-

244

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

tics suggest that some arrived from India.54 This distinct foreign character of cotton textiles continued to be relevant, for example at Qasr el-Yahud, where cotton textiles are associated with Nubians and South Egyptian pilgrims. Nonetheless, through the medieval period it became quite prevalent, even replacing linen. The geographer al-Muqaddasī (d. after 990) describes a lake near Tiberias, in northern Israel, as ‘the source of cotton’ and documents in the Geniza, from the 11th-12th century, praise the cotton of Palestine.55 Cultivation of cotton in this region continued and even intensified in the 14th and 15th centuries.56 According to the Geniza, cotton from India was imported to Egypt in the 11th century.57 It is also believed that the printing techniques signify Indian products.58 The importance of the printed textiles lies in the fact that they represent a major trade item which we can track throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, the Near East, India, and the Far East.59 In contrast, the typical linen textiles in Israel were produced locally. Based on the written sources, linen was exported from Palestine until the early medieval period when the cultivation of the flax plant almost entirely ceased.60 The textiles we have presented, such as the S-spun linen warp and a Z-spun cotton weft fragments from Cave 38, indicate that this material was still favoured in the region. The local weavers took advantage of the different properties of each fibre and combined them in a single weave in order to produce soft but strong fabrics. The linen might have been imported from Egypt and other countries.61 Silk has been discovered on Israeli sites as early as the 6th century.62 We have presented Medieval silk textiles from Caesarea, Wadi Murabba‘at, and the Coral Island, with the most significant assemblage in Cave 38 with 38 pieces. Printed silks are known from China from the end of the 3rd century BC to the 10th century CE.63 However, one must not attribute silk remains in Israel to China, as both archaeological and textual evidence point to production centres elsewhere, including centres in Syria.64 There is a relationship between the design and the techniques of the compound silk fragments which may assist in the identification of their origin. The weft-faced compound twills are mostly monochrome with no patterns or motifs, or with unrecognizable motifs. Monochrome, weft-faced compound twills were made in Byzantium in the 10th and 11th centuries.65 They are of very fine craftsmanship, suggesting that they were once expensive luxury silks affordable only to the upper classes. In parallel, linen textiles decorated with coloured silk tapestry are believed to originate in Egypt, whereas silk warps and cotton hidden wefts (mulham) are assumed to originate in Iran and Iraq but were also produced in our region. Wool, and to some degree goat hair, was a common fabric in textiles from the Roman period onwards. In most of the Arava sites during the 7th-8th centuries, wool was still the fibre of choice. It seems, however, that the use of wool textiles declined in

245

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

the medieval period. The most distinct example is Cave 38, where only 25 wool textiles were unearthed (3 percent). The presented studies show that most of the wool and goat hair were processed locally. In some cases, the fibres of these two materials were mixed to strengthen the thread (e.g Mezad Zohar). It can be suggested that cotton, which absorbs dyes very well, replaced it with different dyeing techniques. The spin direction of threads used to be considered a key in the identification of provenances. S-spun is predominant on sites in present Israel from the Neolithic until the Medieval period. In particular, thousands of S-spun textiles from the 1st-3rd centuries (the Roman period) stand in contrast to only scarce Z-spun examples, the latter being interpreted as imports.66 Scholars identify S-spun cotton threads as typical for the Upper Nile in Nubia and Egypt’s Western Desert.67 Z-spun cotton characterises textiles from India and Yemen.68 However, recent research questions this identification method and calls for a better acquaintance with the wider context.69 We believe it should be used in comparison to other sites of the same period, but mainly in combination with other weaving and decorating techniques. The most common weaving technique in the Medieval textiles in Israel is tabby (plain weave) and its variations. This has not changed since the Chalcolithic period. Other techniques represent imports almost with certainty. The soumak technique, which was found on one silk fragment in Cave 38, is identified with Asia Minor.70 A coloured pile carpet with symmetrical knots (Fig. 4) which was found at Cave 38 is probably also imported from Asia Minor.71 The silk textiles from the site with compound weaves are known from different areas (e.g Byzantium, Egypt, Iran). The source of the few twill weave textiles, mostly in wool, could be in Europe.72 Dyes and dyeing techniques and designs have a high potential for the identification of provenan­ces. The preferred colour for textiles changed in the region from red to blue at least from the 7th century, a trend which continued in our period.73 Blue dye was produced by the indigotin plant, which according to texts was extensively cultivated locally around Jericho in the 7th century.74 Some of the Medieval textiles also bear remains of red and yellow. Red comes from local madder root (Rubia tinctoria).75 The yellow dye source does not correlate with any of the known dyestuffs and has not yet been identified.76 A foreign dyeing techniques on cotton is resist-dye (from the Coral Island), which is associated with India.77 Based on a Greco-Roman guide to trade and navigation between India and Egypt from the 1st century, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, scholars have identified the Indus valley and the great port of Barbarikon in the Indus Delta as a centre of cloth production and export.78 The text also mentions the resist-dyeing technique.79 The very rare examples of Z/Z resist-dyed cotton textiles from Egypt, as well as from Palmyra (Syria) and al-Tar (Iraq) are dated to the 4th-5th centuries.80 The three samples from the Coral Island, a site in the Red

246

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

Sea, are definitely imports, probably from India. They prove the continuation of this maritime activity and trade in Indian textiles.81 The Medieval textiles of Israel and its surroundings derive from only nine sites or clusters, spanning the long period of four hundred years. The textiles vary in their characteristics and quantity as well as in their archaeological contexts. Some of the patterns might have resulted from these circumstances, such as the predominance of wool in Mezad Zohar and the Cave of the Saints. However, these textiles also present clear trends and imply a number of connections. The most distinctive phenomenon is the strong entrance of silk to the local market. Silk textiles were found in four out of nine sites and in two of them also mulham textiles of linen and silk were present, mainly produced in Iraq and Iran. Other connections include India, Asia Minor, Syria and chiefly Egypt. This demonstrates the important contribution of textiles to the archaeological and historical studies of ancient trade.

247

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

t e x t i l e glossa ry General terminology floats: any portion of a warp or weft element that extents unbound over two or more units of the opposite set on either face of a fabric. shed: in weaving, the shed is the separation between the upper and lower warp yarns through which the weft is passed – thus creating woven fabric. warp: longitudinal set (see Fig. 14). weft: transverse set (see Fig. 14). weft-faced: the side of a textile on which the weft predominates. Spin directions i-spun: no twist. s-spun: anti-clockwise. z-spun: clockwise. Other techniques and tools balanced tabby weave: in which the weight and spacing of warp and weft threads are approximately the same. block print: the process of printing patterns on textiles by means of incised wooden blocks (Fig. 5). brocading weft: a supplementary weft (Fig. 2, Fig. 17). drawloom: a hand loom for weaving figured cloth. It requires two operators, a weaver and an assistant (‘drawboy’) to manage the figure harness. harness: the frame of the loom that holds the warp threads. ikat: the resist is formed by binding individual yarns or bundles of yarns with a tight wrapping applied in the desired pattern. The yarns are then dyed. 

248

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

lampas: a figured weave in which a pattern that is composed of weft floats and is bound by a binding warp is supplemented to a background weave which was formed by a main warp and a main weft. resist-dye: a dyeing technique for colours which necessitate a mordant. The mordant was printed on the fabric, the latter was then immersed into the dye bath and then was washed in hot water. selfbands: a group of weft threads in a single shed, used for decoration. soumak: wrapping wefts over a group of warps before drawing them back under the last two warps. tabby: the simplest and commonest of all weaves. A basic binding system or weave based on a unit of two ends (warp) and two picks (weft), in which each end passes over one pick and under the other pick. tapestry: a weave with single warp and weft which is composed of threads of different colours that do not pass from selvedge to selvedge (Fig. 3, Fig. 11). twill weave: created by passing the weft thread over two or more warp threads and then repeating that pattern one warp thread over, so that a diagonal line is formed. warp-faced tabby weave: the number of warp threads per cm is significantly higher than that of wefts. warp-ikat: a warp-faced tabby fabric, in which only the warp threads are reserved by tying. weft-faced compound weave: a weft-patterned weave with complementary wefts in two or more series, usually of different colours, as well as a main warp and a binding warp. Through the action of the main warps, only one weft thread appears on the face, while the other or others are kept to the reverse. The ends of the binding warp bind the weft in passes, and the ground and the pattern are formed simultaneously. The entire surface is covered by weft floats that hide the main warp ends. weft-faced compound tabby: the passes are bound in tabby (Fig. 6). weft-faced compound twill: the passes are bound in twill.

249

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on material

quantity

spin direction

weaving techniques

Cotton

285

Z

tabby

Linen

261 (8 decorated with silk) S

tabby

Linen warp and cotton weft

134

S (warp), Z (weft)

tabby (133), twill 2/2 diamond (1)

Linen warp and linen and cotton weft

5

S, Z

tabby

Silk

38

loose Z (warp), I (weft).

various

Wool (Col. Pl. 11)

25

S (warp), Z (weft)

tabby (23), twill 2/1 (2)

Wool mixed

6

Goat-hair

2

Z

table 1 – Materials and techniques of Cave 38 textiles (O. Shamir & A. Baginski).

use of the textiles Tunics Bindings Gores Gussets Sleeves Neck opening Other garments Scarves Bandages Cords Mats Patches Strips Shrouds Unknown secondary use

linen 13 2 2 3

cotton 12 3

comments 1 in secondary use

1 1 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 2 1

2 1 2 4 4

table 2 – Usage identification of textiles from Qasr el-Yahud (O. Shamir & A. Baginski).

250

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r material Linen

Cotton

spin direction S/S Z/Z S/Z Z/S S/S, Z S, Z/S S/S Z/Z S/Z Z/S

quantity 134 17 12 1 1 1 32 18 34 1

table 3 – Spin direction of linen and cotton textiles from Qasr el-Yahud (O. Shamir & A. Baginski).

material

weaving technique

quantity

threads per cm

Linen

Tabby

125

2-36/ 4-25

Balanced tabby

37

5-23

Warp-faced

11

10-28/ 7-20

Weft-faced

2

Cotton

Tabby

66

10-22/ 8-18

Balanced tabby

14

11-18

Warp-faced

3

16-23/ 7-11

Unknown

1

table 4 – Weaving technique of linen and cotton textiles from Qasr el-Yahud (O. Shamir & A. Baginski).

251

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

not es 1

2

Shamir 1995; 2007, 203-06; 2016a; 2016b.

Dr. Robert Janaway from Bradford

See also https://antiquities.academia.edu/

University cleaned and treated the

OritShamir.

textiles with his students, as well as

Shamir 2007, 242-43; Shamir and Baginski

cataloguing the data with Shamir; Ra’ya

2018.

Vinizki of the iaa laboratory cleaned

3

Ethno-history for example: Amar 1998.

and treated the textiles nos. 3r, 100r,

4

Baginski and Shamir 1995; Shamir and

ab1. I thank Joe Zias for sharing with me

Baginski 2014.

his thoughts. 23

Spigelman and Lemma 1993; Rafi et al.

5

Shamir and Baginski 2017.

6

Baginski 1996.

7

Shamir and Baginski 2013; 2018. The final

24 Zias 2002, 264-66.

report was not published.

25

For cotton, see Amar 2002; Kedar 2018;

26 Shamir 2015.

Shamir and Baginski 2018, 334.

27 Patrich et al. 1988-1989.

8

1994; Zias 2002, 266. Zias 2002; Amar and Shamir 2013.

9 Amar et al. 2011.

28

Shamir and Schick 2019.

10

Shamir and Baginski 2018.

29

Shamir and Baginski 2002.

11

Vogelsang-Eastwood 1980, 286; Mackie

30

Bender Jørgenson 1993.

1989, 88.

31

Amar 1998.

S-spun: Fustāt, Mackie 1989, 83; Qasr

32

Shamir and Baginski 2002.

Ibrim, Crowfoot 1979, 39-40. Z-spun:

33

Shamir and Schick 2019; Sukenik et al.

12

2019; Taylor et al. 2019:155.

Quseir al-Qadim, Vogelsang-Eastwood 13

1980, 286, and the Coral Island.

34 Taylor et al. 2019:155.

Mackie 1989, 84

35

Gutfeld 2020.

36

Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1961, 61-62, Cat.

14 Bouchaud et al. 2019, 16.

nos. 110-41.

15

Mackie 1989, 87.

16

Grenander-Nyberg 1992, 125.

37 Erickson-Gini et al. 2016.

17

Antinoë , Egypt: Geijer 1982, 100; Avdat:

38

Shamir and Sukenik 2016.

Baginski and Tidhar 1978.

39

Emery 1966: 140-41.

18

Gal 2011, 12.

40 Burnham 1972.

19

Gibson 2004, 225-29.

41 Katz, pers. comm.; Baginski and Shamir 2001. No final report was published.

20 Gal 2011, 12. 21

Gal 2011, 12-15.

22

The salvage excavation was financed by

42 Katz, pers. comm.; Tahal 1994, 130; Bucking 2017.

the Civil Administration in Judea and

43 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1980, 286.

Samaria, Staff Officer of Archaeology.

44 Baginski and Shamir 1997.

A final report was not published.

45 Baginski and Shamir 1995, 29; 1998.

252

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

ʿAbbās Muhammad Salīm 1995; Volbach 1969: Fig. 47-48.

46 Mackie 1989, 88; Baginski and Shamir 1998; Vogelsang-Eastwood 1990. 47 Barnes 1996.

65

48 Drori 1981, 21.

66 Shamir 2016c.

Muthesius 1997, 85-93.

49 To the best of my knowledge no final

67 Bouchaud et al. 2019, 16; Yvanez 2016a; 2016b.

report was published. 50 Marzouk 1956, 63; Xinru 2010.

68 Barnes 1996.

51

See e.g., Lamm 1937, 5; Mackie 1989.

69 Bouchaud et al. 2019.

52

Le Strange 1896, 18; Simonsohn 1997, 297.

70 Grenander-Nyberg 1992:125.

53

See e.g., Wild and Wild 2014a, 212.

71

Gantzhorn 1986, 6.

54 Shamir and Baginski 2014.

72 Bender Jørgenson 1993.

55

Amar 1998, 115; Ducène 2019.

73 Sukenik et al. 2016, 266.

56

Amar 1998, 115; Shamir 2015.

74 See e.g., Amar 1998, 53.

57

Vogelsang-Eastwood 1990, 6.

75

58

John-Peter Wild, pers. comm.

76 Zhang 2008, 27.

59

Vogelsang-Eastwood 1990, 8; Desrosiers

77 Baginski and Shamir 1998; Shamir and

et al. 2001; Shamir and Baginski 1998.

Baginski 2014. For infotmstion on these

60 Amar et al. 2011, 25. 61

63

techniques in India, see Riello 2014, 98, 102.

Amar 1998, 114.

62 Nessana: Bellinger 1962; Avdat: Baginski

Koren 1996, 300.

78 Casson 1989.

and Tidhar 1978; the Arava: Shamir and

79 Wild and Wild 2014b, 94.

Baginski 2018.

80 Wild and Wild 1996, 252-56, 2000, 2014a, 223-25; Power 2010, 64.

See e.g., Zhao 2002, 104.

64 See fot this King 1987; Otavski and

81

253

Shamir and Baginski 2014.

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

bi bl iogr a ph y Amar, Z. 1998. Written sources regarding the Jaziret Fara’un (Coral Island) textiles, ʿAtiqot 36, 114-19. Amar, Z. 2002. The history of the paper industry in al-Sham in the Middle Ages, in: Y. Lev (ed.), Towns and Material Culture in the Medieval Age in Middle East, Leiden, 135-58. Amar, Z., A. Gorski and N. Neumman 2011. The paper and textile industry in light of an analysis of the Cairo Genizah documents, in: B. Outhwaite and S. Bhayro (eds.), ‘From a Sacred Source’: enizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif, Leiden, 25-42. Amar, Z. and O. Shamir 2013. Egyptian Balsam and its uses, Judea and Samaria Research Studies 25, 369-76 (in Hebrew). Baginski, A. 1996. Textile from a Crusader burial in Caesarea, Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 23, 16. Baginski, A. and O. Shamir 1995. Early Islamic textiles, basketry and cordage from Nahal Omer, ʿAtiqot 26, 21-42. Baginski, A. and Shamir O. 1997. The earliest Ikats, Hali 95, 86-87. Baginski, A. and O. Shamir 1998. Textiles, basketry and cordage from Jeziret Fara`un (Coral Island), ʿAtiqot 36, 39-92. Baginski, A and O. Shamir 2001. Textiles and cordage from ‘Avdat – the Saints Cave, ʿAtiqot 42, 243-60. Baginski, A. and Tidhar A. 1978. Dated silk fragment from ʿAvdat, Israel Exploration Journal 28, 113. Barnes, R. 1996. Indian trade textiles, Hali 87, 80, 85. Bellinger, L. 1962. Textiles, in: D.H. Colt, Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine), vol. I, London, 91-105. Bender-Jørgensen, L. 1993. North European Textiles until AD 1000, Denmark. Bouchaud, C., E. Yvanez and J.P. Wild 2019. Tightening the thread from seed to cloth. New enquiries in the archaeology of Old World cotton: A case for inter-disciplinarity, Revue d’ethnoécologie 15, doi: org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.4501. Bucking, S. 2017. A dipinti-intensive cave dwelling as evidence of a monastic presence in Byzantine Avdat, Journal of Arid Environments 143, 28-34. Burnham, D.K. 1972. Coptic knitting: An ancient technique, Textile History 3, 116-24 Burnham, D.K. 1980. Warp and Weft, Toronto. Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei, Princeton. Crowfoot, E.G. 1977. The clothing of a fourteenth century Nubian bishop, in: V. Gervers (ed.), Studies in Textile History, Toronto, 43-51.

254

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

Crowfoot, G.M. and E. Crowfoot, 1961. The textile and basketry, in: P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, II: Les grottes de Murabbaʿât, Oxford, 51-63. Desrosiers, S., C. Debaine-Francfort and A. Idriss 2001. Two resist-dyed cottons recently found at Karadong, Xinjiang (third century AD), in: P.W. Rogers, L. Bender Jørgensen and A. Rast-Eicher (eds.), The Textile Industry and its Influence: A Birthday Tribute to John Peter Wild, Oxford, 48-55. Ducène, J.C. 2019. Le coton, sa culture et son utilisation selon les sources arabes médiévales, Revue d’ethnoécologie 15, doi: org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.4098. Emery, I. 1966. The Primary Structures of Fabrics, Washington. Erickson-Gini, T., D. Nahlieli and R. Kool 2016. Mezad Zohar: A medieval fort near the Dead Sea, Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 34, 125-50. Gal, Z. 2011. Baptism in the Jordan River, Jerusalem. Geijer, A. 1982. A History of Textile Art, London. Gibson, S. 2004. The Cave of John the Baptist, London. Grenander-Nyberg, G. 1992. Soumak technique in Swedish medieval textiles, in: L. Bender Jørgensen and E. Munksgaard (eds.), Archaeological Textiles in Northern Europe – Report from the 4th nesat Symposium, 1st-5th May 1990, Copenhagen, 117-27. Gutfeld, O. 2020. Looters or monks? The disappearance of the scrolls of Qumran’s Cave xii/53, Desert Archaeology: The 16th Annual Conference, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 30 January 2020. Kedar, B.Z. 2018. The use of paper in the Frankish Levant: A comparative study, in: S. Menache, B.Z. Kedar and M. Balard (eds.). Crusading and Trading between West and East: Studies in Honour of David Jacoby, Routledge, 3-16. King, D. 1987. The textiles found Near Rayy about 1925, Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens 65, 34-59. Koren, Z.C. 1996. Historico-chemical analysis of plant dyestuffs used in textiles from ancient Israel, in: M.V. Orna (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis, Washington, 269-310. Lamm, C.J. 1937. Cotton in Mediaeval Textiles of the Near East, Paris. Le Strange, G. (transl.) 1896. Description of Syria, including Palestine, by Muqaddasi, Palestine Pilgrims Text Society 3, London.  Mackie, L.W. 1989 Textiles, in: W. Kubiak and G.T. Scanlon (eds.), Fustat Expedition Final Report: Fustat-C, vol. ii, Cairo, 81-101. Marzouk, M.K. 1955. History of the Textile Industry in Alexandria 331 B.C.-1217 A.D., Alexandria. Muthesius, A. 1997. Byzantine Silk Weaving AD 400 to 1200 AD, Vienna.

255

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Otavski, K. and M. ʿAbbās Muhammad Salīm 1995. Mittelalterliche Textilen i: Ägypten, Persien und Mesopotamien, Spanien und Nordafrika, Riggisberg. Patrich, J., B. Arubas and B. Agur 1988-1989. Judean Desert, cave survey – 1986/1987, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7-8, 92-95. Power, T. 2010. The Red Sea Region During the ‘Long’ Late Antiquity (AD 5001000), unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, 2010. Rafi, A., M. Spigelman, J. Stanford, H. Donoghue, E. Lemma and J. Zias 1994. Mycobacterium leprae from ancient bones detected by pcr, The Lancet 343, 1360-61. Riello, G. 2014. The world of textiles in three spheres: European woolens, Indian cottons and Chinese silks (1300-1700), in: M.L. Nosch, F. Zhao and L. Varadarajan (eds.), Global Textile Encounters, Ancient Textiles Series 20, 93-106. Shamir, O. 1995. Textiles from Nahal Shahaq, Israel, ʿAtiqot 26, 43-48. Shamir, O. 2007. Textiles in the Land of Israel from the Roman Period till the Early Islamic Period in the Light of the Archaeological Finds, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. Shamir, O. 2015. Egyptian and Nubian textiles from Qasr el-Yahud, 9th century AD, in: A. De Moor, C. Fluck and P. Linscheid (eds.), Textiles, Tools and Techniques of the 1st Millennium AD from Egypt and Neighbouring Countries, Lannoo, 48-60. Shamir, O. 2016a. Textiles and fleece from ʿEn Marzev, the Early Islamic period, ʿAtiqot 86, 11-19. Shamir, O. 2016b. Textiles, cordage and fleece from ʿEn ʿEvrona, the Early Islamic period, ʿAtiqot 86, 3-9. Shamir, O. 2016c. Textile trade to Palestine in the Roman period according to the Talmudic sources and the textiles finds, in: K. Droß-Krüpe and M.L Nosch (eds.), Textiles, Trade and Theories: From the Ancient Near East to the Mediterranean, Münster, 231-46. Shamir O. 2019. Cotton textiles from the Byzantine period to the Medieval period in ancient Palestine, in: C. Bouchaud and E. Yvanez, Cotton in the Old World: Domestication, cultivation, use and trade, Revue d’ethnoécologie 15. doi: org/10.4000/ ethnoecologie.4176. Shamir, O. and A. Baginski 2002. The later textiles, basketry and cordage from caves in the northern Judean Desert (‘Operation Scroll’), ʿAtiqot 41, 241-56. Shamir, O. and A. Baginski 2013. Textiles’ treasure from Jericho Cave 38 in the Qarantal cliff compared to other early Medieval sites in Israel, Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings 13. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/742. Shamir, O. and A. Baginski 2014. The earliest cotton ikat textiles from Nahal ‘Omer Israel 650-810 CE, in: M.L. Nosch, Z. Feng and L. Varadarajan (eds.), Global Textile Encounters, Ancient Textiles Series 20, Oxford, 65-73.

256

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

Shamir O. and A. Baginski. 2017. The earliest cut-to-shape tunic in Israel from Nahal Omer, the Early Islamic period, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 129, 1-18. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=25325&mag_id=125. Shamir, O. and A. Baginski 2018. Medieval silk textiles from excavations in the Land of Israel, in: S. Menache, B.Z. Kedar and M. Balard (eds.), Crusading and Trading between West and East: Studies in Honour of David Jacoby, Routledge, 227-35. Shamir O. and T. Schick 2019. Chalcolithic to Medieval textiles from the Judean Desert caves survey, in: O. Peleg-Barkat, J. Ashkenazi, U. Leibner, M. Aviam and R. Talgam (eds.), Between Sea and Desert: On Kings, Nomads, Cities and Monks. Essays in Honor of Joseph Patrich, Tzemach, 195-224. Shamir, O. and N. Sukenik 2016. Thirteenth century CE textiles from Mezad Zohar, Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 34, 155-64. Simonsohn, S. 1997. The Jews in Sicily: 383-1300, Michigan. Spigelman, M. and E. Lemma 1993. The use of the polymerase chain reaction (pcr) to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis in ancient skeletons, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3.2, 137-43. Sukenik, N., O. Shamir, M. Rottoli and M. Belis 2019. Textiles and strings from Qumran Cave 11, in: M. Fidanzio and J.B. Humbert (eds.). Khirbet Qumrân and Aïn Feshkha iva: Qumrân Cave 11q Archaeology and New Scroll Fragments, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus – Series Archaeologica 8, Vandenhoeck, 97-118. Tahal, G. 1994. ʿAvedat, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 101-102, 112-15. Taylor, J.E, J. Plicht, K.L. Rasmussen, N. Sukenik, O. Shamir and M Belis 2019. Radiocarbon dating results, in: M. Fidanzio and J.B. Humbert (eds.). Khirbet Qumrân and Aïn Feshkha iva: Qumrân Cave 11q Archaeology and New Scroll Fragments, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus – Series Archaeologica 8, Vandenhoeck, 147-56.  Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 1980. Preliminary report on the textiles, in: D.S. Whitcomb and J.H. Johnson (eds.), Quseir al-Qadim 1980 Preliminary Report, Princeton, 285326. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 1990. Resist-Dyed Textiles from Quseir al-Qadim, Egypt, Paris. Volbach, W.F. 1969. Early Decorative Textiles, Feltham. Wild, J.P. and F.C. Wild 1996. The textiles, in: S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Berenike 1995. Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, Leiden, 246-56. Wild, J.P. and F.C. Wild 2000. The textiles, in: S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Eastern Desert including Excavations at Wadi Kalalat, Leiden, 251-74.

257

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Wild, J.P. and F.C. Wild 2014a. Through Roman eyes: Cotton textiles from early historic India, in: S. Bergerbrant and S.H. Fossøy (eds.), A Stitch in Time: Essays in Honour of Lise Bender Jørgensen, Gothenburg, 209-36. Wild, J.P. and F.C. Wild 2014b. Berenike and textile trade on the Indian Ocean, in: K. Droß-Krüpe (ed.), Textile Trade and Distribution in Antiquity, Wiesbaden, 91110. Xinru, L. 2010. The Silk Road in World History, Oxford. Yvanez, E. 2016a.Textiles and funerary rituals. The wrapping of offerings at Meroe and el-Hobagi, Sudan and Nubia 20, 75-81. Yvanez, E. 2016b. Spinning in Meroitic Sudan: Textile production implements from Abu Geili, Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 3, 153-77. Zhang, X. 2008. Analysis of Natural Yellow Dyes Using hplc with Diode Array and Mass Spectrometric Detection, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 2008. Zhao, F. 2002. Recent Excavations of Textiles in China, Hangzhou. Zhao, F. and Y.I. Wada 2014. Introduction, in: A. Luximon (ed.), Resist Dye on the Silk Road: Shibori, Clamp Resist, and Ikat. Proceeding of the 9th International Shibori Symposium at the China National Silk Museum, October 31st-November 4th, 2014, Hangzhou, I-II. Zias, J. 2002. New evidence for the history of leprosy in the ancient Near East: An overview, in: C.A. Roberts, M.E. Lewis and K. Manchester (eds.), The Past and Present of Leprosy – Archaeological, Historical, Palaeopathological and Clinical Approaches, bar is 1054, Oxford, 259-68.

258

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

fig. 1 – Map of the Medieval sites with textile remains (H. Nol).

259

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 2 – Silk textiles, Caesarea (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 3 – Linen decorated with silk tapestry of swimming birds, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

260

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

fig. 4 – Coloured pile carpet with symmetrical knots, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 5 – Blue geometric motifs printed on ivory fig. 6 – Silk weft-faced compound tabby, Cave 38 background, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). Authority).

fig. 7 – Five silk fragments stitched together, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

261

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 8 – Qasr el-Yahud and its vicinity (D. Shalem, Ostracon, Israel Nature and Parks Authority).

fig. 9 – Egyptian Balsam seeds, Qasr el-Yahud (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

262

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

fig. 10 – Linen textile decorated with woolen brown band, Qasr el-Yahud (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 11 – Linen textile decorated with two bands of foliated tapestry, Qasr el-Yahud (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

263

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 12 – Linen textile with Arabic script, Wadi Murabba’at (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 13 – Linen textile with silk tapestry, Wadi Murabba’at (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 14 – Textile made of a S-spun linen warp and a Z-spun cotton weft, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

264

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

fig. 15 – Cotton textile decorated with blue and white grids, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

265

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 16 – Goat hair textile made by knitting, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

266

sh a m i r & b ag i nsk i – t r a de a n d t r a ns f e r

fig. 17 – A low quality print in blue, Avdat (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 18 – Mulham textile decorated with a delicate silk tapestry band, Coral Island (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority).

267

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 19 – A sleeve of a delicate mulham tunic, Coral Island (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

fig. 20 – Resist-dyed red floral motifs on a beige background, Coral Island (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

268

*

*

*

Advancing into unknown lands: The numismatic material of Groß Strömkendorf near Wismar during the Early Viking age (ca. 8th-9th centuries) Ralf Wiechmann

* Coins are a window into time and belong to a special archaeological find genre: they usually appear in statistically relevant quantities and they carry written as well as pictorial information. As miniature documents, they enable statements to be made about the economy and politics of a particular period. In addition to their function as a medium of exchange, they may serve as an instrument of political propaganda. Coins can usually be addressed chronologically better than other types of finds and are therefore particularly suitable as a means of dating archaeological contexts. The distribution of certain coins often reveals direct or indirect trade connections between the place of minting and the place of discovery. Individual finds in a settlement provide insights into the history of money and allow statements about the use of the coins, their function and significance. This article presents the coins from Groß Strömkendorf, a settlement on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Coins found before 2018 were considered. The investigation is limited to the presentation of the most important types and introduces their typology, dating and presumed places of origin. The study area, here referred to as ‘the North’, encompasses northern Europe from the Frisian North Sea coast in the west, via Scandinavia and northern Germany to the Baltic Sea area in the east. The coins found in Groß Strömkendorf are of special importance because they mark the beginning of the early medieval import of coins into the Baltic Sea area. Not only do they exemplify the long-distance trade routes of the time, but they also illustrate the transition from natural economy to monetary economy. The transport Riches Beyond the Horizon: Long Distance Trade, ed. by Hagit Nol, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series iv (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 269-298

©

FHG 269

10.1484/m.mpmas-eb.5.128673

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

of these coins is thus not only connected with a movement of objects, but also with a transfer of know-how and ideas, namely the introduction of coinage. e a r ly l a n di ng a n d t r a di ng si t es i n t h e ba lt ic a r e a At the end of the 8th century, the entire Baltic Sea region experienced a tremendously dynamic economic development. Around the year 800 AD the long Viking voyages began, combining war and trading expeditions that reached Western Europe and extended deep into Eastern Europe. According to the archaeological findings, there had already existed lively trade with the Roman Empire between the birth of Christ and the beginning of the 5th century. Roman import products reached the far north, whereas from the Nordic region came, among other things, fur and horses from Sweden. This was associated with a greater social stratification of society. Between 400 and 800, the concentration of political power continued in a few centres. Magnificently furnished tumuli indicate that there were local chieftains or tribal chiefs. Numerous hillforts bear witness to the uncertain times. At the same time, trading and landing places developed into the so-called ‘centres of wealth’. Some of them have their roots in Roman times and were settled until the Middle Ages. One of these places is the central site of Uppåkra, situated on a hill about five kilometres south of Lund in southern Sweden.1 Another important centre for trade and craft was Sorte Muld on Bornholm in Denmark, where circa two thousand five hundred figurines made of gold sheets (Guldgubber) from the 6th century have been excavated and were interpreted as amulets of gods.2 A remarkable density of 6th-century gold finds has also been discovered in Gudme on Funen in Denmark.3 Other sites date back to the 7th century and comprise large structures, which are interpreted as a hall of the local and regional elites. Such sites have been excavated near Lake Tissø,4 in Lejre,5 and in Toftegård6, all on Zealand in Denmark, and in Järrestad in southern Sweden.7 The inventory of high-ranking objecs is typical and shows a distinctive pattern, especially in the hall area: a number of figurines made of sheet gold, Frankish objects such as fragments of drinking glasses, weapons and riding gear, and often other imported objects. To be mentioned is also Åhus in north-eastern Skåne, Sweden, where a site of temporary workshops for glass, bronze casting and antler processing dating to the 8th century has been excavated.8 The long-distance destination of this route, which crosses Funen and Skåne, was apparently the central Swedish trading centre on Helgö in Lake Mälar, which played an important role as a trading and crafts centre between the 3rd and the 9th century. The spectacular discovery of a small Buddha figurine, which was probably produced in the 6th/7th century in the north Pakistani Swāt valley and was deposited in Helgö

270

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

in the late 8th or perhaps 9th century, illustrates the asthounding distances over with trade connections of that time could extend.9 The southern Baltic coast, which had been part of the Slavic settlement area since the 6th century, can also be mentioned as an early landing and trading region. One of the oldest places is the settlement of Menzlin, which is located on the northern bank of the Peene in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany.10 It existed from the early 8th to the 10th century and covered an area of twelve hectares. According to the evidence of excavations and geophysical investigations, Grubenhäuser (i.e. pit-houses) were located close to each other. The maritime trading centre of Ralswiek on Rügen in Germany dates back to the end of the 8th century.11 Remains of houses and a harbour testify that Ralswiek served as an important trading place in lively exchange and as an interface between the Vikings that were settled north and west and the Slavs to the east. A parallel is Janów Pomorski (identified as old Truso) in Poland, the beginnings of which also date to the end of the 8th century.12 Between 700 and 1100, other trading centres and central places formed a network of early urban settlements near the coast.13 In the early towns of Wollin at the mouth of the Oder in Poland and of Haithabu southwest of Schleswig in northern Germany, the oldest traces of settlement likewise date back to the 8th century.14 It is remarkable, however, that the archaeological evidence at the latter sites reveals a systematic parcelling of the settlement area, which suggests the planning of the settlement was controlled and politically organised. In individual cases, it is very difficult to decide on the basis of the archaeological evidence at which stage of development a trading place can be described as an early city. In principle, a town is to be defined as a permanent settlement where the population generates income through non-agricultural activities and where the community separates itself from the rural environment.15 This is certainly true, for example, of Haithabu from the 9th century onwards. However, it is questionable whether this place was actually permanently settled as early as the 8th century, or whether it was merely a seasonal meeting place for travelling merchants under local control. This question also arises for other places discovered during recent excavations in the western Baltic Sea area.16 Before the 8th century, central places served as the seat of an aristocratic elite as well as seasonal market places combined with military, political and religious functions. They were located in the centre of the political or religious sphere of influence of a ruler whose authority was probably based also on his religious role. A distinctive difference between these centers and early cities (emporia) becomes apparent: first, the market activities of the latter were primarily ‘international’ and thus related to intercultural and interreligious exchange, and second, their activities did not have a

271

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

religious context.17 Emporium (ancient Greek ἐμπόριον emporion, Latin emporium) is the name given in ancient times to an independent marketplace which were located abroad and acted as a trade hub for foreign goods. e a r ly i m port e d coi ns a s m e a ns of pay m e n t In parallel with the development of the early towns in the 8th century, coins were introduced once more into the north as a valid means of payment for commercial transactions. During the 4th and 5th centuries, Late Roman coins had been imported into northern Germany, but during the 6th century, almost all coin usage had ceased and in the 7th century, only few Merovingian tremissis (i.e. one-third of the solidus in late antique tradition) reached the north, which was relatively empty of coins at that time.18 Sites with such coin finds include, in Lower Saxony, Altenwalde, ­Cuxhaven and Neustadt near Hannover.19 Their distribution, however, essentially extends only to the low mountain range. East of the river Elbe, tremissis are ­extremely rare. To be mentioned are the finds of Alkersum on Föhr as well as Klapp­ holttal and Wennigstedt, both on Sylt. Other finds come from Dankirke and Gadegård on the west coast of Jutland, from Kaupang in southern Norway and Jelling in central Jutland.20 In addition, there is a new find from Füsing, near Schleswig, which is the first known piece that crossed the Jutland isthmus.21 This is interesting because the land barrier of Jutland initially hindered the further advance of the coins to the east. The distribution of tremissis during the 7th century along the coast to the north reflects in all likeleyhood the possible routes of shipping traffic at the time. These routes can be connected to the earliest trading expeditions to the northeast of the Frisians, who lived in the north of the Frankish Empire. The Frisians, who have been documented as long-distance traders since the 7th-8th century, directed their trade routes to this northern area from the end of the 8th century onwards in order to trade furs, amber, honey and wax in exchange for cloth, glass, ceramics, weapons, jewellery and other manufactured goods.22 From the first half of the 7th to the second half of the 9th century Dorestad, situated in the Frisian-Franconian border area at the confluence of the Lek and the Krumme Rhine, served as the hub of this trade. In the 7th century, the trade routes from the upper and middle Rhine, from the Franconian Atlantic coast, from England, from the southern edge of the North Sea and from Jutland converged at this trade centre. At any rate, the economy before the 8th century was mainly based on barter. Coins were used at that time as ‘status money’ and in ceremonial contexts. Scholars debate widely on how and when economy moved from bartering to coin as we know it from

272

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

the High Middle Ages. The process was surely complicated and rather long (lasting several centuries), and it took different courses in different regions.23 There is general agreement that silver (in the form of Roman denarii) offered the easiest way to hoard wealth in the central European Barbaricum but was not used as a means of payment in everyday transactions. At the same time, it is undisputed that coins served as money in a regular market economy in the 12th century at latest. Problems of interpretation begin when we try to understand the economic patterns of exchange in the period between the 7th and 11th century and in particular silver finds of the late 8th and 9th centuries in the Baltic Sea area. What role did the early coin finds from the 8th century play? Were they already used as coinage for transactions at that time? Who had access to coins and where did these come from in the first place? Some researchers believe, for example, that a trading system based on coins was established only in the 12th century.24 The exchange of silver during the Viking age should thus be associated mainly with religion, cult and magic.25 The questions raised here clearly show that the late 8th and early 9th centuries represent one of the most important moments in the history of the early medieval silver economy and of trade in Northern Europe. It was during this period that trade relations between West and East were established as they existed until the late Middle Ages. Since the processes that began at this time were of great importance for the entire Viking age and the later Middle Ages, all new finds of the 8th century play a prominent role. t h e si t e of gross st röm k e n dor f Groß Strömkendorf is located near Wismar, Germany, on the southern Baltic Sea coast. On the site, numerous surface finds had appeared close to the waterline of Wismar Bay since the 1960s (Fig. 1). Among the recovered material were shards of Frankish ceramics and hollow glass as well as fragments of basalt quern stones. In addition, finds of glass melting remains, slag and processed antlers led the excavators to interpret the function of the site as a crafts market and trade settlement.26 The first soundings in the years 1988 to 1993 and the subsequent excavations in the mid to late 1990s confirmed this assumption.27 Geophysical investigations have shown that the trading centre originally covered an area of eighteen hectares. However, only a part of the former settlement area has been preserved. Above all, the harbour area probably fell victim to the rise in sea level in the High Middle Ages and was irretrievably lost. Its long narrow shape and its protected location could be reconstructed by the evaluation of satellite images, sonar investigations and core samples. Numerous building remains, especially Grubenhäuser, wells and pits, were detected. Moreover, the excellent preservation of wood enabled a series of dendro-chronological data to be determined.28 Their evalua-

273

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

tion showed that at the latest in the 730s, a settlement consisting of Grubenhäuser and ancillary facilities was built (Fig. 2). Following the year 760, the settlement was reorganized on the coastal area, the layout suggesting a planned structure. It included Grubenhäuser and associated wells on both sides of a main thoroughfare. At the same time, a cemetery was established on a hill to the north with burials of both skeletons and cremation remains. Most noteworthy are one chamber grave, six boat burials and fourteen burials of animals, all of which indicate high-ranking persons. A clear expansion of the settlement took place after the year 770, so that in the final third of the 8th century Groß Strömkendorf probably experienced its peak development. According to dendro-chronological data, the most recent building remains date back to the year 811. The trading centre therefore only existed and flourished for a few decades, namely from around 720/730 to around 815. The site might be identified with ‘emporium Reric’ known from the entries in the Frankish imperial annals of the years 808 and 809.29 According to the Latin text, the site ‘Reric’ was situated in the tribal area of the Slavic Obodrites. ‘Reric’ was a maritime trading place where merchants active in Baltic trade settled and had to pay levies to the Danish king in exchange for his protection. Thus also the Danish obviously had a great interest in the merchants in Reric.30 According to the written sources, these merchants were loaded onto ships and brought to Haithabu by the army of the Danish king Göttrik, who had conquered and destroyed Reric in connection with the Frankish-Danish-Obodritic conflicts and wars in 808. It should be considered that the merchants from ‘Reric’ who were shipped to Haithabu may have been immigrants from Frankish-Saxon-Frisian areas. Due to the good relations between the Frankish rulers and the Obodritian princes at that time, Frankish and Frisian merchants may have been granted favourable rights.31 One year after the devastations of 808, the Obodrite prince Drazko was murdered in Reric by people whom the Danish king Göttrik had commissioned. Evidently, Reric still continued to exist after the destruction. It was rebuilt, and offered amenities for the stay of the Obodrite tribal lord. Thus its location, significance and dating implies that the settlement excavated at Groß Strömkendorf is Reric but this identification is not certain. The question arises whether the coins can contribute something to the identification. coi n f i n ds f rom gross st röm k e n dor f During excavations in Groß Strömkendorf and detector surveys in its surroundings, nine coins were discovered at the end of the 1990s and 79 additional ones were found between 2009 and 2018. This means that the amount of coins found has increased

274

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

almost eightfold. Moreover, the detector finds are scattered mainly east of the excavation area. The coins are distributed over a wide area along with other finds, indicating a larger settlement than initially thought. The coins are principally divided into 37 Islamic ones and 51 Western European (Fig. 3). Islamic coins in the North – The first group of coins from Groß Strömkendorf consists of silver dirhams inscribed in Arabic which is being analysed by Lutz Ilisch (Fig. 4). During the 9th and especially the 10th century, huge quantities of Islamic coins of the 8th and early 9th centuries reached northern Europe via the Russian rivers. Estimates range from fifty to one hundred million dirhams exported to the north.32 At an approximate weight of 2.9 g per dirham, this means that about 145 to 290 tons of silver reached the countries around the Baltic Sea in a period of about 170 years (Fig. 5). This enormous import begins in the second half of the 8th century, as evidenced by a number of hoard finds.33 These include the hoard of Königsberg (Kaliningrad), which originally contained 150 coins (terminus post quem 745/746), although only nine examples have survived, the hoards of Pribrežni in Samland (two coins, tpq 775/776) and Horna in southern Sweden (two coins, tpq 777/778). The oldest finds with a clear chronological context are nine dirhams from Tuna, Sweden (tpq 784/785) and a hoard from Staraja Ladoga (tpq 786/787). From the time before 800, another five hoards are known, which proves that long-distance relations to the Islamic area were clearly increasing in intensity.34 A problem with the hoards is that although the tpq dates indicate the most recent year of minting of the youngest coin and thus the earliest possible deposition date, it remains unclear when the find was actually put into the ground. Even single finds do not solve this problem because some of them have been in circulation for a very long time. Much more significant are settlement finds that were recovered in an unambiguous context and can be linked to a corresponding archaeological and/or scientific dating. For example, a small hoard of forged Islamic coins was discovered in Ribe in a safely dated stratum from the 780s.35 In that regards, the finds from Groß Strömkendorf play an important role, because dendrochronological data was taken and could be correlated with the coin dating.36 The dating of four Islamic coins from Groß Strömkendorf can be verified. The first is a fragment of a coin minted in 750-755 in al-Kūfa (present-day Iraq) which comes from a Grubenhaus.37 According to the stratigraphy worked out by Tummuscheit, the house was built before 760, which corresponds very well with the date of the dirham. Another evidence is a complete Abbasid dirham from a pit filling, struck under al-Mansur in 759/760 in al-Basra, today southern Iraq.38 Here, too, the coin date approximately coincides with stratigraphic dating, according to which the pit must have been dug before 760. Last, three coins were found in a Grubenhaus or pit,

275

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

comprising a fragment of a dirham minted in 776-791 in Tabaristān, a fragment of an Umayyad dirham from 738-743, and a denarius of Charlemagne (768-814) from Dorestad, minted in 770-793/794.39 Both the Grubenhaus and the settlement pit belong to the period around 780 or a little later, which can be easily reconciled with the dating of the coins. In short, it becomes clear that Islamic coins were already sporadically brought to the western part of the Baltic Sea before 760, which fits well with the early dates of the hoards. Only from 780 onwards their number seems to increase, which can also be seen in the other Islamic coins from Groß Strömkendorf. The examples above demonstrate how many of the Islamic coins on site are fragmentary (Fig. 6). This type of evidence suggests that the long-distance traders coming from the East brought not only their coins, but also a new payment system, namely the weight money.40 In other words, silver was weighed with small folding scales according to the metal value, so it did not matter whether one paid with a ring or a half ring, a coin or even with a half coin. The decisive factor was the weight in silver. The weight money system, which is so characteristic of the 9th and 10th century, had obviously not yet fully established itself in Groß Strömkendorf. This is proven by further finds: unusual numismatic evidence of eight Abbasid copper coins ( fals, pl. fulūs) from North Africa and southern Spain (Fig. 7). If the early Islamic dirhams, which were mainly imported from the east of the caliphate, are already real rarities, these fulūs are exceptional. One reason for this is that the Nordic weight-money-system, which was based exclusively on silver, excluded base metals. Therefore, these coins were not really useful outside the caliphate. Ilisch has now found parallels to these fulūs which include about sixty specimens in southern France. The question of their transportation route remains, whether it was the eastern route, i.e. via the Russian rivers, or the Rhone-Rhine route. West European coins on site: types, mints, and distribution – Most of the European coin finds are sceattas. These are small silver coins that were struck from the late 7th century to the beginning of the 9th century.41 The sceattas, first minted in England by the Anglo-Saxons and later also in Frisia and probably in Denmark, split into numerous types and variants.42 The two most important groups in the north are sceattas of the ‘porcupine type’ (henceforth PS) and of the ‘Wodan-monster type’ (wms).43 In Groß Strömkendorf, 13 coins are of the former type and 30 of the latter, which will be discussed later on. All sceattas have similar characteristics: they are quite small (1 cm in diameter) and rather thick. Their distribution includes a core area in south eastern England as well as northern France.44 Another main distribution area is the North Sea coastal strip between the Rhine estuary and the German Bight.45 Via the Rhine

276

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

and its tributaries, larger quantities of sceattas reached southern Germany.46 The distribution of sceattas indicates that they are to be addressed as currency and were an important means of payment. This can be seen in the wide distribution in England which shows political and economic centres as well as stray finds in rural areas.47 Following the North Sea coast, the sceattas reached Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein in Germany and even Norway. However, only a few traces can be seen in the Baltic Sea area (Fig.8, Table 1).48 North of the Elbe, the finds from the Krinkberg in Schleswig-Holstein, the hoard from Goting Kliff on the island of Föhr and a new find from the island of Sylt should be mentioned. In Ribe and its surroundings, a clear concentration of sceattas can be observed with 280 of the coins in Ribe alone.49 Further finds come from the nearby Dankirke, from Okholm and Gl. Hviding. This concentration of finds is supplemented by new finds from Tømmerby, Høgsbrogård, Holmsland Klit and Emmerlev Kirke. Jutland’s land barrier initially hindered the further advance of coins to the east. Notably, it cannot be a coincidence that the sites on the eastern North Sea coast are often located at the mouths of rivers that reach far into the country. They point to approaches to the Baltic Sea by land. This is shown by the find of Hatting on the east coast of central Jutland, but also by the finds from Haithabu and Schuby. Haithabu could be reached via the Treene and a narrow land bridge. Access to the Baltic Sea was then possible via the river Schlei.50 Further traces can then be seen in the south-western Baltic Sea area: one findspot on Funen (Gudme), one on the island of Ærø (Havsmarken) and four sites with sceattas on Zealand (Tissø, Melby, Gl. Lejre and Tybjerg). In northeastern Skåne, sceattas were also found (Åhus). Moreover, it seems that the long-term goal of the Swedish route, which wound through Funen and Schonen, was the central Swedish trade center on Helgö in Lake Mälaren. Regarding Norway, only one sceatta is known and the question remains whether it should be interpreted as a continuation of the Jutland route or a direct connection to England. So far, sceattas were discovered only on two sites on the southern Baltic coast and only once in significant numbers. The first site is Janów Pomorski near Gdansk in Poland, where a single sceatta was found in secondary use, with a loop as a pendant.51 The second site is Groß Strömkendorf, where 44 sceattas have been documented, a considerably larger number than in other sites of the Baltic Sea area. The assignment of certain types of sceattas to individual mints is awfully difficult, especially due to the scarcity or absence of inscriptions on the coins. Large trading centres in the Frisian region, such as Domburg or Dorestad at the mouth of the Rhine, are possible. Identifying the authorities behind the minting is also challenging. In England, Anglo-Saxon kings and clergymen are thought to have had control over the

277

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

striking of coins. In contrast, due to the unclear and unstable political conditions in Frisia, the continental sceattas are considered to be minted by mint masters for private clients. Obviously, these coins covered the demand for a generally valid currency in this region resulting from the requirements of trade and transport.52 However, it seems that not all specimens can be taken at face value. The porcupine sceatta from Schuby, for example, should be addressed as an imitation because of its idiosyncratic reverse.53 Sceattas of the porcupine type form one of the largest series.54 Thirteen of the 46 ones found in Groß Strömkendorf belong to that type (Fig. 9). On the adverse appears a porcupine-like motif, namely a crescent-shaped arch, which is accompanied on both sides by parallel lines. The reverse bears a square figure, usually of a bead and reel ornament and on its middle is a ring. In addition there are various signs, mostly strokes, dots, crosses and t-shaped figures.55 PS are known as single finds, but also from large hoards in southern England and the Netherlands (Fig. 10). Their distribution clearly stretches down the Rhine. In France, they also appear sporadically. In the North German coastal area, their occurrence thins out although they still reach the Jutland peninsula. In the Baltic Sea-area, they have apparantly been found only at two Scandinavian find spots so far. In the Slavic region, these coins have not been found yet. According to the hoards, these pieces were produced between 720 and 740 in the southern Netherlands. One semi-type of the ps (porcupine/stepped cross), of a terraced cross, is almost absent from the Baltic Sea area but makes the oldest coin on site.56 Additional to the known motif and designs, this type carries a cross with zigzag arms on its reverse. The distribution of this type is remarkable: from a total of 50, 36 specimens are found in England, three in Domburg and three more elsewhere in the Netherlands, six in France and two in Germany (Groß Strömkendorf and Barthe Monastery). There is no find record from Scandinavia or Poland, the present piece is thus a novelty in the Slavic area. It has been suggested that this type was minted around 710/715 in the Meuse delta or in northern France.57 Though the number of coins is rather small, the study of dies provides an estimation of over half a million coins.58 They seem to have been used mainly in trade between the Netherlands and England. Among the youngest sceattas are those of the Wodan-monster type (Fig. 11). Their design includes on the adverse a head with stringy protruding hair and a long beard. To the right and left of the head, other symbols can sometimes be recognized, mostly small crosses. The reverse is occupied by the figure of an animal. The animal, a monster, has a dragon-like shape, with its head turned backward, almond-shaped eye and crest, the feet show long pointed claws. The distribution map shows a clear emphasis on the southern part of England, where they form an insular group of their own (Fig.

278

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

12). In the Rhine estuary, they are represented only sparsely but have special importance for Northern Germany and Denmark. Most distinctively, in Ribe 225 of the sceattas (80 percent) belong to this type.59 They have been regarded as Frisian but their archaeological contexts (dated to 720-810) suggest that most of them were Danish.60 The number of different types and different mints implies that the total number of sceattas has been extraordinarily high. More precisely, on the basis of the high number of coin dies (roughly five thousand four hundred different dies), an extrapolated quantity for ps of fifty million copies can be assumed.61 Even if this number remains hypothetical, it is astonishingly high which makes clear how far monetization had already progressed in Frisia and south-eastern England in the emporia of the 8th century. The last group of coins from Groß Strömkendorf is Carolingian denarii, with seven specimens. These coins include a broken denarius of Pippin the Short (ca. 714-768, the first Caroling to become king. In comparison to a complete example, the ‘rf’ for Rex Francorum can be seen on the obverse and the name ‘pipin’ on the reverse (Fig. 13). The denarius was minted between 752 and 768. The mint is not named, but was probably Dorestad. Another new find is a denarius which was struck under Ludwig the Pious between 818-822/823 in Venice.62 The revers still shows remains of the name of the mint, namely ‘ven’, in full ven[ecias] for Venice (Fig. 14). If one looks at the distribution of the early Carolingian denarii before 814, it becomes clear that they show a similar distribution in the north as the sceattas (Fig. 15). The denarii advance considerably further into the Baltic Sea region, especially on the Danish islands and in southern Sweden.63 However, these are mostly single finds. In the Slavic region, there are only two known find spots with early Carolingian coins: Prerow in Nordvorpommern, Germany, with a coin hoard which must have been deposited after 802/803; and Groß Strömkendorf, with four Carolingian denarii from the time before 814. The latest coin from Groß Strömkendorf is a Christiana-religio-denarius, which was minted under Ludwig the Pious in the years 822/823-840. discussion a n d conclusion The 88 coins from the Early Medieval settlement of Groß Strömkendorf coincide with other archaeological finds on site. The oldest Western European coin is a porcupine/ stepped-cross coin from about 710-715 and the most recent one is a Carolingian Christiana-religio-denarius struck after 822/823. Most of the minted WMS probably belong to the period after 760/770. The chronological distribution of Islamic dirhams looks similar, with the majority belonging to the last quarter of the 8th century. Thus, most coins originate from the prime of the settlement between 760/770 and 800. Only a

279

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

few coins are younger than 811, the date having been established by dendrochronology. It can therefore be assumed that the settlement was largely though not completely abandoned shortly after this date. Mapping the mint sites represented in the coin material of Groß Strömkendorf (Fig. 16) shows a wide dispersion, ranging from today’s Netherlands, Northern Italy, France, Southern Spain and North Africa on the one hand to Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan to Afghanistan on the other. It is unclear whether direct trade flows can be proven here, but one must rather imagine many middlemen. In particular, the Islamic copper coins (which were worthless in the North) speak for Islamic merchants who brought their money here. The wide distribution suggests widespread trade networks. These led from the east via the Volga and the Dnepr to the north. From the west, one probably reached the North Sea from North Africa and northern Italy, across the Rhone and the Rhine and further to Frisia over the Jutland peninsula into the Baltic Sea area. The Danish-Frisian sceattas as well as the Carolingian coins were clearly circulated as coinage. There are no intentional cuts, pecks or nicks, which might be interpreted as a quality check (by a money changer?), as we know them from the coins of the Goting-Kliff hoard, for example.64 The pieces probably had a generally accepted nominal value in Groß Strömkendorf. Apparently, they were accepted for trade by the quantity of pieces rather than by weight. In contrast, the Islamic coins were charged by weight, therefore many pieces are fragmented. The handling of this money required appropriate scales and weights. Without over-interpreting this pattern, it is possible that two merchant colonies existed in parallel. Such trading communities, in which business partners joined together, can be traced in a number of runic inscriptions of the 11th century.65 For example, one runestone from Sigtuna bears the inscription: ‘guild brothers of the Frisians’.66 Such structures become apparent later also in the Hanseatic kontors, namely the allocation of certain trading companies to certain settlement areas, such as Novgorod, Bergen and London in the 14th and 15th century.67 However, it is uncertain whether similar structures already existed in the 8th century. In the absence of a monetary system at the time, it is possible that each of these groups brought the money it was familiar with for its regular exchanges. On the one hand are merchants coming from the West, who traded primarily with Denmark and Friesland and who imported the sceatta-money. The strong predominance of wms on site could indicate that the Danish king exercised his power locally and that the wms circulated as royal Danish coins under his control.68 The merchants who probably traded more with the Eastern areas, on the other hand, brought not only the coins but also the weight money system. In any case, coins must have played an important role in the settlement and show the first traces of monetisation in this area.

280

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

The wms coins show very close connections to Jutland, especially to Ribe, where production most likely took place. This Danish-Frisian-connection can also be observed in the already published investigations of burial rites and the analyses of house building tradition in Groß Strömkendorf.69 On the other hand, the long-distance trade relations with present-day Iran and Iraq via the large Russian rivers are particularly evident in the Islamic coins. It should be noted that, in addition to the coins, other imports from the Islamic area are found in the North, including luxury goods such as silk and oriental belt fittings.70 While the money and other objects from the Islamic world are evident in the archaeological remains, the commodities that the North exchanged with it are invisible. This is not surprising. Al-Muqaddasī (d. after 991), a geographer and traveller from Jerusalem, lists the goods brought to the South in his time: ‘Sable, grey squirrel, ermine, mink, fox, marten, beaver, spotted hare, goatskin, wax, arrows, birch wood, fur caps, fish glue, fish teeth, castoreum, amber, horse skins, honey, hazelnuts, falcons, swords, armour, maple wood, saqaliba slaves, sheep, cattle – all this from Bolgar’.71 Although some goods may have come from the area around Bolgar, or from the Slavic and Finnish tribes further north, much could have been imported only from the Baltic Sea or directly from Scandinavia. In summary, it can be said that the coin finds from Groß Strömkendorf show us the early spread of Frisian and Carolingian long-distance trade to the north and the northeast. The clear Frisian-Frankish-Danish relations and also the dating range of the coins fit the historical dates. Whether the settlement near Groß Strömkendorf is really the historically proven emporium Reric, however, cannot be said with absolute certainty. It is remarkable that the coins were used locally as a means of payment and thus show the first beginnings of a money economy. At the same time, they are an indicator of the intensifying contacts of this early trading emporium with the flourishing trading centres of Western Europe and the Islamic world. It was the beginning of a remarkable economic development that included large parts of northern Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries. With the coins presented here, this ‘starting point’ can be clearly grasped. They mark the beginning of a new era, which today we call the Viking age.

281

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on state Denmark

Norway Germany

Sweden Poland

site name Dankirke1 Ribe Okholm Gl. Hviding 2 Høgsbrogård Tømmerby Emmerlev Kirke Holmslandklit3 Hatting Gudme4 Havsmarken Tissø5 Melby Tybjerg Øst Gl. Lejre Ervik6 Wenningstedt Goting Kliff Haithabu Schuby Krinkberg Groß Strömkendorf Åhus7 Helgö, grave8 Janów Pomorski

number of sceattas 12 280 7 4 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 83 2 1 4 46 4 1 1

other details 5 WMS, 1 PS 225 WMS, 35 PS 5 WMS, 1 PS 1 PS

1 WMS 1 PS 1 WMS 1 WMS 2 WMS 1 WMS, 2 PS Mint: Northumbria 1 WMS 52 PS 2 WMS 1 PS (imitation) 3 WMS, 1 PS 30 WMS, 13 PS 3 WMS, 1 PS 1 WMS 1 WMS

table 1 – The distribution of sceattas in the North (R. Wiechmann).9 notes table 1 1

Feveile 2006c.

2

Feveille 2008, 62, fig. 5.

3

Bendixen 1985, 37, fig.1.

4

Bendixen 1985, 37.

5

Jørgensen 2006, 197, fig. 4; Feveille 2008, 62, fig. 5.

6

Skaare 1976, 158; Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 250.

7

Callmer 1984, 9-13; Bendixen 1985, 37, figs. 3-5 (under Yngsjö); Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 250.

8

Malmer 1986, 128, no. 51; Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 250.

9

The figures are taken from: Feveille 2019, table 1.

282

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

not es 1

Larsson and Hårdh 1998.

27

Wietrzichowski 1993.

2

Watt 2005.

28

For the dendrochronological data, see

3

Jöns and Müller-Wille 2011.

4

Bican 2010.

5

Christensen 2010.

6

Tornbjerg 2000.

7

Söderberg 2005.

30

Crumlin-Pedersen 2002, 69.

8

Callmer and Henderson 1991.

31

Herrmann 2002, 310.

9

Koch 2008.

32

An overview: Wiechmann 2001. A list of

10

Kleingärtner 2008.

11

Krüger 2009.

12

Brather and Jagodziński 2012. Concerning

Tummuscheit 2011, 149-53 and appendix. 29

Concerning the Reric-problem, see Jöns 2000b; Kleingärtner 2014, 152-160. For the Frankish annals, Abel 1880, 115, 118.

dirham hoards in Europe and the Caucasus region (tpq 771-892): Kilger 2008a, 247-52. 33

Linder-Welin 1974; Jonsson 1994, 456-58; Blackburn 2008, 52; Bogucki 2010.

the coins, see: Bogucki 2007.

34 Concerning the start of the early dirham

13

Jöns 2008a.

14

For Wollin, see: Filipowiak 1991. For

imports to the Baltic Sea zone: Kilger

Haithabu, see: Schietzel 2014.

2008a, 247-52; Bogucki 2010.

15 16

Concerning the definition, see Clarke and

35

Kilger 2008a, 213.

Ambrosiani 1991, 3.

36

Tummuscheit 2011, 149-53 and appendix.

Summary: Crumlin-Pedersen 2002. See

37

Fdst. 10375b, Grubenhaus, mid-p. coordinates: 524 n/44.5 e.

also Müller-Wille 2002. 17

See Sundqvist 2000.

18

Berghaus 1961, 54-55; Suchodolski 1990; Wiechmann 2006, 178.

19

38

coordinates: 469.2 n/23 e. 39

21

Dobat 2010, 162-63.

22

Callmer 1998.

23

Bogucki 2010.

40 Steuer 1987; Kilger 2008b; Wiechmann 2008. 41

Kowaleswski 2001; Urbańczyk 2002.

For a general overview: Wiechmann 2004b. Concerning the iconography, see Gannon 2003.

24 Tabaczyński 1987, 178-86; Jonsson 1995. 25

Fdst. 3-87, Grubenhäuser and settlement pit, mid-p. coordinates: 338.00 n/18.25 e.

Wiechmann 2006, 178.

20 Blackburn 2008, 59-60.

Fdst. 10439, indifferent pit, mid-p.

42 Keary and Poole 1887; Rigold 1977;

26 In general: Jöns et al. 1997; Jöns

Blackburn 1984; Metcalf 1993-94.

2000a; 2016; Brorsson 2010 (pottery);

43 Metcalf 1986; 2006.

Tummuscheit 2011 (houses and settlement

44 Maps in: Op den Velde et al. 1984; Op den Velde 1987.

structure); Gerds 2015 (cemetery). For a wider perspective, see Müller-Wille 1999;

45 Hill 1954.

Jöns 2019.

46 Zedelius 1978; 1980.

283

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

60 Metcalf 1984; Jonsson and Malmer 1986.

47 Rigold and Metcalf 1984; Op den Velde

61

and Metcalf 2003.

62 For the Italian connection, see Metcalf

48 Callmer 1983; 1984; Bendixen 1985.

1988.

49 Concerning the importance of Ribe, see 63

Feveile and Jensen 2000.

Kiersnowska 1961; Horoszko 1998; Wiechmann 2004a; Garipzanov 2008.

50 Bendixen 1981, 66; Wiechmann 2007, 20305, Cat. No. 43, 44.

Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 122-24

64 Hatz 2001, 45.

51 Bartczak et al. 2004, 38.

65

52

Metcalf 2014.

66 Krause 2019, 357.

53

Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 253.

67 Graichen and Hammel-Kiesow 2011, 267-

Jöns 2019, 202.

69.

54 For a detailed analysis of PS: Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009; 2010.

68 Søvsø 2018; Feveile 2018, 29-36.

55

Metcalf 1966.

69 For burial rites, see Gerds 2015, 99. For

56

Metcalf 1993-1994, 2, 243-45.

house-building tradition, see Tummuscheit

57

Metcalf and Op den Velde 2009, 238-39.

2011, 99.

58

Idem, 227.

70 Toplak 2019, 255.

59

For the finds in Ribe, see: Bendixen 1981;

71

Cited after Härke and Arzhantseva 2019, 298.

1990; Feveile 2006a; 2006b; 2008.

284

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

bi bl iogr a ph y Abel, O. 1880. Einhards Jahrbücher, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Deutschen Vorzeit 17, 3rd ed. 1940, Leipzig. Bartczak, A., M.F. Jagodziński and S. Suchodolski 2004. Monety z viii i ix w. odkryte w Janowie Pomorskim, Gm Elbląg – dawnym Truso (Opracowanie wstępne), Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 48, 21-48. Bendixen, K. 1981. Sceattas and other coin finds, in: M. Bencard (ed.), Ribe Excavations 1970-76, vol. i, Esbjerg, 63-101. Bendixen, K. 1985. Skandinaviske fund af sceattas, Hikuin 11, 33-40. Bendixen, K. 1990. The Coins from the second excavation in oldest Ribe 1986, in: K. Jonsson and B. Malmer (eds.), Sigtuna Papers. Proceedings of the Sigtuna Symposium on Viking age Coinage, 1-4 June 1989, Commentationes de Nummis Saeculorum ix-xi, Stockholm, 43-47. Berghaus, P. 1961. Die merowingischen Trienten von Altenwald, Die Kunde N.F. 12, 43-62. Blackburn, M. 1984. A chronolgy for the sceattas, in: D. Hill and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), Sceattas in England and on the Continent, The Seventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, bar British Series 128, Oxford, 165-74. Blackburn, M. 2008. The coin-finds, in: D. Skre (ed.), Means of Exchange. Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, Aarhus, 29-74. Bogucki, M. 2010. The beginning of dirham import to the Baltic Sea zone and question of early emporia, in: A. Bitner-Wróblewska and U. Lund-Hansen (eds.), Worlds Apart? Contact Across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age (Network Denmark-Poland 2005-2008), Copenhagen, 351-61. Brorsson, T. 2010. The Pottery from the Early Medieval Trading Site and Cemetery at Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg, Forschungen zu Groß Strömkendorf 3, Frühmittelalterliche Archäologie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer 1, Wiesbaden. Callmer, J. 1983. Neufunde von Wodan-Monster-Sceattas aus dem Ostseebereich, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13, 607-11. Callmer, J. 1984. Sceatta Problems in the Light of the Finds from Åhus, Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis (Studier utgivna av Kungl. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet); 1983-1984; 2, Lund. Callmer, J. 1998. Archaeological sources for the presence of Frisian agents of trade in Northern Europe ca. AD 700-900, in: A. Wesse (ed.), Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter: Festschrift für Michael MüllerWille, Neumünster, 469-81.

285

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Feveile, C. 2006a. The coins from 8th-9th centuries Ribe – survey and status 2001, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift: 6th Nordic Numismatic Symposium. Single Finds: the Nordic Perspective 2000-2002, Copenhagen, 149-62. Feveille, C. (ed.) 2006b. Ribe studier. Udgravninger på nordsiden af Ribe Å, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab skrifter 51, Aarhus. Feveile, C. 2006c. Sceattaerne fra Dankirke – skatte eller enkeltfund?, Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 1, 3-9. Feveile, C. 2008. Series x and coin circulation in Ribe, Studies in Early Medieval Coinage 1, 53-67. Feveile, C. 2019. Sceattas i Sydskandinavien – fra ekspanderende frisere til kontrollerende kongemagt, By Marsk og Geest 31, 21-43. Feveile, C. and S. Jensen 2000. Ribe in the 8th and 9th century. A contribution to the archaeological chronology of North Western Europe, in: S. Stummann Hansen and K. Randsborg (eds.), Vikings in the West, Acta Archaeologica 71, Copenhagen, 9-24. Gannon, A. 2003. The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage. Sixth to Eighth Centuries, Medieval History and Archaeology, Oxford. Garipzanov, I.H. 2008. Carolingian coins in Early Viking age Scandinavia (c. 754c. 900): Chronological distribution and regional patterns, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift 2003-2005, 65-92. Gerds, M. 2015. Das Gräberfeld des frühmittelalterlichen Seehandelsplatzes von Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg, Forschungen zu Groß Strömkendorf v, Frühmittelalterliche Archä­olo­gie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer 6.1: Groß Strömkendorf-Reric. Die Menschen und ihre Lebensumstände; 6.2: Katalog, Wiesbaden. Graichen, G. and R. Hammel-Kiesow 2011. Die Deutsche Hanse. Eine heimliche Supermacht, Reinbek. Härke, H. and I.A. Arzhantseva 2019. Am Südost-Horizont der Wikingerwelt. Die Seidenstraße, in: J. Staecker and M. Toplak (eds.), Die Wikinger. Entdecker und Eroberer, Berlin, 295-302. Hatz, G. 2001. Der Münzfund vom Goting Kliff/Föhr, Numismatische Studien 14, Hamburg. Hill, P. 1954. Anglo-Saxon and Frisian sceattas in the light of Frisian hoards and sitefinds, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 41, 11-18. Horoszko, G. 1998. Naśladownictwo denara karolińskiego z Kamienia Pomorskiego, Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 42, 183-87. Jonsson, K. 1994. A Gotlandic hoard from the Early Viking age, in: G. Arwidsson, A.M. Hansson, L. Holmquist Olausson and B. Johansson (eds.), Sources and Resources. Studies in Honour of Birgit Arrhenius, 451-58.

286

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

Jonsson, K. and B. Malmer 1986. Sceattas och den äldsta nordiska myntningen, Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 1986, 66-71. Jöns, H. 2000a. Neue Untersuchungen auf dem frühgeschichtlichen Handelsplatz von Groß Strömkendorf bei Wismar, in: V. Kazakevičius, C. von Carnap-Bornheim, J. Hines and V. Zulkus (eds.), The Balts and their Neighbours in the Baltic Region, 400-800, East-West Contracts, Archaeologia Baltica 4, 109-34. Jöns, H. 2000b. War das emporium Reric der Vorläufer Haithabus?, Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 47, 201-13. Jöns. H. 2016, Gross Strömkendorf. Das Reric der fränkischen Schriftquellen, in: M. Helmbrecht (ed.), Wikinger! Begleitbuch zur Erlebnisausstellung Wikinger! im Ausstellungszentrum Lokschuppen Rosenheim, 11. März bis 04. Dezember 2016, ein Projekt der Veranstaltungs + Kongress GmbH Rosenheim, Hamburg, 148-49. Jöns, H. 2019. Orte des Ausstauschs. Die Handelsplätze der Wikingerzeit, in: J. Staecker and M. Toplak (eds.), Die Wikinger. Entdecker und Eroberer, Berlin, 183-207. Jöns, H., F. Lüth and M. Müller-Wille 1997. Ausgrabungen auf dem frühgeschichtlichen Seehandelsplatz von Groß Strömkendorf, Kr. Nordwestmecklenburg. Erste Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes, Germania 75, 193-221. Jørgensen, L. 2006. Tracking down the aristocracy – distribution patterns and coin use at the Viking manor and market at Lake Tissø, Denmark, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift: 6th Nordic Numismatic Symposium. Single Finds: the Nordic Perspective 2000-2002, Copenhagen, 190-207. Keary, C.F. and R.S. Poole 1887. A Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum, London. Kiersnowska, T. 1961. Monnaies carolingiennes sur les terres slaves, Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 5, 90-98. Kilger, C. 2008a. Kaupang from afar: Aspects of the interpretation of dirham finds in Northern and Eastern Europe between the late 8th and early 10th centuries, in: D. Skre (ed.), Means of Exchange. Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, Aarhus, 199-252. Kilger, C. 2008b. Wholeness and holiness: Counting, weighing and valuing silver in the Early Viking period, in: D. Skre (ed.), Means of Exchange. Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, Aarhus, 253-325. Kleingärtner, S. 2014. Die frühe Phase der Urbanisierung an der südlichen Ostseeküste im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend, Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Archäologie der Ostseegebiete, hersg. von C. von Carnap-Bornheim und M. Wemhoff; Band 13, Neumünster. Krause, A. 2019. Auf Steinen und Hölzchen. Die Bedeutung der Runen, in: J. Staecker and M. Toplak (eds.), Die Wikinger. Entdecker und Eroberer, Berlin, 351-64.

287

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Linder-Welin, U. 1974. The first arrival of Oriental coins and the inception of the Viking age in Sweden, Fornvännen 69, 22-29. Malmer, B. 1986. West European silver coins at Helgö, in: A. Lundström and H. Clarke (eds.), Excavations at Helgö, vol. x, Stockholm, 127-29. Metcalf, D.M. 1966. A stylistic analysis of the ‘porcupine’ sceattas, Numismatic Chronicle 7, 179-205. Metcalf, D.M. 1984. A note on sceattas as a measure of international trade, and on the earliest Danish coinage, in: D. Hill and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), Sceattas in England and on the Continent, The Seventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, bar British Series 128, Oxford, 159-64. Metcalf, D.M. 1986. Nyt om Sceattas af typen Wodan/Monster, Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 1986, 110-20. Metcalf, D.M. 1988. North Italian coinage carried across the Alps. The Ostrogothic and Carolingian evidence compared, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 90, 448-56. Metcalf, D.M. 1993/94. Thrymsas and Sceattas in the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 27, London. Metcalf, D.M. 2006. Single finds of Wodan/monster sceattas in England and their interpretation for monetary history, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift: 6th Nordic Numismatic Symposium. Single Finds: the Nordic Perspective 2000-2002, Copenhagen, 109-48. Metcalf, D.M. 2014. Thrymsas and sceattas and the balance of payment, in: R. Naismith, M. Allen and E. Screen (eds.), Early Medieval Monetary History: Studies in Memory of Mark Blackburn, Farnham, 243-56. Metcalf, D.M. and W. Op den Velde 2009. The monetary economy of the Netherlands, c. 690-c.760 and the trade with England: A study of the ‘porcupine’ sceatta of Series E, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 96, 1-284. Metcalf, D.M. and W. Op den Velde 2010. The monetary economy of the Netherlands, c. 690-c.760 and the trade with England: A study of the ‘porcupine’ sceatta of Series E, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 97, 285-506. Müller-Wille, M. 1999. Ribe-Reric-Hedeby. Zur frühen Urbanisierung im südskandinavischen und westslawischen Gebiet, Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akadmiens Årsbok 1999, 115-27. Rigold, S.E. 1977. The principal series of English sceattas, British Numismatic Journal 47, 21-30. Rigold, S.E. and D.M. Metcalf 1984. A revised check-list of English finds of sceattas, in: D. Hill and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), Sceattas in England and on the Continent. The Seventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, bar British Series 128, Oxford, 245-68.

288

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

Skaare, K. 1976. Coins and Coinage in Viking‑Age Norway, Oslo. Steuer, H. 1987. Gewichtsgeldwirtschaften im frühgeschichtlichen Europa – Feinwaagen und Gewichte als Quellen zur Währungsgeschichte, in: K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems and D. Timpe (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. 4 Der Handel der Karolinger- und Wikingerzeit, Göttingen, 405-527. Suchodolski, S.. 1990. Die erste Welle der westeuropäischen Münzen im Ostseeraum, in: K. Jonsson and B. Malmer (eds.), Sigtuna Papers. Procee­dings of the Sigtuna Symposium on Viking‑Age Coinage, 1‑4 June 1989, Com­mentatio­nes de Nummis Saeculorum ix‑xi, Stockholm, 317-25. Søvsø, M. 2018. Emporia, sceattas and kingship in 8th c. ‘Denmark’, in: J. Hansen and M. Bruus (eds.), The Fortified Viking Age. 36th Interdisciplinary Viking Symposium in Odense, May 17th, 2017, Archaeological and Historical Studies in Centrality 3, Odense, 75-86. Toplak, M. 2019. Die Gründer Russlands? Die Kiewer Rus, in: J. Staecker and M. Toplak (eds.), Die Wikinger. Entdecker und Eroberer, Berlin, 252-62. Tummuscheit, A. 2011. Die Baubefunde des frühmittelalterlichen Seehandelsplatzes von Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg, Forschungen zu Groß Strömkendorf 4, Frühmittelalterliche Archäologie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer 2, Wiesbaden. Velde, W. Op den 1987. Sceatta’s in Friese schatvondsten, De Beeldenaar 11, 61-66. Velde, W. Op den and Metcalf, D.M. 2003. The Monetary Economy of the Netherlands, c. 690-c. 715 and the Trade with England: A Study of the Sceattas of Series D, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningskunde 90, 1-211. Velde, W. Op den, W.J. de Boone and A. Pol 1984. A survey of sceattas finds from the Low Countries, in: D. Hill and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), Sceattas in England and on the Continent. The Seventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, bar British Series 128, Oxford, 117-45. Wiechmann, R. 2001. Arabische Münzfunde des 8. bis 11. Jahrhunderts im Ostseeraum, in: U. Hübner, J. Kamlah and L. Reinfandt (eds.), Die Seidenstraße: Handel und Kulturaustausch in einem eurasischen Wegenetz, Asien und Afrika 3, Hamburg, 169-86. Wiechmann, R. 2004a. Karolingische Denare aus Bardowick – Münzumlauf an der nördlichen Peripherie des Frankenreiches, in: M. Mehl (ed.), Delectat et docet. Festschrift zum 100jährigen Be­stehen des Vereins der Münzenfreunde in Hamburg, Numismatische Studien 16, Hamburg, 13-44. Wiechmann, R. 2004b. Stichwort Sceatta, in: H. Beck et al. (eds.), Saal – Schenkung, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 26, Berlin, 558-64.

289

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Wiechmann, R. 2006. Münzen, Schmuck und Spezialgeld – vom Tauschhandel zur Münzgeldwirtschaft in Norddeutschland, in: R. Bleile (ed.), Magischer Glanz. Gold aus archäologischen Sammlungen Norddeutschlands, Schleswig, 174-85. Wiechmann, R. 2007. Haithabu und sein Hinterland – ein lokaler numismatischer Raum? Münzen und Münzfunde aus Haithabu (bis zum Jahr 2002), in: Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haitha­bu 36, Das archäologische Fundmaterial 8, Neumünster, 182-278. Wiechmann, W. 2008. baugabrot ok harka­gri­pir – ‚Ringbruch­stücke und Schildtrüm­ mer‘ Silberschätze als Ausweis des wikingerzeitlichen Handels, in: A. Koch (ed.), Die Wikinger, Speyer, 164-71. Wietrzichowski, F. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Anfängen des frühmittelalterlichen Seehandels im südlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Grabungsergebnisse von Groß-Strömkendorf, Wismar. Zedelius, V. 1978. Geld in Xanten, Führer des Regionalmuseums 10, Köln. Zedelius, V. 1980. Neue Sceattas aus dem Rheinland – Bonn und Xanten, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 8, 139-52. Zimmermann, C. and H. Jöns 2017. Cultural contacts between the western Baltic, the North Sea region and Scandinavia: Attributing runic finds to runic traditions and corpora of the Early Viking age, in: J. Hines and N. IJssennagger (eds.), Frisians and their North Sea Neighbours. From the Fifth Century to the Viking Age, Woodbridge, 243-72.

290

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

fig. 1a – Location of Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: R. Wiechmann).

fig. 1b – Groß Strömkendorf. The extension of the settled area and the position of the trading centre, the graveyard and the harbour basin (after Zimmermann and Jöns 2017); (Graph: R. Kiepe, NIhK).

291

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 2 – Groß Strömkendorf. Development of the trading centre, based on the distribution of pit-houses and dendrochronologically dated wells (after Tummuscheit 2011, fig. 4 and 103)

fig. 3 – Distribution of detector finds of coins in Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: S. Messal; map basis: C. Hartl-Reiter, LaKD MV, Landesarchäologie, Schwerin).

292

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

fig. 4 – Groß Strömkendorf, Abbasid dirham, al-Mansur (caliph 754-775), mint: al-Basra (southern Iraq), 143 ah/ad 760 (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

fig. 5 – Distribution of hoards containing Islamic coins in Europe (after Kilger 2007).

293

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 6 – Groß Strömkendorf, a selection of fragmented islamic dirhams (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

fig. 7 – Groß Strömkendorf, Abbasid fals, al-Faḍl ibn Rawh al-Muhallabī, governor from Ifrīqiya, mint: al-ʿAbbāsīya or Ifrīqiya (North Africa), 177 AH/AD 793 (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

294

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

fig. 8 – Distribution of sceattas in the North (Graph: R. Wiechmann).

fig. 9 – Sceatta from Groß Strömkendorf, porcupine type, c. 720-740, minted in the southern Netherlands (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

295

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 10 – Distribution of porcupine sceattas (after Blackburn 1984, with additions).

fig. 11 – Sceatta from Groß Strömkendorf, Wodan-monster type, c. 720-820, probably minted in Ribe (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

296

w i ec h m a n n – a dva nc i ng i n to u n k now n l a n ds

fig. 12 – Distribution of Wodan-monster sceattas (Graph: R. Wiechmann).

fig. 13 – Groß Strömkendorf, Pippin the Short (752-768), denarius, mint: Dorestad (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

fig. 14 – Groß Strömkendorf, Ludwig the Pius (814-840), denarius, 814-822/823, mint: Venice (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern).

297

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 15 – Distribution of Carolingian coins in the north, minted before 814 (Graph: R. Wiechmann).

fig. 16 – Distribution of mints of the coins from Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: R. Wiechmann). 1 – Ribe?; 2 – Northern Netherlands/Frisia; 3 – Dorestad; 4 – Southern Netherlands/the ’Big river’ region; 5 – Maas-area/Northern France?; 6 – Maasarea/Lower Rhine area/Frisia; 7 – Melle; 8 – Clermont-Ferrand?; 9 – Carcassonne; 10 – Venice; 11 – al-Andalus; 12 – Tugdha; 13 – al-‘Abbȃsȋya; 14 – Ifrȋqiya; 15 – Itil; 16 – Armȋnȋya; 17 – Arrȃn; 18 – al-Muhammadȋya; 19 – Āmul; 20 – Madȋnat as-salȃm; 21 – al-Kufa; 22 – Wȃsit; 23 – al-Basra; 24 – ash-Shȃsh; 25 – Balkh.

298

*

*

*

List of figures *

h agi t nol fig. 1 – Map with the main sites mentioned in this volume (H. Nol).

nata l i e kon t n y fig. 1 – Map of the Indian Ocean (al-bahr al-sharqī) as presented by the kmm reaching from alQulzum to al-Wāqwāq east of China (N. Kontny). fig. 2 – Schematic overview of the three main Indian Ocean routes (R1-3) in the kmm (N. Kontny). fig. 3 – Maps illustrating the uncertain course of R1. It is also due to the density of unidentifiable places, e.g. along the Arabian Gulf coast, that the course cannot be reconstructed (N. Kontny). fig. 4 – Map of the Indian Ocean trade network resulting from R2 and R3 (N. Kontny). fig. 5 – Maritime trade network and routes of the Rādhānite merchants according to the kmm. One route (left) operated via the Red Sea; the other route (right) follows the Euphrates and Tigris before it continues via the Gulf (N. Kontny). fig. 6 – Map of the Indian subcontinent showing the possible locations of Bullayn/Bullīn (R3) (N. Kontny).

st e r e n n l e m agu e r- gi l lon fig. 1 – Map showing the distribution area of the substances used as incense and the sites that have yielded resins between the 8th and the 12th century AD (S. Le Maguer-Gillon). fig. 2 – A modern clay incense burner from Dhofar with incised and painted decoration (Sultanate of Oman) (Photo: S. Le Maguer-Gillon). fig. 3 – Two square incense burners made of clay with four legs and incised decoration. Left: Madurah (Yemen), 9th century AD, Museum of Say’ūn. Right: Sūsā (Iran), 9th-13th century AD, Paris, Musée du Louvre (MAO S. 1452) (Photos: S. Le Maguer-Gillon). fig. 4 – Map of the softstone outcrops (after David-Cuny and Azpeita 2012, 19). fig. 5 – Softstone circular incense-burner with four legs. Sūsā (Iran), 9th-10th century AD. Paris, Musée du Louvre (MAO S. 628) (Photo: S. Le Maguer-Gillon). fig. 6 – Cast bronze incense burner with domed cover. Incised and pierced decoration. Iran, 8th9th century AD. New-York, Metropolitan Museum (1976.102) (public domain).

299

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 7 – Cast brass incense burner in shape of a bird. Engraved and pierced decoration. Iran, 12th century AD. New-York, Metropolitan Museum (1972.87) (public domain). fig. 8 – Two pottery incense burners from al-Shihr. Up: Upper part of a square incense burner (shr02 2899.1) belonging to type c3, 9th-11th century AD. Bottom: square incense burner with four legs and a handle (shr99 2331.I) belonging to type c4, 11th century AD (Hardy-Guilbert and Le Maguer 2010, figs. 2/3 and 3/8). fig. 9 – Two softstone incense burners from Sīrāf. Left: Square incense burner with incised decoration, 9th-11th century (2007-60-01, 10286, British Museum). Right: Circular incense burner with four legs and a handle with incised decorations, 9th-11th century AD (2007-6001, 10362, British Museum) (Drawing: S. Le Maguer-Gillon).

da sh u qi n & j ust i n ch i ng ho fig. 1 – The first stage of the ‘East Coast Route’ (Guangzhou – Malacca Strait) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005AI [R00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division). fig. 2 – The second stage of the the ‘East Coast Route’ (Malacca Strait – Persian Gulf ) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005ai [r00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division). fig. 3 – The route of the ‘West Coast Route’ (East Africa – Persian Gulf ) recorded by the Huanghua Sida Ji (Map: 803005ai [r00349] 7-03, Library of Congress, Geography and Map division). fig. 4 – Schematic diagram of three maritime trade circles from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean (H.H. Liebner). fig. 5 – Changsha Wares of different shapes and decorations: – 1. Ewer with applied date palm and pagoda patterns, Belitung Shipwreck (Asian Civilizations Museum). – 2. Ewer with painted phoenix design (Hunan Provincial Museum Collection). – 3. Jar with painted cloud pattern (Hunan Provincial Museum Collection). – 4. Changsha painted kettle with an Arabic script, the site of Yangzhou City (Yanghzou Municipal Museum). – 5. Bowl with painted flower design, the site of Yangzhou City (Yangzhou Municipal Museum). – 6. Green glazed box, the Changsha Kiln site (Hunan Provincial Museum). – 7. A bird-shaped whistle (Xun), Belitung Shipwreck (Hunan Provincial Museum). fig. 6 – Changsha Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt (Photo: Y. Tadanori). fig. 7 – Changsha Ware sherds, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin). fig. 8 – Changsha Wares, Belitung Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin). – 1. Changsha Ewers, statues and a Bird-shaped whistle (Xun). – 2. Changsha Ewers in the storage room. – 3. Changsha Painted Bowls.

300

l i s t of f igu r e s

fig. 9 – An assortment of Yue Wares, Cirebon Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin). fig. 10 – Yue Wares sherds, Fustāt, Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin). – 1. 9th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt. – 2. 10th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt. – 3. 10th-century Yue Ware sherds, Fustāt, Egypt. – 4. Yue Ware sherds dating back to the first half of the 11th century, Fustāt, Egypt. fig. 11 – Yue Ware sherds, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin). fig. 12 – Guangdong Green-glazed Jars – 1. A large Guangdong green-glazed jar, Belitung Shipwreck (Asian Cilizations Museum). – 2. Medium and small-size Guangdong green-glazed jars, Belitung Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin). – 3. Guangdong green-glazed jars, Cirebon Shipwreck (Photo: D. Qin). – 4. Sherds of Guangdong green-glazed jars, Fustāt, Egypt, obverse and reverse views (Photo: Y. Tadanori). – 5. Sherds of Guangdong green-glazed jars, Shanga, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin). fig. 13 – 9th-/10th-century Ding Kiln White Porcelain, Fustāt, Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art Collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin). fig. 14 – 10th-century Ding Ware sherds with lustre painting decoration (Photo: M. Xie). – 1. Ding Ware sherd, Fustāt, Egypt. – 2. Ding Ware sherds, Alcazaba de Almería, Spain. fig. 15 – Fanchang Kiln White Porcelain bowl, Manda, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin). fig. 16 – 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun Kiln White Porcelain sherds unearthed in Africa. – 1-3. 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun White Porcelain sherds, Fustāt Egypt (The Idemitsu Museum of Art Collection, Tokyo, Japan; Photo: D. Qin). – 4. An 11th-century Guangzhou Xicun White Porcelain sherd with painted decoration, Malindi Old Town site, Kenya (Photo: D. Qin).

gua ngc a n x i n fig. 1 – Modern reconstruction of the Belitung Ship (Photo: J. Tsantes and R. Harrell, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery). fig. 2 – Gold plate unearthed from the Belitung Shipwreck site (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection). fig. 3 – White bottle from the Belitung Shipwreck site (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection). fig. 4 – Changsha bowl with Bao Li inscriptions (Asian Civilisations Museum, Tang Shipwreck Collection). fig. 5 – Packing method on the Belitung ship: Guangdong jar used as container for smaller bowls (Photo: M. Flecker, courtesy of the Asian Civilisations Museum).

301

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

fig. 6 – Drawing of the Cirebon Shipwreck hull’s remains (Liebner 2014, fig. 3.2-7; drawing: Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd and D. Visnikar). fig. 7 – Green-glazed bowl with inscriptions (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-23; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd). fig. 8 – Green-glazed Lotus jars (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-27; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd). fig. 9 – Southeast Asian Fine Paste earthenware jar (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.2-199; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd). fig. 10 – Gold ornament (Liebner 2014, fig. 2.3-54; photo: the Ministry of Marine affairs and Cosmix Underwater Research Ltd).

joa n i ta v room fig. 1 – Map from The Christian Topography by Kosmas Indikopleustes, 6th century, Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine at Sinai (Egypt), Codex 1186 (fols. 66v-67r) (after Weitzman and Galavaris 1990, 52-62). fig. 2 – Map of the Byzantine Empire in 555 AD ( J. Vroom; G. Fontana). fig. 3 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the East of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1). fig. 4 – Distribution map of Late Roman Amphorae 1 (yellow dot) and of Aila/Aqaba amphorae (red dot) in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean ( J. Vroom; map after Tomber 2007, fig. 1). fig. 5 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the South of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1). fig. 6 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the West of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1). fig. 7 – Map of Byzantine finds from sites to the North of the Byzantine Empire ( J. Vroom; map after Mundell Mango 2009, fig. 1.1). fig. 8 – Distribution map of Byzantine amphora finds (among which the Ganos amphora) in Russia and in Scandinavia ( J. Vroom; map after Androshchuk 2013, fig. 30).

h agi t nol fig. 1 – Excavated and surveyed nodes in the research area (H. Nol). fig. 2 – Modern Ramla and its surroundings (H. Nol). fig. 3 – A schematic reconstruction of water streams in the research area (H. Nol). fig. 4 – A beachrock quarry for big millstones near Acre, Israel (E. Galili). fig. 5 – Basalt and marble in the research area (H. Nol). fig. 6 – Distribution of beachrock remains (H. Nol). fig. 7 – Distribution of marble vessels (H. Nol). fig. 8 – Distribution of decorative elements, columns and column elements from marble (H. Nol).

302

l i s t of f igu r e s

fig. 9 – Distribution of marble slabs, columns and column elements (H. Nol). fig. 10 – Distribution of grinding vessels made of basalt (H. Nol). fig. 11 – Cross-referencing marble vessels and basalt grinders (H. Nol). fig. 12 – Distribution of marble architecture in relation to streams (H. Nol). fig. 13 – Distribution of rotary querns in relation to streams (H. Nol). fig. 14 – Distribution of basalt and marble grinders in relation to streams (H. Nol). fig. 15 – Distribution of nodes exclusively dated to the 7th-8th or 9th-11th centuries (H. Nol). fig. 16 – Cross-referencing basalt querns with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol). fig. 17 – Cross-referencing beachrock querns with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol). fig. 18 – Cross-referencing marble with 7th or 9th-century pottery (H. Nol). fig. 19 – Cross-referencing marble with 9th-century pottery around Gedera (H. Nol). fig. 20 – Distribution of grinding objects around Ramla and Tel Ashdod (H. Nol).

sh a m i r & bagi nsk i fig. 1 – Map of the Medieval sites with textile remains (H. Nol). fig. 2 – Silk textiles, Caesarea (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 3 – Linen decorated with silk tapestry of swimming birds, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority – iaa). fig. 4 – Coloured pile carpet with symmetrical knots, Cave 38 (C. Amit, iaa). fig. 5 – Blue geometric motifs printed on ivory background, Cave 38 (C. Amit, iaa). fig. 6 – Silk weft-faced compound tabby, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 7 – Five silk fragments stitched together, Cave 38 (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 8 – Qasr el-Yahud and its vicinity (D. Shalem, Ostracon, Israel Nature and Parks Authority). fig. 9 – Egyptian Balsam seeds, Qasr el-Yahud (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 10 – Linen textile decorated with woolen brown band, Qasr el-Yahud (C. Amit, iaa). fig. 11 – Linen textile decorated with two bands of foliated tapestry, Qasr el-Yahud (C. Amit, iaa). fig. 12 – Linen textile with Arabic script, Wadi Murabba’at (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 13 – Linen textile with silk tapestry, Wadi Murabba’at (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 14 – Textile made of a S-spun linen warp and a Z-spun cotton weft, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 15 – Cotton textile decorated with blue and white grids, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 16 – Goat hair textile made by knitting, Mezad Zohar (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 17 – A low quality print in blue, Avdat (C. Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 18 – Mulham textile decorated with a delicate silk tapestry band, Coral Island (C. Amit, iaa). fig. 19 – A sleeve of a delicate mulham tunic, Coral Island (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority). fig. 20 – Resist-dyed red floral motifs on a beige background, Coral Island (T. Sagiv, Israel Antiquities Authority).

303

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

r a l f w i ech m a n n fig. 1a – Location of Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: R. Wiechmann). fig. 1b – Groß Strömkendorf. The extension of the settled area and the position of the trading centre, the graveyard and the harbour basin (after Zimmermann and Jöns 2017); (Graph: R. Kiepe, NIhK). fig. 2 – Groß Strömkendorf. Development of the trading centre, based on the distribution of pithouses and dendrochronologically dated wells (after Tummuscheit 2011, fig. 4 and 103) fig. 3 – Distribution of detector finds of coins in Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: S. Messal; map basis: C. Hartl-Reiter, LaKD MV, Landesarchäologie, Schwerin). fig. 4 – Groß Strömkendorf, Abbasid dirham, al-Mansur (caliph 754-775), mint: al-Basra (southern Iraq), 143 ah/ad 760 (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 5 – Distribution of hoards containing Islamic coins in Europe (after Kilger 2007). fig. 6 – Groß Strömkendorf, a selection of fragmented islamic dirhams (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 7 – Groß Strömkendorf, Abbasid fals, al-Faḍl ibn Rawh al-Muhallabī, governor from Ifrīqiya, mint: al-ʿAbbāsīya or Ifrīqiya (North Africa), 177 AH/AD 793 (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 8 – Distribution of sceattas in the North (Graph: R. Wiechmann). fig. 9 – Sceatta from Groß Strömkendorf, porcupine type, c. 720-740, minted in the southern Netherlands (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 10 – Distribution of porcupine sceattas (after Blackburn 1984, with additions). fig. 11 – Sceatta from Groß Strömkendorf, Wodan-monster type, c. 720-820, probably minted in Ribe (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 12 – Distribution of Wodan-monster sceattas (Graph: R. Wiechmann). fig. 13 – Groß Strömkendorf, Pippin the Short (752-768), denarius, mint: Dorestad (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 14 – Groß Strömkendorf, Ludwig the Pius (814-840), denarius, 814-822/823, mint: Venice (S. Suhr, Landamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). fig. 15 – Distribution of Carolingian coins in the north, minted before 814 (Graph: R. Wiechmann). fig. 16 – Distribution of mints of the coins from Groß Strömkendorf (Graph: R. Wiechmann). 1 – Ribe?; 2 – Northern Netherlands/Frisia; 3 – Dorestad; 4 – Southern Netherlands/the ’Big river’ region; 5 – Maas-area/Northern France?; 6 – Maasarea/Lower Rhine area/Frisia; 7 – Melle; 8 – Clermont-Ferrand?; 9 – Carcassonne; 10 – Venice; 11 – al-Andalus; 12 – Tugdha; 13 – al-‘Abbȃsȋya; 14 – Ifrȋqiya; 15 – Itil; 16 – Armȋnȋya; 17 – Arrȃn; 18 – al-Muhammadȋya; 19 – Āmul; 20 – Madȋnat as-salȃm; 21 – al-Kufa; 22 – Wȃsit; 23 – al-Basra; 24 – ash-Shȃsh; 25 – Balkh.

304

*

*

*

Abstracts *

List of abstracts for papers submitted to the workshop ‘Long-Distance Trade in Early Medieval Landscapes’, Hamburg, 20-21 September 2019, which are not included in this volume

* The routes in-between objects oscar aldred University of Cambridge In this talk I will discuss the various properties in objects that were produced through past mobili­ ties. Like the mechanisms of trade and exchange, these ‘mobile operations’ were fluid, emergent and messy. Starting with the premise that objects did not move themselves, but were carried or transported, I will explore what potential offerings an understanding of ‘object mobilities’ give archaeology. I will discuss what happens when archaeology considers not just the provenance of objects (i.e. where objects were produced and came from) but I will also examine how and along what routes they were moved or travelled. Foregrounding mobility in this discussion leads to some surprising insights. For example, while the understanding of why objects were moved might lead to discussions on the intentionality underwriting the narratives about the past we create (i.e. concerned with origin and destinations, for example), if we ask other questions regarding how they were moved (i.e. what means of transportation, and along what infrastructures) or along what routes they travelled (i.e. the landscapes through which objects moved, and through which political zones), we gain an understanding of other emergent properties contained within objects, hidden in plain sight, so to speak. In discussing the latter, we might find that some objects had multiple parts, and that their own and inter-connected histories were far more nuanced and complex than first realised. Thus, we can move the discussion beyond just the issues circulating around object origins and destinations. This discussion will draw on examples from Iceland and the UK, contextualised by the ‘mobile paradigm’ as it is re-articulated for archaeology.

305

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

Ceramics, exchange and cultural transformation: some comparative remarks on the material culture of al-Andalus, the Arabian-Persian Gulf, and the Far East, 7th-10th centuries jose c. carvajal lópez University of Leicester In this paper I present some reflections on how exchanges and cultural transformation are related – from the perspective of ceramics – in three distant locations of the early Islamic world (the 7th-10th centuries). These regions have the virtue of being peripheries of the main political centres (Cordoba in al-Andalus, Baghdad in the Middle East and selected locations away from Chang’an or Kyoto in the Far East), and thus act as places where the perspective of change is clearer. In the presentation I will borrow some concepts of the assemblage theory developed by the philosopher Giles Deleuze, and interpreted through the works of the New Materialists Miguel De Landa and, especially, Jane Bennet. With this theoretical toolbox, I will develop an approach to Islamization that is different from the traditionally usage of the word, very close to ‘conversion to Islam’. Islamization, in the context of my project, is not merely conversion, but the transformation of the cultural and political spheres of society by their historical engagement with the network of people, material, ideas and places that is usually called Islam. My presentation will be necessarily unbalanced in terms of the coverage that I give to the ceramic material culture of the different regions: I will cover exotic, regional and local wares in al-Andalus and the Arabian Gulf regions, but only exotic wares in the Far East. In the selected locations investigated in each place, I will assess the relationship between circulating wares (regional and exotic) and cultural change, as noted in local ceramics and other cultural practices. My aim is to argue that in each one of these contexts we can understand different instances of Islamization. All the three cases are determined by an assemblage of material culture that can be interpreted as an active, ‘vibrant’ part of the political community, which according to Bennett would not only be composed of people, but also of things. In this perspective, the exchange networks that connect different parts of the world in the early Islamic period contribute, at different scales, to Islamization, that is, to the creation of new socio-cultural entities which cannot be defined without their link to Islam, irrespective of the question if this link works on a larger or smaller scale.

* The Islamic Empire – changing patterns of trade and monetary flows stefan heidemann Universität Hamburg Trade and cultural relations are going along with a monetary flow. The late Sasanian Empire was connected via the Hephthalites in Central Asia with Sui and early T’ang China. This can be seen in

306

a b s t r ac t s

numerous Sasanian and Byzantine Coin finds in Central Asia and beyond in China. The exchange pattern with China changed after the Islamic conquest of Central Asia and at latest after battle of Talas 751 C.E. The battle stopped the westward expansion of the T’ang empire and allowed the Islamic empire to consolidate in Central Asia within the next 100 years. The production of regional currencies in Central Asia stopped while a central administration of minting imperial silver and gold was established. Nevertheless copper coinage in Central Asia exhibit traces of Chinese monetary traditions. While Central Asia ceased to be the main zone of trade, the sea route became more important for commercial contacts. The appreciation of Chinese goods, especially ceramics, in Abbasid Iraq was extraordinary high. But in the 9th and 10th century the trade went via the Indian Ocean. This new trade route can be traced by archaeological finds of coins and ceramics.

* Urbanization and long-distance trade and travel in Early Medieval Northern Europe. The case-study of Hedeby, Germany volker hilberg Museum für Archäologie Schloss Gottorf In the early middle ages tight relations and networks are developing in the North Sea and Baltic Sea basins between the different areas and realms after the decline of the Western Roman Empire. From the late 7th century AD onwards urbanization especially connected with a mainly seaborne long-distance trade of bulk commodities and exotic luxuries is coming back to the former Northwestern Roman provinces – but new harbours and markets are also developing further outside this cultural zone in Scandinavia and beyond. Due to its prominent location between the seas at Scandinavia’s resp. Denmark’s southern fringe and its long-lasting archaeological investigation and research the harbour town of Hedeby is a key site in understanding this phenomenon. In the lecture an outline of this place’s history and development from the early 9th onwards as a main nodal point for long-distance trade and manufacture in Viking period Scandinavia and medieval Europe is given. An astonishing large amount of written records from various traditions (Continental European Carolingian and German, Insular Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian Old Norse) enlarges our knowledge decisively – but also connections with the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic Caliphate are attested. Hedeby’s relations could be traced vividly in the archaeological material. Furthermore new archaeological research in material sciences provide us now with a better knowledge of travelling commodities, the supply of raw materials and newly introduced foreign techniques.

* 307

r ic h e s be yon d t h e hor i z on

When long-distance trade was not: the misunderstood export of East Mediterranean-Upper Mesopotamian silver to the Northern Lands in the 10th-early 11th centuries roman k. kovalev The College of New Jersey Coins are a peculiar source for the study of trade. On the one hand, their discovery as stray finds or in hoards may indicate commercial ties with other regions. On the other hand, their absence does not preclude the existence of trade with distant areas. What is more is that their discovery does not necessarily indicate trade with the use of coins. Coins could and did travel across great distances for reasons other than commerce. For this reason, scholars involved in the study of coins and trade need to be very careful when evaluating numismatic evidence or their absence. The present paper shall present a case study showing precisely how the finds of coins may be misinterpreted. Specifically, it examines hoards of Near Eastern dirhams and Byzantine miliaresia of the tenth-early eleventh centuries which were discovered in Northern and Northeastern Europe. It shows that their presence has nothing to do with trade but with martial activities of the Rus’ mercenaries in Byzantine armies. At the same time, it is argued that Northern Europe also had commercial relations with Near East and Byzantium during the same period, but this trade involved the exchange of items other than coins.  

* Entangling the global with the local: New perspectives on the circulation, consumption and valuation of long-distance trade items in southern Africa, 9th-12th centuries abigail j. moffett University of Cape Town Objects and technologies from the wider Indian Ocean rim, such as glass beads, cowrie shells (Monetaria annulus) and the technology of cloth production, appear in the archaeological record of southern Africa from the terminal first millennium. While often labelled as ‘exotic’, ‘luxury’ and ‘prestige’ goods, few analyses have explored how the values associated with these new materials and methods may have articulated with, become embedded in or transformed in new contexts of use. This paper addresses these questions through a contextual study of evidence of the use of glass beads and cowrie shells (Monetaria annulus) in the interior of southern Africa from the 9th to 12th centuries. In particular, I explore how the properties of these new materials, from colour and patina to shape, may have entangled their valuation within existing adornment practices. The implications of this for understanding value transfer, and particularly the concepts of luxury, prestige and exotic often attached to long-distance trade items, are further discussed.

308

a b s t r ac t s

Exploring the past of long-distance trade in Central Africa: Copper production and exchange networks in the 9th-14th centuries nicolas nikis Royal Museum for Central Africa & Université libre de Bruxelles The long-distance trade routes would have played a significant role in the socio-political history of Central Africa during the last 1000 years. However, the lack of sources predating the 19th century has prevented for a long time any detailed study of their history. Over the last decade, however, the amount of archaeological data as well as the development of cross disciplinary approaches and new tools allow assessing the evolution of exchange networks in Central Africa, and to explore their origin through material culture. In this respect, copper is particularly interesting since, considered as a highly valuable metal, it was produced in only a few regions, such as the Copperbelt (south-east Democratic Republic of Congo). While copper is produced and locally traded in Central Africa since, at least the 6th century CE, its production and trade dramatically increase during the 9th-14th-century period. The development of long-distance trade at that time is clearly demonstrated by the connections between the Copperbelt and areas south of the Zambezi, or by the first Indian Ocean coastal trade items on Central African sites. In that same period, various regions of Central Africa witnessed major socio-political and cultural changes, especially in connection with the rise of hierarchical societies. Together with other goods, the 9th-14th-century copper exchanges offer the opportunity to explore the origin of the major long-distance trade routes and their running. As such, they allow formulating hypotheses about the respective roles played by production centres and rising polities in such exchanges and their subsequent evolution.

309

*

*

*

Byzantine golden coin of Emperor Justinian i (r. 527-565) excavated in southern India (see detail in Vroom, fig. 3 on page 195 in this volume).

*

*

*

Index *

Abbasids 11-12, 16, 31, 40, 43, 45-49, 51-52, 56, 73, 111, 113, 137, 162, 206, 275-76, 293-94, 307 Aden, ʿAdan 19, 46-47, 51, 54-55, 58, 74, 113, 153, 168 Administration 21, 23, 40-42, 48, 50, 52, 56-58, 74, 106, 252, 307 Aegean 25, 155, 157, 163, 209 Africa 8, 10, 23, 26-28, 30, 95-96, 98100, 102-04, 106-07, 128, 130, 133, 150, 154-55, 176, 309 Eastern Africa 11-12, 25-27, 43, 71, 75, 78, 81, 83, 95-96, 98-99, 102, 107-08, 113, 119, 136, 153, 164, 166 Horn of Africa 67, 70, 151 North Africa 19, 30, 82, 102, 107, 153-56, 158, 164-65, 169, 176, 276, 280, 294 Southern Africa 11, 19, 23, 95, 108, 113, 308 African Red Slip Ware 154, 156-58, 168, 170 Agarwood, ʿ ūd 45, 55, 67-68, 7073, 76, 79, 81 Akhbār al-Sīn wa-l-Hind 72-73, 78, 133 Alagankulam 29, 50 Alexandria 157, 166 Amber 161, 165, 272, 281 Ambergris 54, 67-68, 70-73, 79-81 Amphorae 25, 151-58, 162-65, 16776, 178-79, 196, 200, 204, 211 Late Roman amphorae 15052, 154-57, 164-65, 167-68, 170, 173-74, 196 Aqaba 77, 111, 153-54, 164, 167-68, 174-75, 196 Arabia 47, 51-52, 67, 72, 77, 81-82 Saudi Arabia 47, 111 Arabian Peninsula 7, 51, 70, 76-77, 98, 130

Arabo-Islamic geography 7, 39-42, 48-49, 52, 56 Asia Minor 27, 238, 246-47 Avdat 239, 242-43, 252-53, 267 Baghdad, Baghdād 16, 40, 45, 58, 97-99, 133, 306 Baltic 16, 165, 178, 269-71, 273-81, 283, 307 Basalt (see also lava) 27, 30, 204-05, 207-15, 226, 228-31, 273 Basketry 237, 240, 243 Basra, al-Basra 11, 45-47, 49, 51-52, 58, 97, 275, 293, 298 Batu Hitam Shipwreck (see Belitung Shipwreck under shipwrecks) Bay of Bengal 43, 50, 72, 134 Beads 24, 138, 155, 158-59, 161, 164, 166, 278 Glass beads 19, 152, 155, 164, 167-68, 171-72, 175, 308 Belitung Shipwreck (see shipwrecks) Big Data 29 Birka 29, 150, 162-63, 171, 178 Black Sea 163 Boswellia sacra 150, 162-63, 171, 178 Bullayn, Bullīn 49-50, 58, 66 Burials 159, 162, 166, 177, 236-37, 239-40, 274, 281, 284 Byzantine Empire 9, 11-12, 25, 41, 150-51, 153-55, 157, 160-61, 164-68, 170, 172-73, 179, 19495, 197-99, 307 Byzantium 19, 25, 154, 157, 160-63, 165-66, 174, 245-46, 308 Caesarea 29, 210, 216, 235-37, 245, 260 Caliphate 11, 16, 40, 43, 45, 49, 113, 160, 162, 276

311

Camphor, kāfūr 54, 70-74, 79-81 Carbon-14 (C14) 75, 241, 243 Cargo 9-10, 26, 79, 104-05, 114, 12932, 135-38, 153, 156-57, 204. 211 Carolingians 16, 177, 279-81, 298, 307 Changsha Ware (see also Chinese ceramics) 9-10, 13-14, 25-26, 96, 100-06, 108-09, 111, 114, 121-23, 131-32, 136, 138, 144 China 9-15, 22-23, 25-27, 43-48, 52, 58, 63, 68-72, 75-76, 79-81, 83, 95-97, 99-100, 102, 104, 107, 113, 120, 130, 132-34, 136-37, 150-53, 164, 167, 245, 306-07 Chinese ceramics (see also Changsha Ware, Porcelain, Yue Ware) 9-10, 12, 25-26, 29, 80, 95-96, 100-01, 103-04, 107-08, 111-12, 136, 138 Christian Topography 149-51, 173, 194 Cirebon Shipwreck (see Shipwrecks) Cities 21-22, 31, 41, 43, 49, 99-100, 121, 133, 152-53, 166, 175, 271 Port cities 11, 47, 56, 72, 79, 132 Coins 18, 21, 24-25, 29, 138, 150-51, 154, 158-59, 161-62, 164-66, 168, 174, 176, 204, 208, 211, 237, 269-70, 272-81, 283, 29293, 298, 307-08 Coin dies 279 Coin hoards 19, 30, 171, 178, 204, 279 Copper coins 24, 26, 135, 15152, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169-71, 177, 276, 280, 307 Gold coins (see also solidi) 25, 74, 83, 152-53, 155, 159, 161, 164-65, 167, 169-71, 307

i n de x

Islamic coins 159, 162, 178-79, 204, 275-76, 280-81 Silver coins (see also dirhams, denarii) 21, 24, 83, 159, 165, 276 Coin weights 159, 165, 170 Copper (excl. coins) 9, 11, 13, 69, 76, 100, 132, 135-36, 138, 154-55, 158, 168, 173, 309 Coptic 158-59, 161, 240, 242 Constantinople 12, 16, 25, 150, 15966, 174, 179 Consumption 28, 163, 165, 212, 214-15, 308 Coral Island 235, 238, 243-46, 252, 267-68 Cordage 237, 240, 243, 250 Cotton (see also textiles) 27, 55, 23538, 240-46, 250-52, 264-65 Crafts, craft remains 18, 23, 30, 41, 77, 163, 270, 273 Danube 25 Denarii (see also coins) 273, 276, 279, 297 Denmark 160, 165, 171, 177-78, 270, 276-77, 279-80, 282, 307 al-Dīnawarī, Abū Hanīfa 72, 82 Ding Ware, Ding Kiln 104, 106, 108-09, 126-27 Diplomacy 12, 21-22, 95, 151, 154, 160, 166, 173 Dirhams (see also coins) 275-76, 279, 283, 293-94, 308 Distribution (e.g. of a market) 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-29, 132, 15052, 157, 163-64, 173, 176, 178, 203-05, 212, 214-16 Spatial distribution 11, 17, 19-20, 24, 26-27, 68-69, 72, 74, 8, 88, 105, 196, 200, 206, 210-12, 214, 226-31, 233, 236, 269, 272, 276-80, 282, 292-98 Dorestad 170, 272, 276-77, 279, 297-98 Du Huan 96, 98-99, 109, 113 Duan Chengshi 96, 99, 109 Economy 22-24, 50, 95, 166, 203, 205, 269, 272-73, 281 Economy, pre-industrial (see industry) Egypt 10-11, 19, 26-27, 58, 67, 77, 81,

98-101, 103-04, 107, 111-13, 122, 124-28, 149, 152-55, 159, 164, 166, 168, 173, 194, 209, 235-36, 238-39, 241-43, 24547, 262 Elites 10, 20-22, 40, 52, 68-69, 77, 156, 159-60, 163, 166, 270-71 England 24-25, 30, 160, 209, 272, 276-79 Entrepôt 10, 47, 75, 78-80, 99, 134, 152 Ethnography, ethno-archaeology 21, 235 Europe 20, 23-25, 31, 133, 136, 160, 162, 166, 177, 237, 240, 246, 273, 283. 293, 307 Northern Europe 23, 160-61, 204, 269, 273, 275, 281, 30708 Southern Europe 16, 25, 104, 156 Western Europe, NorthWestern Europe 16, 19, 22, 24, 31, 150, 155, 157-59, 166, 171, 270, 275-76, 279, 281 Exchange 12, 17, 20, 23, 137, 150, 153, 155, 157, 159-60, 164-66, 173-74, 203-04, 215-16, 269, 271-74, 305-09 Exchange Systems 10, 19, 22, 150, 157-58, 161, 164-66, 177, 205-06, 214 Fairs 19-20, 173, 203 Fatimids 11, 16, 73, 206 Five Dynasties, the 16, 96, 101, 106, 129, 136 France 18, 30, 101, 157-58, 160, 169, 176-77, 209, 276, 278, 280, 298 Frankincense, lubān 67-69, 72-76, 78-79, 81-83, 174 Frisia 9, 16, 159, 269, 272, 274, 27681, 298 Furs 161, 165, 272, 281 Fustāt 10, 14, 19, 21, 26, 29, 77, 10007, 111, 122, 124-28, 236, 238, 243-44, 252 Geniza 19, 21, 30, 71, 204, 237, 245 Geography, ancient 19, 470-42, 47, 49, 51, 56-57, 97, 149, 174 Germany 16, 23-25, 159-60, 162, 165,

312

170-71, 177, 209, 269, 271-73, 277-79, 282, 307 GIS 19, 205 Glass 10, 13, 18-19, 24-25, 30, 75-76, 135, 138, 151-57, 162-64, 16674, 204, 208, 216, 237, 270, 272-73 Glass beads (see beads) Glazed pottery 9-11, 13-14, 25, 96, 100, 102-03, 105-06, 108, 114, 121, 125, 131, 145-46, 162-63, 165, 172, 175, 179 Gold 9, 13, 54, 75-77, 135-36, 138, 142, 148, 151, 154-55, 161-62, 166, 170-71, 177, 270 Gold coins (see coins) Groß Strömkendorf 24, 29, 269, 273-81, 291-98 Guangdong 11, 13, 15, 25, 96, 100, 103, 105-06, 108-09, 125, 131-32, 138 Guangzhou 10-11, 29, 78, 97-98, 100, 102, 109, 118, 128, 132-34 Haithabu, Hedeby 160, 162, 171, 271, 274, 277, 282, 307 Hajj (see also pilgrimage) 77 Harbours 10, 23, 156-57, 177, 205, 271, 273, 291, 307 Huanghua Sida Ji 97, 102, 109, 113, 118-19, 133 Hunan 9, 13, 25, 96, 100, 106, 10809, 121, 131, 136 Ibn Khurradādhbih 28, 39-43, 46, 48-49, 51, 56, 58, 133 In situ 153, 205, 207, 214 Incense 27, 45, 50, 67-72, 74-79, 81, 88 Incense burner 50, 69, 71, 74-79, 83, 89, 91-94 India 10-11, 19, 23, 27, 31, 44, 4647, 50, 52, 70, 72-73, 81, 107, 133-34, 137, 149-54, 158, 164, 166-67, 174, 178, 243, 24547, 253 Indo-Pacific 129, 135 Indian Ocean 10-11, 19, 23-24, 27-28, 39-40, 42-52, 55-56, 59, 63-65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 78-81, 95-96, 99-107, 111-12, 120, 133, 149, 151-54, 158, 166, 196

i n de x Indonesia 9, 13, 15, 26, 99, 105, 129-30, 135 Industry 22, 103, 163, 208, 212, 237 Pre-industrial 19, 21, 68 Inscriptions 24-25, 105, 114, 131, 136, 144-45, 156, 159, 161, 163, 169-70, 178, 205, 208, 238, 275, 277, 280 Intan Shipwreck (see shipwrecks) Interregional (see regional) Iraq 10-12, 21, 41, 43, 46-48, 52, 77, 97, 111, 244-47, 275, 280-81, 293, 307 Iran (see also Persia) 10, 19, 21, 23, 40, 43, 69, 72, 74, 77-78, 81, 89, 91-93, 101-02, 111-12, 24447, 280-81 Ireland 16, 25, 150, 155-57, 160, 165, 169 Israel/Palestine 23, 27, 29-30, 155, 204-07, 209-11, 214, 216, 225, 235-37, 239-40, 243-47 Italy 209, 280 Janów Pomorski 271, 277, 282 Japan 25, 70, 81, 100-01, 103, 107, 124, 126, 128, 133, 152, 164, 167, 175 Java 10, 26, 97, 99, 102, 105, 107, 129, 132, 135-36 Jia Dan 96-98, 109, 133-34 Judean Desert 235-36, 240 Kenya 26, 70, 75, 98-101, 104, 107, 111-13, 122, 124-25, 127-28 Kiev 25, 29, 160, 162-63, 166, 172, 177, 179 Kilns 9-11, 18, 96, 100, 102-04, 106, 108, 109-10, 121, 126-27, 13132, 135-36, 138, 153, 204 Kiln sites 25, 100, 104, 121, 132 Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik 28, 39-52, 55-58, 63-64, 66, 133 Lamu Archipelago 75, 98, 101, 104, 113 Lava (see also basalt) 21, 24, 209 Linen (see also textiles) 173, 23536, 238-45, 247, 250-51, 260, 263-64 Local 10-11, 20, 23, 26-27, 42, 44, 48, 55, 67, 70, 74-75, 77, 79, 101, 108, 131, 135-36, 162, 173,

175, 203, 205, 208, 211-12, 23537, 240-43, 245-47, 270-71, 280-81, 306, 308-09 Long-distance (e.g. trade, exchange, movement, distribution, relations) 9-12, 19-20, 22-24, 26, 28-29, 46, 51, 107, 129, 150, 157, 162, 164-66, 177, 203-04, 269-70, 272, 275-76, 281, 307-09 Looms 236, 238-39, 242-43, 248 Loom weights 8, 18 Lustre Ware 11-12, 104, 127 Luxuries, luxury goods 20-22, 2728, 45, 67-69, 76-77, 79, 164, 166, 238, 245, 281, 307-08 Malay 107, 134-35 Manda 11, 100-01, 103-04, 111-12, 127 Marble 18, 27, 161, 204-05, 207-16, 226-30, 232-33 Maritime (e.g. trade, transportation, space) 9, 12, 28-29, 41-44, 47, 49, 51-52, 58, 66, 78, 95-97, 99-100, 103, 105, 107, 113, 120, 129-30, 132-34, 136-37, 152, 206, 211, 247, 271, 274 Market (as an event or space) 1920, 23, 31, 68, 156, 173-74, 203, 271, 273 Market (as economy) 22, 29, 70, 107, 132-33, 136, 247, 273, 307 Marketplace 19, 21-22, 26, 271-72 Marmara 25, 162, 210, 215-16 Mastic 67, 70, 81 Medieval 19, 27, 30, 56, 68-74, 77, 79, 150, 160, 177, 209, 236-37, 239-41, 243-47, 259, 307 Early Medieval 10-12, 23-24, 71, 150, 160, 209, 235, 245, 269, 273, 279, 307 Mediterranean 12, 16, 21, 24-25, 31, 43-44, 51, 57, 67, 70, 81, 104, 149-52, 154-59, 161, 164-66, 169-70, 176-78, 206, 209, 211, 242, 245, 308 Merchants (see traders) Merovingian Dynasty 16, 158, 272 Mesopotamia (see also Iraq) 40, 67, 75, 82, 151, 308 Military 12, 23, 97-98, 150, 160, 271

313

Mints 18, 24, 159, 155, 174, 177, 269, 275-80, 282, 293-98, 307 Nanjing 27, 29, 69, 75, 83, 152, 167 Networks 22, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51-52, 65-66, 79, 99, 107, 153, 155, 271, 306 Social Network Analysis 19, 205-06 Ningbo 11, 29, 102, 106, 109 Northern Europe (see Europe) Novgorod 162-63, 172, 177-78, 280 Palestine (see Israel/Palestine) Persia (see also Iran) 9, 11, 13, 40-42, 58, 80, 98-100, 135, 154, 165 Persian Gulf 11-12, 43, 46, 69, 9799, 102, 107, 119, 133-34, 137, 149, 151-52, 306 Petrography 18 Pilgrimage 77, 95, 152, 166, 173, 239-40, 245 Pilgrim flask 153, 159, 168 Piracy 24, 44, 160 Pliny the Elder 68, 82 Poland 161, 71, 277-78, 282 Porcelain (see also Chinese ceramics) 9-11, 13-14, 25, 54, 68, 96, 100, 104-06, 108, 126-29, 136 Ports 10-12, 19, 26, 41, 46-47, 50-52, 69, 74, 78-79, 99-100, 102, 104, 106-08, 129, 132-34, 136, 149, 151, 153-54, 157, 163-64, 246 Port cities (see cities) Pottery 10-12, 18, 20, 24-26, 28, 75, 78, 83, 94, 101, 105, 131, 150, 153-57, 162, 164-65, 172-74, 176, 178, 194-111 Pre-industrial (see industrial) Prices 20, 22, 28, 74, 203 Production 8, 10, 18, 20-22, 24-27, 29-30, 77, 79, 82, 100, 102-04, 106, 108, 129, 137, 152-53, 155, 162-63, 166, 173, 179, 203-05, 210-11, 216, 236-37, 242, 24546, 281, 307-09 Provenance 13, 17-21, 24-25, 27-28, 131-32, 135, 151, 179, 203, 20506, 209, 211, 216, 236, 244, 246, 305 Qarantal 235, 237

i n de x Qasr el-Yahud, Qasr al-Yahūd 235, 238-40, 245, 250-51, 262-63 Quarries 18, 205, 207, 209-10, 212, 215, 217, 225 Qudāma b. Jaʿfar 41-42, 57 (al-)Qulzum 43, 46-47, 63 Qumran 235, 241 Rādhānite merchants 41, 43-45, 47, 49, 51, 54-55, 57-58, 66 Ramla, al-Ramla 29, 206-08, 21216, 224, 233, 244 Raw materials 18, 21, 26-27, 135-36, 152, 155, 161, 164, 166, 20506, 209, 211, 213-14, 216, 243, 307 Recycle 27-28, 153, 204-07, 212-15 Red Sea 11, 28, 43, 47, 51-52, 66, 71, 149-53, 158, 164, 196, 243 Regional 19-22, 27, 29, 41, 137, 163-64, 173-74, 203, 205, 216, 270, 306-07 Interregional 19-22, 24, 27, 29, 173, 203, 214-15 Ribe 29, 160, 171, 275, 277, 279, 28182, 284, 296, 298 Rice 45, 48, 52, 54, 98 Risk management 203 Rivers 10, 19-20, 23, 41, 44, 96-97, 100, 104, 106, 110, 132, 15860, 162, 165, 176, 207, 214-15, 239, 272, 275-77, 281, 298 Rhine 25, 158-59, 165, 272, 276-80, 298 Roman Empire 19, 98-99, 149-51, 155, 164, 173, 175, 210-11, 241, 245-46, 270, 272-73, 307 Late Roman amphorae (see amphorae) Routes 17, 19-20, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 39-41, 43-47, 49-52, 57-58, 64, 66, 77-78, 95, 97-100, 102, 107, 118-19, 131-34, 137, 152, 157-58, 160, 162, 165-66, 174, 176, 204-05, 214-15, 236, 269-70, 272, 276-77, 305, 307, 309 Sea routes 20, 28, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51-52, 58, 96-97, 99, 107, 131, 133-34, 149, 152, 157, 307 Russia 16, 25, 150, 152, 160-63, 165, 171-72, 174, 177-78, 200, 275-76, 281

Samarkand 152, 166-67 Samarra, Sāmarrāʾ 8, 10, 14, 40, 111 Sandalwood 55, 67, 70-71, 74, 79-81 Sasanians 41-42, 51-52, 151-52, 165, 175, 306-07 Scandinavia 16, 21, 24-25, 30, 150, 161, 163-64, 166, 178, 200, 209, 269, 278, 281, 307 Sceattas (see also coins) 276-80, 282, 295-97 Schuby 277-78, 282 Seafarers 44 Serçe Limani (see also shipwrecks) 204, 209 Shanga 11, 29, 75, 100-01, 103, 11112, 122, 124-25 Ships 10, 26, 46, 73, 79, 83, 98-99, 102, 105, 129-37, 139, 142, 153, 156-57, 159, 177, 218, 274 Shipwrecks (see also Serçe Limani) 9, 19, 26, 96-97, 101-02, 104-05, 107, 129, 137, 153, 177, 204, 211 Belitung Shipwreck 9-10, 13, 15, 26, 29, 102-05, 114, 121, 123, 125, 129-34, 137-38, 14243 Cirebon Shipwreck 26, 29, 103, 105, 123, 125, 129, 135-36, 138, 145 Intan Shipwreck 105 al-Shihr 10, 69, 72-74, 77-78, 80, 94, 111-12 Silk (see also textiles) 21, 23, 25, 2728, 54, 75-76, 136, 152, 161-62, 164, 166, 173, 177, 235-39, 241, 244-47, 250, 260-61, 264, 267, 281 Silk Road 9, 12, 95, 136, 151 Silver (excl. coins) 9, 11, 13, 76, 105, 135-36, 138, 159, 161-63, 16566, 168, 170-74, 273, 275-76, 308 Silver coins (see coins) Sino-African interaction 96, 101, 108 Sīrāf 10-11, 29, 69, 72, 74, 76-79, 83, 94, 99, 101-02, 104, 11112, 134 Slaves 25, 107, 161, 165-66, 203, 281 Slavs 165, 271, 274, 278-9, 281 Social networks analysis (see networks)

314

Softstone 69, 77-79, 90-91, 94 Solidi (see also coins) 155, 159, 161, 169-70, 174, 178, 272 Song Dynasty 16, 75, 96, 106 Soumak 238, 246, 249 Spain 19, 127, 153, 157-58, 165, 16970, 209, 276, 280 Spatial distribution (see distribution) Spolia 204, 210 Spin direction 235-36, 238, 240-46, 248, 251-52, 264 Stoneware 11, 13-15, 102 Stratigraphy 205, 208, 275 Sweden 30, 150, 160-63, 165, 171, 178, 200, 270, 275, 279, 282 Syria 27, 82, 135, 152, 154-55, 204, 209-10, 238, 245-47 Tabby 236-38, 240-41, 243, 246, 248-51, 261 Tablewares 10-11, 13, 25, 151, 16465, 173 Tang Dynasty 10-11, 16, 78, 96-99, 101, 105-06, 110, 113, 129-34, 136-37, 151, 306-07 Tanzania 26, 69, 74, 98, 100, 102, 111-13, 154, 164 Teak, sāj 10, 45, 55, 83, 130 Textiles (see also cotton, linen, silk, wool) 18, 21, 24, 26-28, 55, 136, 152, 158, 164, 166, 216, 235-48, 250-52, 260, 263-67 Traders, merchants (see also Rādhānite merchants) 11, 19-20, 22-24, 28, 44, 69, 72-76, 78-80, 98-100, 129, 131, 133-34, 136-37, 149, 151, 153-54, 160, 162, 166, 203, 237, 271-72, 274, 276, 280 Transportation 19-20, 25-26, 29, 67, 106, 132, 152, 203-04, 206, 211, 215, 276, 305 Travellers 42, 44, 95-96, 98, 149, 161, 207, 281 Turkey 153-54, 156-58, 164, 20405, 210 Ukraine 25, 160-62, 165, 171-72 Umayyads 16, 22, 31, 71, 111, 206, 276 Unguja Ukuu 27, 29, 69, 74, 100, 102, 111-12, 154, 168

i n de x Urbanism, urbanization 21-22, 30, 132, 271, 307 Venice 29, 161, 279, 297-98 Vikings 16, 160, 162, 270-71 Viking age 24, 160, 273, 281, 307 Vikings in Byzantium 160, 162 Wadi Murabba'at 235, 241, 264 Wine 25, 151-53, 156-57, 163-66, 173 Wood 10, 13, 20, 44-45, 54-55, 69, 83, 98, 130, 156, 159, 163, 170, 177, 216, 236, 248, 273, 281

Wool (see also textiles) 235-38, 24047, 250, 263 Workshops (of crafts) 11, 25, 77, 153-54, 162, 210, 270

Yue Ware (see also Chinese ceramics) 9-11, 13-14, 25-26, 95-96, 100-06, 108, 110, 112, 123-24, 131, 135, 138

Xin Tang shu 99, 110, 133 Xing Kiln White Porcelain 10, 13, 96, 104, 106, 108, 110, 131, 138

Zafar 78, 168, 175, 83, 153 Zanj (land of the; al-Zanj; Swahili coast) 43, 46-47, 58, 73 Zanzibar 27, 74-75, 102, 154, 164, 168 Zhejiang 9, 11, 13, 25, 96, 102-03, 108, 110, 131 Zohar Fort, Mezad Zohar 235, 24142, 246-47, 264-66

al-Yaʿqūbī 42, 57 Yemen 10-11, 19, 49, 55, 57-58, 69-72, 74-78, 81, 89, 111-13, 152-53, 164, 168, 243, 246

315

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es »i«

on of studies by key scholars in the field is on the material culture stern Mediterranean during Medieval and Post-Medieval times. ncompasses archaeological remains of the Byzantine Empire, the tes, the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire. The volume still little known territory in archaeology, which makes it essential g for scholars and a larger audience alike.

gs together a pivotal generation, seeking to provide millenium and a half with new voices.» – r ich a r d hodges – *

Contributions by n et – be at e böh l e n dor f-a r sl a n nçois – a l e x a n dr a g a ba-va n donge n l i – sau ro ge l ich i – de bor a h h a r l a n fot i n i kon dy l i – n i kos d. kon togi a n n is ou lou – de m et r a pa pa n i kol a-ba k i rt z i d – l a r issa se di kova – e dna j. st e r n i ta v room – yona wa k sm a n *

m. p.m a. s .i.

m e di e va l a n d p os t-m e di e va l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rc h a eol og y se r i e s i

V ROOM ( e d. ) M E DI E VA L A N D POS T-M E DI E VA L CE R A M IC S

di e va l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rc h a eol og y se r i e s i Series editor: Joanita Vroom

M E D I E VA L A N D P O S T- M E D I E VA L

CE R AM ICS

I N T H E E A ST ER N M EDIT ER R A N E A N – fact a n d f ict ion – *

edi t ed by joa n i ta v room

9782503565125

9

977 88 2 25 05 30 35 65 65 51 122 5 5

MR Ware bowl (ca. mid 13th-14th c.) from Butrint (photo J. Vroom)

H

F

The focus in this varied collection of studies by key scholars in the field is on the material culture (particularly ceramics) of the eastern Mediterranean during Medieval and Post-Medieval times. The scope of the contributions encompasses archaeological remains of the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic World, the Crusader States, the Republic of Venice and the Ottoman Empire. The volume offers a state of the art of an often still little known territory in archaeology, which makes it essential reading for scholars and a larger audience alike.

*

isbn 978. 2 .503 .56512 .5

316

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es »i i«

a l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eol ogy se r i e s i i ries editor: Joanita Vroom

hors’ recognition that incorporating archaeological, material e with culinary history is of paramount importance mprehensive and textured comprehension ls and mealtimes in the past.» m a ry c . be a r d – *

Contributions by a va n w i n t e r – m a ry c . be a r d c a rvaja l lópez – a l e x a n dr a va n donge n br i e l i – m igu e l j i m é n ez pu e rta s ci l i a moi n e – m a rt e n va n n i eu w koop ost e n – a l essa n dr a pecci – k at e l i n post a na sta si a sh a pi ro – e l l i t z av e l l a – va n v e r rocch io – joa n i ta v room a n i jz e n door n – f i l i z y e n işe h i r l ioğlu * 9782503575797

9

977 88 2 25 05 03 3 5 57 75 577 99 7 7

val cook (Maciejowksi Bible), courtesy The Morgan Library.

V ROOM , WA K SM A N & VA N OOS T E N * M E DI E VA L M A S T E RCH E F

studies by key scholars in the field is on cuisine and foodh-western Europe during Medieval and Post-Medieval times the contributions encompasses archaeological and historical g techniques, diet practices and table manners in the ByzanCrusader States, Medieval and Renaissance Europe and the a state of the art of an often still hardly known territory in kes it essential reading for scholars and a larger audience alike.

m. p.m a. s .ii.

H

m e di e va l a n d post-m e di e va l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eol ogy se r i e s i i

MEDI EVAL MASTERCHEF

a rch a eologic a l a n d h istor ic a l per spect i v es on e a st er n cu isi n e a n d w est er n foodways

edi t ed by joa n i ta v room yona wa k sm a n & roos va n oost en

F

The focus in this varied collection of studies by key scholars in the field is on cuisine and foodways in the Mediterranean and north-western Europe during Medieval and Post-Medieval times (ca. 6th-20th centuries). The scope of the contributions encompasses archaeological and historical perspectives on eating habits, cooking techniques, diet practices and table manners in the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic World, the Crusader States, Medieval and Renaissance Europe and the Ottoman Empire. The volume offers a state of the art of an often still hardly known territory in gastronomical archaeology, which makes it essential reading for scholars and a larger audience alike.

*

isbn 978. 2 .503 .57579.7

317

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es »i i i«

e di eva l m e di t er r a n e a n a rch a eology ser i es i i i Series editor: Joanita Vroom

*

Contributions by gu ez pe i na do – a na c a br e r a-l a f u e n t e noa m sh a l e m – scot t r e dfor d v e r a-si mon e sch u lz – n i kol aos v ry z i dis a rt i n i a n i-r e be r – e l e na pa pa stav rou po gn isci – dick r a n kou y m j i a n *

V RY Z I DI S ( e d. ) * T H E H I DDE N L I F E OF T E X T I L E S

g collection of studies by key scholars in the field is on textiles and iterranean contexts (and beyond) during medieval and post-medieval ope of the contributions encompasses archaeological, anthropologives on a great variety of subjects, such as textiles from the Byzantine mic World (e.g. Spain, Mamluk Egypt, Seljuk Anatolia), as well as the s in Italy, the Ottoman Empire, Armenia and Ethiopia. The volume rt of the often still hardly known area of study of textiles as nd cultural sources of information, which makes it essential reading for scholars and a larger audience alike.

m. p.m a. s .iii.

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es i i i

T H E HI DDE N LI FE OF

T E XT I LES

I N T H E M E D I E VA L A N D E A R LY MODER N M EDI T ER R A N E A N

edi t ed by n i kol aos v ry zi dis

9782503587738

978 2 503 58773 8   

Detail of the ‘Vatopediou phelonion’, Vatopediou Monastery, Mt. Athos

H

F

The focus in this wide-ranging collection of studies by key scholars in the field is on textiles and their functions in various Mediterranean contexts (and beyond) during medieval and post-medieval times (ca. 10th-19th c.). The scope of the contributions encompasses archaeological, anthropological and art historical perspectives on a great variety of subjects, such as textiles from the Byzantine Empire and the Medieval Islamic World (e.g. Spain, Mamluk Egypt, Seljuk Anatolia), as well as the production and use of textiles in Italy, the Ottoman Empire, Armenia and Ethiopia. The volume offers a state-of-the-art of the often still hardly known area of study of textiles as historical and cultural sources of information, which makes it essential reading for scholars and a larger audience alike.

*

isbn 978. 2 .503 .58773 .8

318

*

*

*

m e di eva l a n d post-m e di eva l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es »v«

a l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eology se r i es i v ries editor: Joanita Vroom

*

Contributions by ust i n ch i ng ho – nata l i e kon t n y m agu e r- gi l lon – h agi t nol – da sh u qi n – joa n i ta v room ch m a n n – gua ngc a n x i n

*

9782503599816

9

3 3 5 59 99 98 811 6 6 977 88 2 25 05 0

dong jar used as container for smaller bowls during transport.

NOL * R ICH E S BEYON D T H E HOR I ZON – LONG -DI S TA NCE T R A DE

e perspectives on long-distance trade between Europe, the Africa, India and China during the Early Medieval period. al insights presented in this volume are without exception more than once astonishing. The goods which travelled beunder discussion (ca. 6th to 12th centuries) include pottery s, metal, lava millstones, glass, marble columns, beads, and e of the contributions includes the wide-ranging economic changing patterns of long-distance trade in the Byzantine y to Africa, the Near East and Europe, the information on ecks in the Java Sea, the reconstruction of an incense trade ribution of textiles as well as stone objects in the Middle East this volume underline that the movement of objects in Early t only reflect mechanisms of exchange, but also imply social Thus, Riches Beyond the Horizon sheds compelling light on a and much more interconnected than has often been assumed.

m. p.m a. s . i v.

H

m e di e va l a n d p ost-m e di e va l m e di t e r r a n e a n a rch a eol og y se r i e s v

BYZA NTINE

ATTICA

a n u r ba n a n d ru r a l l a n dsc a pe i n t h e e a r ly a n d m i ddle by z a n t i n e per iod 4t h – 12t h cen t u ry a d

e lisav et tsav e l l a

F

This book offers an archaeological and historical discussion of human settlement in the Greek region of Attica during Early and Middle Byzantine times (4th to 12th centuries). In contrast to the Byzantine monuments in urban Athens, rural Attica has not enjoyed much scholarly attention, lacking until now a regional study of Byzantine sites, let alone that much has been written on settlements, road networks, and defence structures. Byzantine Attica sets out to undertake that task, using the many, sometimes difficult accessible archaeological reports which appeared in the wake of the building activity in the region during the late 20th century. Providing both a regional perspective and a gazetteer of sites, the book is a major contribution to the understanding of human activity in Attica during the Early and Middle Byzantine period.

*

to a ppe a r i n 2022

319

.

ES MEDIE ERI VA

.S

N EA

Y

*

.

EDITERR AN LM VA

.

D POST MED AN IE

.

*

L

ARCHAEOLO G

*

. .