An Islamic coffin discovered in the church of Maria Spilaiotissa near the old Seljuk capital of Konya in central Anatolia bears the following Greek inscription: “Here lies the descendant of men born in the purple, Michael Amiraslan, the grandson of the great-grandson of the blessed emperor born in the purple, Kyr John Komnenos Maurozomes, the son of the humble John Komnenos.”.

The present study deals with the oldest surviving written reactions of Byzantine and Christian Oriental authors to the emergence of the Seljuk Turks in the Middle East and Asia Minor, mainly focusing on recognizable elements of a preexisting collective knowledge concerning barbarian nomads in general and the Turks in particular, as well as on prevailing modes of perception and mentalities reflected in these texts. The first part, after providing a survey of the extant material and the particularities of each tradition (...) in Greek, Syriac, Armenian and Latin, examines the account of the late eleventh-century historian John Scylitzes in comparison with that of the twelfth-century Syrian writer Michael Syrus. The former appears to be a diligent compilation of ancient ethnographic stereotypes with pieces of historical information originating from the official Muslim version of Seljuk court ideology. Michael Syrus' report, instead, stays closer to ancient ethnographic traditions enriched with elements from Turkic myths of origin and biblical allusions. In general, one realizes the author's intention to explain the Turks' intrusion into the Muslim World through a rational interpretation of mythical features with the aid of religious, political and ethnological arguments. The second part concerns itself with Byzantine perceptions of early Seljuk institutions, in particular the notion of an independent Seljuk sultanate on Anatolian soil, which allegedly came into existence in about 1080. A re-examination of Anna Comnena and other relevant sources clearly shows that modern scholars who accept these views as historical facts widely ignore the highly confused and anachronistic use of terms, names and facts in Anna's account, which in retrospect describes the situation of 1080 through the prism of the realities of about 1140. (shrink)

The present study deals with the oldest surviving written reactions of Byzantine and Christian Oriental authors to the emergence of the Seljuk Turks in the Middle East and Asia Minor, mainly focusing on recognizable elements of a preexisting collective knowledge concerning barbarian nomads in general and the Turks in particular, as well as on prevailing modes of perception and mentalities reflected in these texts. The first part, after providing a survey of the extant material and the particularities of each tradition (...) in Greek, Syriac, Armenian and Latin, examines the account of the late eleventh-century historian John Scylitzes in comparison with that of the twelfth-century Syrian writer Michael Syrus. The former appears to be a diligent compilation of ancient ethnographic stereotypes with pieces of historical information originating from the official Muslim version of Seljuk court ideology. Michael Syrus' report, instead, stays closer to ancient ethnographic traditions enriched with elements from Turkic myths of origin and biblical allusions. In general, one realizes the author's intention to explain the Turks' intrusion into the Muslim World through a rational interpretation of mythical features with the aid of religious, political and ethnological arguments. The second part concerns itself with Byzantine perceptions of early Seljuk institutions, in particular the notion of an independent Seljuk sultanate on Anatolian soil, which allegedly came into existence in about 1080. A re-examination of Anna Comnena and other relevant sources clearly shows that modern scholars who accept these views as historical facts widely ignore the highly confused and anachronistic use of terms, names and facts in Anna's account, which in retrospect describes the situation of 1080 through the prism of the realities of about 1140. (shrink)

Das gesamte Schriftgut, das aus der Korrespondenz zwischen dem byzantinischen Kaiserhof und Adressaten des arabisch-islamischen Kulturkreises hervorgegangen ist, kann für den modernen Betrachter nur noch über eine Zwischenstufe sekundärer Berichterstattung in narrativen Quellen erschlossen werden. Das bedeutet, daß bei sämtlichen Überlegungen, die zu diesem Briefverkehr anzustellen sind, auf kein einziges Originalschriftstück, ja nicht einmal auf eine diplomatische Kopialüberlieferung in einem Aussteller- oder Empfängerregister, einem Chartular oder ähnlichem rekurriert werden kann. Und dennoch, seit sich das arabische Staatswesen in den ehemaligen byzantinischen (...) Provinzen Syriens, Ägyptens und Nordafrikas um die Mitte des 7. Jahrhunderts zu etablieren begann, ist vornehmlich aus historiographischen Quellen byzantinischer und arabischer Provenienz ein kontinuierlicher Nachrichtenfluß über diplomatische Kontakte und den Austausch schriftlicher Noten zwischen den beiden Seiten zu konstatieren, dessen letzter eindrucksvoller Niederschlag ein in arabischer Übersetzung überliefertes Schreiben Kaiser Manuels II. an einen mamlùkischen Sultan vom Frühjahr 1411 ist. Dabei ist dem Zeitraum, dem die folgenden Ausführungen gewidmet sind und der konventionell als das Zeitalter der makedonischen Dynastie (867–1025) bezeichnet wird, ein eigentümlicher und gewissermaßen herausragender Charakter eigen, sowohl was die Fülle des überlieferten Nachrichtenmaterials als auch was die Vielschichtigkeit und Komplexität der im einzelnen zu beobachtenden Kontakte anbelangt. (shrink)