- States, akin to individuals, require suitable attire to assert their position in the world, portraying themselves as legitimate governing entities.
- In pre-modern eras, state legitimacy was established through a combination of practical leadership skills and perceived divine approval.
- This inquiry focuses on the Umayyad state's public image during the reigns of early caliphs Muʿawiya b. Abi Sufyan (661–680) and ʿAbd al‐Malik b. Marwan (685–705).
- The examination distinguishes between two forms of identity expression: public manifestations like coins, monumental architecture, and official documents bearing the caliphal seal, and more intimate expressions such as court poetry directed at local elites.
- While the analysis prioritizes coinage evidence, it begins with an overview of the broader historical context.
The Evolution of Imperial Governance: Byzantine Influence on Early Islamic Rule
As the early Muslims rose to power in the late antiquity world, they found themselves inheriting two well-established traditions of imperial governance. This essay explores the profound impact of the Byzantine tradition on the early Islamic state's visual culture and governance practices.
Byzantine Imperial Tradition:
- The power of the Byzantine emperor was upheld through a series of annual religious ceremonies held at holy sites.
- The dissemination of the imperial image throughout the empire served to embody the ruler's presence and command adoration.
- Byzantine rulers employed titulature and iconography infused with religious and imperial symbolism to reinforce their pivotal role in the well-being of their subjects.
Inheritance by the Early Muslims:
- The rapid military conquests of the early Muslims from the 630s onwards led to their acquisition of the physical infrastructure and skilled labor of the Byzantine imperial system.
- The material culture of the Umayyad era, according to scholar Terry Allen, was largely shaped by the resources inherited from late antiquity.
Umayyad Art as an Extension of Late Antiquity:
- Terry Allen suggests that Umayyad art was essentially a branch of late antique art, constrained by the availability of existing resources and artistic practices.
- The Umayyad era saw the continuation of Byzantine-inspired artistic traditions in monumental architecture, coinage, and other visual representations.
Emergence of Islamic Art:
- The distinct Islamic artistic repertoire, separate from late antique influences, began to emerge with the succession of the Abbasids after the Umayyad era.
- Islamic art gradually evolved to incorporate diverse cultural influences, marking a departure from the Byzantine legacy and paving the way for new artistic expressions.
The Byzantine tradition of imperial governance profoundly influenced the early Islamic state's visual culture and governance practices. While the Umayyad era witnessed the continuation of late antique artistic traditions, the subsequent Abbasid era heralded the emergence of a distinct Islamic artistic identity. Understanding these dynamics sheds light on the complex evolution of imperial governance and visual culture in the Islamic world.
- The early Muslims, as conquerors of the late antiquity world, inherited two sophisticated traditions of imperial governance, notably the Byzantine.
- The Byzantine tradition supported imperial power through annual religious ceremonies, widespread dissemination of the imperial image, and the use of religious and imperial symbolism in titulature and iconography.
- Upon their ascent to power in the Near East from the 630s onwards, the new rulers inherited the physical infrastructure and skilled labor of the Byzantine imperial system.
- According to Terry Allen, the material culture of the Umayyads was largely influenced by the resources inherited from late antiquity, positioning Umayyad art as an extension of late antique art.
- The emergence of a distinct Islamic artistic repertoire, separate from late antique influences, began with the Abbasid succession following the Umayyad era.
One remarkable aspect of early Islamic material culture has puzzled investigators for a long time: this is the almost complete absence of surviving material evidence which might help us to understand the contribution made by the Sufyanids, the first branch of the Umayyad dynasty, which came to power in 661, to the formation of the hybrid material culture of the early period. Few objects of a distinctively Islamic character survive from the first seven decades of the Muslim calendar, other than inscriptions, mainly lapidary epigraphs, some administrative papyri, and a small number of poorly excavated and highly contentious archaeological sites. By contrast, by the beginning of the eighth century, under the second branch of the Umayyads known as the Marwanids, there is an abundance of evidence of many forms, including coinage, buildings, and milestones. One explanation for the lack of earlier material was that the Sufyanid state was informally organized and lacked a centralized infrastructure, so that it was incapable of producing the items which normally characterize statal presence. Jeremy Johns concludes that the first Sufyanid caliph, Muʿawiya, “attempted to found his monarchy in Syria upon the material trappings of kingship, rather than upon the business of government” (Johns 2003: 424). This bold statement relies mainly on textual and inscriptional references to present a picture of a ruler who maintained himself in power by acting like a king, rather than building robust institutions of state.
- Whatever the true nature of the Sufyanid state – and recent commentators have proposed that informal administrative structures disguised a powerful state which undertook successful actions against external enemies and maintained internal peace and prosperity for two decades (Foss 2002; Hoyland 2006) – assertions of the Sufyanid caliphs’ aspirations to kingship are misleading.
- The Syriac text which describes Muʿawiya’s accession expressly notes that unlike other kings, he did not wear a crown.
- The later Umayyads never wore crowns, maintained a simple court which lacked elaborate ritual, and generally remained accessible to their subjects.
- Evidence for Umayyad pretensions to royal status are frequently attested on the basis of the decoration and forms of their qusur (palaces) (e.g., Ettinghausen 1972), but none of this is admissible as testimony to caliphal attitudes, since no proven attestation of caliphal patronage, as opposed to that of the Umayyad elite, exists in any of these palatial sites.
The aversion to kingship, a central aspect of Islamic political thought from the Prophet’s era, was amplified in Muʿawiya’s case due to the circumstances of his authority. Leading an acephalous tribal confederation where power rested with tribal leaders, Muʿawiya opted for a style of governance that positioned him as a first among equals. His revered personal qualities of hilm (patient forbearance) and muruwwa (manly dignity) mirrored those valued in tribal leadership, emphasizing his non-royal status.
Muʿawiya's accessibility to subjects and tolerance of behaviors unconventional for a monarch further underscored his non-royal governance. An anecdote recounts an incident where a young tribesman playfully touched Muʿawiya during prayer, reflecting the informal nature of his rule. While the veracity of the tale is uncertain, its preservation highlights Muʿawiya's departure from royal norms, contrasting sharply with late antique emperorship.
Despite being hailed as "kings" by court panegyrists and poets, Muʿawiya's leadership maintained elements of tribal authority. This style endured beyond his reign, with subsequent caliphs continuing to be lauded with royal titles reminiscent of pre-Islamic tribal chiefs. Muʿawiya introduced innovations like a personal bodyguard, the establishment of the maqsura in mosques, and measures to secure succession for his son, reflecting adaptations necessary for effective governance.
- The Umayyads, while monarchs, did not portray themselves as late antique kings or emperors.
- Accusations of acting as kings rather than caliphs were widespread from the early eighth century onwards, reflecting the aversion to royal pretension among early Muslims.
- These accusations stemmed from the perception of Umayyad rule as tyranny, equating tyranny with kingly behavior.
- Despite their vast dominions, the early Umayyad caliphs' style of governance resembled that of regional Arab rulers like the Ghassanids, who did not assert royal status beyond titles conferred by Byzantine masters.
- The absence of motivation for developing an iconography of caliphal authority or religious symbolism meant rulers demonstrated their legitimacy through practical displays of efficacy, such as defending territory, enacting devotions in mosques, and dispensing justice.
- While emblems like objects associated with the Prophet or earlier caliphs played a role in validating caliphal legitimacy, evidence for their systematic exploitation is lacking.
- Early Islam lacked a deeply rooted visual culture to transform such emblems into symbols, and there was no priestly class to endorse and elaborate symbolic systems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment