A Study of the Nubian Eparchos of Nobadia* the Function and Dignity

THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN” A study of the Nubian eparchos of Nobadia*

The function and dignity of eparchos of Nobadia constituted one of the most durable Christian institutions in Nubia, which at least existed from ca. 700 AD to ca. 1464 AD, these being the first and last date of the mention of such an eparchos in an official document. This article will study the institution of this eparchos in its different aspects during this period, bearing in mind that one should distinguish grosso modo between at least two periods, i.e. an early period (up to the 12th c.) and a later period (12th c. to the end of the 15th c.)1, based on the differences in documentation and on the evolution of the Nubian Medieval history. At the same time we bear in mind that this eparchos’ very existence and survival during almost 800 years and his powers as well as the role he played in preserving Christianity still remain partly enigmatic up till now. The controversy around the so-called ‘Dotawo problem’ has con- tributed to the complication of the issue. It is therefore of the utmost importance to study all available information on the eparchos of Nobadia in its entirety, trying to construct a synthetic picture, based on the existing (published) testimonia obtained from narrative (Arabic and other), epigraphic and pictorial sources as well as from the Qasr Ibrim archives.

1. Origin and prehistory of the office of the eparchos of Nobadia

1.1. It is generally accepted that after the unification of the Christian Nubian kingdoms of Nobadia and Makouria during (or by the end of) the 7th century AD, the capital of this united kingdom was situated in Dongola (Dunqula), while Nobadia was ruled by the king’s deputy, the eparchos, whose first capital city was Faras2. Kirwan placed the unifica-

* I wish to express my sincere thanks to the National Research Foundation of South Africa as well as to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which supported this research. 1 Plumley, partly relying on Adams’ work on Nubian pottery, has proposed the following sequence for Nubian Christian history: the Early Christian period (beginning 6th c.- ca. 850), the Classic Christian Period (ca. 850-1150), the Late Christian Period (ca. 1150- 1350), and the Final Period (ca. 1350-1528); see J.M. PLUMLEY, Qasr Ibrim and Islam, in Études et Travaux, 12 (1983), p. 160 (= PLUMLEY, Qasr Ibrim and Islam). 2 S. JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III. History of the Bishopric of Pachoras, Warsaw, 1972, p. 37 (= JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III).

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 303303 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 304 B.C. HENDRICKX

tion between 580 and 6523, while Fadl Hasan connects it with the political developments of 616 and 641 in Egypt4. This Sudanese scholar accepts that when the Arabs attacked Dongola in 651, this city was the capital of an already united kingdom5. The position of Kirwan and Fadl Hasan is re-enforced by the Arab chronographer Maqrizi, who writes that – at the time of the Arab invasion – there was only one king, Qali- durut, ruling over the Nubian territory as far as the frontier of Alwa6. This would certainly explain why the Arabs ‘bypassed’ Nobadia during their invasion. However, other scholars seem to prefer a later date, based on an alleged letter of the King of Makouria to Isaac, Monophysite Patri- arch of Alexandria (690-692), in which he complained that the Nobatae made it impossible for candidate bishops for Makouria to pass through Nobadia. The letter is described (not preserved) in Abba Mina’s Coptic Life of Isaac (ca. 700 AD)7. According to Jakobielski, this letter serves “as evidence that in 690 Nubia had still not been united”8 and that there was still a king in Faras at that time. However, Jakobielski subsequently appears to have changed his assessment, and later on, in his contribution

3 L.P. KIRWAN, Notes on the topography of the Christian Nubian Kingdoms, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 21 (1935), p. 60-61. 4 Y. FADL HASAN, The Arabs and the Sudan, Edinburgh, 1967, p. 5 (= FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan): “Apparently about 616 the Nubians felt the pressure of the Persian onslaught and soon after 641 the Arabs, too, made their weight felt in Upper Egypt and in al-Maris. Subsequently the frontier clashes developed into raids. In its exposed position Bajrash felt vulnerable to the new danger and, united with its southern neighbour Dun- qula, was undoubtedly well defended by sheer distance, more cataracts and greater man- power.” 5 Ibidem. 6 H.A. MACMICHAEL, A History of the Arabs in the Sudan, London – Cambridge, 1967, vol. I, p. 157-158 (= MACMICHAEL, History). Other scholars, such as M.M. MUS’AD (Islam in Medieval Nubia, in Nubie [Cahiers d’histoire égyptienne, 10], Le Caire, 1967, p. 165-176) and some earlier authors, have also opted for an early date of unification. Maqrizi (15th c.), relying on earlier sources, such as Ibn Selim Al-Aswani, writes that after a first invasion by ‘Amr ibn Al-‘As, a peace was concluded between Arabs and Nubians, which after some years was broken by the Nubians. Then followed the second invasion, which resulted in the baqt. Evliya Çelebi (17th c.), relying on Muslim tradition, states that Qasr Ibrim was captured following a siege of 2 months by the companions of the Prophet, among whom ‘Amr. This information, if correct, refers thus to the first invasion (a while after 641 AD), when resistance in the North was existing. Does it refer to the existence of an official (such as the eparchos), who had fortified himself at Ibrim? (cf. PLUMLEY, Qasr Ibrim and Islam, p. 158). 7 Of the Coptic Life of Isaac, there is an Arabic version by Severus, written 300 years after the Life of Isaac – See G. VANTINI, Oriental Sources concerning Nubia, Heidelberg – Warsaw, 1975, p. 36-38 (= VANTINI, OSN); JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 36; U. MONNERET DE VILLARD, Storia della Nubia Cristiana, Rome, 1938, p. 78-80 (= MONNERET DE VILLARD, Storia) – In this article we use the sources compiled by VANTINI, OSN, except where it is indicated otherwise. 8 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 36.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 304304 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 305

to the UNESCO General History of Africa, he stated that “it appears that, at the time of the invasion, northern and central Nubia were united under King Qalidurut of Dongola”9. In fact, the content of the letter may lead to contradictory conclusions and is open to many interpretations, mainly because of the use of ‘Mauretania’ for Nobadia and the interpretation of the term ‘king’10. Finally, and probably most important, the Baqt agreement itself states that the king of Dongola ruled over Nubia “from the frontier of the land of Aswan to the border of the land of Alwa” and does not refer to any king of Nobadia11. In fact, the ‘bypassing’ of Nobadia by the Arab invaders can thus be explained as follows: (i) there was already a unified Nubia, presumably under King Qali- durut of Makouria; (ii) Nobadia was a weak kingdom, in good terms with Egypt, and therefore bypassed without any problem by the invaders, or (iii) Nobadia was a weak kingdom in disarray or in a state of anarchy and collapse, and it disintegrated on the occasion of the Arab invasion. Consequently, (i) after 651/2 Nubia remained unified, as it was before that date, or (ii) in or immediately after 651/2 the kingdom of Nobadia was absorbed by Makouria12.

1.2. The king of Makouria was (or became) represented by the eparchos of Nobadia, presumably modelled on the Egyptian example, where the wadi was not only the successor of the Byzantine eparchos, but even preserved the Greek title of symboulos at least until the end of the 7th century13. The prototype of the Nubian eparchos was the Roman

9 S. JAKOBIELSKI, Christian Nubia at the height of its civilization, in I. HRBEK (ed.), General History of Africa. Abridged edition. Vol. III. Africa from the Seventh to the Elev- enth Century, Berkeley, 1992, p. 103 (= JAKOBIELSKI, Christian Nubia). 10 It is not certain what kind of a ‘king’ (pouro) is meant. It could be a ‘local king’ or even an important local chief – VANTINI, OSN, p. 36, note 2, remarks that different explanations have been proposed for the expression ‘king of Mauretania’, such as the king of the Beja or the ruler of the Sukkot territory lying south of the Second Cataract. 11 In the first paragraph of the text of the agreement in Maqrizi (VANTINI, OSN, p. 640). See also W.Y. ADAMS, Nubia. Corridor to Africa, Princeton, 1984, p. 451-454 (= ADAMS, Nubia). 12 L. Török, following Kirwan, also came to the conclusion that “the unification should reasonably be dated between the two Arab invasions of 641 and 652” (L. TÖRÖK, Money, economy and administration in Christian Nubia, in Études nubiennes [IFAO. Bi- bliothèque d’Étude, 77], Le Caire, 1978, p. 287-311 [= TÖRÖK, Money], here p. 289). 13 For the continuation of Byzantine titles and administration in Egypt after the Mus-

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 305305 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 306 B.C. HENDRICKX

(and later the Byzantine) eparchos (praefectus) of Egypt, the equestrian governor with wide military, administrative, economic and judicial pow- ers14. However, the important reforms of Diocletian had also altered the administrative structures of Egypt from 297 onwards15: Egypt and Libya were cut up in smaller divisions, the Thebaid, under a praeses, being divided in two sections, each under an epitropos. The rest of Egypt was divided in two provinces, Aegyptus Herculia and Aegyptus Iovia, but reunited in 324 and re-divided in 341. The governor of Aegyptos Iovia kept the title of eparchos, but the praesides were in fact independent. A dux Aegypti was put in charge of the army. However, the term eparchos was also used by smaller governors. Since we do not yet know how precisely this unification was arranged, we also do not know what happened with the royal house of Nobadia- Faras. Was a prince of the Faras-line appointed as eparchos in Faras, or an acceptably strong leader, such as an important chief?

1.3. The other Byzantine eparchos of great importance was the eparchos of Constantinople. Originally a kind of mayor16, he became the administrator of the capital and regulator of all economic activities, including the syntechniai or trade organizations of the capital, and became a kind of ‘minister of Interior Affairs’17. This resulted in the so-

lim conquest, see: H.I. BELL, The Administration of Egypt under the Ummayad Khalifs, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 28 (1954), p. 278-289; V. CHRISTIDES, art. Misr, in C.E. BOSWORTH et al. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden, 1993 (new ed.), vol. 7, p. 157-159; V. CHRISTIDES, Continuation and change in Early Arab Egypt as reflected in the terms and titles of the Greek papyri, in Alexandrian Studies in memoriam Daoud Abdu Daoud, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie, 45 (1993), p. 69-75; B. LEWIS, The Arabs in History, London, 1977, p. 66-69; B. HENDRICKX, ‘The Greek who urinated in the inkwell’ – Some remarks on the (dis)continuation of the Byzantine administration and terminology in Muslim Egypt and its impact on the Christian Kingdoms of Nubia, in Byzantinos Domos, 18 (2007-8), p. 381. Especially A.M. MUKHTAR (On the survival of the Byzantine Administration in Egypt during the first century of the Arab rule, in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae, 27 [1973], p. 312-319) is of importance for the comparison with Nubia. He shows that Roman-Byzantine titles (and functions), such as dux (= duqas), pagarchos, toparchos, dioiketes, meizon (= ma’zun, mazut), meizoteros, augustalis (= gastal, qastal), archon (= arkhan), amalitis (= ‘amil), and others were at first preserved in Arabic (and Coptic). The same was true for epitheta such as illoustrios, endoxotatos, lamprotatos. Some of these titles are found back in the Nubian hierarchy. 14 A. TATAKI, Aíguptov, in Istoría tou Elljnikoú ´Eqnouv, Athens, 1976, vol. 6, p. 321ff. 15 Ibidem, p. 335-336. 16 K.E. PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi kai énerga aziÉmata sto Buhántio, Athens, 2001, p. 199 (= PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi). 17 See A. CHRISTOPHILOPOULOU, Buhantinß Istoría, vol. G. 1. 1081-1204, Athens, 2001, p. 288.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 306306 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 307

called Book of the eparchos, a series of ordinances, regulating the market and industry activities in the capital18. Although scholars of Nubian his- tory19 have regularly remarked that there is no proof or indication that the functions of Nubian office-bearers with Byzantine terminology corresponded with those of their Byzantine colleagues, one cannot but notice the great resemblance between the eparchos of Nobadia’s trade functions, as illustrated in the Qasr Ibrim documents (which we examine further in this study), and the role of the eparchos of Constantinople20.

1.4. It is certainly very useful to look at functions and titles of Nubian chiefs and their deputies before the existence of the eparchos of Noba- dia, such as the pestos, pelmos, tyrannoi, phylarchoi, exarchoi, despotai and ‘Lords’. This is particularly important, in view of the fact that modern authors seem to accept that the eparchos’ first duty was the relationship between Arabs and Nubians in view of the baqt agreement. Some authors go as far as to state that the baqt itself pointed out this ‘fact’, but the baqt text does nowhere hint at such an official or at such an agreement with the Nubian King. Thus, although it may well be possible that the eparchos’ office was created after the signing of the baqt treaty in view of the future relations with the Arabs, it is almost certain that this office was based on already existing examples or patterns from the past. On the other hand, since the baqt did not concern only Nobadia, but the whole of the Makourite kingdom, and since the unification of Nobadia with Makouria appears to have been peaceful, it is much more likely that the office was created on the occasion of this unification, and not because of the baqt agreement. Anyway, the eparchos of Nobadia was not the first viceroy in North- ern Nubia. A similar function already existed before the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs. L. Török has examined the function of the Meroitic pesto21. These viceroys often reached the rank of pqr qori-s, i.e. royal prince, the first pesto being Akinidad, being the son of the king of Meroe by blood. Later pestos were appointed and not necessarily related to the king. The pesto directed – from Faras – the Northern province together

18 See especially the old but fundamental work by A. CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, To Eparxikó Biblíon Léontov tou Sofoú kai ai suntexníai en Buhantíw, Athens, 1935, passim. 19 Such as W.Y. ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim. The Late Mediaeval Period, London, 1996, p. 246 (= ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim). 20 Contrary to Adams and other scholars, Török has underligned the similarity between many of the Nubian and Byzantine dignities: TÖRÖK, Money, p. 304ff. 21 L. TÖRÖK, Inquiries into the administration of Meroitic Nubia: I-II, in Orientalia, 46 (1977), p. 34-50 (= TÖRÖK, Inquiries), here p. 38-46.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 307307 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 308 B.C. HENDRICKX

with a military commander, the pelmos, which meant that there was a clear separation of civil and military powers. Moreover, the pesto was appointed for a relatively short term only, and when receiving the rank of ‘royal prince’, he was recalled from his province. Török compares this practice with the Roman appointment of the praefectus Aegypti. The Hungarian scholar furthermore examines the position of the tyrannos, who was installed as the Nubian governor in the Triakontaschoenos on the occasion of the treaty made in 29 BC by Cornelius Gallus, praefectus Aegypti, with the Meroites, which gave to the Triankontaschoenos “independence to a certain degree within the Kingdom and the linking of its fate to Egypt22. These tyrannoi, known in Meroitic texts as orpais or ‘princes of the land of Takompso’, were responsible for the protection of the frontier zone. These generals were powerful, but also very highly learned men, and they were also members of the ‘class of priests’. At the end of the 3rd century, under King Yesboheamani, a very important change took place23: the administrative and military functions were united into one person, being at the same time pesto and pelmos, due according to Török to the destructive invasions of the barbarian Blem- myes. Török also has underlined the economic importance of the pesto: it was expected from him to keep “a tight hold on the inevitable free trade on the frontiers” in order not to endanger “the Meroitic economic absolutism”, a duty – states Török – also expected from the later epar- chos24. Jakobielski notes that in the foundation inscriptions of king Mer- kourios at the Faras Cathedral25, “the name of one of the first – if not the first – dignitary holding this office [of eparchos]”, namely Markos, is mentioned. Two years before Jakobielski’s publication, G. Vantini had remarked that in the Coptic inscription of king Eirpanome in the temple of Dendur (559 or 574), on the occasion of the transformation of this pagan temple into a Christian church, as well as in the Greek inscription of king Tokiltoeton (ca. 577), who recorded the foundation of the fortified city of Ikhmindi, an ‘eparchos Josephios of Talmis’ is recorded26.

22 Ibidem, p. 35. 23 Ibidem, p. 46-50. 24 Ibidem, p. 36. 25 Coptic text and translation in JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 40-43 – Greek text and commentary in S. JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja fundacyjna Katedry w Faras, in Rocznik Museum Naradowego, 10 (1966), p. 99-106 (= JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja) and J. KUBINSKA, Faras IV. Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes, Warsaw, 1974, p. 14-15 (= KUBINSKA, Faras IV). 26 G. VANTINI, The Excavations at Faras, a Contribution to the History of Christian Nubia, Bologna, 1970, p. 53 – See Coptic text of Eirpanome in T. EIDE, T. HÄGG, R. HOLTON

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 308308 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 309

Thus, according to Vantini, “from this we gather that the office of eparch already existed in Nubia by the middle of the 6th century”. However, Vantini misread both texts, because Josephios is not mentioned as eparchos, but as exarchos27. The exarchos of Talmis was – according to Török – appointed “immediately after the establishment of the Christian kingdoms in the middle of the 6th century”28, while the last reference to an exarchos appears at the end of the 7th century29. It is uncertain whether this exarchos was a dignitary appointed by the Byzantines as their representative, or whether he was a local ecclesiastical functionary. The only other text, regarding Nubia, where an eparchos is mentioned before Merkourios’ time, dates from the first century AD, and has no bearings with Nobadia30. Most interesting is the title of phylarchos of the ethnos of the Anouba, a title which only occurs in a Coptic letter of the Byzantine tribune Viventius to Tantani, written in ca. 45031. From the contents of this letter, it is clear – according to L. Török – that Tantani, being “a high dignitary in the kingdom of Noubadia, whose title has the meaning ‘(fed- erate) tribal chief’,… was in a position to conclude a treaty with Viven- tius, commander of the units on Egypt’s frontier”, who acted on behalf of the comes domesticorum, the latter being in command of all Roman troops in Egypt32. Török also suggests that Tantani was the ‘chief’ of those Noubades who inhabited the region adjacent to the frontier. We

PIERCE and L. TÖRÖK (ed.), Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Vol. III. From the first to the sixth Century AD., Bergen, 1998, p. 1194-1195, no. 330 (= EIDE et al., Fontes) and Greek text of Tokiltoeton in S. DONADONI, Un’ epigrafe greco-nubiana da Ikhmindi, in Parola del Passato, 14 (1959), p. 458-465. 27 See B. HENDRICKX, Byzantine Profane titles, epithets and symbols in use in the Medieval Nubian and Blemmyan Kingdoms, in Ekklesiastikos Pharos, 87 (New Series 16) (2005), p. 334 (= HENDRICKX, Titles); T. HÄGG, Titles and Honorific Epithets in Nubian Greek Texts, in Symbolae Osloenses, 65 (1990), p. 160-161 (= HÄGG, Titles). 28 TÖRÖK, Money, p. 306. 29 Ibidem, p. 306. In a Coptic deed (prasis) addressed by a certain Thekla, of the town of Kelsei on the east bank, to a sailor, Joseph, assigning to him and his heirs her estate (ktema) as repayment for a loan of 19 solidi, the term exarchos is mentioned at the end of the document. The document itself must be from the time of King Merkourios, by whom Thekla swears to abide by the contract (W.E. CRUM, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts of the British Museum, London, 1905, p. 209-211, no. 447) (= CRUM, Catalogue). 30 It is the Papyrus della raccolta Milanese, referring to the conflict between Romans, Ethiopians and Troglodytes, but the eparchos mentioned here is almost certainly a Roman praefectus alae, a cavalry officer. – For the text and a full discussion as well as relevant bibliography, see EIDE et al., Fontes, p. 933-934. 31 EIDE et al., Fontes, p. 1165-1171, no. 320 – In a Coptic letter of Yahatek to Tantani (ca. 450), the latter is addressed as ‘Lord (néoeis) of the Nouba’ and in a letter of the monk Mouses to Tantani (also ca. 450), the latter is called ‘Lord’ (EIDE et al., Fontes, p. 1171-1172, no. 321 and 1172-1175, no. 322). 32 Török’s commentary, in EIDE et al., Fontes, p. 1169.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 309309 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 310 B.C. HENDRICKX

believe that Török’s comment is sound and that indeed Tantani acted here as a representative of the Noubadian king, much in the same way as the later eparchoi would act on behalf of the Makourian king. It is remarkable that in Coptic he also bears the title of ‘Lord (néoeis)33 of the Nouba’. One may also perhaps connect the ‘Lord’-title(s) with the despotai, mentioned in the inscription of King Silko34.

1.5. Asking which was the relation between the eparchos of Nobadia and the king of Makouria, the simple answer that the first was the second’s representative or deputy, needs more precision. In Africa – as well as elsewhere – a conquering king had two options vis-à-vis his con- quered territory: direct or indirect rule. As for Nobadia, the initial situation is not that evident, and remains controversial until the end of Chris- tian Nubian rule. It seems that the unification was not violent, but a lack of sources prevents us from giving a final and straight answer. The baqt agreement seems35 to indicate that at least in the mind of the Arabs, Nobadia-Makouria was one state with Dongola as its capital, which would suggest direct rule by King Qalidurut. If direct rule was also applied by Qalidurut and his immediate successors, the eparchos would not be more than a governor. The fact that the official documents state that he has all power over Nobadia36, however, needs more examination and complicates the question. Modern scholars have described his function as this of a viceroy, governor, representative of the king, controller over royal vassals, even king in at least one instance! The functions of all such persons differ, however, greatly and are too generalised. Differ- ent questions need to be answered: was the eparchos’ position the result of royal indirect or direct rule and was there an evolution with the time passing by? Was the eparchos directly appointed by the Great King in Makouria, or did lineage play any role? If the eparchos was appointed, was he a ‘royal’, and of which lineage, or was he a commoner37? Which were the criteria for his appointment, and for which period was such an

33 Remark that in the Coptic inscription of King Merkourios at Faras, the eparchos Markos bears the Greek title of ‘Lord’ (KURIOC: JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja, p. 40-43). 34 Cf. B. HENDRICKX, Official Documents written in Greek illustrating the Ancient History of Nubia and Ethiopia (3rd Century B.C. – 6th Century A.D.), (Monumenta Afro- Hellenica, 1), Johannesburg, 1984, p. 75-80 and HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 328-9. 35 It must always be remembered that the sources on the baqt agreement are not con- temporary. 36 This ‘statement’ will be discussed infra. 37 Lucy Mair (African Kingdoms, Oxford, 1977, p. 37-38) discusses similar situations and their implications in later African empires and kingdoms.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 310310 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 311

appointment? Was he a local or a Makourian? Was there a cursus hono- rum among the Nubians, as some scholars have accepted at least for the Nubian Beja? On what was the eparchos’ real power based? Which was the relationship between eparchos, the king of Nobadia-Makouria, (later on) the king of Dotawo, and the queen mother? Was the institution itself Byzantine-, Meroitic- or Arab-inspired and if so, in which degree? Did the eparchos perhaps become lord, then king, and then appointed his own eparchos? These questions also inevitably lead to another main problem: how African was Nobadia-Makouria38?

1.6. Having accepted the modelling of the eparchos of Nobadia upon precedents such as mainly the praefectus Aegypti and the pestos, most scholars believe that the eparchos was an appointee of the king, and that therefore his office was not hereditary. That the eparchos was appointed can not be doubted and is confirmed by the documents: the son of eparchos Isra’il sent to his father a letter of congratulations on the occasion of his appointment as eparchos39; another document states that Gabriel- inkouda was installed as eparchos in the Ibrim church of the Holy Trin- ity by eparchos Adam(a)40. The latter testimonium has troubled the scholars. It was first accepted that the document illustrated that the new eparchos was appointed by the old eparchos, but this explanation was rejected by Adams, who believes that “Gabrielinkouda was no more than a temporary replacement for the regular Eparch, perhaps while the latter was away on business” and that “the acting eparch used the church as his official headquarters”41. Adams thereby relies on the fact that in three documents, one undated and the two others respectively of 1200 and

38 In his recent popularizing book, Th. Oden (How Africa shaped the Christian Mind, Downers Grove, 2007, passim, esp. p. 79-88) has argued that the mindset of Europeans as well as sub-Saharan Africans is responsible for such misconceptions as that Christianity is an imported European religion and that North Africa is a separated unit from sub- Saharan Africa, which is the real one. He argues that The Maghreb, Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia are as genuinely African as the rest of the continent, and that the fact that these ancient Africans used Greek and Latin, does not prove or indicate that they think as Euro- peans or are part only of the Roman-Hellenistic Civilization. He opts for another, sometimes opposite view, namely that the North-East Africans, expressing African thoughts and feelings in Greek, have influenced and often shaped so-called Western concepts of monasticism, neo-Platonism and Alexandrine philosophy and theology – See also H.K. Schneider (The Africans. An Ethnological Account, Englewood Cliffs, 1981, p. 3-5), who seems not convinced himself who are real Africans. 39 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 45. 40 G.M. BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts in Qasr Ibrim. III. London, 1991, no. 35 (= BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III) – ADAMS (Qasr Ibrim, p. 245, note 21) mistakenly dated the document to 1288. The correct date is 1188. 41 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 245-246.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 311311 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 312 B.C. HENDRICKX

1199, “Adam continues to appear as Eparch, while Gabrielinkouda is named as Silentiary(?)”42. But Adams seems to have overlooked other documents referring to Gabrielinkouda as eparchos: thus in an undated sales document we read: “And in Nobadia, Gabrielinkouda [was] Eiksil of Douksi, being Eparch of Nobadia, Domesticus of Faras and Silen- tiary(?), and in Nobadia all authority [was] attached to him”43. Gabriel- inkouda, in his capacity as eparchos of Nobadia, has also sent a letter, undated, regarding some grain, to Tapara, thel[.] of Kaktine44. It thus appears that Gabrielinkouda was not merely a temporary replacement, but that he was a fully recognized eparchos for at least some time. This would be an argument in favour of temporary appointment, as opposed to life appointment, of the eparchos. Perhaps, there being two eparchoi at the same time, as may be in the case of Adam(a) and Gabrielinkouda, one should also bear in mind the mention of a ‘Great’ eparchos next to the eparchos of Nobadia in yet another document45. Gabrielinkouda’s ‘installation’ in a church may also be connected with the judiciary power of the eparchos, and this according to the Byzantine procedure where the local governors – together with the bishops – conducted their trials in important churches46. The traditional reasoning regarding the eparchos’ appointment is based on the conviction that appointed and hereditary offices are exclud- ing each other. This is, however, not necessarily the case. Indeed, Nubian history itself gives examples for this. In Meroitic Nubia all the known pestos and pelmos belonged to a determined group of families or clans, although the individual office bearers were appointed – for a given period – by the kings. Millet even believes that the fusion of the two offices was a result of the union of the two clans through intermar- riages47. Török does not support this theory and attributes this evolution

42 Ibidem, p. 245, note 22 (documents 74.1.30/6, nos. 1, 8, 9) – These documents have been published by BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, nos. 37, 38, 40. 43 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 32 – This is in fact the same message as the one of the very document, where Adama, in the Holy Trinity Church, installed Gabrielin- kouda, who is qualified as “holding all authority over Nobadia”. 44 G.M. BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts in Qasr Ibrim. II, London, 1989, no. 23 (= BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II) – The letter was known to Adams, who re-published it (ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 226), but he did not take it into account when discussing the ‘case’ of Gabriel- inkouda. 45 See e.g. BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 34 – This problem will be discussed infra. 46 For a good example, see the famous case of the trials of Sachlakina in Thessaloniki in the beginning of the 13th century: D. SIMON, Witwe Sachlikina gegen Witwe Horaia, in Fontes Minores VI, Frankfurt/M., 1984, p. 325-347. 47 N.B. MILLET, Social and Political Organization in Meroe, in Journées Internatio- nales d’Études Méroitiques, Paris, 1973, passim, p. 31ff.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 312312 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 313

to a defence necessity against the invading Blemmyes48. Probably Török is right, but the union of the clans may have helped the process, or alternatively the new measure may have helped the union between the clans. Again, in Nubia, the Kokka kingdom of the Mahas people49, which may – or may not – have evolved from a vassal kingdom or a splinter kingdom of Makouria, but which in any case continued to exist until the beginning of the 20th century, presents another example: the effectual power was in the hands of the king, assisted by the queen mother and the judge. The latter, who embodied among others the religious (Muslim) power, was appointed by the king, but since early times always from one and the same family. Moreover, the governors of the Kokka provinces were also appointed by the king, but were related to the Royal House50 Finally, Vantini has brought to the attention that al-Aswani, who vis- ited Nubia in ca. 970, states that he had met Simon (Simun, Simyun), crown prince of Alwa. In that time, George II was king in Dongola (he reigned in 969 and under the patriarchate of Philotheos [979-1002])51. Vantini connects this statement with an inscription (graffito), now in the Khartoum Museum, coming from the Sonqi Tino church, in which an eparchos Simeon is mentioned. The inscription is on the right side of a portrait of King George (II). There is – says Vantini – a possibility that the crown prince is no other than the eparchos of Pachoras, and he concludes that, if his argumentation is correct, “nous aurions là un fait très intéressant pour l’étude de l’organisation des deux royaumes nubiens et pour l’étude de la succession aux deux trônes”52. However, the other titles which Simeon bears in the Sonqi Tino inscription and which Van- tini does not mention, complicate the case. Donadoni, referring to the same graffito, reads the titles of Simeon as eparchos, presbyteros megas kai chartoularios53. The titles are of interest, because Simeon bears a

48 TÖRÖK, Inquiries, p.38, 47, 48. 49 D.A. Welsby (The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia, London, 2002 [= WELSBY, King- doms], p. 256) erroneously states that this kingdom remained Christian well into the 18th century. 50 A. OSMAN, The Post-Medieval Kingdom of Kokka: a Means for a better Under- standing of the Administration of the Medieval Kingdom of Dongola, in J.M. PLUMLEY (ed.), Nubian Studies, Cambridge, 1978, p. 187-188 (= OSMAN, Kokka). 51 G. VANTINI, À propos de deux rois de ‘Alwa mentionnés par Ibn Hawqal, in K. MICHALOWSKI (ed.), Nubia. Récentes Recherches, Warsaw, 1975, p. 131-132 (= VANTINI, À propos de deux rois) and G. VANTINI, Christianity in the Sudan, Bologna, 1981, p. 113 (= VANTINI, Christianity). 52 VANTINI, À propos de deux rois, p. 131-132. 53 S. DONADONI, Les graffiti de l’église de Sonqi Tino, in MICHALOWSKI, Nubia. Récentes Recherches, Warsaw, 1975, p. 34, 36 (= DONADONI, Graffiti).

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 313313 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 314 B.C. HENDRICKX

rather “incompatible” series of titles. As presbyteros megas, he belongs to the clergy, as chartoularios he is an administrator. Both functions do not belong to the highest echelons, although Donadoni writes that Simeon and the other persons mentioned in the graffito belong to “un groupe de gens de très haute qualité” and that Simeon bears “deux titres adminis- tratifs de haut rang, et on n’est pas étonné de les trouver appliqués à un ecclésiastique”. What kind of eparchos is he then? The title eparchos precedes the other ones, underlining its importance. As presbyteros megas and chartoularios, he has functions, both in ecclesiastical context. Is eparchos here perhaps used solely as a title, as was the case with the Byzantine axiai dia brabeion54. Anyway, the interpretations of both Ital- ian scholars, Vantini and Donadoni, are way apart55. Can they – somehow – be reconciled? It seems to be acceptable that – as in Byzantium – the Nubian basileus is considered to be the equal of a ‘priest’56, and that the eparchos, as viceroy of Nobadia, has the same prerogative. If so, this may explain his ecclesiastical titles, which then would not contradict his status and identity. However, this can not be more than a conjecture. The above examples – even this of Simeon (if we accept Vantini’s interpretation as a possibility) – illustrate a system in which royal appointment was the norm, but within the limits of a determined family or clan, thus combining a form of heredity with appointment. It is by no means excluded that a similar system existed for the appointment of the eparchos of Nobadia (and perhaps also the other eparchoi). It is difficult to know for which duration the eparchos was appointed or whether his appointment was for life. The examples of the pestos, pelmos and praefecti Aegypti suggest a relatively short period. But testi- monies about some eparchoi seem to suggest a long, if not very long, duration of office. The frescoes of eparchoi may be of some help: these pictures present eparchoi with crowns and other regalia. These regalia in turn refer to a ‘crowning’ of the eparchos, presumably by the king or a bishop as his representative, at which occasion he receives his dignity. Zurawski has suggested – as we shall discuss infra – that the horned headgear of the Nubian eparchos expressed a ‘status mark of subordinate

54 Cf. HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 333; PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi, p. 23ff. 55 It is also remarkable that Donadoni (Graffiti, p. 34) considers the use of the adjec- tive megas as ‘une tendance assez habituelle en Nubie’. When looking at Byzantium, it is a fact that indeed the epithet megas plays a great role in the list of titles, but is also adding an essentially institutional and hierarchical value to several titles. The same is very probably true for the Nubian context. 56 In Byzantium, the basileus is isapostolos and theiotatos en Christo: B. HENDRICKX, Byzantium and its meaning for Africa – Perspectives and insights, in Ekklesiastikos Pha- ros, 90 (New Series 19) (2008), p. 210.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 314314 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 315

authority in Lower Nubia’ and that it was invested upon the eparchos in perhaps the same way as the faqiyya was given later on to the Arab makk57. Looking to the Byzantine example, a crowning would suggest that the conferred dignity (axia) was for life. On the other hand, it may well be that – as was the case in Byzantium – the dignitary would receive his rank for life, but not (necessarily) his function.

2. The eparchos of Nobadia amidst other eparchoi

Besides the eparchos of Nobadia, there are also other eparchoi mentioned outside Faras and inside as well as outside Nobadia58, but their role or position in the Nubian kingdom remains largely unknown. Among other eparchoi, who are mentioned in epigraphic sources, the eparchos of Makouria seems to have been overlooked. In his introduc- tion, Jakobielski mentions a fragment of a Coptic inscription on stone “of a type which cannot be defined, mentioning the Eparch of Mak- ouria (pnoö neparx(os) [ntet]makouria)”59. No explanation has been put forward regarding this testimony. The Qasr Ibrim documents not only confirm that there were several eparchoi, operating at the same time, but even suggest that there was more than one eparchos in the very region of Nobadia. Thus, an eparchos and an ant(h)eparchos of Terp[.] are regularly mentioned in the texts. Moreover, in an order, given to a certain Massouda, Tamsi is named eparchos of Lower Nobadia60. Of special interest is also the royal proclamation of King Moses George of Dotawo61, where the latter occupies also the office of eparchos of Palagi, while further in the text there is a reference to Darme, eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Faras. To complicate

57 B. ZURAWSKI, Medieval Nubian regalia: innovation versus tradition, in D.A. WELSBY (ed.), Recent Research in Kushite History and Archaeology: Proceedings of the 8th Inter- national Conference for Meroitic studies, London, 1999, p. 228 (= ZURAWSKI, Regalia). 58 HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 333: “It is thus certain that the title was used for more than one dignitary, and for dignitaries with perhaps different duties…… The ‘most wise’ Markos has also the title of illoustrios. This court title is “le titre de tous les grands offi- ciers civils et militaires, maîtres de la milice jusqu’au VIe siècle et fut accordé à cette époque à des fonctionnaires sortis de charge ou à des personnages sans fonctions” (L. BRÉHIER, Les institutions de l’Empire byzantin, Paris, 1970, p. 90). Interestingly, the title apo eparchôn was in Byzantium – since Justinian – at the lowest level of the axiai dia brabeiôn, but the eparchos (praefectus of Constantinople) was a high dignitary with important jurisdiction and belonged to the order of the judges (kritai) (BRÉHIER, op. cit., p. 105 and 108). 59 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 16 – Stone in National Museum of Warsaw (Item inv. No. 2340-1 MN). 60 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 46. 61 Ibidem, no. 30.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 315315 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 316 B.C. HENDRICKX

things even more, in a sales deed of land of 1190, a Great eparchos is mentioned, as well as an eparchos of Nobadia62. We can only guess about the meaning and hierarchy of these two eparchoi. The use of the title Great eparchos is however not limited to this Qasr Ibrim document. Already in the Coptic version63 of the Faras foundation inscription of Merkourios, Markos, who is mentioned as eparchos in the cor- responding Greek inscription, has the titles of ‘most famous lord’ (eukleestatos kyrios) and ‘most noble’ (illoustrios), while his function is described as Great Eparchos (pnnoö neparxos). In this case it is thus clear that the eparchos of Nobadia is also named the Great eparchos. But that does not solve the problem of the use of both titles in one and the same Qasr Ibrim document, where we have to do with two different persons. In a Coptic fragment from Qasr Ibrim, found in 1972, written on paper and dated to 1072 AD64, a king George is mentioned, as well as the following officials: a protodomestikos of the Palace, a person holding a Nubian title (illegible), a domestikos of Pachoras, a meizodomestikos and an eparchos of Terp[.]. Plumley suggests that there must have been an eparchos residing at Qasr Ibrim, distinguished from the Great Eparchos who “must have had his seat of authority at some other place”65, but there is no evidence for this opinion. There is also the mention of a Ioannes, eparchos ton Gaderon66. Jako- bielski believes that he was probably the governor of a place called El Gaddar. Munro-Hay prefers to interpret the genitive ‘Gaderon’ as coming from the Greek term ‘gadera’, which means – he states – ‘a country’67. Thus Ioannes would be the eparchos of the countries. In his argument, Munro-Hay68 compares this title with this of Staurophoros, nauarchos of Nobadia and of the ‘Seven Lands’, found in the Christian epitaph of Staurophoros. But, while commenting the edition of this text,

62 Ibidem, no. 34. 63 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 40-41. 64 J.M. PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor of a medieval Nubian protocol, in Sudan Texts Bulletin, 3 (1981), p. 5-8 (= PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor). 65 PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor, p. 6 – Plumley hereby refers to the letter of the Gov- ernor of Egypt to the King of Nubia: J.M. PLUMLEY, An Eight-Century Arabic Letter to the King of Nubia, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 61 (1975), p. 241-245 (= PLUM- LEY, An Eight-Century Arabic Letter). 66 Text in A. LAJTAR, Greek funerary inscriptions from Old Dongola, in Oriens Chris- tianus, 81 (1997), p. 119-120 (= LAJTAR, Greek funerary inscriptions). 67 Gadera could remind one of other words composed with gj or ga, but I could not find the term ta gadera as such in classical or Medieval Greek. 68 S.C. MUNRO-HAY, Kings and Kingdoms of Ancient Nubia, in Rassegna di Studi Etiopici, 29 (1982-83), p. 106 (= MUNRO-HAY, Kings and Kingdoms).

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 316316 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 317

Hägg69 has shawn that the text does not read ‘Staurophoros, nauarchos of Nobadia and of the Seven Lands’, but that the correct reading is most probably ‘nauarchos of the Nobadai [and] naukrates of the Seven Lands’, the expression nauarchos nauktrates being found also in the later Kudanbes inscription70, and – according to Hägg – meaning ‘admiral of the Nobades, victorious at (over?) the Seven Lands’. Nevertheless, the meaning of ‘admiral of the Noubades and commander of the Nile (fleet) of (or at) the Seven Lands’ is also a possibility71. Furthermore, Munro-Hay connects Zacharias Augustus, mentioned as eparchos Ioannes’ father in the tomb inscription of Ioannes72 in the Colon Church of Dongola with the title ‘Rex’ (‘Augustus’ thus meaning ‘King’, and not being a name), which is also found in the Kudanbes inscription, “thus indicating that the high rank of Eparch was bestowed on a royal son, the brother of George I.” If this supposition could be proved correct, then there is a strong argument in favour of the theory that the eparchoi used to be members of the royal family. In the light of the identification of the title eparchos with the Nubian title soñoj, which will be discussed infra, one should add that next to the soñoj of Nobadia, other soñoj are mentioned in the texts and inscriptions, such as these of Adda and of Akirimip73, as well as local soñoj, mentioned in some of the Qasr Ibrim documents. Are they representatives of the king (and which one), or are they subordinates of the eparchos of Nobadia or of both king and eparchos? Osman has opted for the first possibility, and maintains that they were appointed by the king of Dotawo (in the later period)74. He

69 T. HÄGG, Two Christian Epitaphs in Greek of the ‘Euchologion Mega’ type, in T. SAVE-SODERBERGH, Late Nubian Cemeteries, Solna, 1972, p. 57-58 and HÄGG, Titles, p. 161. 70 F.Ll. GRIFFITH, Christian Documents from Nubia, in Proceedings of the British Academy, 14 (1928), p. 137 (= GRIFFITH, Christian Documents). 71 HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 338-339. 72 Facsimile in T. DZIERZYKRAY-ROGALSKI – S. JAKOBIELSKI, La tombe de l’Éparque Yoannès dans l’église à Colonnes en granit de Dongola (Soudan), in K. MICHALOWSKI, Nubia. Récentes Recherches, Warsaw, 1975, p. 48 (= DZIERZYKRAY-ROGALSKI – JAKOB- IELSKI, La tombe de l’Éparque Yoannès). 73 B. ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage of the Arts in Nobadia on the basis of archaeological and written sources, in J.M. PLUMLEY, Nubian Studies, Cambridge, 1978, p. 210 and 212 (= ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage); F.Ll. GRIFFITH, The Nubian Texts of the Christian Period (Abhandlungen d. Königl. Preuss. Akad., Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 8), Berlin, 1919, p. 41-53; N.B. MILLET, Gebel Adda Expedition Preliminary Report, 1963-4, in Journal of the Amer- ican Research Center in Egypt, 3 (1964), p. 11, 14 and Plate VIII, fig. 23. Millet dates the inscription between 750 and 1000, and calls Grailekor ‘the town-mayor or castellan of a place called Akirimip’. This interpretation of the local soñoj title may describe his function well enough. 74 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 191-194.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 317317 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 318 B.C. HENDRICKX

does not give arguments for his theory, but we shall discuss this probability infra. There were still other local governors, such as the customs officer of al-Maqs75 and a ‘governor’ of the region of al-Abwab, with a special title, recorded in the Arabic script, but which cannot be explained76.

3. The designation of the eparchos of Nobadia in the sources. His titles and regalia

One must distinguish between how the eparchos of Nobadia is called or presented in the narrative sources, and which are his official titles, as they appear in the official inscriptions and documents.

3.1. As for the first period, the full titles of the eparchoi of Nobadia are known from King Merkourios’ two founding inscriptions of the Faras cathedral, while other inscriptions give complementary details or refer to the function of eparchos itself. Thus, as in Byzantium, a differentiation seems to be made between titles, indicating a function (e.g. basileus, eparchos, episkopos) and court titles, which refer to ranks in the court hierarchy. While for the first group only substantives are used, for the second one adjectives, epitheta and exceptionally – in some cases – substantives occur77. In King Merkourios’ Greek Faras foundation stele (707 AD)78, eparchos Markos’ name immediately follows that of the King himself and precedes the mention of Abba Paulos, who is defined as renovator and founder of the church. Markos bears the court titles of ‘most famous and most wise’ (euklestatos kai sophotatos) as well as ‘most noble’ (illou-

75 Ibidem, p. 195; Cf. VANTINI, OSN, p. 603-604 – Al-Aswani states that Baqwa is the terminal port for the boats sailing upstream the Nile from Qasr and no-one may go upstream except with permission of the Lord of the Mountain. Between this port and the Upper Maqs there are six stopping places full of cataracts. There are several islands and they are under the authority of the Lord, but the commander of the garrison of Upper Maqs is appointed by the Kabir (King), and no one may pass or use money beyond this point, except by permission of the King, who also appoints the governor (wali) of the next district, known as the ‘Seven Governors’. This wali has authority over the other governors of that region. There is also a fortress. Here is the last village of al-Maris and the beginning of the territory of Makouria. Consequently, this wadi does not belong to the jurisdiction of the eparchos, whose authority ends precisely there where Makouria sensu stricto begins. 76 A. ZABORSKI, Marginal notes on Medieval Nubia, in M. KRAUSE (ed.), Nubische Studien, Mainz/Rh., 1982, p. 406 (= ZABORSKI, Marginal notes). 77 Recently some important studies on Byzantine dignitaries, their titles and functions have been published, especially PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi. 78 KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 14-17; JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja, p. 99-106.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 318318 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 319

strios). In the Coptic version79 the same order is followed, and Markos has the court titles of ‘most famous Lord’ (eukleestatos kyrios) and ‘most noble’ (illoustrios), while his functional title is here – as we have already seen – given as Great Eparchos. The funerary stele of eparchos Petros (798 AD) names Petros ‘eparchos tês tôn No[ba]dôn chôras’80, a similar title also being found in a Coptic document of the second half of the 8th century81. The eparchos Iesu is mentioned as the builder of the church on the South Slope of the Kom at Faras, dated from 23 April 930, in its Coptic foundation inscription82, where King Zacharias and the queen mother, Mariam, as well as Abba Elias, Metropolitan Bishop of Pachoras, are mentioned before him. The eparchos Iesu here bears the court title of ‘most glorious’ (endoxotatos). In his funerary stele, dating from 100783, Ioannes is simply named eparchos Nobadon. We find this absence of court titles (epitheta) for the eparchos also in all the Ibrim documents84.

3.2. In the Coptic sources the Greek title (or term) of eparchos is kept; as for the Nubian title of the eparchos, several hypotheses have been put forward. Osman has equalized this title with the Nubian gouttamet85. The same scholar identified the term soñoj as the ‘local representative of the king’86, but Plumley tentatively suggested that the soñoj may have been the Nubian equivalent of the Greek eparchos87. This interpretation has been accepted by Adams and Browne, the latter stating that the Nubian

79 IDEM, Faras III, p. 40-41. 80 A. LAJTAR, Two Greek funerary stelae from Polish excavations, in Archéologie du Nil Moyen, 5 (1991), p. 157 (= LAJTAR, Two Greek funerary stelae); IDEM, Greek funerary inscriptions, p. 122. 81 J. KRALL, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Blemmyer und Nubier (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Bd XLVI, 4), Vienna, 1898; LAJTAR, Two Greek funerary stelae, p. 159. – The Greek title used in the Coptic document is slightly different: eparchos chôres Nobadias. 82 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 111-114. 83 KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 49-50 –The stele has been destroyed in 1882. 84 The place which the eparchos of Nobadia occupied in series of titles in different documents could be another factor which – at least theoretically – might be expected to shed light on the importance of the eparchos and/or the rank which he occupied in the hierarchy of court dignitaries. However, this criterion is not always easy to apply in the Nubian context especially because it is plausible that in the Faras inscriptions as well as in the Qasr Ibrim documents parallel hierarchies and administrations have existed. This will be discussed infra. 85 Thus in 12th century land privileges documents from Qasr Ibrim: OSMAN, Kokka, p. 191. 86 Ibidem, p. 191. Cf. ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 210. 87 Cf. Ibidem, p. 210.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 319319 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 320 B.C. HENDRICKX

migin soñoj literary means ‘Lord of the Mountain’88, which the Arabs translated as Sahib al-Jebal (Lord of the Mountain). The term sahib also indicates the high respect which the eparchos inspired89. Interestingly, Ibn Qalanisi mentions a Sahib an-nuba90, a reminiscence of the title of phylarchos of the ethnos of the Anouba, the title given to Tantani in Viventius’ letter of ca. 45091. Al-Zahir calls Jurays na’ib of al-Jabal and other districts92. Nuwayni also presents the eparchos as na’ib93. Maqrizi also refers to the na’ib of the Nubian king, but this term seems to indicate not only the eparchos, but also other officials94. Y. Fadl Hasan notes that Sayf al-Dawla Jurays al-Nubi, Lord of the Mountain in the last decade of the 13th century, also bore the title of al-Muhtaram, i.e. ‘the one who deserves respect’, stating that we do not know whether the title was “actually conferred on the individuals concerned or simply adopted by them”, and that it may be an equivalent of a Nubian title95.

3.3. Some authors have considered the equation of the titles Lord of the Mountain with Lord of the Horses, some also having claimed that the title Lord of the Mountain (Arabic: Sahib al-jabal) was a misspelling for the Arabic Sahib al-khayl, and thus that the eparchos’ real title in Arab sources was Lord of the Horses96. However, in a Nubian Qasr Ibrim document, a sales deed of land of the time of King Basil of Dotawo (ca. 1200)97, both titles (in the Nubian language) occur in the same document and two different persons hold the titles: Adama is the Lord of the Moun- tain (eparchos = Nubian: migin soﬁoöillo), and Chaêl is Lord of the Horse(s) (Nubian: mourtn ﬁodllo). This evidence rejects the assumptions of the above cited scholars and proves that these were two different functions. Moreover, there is another proof in favour of the title

88 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. xi. 89 Al-Masudi refers to the delegate of the Nubian king as sahib (VANTINI, OSN, p. 134- 135). Al-Baghdadi (in Ibidem, p. 106) calls the ruler of the Beja sahib. The same title is used for the chief of the Dahlak (Severus, in Ibidem, p. 216), the Lord of Egypt (al-Bakri, in Ibidem, p. 243 and al-Makin, in Ibidem, p. 377), the Lords of Bara, at-Taka, Kaduru, Danfu, Ara, Bifal, Anaj and Karsa (Az-Zahir, in Ibidem, p. 426), and King Adur is also called Sahib (Az-Zahir, in Ibidem, p. 431). 90 Ibidem, p. 285. 91 EIDE et al., Fontes, p. 1165-1171, no. 320. 92 Al-Zahir, in VANTINI, OSN, p. 431. 93 Nuwayni, in Ibidem, p. 470-471, 480. 94 Maqrizi, in Ibidem, p. 649, 699. Al-Qalqashandi (in Ibidem, p. 576) discusses several titles amongst which the na’ib. 95 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 242-243, note 140. 96 ZABORSKI, Marginal notes, p. 411, note 29 – ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 245.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 320320 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 321

‘Lord of the Mountain’: King Shakanda was obliged to swear a coronation oath to the Mamluk Sultan Baybars in 1276, whereby he set aside for the sultan the entire “territory of al-‘Ali and al-Jabal”98. This was in fact the territory of al-Maris, i.e. Nobadia, and its governor was the Sahib al-Jabal. However, the possibility does exist that a cumulus was possi- ble99: in some cases perhaps the Lord of the Mountain might also have held the title and/or function of Lord of the Horses, although this is not confirmed in any surviving document. We shall discuss the cumuli of the eparchos’ titles further on.

3.4. The regalia of the eparchos are known from literary sources as well as from archaeological pictural evidence. Abu Salih the Armenian writes that “at Bujaras [= Pachoras], the capital of al-Maris, (…) there is the dwelling place of Jawsar100, who wore turban (‘asabah) and two horns (al-qurnayn) and the golden bracelet (as-suwar adh-dhahab)”101. This description of the eparchos is in general lines, although not in details, confirmed by the fresco’s of the cathedral of Faras, dated to the middle of the 12th century, probably during the reign of King George IV (1130-58). Michalowski102 gives a good description of two representations of eparchoi. The first one, now in the National Museum of Khartoum, shows Christ, protecting an eparchos, whose name is missing. Michalowski considers the head of Christ as the masterpiece of Nubian art, comparing it with the mosaics of Ravenna, and painted according to the tradition of Saint John of Damask. The eparchos is pictured with a grey helmet with black outlines, on top of which two pairs of horns103 as well as a half-moon on a cylindrical foot

97 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. 54-55, no. 37. 98 Arabic text of al-Nuwayri, reproduced in P.M. HOLT, The coronation oaths of the Nubian Kings, in Sudanic Africa, 1 (1990), p. 5-9, with an English translation (= HOLT, The coronation oaths). 99 Cf. also ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 245. 100 This is most probably the name of the eparchos, and not a title. 101 VANTINI, OSN, p. 323 – According to Zurawski (Regalia, p. 225) “Nubian kings and eparchs are sometimes pictured while holding a crown or a horned headgear (status mark) in their left hand”, and “the pentagram on the Nubian eparch’s headgear is the best illustration” of Old Testament symbolism which penetrated Nubian art and decoration (Regalia, p. 228). 102 K. MICHALOWSKI, Faras, Warsaw, 1974, p. 165-166 and fig. 91, 92 and 93. 103 While ‘horns’ can be connected with cattle, one can also look at the triumphal inscription of Silko, where he compares himself with an aiks or arks. Thinking of an aiks in Western terms, it refers to a goat, but in an African context to a majestic animal, such as the different African bucks (see B. HENDRICKX, Die prysnaam van ‘n koning: was Silko ‘n leeu, ‘n bok, ‘n beer, ‘n antiloop of ‘n godheid?, in Akroterion, 40, 3/4 [1995], p. 135- 144) – For other, rather more improbable explanations for the horns, see L.V. ZABKAR,

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 321321 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 322 B.C. HENDRICKX

are fixed. The half-moon is embellished with three gemstones, of which the middle one is red and connected with the foot by a black iron fitting decorated with pearls. On the foreside of the helmet, we find a gray decorated clasp attached by a chain. On this a pair of horns and a Bukran- ion, also decorated with horns, is attached. These two pairs of horns are decorated with rounded peaks and bells, three on each of the upper horns and five on each of the horns at the under side, as well as one peak on each pair of horns. Michalowski remarks that this type of crown is new, and concludes – wrongly as we shall see – that this illustrates the fact that the eparchos had also the title of ‘king of Dotawo’. The eparchos depicted on the fresco fragment preserved in the National museum of Warschau, wears a tunica with red spiral patterns and a log green gar- ment, which was decorated with red and green rosettes encircled with pearls and yellow woven ligaments against a violet and green back- ground. The eparchos holds in his left hand a diadem against his breast. His right hand holds a bow. The diadem corresponds in general with the helmet described in the other fresco. The fresco in the Abd el-Ghadir church pictures the eparchos wearing a robe (like a chlamys) decorated with double-headed eagles, in the Byz- antine fashion, within interlaced circles104. Zurawski, while quoting Shu- cair Naum, regarding the way the Abdallah sheiks installed their vassal chiefs, implies – as we have already remarked supra – that the horned crown of the eparchos may also have marked his subordinate authority in Lower Nubia105. MacMichael has also connected the horned headwear with the takia, or two-horned cap of the Fung kings and his Mangils, while “the golden bracelet has surely survived in the name of the great Sowar el Dhahab (‘Bracelet of Gold’) family who still reside in Don- gola”106.

The Eparch of Nubia as King, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 22 (1963), p. 218, note 8 (= ZABKAR, Eparch). 104 Zurawski (Regalia, p. 226) remarks that this is different from the Dongolese king’s chlamys, where “single headed eagles are shown”. 105 Zurawski (Regalia, p. 228) – Shucair’s text reads as follows: “If one of these makks dies the whole tribe meet together, choose a makk to be over them, and bring him to the sheikh (of the Abdallab). Then the sheikh shaves his head, crowns him with the taqiyya having two horns stuffed with cotton, and seats him on the chair called kakar. He then addresses him by the title makk saying ‘blessing be on you’, and the makk kisses his hand and prays for him. Then the sheikh orders the mahas (tribal drum) to be beaten, thus publishing his appointment as makk over his people”. – A makk is a vassal chief of the Abdallab sheikhs in Sudan. 106 MACMICHAEL, History, p. I, 177. – The official title of Mangil or Mangilak was applied to the reigning ‘Abdullábi (of Kerri) and also to several other Fung viceroys or governors in different parts of their empire (idem: 245 and 248), namely the meks of Sennár, Fázoghli, Ga’aliín and Rashád, and the sheikhs of the Beni ‘Amir, the Hammada

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 322322 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 323

The picture of an eparchos in the small church of Abd el-Qadir is also revealing the authority of the eparchos: he holds in his left hand the model of a church. Rostkowska has argued that “as the representative of the king he performed traditional royal functions including the creation of foundations, as demonstrated in this mural, the only example so far found of the offering of a model of a church”107. The mural’s scene is reminis- cent of Byzantine frescoes. The picture of the eparchos in the Abd el-Qadir church has been commented on by several scholars. Griffith already remarked that the embroidered garments are ‘of imperial pattern’ and he pays special attention to the ‘remarkable golden crown’108. “On the top of this crown – he writes – is a crescent; from either side of it project large curved horns each with three pendant balls, and on the front of it is King Solomon’s seal”. Like Griffith, Zurawski also connects the pentagram on the crown with the Old Testament109. This is certainly possible, but one should remark that the pentagram also occurs in Byzantine art, and Talbot Rice sees in it nothing more than a design ‘of very precise geometrical patterns’110. The double-headed eagles enclosed in roundels are without doubt inspired by the late Byzantine double-headed eagles’ symbol of the Paleologoi, and contrast with the single-headed eagles in the chlamys of the Nubian king of Dongola. Griffith also maintains that the eparchos keeps in his right hand a sceptre, although I have difficulty in recognizing such an element in the photograph. If so, again, it is a resemblance with the Byzantine imperial iconography. The eparchos moreover wears golden earrings. Griffith also comments on the figures surrounding the eparchos: Christ, behind his right shoulder, wears a pal- lium, while behind the left shoulder there is a small haloed figure holding

and the Katámír of Khashm el Bahr district, as well as the chief of the Ghodiát of Kor- dofán. MacMichael describes the takía as “a close-fitting hat with two stuffed flaps or wings resembling horns”. MacMichael, quoting H.C. JACKSON (Tooth of Fire, being some account of the ancient Kingdom of Sennar, Oxford, 1912, p. 95), who witnessed the inves- titure of an ‘Abdullábi Mangil, writes: “The newly appointed Skeikh first received a ‘Tagia’, which consisted of two horns filled with cotton; this he put upon his head before taking his seat on the throne called ‘Kukur’; he was then addressed with the title of Mek, and saluted: ‘may your reign be prosperous!” The sultan, being his overlord, then kissed his hand and ordered the drum to be beaten in order to announce the Mek had been crowned. Does this ceremony mutatis mutandis resemble the ‘crowning’ of the eparchos, or of sub-kings such as the one of Dotawo, by the king of Nubia? 107 ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 211 and 214 (picture, after F.Ll. GRIFFITH, Oxford Excavations in Nubia, in Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 15 [1928]: pl. XXVIa) (= GRIFFITH, Oxford Excavations) – The name of the eparchos is only partly preserved as ‘…rikouda ep[a]rch(ou) Nobad(ias)’. 108 GRIFFITH, Oxford Excavations, p. 70. 109 ZURAWSKI, Regalia, p. 228. 110 D. TALBOT RICE, Byzantine Art, Middlesex, 1962, p. 215-216 (fig. 15a and b).

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 323323 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 324 B.C. HENDRICKX

a small shield in his left hand. Griffith supposes that this figure represents one of the warrior saints, and that “the small scale upon which the saint is represented enhances the dignity of the central figure”, i.e. the eparchos. Once again, we can connect this figure with Byzantine prototypes: thus Archangel Michael, as archistrategos of the heavenly army, protects the basileus, commander of the Christian army on earth111. It is, in any case, evident that this fresco elevates the eparchos to a ‘royal’ level, thus underlining his status as ‘Lord of Nobadia’. Some scholars have also hinted at the possibility of a Nubian feudal- ism112 and at the possible evolution of the eparchate into kingship. L.V. Zabkar’s note, published in 1963113, presented him as a viceroy ruling at Faras over the North from the First to the Second Cataracts. He believed that the eparchos eventually assumed the title of king (Nub. Ourou), perhaps during the 11th/12th centuries. However, the fact that the eparchos is depicted with a crown, does certainly not imply that he was a king. Indeed, in the Byzantine commonwealth as well as its periphereia, several dignitaries were ‘crowned’114, such as were also dukes and other dignitaries in the Western countries.

4. Functions and powers of the eparchos of Nobadia – His residences, offices and officers

4.1. Description of his functions and powers in ‘official’ documents In the Greek Faras stele of king Merkourios115 we encounter eparchos Markos: k(aì eûkl)(estátou) kaì sofot(átou) Márkou îllou(stríou) k(aì) êpárx(ou) diépontov tà basileikà. In the Coptic version116 we

111 Michael was the protector of the Angeloi House, which is reflected also in imperial coins: D. NICOL, To Despotáton tjv Jpeírou, Ioannina, 1974, p. 173-176. 112 See B. HENDRICKX, Is there evidence for a Medieval Nubian Feudalism?, in Acta Patristica et Byzantina, 21/2 (2010), p. 210-222 (= HENDRICKX, Feudalism) – In this article feudalism versus the royal Nubian claim to absolute possession of ground has been discussed and analyzed. 113 ZABKAR, Eparch, p. 217-219. He thereby refers to John the Deacon (8th c.) as well as to Abu Salih (13th c.) and Ibn Khaldun (14th c.), who wrote about “thirteen secondary kings, [who] apparently represent thirteen feudal lords who had assumed the titles of the kings under the supreme rule of the king of old Dongola as an overlord”. The latter reference concerns in fact the 8th century, when King Kyriakos ruled Nubia. Zabkar then compares this situation with the medieval feudal history of Europe. 114 Thus, the Byzantines also speak of the anagoreusis of certain dignitaries (e.g. despotai). The Caesars and sebastokratores also were honoured with diademata or stem- mata: PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi, p. 34. 115 KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 14-17; JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja, p. 99-106. 116 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 40-41.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 324324 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 325

also read that the Great Eparchos Markos “dioikei ntmntero #nqektys”. The last parts of the Greek as well as of the Coptic text give a direct description of his function; but the passage can be translated in different ways: he administrates the kingdom; he rules the kingdom; he administrates the royal domains; he is responsible for the royal affairs117. In the context of Faras, where the inscriptions were put up, this most probably refers to the region of the kingdom of Nobadia, and not to the entire united kingdom of Makouria and Nobadia. These powers and the geographic context are confirmed – perhaps somewhat surpris- ingly – by several Qasr Ibrim documents from the 12th century, which otherwise have created the ‘problem of Dotawo’: in at least three documents, it is expressly stated that the eparchos of Nobadia holds all authority over Nobadia118. The title eparchos mpalation is more intriguing, and may perhaps suggest another title or another function, which is known from one inscription of 871 only119, but other dignities connected with the term Palation and referring to the king of Makouria as well as to the eparchos of Nobadia are mentioned in two Coptic legal documents written on crocodile skin, dated as being from 804-813 AD120. We are tempted to accept the synonymy between ‘basileika’, discussed above, and ‘palation’121, and we believe that the eparchos of the Palace – when mentioned in the Faras context or a Faras document – is in fact the eparchos of Nobadia, who is responsible for the ‘basileika’122.

117 See also E. KRIARAS, Lezikó tjv mesaiwnikßv elljnikßv djmÉdouv grammateíav. Thessaloniki, vol. D’, 1975, p. 57-58, who gives, however, only general meanings of the term – See also HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 333. 118 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. 11 and 48, no. 35; 14 and 54, no. 37; and 6 and 42, no. 32. 119 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 94-96. 120 Ibidem, p. 74; J. KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 14 (1910), p. 236-239 (= KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König); GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 131-132. 121 This would imply that the office-bearers of the Palace of Faras would fall under the eparchos of Nobadia, but not these of the Palace of the King in Dongola (such as probably the protodomestikos of the Palace [KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König, p. 238; PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor, p. 6] and a promeizon of the Palace [KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König, p. 239]). 122 Cf. HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 333: “Was the latter dignitary [i.e. the eparchos mpalation] in charge of the court and the palace in Faras? Or was his title only an honorary one, in which case we might perhaps have a parallel with the Byzantine axiai dia brabeiôn and axiai dia logou? The first ones were – in Byzantium – purely honorific, while the second ones were connected with a function. In the Faras stele of King Merkourios we encounter eparchos Markos: k(ai eukl)(estatou) kai sofot(atou) Markou ill(o)u(striou) k(ai) eparch(ou) diepontos ta basileika. One wonders whether this Markos who manages the basilika, is the same as the one who is in charge of the royal palace, especially in view

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 325325 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 326 B.C. HENDRICKX

4.2. Cumulus of the function of eparchos of Nobadia with other titles/ functions

Since the early Nubian period until well into the late period, the sources show that some eparchoi had also other functions or titles. The cumulus exists with the following functions or titles:

* eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Pachoras (Faras): – Darme in a Royal Proclamation of King George Moses of Dotawo123; – Adam in a release act of a slave with reference to King George Moses124; – Adam in a deed of sale of land (1 November 1191)125; – Adama126 in a sales deed of land127; – Adama in yet another sales deed of land128;

* Remarkable is also the mention of ‘Papanni being domestikos elect(?)129 and Great Eparch…’ in a sales deed of land and cession of land130, an extra difficulty for the interpretation being the fact that also Adama being eparchos of Nobadia is mentioned in the same document.

* In some documents, the eparchos holds still other titles or offices: – Ioannes, son of Zacharias, is eparchos and protomeizoteros (stele in Old Dongola from 883)131; – Simeon, in a graffito in the narthex of the church of Sonqi Tino, is called eparchos, presbyteros megas and chartoularios132; – Adama is eparchos of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and he also holds the office of scribe in a deed of sale of land to the Church (under King Basil of Dotawo, 16 August 1200)133;

of the fact that the term ‘basileika’ was also used in Byzantium to indicate the Palace of the Blacchernai. However, since the king’s official residence was in Dongola (since the unification of Nobadia and Makouria), one is tempted to argue that there was also a royal palace in Faras, where perhaps the king resided from time to time, when visiting or inspecting his northern territories.” 123 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 30. 124 Ibidem, no. 33. 125 Ibidem, no. 36. 126 Presumably the same person as Adam. 127 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 37. 128 Ibidem, no. 39. 129 The Nubian title for domestikos is samet (Ibidem, p. xi). 130 Ibidem, no. 34. 131 JAKOBIELSKY, Faras III, p. 72 – J. LECLANT, Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, in Orientalia, 36 (1969), p. 294. 132 VANTINI, À propos de deux rois, p. 131-132; DONADONI, Graffiti, p. 34, 36; MUNRO-HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 109-110. 133 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 40.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 326326 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 327

– Adama is eiksil and eparchos of Nobadia in a release act of pur- chase134 and Adam (presumably the same as Adama) is eparchos of Nobadia, and eiksil in a letter to the architriclinus(?)135 Douddi136; – Gabrielinkouda is eiksil of Douksi, eparchos of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and silentiary(?)137 in a Sales Deed of a plot138; – Masi is eparchos of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and eiksil in a letter to Elonnal139.

* Finally, Török states that at the beginning of the 9th century “two, unfortunately rather fragmentary protocols allow us to infer that at that time the eparch of Nobatia was both the protodomesticos and the protomeizoteros, of whom (as the protocol says) ‘all Ethiopians from Tilimauara to the castrum of Philae are the subjects’”140. However, Török’s statement must be doubted, because the texts to which he refers, do not allow such a conclusion; in fact, the one document141 quoted by Török, mentions that “the […] Georgius was proto[…] and protodomestikos and protomeizeteros, all the Ethiopians being subject to him from Tilimauara to the castrum of Philae” and also that “Mikhenkuda Son- neicaasta was [ep]arch (?)”. The other Coptic fragment, referred to by Török, mentions that “Georgius was […] and protodomesticus and protomeizoteros, all the Ethiopians being subject to him”142, while most of the other names are partly missing. The reference to the Ethiopians is indeed inviting to recognize in Georgios the eparchos of Nobadia, but the possibility of Mikhenkuda being eparchos cannot be ruled out. Is this another case perhaps, where we have two eparchoi at the same time, as may be in the case of Adam(a) and Gabrielinkouda143, or where the one is the eparchos Nobadias and the other the ‘great’ eparchos or the eparchos of Terp[.], as attested in other documents144?

How can we explain these cumuli, or more precisely the different offices and titles which the eparchoi sometimes held at the same time, and the logic of these cumuli?

134 Ibidem, no. 31. 135 The Nubian title is odvol dauoul (Ibidem, p. xi). 136 Ibidem, no. 50. 137 The Nubian title is gottamet according to Browne (Ibidem, p. xii). The controversy around this title is discussed further on in our article. 138 Ibidem, no. 32. 139 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, no. 24. 140 TÖRÖK, Money, p. 306; CRUM, Catalogue, nos. 449, 450, 451. 141 GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 132. 142 Ibidem, p. 132-133. 143 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 35. 144 See e.g. Ibidem, nos. 34 and 46 – PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor, p. 7.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 327327 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 328 B.C. HENDRICKX

It is evident that – at least in the Qasr Ibrim documents – the offices of eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Faras are often connected. The connection is politico-geographic and probably ideologic: Faras was the first capital of Nobadia since the inition of the Nobadian and then united Nobadian-Makourian Kingdom. It underlines the authority as well as the prestige which the eparchos possessed. But why the domestikos as such? In Byzantium the title domestikos refers to a military com- mander145. The cumulus eparchos-domestikos thus indicates that the civil and military powers were united in one person at these specific times when the cumuli existed. Although the other titles seem to be less important, they refer to economic and administrative power. Other domestikoi of Faras than the eparchoi themselves are mentioned in the Qasr Ibrim documents: thus in a sales deed of land and cession of land146, Adama is mentioned as eparchos of Nobadia, Sirephi as Domes- tikos of Faras, and Papanni – as we have seen – as domestikos elect(?) and great eparchos; in another sales deed of land, this time of Church land147, Teeita is mentioned as domestikos elect(?) and Minnel as vice- eparchos, while no eparchos is mentioned, although two functionaries are mentioned as being in the service of the eparchos, namely Dollisil as tricliniaris of the eparchos and Eidisil, the Great Priest, as scribe of the eparchos. We find similar – although more complete, it seems – information in another sales deed of land for the Church (16 August 1200 under King Basil of Dotawo)148: Teeita is domestikos elect(?), Dollisil is tricliniaris of the eparchos, Minnel is vice-eparchos and the Great Priest Eiodisi ‘wrote and witnessed’ the act; but in the same document also Adama is mentioned as eparchos of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and as holding the office of scribe. Interesting is also the fact that in two other acts149 Dollai is mentioned as Ness of the domestikos (of Faras[?]), in the latter act the eparchos Adama being the domestikos. Bishop Iesou of Ibrim as well as a certain Basileios both sent letters to Israel, domestikos of Faras, without mentioning an eparchos150. One can understand that the eparchos could have the office of scribe, which is understandable in view of his function as head of the Archive, while also other scribes were in function at the same time, and that the

145 PLAKOGIANNAKIS, Timjtikoí títloi, p. 179-181. 146 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. 34. 147 Ibidem, no. 38. 148 Ibidem, no. 40. 149 Ibidem, nos. 38 and 40. 150 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, nos. 25 and 26.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 328328 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 329

office of Ness was not connected to this of eparchos, but could be connected with this of domestikos, other Ness having the seemingly more grandiose title Ness of Nobadia151, and some Ness being mentioned simply with this title only or connected with the geographic precisions ‘of Odjo’ and ‘of the Town’152, all in one document153. As for the office of eiksil, we do not know what it comprises. There is also the title eiksil of Douksi, borne by the eparchos Gabrielinkouda, and there is the combined title of choiak-eiksil, which appears in several Qasr Ibrim commercial documents154. In all these cases the latter office is hold by Massouda, there being a second choiak-eiksil, named Petri, in an act of cession of land155. Massouda is also known from other documents, where he appears as elder(?)156 or without title157. In all instances, he is connected with the sale or receiving of goods and the sale or buying of land and in one case it is stated that he ‘weighed out the gold’158. One may therefore assume – with some caution – that the choiak-eiksil was a functionary related to trade and/or commerce. The title of eiksil159, sometimes held by the eparchos, may therefore also relate to this section of the eparchos’ functions and indicate his authority in this field too. Per- haps the choiak-eiksil was an assistant or deputy of the eiksil. The office of silentiary(?) is attested as one of the functions of Gabri- elinkounda. The case of this eparchos has risen several problems – as we have already stated – and has been discussed recently by scholars. Firstly there is the problem of understanding the title or function itself. Browne has translate the Nubian term gottamet(t) as silentiary (Greek: silen- tiarios) on the basis that gott- might be related to gtt-, w#iö# means ‘to be silent’160. However, Browne himself accepts that Osman may be right in translating the Nubian term as ‘deputy’ (from got, ‘to stand for’)161. Osman thus renders in fact the Nubian term as ‘deputy of the king’, i.e. eparchos. This last interpretation has not been accepted by scholars, and indeed – as we have already seen – the Qasr Ibrim documents clearly show that the Nubian term for eparchos of Nobadia is

151 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 35, where both types of Ness are present. 152 i.e. presumably Ibrim. 153 Ibidem, no. 36. 154 Ibidem, nos. 37, 39, 42 and 52. 155 Ibidem, no. 42. 156 Ibidem, nos. 46 and 53. 157 Ibidem, nos. 47 and 53 158 Ibidem, no. 37. 159 It is not known whether this title corresponded to any Greek title. 160 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. xii (with further references) and passim (in his translations, cautiously followed by a question mark). 161 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 191.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 329329 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 330 B.C. HENDRICKX

migin (migitin goun) soLoöillo. But if one accepts the meaning of ‘deputy’ for the Nubian term gottamet(t), the question is: whose deputy? Not of the eparchos, since Gabrielinkouda is eparchos and gottamet. Whatever the meaning, we see that the title is important enough to be kept by Gabrielinkouda next to his other titles. Also, once again, there are different cases of gottamet, one being the gottamet of Nobadia162. Finally, the possibility of a cumulus with the function of Lord of the Horses has already been discussed above.

4.3. The eparchos was also assisted by other dignitaries and officers, either on an executive level or as simple executers of his orders at the ground level. Several times, these office bearers held titles, which are found back in the cumuli of the eparchos. The overview of the eparchos’ titles, role and activities, discussed supra, has shown that these covered a number of fields, mainly army and defence, economy, administration, religion, politics and diplomacy, fields which one man could certainly not handle on his own. The Greek and Coptic inscriptions as well as the Qasr Ibrim Nubian documents give us some titles, perhaps functions of his ‘staff’, but no details. An antheparchos is mentioned in many documents. This term almost certainly should be read as anteparchos. It is very doubtful that the term would mean something like ânq(up)éparxov, an otherwise unknown and unattested term163. We can assume that he was the eparchos’ deputy. The Nubian title for ant(h)eparchos was – according to Browne164 – soﬁoöimar165. It is, however, not always clear whether the mention of a ‘deputy of the soñoj’ refers in all cases to a deputy of the eparchos or perhaps to the deputy of a ‘local soñoj’, as is the case in a letter of eparchos Masi to Ellonna166. More intriguing are the mentions of dignitaries in the two Coptic documents (804-813) on crocodile skill from the Qurta region167, mentioned above, where we believe to find two series of dignitaries, one referring

162 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. 30. 163 Ibidem, p. xii – One should reject another unattested term, namely ânq(up) éparxov, a combination of ânq (=ântí) + üpéparxov, the latter term meaning a sub- eparchos. In Modern Greek the prefix üp(ó) is e.g. combined with functions, who need or have deputies (e.g. üpodieuquntßv, üfupourgóv). 164 Ibidem, p. xii. 165 However, in BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, no. 21.i, 25, no. 22.3 and no. 24.6, other variants in the texts, may indicate a difference between a deputy-soñoj and the deputy of the soñoj. 166 Ibidem, p. 45. 167 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 74; KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König, p. 236-241.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 330330 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 331

to Makouria and one to Nobadia168. In the first document, the first part of the intitulatio refers to King Chael, followed by a number of Palace dignitaries, namely the lampros Ioannes, the protodomestikos of the Palace169, Aaron, bishop of Kure (Kourte?), Onophrios, protomeizon and Joseph, primikerios. The second series of names reads: Kyri(a)kos, eparchos of Nobadia, Simeon, meizon of Nobadia and finally Ioannes, whose rank is missing170 and the monk Jacob. In the second document’s royal series, introduced by King Chael, the lamprotatos Johannes is mentioned again, as well as the protodomestikos of the Palace of the King, bishop Aaron of Kore (Kourte?) and Onophrios, promeizon of the Palace and Kyri(a)kos, the primikerios. Then follow – as second series – Joseph, meizon of Nobadia171, the eparchos of Nobadia (name missing), Ioannes and Jacob. These documents – combined with the mention of the eparchos of Makouria, to which we referred previously – suggest that at least in the 9th century AD there might have been a parallel administration (or at least a parallel system of court dignitaries) in Noba- dia and Makouria. The Palace dignitaries mentioned in the two above texts, would thus refer to the Palace of Dongola, not to Faras. In the case of Nobadia, the eparchos being the de facto and de jure administrator of the province, one must accept that the dignitaries of Nobadia were also his subordinates. One is thus tempted to infer that the inscriptions of Faras, which mention dignitaries, mainly or perhaps exclusively refer to dignitaries of Nobadia. Likewise, the Ibrim documents suggest that in the nomenclature of these documents, where the king of Dotawo is mentioned, the Dotawo royals and their own dignitaries are mentioned first, and that the Nobadia series begins with the mention of the eparchos (often introduced with the

168 See supra. – Cf. also TÖRÖK, Money, p. 305. 169 In both documents, the words following Ioannes are missing and then the text continues: ‘and protodomestikos…’. It is therefore possible that Ioannes was also the protodomestikos of the Palace. 170 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 74-75 proposes that this Ioannes must be the bishop of Faras, and, on the ground of the first of these Coptic documents, where as witness he has signed as pepitropos mpepisk(opos) np(é)aras, (i.e. the “Administrator of the Bishop of Pachoras”), that “the administrative system in the Nubian kingdom at this time was considerably developed, whereas the use of the Coptic language in both these documents, as also in the documents discussed further in this work and originating from the same period, could substantiate that the tradition of using Coptic as an official language was also maintained in the 9th century in Nubia”. 171 The fact that the meizon of Nobadia here precedes the eparchos of Nobadia is remarkable, but it is difficult to explain. It is possible that the precedence here is due as a result of personal status of the office-holders involved and not of the hierarchy sensu stricto.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 331331 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 332 B.C. HENDRICKX

words: ‘And in Nobadia…’172), followed by the eparchos’ (i.e. Noba- dia’s) officials. The scheme is thus as follows: (a) intitulatio of the king of Dotawo and the queen mother, followed by the names and titles (functions) of the royal officials and the bishop; (b) intitulatio of the eparchos of Nobadia, followed by the names and titles of his officials (i.e. of Noba- dia)173. This scheme, in which the two series of intitulationes serve as date and officialization of the act, can be applied to practically all documents, where both king and eparchos are mentioned.

Some titles seem to have been reserved for the royal series, e.g. domestikos elect(?) (Nubian: sametiñol), keeper of the grain (Nubian: souñi), a great scribe (Nubian: sountouwe dauoul), nas and architriclinus (Nubian: odñol daoul). This may possibly also explain the presence of a Great eparchos in the royal series, as opposed to the eparchos Nobadias, who heads the Nobadian series and who is the one who holds all power in Nobadia. Other titles seem to occur only in the eparchal series: domestikos (Nubian: samet174), silentiary(?) (Nubian: gottamet), nessigaueikkol, gous(h)175, sirin176 and Great Priest (Nubian: sorto daoul). Other titles occur in both series, but often connected with a place name or attached to another office (e.g. ‘of the eparchos’): tricliniaris(?) (Nubian: odñol), oikonomos(?) (Nubian: nok(k)eidñil), potentiaris(?) (Nubian: irt), meizoteros(?) (Nubian: dau(ou)katt) and ñess. The only way to explain the lists in the documents is by accepting a parallel hierarchy and even – by implication – a parallel administration, one for the kingdom of Dotawo and one for the eparchate of Nobadia. One must accept that a person could hold offices, dignities or titles in both hierarchies, while it is also possible that – as in Byzantium – one could hold a real office next to an honorary title177.

172 Alternatively, the bishop (of Ibrim) introduces the Nobadian series. 173 It is remarkable that officials with titles ending ‘of Nobadia’ (e.g. silentiary(?) of Nobadia, ñess of Nobadia) or ‘of the eparchos’ (e.g. tricliniaris(?) of the eparchos) always follow the eparchos in the series. 174 A. Osman considers the samet to be ‘the officer in charge of the land tax collection’ (New lights on Medieval Nubia, in Nyame Akuma, 10 [1977], 49) (= OSMAN, New lights). 175 Always connected with a place name, e.g. goush of the Town (Ibrim). 176 Once the bishop of Ibrim holds also the position of sirin (BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. 40). 177 In another context, D.N. Edwards (The Nubian Past. An Archaeology of the Sudan. London, 2004, p. 238) (= EDWARDS, The Nubian Past) has also opted somehow for a double hierarchy, when writing: “The king of Dongola seems to have had a domestikos

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 332332 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 333

The fact that the Dotawo royal series, with the king and the queen mother on top, precedes the eparchal one does not imply that the eparchos is subordinated to these royals. It does not reflect power and authority, but conventional status. The use of series of intitulationes should not be confused with the series of witnesses at the end of the documents, while many documents do not have the intitulatio series at the beginning. Perhaps, these documents, found in the eparchal houses at Ibrim, are the work of the eparchos and his administration alone, without any connection with the kings of Dotawo. Finally, it is also useful – in this context – to refer to Osman, who has examined the Nubian titles found in ten 12th century land privilege doc- uments178. We already know that his identification of the eparchos with the gottamet is not any longer accepted. Osman is also of the opinion that all titles in the Qasr Ibrim documents do not necessarily refer to subordinates or assistants of the eparchos, and he holds that some functionaries were direct appointments by the king (of Dotawo), namely the Sik- koten Irt179 (governor of Sikout), the soñoj (local representatives of the king180), the goush (probably military officers), the samet181 (land tax collectors), the sountououe (scribes), the ñojer (messengers) and the official responsible for the customs at al-Mags al-‘Ala (Upper Maqs), and that, moreover, the king would have exerted some offices himself; for instance in two instances the king was the holder himself of the office of shoun (overseer of the granaries)182, but in other cases this official was appointed by the king183. Osman has not given any argument for his theory and now needs to be updated, also because it seems now rather certain that both leaders, eparchos and king of Dotawo, had their own subordinates, sometimes bearing the same title(s), much in the same way

while the Eparch of Nobadia’s was usually referred to as the domestikos of Faras (Nubian: Paran Samet)” – However, his statement is generalized and imprecise. 178 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 191-196. 179 The irt title is now accepted to be equivalent of potentiary (BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. xii). This does not exclude that this dignitary could also be the governor of a place. Osman (New lights, p. 48) believes that this officer was in charge of the river traffic. 180 This identification by Osman has also been rejected, although it is still accepted that there existed local soñoj next to or under the eparchos. 181 The samet title is now accepted to be the equivalent of domestikos (BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, p. xii). 182 Indeed, such a title is never used by the eparchoi (as far as present documentation is concerned): ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 226, note 6. 183 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 195-196; ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 226, note 6 remarks that the king’s brother may hold the title.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 333333 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 334 B.C. HENDRICKX

as the eparchos and the king of Dongola had their own court and subordinates. A manuscript written in Nubian, dated 973, being a colophon mentioning the title and name of the donors as Neshshadena, soñoj of Adda (Adua), and his wife, Jawe184, is the oldest document mentioning the Nubian title of soñoj. It seems that here we have a local representative of the king or of the eparchos himself185. Another ink graffito from the Faras Cathedral mentions a Michael, soñoj of Datira186. In the letter of eparchos Adam to Soueti, the vice-eparchos of Terp[.], the priest Isou (together with a certain Anna) is mentioned as the eparchos’ ‘agent from the Deacons’187.

Two ‘departments’, which seem to have had prominence are these of the toll or taxation gathering at the boundaries and a chancellery. The first one is attested in several literary Arabic sources. The chancellery consisted of scribes, responsible for the eparchos’ correspondence with the king and the Egyptians. These scribes or some of them were also translators, since much correspondence took place either in Coptic or Arabic. The Qasr Ibrim documents show or suggest that there was an Arab secretary and also simple scribes188. Whether the Lord of the Moun- tain knew Arabic himself, is unknown. Some – during the later Nubian history – probably knew this language; the others, when dealing with Egyptians, had to rely on translators. As for the ‘ethnic’ origin of these scribes and translators189, we may assume that in the early period most

184 ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 210. 185 Rostkowska (ibidem) indicates that the text suggest that Neshshadena held ‘a high and important secular office at Adda’, and goes on stating that the office of soñoj was defined in the earlier studies as the ‘local representative of the king’, while Plumley later suggested that the soñoj was the eparchos. There is – in fact – no contradiction in these statements. We now know from the documents that other eparchoi existed and were (probably) governors or representatives of smaller geographic units. In how far these local soñoj-eparchoi were directly representing the king (and which one) is not clear at all, and it is certain that at least several of them were supervised by the eparchos of Nobadia himself. This is illustrated by eparchal texts where soñoj are mentioned. 186 ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 212. 187 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 49. – The eparchos’ letter is confirmed by a letter from Soueti, vice-eparchos of Terp[.] to Ajjaji, with reference to both the priest Isou and Anna (Ibidem, no. 50). 188 A Great Scribe and an Epistolary scribe are also mentioned in some documents, but if our theory regarding a double hierarchy and administration in Dotawo is correct, then this functionary would belong to the king’s hierarchy (BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, nos. 32 and 35). 189 A drogman (dragoman) is mentioned in the Nubian context at at least two different occasions, although not in relation to the eparchos, by al-Taghribirdi (in VANTINI, OSN, p. 731) and David Reubeni (in Ibidem, p. 777).

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 334334 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 335

of them were Copts (who also knew Greek), but that at a later stage most of them, if not all, must have been Nubians, while the Arab secretary was almost certainly a Muslim residing at Qasr Ibrim.

The following table, based on the official documents only, illustrates the position of the eparchos of Nobadia190 with all attested cumuli and his direct and indirect deputies and subordinates. These cumuli certainly entail a consolidation of power. In this table we refer to the Greek titles191, of which the Nubian equivalents have been given above.

Eparchos of = Domestikos = Eiksil = Scribe = Silentiary(?) Nobadia of Faras and = [and = (Lord of the [and perhaps = Chartoularios Protomeizoteros Mountain) Protodomes- and = Megas and perhaps = tikos] Presbyteros Lord of the Horse(s)] Deputies: Subordinated [Assistants(?): Other scribes as No deputies or Ant(h)eparchos office bearers Choiak-Eiksil] well as an Arab subordinates Eparchos of of the secretary (and/ directly attested Lower Nobadia domestikos: or translator) for these titles Eparchos of Ñess of the Terp[.] Domestikos Ant(h)eparchos of Terp[.] Probably also local soñoj (such as this of Adda [Adua], Akirimip, Datira) as well as local deputy-soñoj or deputies of such soñoj. Office bearers of the Eparchos: Domestikos of the Eparchos Silentiary(?) of the Eparchos Tricliniaris(?) of the Eparchos

190 The table does not refer to the great eparchos Papanni. 191 We have also retained the interrogation mark (?) after the Greek titles, of which the equivalency with Nubian titles is still not fully certain.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 335335 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 336 B.C. HENDRICKX

Eparchos of = Domestikos = Eiksil = Scribe = Silentiary(?) Nobadia of Faras and = [and = (Lord of the [and perhaps = Chartoularios Protomeizoteros Mountain) Protodomes- and = Megas and perhaps = tikos] Presbyteros Lord of the Horse(s)] Office bearers of Nobadia: Meizon of Nobadia Ñess of Nobadia Silentiary(?) of Nobadia Office bearers in Nodabia192: Meizoteros of Ibrim Ñess of the Town (Ibrim) Goush of the Town (Ibrim) Sirin of the Town (Ibrim) Agents of the Eparchos: Agent (from the Deacons)

If our suggestion as for the parallel existence of two hierarchies and eventually of two administrations is correct, then the list of offices of the eparchos and/or Nobadia can be extended – as we have remarked – with all the ones that appear in the eparchal series. The above table can be compared with these of Adams and Osman, which are more general, referring to the dignitaries found in the Qasr Ibrim documents only193.

192 Only dignitaries, whose title is connected with a place name in Nobadia, are listed here. Probably, this list can be extended with other office bearers, cited in the intitulatio series of the eparchos (and discussed above), while taking into consideration that some of these officers are also present in the royal series, mainly the potentiaris, meizoteros(?), ñess, goush, sirin, nessigaueikkol, Great Priest and oikonomos(?). 193 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 191-196; ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 247-248: Adams’ table is very useful and gives all the titles, important and ‘small’ ones, with Greek and Nubian equivalents.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 336336 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 337

4.4. The residences and offices of the eparchos of Nobadia

The above discussion of cumulus of offices by the eparchos auto- matically leads to the question of where the eparchos was residing and where he had his offices.

4.4.1. Since Faras (Pachoras, Bajrash)194 was the first capital of Noba- dia, it is therefore accepted that the eparchos of Nobadia was residing in that city, as suggested by the inscriptions and expressively stated by Abu Salih the Armenian195. Fadl Hasan, however, states that the Lord of the Mountain had three capitals, namely Upper Maqs, Bajrash (Faras) and the fortress of al-Daw196, while Jakobielski notes that the residence of the eparchos was transferred to the stronghold of Qasr Ibrim at a later stage in the Nubian kingdom’s history197. These statements need some clarifi- cation. Upper Maqs198 (Maks) is mentioned by Abu Salih the Armenian as a town, near the first Cataract, where every one who wanted to pass into Nubia was searched and where emerald was found199. However, we have seen already that the place was controlled by an officer of the king of Dongola. Qasr Ibrim is situated on the Nile northwards of Faras, just above al-Daw and Basrash (Faras), all of them between the first and second Cataract, while Upper Maqs is situated more southwards and not far from the third Cataract. Scholars now believe that in the later period Gebel Adda (Daw) was the capital of the kings of Dotawo, while the eparchos resided in Qasr Ibrim200, but Nuwayni has stated that the Lord of the Mountain – in the time of King David – had his residence at Daw, and that he was the king’s na’ib at that fortress201. It has also been suggested that the eparchos had – during the later centuries – strong associations with the island of Meinarti (‘Island of

194 See also F.Ll. GRIFFITH, Pakhoras – Bakharâs – Faras in Geography and history, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 11 (1925), p. 259-268 (= GRIFFITH, Pakhoras). 195 VANTINI, OSN, p. 323: “At Bujaras [= Pachoras], the capital of the province of al-Maris, (…) there is the dwelling place of Jawsar, who wore turban and two horns and the golden bracelet”. 196 Contradicting himself, Fadl Hasan firstly states that the Lord had two official residences (Arabs and Sudan, p. 225, note 27) and then that he had three capitals (Ibidem, p. 108 and 240, note 90). 197 JAKOBIELSKI, Christian Nubia, p. 107. 198 The term ‘Maqs’ may be an Arabic loan word from Syriac, while in Modern Nubian the terms ‘makis, mekis’ mean ‘customs, custom duty’ (ZABORSKI, Marginal notes, p. 410). 199 VANTINI, OSN, p. 325. 200 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 6, 24. 201 Nuwayni, in VANTINI, OSN, p. 470-471, 480.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 337337 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 338 B.C. HENDRICKX

Michael’) at the north end of the Second Cataract, where Goassi, the son of eparchos Sentikol was buried in 1161202, but is not clear whether the island was also – at some stage – a residence of the eparchos. Also, Abu Salih has cited an eparchos who was dwelling in Bausaka and whose eyes were put out, but he omits to say whether this person dwelled in Bausaka as eparchos or only after his eyes had been put out and he presumably was not any longer eparchos203. It is difficult to establish a definitive date for the abandonment of Faras as permanent capital of Nobadia. Bishop Iesu was the last name of the list of metropolitans of Faras204, and the duration of his episcopate has been dated by Jakobielski as between 1125/33 and 1170/75205. At that same period (in 1173) the Arabs occupied Qasr Ibrim for two years, and they destroyed a Nubian force at the battle of Adindan (ca. 1175), at which occasion the Faras cathedral and a part of the town were plundered and destroyed206. After the battle of Adindan no large Arab attacks on Nubia are noted until the disas- trous action of King David in 1272. It is probable that after 1175, still some bishops resided in Faras during the 13th century, although archaeology shows a marked decline of the town. Was perhaps the last ‘honorary’ bishop of Faras no one else than Timotheos (consecrated in 1372), whose real seat was at Phrim, which is the medieval name of Qasr Ibrim207?

4.4.2. At Faras, the most probable official residence of the eparchos was the ‘palace’, as referred to in the title of eparchos of the palace (see above). This place was arguably the palace where the former kings of Nobadia had resided. The excavations at Qasr Ibrim have brought to light four houses, especially associated with the eparchoi; a fifth one may also have been an eparchal residence208. The oldest of these houses (house 763209) was built ca. 1050 and remained occupied for ca. 250 years. Here 1279 individual pieces of paper, bearing text, were found, of which only a dozen are intact letters and several are large fragments210. It was the residence of a wealthy and influential family, one of his members, a certain Isra’il, occupying the

202 J.W.B. BARNS, Christian Monuments from Nubia, in Kush, 2 (1954), p. 26-32 (BARNS, Christian Monuments) – EDWARDS, The Nubian Past, p. 231 and 238. 203 VANTINI, OSN, p. 324. 204 KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 87-89 – JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 194-195. 205 Ibidem, p. 165. 206 Ibidem, p. 160-165. 207 Ibidem, p. 167-168. 208 We here follow the report of ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 42-61. 209 The numbers refer to the excavation numbers, also used in Adams. 210 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 43-45.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 338338 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 339

function of eparchos during the 12th or 13th century211. A second and a third house (houses 177 and 172) were built in ca. 1175 (after the raid of Shams ed-Dawla); the latter did not provide any documents, but had a very large room, which – according to Adams – was the audience cham- ber of the eparchos, while in the former one, where at one time the eparchos Adam(a) resided, a number of legal documents were found212. House 178 was originally a tavern from the Meroitic and X-Group times, and it was rebuilt in the Late Christian period as an eparchal residence or store- house213. A fifth house, very large and well furnished, with no textual finds, may have been an eparchal residence214. At the end of the Christian period all these houses were probably abandoned and it is believed that the eparchoi then resided in the so-called ‘castle-houses’, dating from the latest period of Christian Ibrim (15th c.), two-storey structures with a rectangular or square plan, and built of brick. There are three such mas- sive brick buildings (houses 169, 170, 171), close to the western battle- ments of Ibrim with thick walls, large vaults and crypts, probably built by a group of professional builders. In house 170 a number of legal documents written in Old Nubian and dating from between 1281 and 1464 were found215. The finds of archives in most of the above houses suggest that the eparchos’ residence was also his office. One of the Qasr Ibrim texts also mentions – as we have already seen – an eparchal office in the Church of the Holy Trinity216. This church was one of the seven churches at Ibrim, mentioned in the Ibrim documents. In Ibrim itself, only five constructions could be identified archaeologi- cally as churches, but none could be identified by name, except the Mary Church, which was the cathedral217.

5. The actions, activities and practical responsibilities of the eparchos of Nobadia

5.1. The narrative and diplomatic sources of the 8th century It is necessary to try to find out what the eparchos did in reality, which were his responsibilities, which was his relationship vis-à-vis the king of Makouria, which powers and which authority he exercised not only de

211 This is attested by Isra’il’s own son, who – in a letter – congratulated his father on his appointment as eparchos: ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 45-47. 212 Ibidem, p. 48-52. 213 Ibidem, p. 53. 214 Ibidem, p. 53. 215 Ibidem, p. 58-61. 216 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 35. 217 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 66.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 339339 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 340 B.C. HENDRICKX

jure, but also de facto. While some diplomatic sources are very useful, Muslim Arab and a few Christian sources outside Nubia give us some more detailed information, which – however – should be used with pru- dence. It is the period of King Kyriakos (fl. mid 8th C.) which provides us with some solid information: here we have a diplomatic source, namely a letter of the governor of Egypt, Musa b. K[a‘b]218, to Kyriakos219, written in 759 regarding the baqt220, and a narrative source, the Christian History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. The History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria221 describes how Kyria- kos marched towards Egypt with 100,000 horsemen, 100,000 horses and 100,000 camels in September 747 AD, and, how approaching Misr (Cairo) “they plundered and slew and made prisoners of the Muslims”. Before reaching Misr, “the king had sent an envoy, called the Eparch, one of the great men of the kingdom, to Abd al-Malik, bidding him to release the patriarch, but Abd al-Malik seized that envoy and emprisoned (sic) him with the Patriarch. But when the governor heard of the arrival of the king before Misr, not having any means of resisting him, and being greatly afraid of him, he released his envoy, the Eparch, from prison. So the latter went forth to meet the king, having previously made an agreement with Abd al-Malik, and sworn to induce the king to return with his army to his own country, and not to let him approach his for- tresses nor besiege him… So the king… led back his army, because the Eparch informed him that the patriarch had been released, and had been kindly treated by Abd al-Malik, and himself bade the Nubians to return homewards with his blessing”222. According to this History, the reason for Kyriakos’ expedition against Egypt was the imprisonment of the Coptic Patriarch Michael (744-768). Jakobielski223 has cast doubt on this reason, and has looked rather at

218 Text in PLUMLEY, An Eight-Century Arabic Letter, p. 242-244 – Reproduced by S.M. Burstein, Ancient African Civilizations. Kush and Axum, Princeton, 1997, p. 127-132 (= BURSTEIN, Ancient African Civilizations). 219 The names of the rulers have fallen away in the manuscript; it is generally accepted that they are: Musa Ibn Ka’b (governor of Egypt) and Kyriakos (king of Nobadia and Makouria). 220 See B. HENDRICKX, A provisional Revision of the Baqt? Notes on a Letter of Musa Ibn Ka’b, Governor of Egypt, to Kyriakos, King of Makouria and Nobadia (759 AD), in Acta Patristica et Byzantina, 18 (2007), p. 60-72. 221 Patrologia Orientalis, Paris, 1903ff., t. V, p. 144; Cf. Methodios (Archbishop), O Xristianismóv kai o Ioudaismóv en Aiqiopía, Noubía kai Merój. Vol. 2, Athens, 1982, p. 99-100 (= Methodios, O Xristianismóv). 222 VANTINI, OSN, p. 43-44. 223 S. JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 67.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 340340 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 341

economic reasons, because, when some years later – after 750 – the Copts were persecuted again, Kyriakos did not intervene. Was Michael’s imprisonment perhaps only the pretext, and not the reason? The text of the History hints at the bounty the Nubians made in Misr and at the fact that they took prisoners the Muslims whom they didn’t kill. Like in all ancient and medieval wars, the economic income resulting from ransom money for hostages must have been indeed considerable. However, within a political-economic (and military) context, the destruction of property and fields, which was the source for food production, survival and prosperity, was certainly more important, since it could and would cripple the Muslim strength for some time to follow. The History’s text certainly poses some problems as for the value of its information. The numbers of men, horses and camels are hardly acceptable. Less still the ‘information’ that “the horses which the Nubi- ans rode used to fight with their forefeet and hindfeet in battle as their riders fought upon their backs, and that they were small horses, no higher than asses”224. Y. Fadl Hasan has correctly stated that this episode is only known from the History, and that no Muslim source has referred to it, concluding that “the whole incident may have been no more than a raid”225. The cui prodest element certainly plays here an important role. It was in the Christians’ advantage to overstate the event, while the Muslims had no interest in mentioning it. Raid or invasion, the reference to the eparchos seems – however – very plausible. When Patriarch Michael was imprisoned, the eparchos was sent by Kyriakos to the Egyptian governor to ask his release. The rest of the story is also plausible: the governor first arrested the eparchos (together with the Patriarch), and released both as a result of the Nubian attack, which may have been only a destructive raid. The governor’s decision was most probably inspired by realistic statesmanship. His actions towards patriarch and eparchos could only infuriate the Copts inside Egypt as well as the Nubians at their boundaries, a situation which – at that time – would not bring any benefit to Muslim Egypt. As for the role of the eparchos, the latter was clearly the representative of the Makourite king, and his responsibility for Nubian-Egyptian political (in casu also religious-political) relations is very clearly underlined. We also see that he is a negotiator between the Muslim governor of Egypt and the Nubian king, and that he com- mands the prestige of making agreements with both of them.

224 VANTINI, OSN, p. 43. 225 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 29.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 341341 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 342 B.C. HENDRICKX

In the second part of a letter of the governor of Egypt, Musa b. K[a‘b], to (presumably) Kyriakos, written in 759 regarding the baqt, the gover- nor explains how a merchant, and then his master, were detained and ill treated by the deputy of the Nubian king, i.e. the eparchos, and how this king consequently had sent his own messenger to Egypt in order to explain that the Christians had mistaken the Muslim merchants for Beja, who were making attacks on the Nubians226. The letter witnesses of fre- quent (diplomatic) contact between Egyptians and Nubians, and of inter- nal Nubian correspondence: * Salm b. Sulayman, the governor of Aswan227, informed the gover- nor of Egypt that he had written to the deputy of the Nubian King regarding the detention of a merchant, sent to Nubia by his master, Muhammed b. Zayd; * the governor of Aswan, wrote to the deputy of the king regarding the detention of a merchant, sent to Nubia by his master, Muhammed b. Zayd; * the deputy replied, asking to send him the master of the merchant; * Aswan’s governor wrote to the governor of Egypt (possibly two letters); * the Nubian king sent Peter, a messenger, to the governor of Egypt; and * Salm b. Sulayman, governor of Aswan, had already sent two messengers to the Nubian king, respectively “9 months ago and 4 months ago”.

J.M. Plumley, the editor of Musa’s letter, explains in his article that, next to the Arabic letter, also 3 other papyrus scrolls were found, all written in Sahidic Coptic. These 3 letters “are from their contents clearly letters to the king of Nubia” and “their ultimate author was the King’s official at Qasr Ibrîm”228, which means – once again – the eparchos. We thus see the eparchos as the main responsible for ad hoc political- economic dealings with Muslim Egypt. It is important to note that the king of Makouria in these dealings works through the eparchos, who is clearly defined as the king’s deputy, and that both hereto correspond with each other. However, it is perhaps also indicative that the eparchos’ peer in Muslim Egypt – in this case at least – is not the governor of Egypt, but the governor of Aswan.

226 PLUMLEY, An Eight-Century Arabic Letter, p. 242-244, lines 27-56; HENDRICKX, Titles, p. 325-342. 227 Interestingly, in the Coptic text he bears the Arab title of Amir (PLUMLEY, An Eight- Century Arabic Letter, p. 245). 228 Ibidem, p. 242-244.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 342342 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 343

Referring to Arab sources, Y. Fadl Hasan has defined the Lord of the Mountain as the guardian of Nubia against Egypt229, and Hrbek considers his main duty to be “to stop people – probably Arab Bedouin – from entering Nubia without authorization”230. The eparchos must have supervised the paying of the baqt (when and if it was paid), since that was done near Bilaq (Philae) at the frontier of Egypt and Northern Nubia231. It is this responsibility which has perhaps induced Jakobielski to consider the eparchos as the kingdom’s chief treasurer232. Most likely, the governor of Nobadia (al-Maris) and his peer of Aswan were involved in the transaction of the baqt. Al-Aswani states that the Northern district of Maris is governed “by Sahib al-Jabal, representing the Great Lord of the Nuba. He is among the highest ranking of their walis. The district borders on the land of Islam and anyone who comes from the land of the Muslems to Nubia has to deal with him, whether for the purpose of trade or to bring a gift to him or to his Lord. He receives everyone and presents all with slaves, but allows no one, Moslem or otherwise, to travel (up country) to visit his Lord. At the First Cataract in the country of the Nuba [i.e. the Second Cataract] there is a village called Baqwa, which is a terminal port for the boats of the Nuba sailing upstream from al-Qasr on the frontier of their country”233. Nobody whether a Muslim or otherwise is allowed to proceed from this point without permission from the Sahib. But, still according to al- Aswani, while the poorest district of al-Maris was also governed by the Sahib, the officer for the custom post at al-Maqs was appointed by the King himself, and any traveller is searched and checked even if he is a member of the royal family or the royal court. The important role of the eparchos as the main authority on trade and economy is also explained by the fact that Qasr Ibrim, high on the cliffs, overlooked the valley and controlled trade passing along the Nile as well as land routes over the eastern desert234. Török believes that the establishment of the eparchy was made for the sake of preserving the Nubian forms of ownership235. He also believes that the fact that the king owned all land, did not allow any form of feu-

229 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 38, 60, 99. 230 I. HRBEK, Egypt, Nubia and the Eastern deserts, in R. OLIVER (ed.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge, 1977, vol. 3, p. 70. 231 Maqrizi, in VANTINI, OSN, p. 639: “The baqt is received from them (Nubians) in a village called al-Qasr, five miles from Aswan, between Philae and Nubia.” 232 JAKOBIELSKI, Christian Nubia, p. 107. 233 Al Aswani, preserved in Maqrizi: VANTINI, OSN, p. 602-603. 234 P. ROSE, Qasr Ibrim.The Hinterland Survey, London, 1996, p. 1. 235 TÖRÖK, Money, p. 309.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 343343 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 344 B.C. HENDRICKX

dalism236. Moreover he connected the church organization and hierarchy with the economy in Nobadia, and claims that the eparchos worked through the bishops and the local priesthood of the Church, and that thus “the only middle class between the eparch and the peasant-producer were the priests”237. The eparchos – like the praefectus Aegypti did in Egypt – exercised – according to Török – his administrative and judicial power by travelling throughout Nobadia.238

5.2. The later Arabic ‘narrative’ sources and the Qasr Ibrim documents As for the period from the 12th until the 14th century, we have two ‘sets’ of information: the Arab sources and the Qasr Ibrim documents referring to Dotawo. These ‘sets’ have been examined separately by different ‘groups’ of scholars, ‘historian-philologists’ and ‘archaeologists’ and they give us sometimes quite different, if not contradictory, information.

5.2.1. Let us first consider the Arabic evidence239 When King David (Dawud) attacked Egypt in August 1272 and a Nubian army sacked ‘Aydhab, Sultan Baybars intended to punish the Nubian king. The episode proved to be a watershed event. The Nubian raiders were pursued, and the Muslims returned with loot and prisonners, among whom the Lord of the Mountain, who was executed in Cairo240.

236 Ibidem, p. 303. – I do not agree with this argumentation, although I also believe that there was no feudalism sensu stricto in Nubia: see HENDRICKX, Feudalism, p. 210- 222. 237 Ibidem, p. 298-300. 238 Ibidem, p. 303-304 – This author also refers to a security (asfaleia) or renunciation (apotage) in Coptic, regarding a litigation won by a certain Mailanne about some clothes. Crum (Catalogue, p. 252), the editor of the document, comments that “the name of the eparch, at the door of whose house ‘in the midst of the men of Kourte’ the deed was drawn up, is but partly visible”. Does this document prove that the eparchos Nobadias was travelling around to give judgments? Or are we dealing with yet another eparchos, in this case the governor of Kourte? 239 For the period between 1272 (King David’s attack on Egypt) and the beginning of the reign of Amy, of which we discuss only the segments relating to the Lord of the Mountain, see especially Nuwairy (in VANTINI, OSN, p. 467-492), Makrizi (in Ibidem, p. 648ff.), al-Mufaddal (in Ibidem, p. 494ff.), al-Qalqashandi (in Ibidem, p. 573ff.), Ibn al-Furat (in Ibidem, p. 530ff.), Ibn Abd al-Zahir (in Ibidem, p. 427ff.), Rukn al-Din Bay- bars al-Dawadari (in Ibidem, p. 452ff.), Tashrif (in Ibidem, p. 425ff.), Ibn Khaldun (in Ibidem, p. 558ff.), as-Suyuti (in Ibidem, p. 744), Ibn Iyas (in Ibidem, p. 779ff.). See also FADL-HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 107-124; WELSBY, Kingdoms, p. 243-246; MAC- MICHAEL, History, p. I, 175-185 – Especially VANTINI, Christianity, p. 173ff. and MUNRO- HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 118-123, where the sources are given and/or discussed. 240 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 108.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 344344 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 345

Moreover, Prince Shakanda, a nephew of the late Nubian King Abu’l-‘Izz Murtashkar, was put on the Nubian throne. The army, sent by Baybars for that purpose, occupied the fortress of al-Daw, and Qamar al-Dawla Kashi, the (new) Lord of the Mountain, was given amnesty, and after having given an oath of allegiance to Shakanda, as long as the latter would remain faithful to Baybars, he was confirmed in his office. The Lord of the Mountain then supplied Nubians to pilot the Egyptian boats through the cataracts. Shakanda himself had made an agreement with the Sultan, of which one of the clauses – preserved in the text of his coronation oath in 1276 – defined that the north of the kingdom, the province of al-Maris, was given to the sultan241. This implied that the revenues of that region would go to the sultan and that the Lord of the Mountain, who continued in his office, would be a vassal of the sultan. When the king was murdered and replaced by Barak, who was soon killed in turn, Shamamun became king of Nubia. It seems that he followed a rather hostile policy towards Sultan al-Mansur Palau’s, who sent an army into Nubia in the beginning of 1288. At that time, Shamamun instructed Jurays, the Lord of the Mountain, to retreat and to join forces with his own troops near Dongola. But the Nubians were defeated and Jurays was taken prisoner at Dongola. Anyway, Jurays was reconfirmed in his office, and a new king was crowned in Dongola. When the Mam- luk army left Dongola, Shamamun recovered his throne and Jurays, together with the newly crowned king, accompanied the Mamluks. The latter died and the sultan replaced him with Budamma. A large Egyptian army entered Nubia again, and Jurays preceded this army and won over his own subjects for the Mamluks. In contrast, in Makouria, “the inhabitants adopted a scorched earth policy as far as Dunqula, which was itself abandoned to the Mamluk forces”242. Budamma was crowned and Jurays was reconfirmed in his office. But, when in May 1290 the Mamluk army returned to Egypt, Budamma and Jurays were killed and Shamamun once again recovered the throne. By the end of the same year or soon there after, it seems that relations between sultan and king were restored after the latter sent a delegation to Egypt, consisting of his own brother and the new Lord of the Mountain, Sayf al-Dawla Jurays. Here after, we do not have further references to an eparchos in the Arab texts. It is remarkable that since 1276 the Lord of the Mountain seems to have been heading a kind of a buffer state, with allegiance to both the

241 HOLT, The coronation oaths, p. 5-9 – Another important aspect of the agreement was that the Christian Nubians had to pay a tribute of ‘a dinar in coin’ per individual. This suggests that money could circulate in Makouria in that period. 242 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 115.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 345345 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 346 B.C. HENDRICKX

Nubian king as well as to the Egyptian sultan. This date is a watershed in Nubian history, since legally and in theory the eparchos of Nobadia was now the vassal of the Mameluk sultan, and Nobadia was the latter’s territory. During this period, it also seems that the northern part of Nubia had become greatly Islamised. The Lord’s position was a very difficult one, which is illustrated by the testimonia that one was executed by the Sultan and another killed by the party of King Shamamun. We also see the Lord once loyal to the Sultan (by preceding his army) and once to the king (by retreating and uniting his own troops with these of Dongola). As a whole, we see that the Lord was recognized by both sides as a leading prince and vassal, and that his own ‘subjects’ were in every case loyal to him, whatever side he had chosen. It also can be inferred that after 1272 the Nubian king of Makouria himself had no or almost no direct authority over the population of the North any longer. In 1317 the Royal Palace of Dongola, built according to the Byzantine model, probably became a mosque243. That meant the end of the Chris- tian monarchy of Makouria. Arabic sources do not mention any Sahib al-Jebal in the North any further. The disorder and chaos in Nubia after the rule of Kanz al-Dawla (ca. 1225) suggests the beginning of the dis- integration of the Makourian kingdom244. The fact that in ca. 1365-1366 the king sought refuge in the castle of al-Dawn, Dongola being in ruins, makes one wonder if he was there as a guest of the Lord of the Mountain. The latest written reference to a king of Makouria dates from 1397. However, if the Christian kingdom of Makouria had by then already a long time ago perished, the small Christian state of Dotawo went on to exist around al-Daw in the North, in the heart of Nobadia, in spite of the advanced Islamization.

5.2.2. A final note on the Qasr Ibrim documents The mention of eparchoi in the documents found at Qasr Ibrim shows the existence of eparchoi next to the “king of Dotawo”. Was Dotawo a splinter state of Makouria around the district of Gebel Adda, created in response of the decline of the latter kingdom? The earliest ‘Dotawo document’ referring to a king Moses George of Dotawo dates to 1155 AD, i.e. to the later zenith period of Makouria245. Kings of Dotawo are men-

243 JAKOBIELSKI, Christian Nubia, p. 107. 244 L. KROPÁCEK, Nubia from the late 12th century to the Funj conquest in the early 15th century, in D.I. NIANE, Unesco General History of Africa, IV. Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, Berkeley, 1984, p. 404. 245 OSMAN, Kokka, p. 194.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 346346 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 347

tioned in documents as late as 1484246 and the last eparchos’ mention in a ‘Dotawo document’ dates of 1464247. In many documents the king is mentioned as well as the eparchos, as we have seen in the course of this article. Two different ‘groups’ of theories have been put forward to solve the arising problems: the equalization of the king of Dotawo with the king of Makouria is the simplest solution and has been sustained by several scholars in the past, but this theory had to be rejected because of chronological proof that both kingdoms existed at the same time248.

6. The eparchos of Nobadia after the islamization and fall of Christian Makouria

After the watershed date of 1276, when King Shakanda of Makouria had make an agreement with the Sultan, of which one of the clauses – preserved in the text of his coronation oath in 1276 – defined, as we have already remarked, that the north of the kingdom, the province of al-Maris, was given to the sultan249, Nobadia became legally and theoretically detached from Makouria, where the kingship itself soon had become a kind of fief of the Mameluk sultanate. This evolution must have created a new situation for the eparchos himself, also as for his relationship toward the local dynasts of Dotawo and the southern ‘traditional’ kings of Makouria and Alwa, for whom he now could act freely as agent, and not as vassal or subordinate. The fact that Arabs, who had established themselves in Nobadia, had already regarded the eparchos as their Lord250, suggests that before as well as after the watershed date the eparchos of Nobadia was the legal ruler of al-Maris, being its governor in his quality as vassal of the sultan, who may have appointed him. Any appointment of the eparchos by the Dotawo ruler must be ruled out, because this kingdom had no official status at the sultan’s court, as is

246 W.Y. ADAMS, Twilight of Nubian Christianity, in K. MICHALOWSKI (ed.), Nubia. Récentes recherches, Warsaw, 1975, p. 14 – See also N.B. MILLET, Gebel Adda: Pre- liminary Report, 1965-66, in Journal of he American Research Center in Egypt, 6 (1967), p. 62 and ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 24. 247 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 30; J.M. PLUMLEY, The Christian period at Qasr Ibrim. Some Notes on the MSS Finds, in K. MICHALOWSKI (ed.), Nubia, Récentes recherches, Warsaw, 1975, p. 102 and 105 (= PLUMLEY, The Christian period at Qasr Ibrim). 248 A re-examination of the Dotawo problem will be the subject of a forthcoming publication. 249 HOLT, The coronation oaths, p. 5-9. 250 This is inferred from the letters written in Arabic by Muslims to the Lord: ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 227.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 347347 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 348 B.C. HENDRICKX

proven by the ignorance of it in all Arab sources. If therefore, the eparchos was originally the supervisor of Dotawo and other possible chief- doms in the North on behalf of the king of Dongola, he subsequently remained their supervisor on behalf of the sultan. At this stage of knowledge and research neither of the different theories on Dotawo is of much help to resolve the details around the eparchos between the end of the 13th century (last mention of the ‘Lord’ in Arabic sources) and 1464 (last mention of the eparchos in Qasr Ibrim documents). It is at the end of the 13th century, that the sources seem to indicate that there was a ‘dynasty’ or ‘house’ of Lords of the Mountain, the recur- rence of the name Jurays hinting at a series of Lords, belonging to the same family251. In 1365-1366, the fortress of Daw, presumably the rock-fortress of Gebel Addah, being Makrizi’s fortress of Adwa (Daw), became the residence of the king of Makouria, who had fled from Dongola, which was ravaged by civil war and threatened by the Arabs; at the same time the king’s nephew resided as viceroy in Ibrim252. Was this date another watershed date for the Christian Nubian history? This testimonium opens the door to many suggestions and hypotheses, but not (yet) to more precise and factual knowledge. Plumley states that the king’s installation in Daw was done ‘with the consent and assistance of the Egyptians’253. Anyway, if Makrizi’s statement deserves to be accepted, then one must also accept that the king of Makouria at that late stage was still a Chris- tian, except if one accepts that the king and his nephew were only guests of the Dotawo ruler and the eparchos of Nobadia. As for the study of the eparchos himself, one might perhaps be tempted to read in Makrizi’s statement that the nephew of the king was installed in Ibrim, thus taking up the position of eparchos. But, all this remains conjecture. One of the problems for studying the eparchoi and kings of Dotawo after 1290 seems to remain the fact that we do not have testimonia. This is only partly correct, in the sense that we do not have – at this stage – published documents. The documents, however, have been found at Ibrim, but their (eventual) publication may take years254.

251 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 242, n. 140. 252 GRIFFITH, Pakhoras, p. 266. 253 PLUMLEY, Qasr Ibrim and Islam, p. 165. Plumley accepts that the term ‘Dotawo’ refers to the whole of the Nubian kingdom and was not the name for a small late kingdom in the north of Nubia. He explains the move of the kings to Daw as the result of a ‘slow contraction of the power of the once extensive Christian kingdom’, which is witnessed – he says – by the late Nubian documents found in Ibrim. 254 Plumley (The Christian period at Qasr Ibrim, p. 102-107) refers to the (published)

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 348348 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 349

Conclusion

In the course of this study, several questions have been asked, and answers, partial or final, have been given regarding the status, appointment, heredity, titles and cumuli, de facto and de jure powers, relationship with the kings of Makouria and Dotawo as well as with the sultan. Some problems on the other hand continue to exist, or have been related to further studies to follow. These problems often, but not always, refer to Dotawo and in general result from a lack of sources, or – many times – from the lack of editions of these documents or fragments, which have already been discovered.

Department of Greek and Latin Studies Benjamin HENDRICKX University of Johannesburg Kingsway Campus P.O. Box 524 Auckland Park 2006, South Africa [email protected]

Abstract — The eparchos of Nobadia was the viceroy of the Christian Nubian king of Makouria, after the conquest of Byzantine Egypt by the Arabs and the unification of Nobadia with Makouria. The institution (of eparchos) survived from ca. the middle of the 7th c. until the end of the 15th c. The article examines in detail the following aspects, thereby using all relevant published diplomatic and epigraphic sources as well as the (mainly Arab) narrative texts: – the origin and prehistory of the office, the difference between the eparchos of Nobadia and other (mainly minor) eparchoi – the eparchos’ titles and regalia – his functions, powers and duties as well as his assistants, officers and deputies – his residences – the cumuli of the eparchos’ functions, which consolidate his status and power. At the end, a prosopographical list of eparchoi is attached.

text of Timotheos, a number of mainly Arabic texts of the 14th century, and various documents with the names of kings of Dotawo up to 1464 – Adams (Qasr Ibrim. The Late Mediaeval Period, p. 216-221) gives an overview of the text finds at Qasr Ibrim according to caches and language and writing material as well as according to language and content. In his tables, he analyses a total of 716 texts, but notes that the figures are incomplete because of incomplete field recording. All in all, he estimates the Late and Terminal Christian complete documents at 70 and the textual fragments at perhaps 1000 fragments. This number may grow.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 349349 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 350 B.C. HENDRICKX

APPENDICE Towards a list of eparchoi of Nobadia

It has been suggested that a list of dignitaries in the Cathedral of Faras255 is in fact a list of eparchoi, but there is no proof for this suggestion, while the list itself is in such a bad shape that it cannot be used properly. A list of kings and eparchoi has already been established by Munro-Hay, but needs to be completed256. The following table puts the eparchoi of Nobadia and ditto Great eparchoi as well as the eparchos of the Palace, as they are known from published sources, in chronological order with a first (brief) attempt of their prosopography. However, other eparchoi (e.g. of Terp[.], of Mak- ouria, ton Gaderon, of Palagi) as well as the eparchos mentioned as a judge in Kourte and other soñoj (e.g. of Adda, of Akirimip, of Datira) have been excluded.

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Markos Mentioned in the Greek and Coptic foundation inscriptions of King Merkourios in the Cathedral of Faras in 707257. Markos was in charge of the basileika. ? King Kyriakos of Nobadia has sent the eparchos of Nobadia, whose name is not known, in 747, to Abd al-Malik in Misr bidding him to release the Coptic Patriarch Michael. When the eparchos was also imprisoned, the Nubian king sent an army to Egypt, upon which an agreement was concluded and the eparchos and Patriarch were released258. ? In 759 the governor of Egypt, Musa b. Ka‘b, sent a letter to the king of Makouria, presumably Kyriakos, regarding the non payment of the baqt and the mistreatment of a Muslim merchant by the eparchos. This led to correspondence between the governor, the king and the epar- chos259.

255 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 195-198. 256 MUNRO-HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 133-137 – We have not included as eparchos bishop Marianos, who was included by Munro-Hays, but with an interrogation mark. 257 KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 14-17 – JAKOBIELSKI, Grecka inskrypcja, p. 40-41 and 99-106. 258 History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, in Patrologia Orientalis, V, p. 144. 259 PLUMLEY, An Eight-Century Arabic Letter, p. 242-244; Burstein, Ancient African Civilizations, p. 127-132.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 350350 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 351

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Paulos Kolla Eparchos in the middle of the 8th century260. The text may suggest that this eparchos was also a priest. Kyrikos (Cyricus) Eparchos in the time of King Chael (785 or 794)261. Petros Eparchos Petros died in 798. Perhaps he was the same person as Petros, domestikos of eparchos Paulos Kolla in ca. 750262. Mikhenkuda Sonneicaasta (?) Eparchos (uncertain reading, however) during the first or Georgios (?)263 year of the reign of King Ioannes264. Zacharias Mentioned as eparchos of the Palation in a Coptic inscription commemorating the appointment of a dignitary to the position of domestikos of Pachoras in the time of King Georgi and dating to 868, 871 or 878265. Ioannes Mentioned in a stele in Old Dongola as eparchos and protomeizoteros and son of Zacharias (883 AD)266. Ioannes Mentioned at the end of the list of dignitaries in the Cathedral of Faras267. It is the only mentioned person, of whom we are sure he was an eparchos. The Cathedral was destroyed (perhaps by fire) in ca. 927-929268. It is possible that Ioannes was the last eparchos before this date. He was perhaps the same man as the previous eparchos Ioannes. Iesu Mentioned as the builder of the church on the South Sloppe of the Kom in Faras on 23 April 930, in the time of King Zacharias and Queen Mother Mariam, in replacement of the destroyed Cathedral269.

260 EDWARDS, The Nubian Past, p. 238; GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 131. 261 KRALL, Ein neuer nubischer König, p. 236-240; GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 131; MUNRO-HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 135 – In another Coptic text of the same age and provenance, we find a mention of the eparchos (but the name is missing), while Krall (Ein neuer nubischer König, p. 240) and GRIFFITH (Christian Documents, p. 132) tentatively assume that Kyriakos was primikerios(?). 262 EDWARDS, The Nubian Past, p. 238; PLUMLEY, A Coptic precursor, p. 7; LAJTAR, Two Greek funerary stelae, p. 157-159; LAJTAR, Greek funerary inscriptions, p. 122. 263 TÖRÖK, Money, p. 306 and GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 132-133 – We have discussed this problem supra. 264 GRIFFITH, Christian Documents, p. 132. 265 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 94-96. 266 DZIERZYKRAY-ROGALSKI – JAKOBIELSKI, La tombe de l’Éparque Yoannès, p. 48; Methodios, O Xristianismóv, p. 109; JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 72. 267 Ibidem, p. 197-198. 268 Ibidem, p. 110. 269 JAKOBIELSKI, Faras III, p. 111-114; ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 209.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 351351 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 352 B.C. HENDRICKX

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Simeon Mentioned as eparchos, presbyteros megas and chartoularios in a graffito near the painting of King George (II) in the narthex of the church of Sonqi Tino. Donadoni seems to believe that he was an ecclesiastic, while Van- tini suggests that Simeon may have been also the crown prince of Alwa270. The graffito is probably from the end of the 10th century. Ioannes Mentioned in his funerary stele, dating to 1007. He died at the age of 48271. Isra’il Resident of House 763 in Qasr Ibrim, built ca 1050 and occupied for about 250 years. His name appears in several Arabic and Nubian documents, among which a letter of his son, congratulating his father on his appointment as eparchos272. He must have exercised his function during the 12th, or perhaps 13th century. Sentikol Goassi, the son of eparchos Sentikol was buried on the Island of Meinarti (‘Island of Michael’) in 1161273. Jawsar Mentioned by the Armenian Abu Salih, who lived and wrote during the 12th century274. Jawsar had still Faras as his capital. ? Abu Salih mentions a Lord of the Mountains, whose eyes were put out by King George, son of Zacharia Israel.The Lord dwelt in the city of Bausaka275. ? Wall paintings of eparchos, whose name is missing, in the cathedral of Faras, most probably dating from the reign of King George IV (1130-58)276.

270 VANTINI, À propos de deux rois, p. 131-32; DONADONI, Graffiti, p. 34, 36; MUNRO- HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 109-110. 271 G. LEFEBVRE, Recueil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d’Égypte, Cairo, 1907, p. 129-130; M.G. TIBILETTI-BRUNO, Iscrizoni Nubiane, Pavia, 1964, no. 6; KUBINSKA, Faras IV, p. 49-50. 272 ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 43-45. 273 EDWARDS, The Nubian Past, p. 231 and 238; BARNS, Christian Monuments, p. 27. 274 VANTINI, OSN, p. 323. 275 VANTINI, OSN, p. 324; ZABORSKI, Marginal notes, p. 406 – We do not know which George was meant by Abu Salih. There were four King Georges before 1200. Both King George I’s and King George II’s father were Kings with the name of Zacharia(s) (MUNRO- HAY, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 109-110). In Abu Salih’s text, we find as nearest date in the context, the mention of the monastery of Saint Sinuthius in the city of Bausaka. In this monastery – Abu Salih notes – Abu Rakwa al-Walid was taken prisoner in Nov./Dec. 1006 AD. Anyhow, the terminus ante quem is the end of the 12th century. It is not clear whether the Lord was dwelling in Bausaka after his eyes were put out, or before, in which case Bausaka would also be a residence city for the Lord. It is rather unacceptable that Abu Salih implies that there were two Lords of the Mountains, one in Faras and one in Bausaka. 276 MICHALOWSKI, Faras, p. 165-166.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 352352 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 353

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Darme Mentioned as eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Faras in a royal proclamation of Moses George, king of Dotawo, freeing the Epimachos church in Ibrim from ser- vitude (1161 AD). From the rather unclear meaning of the text, it seems that the king protected the church against main dignitaries, such as the eparchos277. Adam(a) Adam (or Adama) is mentioned in several Qasr Ibrim documents: in the time of King Moses, Koudil, of Dotawo (second half of 12th c.) and Queen Mother Mari, he is mentioned as eparchos of Nobadia and eiksil in a release act from purchase of an unidentified plot(?), which was written and witnessed on Adama’s behalf by the deacon Ajola278. Adama is also mentioned, this time only as eparchos of Nobadia in an act of sale of land in a village near Ibrim again in the time of George and Mari279, while on the 1st November 1191, he is mentioned in a sales deed of land as eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Faras280. In the year 1193, King George and Queen Mother Mari still being kings of Dotawo, it is stated in an act of release of a servant that Gabrielin- kouda, eparchos of Nobadia was established by eparchos Adama in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Ibrim281. In the time of George Moses’ successor, Basil, king of Dotawo, Mari being Queen Mother, Adama is again mentioned as eparchos of Nobadia and domestikos of Faras, namely in two sales acts of land (undated)282 and in a sales act of Church land (30 December 1199)283, and finally in a sales act of land for the Church (16 Augustus 1200)284. He is a witness in an undated sales act of land with no references to the royals285, and author of a letter to Doueti, vice-eparchos of Terp[.] regarding giving and receiving some grain and water286, as well as of a letter to the architriclinus Douddi regarding some hay and dates287. Nad[…] Eparchos Nad[…] sent a request to Sim[…] in a letter, made out to Massouda288.

277 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, no. 30. 278 Ibidem, no. 31. 279 Ibidem, no. 34. 280 Ibidem, no. 36. 281 Ibidem, no. 35. 282 Ibidem, nos. 37 and 39. 283 Ibidem, no. 38. 284 Ibidem, no. 40. 285 Ibidem, no. 44. 286 Ibidem, no. 49. 287 Ibidem, no. 51. 288 Ibidem, no. 48.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 353353 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 354 B.C. HENDRICKX

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Gabrielinkouda He is known through an act of sale of a plot of land in the time of King George of Dotawo and Queen Mother Mari, where he is mentioned as eiksil of Douksi, eparchos of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and gottamet289. It seems that he was established as eparchos of Nobadia by Adama in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Ibrim290. Another letter of Gabrielinkouda in his capacity of eparchos Nobadias, to Tapara, thel[.] of Kaktine, regarding a transaction of millet has been preserved291. In other documents, he is mentioned as silentiaris(?)292 or meizoteros of Adauei293. Papanni Mentioned as Great Eparchos and domestikos elect(?) in a document, where Adama is mentioned as eparchos294. Tamsi As eparchos of Lower Nobadia, he issued an order to Massouda regarding the new grain. The act is not dated and there are no mentions of royals. The document belongs to roughly the same period as the documents of Adama and Gabrielinkouda. Megali Mentioned as soñoj in a deposition by Iosephi, Great Scribe295. The document belongs to roughly the same period as the documents of Adama and Gabrielinkouda. [..]rikouda Eparchos mentioned in fragmentary inscription at ‘Abd el Gadir (12th c.)296. His picture is preserved in a mural in the small church at Abd el-Qadir, holding in his hand the model of a church297. Ioulianos (uncertain) Mentioned in an inscription at Talmis (11th or 12th c.) (?)298. Uncertain identification. Mena(s) Author of a letter sent to Petros regarding some transaction of barley and wine, involving the (unnamed) queen mother299.

289 Ibidem, no. 32. 290 Ibidem, no. 35. 291 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, no. 23. 292 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts III, nos. 37 and 38. 293 Ibidem, no. 36. 294 Ibidem, no. 38. 295 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, no. 21; ADAMS, Qasr Ibrim, p. 235. 296 GRIFFITH, Oxford Excavations, p. 70-71; MONNERET DE VILLARD, Storia, p. 134, 183. 297 ROSTKOWSKA, Patronage, p. 211, 214. 298 MONNERET DE VILLARD, Storia, p. 134 – Previously, however, I. Franzius had considered the inscription as referring to “Iulianus quidam praefectus Aegypti” (I. FRANZIUS, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. III, Berlin, 1877 [re-ed. Hildesheim – New York, 1977], p. 485, no. 5071). 299 BROWNE, Old Nubian Texts II, no. 22.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 354354 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35 THE “LORD OF THE MOUNTAIN" 355

NAME OF THE EPARCHOS INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, DATES Masi Author in his capacity as eparchos Nobadias, domestikos of Pachoras and eiksil of a business letter to Elaonnal300. ? After the Nubian raid of King David in August 1272, the Nubians were pursued, prisoners taken, among whom the eparchos, who was executed in Cairo301. Qamar al-Dawla Kashi When Shakanda was put on the Makourian throne by the Egyptians, the Egyptians occupied the fortress of al-Daw. The eparchos was given amnesty after an oath of allegiance to Baybars. He then supplied Nubians to guide the Egyptian boats through the cataracts. The Lord of the Mountain became – as agreed with Shakanda – the vassal of Baybars302. Jurays In 1288, the Egyptians sent an army against King Shama- mun, who instructed Jurays to retreat and join forces near Dongola. But the Nubians were defeated and Jurays was taken prisoner at Dongola. Jurays was reconfirmed in his office, and a new king was crowned in Dongola. When the Mamluk army left Dongola, Shamamun recovered his throne and Jurays, together with the newly crowned king, accompanied the Mamluks. The latter died and the sultan replaced him with Budamma. A large Egyptian army entered Nubia again, and Jurays preceded this army, win- ning over his own subjects for the Mamluks. In contrast, in Makouria, “the inhabitants adopted a scorched earth policy as far as Dunqula, which was itself abandoned to the Mamluk forces”303. Budamma was crowned and Jurays was reconfirmed in his office. But, when in May 1290 the Mamluk army returned to Egypt, Budamma and Jurays were killed and Shamamun once again recovered the throne. Sayf al Dawla Jurays After the execution of the previous mentioned eparchos, Sayf al Dawla Jurays became Lord of the Mountain and he was sent by King Shamamun to Egypt together with the king’s brother in order to re-establish peace304. ? The last mention of an eparchos in a Qasr Ibrim document dates from 1464 when Joel was king of Dotawo305.

300 Ibidem, no. 24. 301 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 108; Ibn al-Furat, in VANTINI, OSN, p. 530: the sultan ordered “the Lord of the Mountain and his men to be cut in the middle”. 302 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 115; Ibn al-Furat, in VANTINI, OSN, p. 531-532. 303 FADL HASAN, Arabs and Sudan, p. 115. 304 Ibidem. 305 J.M. PLUMLEY, The Christian Period in Nubia as represented on the site of Qasr Ibrim, in P. VAN MOORSEL (ed.), New Discoveries in Nubia. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Nubian Studies, The Hague, 1979, Leiden, 1982, p. 110; Adams (Qasr Ibrim. The Late Nubian Period, p. 255) assumes that the eparchoi held on at least until the year 1484.

994833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd4833_Mus2011_3-4_004_Hendrickx.indd 355355 116/12/116/12/11 09:3509:35