doi: 10.2143/ANES.51.0.3038724 ANES 51 (2014) 317-340 Contested and Common Ground Geography and History at the Limits of the Early Islamic Conquests Abby ROBINSON Abstract In the historiography of the early Islamic conquests (here, mainly 632–656), mountains, rivers, and places characterised by extremes of nature, such as severe heat or cold, represent straightforward physical barriers against armies but also have two kinds of symbolic significance. First, they were the settings for stories — plausibly crafted to inspire or galvanise audiences — about prevailing over even the toughest opponents. Second, they were contexts within which complex political and ideological issues relating to the conquests were explored by authors. A pattern emerges wherein among the Christian histories more symbolic spaces belong to the first category than the second, whereas in the Arabic texts the reverse applies. This distinction reflects the divergent perspectives of defenders and conquerors, but also reveals the contrasting positions of Christian and Muslim authors relative in time and space to the events they describe. On the other hand, there is also much shared ground in how spaces are depicted across the Arabic and Christian accounts. The outlooks of people on opposing sides had perhaps a surprising amount in common. A unified study of representations of space in the source material for the conquests ultimately provides a more comprehensive understanding of what occurred at this major turning point in world history.* Introduction The early Islamic conquests were swift and sweeping, dislodging long-established Roman and Persian powers with an ease that was previously unimaginable. “The armies of Ismael,” writes the Armenian historian Sebeos, “were unexpectedly stirred and in a moment of time defeated the power of the two kings.”1 In little more than 20 years from 632, Palestine and Syria, Mesopotamia, Iraq, Egypt, parts of Caucasia and the countries of the Iranian Plateau all came under various degrees of Muslim control. But despite the invaders’ spectacular momentum, they were not unstop- pable. In the historiography of the conquests, three types of location in the natural world regularly appear as limits to their progress: mountains, rivers and places characterised by forces of nature, such as extreme heat or cold, floods, storms or earthquakes. It comes as no surprise that mountain chains such as the Taurus, Caucasus and Elburz were sometimes impassable, that generals paused at the Euphrates, Tigris and Nile Rivers, or that armies were forced to turn back in the face of * I would like to thank Professors Chris Mackie and Tony Sagona, Associate Professor Roger Scott, and my friends and colleagues at the British Institute at Ankara — particularly the director, Dr Lutgarde Vandeput — for their sugges- tions and support throughout the duration of my project. 1 Sebeos I, p. 279. 997075.indb7075.indb 331717 110/09/140/09/14 009:499:49 318 A. ROBINSON Fig. 1. Map of key locations mentioned in the text (created by Chandra Jayasuriya). an unusually harsh Caucasian winter or massive storm at sea. But these natural phenomena were more than just physical barriers. In the narratives of the conquests, they also represent limits of a more ideated kind (Fig. 1).2 It is a case of what Dozeman, in his article on geography and historiography of the ancient trans-Euphrates region, calls “territory… exceed[ing] its literal representation.”3 To explore this fact, like Dozeman I will take categories devised by Henri LeFebvre to comprehend modern social (or “produced”) spaces and apply them to descriptions of locations in historiographical source material.4 The three types of space identified by LeFebvre are: “perceived”, which is in the realm of the physical and sensory; “conceived”, which is the product of intellect, external perspectives and ideological positions; and “lived”, which is shaped by imagination or emotion, an outcome and determinant of the worldviews of author, actors and audience.5 The purpose of employing this model is not to privilege one type of interpretation over the others, but to recognise how identifying “the interweaving of physical and historical geography with social and 2 For a discussion and definitions of the term “ideational” in the context of landscape studies, see Knapp and Ashmore (1999, pp. 12–13). Put simply, it might be understood as “concerned with ideas.” 3 Dozeman 2003, p. 451. 4 Dozeman 2003, p. 455. 5 LeFebvre 1991, pp. 33, 40; Dozeman 2003, pp. 455–456. 997075.indb7075.indb 331818 110/09/140/09/14 009:499:49 CONTESTED AND COMMON GROUND 319 ideological representations” in ancient historiography will enable the events the texts describe to be more fully understood.6 Here, I have taken “perceived” space to be represented by descriptions of physical obstacles in the landscape; that is, geography as barrier. Next, if portrayals of “lived” space in the histori- ography of the early conquests reveal mountains, rivers and places characterised by extreme climate or forces of nature to be scenes of resolution, where inspirational protagonists actively hold or extend boundaries, a third type of depiction might be considered “conceived” space. Places of this kind are associated with socio-political themes and may have been shaped by the intellectual posi- tions of authors looking back on events at some remove in time or with agendas to promote.7 To interpret them in such a way can cast light on some of the more complex issues associated with the conquests, as will be seen below. In summary, I will discuss the significance in the Islamic and Christian historiography of mountains, rivers and locations primarily characterised by forces of nature. I will argue that these places were sometimes physical barriers, “perceived” space, but they also had two kinds of more abstract meaning. First, they could be the setting, in “lived” space, for stories, plausibly crafted to inspire and galvanise audiences, about prevailing against significant opponents. Second, they might have import as the context, in “conceived” space, within which complex issues related to the politics and conduct of the conquests were examined and explained. Finally, I will observe that the Christian histories of the conquests feature more representations of “lived” than “con- ceived” space, while the reverse is true of the Muslim histories. This difference reflects the divergent attitudes of defenders and invaders, but also the contrasting positions of Christian and Muslim authors relative to the events they describe. Nevertheless, there is much common ground in how the three meanings are conveyed across the two traditions. The worldviews of those on opposing sides share more than might be expected. Source Material Most, but not all, of the events which will be treated here occurred between 632 and 656, the period which incorporated the first great wave of Islamic expansion. I draw extensively on the work of the Muslim historians Baladhuri (d. ca. 892) and Tabari (d. 923); however, it is widely acknowledged that their use as sources of factual information about the past is fraught with dif- ficulties. The histories are “complex mosaic[s]” of stories from multiple sources, each story osten- sibly passed down from a first-hand witness via a chain of transmitters. Most of the collections of stories upon which the histories are based were compiled some time after the events those stories describe, in the late eighth or early ninth centuries.8 Commentators agree that the content was manipulated to suit the concerns of the publishers’ own times — the consolidation of the new Islamic religion,9 or the claim to personal financial benefit or prestige associated with a claim 6 LeFebvre 1991, passim, e.g., pp. 94, 226, 369–370; Dozeman 2003, p. 456. 7 Sebeos II (commentary), p. 236; Whittow 1996, pp. 84–85. 8 See Hoyland 1997, pp. 37–38; Kennedy 2007, pp. 16–17; Bosworth 2013, referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/ encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/al-tabari-COM_1133; P. Hitti’s introduction to Baladhuri I, pp. 2–4; Sebeos II (commentary), p. 235; R. S. Humphries 1990 (in his foreword to Tabari 15, pp. xiv–xv). 9 Whittow 1996, pp. 84–85. 997075.indb7075.indb 331919 110/09/140/09/14 009:499:49 320 A. ROBINSON of deeds by one’s ancestors10 — and this was at the cost of factual detail about chronology, loca- tions and tactics. Thus, a great deal of discussion about Islamic historiography revolves around problems with fixing the order of events and other matters of fact. My emphasis, however, is on identifying patterns of representation and meaning in the source material rather than providing a reconstruction of events. Furthermore, the focus is greater on the settings of stories than on how they relate to each other within a linear narrative of the conquests, or how they transition one into the next. It is possible to see “the units of the narrative… as juxtaposed in space, not unrolling in time.”11 The record produced by Christian authors also presents challenges.12 Formal, official histories of empire in the style of earlier writers such as Procopius are absent in the seventh century. But by means of what has been called a “broadening of perspective,” a great deal of source material for the conquests can be found.13 Saints’ Lives and Miracles offer insights if they are looked at, again, for patterns and themes as much as for specific detail.14 Furthermore, the production of histories and chronicles carried on in regions away from the centre of the Byzantine empire: West Syrian chronicles cover parts of the seventh century, and the Chronicle of John of Nikiu is a near- contemporary (though incomplete) record of the conquest of Egypt. The location of the Armenian historians Sebeos and ™ewond on the periphery of empires enhances their focus on the frontiers and lends their narratives great immediacy and colour.