Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam

DOI 10.1515/islam-2014-0004 Der Islam 2014; 91(1): 37–68 Antoine Borrut Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam There are therefore […] at any one time in the Universe ininitely many times.¹ Abstract: This article argues that the agreed-upon periodization of early Islam is an Abbasid-era construct that became a binding framework for later generations of historians down to modern times. It also contends that scholars have tended to ignore the fact that this periodization was first and foremost an Abbasid claim to power. It investigates the Abbasid-era construction of the past and demonstrates that alternative periodizations were used prior to these massive efforts to enclose the past into a rigid structure, and so it sheds light on forgotten alternative pasts. The links between periodization and space are emphasized, focusing on the example of early Islamic Syria. Indeed, this province largely vanished from the map with the coming of the Abbasids to power since Syria’s memory came to be limited to its Umayyad past. Elaborating upon alternative periodizations, the paper offers a fresh attempt at a history of the meanings (Sinngeschichte) of a long Syrian eighth century, articulated around memory and power. Keywords: Syria, periodization, historiography, Umayyads, Abbasids. Antoine Borrut: University of Maryland, [email protected] Introduction In his provocative book The Theft of History, anthropologist Jack Goody wrote: “The ‘theft of history’ is not only one of time and space, but of the monopolization of historical periods.”² By this bold statement, Goody was basically suggesting that the West had confiscated world history, enclosing it within a Eurocentric chronological framework and imposing an ethnocentric periodization onto the 1 Johann Gottfried Herder (d. 1803) quoted in Koselleck, Futures Past, 2. 2 Goody, The Theft of History, 22. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 38 Antoine Borrut rest of the world. A similar claim was made a couple of years later by medievalist Kathleen Davis in an important book entitled Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time.³ As summarized by one of her reviewers, she argued that “periodization […] furnishes one of the most durable conceptual foundations for the usurpation of liberty and the abuse of power” and that, in effect, “the periodization of European history disguises as a truth about the past what is in fact a claim to power.”⁴ What Goody and Davis have shown, along with many others, is that periodization is much more than a convenient frame to approach the past. Periodization is “not simply the drawing of an arbitrary line through time, but a complex process of conceptualizing categories, which are posited as homogeneous and retroactively validated by the designation of a period of divide.”⁵ The categories hereby constructed do not impact only the temporal structures we use but also the spaces associated with time periods. Periodization thus has an important spatial dimension, leading to the inclusion or exclusion of territories in a given time period as we shall see.⁶ Periodization appears overall as a powerful tool to exercise authority over the past and, therefore, over the present and the future. If recent scholarly debates have stressed the uses and abuses, the dangers, the limitations of periodization, and, above all, its inevitable teleological dimension,⁷ some scholars have tried to offer alternative solutions to historians. Reinhardt Koselleck’s work has been especially influential and has arguably provided the most fruitful theoretical discussion. Koselleck famously argued that the century between 1750 and 1850 – an epoch at the onset of Western modernity that he famously labeled Sattelzeit – witnessed a fundamental turning point in the conception of history, notably marked by the emergence of a Neuzeit, the age of modernity.⁸ This “New Time was experienced as acceleration”⁹ and characterized by profound changes in the articulation between the space of experi- 3 Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty. 4 Fasolt, “Scholarship and Periodization,” 414, 415. 5 Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty, 3. On the cultural construction of time, see more broadly Assmann, The Mind of Egypt, esp. 12–17, and Pomian, L’ordre du temps. 6 See the remarks of Goody, The Theft of History, esp. 13–25 and 288 ff. The links between chronology and geography were already pointed out by French jurist Jean Bodin in 1566; see Grafton, “Dating History,” 79. 7 See, for example, Goody, The Theft of History, 286. 8 Koselleck, Futures Past, esp. 9–42, 222–54. Such a conceptual shift at the end of the eighteenth century was already noted by Foucault, Les mots et les choses, 229–33. 9 Zammito, “Koselleck’s Philosophy of Historical Time(s),” 127. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 39 ence (Erfahrungsraum) and the horizon of expectation (Erwartungshorizont) that became “increasingly asymmetrical and discontinuous.”¹⁰ Koselleck’s work prompted important debates and generated some serious criticism from scholars who accused him essentially of having validated a periodization that was masking a claim to power.¹¹ This was perhaps in part due to significant misunderstandings with regard to Koselleck’s “theory of multiple temporalities,” misinterpreted as a “theory of periodization.”¹² As argued by Helge Jordheim, Koselleck’s theory could in fact be read as an attempt to defy periodization since “several layers of time of differing duration and differentiable origin […] are nonetheless present and effectual at the same time.”¹³ In other words, Koselleck’s theory of historical times was somewhat restricted to the notion that “there is no ‘total otherness of the past,’ […] but instead stratum upon stratum of the past [that] flows in and through the present at varying velocities.”¹⁴ Such a restrictive approach, however, neglected the idea that Koselleck’s theory “is in reality a theory of the discontinuity between different epochs, especially the premodern and the modern.”¹⁵ It must be emphasized that most of these debates revolved precisely around the “premodern”/“modern” line of division,¹⁶ whereas, from quite a different perspective, the definition of Late Antiquity – arguably the most successful 10 Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 153. 11 See in particular Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty, esp. 87–95. On Koselleck’s reception in the Anglophone world, see the useful comments of Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 155. 12 See in particular Jordheim’s recent discussion that aptly pointed out that Koselleck’s “Theorie der geschichtlichen Zeiten” had been mistranslated into English as a “theory of periodization” rather than a “theory of historical times”; “Against Periodization,” esp. 151–54. 13 Koselleck, Zeitschichten, 9 (tr. Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 157). An interesting anthropological corroboration of this multiplicity of times and pasts was offered long ago by Bernard Cohn, who “showed, in a classic article, that the twentieth-century Indian villagers of Senapur, not far from Benares, found meaning in multiple pasts, ancient and recent, legendary and historical, as their caste memberships and political situations dictated.” Grafton, “Dating History,” 80, referring to Cohn, “The Pasts of an Indian Village.” See also the rich discussion of Pomian, L’ordre du temps, 219 ff. 14 Zammito, “Koselleck’s Philosophy of Historical Time(s),” 133. This notion of “varying velocities,” of the different durations and speeds of time, has been fruitfully developed by Ricœur, Temps et récit, and Pomian, L’ordre du temps. See also the remarks of Schmitt, “Le Temps,” 39–43. 15 Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 157. This notion of “discontinuous temporalities” is essential in the work of Laroui and Chakrabarty as underlined by Riecken, “Periodization and the Political,” esp. 4, 14–15. 16 For a philosophical appreciation of these debates, see especially Osborne, The Politics of Time. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 40 Antoine Borrut periodization to have emerged in modern scholarship – also sparked important disputes.¹⁷ Meanwhile, Islamic history has been largely neglecting such recent debates¹⁸ despite some important contributions to the topic.¹⁹ Indeed, scholars such as Marshall Hodgson, Shlomo Goitein, Michael Morony, Rina Drory, and Tarif Khalidi questioned (sometimes long ago) the usefulness of the periodization and of the categories commonly used to approach the first centuries of Islam, although their critiques have received, in fact, only limited echo in current scholarship.²⁰ More recently, scholars have also raised doubts about the validity of the chronology of the first decades of Islam, interrogating in particular the life of Muḥammad and the early Islamic conquests with a skeptical eye.²¹ But a systematic discussion of the agreed-upon periodization of early Islam and of the categories we are using to approach the period still has to be produced, despite some limited efforts focusing, for instance, on the problematic terminol- 17 The bibliography on the topic is enormous. For convenient discussions of the rich debates following Brown’s seminal work (The World of Late Antiquity), see in particular the recent contribution of Cameron, “Ideologies and Agendas”; Fowden, “Contextualizing Late Antiquity”; and the relevant chapters in Rousseau, A Companion to Late Antiquity, and in Johnson, The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. 18 This disinterest is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that a history of (early) Islamic time has yet to be written. The question of the introduction of the Islamic (hijri) calendar, has to date received only tangential attention, especially in comparison with the enormous amount of scholarly attention devoted to similar subjects in Roman and Christian contexts (perhaps culminating in the important study of Feeney, Caesar’s Calendar; see also Pomian, L’ordre du temps, esp. 101 ff.). Related aspects, such as the question of the actors of time measurements, have been mostly the prerogative of historians of science (see, for instance, King, “Mīkāt”), but a social history is a much-needed desideratum. From this perspective, Stephen Blake’s recent Time in Early Modern Islam is a welcome addition to the field and so will be the forthcoming issue of the Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée (REMMM) edited by Sylvia Chiffoleau and entitled Les empreints du temps: calendries et rythmes sociaux (http://remmm.revues.org/ 7750). 19 Among the most notable exceptions are the various studies of Abdallah Laroui, such as Islam et Histoire. An insightful discussion of his work, in conversation with Dipesh Chakrabarty’s famous Provincializing Europe, is offered by Nils Riecken, “Periodization and the Political.” 20 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, vol. 1, esp. 45–99; Goitein, “A Plea for the Periodization”; Morony, “Bayn al-Fitnatayn”; Drory, “The Abbasid Construction of the Jahiliyya”; Khalidi, “Reflections on Periodization.” See also the broad critique of traditional accounts of Islamic history by Al-Azmeh, The Times of History, esp. 3–64, and “Muslim History.” 21 See in particular the recent contributions of Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, and Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet, both building upon Crone and Cook, Hagarism. See also, for instance, Pourshariati, Decline and Fall, 161–285, and Keshk, “When Did Muʿāwiya become Caliph?” Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 41 ogy of “medieval Islam,”²² or on the consequences of the inclusion of nascent Islam into a Late Antique framework.²³ That “early Islam” constitutes in itself a “period” (by which I mean roughly the period from the rise of Islam to the coming of the Buyids in the middle of the fourth/tenth century) is of course debatable. Obviously, expressions that I employ (quite loosely) in this paper – such as “early Islam,” “first centuries of Islam,” or “first dynasty of Islam” – present the same problems and limitations as other forms of periodization discussed below. This reflects the need to find a common language since one cannot speak of time – or space – without using periodization. To return to Koselleck, an Islamic Begriffsgeschichte is much needed to shed some light on the conceptual framework of early Islam that we commonly use but rarely question.²⁴ I will argue in this paper that the agreed-upon periodization of early Islamic history is largely an Abbasid-era construction and that the imposition of such a rigid chronological framework limited the possibilities to rewrite the past or, more specifically, locked the past into a teleologically predetermined and binding frame. We are accustomed to think in terms of Jāhiliyya, Prophetic period, Rāshidūn era, Umayyad mulk, and Abbasid dawla, not to mention several fitnas along the way. But such periodizations would certainly be quite surprising if not largely unintelligible to most of the actors of early Islam. What were, for instance, the changing meanings granted to the pre-Islamic past under the label of Jāhiliyya?²⁵ Would all of their contemporaries have considered ʿUthmān or ʿAlī “rightly guided,” as once asked by Morony?²⁶ Was Ibn al-Zubayr a mere rebel 22 See most recently Varisco, “Making ‘Medieval’ Islam Meaningful,” largely building upon Hodgson’s magnum opus, The Venture of Islam (see esp. 1:48–52). It is worth noting that Hodgson’s new terminology has overall not become very popular, with the notable exception of the term “Persianate” (The Venture of Islam, 2:293), which has proven much more successful than its counterpart “Islamicate.” See also the remarks of Al-Azmeh, “Muslim History,” and of Bauer, “In Search of ‘Post-Classical Literature’.” 23 See especially Robinson, “Reconstructing Early Islam”; Sizgorich (who notably coined the expression “Islamic Late Antiquity”), “Narrative and Community” and Violence and Belief; Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth and “Contextualizing Late Antiquity”; Marsham, “The Early Caliphate”; Al-Azmeh, The Times of History, esp. 55–61 and 267–86, and “Muslim History.” For the related question of the inclusion of Iran in this Late Antique framework, see Walker, “The Limits of Late Antiquity,” and Morony, “Should Sasanian Iran be Included in Late Antiquity?” 24 Koselleck, The Practice of Conceptual History. See the fruitful discussions of Donner, “Qurʾânicization,” and Webb, “Al-Jāhiliyya: Uncertain Times of Uncertain Meanings.” 25 A question first asked by Goldziher, Muslim Studies, 1:202–208. See also in particular Drory, “The Abbasid Construction of the Jahiliyya”; Shepard, “Age of Ignorance”; Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts, 28–35; Webb, “Al-Jāhiliyya: Uncertain Times of Uncertain Meanings.” 26 Morony, “Bayn al-Fitnatayn,” 248. See also Crone and Hinds, God’s Caliph, 32. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 42 Antoine Borrut and ʿAbd al-Malik the sole legitimate caliph, a view recently challenged by Chase Robinson?²⁷ Was the so-called Abbasid Revolution actually Abbasid or even a Revolution at all?²⁸ One could continue with such questions. In fact, as we shall see, we have some evidence that quite different periodizations were used by competing groups early on, and we must therefore reflect upon the conditions of the imposition of a binding framework on the early Islamic past that we are still largely using today. I would like to investigate in this paper three main points: (1) the Abbasid-era (re)construction of the past; (2) the existence of alternative pasts and alternative periodizations; and (3) the impact of periodization on the meaning(s) granted to the past, in particular in a Syrian framework, from the perspective of what German scholars have termed Sinngeschichte, or history of meanings.²⁹ Before developing these various points, however, let me first explain why early Islamic Syria offers a particularly illuminating example for such an investigation. Vanishing Syria Early Islamic Syria presents an interesting illustration because Syrian history seems to have fallen victim to the “politics of periodization.”³⁰ Indeed, as observed long ago by Patricia Crone: “The Syria to which Heraclius bade his moving farewell seems to have vanished, not just from Byzantine rule, but from the face of earth.”³¹ And yet, for all the oblivion surrounding the province in the sources, the Umayyad century certainly represents some kind of exception, during which a Syrian backdrop was impossible to avoid. In other words, Crone’s statement becomes even truer after the so-called Abbasid revolution of 132/750. As aptly noted by Paul Cobb, “it is one of those paradoxes common to early Islamic historiography that, as far as our sources are concerned, ʿAbbāsid history begins in Syria while at the same time Syrian history ends with the ʿAbbāsids.”³² Indeed, the place granted to Syria in Islamic narrative sources, or perhaps, more aptly, 27 Robinson, ʿAbd al-Malik, 31–48. 28 The bibliography on this episode is abundant. Among recent contributions, see especially Agha, The Revolution, and Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 326–38. 29 On Sinngeschichte, see in particular Assmann, The Mind of Egypt and Moses the Egyptian, as well as the remarks of Oexle, “L’historicisation,” 39–40. 30 Khalidi, “Reflections on Periodization,” 107. 31 Crone, Slaves on Horses, 11. 32 Cobb, “Community versus Contention,” 100. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 43 the oblivion of the former Umayyad heartland of power, is largely explained by the periodization imposed onto Islamic history. The pre-Islamic past and the Prophetic period are firmly anchored – if not locked – in the Arabian Peninsula,³³ while the successful and cosmopolitan Islamic Empire of the classical age was centered on Baghdad, on Iraq, and to a large extent on Iran as well – that is, looking East and not West. In between those two periods and spaces, Syria was given a somewhat limited role: the province was acknowledged as a primary goal of the Islamic conquests,³⁴ before becoming the seat of Umayyad power. And that is pretty much it, since the downfall of the first dynasty of Islam – soon to be blamed for most of the failures and shortcomings of the early Islamic community, thanks actually to a convenient dynastic periodization – coincides with the vanishing of Syria from historical records, at least until Ibn ʿAsākir’s (d. 571/1176) efforts to put the province back on the map of Islamic history in his monumental Taʾrīkh madīnat Dimashq.³⁵ In this grand narrative, the Abbasid Revolution represents a major turning point in Syrian history, after which the province seems to have largely disappeared from the course of Islamic history.³⁶ I have argued elsewhere that this dichotomy between Umayyad Syria and Abbasid Iraq, between white and black if you will, was an Abbasid-era construct and a deliberate attempt to lock memories into clearly delimited and antagonistic spaces. The links between periodization and space noted above are here quite obvious. Umayyad and Abbasid histories were, in other words, rewritten at the mirror of the Euphrates, thus depriving us of a global understanding of the dynamics of power of both dynasties at the scale of the Empire.³⁷ The historiographical vulgate that resulted from these efforts is unmistakably Iraq-centered. The consequences of this remark are extremely important for approaching Syrian history, and they largely explain why Syria occupies such limited space in mainstream chronicles. It is not just a question of geography and space but first and foremost a question of periodization. Restricted to its Umayyad past, Syria had to vanish from the scene with the demise of the first dynasty of Islam to make room 33 Some scholars have famously challenged this view as a complete fabrication, e.g., Crone and Cook, Hagarism, Koren and Nevo, Crossroads, and most recently Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet, esp. 197–265. Cf., however, recent contributions such as Montgomery, “The Empty Hijaz”; Robin, “La péninsule arabique” and “Arabia and Ethiopia”; and Bowersock, The Throne of Adulis. 34 Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, 96 ff.; Djaït, Al-Kūfa, 10. 35 Cobb, “Virtual Sacrality.” 36 For recent challenges to this view, see Cobb, “The Empire in Syria, 705–763,” and Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 321 ff. 37 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 204–10. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 44 Antoine Borrut for the Abbasids who had their own claims to make. Forgetting Syria was indeed critical for the new masters of Baghdad, and the second dynasty of Islam thus carefully erased its Syrian roots in Ḥumayma (in modern-day Jordan), where the family had been settled for decades under the Umayyads, while stressing their links to Iraq and Khurāsān.³⁸ The impact of this discourse on medieval and modern scholarship alike would prove quite imposing. Consider, for instance, Oleg Grabar’s perplexity during his excavations conducted in the mid-1960s at Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī, one of the so-called Umayyad desert castles: Even our preliminary and limited work appears to have established the fact that the small enclosure was considerably redone in the 9th century. This, of course, poses a central problem for the archaeological history of Syria since the 9th century is usually assumed to have been a period of impoverishment in Syria proper and either this hypothesis may have to be revised or one would have to conclude that the development of Qasṛ al-Ḥayr at that time was somehow connected with the Jazīra much more than with traditional Syria.³⁹ This archaeological example reveals the profound impact of the dichotomy between Umayyad Syria and Abbasid Iraq: given its (relative) prosperity in the Abbasid age, Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī appears to be on the wrong side of the Euphrates, instituted as a true line of demarcation.⁴⁰ This exclusive geography is only one of the legacies of the massive effort at rewriting the past that took place in the classical Abbasid era and to which we should now devote our attention. The Abbasid-era construction of the past Early Islamic historiography is best understood as a multilayered historiography, and one can demonstrate that the past was rewritten on several occasions in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods.⁴¹ Each of these rewritings of the past implied processes of selection, creation, and destruction. In other words, every rewriting turned out to create historiographical filters, thus irremediably limiting the access future generations would have to “alternative pasts.”⁴² But none of these 38 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 210–17. 39 Grabar, “Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi, Preliminary Report,” 120 [my emphasis]. 40 See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 208–10. On Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī, see now Genequand, Les établissements, 95 ff. 41 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 61 ff., and “The Future of the Past.” 42 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, 177. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 45 early Islamic historiographical filters would be as successful and enduring as the one imposed in the aftermath of the abandonment of Samarra and the return of the caliphate to Baghdad after 279/892, in a sense, the culmination of decades of efforts to make terms with the past. A new meaning was then granted to the pre-Islamic and early Islamic past at the turn of the third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries, following decades of deep reorganization of knowledge and of intense efforts at codification in nearly every field.⁴³ If the move back to Baghdad required some justifications – and probably explains the emphasis, then put in the sources on al-Manṣūr, the founder of Baghdad – the deep social and cultural transformations that the first century and a half of Abbasid rule had witnessed commanded to renegotiate the relationship to the past. Indeed, the signs of “continuity had become unintelligible.”⁴⁴ Consider the rapid succession of some of the most dramatic changes that occurred during the first 150 years of Abbasid rule: the Abbasid Revolution itself of course, the fall of the Barmakids, the fourth fitna and the war between brothers (193–198/ 809–813), the miḥna, the move to Samarra (221/836), and the rise of the Turks who would not just become the new backbone of the military but soon make and unmake caliphs, etc.⁴⁵ Ironically enough, this list is in itself the result of efforts at periodization, but to borrow from Koselleck’s terminology, one could argue that the gap between the “space of experience” and the “horizon of expectation” had become too wide, to the point of being totally indecipherable.⁴⁶ Rewriting the past was therefore more than a desideratum; it was a need to give meaning to a deeply transformed present.⁴⁷ And thus, the late third/ninth and early fourth/ tenth centuries witnessed a profound reorganization of the past and of historical knowledge. In times of crisis, one finds adjustments to memory and impulses to remembrance and oblivion. This sensible rewriting would prove to be a longlasting one, largely accepted by medieval and modern scholars alike. But in the process, the fact that this periodization was first and foremost an Abbasid claim to power seems to have been largely forgotten. It is impossible to fully discuss here the reasons explaining why this rewriting of the past was widely accepted,⁴⁸ but one point deserves closer attention for our 43 As especially noted by Robinson, Islamic Historiography, 40–43, and Gilliot, “Creation of a Fixed Text,” 49. 44 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, 25. 45 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 98–99. 46 Koselleck, Futures Past, 255–75. 47 A point notably emphasized by Michel de Certeau: “Une société́ se donne ainsi un présent grâce à une écriture historique,” L’écriture de l’histoire, 141. 48 See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 97–108. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 46 Antoine Borrut purpose. This time of crisis was also a crisis of time. The acceptance of this new past in the “medieval” and “modern” epochs notably has to do with the fact that messianic hopes were postponed into a remote future, thus making this reconstruction of the past (or at least the chronological frame of this reconstruction) acceptable in the long run, while the expectation of the impending End of Times had prompted generations of Muslims to rewrite early Islamic history much more frequently up to the fourth/tenth century. David Cook has indeed shown that “though Muslim apocalyptists have been active throughout the history of Islam,” apocalyptic traditions significantly declined from 250/864 onward in (proto-) Sunni circles and about a century later (ca. 350–400/960–1000) in the (proto-) Shiite sphere.⁴⁹ If this is so, one could perhaps push this idea even a bit further, with François Hartog, and argue that the moment when messianic expectations were postponed into a remote future prompted a change of regime of historicity (régime d’historicité). The concept has been characterized by Hartog as a moment in which a society redefines its relationship to its own past in the context of a crisis of time.⁵⁰ It is also worth emphasizing that Hartog has demonstrated the relevance of such a concept beyond European (historiographical) contexts.⁵¹ Once the idea of an impending End of Times had been deferred, scholars could stop looking toward the future and start focusing on the past to explain the present. Histories written in the future tense (such as apocalypses⁵² or astrological histories) declined in number and were replaced by the flourishing genre of universal histories, going back to the Creation and adopting an annalistic framework for Islamic times.⁵³ The process was of course not straightforward,⁵⁴ and this hypothesis would require a much broader discussion than this article allows, but such a scenario is not unparalleled. It is precisely the abandonment of eschatological ideas in the Renaissance that prompted the most famous change of régime d’historicité magisterially analyzed by Koselleck.⁵⁵ 49 Cook, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic, 330. 50 Hartog, Régimes d’historicité, esp. 19–30, for the definition of the concept. 51 Hartog, Régimes d’historicité, 48. 52 See the important discussion of Al-Azmeh, The Times of History, 139–59. 53 On the different forms of periodization in Islamic historiography, see the remarks of Rosenthal, A History, 71–98. 54 As shown, for instance, by astrological histories that, despite their fundamental interest in prognoses and in the future, were also instrumental in dating past events all the way back to the Flood. See Borrut, “Court Astrologers.” 55 Koselleck, Futures Past, 15 ff. For another change of régime d’historicité towards a “presentist” approach see Hartog, Régimes d’historicité, esp. 113 ff. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 47 As a result, the early Islamic past was constrained into a very rigid framework, in fact reduced to a limited number of events, pretty much shared by all the sources. This historiographical skeleton has left an indelible blueprint: it is perhaps one of the greatest, albeit much-neglected, legacies of the Abbasid era.⁵⁶ This new past included the imposition of (very successful) categories aiming to cover a convenient periodization: Jāhiliyya, Rāshidūn, a history organized around fitnas – creating disorder – or an Abbasid dawla generating a new order, a point we will return to. Each of these concepts still largely deserves a thorough Begriffsgeschichte.⁵⁷ More than a canonical history, it is a canonical historical framework that had been imposed: this framework would not prevent future reinterpretations, but it radically limited the field of possibilities. Prior to the imposition of this framework and at the periphery of the Islamic Empire, however, we find evidence for alternative periodizations of early Islamic history. Some specific examples deserve scrutiny as they can help us unveil alternative pasts. Alternative periodizations and alternative pasts Even a quick glance at Islamic historiography reveals various efforts at periodization during the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods. Consider, for instance, al-Zuhrī’s (d. 124/742) famous Asnān al-khulafāʾ, perhaps one of the first systematic attempts to fix a firm chronology of rulers in Umayyad times.⁵⁸ Although this book may not have been more than a list of caliphs, its influence on the agreedupon length of the reigns of the first sovereigns of Islam is likely to have been decisive.⁵⁹ Other efforts include those of the court astrologers of the early Abbasid period. These ardent observers of celestial bodies were also masters of computation, and as such, they studied natural time and expertly converted between the various calendars in use in the Late Antique and early Islamic Middle East. To a 56 See the remarks of Khalidi, “Reflections on Periodization.” 57 On top of the aforementioned studies on the Jāhiliyya, see also Lassner’s thorough discussion of the evolving meaning of the term dawla in “The ʿAbbasid Dawla” and “Dawlah.” 58 Duri, “Al-Zuhrī,” 10; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, esp. 45–48, 67–76. See also, more broadly, Lecker, “Biographical Notes.” 59 Thus, al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) might have had indirect access to the Asnān al-khulafāʾin order to specify the length of al-Walīd I’s caliphate (“ten years less one month”), as he expressly cites a chain of transmitters going back to al-Zuhrī as his source (Taʾrīkh, 2:1269; tr. 23:218). Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 48 Antoine Borrut large extent, their impact on the fixation of chronology has yet to be studied.⁶⁰ It is impossible to offer a comprehensive discussion of these various attempts at ordering time and at competing periodizations in the framework of this article. Some concrete examples reveal, however, competing claims for power and Umayyad efforts at control over the past. Caliphal lists and Umayyad periodization A first example is offered by three anonymous Syriac lists of caliphs (commonly known as the short chronologies to 705, 724, and 775) and a likewise anonymous Greek chronology to 818 that reveal early stages of the periodization of Islamic history.⁶¹ The most significant of these anonymous texts for our purpose is undoubtedly the Syriac list of caliphs up to 724, as it is preserved on the last folio of a single second/eighth-century manuscript (BL Add. 14643), composed shortly after the death of Yazīd II in 105/724. This list of rulers has been added at the end of the Chronicle of Thomas the Presbyter⁶² and represents a clear, albeit limited, effort to establish a firm chronology of Muḥammad’s activity followed by the length of his successors’ reigns.⁶³ The text runs as follows: Ad annum 724: A notice of the life of Mḥmṭ the messenger (r[asūl]ā) of God, after he had entered his city and three months before he entered it, from his first year; and how long each king lived who arose after him over the mahgrāyē (ie., muhājirūn or “followers of Hagar”, that is the Muslims) once they had taken power; and how long there was dissension (ptnā) among them. Three months before Mḥmd came. And Mḥmd lived ten years [more]. And Abū Bakr bar Abū Qūḥafā: 2 years and 6 months. 60 See provisionally Borrut, “Court Astrologers.” 61 See the bibliography for full references to these texts. For a detailed discussion of these various sources, see especially Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 393–99 and 434–37; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 152–54; Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire; Palmer, The Seventh Century, 43–44 and 49–52, and “Les chroniques brèves”; Howard-Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, 59–69. 62 Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 396. 63 The other two short Syriac chronologies to 705 and 775 and the Greek chronicle to 818 offer similar evidence for early attempts at periodization, but their manuscript traditions make their ascription to the Umayyad period less direct. Thus, the Syriac chronology to 705 was arguably composed during al-Walīd I’s caliphate but survives only in a ninth-century manuscript (BL Add. 17193). On the other hand, the Syriac chronology to 775 and the Greek one to 818 were obviously composed in Abbasid times, even if they likely preserve Umayyad-era material. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 49 And ʿUmar bar Kattāb: 10 years and 3 months. And ʿUthmān bar ʿAfān: 12 years. And dissension after ʿUthmān: 5 years and 4 months. And Muʿawiyā (Maʿwiyā) bar Abū Syfan: 19 years and 2 months. And Īzīd bar Maʿwiyā: 3 years and 8 months. And dissension after Īzīd: 9 months. And Marwan bar Ḥakam: 9 months. And ʿAbdalmalik bar Marwan: 21 years and 1 month. Walīd bar ʿAbdalmalik: 9 years and 8 months. And Sūlayman bar ʿAbdalmalik: 2 years and 9 months. And ʿŪmar bar ʿAbdalʿazīz: 2 years and 5 months. And Īzīd bar ʿAbdalmalik: 4 years and 1 month and 2 days. The total of all these years is 104, and 5 months and 2 days.⁶⁴ Three points in particular can be made on this brief text and on these short chronologies more broadly. 1. These texts are clearly based upon an Arabic source, as evidenced by the vocabulary deriving from the Arabic and otherwise unknown in Syriac. Thus, Muḥammad is defined as the messenger (Syriac: rasūlā, Arabic: rasūl), the “civil wars” (or dissensions) are referred to as ptnā/fetnā, a term that does not exist in Syriac but is a clear calque of the Arabic fitna. The mention of the toponym of Ṣefē in the chronology to 705 also derives from the Arabic Ṣiffīn,⁶⁵ while the Greek chronicle to 818 is aware of Yazīd III’s nickname “the deficient” (Greek: Izitoleipsos, Arabic: al-nāqiṣ).⁶⁶ The Arabic source behind these short chronologies could well have been an early list (or lists) of caliphs. 2. More importantly for this paper, the use of the term fetnā/fitna is significant because it offers an early attestation of the periodization of early Islamic history, since the term is used twice to define two interregnums. The bottom line, however, is that if it demonstrates that the term was used in the second/ eighth century to define a period of Islamic history, we do not know for sure what the specific meaning of the word was. Indeed, following Tayeb El-Hibri, we have good reasons to suspect that the concept of fitna was largely reinterpreted in the aftermath of the fourth fitna between al-Amīn and al-Maʾmūn (193–198/809–813) and that this reinterpretation deeply impacted understandings of the first three fitnas.⁶⁷ If this is so, the original (or at least the 64 724, 155. I am using here Hoyland’s translation (with minor modifications), Seeing Islam, 395–96. 65 705, 11; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 394. 66 818, 97; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 436. 67 El-Hibri, Reinterpreting, 105. See also Donner, “Qurʾânicization,” 88–99. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 50 3. Antoine Borrut second/eighth-century) meaning of the term might well be largely lost to us. Indeed, as underlined by Koselleck, “the fact that a word has remained in constant use is not in itself sufficient indication of stability in its substantial meaning.”⁶⁸ This is good evidence, in fact, of the diachronic dimension of any attempt at periodization: the period (here the first and second fitnas) is situated in the past, but its meaning is defined in the present, thus providing a good example of Koselleck’s theory of the contemporaneity of the noncontemporaneous (Gleichzeitigkeit der Ungleichzeitigen).⁶⁹ The most obvious observation to be made, though, is certainly that ʿAlī b. Abī Tālib is not even mentioned in these texts.⁷⁰ The period traditionally associated with his caliphate is simply described as a time of dissension during which the throne was vacant. Additional pieces of evidence for the exclusion of ʿAlī from early caliphal lists include the Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle⁷¹ as well as the Arab-Byzantine Chronicle to 741 and the Mozarabic Chronicle to 754.⁷² This strongly suggests an Umayyad (or pro-Umayyad) source and an alternative periodization of early Islamic history, preexisting the elaboration of the concept of the Rāshidūn. Here again, the categories we commonly use to approach early Islamic history deserve scrutiny. Although it has been acknowledged in passing that the term Rāshidūn was coined only fairly late in Abbasid times,⁷³ arguably as part of an effort to redeem Alid memory,⁷⁴ a systematic study of the concept has yet to be produced despite El-Hibri’s recent monograph on the subject.⁷⁵ 68 Koselleck, Futures Past, 82. 69 Koselleck, Futures Past, esp. 95. 70 Ibn al-Zubayr is similarly absent. 71 Levy-Rubin, The Continuatio, ed. 207–208, tr. 53–56. Interestingly enough, the word fitna is absent, and the author prefers the term al-khulf to refer to the dissension that followed ʿUthmān’s assassination. See also Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 158–60. 72 Byzantine-Arab Chronicle of 741, 10 (§ 24); Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, 24 (§ 22). Both texts speak of “bella ciuilia.” Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 618. The text states that Muʿāwiya reigned for 25 years but that a civil war raged during the first five years of his caliphate. 73 See, for instance, Crone and Hinds, God’s Caliph, 32; Gordon, The Rise of Islam, 81; Khalidi, “Reflections on Periodization,” 109; Hattemer, “Gewählt, geachtet, rechtgeleitet,” 67, n. 2. 74 Borrut, “Remembering Karbalāʾ,” esp. 30 ff. 75 El-Hibri, Parable and Politics. Some evidence suggests, for instance, competing identification of “rightly guided” caliphs. Thus, ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is often regarded in Islamic sources as the fifth rāshidūn (Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 285 ff.), whereas elsewhere the famous Umayyad governor al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95/714) reportedly considered Abū Bakr, ʿUmar I, ʿUthmān, Muʿāwiya, and ʿAbd al-Malik “khulafāʾ al-rāshidūn al-muhtadūn al-mahdiyyūn” (Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, ʿIqd, 4:117, a point noted by Crone and Hinds, God’s Caliph, 36). Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 51 To sum up, we can safely assume that these caliphal lists reflect an Umayyad-era periodization of early Islam. Although they disagree slightly on the length of different reigns, or even on the existence of some ephemeral rulers such as Muʿāwiya II, they all ignore the name of ʿAlī, thus forcing us to think along different lines than the traditional concept of a Rāshidūn period. Al-Masʿūdī and Umayyad longue durée My second example comes from al-Masʿūdī’s (d. 345/956) Kitāb al-tanbīh wa-lishrāf, where he describes an intriguing book he found in Tiberias in 324/935– 936, entitled Kitāb al-barāhīn fī imāmat al-Umawiyyīn wa-nashr mā ṭawā min faḍāʾilihim (The Book of Proofs of the Imamate of the Umayyads and of the Promulgation of what was Concealed of their Merits). The book, comprising 300 pages (waraqa), offered a defense of Umayyad claims to the caliphate against their rivals and listed the virtues of the dynasty from the caliph ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān III of Cordova (r. 300–350/912–961). In other words, the book presented an uninterrupted chain of Umayyad rulers starting with ʿUthmān and continuing with the Umayyads of Spain, affirming notably that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān I (d. 172/788) had been designated as legitimate heir by Marwān II.⁷⁶ Al-Masʿūdī says nothing about the place – if any at all – accorded to the fitnas in this book, but he reports that the book also prophesized the restoration of Umayyad rule with the expected return of the Sufyānī. Al-Masʿūdī claims to have consulted at least another book defending the rights of the Umayyads to the throne. Such a periodization not only supported Umayyad rights to the caliphate but expressly rejected Hashimite claims as well as the tenets of other sectarian groups (of which al-Masʿūdī provides a detailed list). This demonstrates that competing historiographies were circulating in the fourth/tenth-century Bilād al-Shām and that Umayyad memory was still very much alive.⁷⁷ Less surprisingly, similar views of an Umayyad continuum were more widespread in al-Andalus, as exemplified, for instance, by the Akhbār majmūʿa or Ibn al-Qūṭiyya’s (d. 367/977) History.⁷⁸ The existence of such books also invites us to think beyond the traditional periodization of early Islam: if the concept of Rāshidūn caliphs was an Abbasid- 76 Al-Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, 336–37, tr. 433; Borrut and Cobb, Umayyad Legacies, 8, n. 21. 77 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 179 ff., on Umayyad sites of memory. See also more broadly Borrut and Cobb, Umayyad Legacies. 78 Akhbār Majmuʿa; Ibn al-Qūṭiyya, Taʾrīkh. On these texts, see now James, Early Islamic Spain and A History of Early al-Andalus. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 52 Antoine Borrut era development, as suggested above, the dynastic framework we normally use from the Umayyads onward also has its limitations. Even if it is still the norm to present the Umayyad dynasty as having begun with Muʿāwiya in 41/661⁷⁹ and as having ended with Marwān II’s demise in 132/750, other approaches are possible. ʿUthmān could legitimately be regarded as the first Umayyad,⁸⁰ while the sovereigns of Cordova were undoubtedly the heirs of the masters of Damascus, a fact they stressed at length in their historiography.⁸¹ The tight connection between time and space here is obvious: The First Dynasty of Islam (Hawting) has been largely enclosed into a Syrian setting, while The Second Umayyad Caliphate (Safran) was cornered in Iberia.⁸² The translatio imperii of the Umayyads was thus essentially disregarded, even more so since the masters of al-Andalus did not claim the caliphate until the fourth/tenth century.⁸³ This is yet another example of the impact of periodization on spatialization, and modern scholarship seems to have largely fallen victim here to the center vs. periphery dilemma. This suggests that we need to do more to “provincialize” Islamic history prior to the emergence of the “Islamic Commonwealth,” traditionally associated with the collapse of Abbasid central authority and the coming of the Buyids (334/945).⁸⁴ Along with the lists of caliphs ignoring ʿAlī, this book described by al-Masʿūdī demonstrates the existence of alternative periodizations of early Islam, shedding some light in particular on Umayyad visions of the past and arguably also on “former future(s)” (vergangene Zukunft, more famously translated into English as “futures past”) to borrow again from Koselleck’s terminology.⁸⁵ This Umayyad longue durée invites us, in fact, to question the traditional account of the Abbasid rise to power, which we shall now discuss as our final example.⁸⁶ 79 This date has been questioned by Keshk, “When Did Muʿāwiya Become Caliph?,” 34 ff. 80 Morony, “Bayn al-Fitnatayn,” 248; Crone and Hinds, God’s Caliph, 32. 81 Martinez-Gros, L’idéologie omeyyade. 82 Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam; Safran, The Second Umayyad Caliphate. 83 For a global approach of the Umayyads East and West, see Chalmeta, “Pour une étude globale,” and Borrut and Cobb, Umayyad Legacies. On the problems of the periodization of Umayyad history in al-Andalus proper, see the remarks of Martinez-Gros, L’idéologie omeyyade, 321–28. 84 A view advocated most forcefully by Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge. 85 The original German title of Koselleck’s book translated into English as Futures Past is Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (1979). 86 I should add that, if this Umayyad vantage point is certainly useful to contrast the Abbasid vision of early Islamic history, other voices should be investigated as well, such as the Alid or Zubayrid constructions of the past. See, in this perspective, Amir-Moezzi, Le Coran silencieux, and Campbell, Telling Memories. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 53 Fitna vs. dawla: The Abbasids and the politics of time A good starting point is offered by three brief third/ninth-century texts, the two anonymous Syriac chronicles of 819 and 846⁸⁷ and the aforementioned Greek chronicle to 818, that largely ignore the so-called Abbasid Revolution and fail to mention a dynastic change in 132/750. Indeed, the three texts simply present ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad, the first Abbasid caliph usually known as Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ,⁸⁸ as the natural successor to Marwān II. The Greek chronicle to 818 provides no evidence whatsoever that a dynastic change occurred in 132/750 and even disregards the violence that erupted during Marwān II’s caliphate and in its immediate aftermath.⁸⁹ Although the two Syriac texts refer to the destruction of the walls of some Syrian cities, probably in reference to Marwān II’s efforts to affirm his authority over Bilād al-Shām, the dynastic change is completely overlooked. More to the point, the main eruption of violence between “Persians” (Fōrsāyē) and Arabs (Ṭayyāyē)⁹⁰ is specifically connected with the problematic succession of the first Abbasid caliph rather than with the toppling of the Umayyads.⁹¹ Another piece of evidence is offered by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d. 959), who similarly fails to acknowledge a dynastic change in his De Administrando Imperio. He even skips Abū al-ʿAbbās’ caliphate, apparently assuming that al-Manṣūr was the direct successor of Marwān II.⁹² This should give us pause and force us to question the agreed-upon periodization of the late Umayyad period, as it suggests that the narrative of the Abbasid ascent to power was not as straightforward as “classical” sources would like us to believe. 87 On these texts, see in particular Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 419–21; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 151–52; Palmer, “Les chroniques brèves”; Conrad, “Syriac Perspectives”; Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire. 88 I have argued elsewhere that the epithet al-Saffāḥ was originally attached to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī. It is only at a later stage that the laqab was confiscated and attributed to the first Abbasid caliph, Abū al-ʿAbbās, as part of the strategies of isolation of the rebellious Abbasid uncle responsible for the bloody massacre of the Umayyads at Nahr Abī Fuṭrus. See Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 354 ff., esp. 369–71. In the process, the epithet was granted an eschatological connotation that was primitively absent (Bates, “Khurāsānī Revolutionaries,” 311, n. 4.). 89 818, 97; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 436. 90 On the meaning of the “Persian” and “Arab” labels in Syriac historiography, see Harrak, “Ah! The Assyrian,” and Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 345–48. 91 819, ed. 18, tr. 12–13; 846, ed. 236, tr. 179; Brooks, “A Syriac Chronicle of the Year 846,” ed. 577, tr. 586. 92 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ch. 22, 96–97. Other fairly brief caliphates are also neglected, e.g., al-Walīd II, Yazīd III, Ibrāhīm, and al-Hādī. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 54 Antoine Borrut We are accustomed to approach the late Umayyad period as a time of troubles initiated by the alleged scandalous behavior of al-Walīd II,⁹³ culminating in his assassination at al-Bakhrāʾ, in the vicinity of Palmyra, in 126/744 and the third fitna that ensued. Yet this fitna that would sanction the demise of the first dynasty of Islam is usually considered as coming to an end during the last days of Marwān II, regardless of the utmost chaos of the time, to make room for the Abbasid dawla. To put it differently, the fitna disrupts the normal order of things to generate chaos (exemplified in this case by the contrast between the highwater mark represented by Hishām’s long caliphate and the conduct of his frivolous successor), while the dawla is doing precisely the opposite, namely, creating order out of chaos.⁹⁴ It is easy to see why such a chronological framing serves Abbasid purposes, but much less easy to understand why modern scholars have so uncritically accepted it. Another reading of the period is certainly possible, given that the disorders persisted at least until 136/754,⁹⁵ that is, several years beyond the Abbasid coup. One could therefore make the case for a longer third fitna, for instance, running from al-Walīd II to the complicated succession of Abū al-ʿAbbās by his brother al-Manṣūr (i. e., 125–136/743–754). In fact, it is only with this contested succession that the Revolution became Abbasid, when a dynastical principle was reintroduced despite criticisms formulated against the Umayyads for having inaugurated such a reprehensible practice. The elimination of al-Manṣūr’s rivals marked the true affirmation of Abbasid authority. His paternal uncle ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī, who had briefly attempted to invent an Abbasid future in Syria,⁹⁶ was defeated and then arrested in 136–137/754–755; he would eventually be assassinated after a decade in prison, probably in 147/764–765. Abū Muslim (d. 137/754–755) himself, the herald of the revolutionary movement that incubated in Khurāsān, was treacherously murdered, as his prestige alarmed al-Manṣūr. This is why it has been suggested that the Abbasid revolution could perhaps more aptly be termed a Manṣūrid revolution.⁹⁷ In fact, some of the Abbasid efforts to rewrite the story of their origins are actually detectable. I have argued elsewhere that the Abbasid Revolution constitutes a 93 On his image, see Judd, “Reinterpreting al-Walīd b. Yazīd.” 94 Judd, The Third Fitna and “Medieval Explanations”; Lassner, “The ʿAbbasid Dawla”; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 333 ff. 95 If not up to Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya’s revolt in 145/762, on which see Elad, “The Rebellion.” 96 On the Syrian dimension of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī’s bid for power, see Cobb, White Banners, 23–26, and Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 354–68. 97 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 349 ff. On “Manṣūrid” politics, see Lassner, Islamic Revolution, index. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 55 formidable example of the creation of an Abbasid origins myth, largely operated through the manipulation of revolutionary time.⁹⁸ In very concrete terms, Khalid Blankinship has, for instance, shown how the Abbasids reduced the time of uncertainty with regard to the problematic succession of Ibrāhīm al-Imām (d. ca. 130/747–748) and the transmission of the Imamate to his successor, the would-be first caliph, Abū al-ʿAbbās. Indeed, the imprisonment of Ibrāhīm al-Imām, at the orders of the last Umayyad caliph Marwān II, represented a serious challenge for the new Abbasid power since the designation of his heir was complicated by this time in solitary confinement. The date of Ibrāhīm’s arrest was thus intentionally placed at a later stage (i. e., in 132/749 instead of 130/747–748) “to make the interregnum as short as possible” in order to affirm Abbasid legitimacy and to assess the continuity of the Abbasid Imamate.⁹⁹ This example offers a perfect illustration of the Abbasid politics of time, where the imposition of a suitable chronology was an essential part of the affirmation of their legitimacy. The strategy adopted stressed the strong messianic dimension of the new masters of the caliphate and thus the messianic time of their rise to power. The confiscation of messianity by the early Abbasids proved essential to drawing a sharp line of division with the Umayyad past, conveniently allowing the new power holders to blame their predecessors for all the shortcomings of the Caliphate.¹⁰⁰ Hence, the downfall of the Umayyads was presented in eschatological terms while an apocalyptic literature flourished in the early Abbasid period. The new rulers underlined their messianic status as the culmination of the Abbasid dawla, a movement allegedly launched in the year 100 of the Hijra (718–719), a time also connected with strong apocalyptic expectations. The regnal titles of the Abbasids are quite telling from this perspective: the two oldest inscriptions mentioning the first Abbasid caliph refer to him as al-Mahdī,¹⁰¹ while the laqabs of his immediate successors, al-Manṣūr, al-Mahdī, al-Hādī, and al-Rashīd, clearly echo such a messianic dimension.¹⁰² 98 See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 321–81. 99 Blankinship, “The Tribal Factor,” 603; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 351–53. Jacob Lassner has also offered many examples of Abbasid efforts at reshaping the story of their origins; see in particular his Islamic Revolution. 100 On Abbasid messianic strategies, see Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 368–81. See also more broadly Cook, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic, esp. 144–46, and Yucesoy, Messianic Beliefs. 101 On this inscription, see Elad, “The Caliph Abū’l-ʿAbbās,” and Sharon, Corpus, 2:214 ff. See also al-Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, 338, tr. 434–35, and my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 369–71. 102 See especially Lewis, “The Regnal Titles”; Omar, “A Note”; Madelung, “Apocalyptic Prophecies”; Cook, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic, index; Bates, “Khurāsānī Revolutionaries.” Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 56 Antoine Borrut Firm control over this revolutionary and messianic time was thus essential to Abbasid claims. In imposing their own chronology on their coming to power, the new dynasts not only affirmed their new status as masters of time. They also decided on the quality of historical time, as late Umayyad chaos was replaced by a fresh Abbasid order. The various examples discussed above attest to the existence of alternative pasts and periodizations and suggest that different meanings were granted to Syrian history. And this is perhaps one of the most promising options for historians to defy periodization: we can indeed try to retrieve some of these alternative meanings (and of course also produce new ones¹⁰³) using a history of meanings (Sinngeschichte) approach. Syria’s long eighth century: A history of meanings In a recent book, I have proposed an attempt at a different history of meanings of early Islamic Syria, arguing for the profound coherence of the period between the foundation of the Dome of the Rock by ʿAbd al-Malik in 72/692 and the death of Hārūn al-Rashīd in 193/809, that is, well beyond the classic caesura of 132/750 represented by the Abbasid Revolution.¹⁰⁴ This alternative reading of Syrian history is notably articulated around specific practices of power – especially spatial practices – in the Bilād al-Shām under the Marwanids and early Abbasids, at the intersection of patrimonialism, itinerant kingship, and the exercise of authority at a distance. It suggests that the reforms implemented by ʿAbd al-Malik in the aftermath of the second fitna largely irrigated Marwanid and early Abbasid Syrian policies up to the death of Hārūn al-Rashīd. I can offer only a brief summary here. The second/eighth century was of paramount importance as the caliphate had to define its relationship with the huge spaces that it now governed, thanks to the startling success of Muslim expansion.¹⁰⁵ To a large extent, it was in this second/eighth-century context that the Islamic idea of the empire was created and likewise the idea of Islamic Syria. Part of this process involved an ambitious program of creating a Muslim and caliphal landscape: great mosques were erected in the major cities of the province and throughout the whole empire, as well as numerous palaces known as the “Umayyad desert castles.” For many 103 See the concluding remarks of Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, 177–81. 104 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 383–466. See also the useful discussion of Walmsley, “Production, Exchange.” 105 Such a need is perhaps best exemplified by the frontier warrior-hero Maslama b. ʿAbd alMalik; see Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 229–82. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 57 years, archaeologists and historians tried to make sense of these impressive architectural phenomena and generated many different theories. Some, for example, saw these castles as relics of an alleged Arab sympathy for the desert; others stressed the economic functions of these sites, and still others their role for contact between the caliphal power and the tribes, in a kind of “architecture of diplomacy”;¹⁰⁶ and the Umayyad desert castles were also seen as reflecting the different axes of communication, which conveniently linked many of these castles. It is now well acknowledged that these sites had a variety of functions, all the preceding theories being by no means incompatible.¹⁰⁷ But in all cases, the Umayyad castles were seen as reflecting a use of the land rather than a specific practice of power. This is certainly due to the fact that, according to the narrative sources, we know next to nothing about the concrete practice of power by the Umayyads or even by the early Abbasids. By confronting the very limited number of textual references with epigraphic and archaeological data, I suggested that these sites should be understood in connection with a form of power in motion. These buildings fit very well into the framework of the patrimonial practice of sovereignty¹⁰⁸ conducted by the Umayyads, and, as stated by the Western medievalist Matthew Innes, “exercising power at a distance was the fundamental problem faced by both elites and kings.”¹⁰⁹ Itinerant kingship was a response to this situation. To borrow John Bernhardt’s definition: “itinerant kingship refers to government in which a king carries out all the functions and symbolic representations of governing by periodically or constantly traveling throughout the areas of his dominion.”¹¹⁰ This way of governing the land was a salient feature in Umayyad history. But if ʿAbd al-Malik was himself a very mobile ruler, as suggested in particular by al-Balādhurī,¹¹¹ he also divided Syria among his sons, thus giving them a unique opportunity to develop their own areas of patrimonial sovereignty. This system generated strong connections between Umayyad heirs and the regions over which 106 Helms, Early Islamic Architecture of the Desert, 29–30. 107 These various theories are discussed in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 412–23. See most recently Genequand, Les établissements, esp. 379 ff. 108 See the important discussion of Décobert, “Notule sur le patrimonialisme omeyyade.” See also Bacharach, “Marwanid Umayyad Building Activities,” and Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 391 ff. 109 Innes, “People, Places and Power,” 436. 110 Bernhardt, Itinerant Kingship, 45. 111 Al-Balādhurī , Ansāb, 11:200. See my discussion of the text in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 397–411. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 58 Antoine Borrut they exercised peripatetic power, and the dynamics thus constructed, especially at the local and tribal levels, played a significant role upon their accession to the caliphate.¹¹² It is worth noting that this system of patrimonial sovereignty temporarily collapsed in the late Umayyad period, thus partly deciding the fate of the first dynasty of Islam, before being recomposed under the first Abbasids. The new and final crisis of this system inherited from ʿAbd al-Malik would mark the end of a mode of government toward the end of Hārūn al-Rashīd’s caliphate and significantly impact Abbasid control over Syria.¹¹³ Eventually, the notion of caliphal mobility was seized. Itinerant power passed from the caliphs to “prince-soldiers” and eventually to the soldiers themselves, resulting in an Abbasid practice of power that was increasingly fixed and immobile. And so the Umayyad desert castles were slowly abandoned in Abbasid times; as their function was ephemeral, so was their occupation. But the legacy of Umayyad itinerant kingship is perhaps the most visible legacy of the first dynasty of Islam, a memory inscribed in the Syrian landscape, contributing to the construction of the Syrian space or Bilād al-Shām. To put it differently, it is at the beginning of the period, under the Marwanids (and mostly ʿAbd alMalik), that the Jazīra (Northern Mesopotamia) emerges as an administrative unit,¹¹⁴ while the ʿAwāṣim and the Thughūr (the Marches protecting the Muslim territories from the Byzantine threat) surface only at the other end of the long eighth century under Hārūn al-Rashīd. Even the internal division of the Bilād al-Shām evolves significantly during the second/eighth century, thus revealing that it is a space under construction. The common idea of a strong dichotomy between Umayyad Syria and Abbasid Iraq is also contradicted by the ambitious projects conducted by the Abbasids in Raqqa/Rāfiqa, from al-Manṣūr’s time onward, which culminated in al-Rashīd’s installation of his capital at Raqqa in 180/796–797. If one considers the progressive transfer of the Umayyad center of gravity from Damascus to al-Ruṣāfa (under Hishām) and finally to Ḥarrān (under Marwān II), on the one hand, and the Abbasid move to Raqqa, on the other hand, the Euphrates seems to be a line of attraction rather than one of demarcation.¹¹⁵ 112 Bacharach, “Marwanid Umayyad Building Activities”; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 391 ff. 113 Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 443–66; Cobb, White Banners, 78 ff. 114 Robinson, Empire and Elites, 33–62. 115 See my discussion in Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 456–66. On Raqqa and Rāfiqa, see in particular Meinecke, “al-Raqqa,” and Heidemann and Becker, Raqqa II. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 59 This is why I have argued for the clear coherence of the period running from 72/692 to 193/809, from the erection of the Dome of the Rock to the abandonment of Raqqa as a caliphal residence. This chronological framework is also a way to move beyond the traditional dynastic caesura of 132/750, insisting rather on the central role of Syria in the long eighth century, beyond the spaces of memory and power traditionally associated with the Umayyads and the Abbasids, namely, Damascus and Baghdad. I am well aware that such a reading identifies only one possible meaning that can be granted to early Islamic Syria and that others are undoubtedly possible.¹¹⁶ Yet it presents the huge advantage of putting early Abbasid Syria back on the map by acknowledging important signs of continuity (rather than the traditional logic of opposition between Umayyads and Abbasids) as well as “a continuity of changes”¹¹⁷ as caliphal power had to adjust to an evolving situation. Such a methodology reveals the limits of a dynastical approach and of the agreed-upon periodization of early Islam to make sense of Syrian history and more broadly of Islamic history. The time of spatial and social practices of power obviously does not follow the jolted rhythms of political succession.¹¹⁸ Viewed from the vantage point of a long eighth century, Syria certainly offers a different image, shedding a new light on the use of memory and power under the last Umayyads and the early Abbasids. Conclusion The study of early Islam raises many questions related to periodization, from the inclusion – or not – of nascent Islam into Late Antiquity to the reliability of the agreed-upon chronology we are using to approach the first Muslim centuries. The 116 See the important discussion of Koselleck’s theory in Zammito, “Koselleck’s Philosophy of Historical Time(s),” 134: “The flip-side of these ongoing pasts in the present is the ontic absence of the past in itself, and the consequence that history is cast necessarily upon the artifices of its theorization to retrieve what the past meant. The past – those mid-level trends and long-term structures which alone allow us purchase on the happen-stance of a novel event – is accessible to us, as Koselleck would have it, not primarily in its “traces,” in the various “sources” we can tangibly access, but rather in our theories. […] There are, we now recognize, always several ways it might have been, several coherent interpretations, each consistent with the evidence and the currently available arsenal of methods.” 117 Shboul and Walmsley, “Identity and Self-Image,” 275. 118 A point famously stressed by Fernand Braudel in his magisterial La Méditerranée. See also Pomian, L’ordre du temps, esp. 219 ff. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 60 Antoine Borrut chronological framework we are using is a construct that deserves close attention to illuminate the various strategies implemented by successive powers to become masters of time. The Abbasid-era periodization was not the first attempt to make sense of the past, and we can still hear whispers of Umayyad efforts at periodization. When the former masters of Damascus were also the masters of time, they had the opportunity to impose their own categories. This Umayyad entitlement over the past was in some manner perpetuated, it seems, in al-Andalus. This should make it all the more clear that the agreed-upon periodization of early Islamic history we are still using is first and foremost an Abbasid claim to power, largely affirmed through an Abbasid hegemonic time. As underlined by Davis, “the history of periodization is juridical, and it advances though struggles over the definition and location of sovereignty.”¹¹⁹ Control over the past was indeed very much needed to conjugate power in the present and future tenses. This was notably achieved in Abbasid times through a successful attempt at making terms with the past, with the elaboration of inclusive concepts such as the Rāshidūn caliphs, to reintegrate the Alids into the grand narrative of Islamic history that flourished from the late third/ninth century onward. These categories deserve to be studied as such since they have their own history.¹²⁰ I should add that recent scholarship suggests that other approaches are not only possible but also meaningful. I am thinking in particular about the idea of the First Islamic Empire, subsuming the traditional lines of (mostly dynastic) divisions between Rāshidūn, Umayyads, and Abbasids to approach early Islam in its imperial dimension, which seems to have gained some traction lately.¹²¹ In fact, such a periodization does not necessarily have to be opposed to other approaches to early Islam. A good example is offered by Koselleck’s theory of multiple temporalities, which are “organized in the form of temporal layers that have different origins and duration and move at different speeds, as an alternative to the linear and empty time of periodization.”¹²² One could also make the case, as recently done by Garth Fowden, for “complementary periodizations” running “simultaneously,”¹²³ although one should keep in mind that, even with overlap- 119 Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty, 6. 120 Schmitt, “Le Temps,” 44. 121 Kennedy, “The Decline and Fall,” and the relevant chapters of Robinson, The New Cambridge History of Islam. 122 Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 170. 123 Fowden, “Contextualizing Late Antiquity”, 169. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 61 ping periodizations, “inserting an event into a different time frame changes its meaning”¹²⁴. If there is a periodization of history, there is also a periodization of historiography. Studying the latter is likely to shed light on the former, as I have tried to show. In this sense, I would argue that the historiographical skeleton elaborated under the Abbasids was the real vulgate: a binding structure in which any rewritten version of the past had to be framed.¹²⁵ As such, it is perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Abbasid “age of writing.”¹²⁶ Periodization, however, is not just the construction – and the imposition – of a rigid framework within which the past has to be understood. It is also an act of “destruction of the natural chronology” and time and of alternative readings and meanings of the past.¹²⁷ Davis concluded her study on periodization and power by stating that the problem with the “grand narrative” of the West is not simply one of linearity and the myth of “progress.” More crucially, it is a problem of the formation of concepts in conjunction with periodization, a process that retroactively reifies categories and erases their histories. If the future is to be open, rather than already determined, then periodization must come undone.¹²⁸ This is certainly true as well for the future of Islamic history. Early Islamic-era scholars were certainly aware of the power of periodization and thus confirm Jan Assmann’s assertion that “the past is not a natural growth but a cultural creation.”¹²⁹ 124 Riecken, “Periodization and the Political,” 7, summarizing Laroui’s argument. 125 A point emphasized by Khalidi, who noted that “throughout the pre-modern period, the strategies of periodization remained more or less constant, stubbornly resistant to emendation,” with the notable exception of Ibn Khaldūn (“Reflections on Periodization,” 113). On Ibn Khaldūn’s periodization, see the brilliant study of Martinez-Gros, Ibn Khaldûn et les sept vies de l’Islam. 126 Martinez-Gros, L’idéologie, 321. 127 Koselleck, “Über die Theoriebdürftigkeit,” 307, cited in Jordheim, “Against Periodization,” 159. 128 Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty, 134. 129 Assmann, Cultural Memory, 33. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 62 Antoine Borrut Bibliography Primary Sources 705 = Land, J. P. N.: Anecdota Syriaca. Leiden, 1868, vol. 2, 11. 724 = Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum domini 724 pertinens. Ed. E. W. Brooks: Chronica Minora II. Louvain, 1904, 77–155; Latin tr. by J.-B. Chabot: Chronica Minora II. Louvain, 1955, 61–119. 775 = Expositio quomodo se habeant generationes et familiae et anni ab Adamo usque hunc diem. Ed. E. W. Brooks: Chronica Minora III. Louvain, 1905, 337–49; Latin tr. by E. W. Brooks: Chronica Minora III. Louvain, 1960, 265–75. 818 = Schoene, A., ed.: Eusebi chronicorum libri duo. Berlin, 1875, vol. 1, appendix IV, 64–101. Akhbār majmūʿa. Ed. E. Lafuente y Alcántara as Ajbar machmûa (Colección de tradiciones). Madrid, 1867. English tr. by D. James, A History of early al-Andalus: The Akhbār majmūʿa. London/New York: Routledge, 2012. Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir: Ansāb al-ashrāf. Vol. 11. Ed. W. Ahlwardt as Anonyme arabische Chronik. Greifswald, 1883. Byzantine-Arab Chronicle of 741 = Chronica Byzantia-Arabica. In J. Gil, ed. Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum. Madrid, 1973, vol. 1, 7–14; English tr. by R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997, 611–30. Ibn ʿAbd al-Rabbih: Al-ʿIqd al-farīd. Ed. M. al-Tawnajī, 7 vols. Beirut, 2001. Ibn al-Qūṭiyya, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar: Taʾrīkh ititāḥ al-Andalus. Ed. I. al-Abyārī. Cairo and Beirut, 1982. English tr. by D. James, Early Islamic Spain: The History of Ibn al-Qūṭiyya. London/New York: Routledge, 2009. Al-Masʿūdī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn: Kitāb al-tanbīh wa-l-ishrāf. Ed. M. J. De Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1894; French tr. by B. Carra De Vaux as Le livre de l’avertissement et de la revision. Paris, 1896. Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 = Chronica Muzarabica. In J. Gil, ed. Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum. Madrid, 1973, vol. 1, 15–54. Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jārir: Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk. Ed. M. J. de Goeje et al., 15 vols. Leiden, 1879–1901; English tr. as The History of al-Ṭabarī. 39 vol. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985–2002. Secondary Sources Agha, Saleh S.: The Revolution which Toppled the Umayyads: Neither Arab nor ʿAbbāsid. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Al-Azmeh, Aziz: “Muslim History, Reflections on Periodisation and Categorisation,” The Medieval History Journal 19/1&2 (1998): 195–231. ― The Times of History: Universal Topics in Islamic Historiography. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2007. Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad A.: Le Coran silencieux et le Coran parlant: Sources scripturaires de l’islam entre histoire et ferveur. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2011. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 63 Assmann, Jan: Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. ― The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Tr. A. Jenkins. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2002. ― Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Bacharach, Jere L.: “Marwanid Umayyad Building Activities: Speculations on Patronage,” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 27–44. Bates, Michael: “Khurāsānī Revolutionaries and al-Mahdī’s Title,” in F. Datary and J. W. Meri, eds. Culture and Memory in Medieval Islam: Essays in Honour of Wilferd Madelung. London: Tauris, 2003, 279–317. Bauer, Thomas: “In Search of ‘Post-Classical Literature’: A Review Article” (a review of Roger Allen and D. S. Richards, eds. Arabic Literature in the Post-Classical Period. Cambridge, 2006), Mamlūk Studies Review 9/2 (2007): 137–46. Bernhardt, John W.: Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany (c. 936–1075). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Blake, Stephen P.: Time in Early Modern Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Blankinship, Khalid Yahya: The Tribal Factor in the ʿAbbāsid Revolution: the Betrayal of the Imam Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad, JAOS 108/4 (1988): 589–603. Borrut, Antoine and Cobb, Paul M. (eds.): Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Borrut, Antoine: Entre mémoire et pouvoir: L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809). Leiden: Brill, 2011. ― “The Future of the Past: Historical Writing in Early Islamic Syria and Umayyad Memory,” in: A. Marsham and A. George (eds.), The Umayyads: History, Art and Culture in the First Century of Islam. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming. ― “Remembering Karbalāʾ: The Constructions of an Early Islamic Site of Memory,” in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 41 (2014): 1–50. ― “Court Astrologers and Historical Writing in Early ʿAbbāsid Baghdad: An Appraisal,” in: J. Scheiner and D. Janos (eds.), Contexts of Learnings in Baghdad from the 8th–10th Centuries, Princeton: The Darwin Press, forthcoming. Bowersock, Glen W.: The Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Braudel, Fernand: La Méditerranée et le monde à l’époque de Philippe II. 3 vols. Paris: Armand Colin, 1990. Brown, Peter: The World of Late Antiquity AD 150–750. London: W. W. Norton, 1971. Bulliet, Richard W.: Islam: The View from the Edge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Cameron, Averil: “Ideologies and Agendas in Late Antique Studies,” in L. Lavan and W. Bowden, eds. Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 3–21. Campbell, Sandra S.: Telling Memories: The Zubayrids in Islamic Historical Memory. PhD diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 2003. Certeau, Michel de: L’écriture de l’histoire. Paris: Gallimard, 2002. Chakrabarty, Dipesh: Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Diference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Chalmeta, Pedro: “Pour une étude globale des Umayyades,” in P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais, eds. La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam viie–viiie siècles. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1992, 333–37. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 64 Antoine Borrut Chiffoleau, Sylvia, (ed.): Les empreints du temps: calendriers et rythmes sociaux. Special issue of Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, forthcoming. Cobb, Paul M.: “Community versus Contention: Ibn ʿAsākir and ʿAbbāsid Syria,” in J. Lindsay, ed. Ibn ʿAsākir and Early Islamic History. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2001, 100–26. ― White Banners: Contention in ʿAbbasid Syria 750–880. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. ― “Virtual Sacrality: Making Muslim Syria Sacred Before the Crusades,” Medieval Encounters 8/1 (2002): 35–55. ― “The Empire in Syria, 705–63,” in C. F. Robinson, ed., The New Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 226–68. Cohn, Bernard S.: “The Pasts of an Indian Village,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3/3 (1961): 241–49. Conrad, Lawrence I.: “Syriac Perspectives on Bilād al-Shām During the Abbasid Period,” in M. A. al-Bakhit and R. Schick, eds. Bilād al-Shām During the Abbasid Period (132 AH/750 AD–451 AH/1059 AD): Proceedings of the Fith International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām. Amman: Lajnat Taʾrīkh Bilād al-Shām, 1992, 1–44. Cook, David: Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2002. Crone, Patricia and Cook, Michael: Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Crone, Patricia: Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Crone, Patricia and Hinds, Martin: God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Davis, Kathleen: Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Debié, Muriel: L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque: Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitatires entre hellénisme et islam. Forthcoming. Décobert, Christian: “Notule sur le patrimonialisme omeyyade,” in A. Borrut and P. M. Cobb, eds. Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 213–53. Djaït, Hichem: Al-Kūfa: naissance de la ville islamique. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1986. Donner, Fred M.: The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. ― Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1998. ― “Qurʾânicization of the Religio-Political Discourse in the Umayyad Period,” in A. Borrut, ed. Écriture de l’histoire et processus de canonisation dans les premiers siècles de l’islam. Special issue of Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée 129 (2011): 79–92. Drory, Rina: “The Abbasid Construction of the Jahiliyya: Cultural Authority in the Making,” Studia Islamica 83 (1996): 33–49. Duri, Abd al-Aziz: “Al-Zuhrī: A Study on the Beginnings of History Writing in Islam,” Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 19/1 (1957): 1–12. El-Hibri, Tayeb: Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography: Hārūn al-Rashīd and the Narrative of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Elad, Amikam: “The Caliph Abū’l-ʿAbbās al-Safāḥ, The First ʿAbbāsid Mahdī: Implications of an Unknown Inscription from Bet-Shean (Baysān),” in E. Fleischer et al., eds. Masʾat Moshe: Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 65 Studies in Jewish and Islamic Culture Presented to Moshe Gil. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1998, v–vi (English abstract), 9–55 (in Hebrew). ― “The Rebellion of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥasan (Known as al-Nafs al-Zakīya) in 145/762,” in J. E. Montgomery, ed. ʿAbbasid Studies: Occasional Papers of the School of ʿAbbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6–10 July 2002. Leuven: Peeters, 2004, 147–98. Fasolt, Constantin: “Scholarship and Periodization,” History and Theory 50 (2011): 414–24. Feeney, Denis: Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2007. Foucault, Michel: Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard, 1966. Fowden, Garth: Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. ― “Contextualizing Late Antiquity: The First Millennium,” in J. P. Arnason and K. A. Raaflaub, eds. The Roman Empire in Context: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, 148–76. Geary, Patrick J.: Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Genequand, Denis: Les établissements des élites omeyyades en Palmyrène et au ProcheOrient. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO, 2012. Gilliot, Claude: “Creation of a Fixed Text,” in J. D. McAulife, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Qurʾān. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 41–57. Goitein, Shlomo D.: “A Plea for the Periodization of Islamic History,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88/2 (1968): 224–28. Goldziher, Ignaz: Muslim Studies. Vol. 1. Tr. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006. Goody, Jack: The Thet of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Gordon, Matthew S.: The Rise of Islam. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2005. Grabar, Oleg: “Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi, Preliminary Report,” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 15 (1965): 108–20. Grafton, Anthony: “Dating History: the Renaissance & the Reformation of Chronology,” Dædalus 132/2 (2003): 74–85. Harrak, Amir: “Ah! The Assyrian is the Rod of my Hand!: Syriac View of History ater the Advent of Islam,” in J. J. Van Ginkel et al., eds. Redeining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. Leuven: Peeters, 2005, 45–65. Hartog, François: Régimes d’historicité: présentisme et expériences du temps. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2003. Hattemer, Richard: “Gewählt, geachtet, rechtgeleitet – Die ersten Kalifen in der Erinnerung heutiger Muslime,” in A. Hartmann, ed. Geschichte und Erinnerung im Islam. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, 65–74. Hawting, Gerald R.: The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate, AD 661–750. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000. Heidemann, Stefan and Becker, Andrea, eds.: Raqqa II: Die islamische Stadt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003. Helms, Svend W.: Early Islamic Architecture of the Desert: A Bedouin Station in Eastern Jordan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Hodgson, Marshall G. S.: The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 66 Antoine Borrut Howard-Johnston, James: Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hoyland, Robert G.: Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997. Innes, Matthew: “People, Places and Power in the Carolingian World: A Microcosm,” in M. De Jong and F. Theuws, eds. Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 397–437. Izutsu, Toshihiko: Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurʾān. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2002. Johnson, Scott F., ed.: The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Jordheim, Helge: “Against Periodization: Koselleck’s Theory of Multiple Temporalities,” History and Theory 51 (2012): 151–71. Judd, Steven C.: The Third Fitna: Orthodoxy, Heresy and Coercion in Late Umayyad History. PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1997. ― “Reinterpreting al-Walīd b. Yazīd,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128/3 (2008): 439–58. ― “Medieval Explanations for the Fall of the Umayyads,” in A. Borrut and P. M. Cobb, eds. Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 89–104. Kennedy, Hugh: “The Decline and Fall of the First Muslim Empire,” Der Islam 81 (2004): 3–30. Keshk, Khaled: “When Did Muʿāwiya become Caliph?,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69/1 (2010): 31–42. Khalidi, Tarif: “Reflections on Periodisation in Arabic Historiography,” The Medieval History Journal 1/1 (1998): 107–24. King, David A.: “Mīkāt,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. Vol. 7, 1993, 26–32. Koren, Judith and Nevo, Yehuda D.: Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State. New York: Prometheus Books, 2003. Koselleck, Reinhardt: Zeitschichten: Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2000. ― “Über die Theoriebedürtigkeit der Geschichtswissenschat,” in R. Koselleck, Zeitschichten: Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2000, 298–316. ― The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Tr. T. S. Presner et al. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. ― Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Tr. K. Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Laroui, Abdallah: Islam et Histoire: Essai d’épistémologie. Paris: Flammarion, 1999. Lassner, Jacob: Islamic Revolution and Historical Memory: An Inquiry into the Art of ʿAbbāsid Apologetics. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1986. ― “The ʿAbbasid Dawla: An Essay on the Concept of Revolution in Early Islam,” in F. M. Clover and R. S. Humphreys, eds. Tradition and Innovation in Late Antiquity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, 247–70. ― “Dawlah: Transformative Politics and Historical Memory,” in J. Lassner, The Middle East Remembered: Forged Identities, Competing Narratives, Contested Spaces. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000, 60–94. Lecker, Michael: “Biographical Notes on Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī,” Journal of Semitic Studies 41 (1996): 26–63. Levy-Rubin, Milka: The Continuatio of the Samaritan Chronicle of Abu l-Fath al-Sāmirî alDanafï. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press, 2002. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM Vanishing Syria: Periodization and Power in Early Islam 67 Lewis, Bernard: “The Regnal Titles of the First Abbasid Caliphs,” in T. Chand, ed. Dr. Zaki Husain Presentation Volume. New Delhi: Maktaba Jamia, 1968, 13–22. Madelung, Wilferd: “Apocalyptic Prophecies in Ḥimṣ in the Umayyad Age,” Journal of Semitic Studies 31/2 (1986): 141–85. Marsham, Andrew: “The Early Caliphate and the Inheritance of Late Antiquity (c. ad 610–c. ad 750),” in P. Rousseau, ed. A Companion to Late Antiquity. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, 479–92. Martinez-Gros, Gabriel: L’idéologie omeyyade: La construction de la légitimité du califat de Cordoue (xe–xie siècles). Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 1992. ― Ibn Khaldûn et les sept vies de l’Islam. Paris: Actes Sud, 2006. Meinecke, Michael: “al-Raqqa,” The Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. Vol. 8, 1995, 410–14. Montgomery, James E.: “The Empty Hijaz,” in J. E. Montgomery, ed. Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy: From the Many to the One; Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 37–97. Morony, Michael G.: “Bayn al-Fitnatayn: Problems in the Periodization of Early Islamic History,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40/3 (1981): 247–51. ― “Should Sasanian Iran be Included in Late Antiquity?,” e-Sasanika 1 (2008): 1–13. Oexle, Otto G.: “L’historicisation de l’histoire,” in J.-C. Schmitt and O. G. Oexle, eds. Les tendances actuelles de l’histoire du Moyen Âge en France et en Allemagne: Actes des colloques de Sèvres (1997) et Göttingen (1998) organisés par le C.N.R.S. et le Max-PlanckInstitut für Geschichte. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2003, 31–41. Omar, F. “A Note on the laqabs (i. e. epithet) of the Early ʿAbbasid Caliphs,” in F. Omar, ʿAbbāsiyyāt: Studies in the History of the Early ʿAbbāsids. Baghdad: University of Baghdad, 1976, 141–47. Osborne, Peter: The Politics of Time: Modernity and Avant-Garde. London and New York: Verso, 1995. Palmer, Andrew: The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993. ― “Les chroniques brèves syriaques,” in M. Debié, ed. L’historiographie syriaque. Paris: Geuthner, 2009, 57–87. Pomian, Krzysztof: L’ordre du temps. Paris: Gallimard, 1984. Pourshariati, Parvaneh: Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran. London: Tauris, 2008. Ricœur, Paul: Temps et récit. 3 vols. Paris: Seuil, 1983–85. Riecken, Nils: “Periodization and the Political: Abdallah Laroui’s analysis of temporalities in a postcolonial context,” ZMO Working Papers 6 (2012): 1–24. (www.zmo.de/publikationen/ WorkingPapers/riecken_2012.pdf˝) Robin, Christian J.: “La péninsule arabique à la veille de la predication muhammadienne,” in T. Bianquis, P. Guichard, and M. Tillier, eds. Les débuts du monde musulman viie–xe siècles: De Muhammad aux dynasties autonomes. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2012, 5–33. ― “Arabia and Ethiopia,” in S. F. Johnson, ed.: The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 274–332. Robinson, Chase F.: Empire and Elites ater the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ― “Reconstructing Early Islam: Truth and Consequences,” in H. Berg, ed. Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 101–34. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM 68 Antoine Borrut ― ― ― Islamic Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ʿAbd al-Malik. Oxford: Oneworld, 2005. ed. The New Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. I: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Rosenthal, Franz: A History of Muslim Historiography. Leiden: Brill, 1968 Rousseau, Philip, ed.: A Companion to Late Antiquity. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Safran, Janina M.: The Second Umayyad Caliphate: The Articulation of Caliphal Legitimacy in al-Andalus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Schmitt, Jean-Claude: “Le Temps: ‘Impensé’ de l’histoire ou double objet de l’historien?,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 48 (2005): 31–52. Sharon, Moshe: Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Shboul, Ahmad and Walmsley, Alan: “Identity and Self-Image in Syria-Palestine in the Transition from Byzantine to Early Islamic Rule: Arab Christians and Muslims,” Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1998): 255–87. Shepard, William E.: “Age of Ignorance,” Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, 2001, 37–40. Shoemaker, Stephen J.: The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. Sizgorich, Thomas: “Narrative and Community in Islamic Late Antiquity,” Past and Present 185 (2004): 9–42. ― Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Varisco, Daniel M.: “Making ‘Medieval’ Islam Meaningful,” Medieval Encounters 13 (2007): 385–412. Walker, Joel T.: “The Limits of Late Antiquity: Philosophy between Rome and Iran,” The Ancient World 33/1 (2002): 45–69. Walmsley, Alan: “Production, Exchange and Regional Trade in the Islamic East Mediterranean: Old Structures, New Systems?,” in I. L. Hansen and C. Wickham, eds. The Long Eighth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2000, 265–343. Webb, Peter: “Al-Jāhiliyya: Uncertain Times of Uncertain Meanings,” Der Islam 91/1 (2014): 69–94. Yucesoy, Hayrettin: Messianic Beliefs and Imperial Politics in Medieval Islam: The ʿAbbāsid Caliphate in the Early Ninth Century. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2009. Zammito, John: “Koselleck’s Philosophy of Historical Time(s) and the Practice of History,” History and Theory 43 (2004): 124–35. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/13/14 4:28 AM