Bar Sauma's Black Sea Journey (1287)

Bar Sauma’s Black Sea Journey Ahmet M. Zehiroğlu

(Translated from the Turkish1 by Paula Darwish)

Rabban Bar Sauma2, a Nestorian monk of Mongolian origin, is one of the most interesting individuals of the 13th century. The tribe he belonged to was connected to the Nestorian Church, which had developed as a Christian sect under the protection of Iran and enjoyed a wide following in this period. Bar Sauma began his career as one of the favourite clerics of the Nestorian congregation and his fame spread rapidly as he assumed his duties in the milieu of Kublai Khan, who at that time held political power across almost the entire continent of Asia. Around the middle of the 1270s, at the suggestion of one of his students, Marcos, he decided to travel to Jerusalem and set off for this long journey, which would last for months, with the material and moral support of the local congregation and the palace. The special paiza3, which bore the seal of Kublai Khan, helped him to travel safely through the countries of the great Mongolian Confederation, reaching as far as Baghdad in the west. Around 1280, he finally reached the confederation’s most westerly part, Iran, which was ruled by the Ilkhanate, also of the same Mongolian origins as Bar Sauma. His arrival in the place where Nestorianism had set root and flourished attracted a good deal of interest, but at the same time it was here that he learnt of the ongoing hostilities in Palestine which prevented him completing the remaining part of his journey on to Jerusalem. As a consequence, Bar Sauma for a while joined the body of the Nestorian patriarchate centred in Baghdad and also became an advisor to Abaqa, the leader of the Ilkhanate, who resided in Tabriz. With the death of the serving Nestorian patriarch and under the likely influence of the Ilkhanate administration, his assistant and fellow Mongolian, Marcos, was put in position as the new Nestorian Patriarch in 1281 and given the name Yahballaha4. Bar Sauma continued his duties as a priest and also carried on his services to the state in the retinue of Arghun Khan, who came to power after the death of Abaqa Khan in 1284.

1 Zehiroğlu, Ahmet M. (2014, Trabzon) "Bar Şauma'nın Karadeniz Yolculuğu"2 Referred to in different languages as Çauma, Sauma, Şawma, Sawma, Savma and other similar configurations, Bar

Sauma took his name from one of the first leaders of the Nestorian sect. 3 Paiza: A type of special diplomatic passport and deed of privilege which is referred to in relation to top-level state

officials and ambassadors, particularly at the time of Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan. It was generally in the form of a flat, metal token bearing an official seal.

4 Borbone, P. Giorgio 2008

It was at the command of this new ruler that Bar Sauma set off on the second great journey of his life. The constant hostilities between Arghun Khan and the Muslim Mamluk state on his western border motivated the Ilkhanate ruler to send Bar Sauma to Europe as a Christian ambassador, with the aim of trying to persuade the pope and Europeans to engage in another crusade against the Mamluks. Setting off from Tabriz bearing the title of Arghun Khan’s official ambassador, Bar Sauma stopped in Baghdad, where he was entrusted with gifts and dispatches from the Nestorian Patriarch which were intended for the pope, before continuing on with his cortege. Due to hostilities on the coast of the East Mediterranean, he reached his first stop, Constantinople, by sailing across the Black Sea and from there carried on to Naples, again by sea. Subsequently, he visited Rome, Genoa, Paris and Bordeaux respectively, establishing diplomatic contacts there before returning to Arghun Khan, in Tabriz, after a journey which lasted approximately 1.5 years.

Prince Arghun, Abaqa Khan and attendants (Reşidüddin Hamedani, Cami’üt-Tevarih)

Bar Sauma recorded all the details relating to his possible route separately, outside of the written reports he submitted to both the patriarchate and the khanate, but the original travel log has not survived to the present day. Shortly after he and his companion, Yahballaha, died, their life stories were recorded in biography style by an anonymous author writing in the eastern Aramaic dialect. In all probability, the lost travel log of Bar Sauma was used as a basis for this work. After laying undiscovered for centuries, towards the end of the 19th century the biography was discovered, by chance, in the Urmia area of Iran. Along with the parallel life stories of Yahballaha and Sauma, the work also contains a second hand account of Bar Sauma’s European

journey. Narrating Bar Sauma’s journey himself, using the third person singular, it is highly likely that the writer only related the parts of the story that he found interesting and details of faraway places to which he personally attached some value. The section referring to the delegation which set off from the Nestorian patriarchate in Baghdad, and travelled from the shores of the Black Sea to Constantinople, is narrated with brief sentences and without revealing any geographical details about the route of this journey. Not withstanding the disagreements amongst Western translators5, particularly with regard to terminology, the most reasonable translation of this short paragraph is:

‘...and Rabban Sauma, the most distinguished monk of the patriarchate, set off with a group of men consisting of his assistants. Thus he reached the edge of the “Great Sea”6 in the land of the “Romaye” and saw the church there. [There] he boarded a ship along with his retinue. There were over 300 souls on the ship and he comforted them every day [throughout the journey] with his sermons. Those on the ship, who were mostly Romans, held him in some esteem because of his powerful sermons. Thus, days later they arrived in the great city of Constantinople...’

Whether it is earlier translations based on the Bedjan edition, or all the later translations updated from newer editions, the only point of consensus on this short paragraph is that the ship must have been boarded at Trebizond7. However, a few overlooked details in this short section show that the place where the ship was boarded was not, and could not have been, Trebizond, and that therefore Bar Sauma’s Baghdad-Constantinople journey must have taken a slightly different course to the one generally assumed. By examining these small, either overlooked or erroneously interpreted, details together, it is possible to resolve the existing common historical oversight and reassess the journey in question once more.

(I)‘Thus he reached the edge of the Great Sea in the land of the Rhomaye’: this is the most controversial statement of the section and has been wrongly interpreted. As referenced in the culture of the neighbouring, indigenous Colchian culture, the name ‘the Great Sea’ undoubtedly refers to the Black Sea in Iranian terminology. However, in the same Iranian terminology that generally dominates the text, the expression, ‘Land of the Rhomaye (Romans)’ does not mean Trebizond, and most certainly refers to Central and West Anatolia and beyond. The area referred to in the text as ‘Beth Rhomaye’, ie Land of the Romans, is the Sultanate of Rum, which was at the time under the hegemony of the Ilkhanate and had its centre in Konya. The ‘Great Sea’ (i.e. Black Sea) border of this semi-independent country was the present day coast of Sinop and Samsun. For this reason, the place where the ship was boarded could not be Trebizond but must have been further west, somewhere along this strip of coast.

5 Montgomery, James 1927 ; Budge E.A.W 1928 ; Borbone, P. Giorgio 20076 Chabot, J.Baptiste. 18957 Bedjan, Paul 1895 ; Chabot, J.Baptiste 1895 ; Budge E.A.W 1928 ; Borbone, P. Giorgio 2007

(II)‘[He] saw the church there. [There] he boarded a ship along with his retinue.’: these lines do not correspond to Trebizond, one of the most famous cities of the era. In 1287, the places where the delegation could have boarded the ship were the harbours of Ganita and Maitan, and both are a long way from the city. From these places, Bar Sauma would have seen much more than one church, and with locally savvy Franciscan attendants by his side, it is improbable that Bar Sauma boarded the ship and continued the journey without even a mention of the name of the city of Trebizond. It is similarly unlikely that later on, the anonymous author of the journey summary judged the name of the city to be unworthy of note and simply omitted it. At that time, the Emperor of Trebizond was Ioannes II and it is unfeasible that such an impressive ambassadorial delegation would be able to carry on their journey without first attending the ruler’s palace as a matter of course, regardless of where they were from and where they were heading. In fact, we know this from the passage of other ambassadorial delegations through Trebizond in previous and later years. For these reasons, it is clearly not in Trebizond that Bar Sauma boarded the ship.

Black Sea Currents (http://blacksea.orlyonok.ru)

(III) Bar Sauma states that he saw ‘over 300 souls on the ship, mostly Romans’. This would have been quite an extraordinary multitude for that era, and also indicates a particularly large ship. The only force that could have possessed a ship of such proportions in the Black Sea area in 1287 was the Genoese8. Consequently, the ship boarded by Bar Sauma, is most likely to have been one of the first examples of the Galea Grossa which were starting to appear at that time. These ships belonged to the Genoese, who had the greatest tonnage ships of the period and held a trade monopoly in the Black Sea. The fact that most of those on board the ship were Romans and able to enjoy a preacher-listener relationship with Bar Sauma throughout the journey

8 In fact, during the same era and just three years before in 1284, at the Battle of Meloria the Genoese had completely eliminated the Republic of Pisa, their only potential competitor for Black Sea trade. It is also highly unlikely that Venetian ships would have been able to approach the southern coast of the Black Sea at that time.

indicates that they were not crew, soldiers, servants or galley slaves. The multitude in question were passengers who for undetermined reasons were in need of consolation. Along with these details, the flow of the text gives the impression that Bar Sauma did not board the ship with them, but rather came across them when he boarded the ship. In other words, he was taken on board a ship full of Romans (Romioi/Rum) passengers, as an additional passenger, during a stop-off along the route. However, at that time, the port of Trebizond was not a stop-off along the Trebizond-Constantinople-Genoa route, it was the point of departure and as a city still in its emergence, it did not possess a port capable of handling 300 Roman passengers. Taking this into consideration, the departure point of the ship must have been Trebizond and the port at which Bar Sauma got on board was more likely to have been somewhere to the west of Trebizond.

(IV) Another detail in the text which brings the issue of Trebizond into question is the statement that Bar Sauma travelled from Trebizond to Constantinople in a length of time described in ‘...days...’. In that era, this would not have been possible, even in the most favourable conditions. The average speed of the large tonnage boat he boarded could have been 1-2 knots at most, and, particularly in the undercurrents of the southern Black Sea, it could not have taken less than 2-3 weeks to get from Trebizond to Constantinople. Therefore, for the journey to be described as a matter of ‘...days...’ rather than weeks, the time period in question must have been under 15 days, which even taking into account any favourable seasonal wind would still only indicate the range of a more westerly port.

In that case, if the location was not Trebizond, where exactly on the Black Sea shores did Bar Sauma board the ship and why was it that he didn’t choose Trebizond?

Bar Sauma arrived in Naples at the end of June in 1287 9. This means that he must have set off from Baghdad in the first weeks of 1287. It is certain that after setting off from Baghdad, the experienced diplomat Bar Sauma, planning his way to the Black Sea with a sizeable cortege, would have firstly followed the traditional Assyrian caravan route running parallel to the Tigris basin, then chosen to pass through Mosul on the way to another important centre of Nestorianism, Diyar-Bakr. As an ambassadorial delegation representing both the Nestorian patriarchate and the Ilkhanate ruler, they would have enjoyed a secure and comfortable journey in these friendly regions. The cortege must have reached Diyar-Bakr around March 1287. From there, Bar Sauma and his companions would have had two options for getting to the Black Sea. It might be supposed that if the person deciding on the most suitable of these routes was an adventurer or intrepid military commander, they would have opted for the Trebizond route, which on the map appears the closest as the bird flies, and therefore continued directly north. However, in deciding between these routes, there were critical issues that would not have been overlooked by Bar Sauma, a diplomat of some 60 years of age who had access to local hosts and advisors with

9 Paolillo, Maurizio 2009

expert knowledge of regional conditions, and for this reason, his decision would be a more intelligent choice.

10th and 11th century caravan routes (Frank Harold, 2008)

(V) If Bar Sauma and his companions had headed directly north in those months, they would have faced the severe winter conditions of the East Anatolia plateau. This elite delegation, which was mostly made up of elderly clergy and diplomats, would have had great difficulty in passing over the snow covered mountains of that season in order to reach Trebizond or the Tabriz-Trebizond caravan route. Even if this had been possible, further north, the subsequent possibility of the Zigana mountain passes being completely blocked off would have to be borne in mind.

(VI) The other problem with this route was the risk associated with religious tensions. It is clear that Bar Sauma was very sensitive to this issue; in fact, he cancelled his much cherished ‘visit to the sacred lands’ in Jerusalem for similar reasons and after that never managed to complete it. It would not have been easy for such a gentle monk with a company of missionary clergy, effectively a sitting target, to pass through the lawless mountain tribes and safely reach Trebizond - especially in a period when the antagonisms of the Crusades were still reverberant. In fact, the following year, in March 1288, it would be recorded that a group of Franciscan

missionaries, travelling from Trebizond along the same route, had been killed by local Muslim inhabitants in Erzincan.10

(VII) Another factor which would undoubtedly have been taken into consideration by Bar Sauma was the security risk posed by bandits and robbers. We know from his behaviour and choices on previous expeditions that he was cautious in this regard. For instance, on his way from China to Iran, he did not hesitate to elongate his journey by choosing a circuitous route, specifically because of the security problems11. On another expedition in previous years, he had cancelled a journey from Tabriz to Georgia because of similar risks12. Moreover, on the occasion in question, he was carrying with him something like 2000 mathkale13 of gold for travel expenses as well as a cargo of precious gifts, entrusted to him by Arghun Khan, which were to be presented to the rulers he was planning to visit.

(VIII) In the 1280s, the Empire of Trebizond was beset by civil war and chaos, and the nature of its relationship with the Ilkhanate state in 1287 is unclear. Consequently, there is no certainty as to the validity of the paiza of Arghun Khan, or to what degree it might have been effective in the lands of Trebizond, which may well have still been experiencing internal conflict at the time.

The wise and experienced diplomat, Rabban Bar Sauma, would most certainly have evaluated all of these risks and chosen to pass through far safer areas where the authority of the Ilkhanate could be guaranteed - therefore travelling along the Melitene-Sebaste road to the port of Simisso14. The paiza of Arghun Khan was, in some way, his compass. Heading west from Diyar-Bakr, first reaching Melitene, and from there entering the lands of the Sultanate of Rum, which were under the protection of the Ilkhanate, Bar Sauma must have reached Sebaste by the same road, before going on to Simisso, on the Black Sea border of the Sultanate of Rum. Bar Sauma and his delegation must have reached Simisso around the end of April 1287. It was here that Bar Sauma boarded a Genoese ship which had stopped off at the port of Simisso on its way from Trebizond to Constantinople. In all probability, the crowd he found on the ship were refugees belonging to the urban Byzantine Greek minority who were fleeing the climate of civil war in Trebizond and retreating to Constantinople. Statements cited from his travel notes show that, with the help of an interpreter, he tried to console them with his sermons. The ship boarded by Bar Sauma, going at full speed in the favourable winds of the season, arrived at his first official stop, Constantinople, towards the middle of May 1287, and this must have been how the Black Sea portion of his journey was completed.

10 Civezzo, Marcellino 185811 Rossabi, Morris 199212 Budge, E.A.Wallis 192813 Borbone, P. Giorgio 2007; The term mathkale , which refers to a volume of gold, appears to be connected to the term

‘shekel’ but there is no consensus on its actual size, except that it must have been a greater weight than the shekel.14 Referred to in Ancient Greek sources as Amisos, Samsun appears in medieval Latin sources as Simiso or Simisso.

Until the end of the Middle Ages, it was the site of the Genoese trade centre of the same name .

Bar Sauma’s probable Black Sea Route

Bibliography:

BEDJAN, Paul 1895 Leipzig

"Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha, patriarche, et de Raban Sauma"

BORBONE, P. Giorgio 2007Paris

"Histoire de Mar Yahballaha et deRabban Sauma; Un oriental en Occident a l’epoque de Marco Polo"

2008Pisa

"A 13th Century Journey from China to Europe; The Story of Mar Yahballaha and Rabban Sauma" EVO XXXI

BUDGE, E.A.Wallis 1928 London

"The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China"

CHABOT, J. Baptiste 1895 Paris

"Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III; et du Moine Rabban Çauma; Traduite du Syriaque et Annotee"

CIVEZZO, Marcellino 1858

Roma"Storia Universale delle Missioni Francescane"

HAROLD, Frank 2008 Saratoga

"Caravan Routes of Iran" The Silk Road 6/1

MONTGOMERY, James 1927Newyork

"The History of Yaballaha III ; Nestorian Patriarch and of his Vicar Bar Sauma"

PAOLILLO, Maurizio 2009 Palermo

"La lettera di Giovanni da Montecorvino (1247-1328) e il suo incontro con il Re Ongut Giorgio: un enigma medievale in Asia Orientale" Mediaeval Sophia, 5

ROSSABI, Morris 1992Newyork

"Voyager from Xanadu: Rabban Sauma and the First Journey from China to the West"

© Ahmet M. ZehiroğluDecember 2014, [email protected] Version: 14.12.04