![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This essay juxtaposes two recent efforts to demythologize the history of the origins of al-Andalus. Alejandro García Sanjuán has called into question the continued usefulness of reconquista as a historical model, while Emilio González Ferrín has gone further, challenging the very notion of an “Islamic conquest,” which he regards as another misleading holdover from the past. Considering these two approaches side by side allows for a deeper appreciation of the challenges of demythologization in relation to the study of medieval Spanish history.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Kenneth Baxter Wolf is the John Sutton Miner Professor of History, Chair of Classics, and Coordinator of “Late Antique-Medieval Studies” (LAMS) at Pomona College. His research interests have always been rooted in the cultural history of the medieval Latin Church, particularly as it relates to the idea of sanctity on the one hand and the challenge of religious pluralism on the other. He is the author of three monographs: The Poverty of Riches: St. Francis Reconsidered (Oxford, 2003), Making History: The Normans and their Historians in Eleventh-century Italy (Penn, 1995), and Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain (Cambridge, 1988). He has also produced three book-length translations and studies of medieval Latin texts: Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain (Liverpool, 1990); The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard (Michigan, 2005); and The Life and Afterlife of St. Elizabeth of Hungary: Testimony from her Canonization Hearings (Oxford, 2011). He has just finished a fourth translation project involving the writings of Eulogius of Córdoba, which will soon be published by Liverpool Univerity Press.
Notes
1 “Yo no entiendo cómo se puede llamar reconquista a una cosa que dura ocho siglos,” Ortega y Gassett, España invertebrada, 129. All translations from Spanish to English in this paper are my own.
2 The fact that Spain was the only European kingdom absorbed into the Umayyad “empire” was a source of shame for some Spanish scholars of Ortega y Gasset’s generation. The apparent effortlessness of that process continues to be noted by scholars of medieval Spain. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 359.
3 This essay has grown out of my review of García Sanjuán’s, La conquista islámica. Wolf, “La conquista islámica.” I am grateful to Maribel Fierro, for recommending me for what turned out to be such an interesting assignment, and to the co-editors of this special issue, Hussein Fancy and Alejandro García Sanjuán, for inviting me to contribute this essay, thus bringing the debate to the attention of a larger, anglophonic audience. It should be noted at the outset that many historians of medieval Spain, particularly Spanish ones, did not welcome the essay I wrote for the Revista de Libros and there is every indication that they will not appreciate this one either. At the root of their criticism is my willingness to entertain González Ferrín’s ideas about what happened in 711, giving them equal billing with the much more mainstream conclusions of García Sanjuán. I leave it to my readers to decide for themselves if there is value in this historiographical exercise.
4 García Sanjuán, “Rejecting al-Andalus,” 127–45. See also García Sanjuán's contribution to a conference in Chile, commemorating the 1,300th anniversary of the conquest: “Al-Andalus en la historiografía del nacionalismo españolista (siglos XIX–XXI),” 65–104. A similar argument can be found in the first part of García Sanjuán’s book, La conquista islámica, 35–55.
5 García Sanjuán, “Rejecting al-Andalus,” 129.
6 Ortega y Gasset, España invertebrada, 140.
7 García Sanjuán, “Rejecting al-Andalus,” 131; from Sánchez-Albornoz, De la Andalucía Islámica a la de hoy, 14.
8 “11-M” is the colloquial Spanish way of referring to the Atocha bombings of 11 March, 2004.
9 García Sanjuán, “Rejecting al-Andalus,” 133.
10 Ibid., 134.
11 Ibid., 136.
12 Ibid., 141.
13 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 25
14 Ibid., 94.
15 González Ferrín, Historia General de Al Ándalus.
16 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 31–52.
17 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 31–2, 35. González Ferrín parses this essentialist, monolithic view of Islam to reveal three very different elements that only came together much later: Islam as a religion, Islam as a “civilizing system,” and Arab culture. Ibid., 35.
18 For González Ferrín, the “Middle Ages” as a historiographical construct is essentially defined in terms of a “dichotomy, Christianity vis-à-vis Islam.” González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 32; cf., 34. Though he does not specifically invoke the work of Peter Brown and Garth Fowden (et aliorum) in this article, González Ferrín’s general conception of Late Antiquity as the context for the “rise of Islam” is consistent with their more expansive and inclusive interpretations of this pivotal historical period. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity; Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth.
19 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 32. Hence “the ‘medieval presentism’ of crusade versus jihad, [is] transported to an improbably earlier time.” Ibid., 40.
20 Ibid., 34.
21 Ibid., 35.
22 Ibid., 47.
23 Ibid., 35.
24 Ibid., 31; cf., 33.
25 Ibid., 49.
26 Ibid., 46–7.
27 In other words, the Arabic narrative histories “reflect less of what actually happened and more of what Muslims much later wanted to be remembered as having occurred.” González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 39; cf., 49.
28 Though not the focus of his article (nor of the present essay), González Ferrín is as troubled by the notion of a unified “Arab conquest” as he is by that of an “Islamic conquest.” What we refer to retrospectively today as the Arab conquest is, as he sees it, better understood “in real time” as a multi-ethnic product of nomadic expansion and opportunism, not a coordinated conquest.
29 González Ferrín pointedly incorporates a quotation from a 1993 article by Maribel Fierro in which she asks:
If the arabo-islamic literary sources that have been preserved (none of which is contemporary with the conquest) represent to a large extent a back projection of later religious, theological, and political elaborations, is it valid to have recourse to those sources to reconstruct the ‘history’ of the first two centuries of Islam?
30 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 49.
31 Ibid., 31; cf., 43.
32 Ibid., 43.
33 Ibid., 45, 49.
34 Ibid., 48.
35 Ibid., 38; cf., 40.
36 Ibid., 32–3.
37 Ibid., 35. 36, 48.
38 Ibid., 36.
39 Ibid., 33.
40 Ibid., 37.
41 Ibid., 37.
42 It is important to recognize that “negationism” is not a term that González Ferrín uses in reference to his own work, but one that has been applied by scholars who are unsympathetic to this understanding of the “rise of Islam.” At the risk of oversimplifying González Ferrín’s overall thesis, I use the term in this essay primarily because it is a convenient way of referring to those aspects of his work that impinge most directly on the subject at hand: the “Islamic conquest” of Spain. It should also be noted that from González Ferrín’s perspective, it is misleading to focus so much attention on this one aspect of his thesis. “To sum up this book saying that it’s about the lack of an Islamic conquest is like saying that the novel Anna Karenina is about trains.” González Ferrín, “Prólogo a la quarta edición,” 17. As he sees it, the bigger contribution of his book has been to provide a place for al-Andalus in European history, as the “the first European Renaissance.” Hence his choice of subtitle of the book: “Europe between East and West.” Nevertheless, admits González Ferrín, “it pleases me to be one today who is leading the way in rejecting of the idea that al-Andalus was created by a supposed Islamic conquest.” Ibid.
43 “Negationism is not a heterodox albeit legitimate reading of the past … . Rather it is the product of a gross historiographic fraud, a combination of falsehoods and absurdities based on a manipulation of the historical evidence.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 252. As García Sanjuán sees it, the catastrofismo narrative that originated in the discourse of “the conquered” and the triunfalismo narrative that is rooted in the discourse of “the conquerors” are two sides of the same coin, both having evolved naturally out of the earliest known narratives about the conquest, and both having “providentialist connotations.” He sees negacionismo as a “third way,” albeit one that is unconnected to any early narratives and detached from any source-based reading of the past. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 70–3.
44 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 149.
45 Ibid., 172–88 (Latin sources), 188–233 (Arabic sources), 237–53 (criticism of negationists’ approach to these sources).
46 Ibid., 151.
47 Ibid., 159–68. Beyond such numismatic evidence, recently discovered lead seals establish the existence of an administrative apparatus used for the distribution of property in the wake of the takeover. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 168–72.
48 Ibid., 255.
49 Ibid., 261–6.
50 Ibid., 266–77.
51 Ibid., 285–93. For an exhaustive review of the pre-Abd al-Malik documentary evidence of Islamic identity, see: 278–85; for the non-Arabic sources, see: 293–301.
52 Ibid., 301–23.
53 Ibid., 359.
54 Ibid., 359–60.
55 Ibid., 363–84.
56 Ibid., 385–400.
57 Ibid., 400, 417, 421.
58 Ibid., 423.
59 Ibid., 116–28.
60 In his original review of the book, García Sanjuán suggests that in future editions González Ferrín should “take the word ‘history’ out and change the title to General Philosophical Essay on Al Ándalus.” García Sanjuán, Review of Historia general de Al Ándalus, 332. Elsewhere he writes: “In reality Historia general de Al Ándalus amounts to fraud from its very title. The author defines his own work as a ‘historiological essay,’ which has nothing to do with the title.” García Sanjuán, “La tergiversación del pasado y la función social del conocimiento histórico: Una réplica a Kenneth B. Wolf,” par. 22.
61 For a convenient summary of Olagüe’s biography and thought, see: García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 73–90. For more on González Ferrín’s sense of “historiology,” see: González Ferrín, “Prólogo a la tercera edición,” 25–6; and “Prólogo a la quarta edición,” 18.
62 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 128–44. Guichard, “Les Arabes ont bien envahi l’Espagne,” ’1483–513; Monroe, “Review of Olagüe, Les Arabes n’ont Jamais Envahi l’Espagne,” 347–8.
63 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 73–7, 90–112.
64 Maribel Fierro draws attention to this odd “marriage” when she writes:
I must confess that the fact that the work of a Spanish nationalist of Basque origin, who seems to have been drawn to Spanish fascist theorists, has been transformed into a book of distinction for Muslim converts and andalucistas makes the reading of this curious book more interesting.
65 Olagüe, La revolución islámica en Occidente.
66 González Ferrín, Historia General de Al Ándalus.
67 “In spite of the fact that ‘there is no better form of disregard than not to give any regard at all,’ in my judgment that position is not acceptable within the professional world of historical investigation.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 143.
68 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 82.
69 Ibid., 73. In his opinion, Olagüe’s book cannot be dismissed as a simple “ideological or emotional reading of the past, because it grounds itself in the conscious and intentional manipulation of historical testimony.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 29.
70 Ibid., 350; cf., 24–5. Elsewhere García Sanjuán clarified what he means by fraud: a manipulation of history involving
three discrete practices: first, the distortion of the meaning of certain texts through readings that are totally incompatible with their actual significance; second, the sidestepping of evidence or testimony that supports something contrary to what the negationists argue; and third, the formulation of gratuitous, unjustified, and nonsensical affirmations.
negationism is not just a simple conjunction of erroneous propositions nor a heterodox albeit rigorous reading of the past, but something much more serious. It is about deception (impostura), an authentic historiographic fraud conceived in anything but an innocent manner.
71 González Ferrín is open about sharing Olagüe's “Illuminating theory”
about Islam as a profession of faith that emerged within a context of sincere opposition to trinitarian Christian dogmatism. It involved a religion enlightened by a distinct revelation – a Qur’anic one – but one that grew out of a confrontation between unitarians – the ineffable hanifs of the Qur’an, plus a fusion of Jews, neo-Muslims, and non-dogmatic Christians [who followed] Nestorianism, Arianism, Donatism, Priscillianism … – and trinitarians, the Council of Nicea, a Christian dogmatism imposed by force of arms on the above-mentioned heresies.
72 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 21–2.
73 Ibid., 143.
74 Ibid., 73.
75 Ibid., 252–3.
76 García Sanjuán, “Review of Emilio Gónzález Ferrín, Historia general de Al Ándalus,” 327–32.
77 Fierro, “La historia islámica de la península Ibérica.” Fierro later contributed a prologue to García Sanjuán’s book, which dismisses Olagüe’s work as the product of “chaotic fabrications … lacking any academic validity.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 13.
78 For his actual analysis of the evidence, González Ferrín refers his readers to La angustia de Abraham, beginning on page 345. González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 46.
79 González Ferrín recounts how he was once accused by Pierre Guichard of “putting logic before the meaning of history.” His response: “Even if he didn’t mean it to be a compliment, I want to thank him for understanding perfectly the meaning of these pages.” González Ferrín, “Prólogo a la quarta edición,” 19.
80 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 32.
81 Ibid., 37–8.
82 Ibid., 38.
83 González Ferrín seems to be responding to the negacionismo label by coining his own “ismo.”
84 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 252.
85 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 33.
86 Ibid., 37.
87 Ibid., 37.
88 Ibid., 35.
89 Ibid., 43.
90 Ibid., 31.
91 Ibid., 41.
92 Ibid., 34.
93 Ibid., 40; cf., 41.
94 Ibid., 39, 44.
95 Ibid., 44.
96 Ibid., 34.
97 Ibid., 38.
98 Ibid., 40.
99 Ibid., 40.
100 Ibid., 43; cf., 41.
101 Crone and Cooke, Hagarism, vii.
102 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 44.
103 Ibid., 41.
104 Ibid., 40.
105 Ibid., 42.
106 Ibid., 43.
107 Ibid., 44.
108 Ibid., 44.
109 Ibid., 43.
110 Ibid., 43.
111 As noted earlier, González Ferrín’s essay never directly mentions García Sanjuán or his book outside of the bibliography. The only critic that González Ferrín identifies by name is Maribel Fierro. González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 45, 43. By singling out Fierro in this way, González Ferrín would seem to be “lowering his lance” a bit in the midst of his joust with García Sanjuán, giving his opponent some credit for not simply dismissing his arguments out of hand. But that does not change González Ferrín’s opinion of García Sanjuán’s book, which, from his perspective, expends more energy trying to silence him than it does honestly entertaining anything he has to say.
112 He describes his book as “a work of research carried out from an academic foundation, in which documentary evidence occupies a central position.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 22.
113 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 40–3.
114
We have here a clearly opportunistic improvisation, designed to satisfy shameful personal ambitions. Is there a better to get oneself known in a profession, when one is not a member of it and yet desperately hopes to attain prominence within it, than to proclaim nonsensical ideas that go against the grain? Notoriety is thus assured, because it permits one to adopt the position of a victim, marginalized and ignored by the ‘mandarins’ of the profession.
115 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 443–4.
116 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 270.
117 Ibid., 244.
118 In is interesting to me that, while García Sanjuán sees the connection between negationism as an andalucista myth and reconquista as a nationalist one, he does not seem to appreciate the extent to which “Islamic conquest” is an essential part of the “Christian reconquest” narrative. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 29. This is despite his acknowledgement that
the relevance of the conquest in history and in the memory of the Spanish remains obvious in the profound and continuous distortion to which it has been submitted over the course of time, from the most varied and diverse social sectors, both academic and non-academic.
119 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 36, 144–7.
120 Ibid., 147.
121 As García Sanjuán puts it: “Españolista myths forming around the ‘Pelayos’ and ‘Covadongas’ of the Reconquista, are thereby supplanted by another myth, no less false and deforming, that of the negacionistas, proof that one myth can really only be counteracted by another.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 94.
122 It must be acknowledged, however, that the standards for what constitutes “hard evidence” are not as easy to pin down as one might think. González Ferrín is as confident about the limitations of the numismatic evidence as García Sanjuán is about its conclusiveness. Moreover the scholarly debate over the very meaning of “Islam” continues unabated, as evidenced by Shahab Ahmed’s recent book, What is Islam?.
123 This is consistent with García Sanjuán’s contention that González Ferrín should “take the word ‘history’ out and change the title to General Philosophical Essay on Al Ándalus.” García Sanjuán, Review of Historia general de Al Ándalus, 332.
124 González Ferrín, La antigüedad tardía Islámica, 36
125 Donner, Muhammad and the Believers.
126 See, for instance, Patricia Crone’s review of Donner’s book: “Among the Believers.”
127 Donner regards the reign of Abd al-Malik as the watershed between “Believers” and “Muslims.” Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 194–224.
128 For an overview and critique of this “skeptical approach,” see: Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins, 5–31.
129 The final chapter in Peter Brown’s The World of Late Antiquity, which focuses on the rise of Islam, is titled, significantly enough, “The New Participants.”
130 In particular it suffers from the lack of any evidence of Arian survival in Spain after 589, when the Visigothic monarchy officially embraced Catholic Christianity. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 325–8.
131 “Contrary to the religious preacher who grounds himself in the supernatural or the artist whose activity is the expression of his individual creative genius, the scientist is obligated to justify his affirmations every step of the way.” García Sanjuán, “La tergiversación del pasado y la función social del conocimiento histórico: Una réplica a Kenneth B. Wolf,” par. 33.
132 Chalmeta, “Concessiones territoriales en al-Andalus (hasta la llegada de los almorávides),” 1–90. García Sanjuán identifies those scholars who have concurred with Chalmeta’s assessment. García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 421–2.
133 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 425; cf. 443. García Sanjuán ends his book with an extended discussion of the extant Arabic documentation pertaining to the distribution of property and how it ought to be interpreted, with particular attention to the theory of Eduardo Manzano Moreno, who argued that later generations might have had an interest in creatively “remembering” conquered territory as having being secured by negotiated surrender, a phenomenon that may have tainted the evidence. Ibid., 425–39.
134 By arguing for a violent conquest, García Sanjuán risks putting himself in the same epistemological category as the negationists whom he accuses, justifiably so, of apriorismo, “the subordination of historical knowledge to pre-existing ideological premises.” García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 86.
135 “Change of regime” does not imply force to the extent that “conquest” does. Plus it has the advantage of highlighting the political transformation associated with 711 without suggesting any immediate change in the many other dimensions of society.
136 García Sanjuán, La conquista islámica, 147.
137 González Ferrín, “La antigüedad tardía Islámica,” 44.
138 In his review of Historia general de Al Ándalus, García Sanjuán distinguishes between those today “who demonize Islam” and those “who, doubtless with laudable intentions, try to counteract this rampant Islamophobia, whose arguments are unfortunately far from acceptable.” García Sanjuán, “Review of Emilio Gónzález Ferrín, Historia general de Al Ándalus,” 328.