The myth of phocaicus: new evidence on the silk industry in Byzantine Central Greece

Abstract

The article originates from a record David Jacoby drew attention to but left mostly unaddressed in his path-breaking article on the silk industry in western Byzantium. It examines three underexplored hagiographical texts concerning the endeavours of Arechis II, the prince of Benevento (758–787), in the translation of holy relics. These texts all feature the word phocaicus when describing the luxurious textiles Arechis dedicated to the relics. This article argues that this word is a geographical designation pointing to a so-far unidentified centre of the Byzantine silk industry sometime around 1050–1150, most likely Phokis in Central Greece.

Keywords:

• Byzantine silk industry
• Phokis
• Byzantine Central Greece
• Arechis II
• Alfanus
• Campania
• Amalfi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dionysios Stathakopoulos for having commented on drafts of this article. Any mistakes are entirely mine.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Jacoby quoted the record from “Translatio S. Mercurii”, 577. See Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium”, 455, note 12.

2. Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium”, 454–5. The interpretation was reproduced in Jacoby, “Silk Crosses the Mediterranean”, 56, note 5.

3. The first study devoted specifically to the silk industry in Byzantine central Greece was conducted by Edmund Weigand. See Weigand, “Die Helladisch-Byzantinische Seidenweberei”, 503–14. David Jacoby’s study on this topic, which was published almost three decades ago, remains the most detailed and comprehensive one by far; see Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium”, 452–500. For a recent study focusing on Boeotia, see De Rosen, “The Silk Industry”, 30–48. The topic has also been featured in studies related to the Byzantine silk industry or the regional society of central Greece. In terms of the former, see Guillou, “La soie”, 80; Shepard, “Silks, Skills and Opportunities”, 254–6; Turnator, “Turning the Economic Tables”, 353–63; Galliker, “Middle Byzantine Silk”, 33–80. Regarding the latter, see Savvides, Byzantine Thebes, 33–52; Dunn, “Historical and Archaeological Indicators”, 755–74; Dunn, “The Rise and Fall”, 38–71.

4. The Codex was published in Giovardi, Acta Passionis. It consists of texts created in different periods spanning probably from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries; see Battelli, “Il lezionario di S. Sofia”, 282–91; Wood, “Giovardi”, 209–10.

5. Wood, “Giovardi”, 200, 202; Lentini and Avagliano, I Carmi di Alfano I, 23–8.

6. Lentini, “Alfano”, 253–7.

7. Lentini and Avagliano, I Carmi di Alfano I, 28.

8. Wood, “Giovardi”, 202–3.

9. “[…] telasque pavitas pectine Phocaico, quas lento stamen obryzo purpureum pingit filoque nitente lapillis”, Lentini and Avagliano, I Carmi di Alfano I, 125, lines 958–60. “Obryzo” means pure and refined gold, and, by extension, “flexible”, since pure gold is quite malleable, see Callu et al., “Aureus obryziacus”, 81–111. For the description of precisely the same occasion, the text of Codex Verolensis 1 is grammatically incomplete: “telasque pavitas pectine phocaico, quas lento slamen obrizo”, Giovardi, Acta Passionis, 114, lines 970–1.

10. Wood, “Giovardi”, 199 and 203. It has also been suggested that based on the text’s distinct portrait of the figure of Arechis, it could be a work produced between the ninth and the tenth century. See Vuolo, “Agiografia beneventana”, 207, note 27; D’Angelo, “Agiografia Latina”, 50.

11. “[…] vestes purpureas Fucayco pectine deauratas tribuit affluenter”, Giovardi, Acta Passionis, 122, lection 8, lines 1–2. As in the case of BHL 2300, the “comb” here probably refers to the weaving comb or weft beater. This tool is usually in the shape of a comb or rake and used to pack the weft threads firmly into place.

12. Borgia, Memorie istoriche, 193 and 210. The record Jacoby quoted from Monumenta Germaniae Historica was based on Stefano Borgia’s edition. Ian Wood has given an inaccurate interpretation of its dating without checking the original edition of Borgia; see Wood, “Giovardi”, 205.

13. “[…] purpureis gausapis … et telis phocaico stagmine textis”, Borgia, Memorie istoriche, 228, lines 11–12. For the connotation of gausapis, see later in this article. Stagmen can either mean tin or be taken as an alternative form of stamen, which stands for a thread or, more specifically, a warp. Here the latter meaning is more appropriate; see Ashdowne, Howlett and Latham, DMLBS, s.v. stagmen.

14. The precise function of these hagiographical accounts is not as clear; some might have been used for liturgical purposes; see Wood, “Giovardi”, 202, 205.

15. Harrington, Medieval Latin, 3–4.

16. For other accounts of the translation of St Mercurius’s relics, see Giovardi, Acta Passionis, 1–65. Cf. Wood, “Giovardi”, 205.

17. “Sicque telas auro, ac purpureo stamine compositas, quas Aulaeum dicimus, Arichis sanctis Martyribus obtulit”, Giovardi, Acta Passionis, 114, note 27.

18. “[…] pater huic Colophonius Idmon Phocaico bibulas tingebat murice lanas”; see P. Ovidi (Tarrant ed.), 152, lines 8–9. Such an interpretation is shared by Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 1371, s.v. Phocaea-Phocaicus.

19. Acts of the Saints, 144, note h.

20. Borgia, Memorie istoriche, 228–9.

21. Adelung, Glossarium, 692.

22. Galliker, “Middle Byzantine Silk”, 171–3. For examples of such a practice in inventories, see Turnator, “Turning the Economic Tables”, 395–6.

23. Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 1371, s.v. Phocaea-Phocaicus and Phocis-Phocaicus; Gaffiot, Dictionnaire Latin Français, 1175, s.v. Phocaicus.

24. A short period of exception in the case of Phokaia will be discussed later in this article .

25. Belting, “Studien zum Beneventanischen”, 145–7.

26. Vuolo, “Agiografia beneventana”, 204–6; Belting, “Studien zum Beneventanischen”, 152–3.

27. See later in this article.

28. Pseudo-Luciano, Timarione, 54.

29. Pseudo-Luciano, Timarione, 53.

30. Liutprand of Cremona, “Relatio”, 211–12; The Complete Works, 272. Although Liutprand could have been tendentious in his account, this statement is unlikely groundless since the businesses he related might have already started in the ninth century; see Delogu, “L’importazione”, 136 and 140.

31. Schaube, Handelsgeschichte, 35; Balard, “Amalfi”, 89.

32. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 46; Citarella, “Patterns in Medieval Trade”, 544 and 549.

33. “Chronica monasterii Casinensis”, 711.

34. Goskar, “Material Worlds”, 15; Skinner, Medieval Amalfi, 215, note 19.

35. Amatus of Montecassino, The History, 1.

36. For this dating, see Lucchesi, “Per una vita”, 157; Amatus of Montecassino, The History, 124, note 49. Similar visits of southern Italian rulers to Constantinople are frequently attested; see Liutprand of Cremona, “Relatio”, 203; The Complete Works, 260, note 70.

37. “[…] aorné de or et de pierrez preciouses, coment se ceste cose non se trovassent en Costentinoble en la cort de lo impéreor”. See Champollion-Figeac, L’Ystoire, 129, no. 37. For an English translation, see Amatus of Montecassino, The History, 123.

38. Champollion-Figeac, L’Ystoire, 129–30, nos. 37–8; Amatus of Montecassino, The History, 123–4.

39. “Chronica monasterii Casinensis”, 701.

40. Newton, The Scriptorium, 12–13.

41. “Per eos etiam dies cum rumor increbruisset, ad Italiam regem venturum, nequaquam segnis perrexit Amalfim; ibique viginti pannos sericos quos triblattos appellant emit”. See “Chronica monasterii Casinensis”, 711, lines 25–7. For the meaning of triblattion, see Galliker, “Middle Byzantine Silk”, 157.

42. Damian, Letters, vol. I, 230; vol. II, 326; vol. III, 183 and vol. V, 80, 151, 153.

43. Damian, Letters, vol. I, 227–35 and vol. V, 79–80.

44. It is worth noting that during the visit, Alfanus lodged in the house of an Amalfitan merchant together with Gisulf’s retinue; see Amatus of Montecassino, The History, 188. As we discussed earlier, the merchant could also have committed to trading high-end Byzantine textiles like other Amalfitan merchants and, thus, provided Alfanus another chance to gain intimate knowledge of such textiles.

45. See note 37.

46. See note 9.

47. The term “imperial”, attested in records from the Latin West from the late twelfth century onward, likely referred to Byzantine silk textiles with gold embroidery in its original sense; see Turnator, “Turning the Economic Tables”, 400–3. A possible example of this type from the surviving silk textiles is the so-called shroud of St Siviard (Sens, Cathedral Treasury) attributed by Anna Muthesius to Byzantium in the tenth or eleventh century; see Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, 191–2.

48. This is mentioned in a letter Peter Damian addressed to a senator Peter; see Damian, Letters, vol. III, 243.

49. Lewis and Short, A New Latin Dictionary, 803, s.v. gausapa.

50. Ashdowne, Howlett, and Latham, DMLBS, s.v. gausapa; Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. GAUSAPE. A possible similar case is polymiton, initially used for woollens but at least from the ninth century onward applied to silks; see Jacoby, “Silk Crosses the Mediterranean”, 61, note 44.

51. Liutprand of Cremona, “Relatio”, 192; The Complete Works, 245.

52. Galliker, “Middle Byzantine Silk”, 106–7.

53. Karatzani, “The Evolution”; Járó, “Gold Embroidery”, 55; Muthesius, “The Silk Patronage”, 41.

54. “[…] promittens ei, tam in tonsure quam in vestibus usu Grecorum perfrui sub eiusdem imperatoris dicinone. Haec audiens autem imperator, emisit illi suos legatos … ferentes secum vestes auro textas, simul et spatam vel pectinae et forcipes patricium eum constituendi, sicut illi predictus Arichisus indui et tondi pollicitus fuerat”, see “Codex Carolinus”, 617; Charlemagne, ed. King, 299.

55. Hans Belting unconvincingly dismissed Arechis’s offer as merely a political gesture since he mistakenly considered the much later translation texts BHL 2300 and 5936 as showing the historical features of Arechis’s era; see Belting, “Studien zum Beneventanischen”, 153.

56. Liutprand of Cremona, “Relatio”, 203–5, 209–10; The Complete Works, 261, 263, and 270.

57. McCormick, “The Imperial Edge”, 18.

58. Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 52. Here, Phokaia is recorded as Phocia.

59. Vroom, “Ceramics”, 188.

60. Annae Comnenae Alexias, 222 and 265; Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, 182–6.

61. Laiou, The Constantinople and the Latins, 69; Laiou and Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, 173.

62. For debates on the dating of Phokaian alum production, see Turnator, “Turning the Economic Tables”, 542, note 70.

63. In contrast, archaeological evidence tends to suggest that Byzantine Phokaia was a centre for ceramic production. For an overview of excavations at Phokaia, see Özyiğit, “Recent Work at Phokaia”, 109–27; Özyiğit, “Phokaia”, 303–14. For archaeological reports after 1989 related to the Byzantine phase of Phokaia, see Özyiğit’s reports in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantıları 13.2; 16.1; 17.2; 18.2; 19.1; 22.2; 24.2; 27.2; 28.2; 29.2; 30.1; 31.3; 32.3; 33.2; 34.2; 35.2; 36.2; 37.1; 38.2; 39.2; 40.3; 41.3. The nearest findings concerning textile production I am aware of are the alleged mid-Byzantine pit looms and loom weights found in Amorium and Selime, central Anatolia. However, the huge distance between Phokaia and the two sites, that is, at least 400 kilometres, makes them hardly relevant. In addition, the findings represent only textile production for everyday use, if at all. The loom weights found in Amorium were scanty and scattered; whether they were indeed adopted in textile production also remains questionable. As to the pit looms found in the settlement of Selime, it has been convincingly argued that they were created during the late eleventh and mid-twelfth centuries, when Selime had already been captured by Turks. See Lightfoot, “The Amorium Project”, 344; Ball, “The Missing Link”, 42–3.

64. McInerney, The Folds of Parnassos, 40–85.

65. Recorded as “Χρυσοῦ”, see Saint Luke of Steiris, 4, lines 15–16 and 110, line 4. Recorded as “τῷ Κρισσαίῳ λιμένι”, Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 73, line 24. Recorded as “Crissa”; see Adler, The Itinerary, 17. Recorded as “Χρυσῷ”; see Bees, “Unedierte”, 73, line 60. Cf. Koder and Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, 195; Bees, “Leon-Manuel Makros”, 125–7.

66. Recorded as “Στειρίου”; see Saint Luke of Steiris, 104, line 2. Recorded as “S. Lucae Stirensis”; see Santi monaci, 135, lines 10–11. Cf. Koder and Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, 263.

67. Recorded as “Δαυλείας”; see Saint Luke of Steiris, 136, line 2. Recorded as “Διαυλείας”; see Darrouzès, Notitiae Episcopatuum, 361, no. 449. Cf. Koder and Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, 142.

68. Recorded as “Ἀμπελὼν”; see Saint Luke of Steiris, 80, line 4. Cf. Koder and Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, 121.

69. Armstrong, “Some Byzantine”, 1–47.

70. Armstrong, “Some Byzantine”, 47.

71. For agriculture, see Saint Luke of Steiris, 44, lines 4–8; Santi monaci, 136, line 13; Adler, The Itinerary, 17. For pastoralism, see Santi monaci, 136, line 15 and 140, line 178. For pottery production, see Armstrong, “Some Byzantine”, 46.

72. Saint Luke of Steiris, 84, lines 15–18 and 110, lines 1–4; Adler, The Itinerary, 17.

73. Saint Luke of Steiris, 4, lines 14–22 and 80, lines 1–5; Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 73, lines 24–5.

74. Adler, The Itinerary, 17–18.

75. For example, Bees, “Unedierte”, 74, lines 78–90.

76. Bees, “Unedierte”, 73–4, lines 59–65. The use of the words teacher (διδάσκαλον/μαΐστωρ) and lessons (τα μαθήματα) indicates that Makros received his early education in a formal and organized setting.

77. Santi monaci, 141, lines 216–18; Svoronos, “Cadastre”, 73–5; Nesbitt and Wiita, “A Confraternity”, 373–4. Cf. Oikonomides, “The First Century”, 245–55.

78. Santi monaci, 136–8 and 140–2.

79. See note 3. It should be noted that some scholars remain sceptical about the size of the industry and its contribution to the local economy of Boeotia; see Dunn, “Historical and Archaeological Indicators”, 755–74; Dunn, “The Rise and Fall”, 38–71; De Rosen, “The Silk Industry”, 30–48.

80. Regarding the archaeological evidence, see Louvi-Kizi, “Thebes”, 635–7; Koilakou “Industrial facilities”, 223–9; Koilakou “Byzantine workshops”, 23–4. It should be briefly noted here that Charikleia Koilakou’s identification of dye workshops remains inconclusive and should be treated with caution.

81. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 74, lines 45–9. These captives were also implied when Niketas mentioned their offspring in the late 1190s; see Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 98, lines 3–10. For the dating of this record, see Simpson, “Before and After 1204”, 199–200.

82. Ioannis Tzetzae Epistulae, ep. 71, 101–2. On the dating of this letter, see Grünbart, “Prosopographische Beiträge”, 202.

83. Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 403, lines 382–6.

84. Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 461, lines 833–8. For an interpretation of this record, see Turnator, “Turning the Economic Tables”, 367–8.

85. Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary, 17. Jacoby interpreted this mention as referring to purple fabrics “commissioned by the imperial court”, but no evidence was presented to substantiate the claim; see Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium”, 466.

86. Michaelis Choniatae Epistulae, 69–70, lines 63–4.

87. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 461, lines 28–36. This record can be dated to ca. 1200, see Simpson, “Before and After 1204”, 205.

88. “[…] οὐχ’ ἱστουργὸς ὑφασμάτων σηρικῶν”, see Michaelis Choniatae Epistulae, 82, lines 11–12.

89. Michaelis Choniatae Epistulae, 89, lines 53–4. In this case, Michael was comparing Athens’s heavy tax burden with the privilege Thebes enjoyed in the same aspect.

90. The silk production around Naupaktos will be treated in a separate article in more detail.

91. “[…] καλυβῖται δέ οἱ ἐμοὶ πολῖται … οἱ μεταξογεννήτορες σκώληκες αὐταῖς καλύβαις ἀπώλοντο”, see Bees, “Unedierte”, 149; Lampropoulos, “John Apokaukos”, 189–90.

92. Bees, “Unedierte”, 86, lines 30–1; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Ohrid”, 247. Cf. Magdalino, “The Literary Perception”, 32.

93. For the dating and identity of this Niketas Choniates, see Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “John Apokaukos”, 373; Lampropoulos, “John Apokaukos”, 159 and 198.

94. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “John Apokaukos”, 376–7; Lampropoulos, “John Apokaukos”, 198, note 82.

95. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “John Apokaukos”, 377–8.

96. Bees, “Unedierte”, 88, line 93.

97. “[…] παρ’ ὃλην δὲ ὃμως τὴν τοῦ βίου ζωὴν ἔρια καὶ λίνον εὑρίσκειν αὐτὴν τάς τε χεῖρας ἐρείδειν εἰς ἄτρακτον καὶ ἀλλοτρίων εἶναι χερνῆτιν”, see Pétridès, “Jean Apokaukos”, 29, lines 24–6.

98. Vasilievsky, “Epirus”, 298, lines 25–6.

99. Adler, The Itinerary, 17.

100. Die Schriften, ed. Kotter, 313.

101. Galavaris, The Illustrations, 225–6.

102. Die Schriften, ed. Kotter, 333–4, lines 25–39.

103. The codex 14 of Esphigmenou monastery contains three consecutive miniatures of Xanthippe sitting behind a frame-shaped loom weaving (fols. 396v, 397r, 397v), in which all the unfinished clothes are presented in a sketchy manner and barely recognizable; see Pelekanidis, The Treasures of Mount Athos, 232–3. For similar symbolic presentations of clothes in weaving, see Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 201, fol. 220v; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 751, fol. 146r. For those detailed presentations as in the case of Taphou 14, see Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1231, fol. 410; Bibliothèque Nationale, Par. gr. 134, fol. 184v; Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Taphou 5, fol. 234v.

104. Weitzmann, Greek Mythology, 65.

105. Pseudo-Kufic inscriptions were found on extant high-end fabrics (see note 107), incorporated extensively during the eleventh and the twelfth centuries on the arm-band, turban, shield, helmet, or greave of aristocrats, see Parani, Reconstructing, 54, 95, 121–2, 149–50, 326–7, and 329.

106. Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, Appendix 3. Among Muthesius’s criteria for identifying Constantinopolitan provenance are inscriptions on the textiles, technical finesse and the similarities of design between textiles; Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, 47, 149.

107. Therefore, Weigand attributed the peacock silk from Durham Cathedral and the Saint Potentianus silk from Sens to Theban workshops; see Weigand, “Die Helladisch-Byzantinische Seidenweberei”, 509–14. For examples of the alternative attributions of these two pieces, see Muthesius, “Rider and Peacock Silks”, 94–5 (Spain, the eleventh and the twelfth century); Evans and Wixon, The Glory of Byzantium, 505–7 (Byzantium or Sicily, the twelfth century).

108. For an alternative reading of the pseudo-Kufic inscription in the miniature as an exoticizing device to help create the milieu of an ancient Greek oracle, see Walker, “Meaningful Mingling”, 44–5.

109. Weitzmann, Greek Mythology, 61–4.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported at different stages by China Scholarship Council (CSC), the A.G. Leventis Foundation, the Great Britain-China Educational Trust (administered by the Great Britain-China Centre), and Koç University’s Research Centre for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED).

Notes on contributors

Gang Wu

Gang Wu took his doctorate in Byzantine Studies at King’s College London (2020). His dissertation examines women in Byzantine Central Greece between 1000 and 1200 from the aspects of economic activities, devotional life, and family roles. He is currently a postdoctoral research fellow at Koç University’s Research Centre for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED), working on the technical parameters of the Byzantine silk industry.