Iskandar Bcheiry Contributes to New Book: ‘Rumkale from the Middle Ages to the Present’

A new book has been published by the newly-established (and EU-funded) Turkish National Institute for Archeology and Cultural Heritage on Rumkale from the Middle Ages to the Present. The book is edited by Prof. Dr. Scott Redford, with Turkish translation by Özlem Uygun, and Umut Yavuz (Gaziantep: Türk Arkeoloji ve Kültürel Miras Enstitüsü, 2022) ISBN: 978-625-7922-27-2 https://turkarkeolojienstitusu.org/

Located at the intersection of the Merziman and Euphrates rivers, “Rumkale is one of the most important historical settlements in the Euphrates basin. Although its history goes back to ancient times, the impressive architectural ruins that survived are from medieval and Ottoman times. Although restoration projects have been carried out in Rumkale in different periods, no scientific archeology project has been carried out so far. This book, which focuses on Rumkale, has been prepared to supply the basis for scientific archaeological projects that can be carried out in the settlement, which is becoming increasingly popular as a tourism focus, but whose history is less known, and to inform the public about Rumkale.”

The content of the book has been prepared by a group of art historians, archaeologists, and historians from Turkey, Europe, and America: Scott Redford, London Middle East Institute (LMEI); Rachel Goshgarian, Lafayette College; Christina Maranci, Tufts University; Angus Stewart, University of St Andrews; N. Pınar Özgüner, Gaziantep University, Turkey; Muhsin Soyudogan, Gaziantep University; Iskandar Bcheiry, Atla.

The chapters in the book examine the Byzantine, Syriac, Armenian, Mameluke, and Ottoman architecture and history of Rumkale, up to the present, evaluate its future, and share new information and findings about Rumkale with the reader.

The importance of the contents of the book is that it first deals with and examines the history of Rumkale based on several sources and historical aspects, and secondly, it presents the contents not only to experts in the academic field but also to anyone who has a desire to know the history of the mentioned region without being exclusively specialized.

Historical Background: Rumkale or Qalʿat al-Rūm

Rumkale, or Qal῾ah Rūmoytō, is also known in Syriac sources as Šūrō d’Rūmoyē, which means the Wall of the Romans or the Fortress of the Romans. Rumkale was the center of a bishopric of which some of its bishops are named, such as Uranius who attended the Council of Antioch in 445, and Bishop Maryiūn, who took part in the consecration of Severus of Antioch as a patriarch of Antioch (518-538) before being later exiled by Emperor Justin I (518-527). Another bishop named John was ordained by Jacob Baradeos in the middle of the sixth century. By the eleventh century, the fortress of Šūrō d’Rūmoyē came to be known as Ḥeṣnō d’Rūmoyē, or Qal῾ah Rūmoytō. In the early twelfth century, Rumkale fell under the dominion of the Frankish county of Edessa. After the fall of Edessa in 1144, the population was dispersed to various places, among them Rumkale. Around 1147, the Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan Basil Bar Šumnā of Edessa, who escaped to Samsat after the second devastation of Edessa in 1146 by the Turks, was imprisoned for three years in Rumkale by Joscelin II de Courtenay.

In 1148, the Armenian Catholicos Gregory III Pahlavuni (1113-1166) transferred his residence to “the fortress of the Romans” at the demand of the Franks from the former County of Edessa, whose capital had been at Tilbeşar (Tell Bashīr) since 1144. The Armenian Catholicos resided there until 1293. In 1260, the Mongol ruler Hulago Khan crossed the Euphrates by bridges of boats at Malatya, Rumkale, Birecik (al-Bīrah), and Circesium. Then, in the reign of the Mameluke Sultan al-Manṣūr Qalawūn, an Egyptian army came to Rumkale and laid siege to the fortress on May 19th, 1280. The Sultan demanded that the Catholicos should surrender the citadel and move with his monks to Jerusalem or, if he preferred, to Cilicia. When the Catholicos refused to do so, the Egyptian army laid waste the country around the fortress, which was inhabited mostly by Armenians and Syriacs. The next day, the Sultan’s army forced its way over a wall only recently built into the town and set it on fire while the whole population fled into the citadel.

After the Egyptians had ravaged and plundered the surrounding area for five days, they withdrew. In the reign of al-Ashraf Khalīl, they launched a new expedition against Rumkale in 1292. The Egyptian army appeared before the town and erected 20 pieces of siege artillery. After 33 days of siege, Rumkale fell into the hand of the Mamelukes. The population was plundered and massacred, especially among the garrison of Armenians and Mongols. Among the prisoners who were captured was the Armenian Catholicos Stephan IV of Rumkale, with his monks. He died a prisoner in Damascus. The fortress was restored by the same Sultan and renamed Qal῾ah al-Muslimūn, but part of the town was left in ruins. The successor of Catholicos Stephan, Gregory VIII of Anavarza (1293-1307), took up his residence in Sīs in Cilicia, which became the seat of the Armenian Catholicosate. The fortress remained in the hands of the Mamelukes until the battle of Marj Dābiq in 1516, when it fell to the Ottomans. Under the Ottomans, the fortress became part of the dominion of the pashalik of Aleppo. Only a few remnants of the citadel now remain, including an Armenian monastery and a mosque.

Rumkale in Syriac Sources During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

My contribution to this book is a chapter titled “Rumkale in Syriac Sources During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” which examines and discusses questions related to the archeology of certain monuments in Rumkale within their historical context, using available Syriac sources. One question is why the Armenians in Rumkale would erect and commission a significant religious building, a monastery, after the name of a famous Syriac saint? Were there any sacred places for the Syriacs in Rumkale? What was the reaction of the Syriac ecclesiastic leadership toward the transfer of the Armenian patriarchate to Rumkale? What geographical and topographical information can be grasped from Syriac sources about Rumkale? What would the contemporaneous Syriac Chronicles inform us about Rumkale as a window to the Armeno-Syriac relationship during that period? In my chapter, I discussed such questions, not only from the perspective of archeology and architectural history but also from the perspective of the historical Armeno-Syriac relationship within a broader geographical and demographical aspect in which the Armenian sources present quite different accounts. Two key sources were examined here: first, the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (d. 1199); then, the Ecclesiastic History of Gregory Barhebraeus (d. 1286). These two chroniclers came from the same geographical frame of the Upper Euphrates and lived at the time of our topic.

Some Observations from the Syriac Sources Relating to Rumkale

According to these two main Syriac historical sources, Rumkale as the ecclesiastical center of the Armenians had an influence on the relationship between the Syriacs and the Armenians during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The political reality in the region, especially after the fall of the Crusade county of Edessa, made the Armenians more dependent on efforts to assimilate the local Syriac Christian population into the emerging Armenian political and ecclesiastical entity in the region. In other words, they looked to Armenize the Syriacs, not only by containing their ecclesiastical leadership but also by implementing and encouraging a social, cultural, and political transformation among them. Patriarch Michael the Syrian was skeptical toward the Armenians. He regarded the emergence of the Armenian Catholicosate in Rumkale as a threat to his community. Meanwhile, Barhebraeus, who lived in different conditions, had to consider the political and military forces of the Mongols and Armenians. Therefore, he emphasized in his history the positive attitude of the Syriac ecclesiastical leadership in showing a good relationship with the Armenians.

I conclude by providing an example of how Syriac and Armenian sources differ in their presentation of some of the same historical events about Rumkale. The following is an example of a comparative citation taken from the Syriac text of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle on the one hand, and on the other hand from the Armenian translation of the same source. This comparison illustrates the difference in the description and depiction of the image and the role of the Armenian Catholicosate in Rumkale during the middle ages.

Bibliography:

• Ghazarian, Jacob G. The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia during the Crusades: The Integration of Cilician Armenians with the Latins (1080–1393). Abingdon, United Kingdom, 2000.
• Michael the Syrian. The Chronicle of Michael the Great, Patriarch of the Syrians. Translated by R. Bedrosian. Long Branch, 2013.
• Michael the Syrian. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (the Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Translated by Matti Moosa. Teaneck, NJ, 2014.
• Takahashi, Hidemi. “Simeon of Qal’a Rumaita, Patriarch Philoxenus Nemrod and Bar Ebroyo.” In Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, vol. 4, no. 1 (2001).
• https://turkarkeolojienstitusu.org/

Photos courtesy of Habertürk.