(This paper is based on the lecture which I gave at the annual general meeting of SHIGAKU-KAI, The Historical Society of Japan, held on the 5th November 1977 at the University of Tokyo.) In what sense can one speak of the "Mediterranean World" in antiquity? What does "world" mean, when one speaks of the "Mediterranean World"? There must be a common principle, by which one can regard the vast and various areas around the Mediterranean Sea as a "world." There is no question that the domination of the Roman Empire only realized the Mediterranean world as a "world". The question is on what her domination was based. Was it based on the mere "imperialistic policy" that was hardly related to this principle? These are the questions which I posed in the lecture ; and I answered as follows. It was because of the existence of a kind of law peculiar to the Mediterranean areas, under the influence of which communities there developed, that one can understand the Mediterranean regions in antiquity, in spite of wide varieties within them, as a united "world." I call the communities, which developed under the force of the law peculiar to the Mediterranean areas, "citizen-communities". And the domination of the Roman Empire also, I think, was brought about by the policy which Rome as a citizen-community adopted against the tendency of her community to dissolve itself, the tendency resulted from its development under the force of this law peculiar to those areas. From such an understanding of the Mediterranean world and the Roman Empire, I proceed to explain the structure of the social classes as follows. Rome,the most developed citizen-community, is to be regarded as the governing class of the Mediterranean world, but as governed classes one must see on the one hand a great many other communities (civitates peregrinae) which were dominated politically by Rome, and on the other, a great many peoples (slaves) who were robbed of their own communities by Rome. Accordingly, I suggest, the Mediterranean world may be said to have begun to break down when the citizen-communities were thought to have stopped developing, while there began to break out more and more violent slave uprisings and native revolts both of which are to be understood as the movements to recover their own communities or to reestablish them. From these theoretical standpoints, I sought to reinterpret the development of the Mediterranean world in antiquity.

View full abstract

This is a study of the role Sadun of the house of Artsruni and his son Khutlu-Bugha played in the expansion of the Il-Khanid rule over the Georgian Kingdom in the 13th century. Sadun was a great grandson of Amir K'urd (Abulasan), the governor of Tbilisi during Queen Tamar's reign in Georgia. In 1258 (or 1259), he won a wrestling match in the presence of Hulegu Khan and received the honorable status of t'arkhan. He joined Hulegu's Syrian campaign, which began in the autumn of 1259 and was placed in the vanguard. He distinguished himseif during the conquest of Sasun and the seizure of the citadel of Allepo. For these services, Sadun was awarded with an official commendation from Hulegu and was granted the district of Sasun. Sadun was originally a vassal of Avag Zak'arean, a Georgian King's prince (eristavi, or ishkhan in Armenian), and a seignior of Haghbat and Mahkanaberd. Around the time of the above promotions, he was an at'abak of Avag's heiress Khoshak but later, he became her chamberlain or khejub to guard and assist her. Under Hulegu, Sadun was never given any official titles of the Bagratid Kingdom. However, after the enthronement of Abaqa as the Il-Khan, Sadun received the titles of atabegi (or regent) and amir-spasarali (or commander in chief), and gained administrative power over the Batratid Kingdom. He was entrusted by the Kings with the power to control the royal domains of T'elavi, Belakani and Kars. In addition, he purchased the district of Dmanisi from King Dimitri II. Together, Sadun's estates made up the fourth political unit in Georgian Armenia in addition to the three units belonging to the branch families of the Zak'areans. we can assume that he was able to acquire wealth because he was a t'arkhan, After Sadun's death in 1282, one of his two titles, the amir-spasarali was given to his son Khutlu-Bugha, but the other, the atabegi was given to his rival Tarsayichi of the house of Orbelean. In 1289, Khutlu-Bugha recommended that Il-Khan Arghun kill King Dimitri (who had been arrested for being implicated in the plot of Bugha) and put Vakhtangi, the son of King Daviti IV on the throne. His plan succeeded. Under Vakhtangi, Khutlu-Bugha became both the atabegi and the amir-spasarali and secured political power over the Georgian Kingdom. In 1292, however, both Arghun and Vakhtangi died. As soon as Daviti, the son of Dimitri, ascended to the throne, Khutlu-Bugha was put to death by the order of the new khan Geikhatu. With his death, the power of the Artsrunis was eradicated from the entire Bagratid territory. The rise of Sadun Artsruni is a good example illustrating the pattern of socio-political control the Il-Khans had over the native dynasties. The Il-Khans' system of appointments as kings, vassals or arriere-vassals, of those who were faithful and useful to them, had worked effectively. They ruled over the Bagratid territory through the kingship, which was never handed outside the royal family of Bagratid and through the offices of the atabegi and the amir-spasarali. These latter were not confined to any one family, but were easily given to those, like Sadun, who were useful to the Il-Khans.

View full abstract