Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Administration

1.1. Early Byzantine period to the 6th century

The province of Asia, in the confines it is known since the Early Byzantine period and henceforth, was created after the administrative reform of Diocletian (284-305), which involved the separation of political and military powers. The large proconsularis provincia of Asia of the Roman period was divided in seven parts: the provinces of Asia, Neson, Lydia, Caria, Phrygia Pacatiana, Phrygia Salutaria and Pamphylia.¹With this partition, the province of Asia was cut off from the eastern lands beyond the valley of Hermus and its tributaries, from the north section of the Hellespont as well as from the south section beyond the valley of Maeander. The province of Asia thus included the western coasts of Asia Minor from the gulf of Adramyttion to the estuary of the Maeander River. Diocletian created larger administrative districts which included provinces, the dioceses. These dioceses were governed by a vicarius and were, in turn, subsumed under even larger administrative districts (the praefecturae praetorio) and were controlled by the respective praetorian prefect (praefectus praetorio). The province of Asia was subsumed, territorially at least, under the Diocese of Asiana (which it terms of its extent corresponded to the earlier Roman province of Asia). In fact, however, the province of Asia was autonomous and was administratively directly subsumed to the praefectura praetorio per Orientem, to which the Asiana diocese also belonged. Late in Diocletian’s reign, the governor of the province of Asia still originated from the class of the Roman senators, he possessed the title spectabilis (i.e. the same title awarded to the governors of the dioceses, that pertained to the senate's middle stratum) and the office proconsul. The governor of Asia could by-pass the authority of the vicarius and appeal directly to the praetorian prefect of the East (praefectus praetorio per Orientem). The governor, who resided in Ephesus, had functions wholly political in nature (administrative, judiciary, financial). The province of Asia at any rate did not feature an official charged with military functions, as no standing army was stationed here.

1.2. The transitional period: From the provinces to the themes (6th-7th centuries)

Justinian I’s (527-565) reforms, which involved the unification of military and political functions of the officials of certain regions, mark the beginning of a process which led to the creation of the theme institution. Of all of Justinian I’s reforms, only the abolition of the office of the Asiana vicarius impacted the province of Asia, due to the financial functions this official exercised throughout the areas of this diocese. It is likely -though no specific mention is made in the legislation of this emperor- that the measures taken to combat corruption in the provinces pertained to the province of Asia as well. Moreover, the province of Asia is described as an ‘unarmed’ province,² because no troops were stationed in its lands. The army that was stationed in the 7th cent. in the province of Asia and its neighbouring provinces (Lydia, Caria and part of Phrygia Pacatiana) was then under the command of the magister militum per Thracias, which later lend its name to the new administrative region, the theme of Thrakesion. It is believed that the stationing of troops in the areas of the future theme of Thrakesion occurred during the reign of Emperor Heraklios or soon after³ and constituted the most important change in the province of Asia since the time of Diocletian. In the 8th century the consequences became apparent on a military, administrative and financial level. The transition from the early Byzantine system of administration to the Middle Byzantine system of the themes, however, was not abrupt. In a sense, the survival of the older administrative system can be seen in the inscribed seals of the commerciarii, the horrearii and the dioiketes dating to the second half of the 7th century and the first half of the 8th century. During the 7th century the horreum of Asia appears to be conjoined to the horrea of the nearby provinces or those of the Aegean islands. It is therefore possible that the provinces continued to exist, at least as financial regions.⁴ At the same time, in the "taktikon Uspenskij" (a precedence list), dating to 842/3, and the work "de Ceremonii Aulae byzantini" of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (10^th century), which includes a ceremonial dating to the first half of the 9th century, still mentioned are the praefectus praetorio and the proconsuls, praefects and praetors of the themes. According to Oikonomidès, these officials were civil governors of the themes, whose offices originated in the Early Byzantine period.⁵ The other sources, however, make no specific mention of the province of Asia and it is in fact unknown when this province ceases to have an administrative dimension.

2. Cities

2.1. Urban network

The Roman Empire took over the control of western Asia Minor from the empire of the Seleucids, who had promoted the establishment of new cities. These cities were autonomous, had their own councils, officials and their own local economy, and freely regulated their internal affairs. Notwithstanding the fact that this remained so in the Early Byzantine period, the state intensely tried to centralize administrative, judiciary and political authority in Constantinople, while it constantly intervened in the financial affairs of the cities. By the 6th century, this generalized tendency had resulted in a gradual decrease of civic autonomy. Moreover, according to Haldon, in the 7th century the cities had no real role in the administrative and financial institutional framework of the empire. A possible exception for this period (6th-7th centuries) in the province of Asia was Ephesus, which is probably attributable to the city's commercial importance.⁶

The main sources on the cities of Asia Minor during the Early Byzantine period are the acta of the Ecumenical Councils of the Early Byzantine period and the Synekdemos of Hierokles (6th century).⁷ During the First Ecumenical Council (325 at Nicaea), the province of Asia appears to be ecclesiastically conjoined to the province of Hellespont, notwithstanding the fact that the Hellespont was administratively separate from the province of Asia, probably as early as in Diocletian’s era. During this period we have the appearance of seven bishops originating from seven cities, three of which belonged to the Hellespont province. In 431, during the Third Ecumenical Council, at Ephesus, there are mentioned 26 bishops attending from a corresponding number of cities of Asia. In the 451 Council (the Fourth Ecumenical, at Chalcedon) 19 bishops showed up, while a further 20 bishops had sent representatives. Finally, in the Synekdemos of Hierokles (6th century) 43 cities of the province of Asia are mentioned, arranged in a geographical order. These sources reveal a steady increase in the number of bishops originating from cities of the province of Asia. The importance of this piece of information rests on a law of Emperor Zeno that the bishoprics should be located in cities, i.e. in all settlements helding the status of city. Thus the province of Asia, which featured more than forty cities in the 6th century, was probably one of the most urbanized and most densely populated provinces of the empire.

2.2. Concilium provinciae

Already before the reign of Diocletian (284-305), in the province of Asia a council was convened where the representatives of the cities met (concilium provinciae). During these councils common problems the cities faced were discussed. The council could denounce an oppressive official or burdensome taxation in the province and sent representatives to Constantinople for various reasons. The council also elected the sacerdos provinciae, a high priest responsible for the worship of Rome and the emperor. In the province of Asia, the sacerdos provinciae was simply called asiarches and possessed the title of sacerdotalis. The asiarches was responsible for the organization of games in the context of the celebrations of the imperial cult. These games were held in the metropolis of the province, Ephesus, but in 375 Emperor Valens (364-378) passed a law with which it was decreed that the games will be hosted by rotation in the four cities of the province of Asia which bore the horary title of metropolis - the financial burden that the hosting of the games imposed on the city was very onerous.

3. Economy

During the Early Byzantine period, the province of Asia was by and large a financially prosperous region, a fact attributable to the peaceful conditions that prevailed, its mild climate and fertile lands. Its economy was mainly agrarian. The land belonged to the state, the Church and large land-owners, the cities and small land-owners. The civic lands had been confiscated since the reigns of Constantine I (the Great) (306/324-337) and Constantius II (337/340-361), while the state missed no opportunity to seize deserted lands. The state and the large land-owners sought to increase their estates, but the lack of evidence does not allow us to say whether in the province of Asia the majority of the lands belonged to large or small land-owners. Two fragments from inscriptions dating to the early 4th century and containing lists from Magnesia on the Maeander and Tralleis, reveal that the majority of the landholdings in this region were of medium size.⁸

The fertile valleys of the province of Asia produced mainly grain and barley; viticulture and oliveculture were also widespread. Along the coastline of Asia Minor several important harbours facilitated commercial activities. The port of Ephesus, the province’s capital, was the largest, but there were other harbours, like those of Smyrna and Phokaea as well as several smaller ones which served their respective hinterlands. This was an important factor for the prosperity of the cities of the province of Asia, for the large roadways from the interior of Asia Minor led to these ports, allowing farmers to easily market their produce. It is unknown how the modifications of the institution of the cursus publicus, carried out by Emperor Justinian I, affected the province of Asia and commercial activity in its ports. Ioannes Lydos inveighs against this measure with respect to its implementation in the diocese of Asiana. According to this author, this measure resulted in the produce of the farmers rotting on their fields for there was no way to transport them to places where these could be sold.⁹

1. During the reigns of Galerius and Maximinus (305-311) the province of Pisidia was detached from the province of Lycaonia and annexed to the diocese of Asiana. See Jones, Α., The Later Roman Empire. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. I (Oxford 1964), pp. 43, 284-602.

2. See Jones, Α., The Later Roman Empire. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. I (Oxford 1964), p. 45.

3. Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990), pp. 215-216, 220.

4. Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990), p. 195ff.

5. Τακτικά Πρωτοκαθεδρίας, Oikonomides, Ν. (ed.), Les listes de preseance byzantines des IXe et Xe siecles (Paris 1972), pp. 294, 343, 344. See also Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990), p. 201ff. According to Haldon the proconsuls and prefects of the 9th century possessed the most important political powers in the theme, while the praetors only possessed judiciary functions in the various provinces of the themes. This hypothesis does not appear to be confirmed by the taktikon Uspenskij (Precedence List).

6. Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990), pp. 98-99.

7. These conclusions are expressed with the reservation that in no council was attended by all of the bishops of a province.

8. Jones, Α., The Later Roman Empire. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. II (Oxford 1964), p. 784. This assessment stands with the reservation that the fragments are very small and feature a small number of land-holdings.

9. Ioannes Lydos, Powers or The Magistracies of the Roman State, ed. A. Bandy (Philadelpheia 1983), pp. 228-230. John Lydos, however, probably had in mind the conditions that prevailed specifically in Lydia.