Bar Saumas

Black Sea Journey

Ahmet M. Zehirolu
(Translated from the Turkish1 by Paula Darwish)
Rabban Bar Sauma2, a Nestorian monk of Mongolian origin, is one of the most
interesting individuals of the 13th century. The tribe he belonged to was connected to
the Nestorian Church, which had developed as a Christian sect under the protection
of Iran and enjoyed a wide following in this period. Bar Sauma began his career as
one of the favourite clerics of the Nestorian congregation and his fame spread rapidly
as he assumed his duties in the milieu of Kublai Khan, who at that time held political
power across almost the entire continent of Asia. Around the middle of the 1270s, at
the suggestion of one of his students, Marcos, he decided to travel to Jerusalem and
set off for this long journey, which would last for months, with the material and moral
support of the local congregation and the palace. The special paiza3, which bore the
seal of Kublai Khan, helped him to travel safely through the countries of the great
Mongolian Confederation, reaching as far as Baghdad in the west. Around 1280, he
finally reached the confederations most westerly part, Iran, which was ruled by the
Ilkhanate, also of the same Mongolian origins as Bar Sauma. His arrival in the place
where Nestorianism had set root and flourished attracted a good deal of interest, but
at the same time it was here that he learnt of the ongoing hostilities in Palestine which
prevented him completing the remaining part of his journey on to Jerusalem. As a
consequence, Bar Sauma for a while joined the body of the Nestorian patriarchate
centred in Baghdad and also became an advisor to Abaqa, the leader of the Ilkhanate,
who resided in Tabriz. With the death of the serving Nestorian patriarch and under the
likely influence of the Ilkhanate administration, his assistant and fellow Mongolian,
Marcos, was put in position as the new Nestorian Patriarch in 1281 and given the
name Yahballaha4. Bar Sauma continued his duties as a priest and also carried on his
services to the state in the retinue of Arghun Khan, who came to power after the death
of Abaqa Khan in 1284.

1 Zehirolu, Ahmet M. (2014, Trabzon) "Bar auma'nn Karadeniz Yolculuu"

2 Referred to in different languages as auma, Sauma, awma, Sawma, Savma and other similar configurations, Bar
Sauma took his name from one of the first leaders of the Nestorian sect.
3 Paiza: A type of special diplomatic passport and deed of privilege which is referred to in relation to top-level state
officials and ambassadors, particularly at the time of Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan. It was generally in the form of
a flat, metal token bearing an official seal.
4 Borbone, P. Giorgio 2008

It was at the command of this new ruler that Bar Sauma set off on the second great
journey of his life. The constant hostilities between Arghun Khan and the Muslim
Mamluk state on his western border motivated the Ilkhanate ruler to send Bar Sauma
to Europe as a Christian ambassador, with the aim of trying to persuade the pope and
Europeans to engage in another crusade against the Mamluks. Setting off from Tabriz
bearing the title of Arghun Khans official ambassador, Bar Sauma stopped in
Baghdad, where he was entrusted with gifts and dispatches from the Nestorian
Patriarch which were intended for the pope, before continuing on with his cortege.
Due to hostilities on the coast of the East Mediterranean, he reached his first stop,
Constantinople, by sailing across the Black Sea and from there carried on to Naples,
again by sea. Subsequently, he visited Rome, Genoa, Paris and Bordeaux
respectively, establishing diplomatic contacts there before returning to Arghun Khan,
in Tabriz, after a journey which lasted approximately 1.5 years.

Prince Arghun, Abaqa Khan and attendants (Reidddin Hamedani, Camit-Tevarih)

Bar Sauma recorded all the details relating to his possible route separately, outside of
the written reports he submitted to both the patriarchate and the khanate, but the
original travel log has not survived to the present day. Shortly after he and his
companion, Yahballaha, died, their life stories were recorded in biography style by an
anonymous author writing in the eastern Aramaic dialect. In all probability, the lost
travel log of Bar Sauma was used as a basis for this work. After laying undiscovered
for centuries, towards the end of the 19th century the biography was discovered, by
chance, in the Urmia area of Iran. Along with the parallel life stories of Yahballaha
and Sauma, the work also contains a second hand account of Bar Saumas European

journey. Narrating Bar Saumas journey himself, using the third person singular, it is
highly likely that the writer only related the parts of the story that he found interesting
and details of faraway places to which he personally attached some value. The section
referring to the delegation which set off from the Nestorian patriarchate in Baghdad,
and travelled from the shores of the Black Sea to Constantinople, is narrated with
brief sentences and without revealing any geographical details about the route of this
journey. Not withstanding the disagreements amongst Western translators 5,
particularly with regard to terminology, the most reasonable translation of this short
paragraph is:

...and Rabban Sauma, the most distinguished monk of the patriarchate,

set off with a group of men consisting of his assistants. Thus he reached
the edge of the Great Sea6 in the land of the Romaye and saw the
church there. [There] he boarded a ship along with his retinue. There were
over 300 souls on the ship and he comforted them every day [throughout
the journey] with his sermons. Those on the ship, who were mostly
Romans, held him in some esteem because of his powerful sermons. Thus,
days later they arrived in the great city of Constantinople...
Whether it is earlier translations based on the Bedjan edition, or all the later
translations updated from newer editions, the only point of consensus on this short
paragraph is that the ship must have been boarded at Trebizond 7. However, a few
overlooked details in this short section show that the place where the ship was
boarded was not, and could not have been, Trebizond, and that therefore Bar Saumas
Baghdad-Constantinople journey must have taken a slightly different course to the
one generally assumed. By examining these small, either overlooked or erroneously
interpreted, details together, it is possible to resolve the existing common historical
oversight and reassess the journey in question once more.
(I)Thus he reached the edge of the Great Sea in the land of the Rhomaye: this is
the most controversial statement of the section and has been wrongly interpreted. As
referenced in the culture of the neighbouring, indigenous Colchian culture, the name
the Great Sea undoubtedly refers to the Black Sea in Iranian terminology. However,
in the same Iranian terminology that generally dominates the text, the expression,
Land of the Rhomaye (Romans) does not mean Trebizond, and most certainly refers
to Central and West Anatolia and beyond. The area referred to in the text as Beth
Rhomaye, ie Land of the Romans, is the Sultanate of Rum, which was at the time
under the hegemony of the Ilkhanate and had its centre in Konya. The Great Sea
(i.e. Black Sea) border of this semi-independent country was the present day coast of
Sinop and Samsun. For this reason, the place where the ship was boarded could not
be Trebizond but must have been further west, somewhere along this strip of coast.
5 Montgomery, James 1927 ; Budge E.A.W 1928 ; Borbone, P. Giorgio 2007
6 Chabot, J.Baptiste. 1895
7 Bedjan, Paul 1895 ; Chabot, J.Baptiste 1895 ; Budge E.A.W 1928 ; Borbone, P. Giorgio 2007

(II)[He] saw the church there. [There] he boarded a ship along with his retinue.:
these lines do not correspond to Trebizond, one of the most famous cities of the era.
In 1287, the places where the delegation could have boarded the ship were the
harbours of Ganita and Maitan, and both are a long way from the city. From these
places, Bar Sauma would have seen much more than one church, and with locally
savvy Franciscan attendants by his side, it is improbable that Bar Sauma boarded the
ship and continued the journey without even a mention of the name of the city of
Trebizond. It is similarly unlikely that later on, the anonymous author of the journey
summary judged the name of the city to be unworthy of note and simply omitted it.
At that time, the Emperor of Trebizond was Ioannes II and it is unfeasible that such an
impressive ambassadorial delegation would be able to carry on their journey without
first attending the rulers palace as a matter of course, regardless of where they were
from and where they were heading. In fact, we know this from the passage of other
ambassadorial delegations through Trebizond in previous and later years. For these
reasons, it is clearly not in Trebizond that Bar Sauma boarded the ship.

Black Sea Currents (http://blacksea.orlyonok.ru)

(III) Bar Sauma states that he saw over 300 souls on the ship, mostly Romans. This
would have been quite an extraordinary multitude for that era, and also indicates a
particularly large ship. The only force that could have possessed a ship of such
proportions in the Black Sea area in 1287 was the Genoese 8. Consequently, the ship
boarded by Bar Sauma, is most likely to have been one of the first examples of the
Galea Grossa which were starting to appear at that time. These ships belonged to the
Genoese, who had the greatest tonnage ships of the period and held a trade monopoly
in the Black Sea. The fact that most of those on board the ship were Romans and able
to enjoy a preacher-listener relationship with Bar Sauma throughout the journey
8 In fact, during the same era and just three years before in 1284, at the Battle of Meloria the Genoese had completely
eliminated the Republic of Pisa, their only potential competitor for Black Sea trade. It is also highly unlikely that
Venetian ships would have been able to approach the southern coast of the Black Sea at that time.

indicates that they were not crew, soldiers, servants or galley slaves. The multitude in
question were passengers who for undetermined reasons were in need of consolation.
Along with these details, the flow of the text gives the impression that Bar Sauma did
not board the ship with them, but rather came across them when he boarded the ship.
In other words, he was taken on board a ship full of Romans (Romioi/Rum)
passengers, as an additional passenger, during a stop-off along the route. However, at
that time, the port of Trebizond was not a stop-off along the TrebizondConstantinople-Genoa route, it was the point of departure and as a city still in its
emergence, it did not possess a port capable of handling 300 Roman passengers.
Taking this into consideration, the departure point of the ship must have been
Trebizond and the port at which Bar Sauma got on board was more likely to have
been somewhere to the west of Trebizond.
(IV) Another detail in the text which brings the issue of Trebizond into question is the
statement that Bar Sauma travelled from Trebizond to Constantinople in a length of
time described in ...days.... In that era, this would not have been possible, even in
the most favourable conditions. The average speed of the large tonnage boat he
boarded could have been 1-2 knots at most, and, particularly in the undercurrents of
the southern Black Sea, it could not have taken less than 2-3 weeks to get from
Trebizond to Constantinople. Therefore, for the journey to be described as a matter of
...days... rather than weeks, the time period in question must have been under 15
days, which even taking into account any favourable seasonal wind would still only
indicate the range of a more westerly port.
In that case, if the location was not Trebizond, where exactly on the Black Sea
shores did Bar Sauma board the ship and why was it that he didnt choose
Trebizond?
Bar Sauma arrived in Naples at the end of June in 1287 . This means that he must
have set off from Baghdad in the first weeks of 1287. It is certain that after setting off
from Baghdad, the experienced diplomat Bar Sauma, planning his way to the Black
Sea with a sizeable cortege, would have firstly followed the traditional Assyrian
caravan route running parallel to the Tigris basin, then chosen to pass through Mosul
on the way to another important centre of Nestorianism, Diyar-Bakr. As an
ambassadorial delegation representing both the Nestorian patriarchate and the
Ilkhanate ruler, they would have enjoyed a secure and comfortable journey in these
friendly regions. The cortege must have reached Diyar-Bakr around March 1287.
From there, Bar Sauma and his companions would have had two options for getting
to the Black Sea. It might be supposed that if the person deciding on the most suitable
of these routes was an adventurer or intrepid military commander, they would have
opted for the Trebizond route, which on the map appears the closest as the bird flies,
and therefore continued directly north. However, in deciding between these routes,
there were critical issues that would not have been overlooked by Bar Sauma, a
diplomat of some 60 years of age who had access to local hosts and advisors with
9

9 Paolillo, Maurizio 2009

expert knowledge of regional conditions, and for this reason, his decision would be a
more intelligent choice.

10th and 11th century caravan routes (Frank Harold, 2008)

(V) If Bar Sauma and his companions had headed directly north in those months, they
would have faced the severe winter conditions of the East Anatolia plateau. This elite
delegation, which was mostly made up of elderly clergy and diplomats, would have
had great difficulty in passing over the snow covered mountains of that season in
order to reach Trebizond or the Tabriz-Trebizond caravan route. Even if this had been
possible, further north, the subsequent possibility of the Zigana mountain passes
being completely blocked off would have to be borne in mind.
(VI) The other problem with this route was the risk associated with religious
tensions. It is clear that Bar Sauma was very sensitive to this issue; in fact, he
cancelled his much cherished visit to the sacred lands in Jerusalem for similar
reasons and after that never managed to complete it. It would not have been easy for
such a gentle monk with a company of missionary clergy, effectively a sitting target,
to pass through the lawless mountain tribes and safely reach Trebizond - especially in
a period when the antagonisms of the Crusades were still reverberant. In fact, the
following year, in March 1288, it would be recorded that a group of Franciscan

missionaries, travelling from Trebizond along the same route, had been killed by
local Muslim inhabitants in Erzincan.10
(VII) Another factor which would undoubtedly have been taken into consideration by
Bar Sauma was the security risk posed by bandits and robbers. We know from his
behaviour and choices on previous expeditions that he was cautious in this regard.
For instance, on his way from China to Iran, he did not hesitate to elongate his
journey by choosing a circuitous route, specifically because of the security
problems11. On another expedition in previous years, he had cancelled a journey from
Tabriz to Georgia because of similar risks12. Moreover, on the occasion in question, he
was carrying with him something like 2000 mathkale13 of gold for travel expenses as
well as a cargo of precious gifts, entrusted to him by Arghun Khan, which were to be
presented to the rulers he was planning to visit.
(VIII) In the 1280s, the Empire of Trebizond was beset by civil war and chaos, and
the nature of its relationship with the Ilkhanate state in 1287 is unclear. Consequently,
there is no certainty as to the validity of the paiza of Arghun Khan, or to what degree
it might have been effective in the lands of Trebizond, which may well have still been
experiencing internal conflict at the time.
The wise and experienced diplomat, Rabban Bar Sauma, would most certainly have
evaluated all of these risks and chosen to pass through far safer areas where the
authority of the Ilkhanate could be guaranteed - therefore travelling along the
Melitene-Sebaste road to the port of Simisso14. The paiza of Arghun Khan was, in
some way, his compass. Heading west from Diyar-Bakr, first reaching Melitene, and
from there entering the lands of the Sultanate of Rum, which were under the
protection of the Ilkhanate, Bar Sauma must have reached Sebaste by the same road,
before going on to Simisso, on the Black Sea border of the Sultanate of Rum. Bar
Sauma and his delegation must have reached Simisso around the end of April 1287. It
was here that Bar Sauma boarded a Genoese ship which had stopped off at the port of
Simisso on its way from Trebizond to Constantinople. In all probability, the crowd he
found on the ship were refugees belonging to the urban Byzantine Greek minority
who were fleeing the climate of civil war in Trebizond and retreating to
Constantinople. Statements cited from his travel notes show that, with the help of an
interpreter, he tried to console them with his sermons. The ship boarded by Bar
Sauma, going at full speed in the favourable winds of the season, arrived at his first
official stop, Constantinople, towards the middle of May 1287, and this must have
been how the Black Sea portion of his journey was completed.

10
11
12
13

Civezzo, Marcellino 1858

Rossabi, Morris 1992
Budge, E.A.Wallis 1928
Borbone, P. Giorgio 2007; The term mathkale , which refers to a volume of gold, appears to be connected to the term
shekel but there is no consensus on its actual size, except that it must have been a greater weight than the shekel.
14 Referred to in Ancient Greek sources as Amisos, Samsun appears in medieval Latin sources as Simiso or Simisso.
Until the end of the Middle Ages, it was the site of the Genoese trade centre of the same name .

Bar Saumas probable Black Sea Route

Bibliography:
BEDJAN, Paul

1895
Leipzig

"Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha, patriarche, et

de Raban Sauma"

BORBONE, P. Giorgio

2007
Paris

"Histoire de Mar Yahballaha et de

Rabban Sauma; Un oriental en Occident
a lepoque de Marco Polo"

2008
Pisa

"A 13th Century Journey from China to

Europe; The Story of Mar Yahballaha and
Rabban Sauma" EVO XXXI

BUDGE, E.A.Wallis

1928
London

"The Monks of Kublai Khan

Emperor of China"

CHABOT, J. Baptiste

1895
Paris

"Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III; et du Moine

Rabban auma; Traduite du Syriaque et
Annotee"

CIVEZZO, Marcellino

1858
Roma

"Storia Universale delle Missioni

Francescane"

HAROLD, Frank

2008
Saratoga

"Caravan Routes of Iran" The Silk Road 6/1

MONTGOMERY, James

1927
Newyork

"The History of Yaballaha III ; Nestorian

Patriarch and of his Vicar Bar Sauma"

PAOLILLO, Maurizio

2009
Palermo

"La lettera di Giovanni da Montecorvino

(1247-1328) e il suo incontro con il Re
Ongut Giorgio: un enigma medievale in Asia
Orientale" Mediaeval Sophia, 5

ROSSABI, Morris

1992
Newyork

"Voyager from Xanadu: Rabban Sauma and

the First Journey from China to the West"

Ahmet M. Zehirolu
December 2014, TRABZON

azehiroglu@gmail.com

Version: 14.12.04