80 dominique valérian
Mediterranean and, consequently, of Europe. The problem is that Lombard based his
interpretation mainly on descriptions of the world made by Arab geographers from
the ninth century onwards—texts that do not provide adequate information for the
transitional period of the seventh and eighth centuries. Furthermore, for all its contri-
butions to our knowledge of late antiquity, archaeology is still fuzzy when it comes to
ceramic chronology prior to the ninth century. For archeologists Hodges and
Whitehouse, if the Muslim conquests were not responsible for the crisis, neither did
they cause a rapid recovery: “between the reign of Heraclius and the Arab raids of the
ninth century, internal relations within the Mediterranean were reduced to an almost
‘prehistoric’ scale” (1983: 75).
Nevertheless, some evidence shows continuing activity on the shores of the
Mediterranean. In areas conquered by Muslims, ports such as Alexandria or Tyre
show both military (shipbuilding) and economic activity from the beginning of
the eighth century (Sijpesteijn, 2004; Borrut, 1999–2000: 5). Similarly, Michael
McCormick demonstrates that, from the beginning of Muslim rule, European pil-
grims continued to travel to Palestine by sea, and their travel accounts show the cir-
culation of Muslim ships as far as southern Italy (McCormick, 2001). We also know
that under the pontificate of Zacharias (741–752), some Venetian merchants bought
slaves in Rome to sell in Africa, provoking papal condemnation. Though it would be
imprudent to overestimate the extent of these exchanges, trade and navigation never
completely ceased, either on the Christian or on the Muslim side.
To sum up: although there was undoubtedly a slowdown in Mediterranean trade
compared to the classical period, we should avoid looking for a single cause, a sole
event that would signal the beginning of the “medieval Mediterranean.” Despite the
renaissance during Justinian’s reign, the difficulties characterizing the end of the
Roman Empire contributed to the political and economic compartmentalization of
the Mediterranean and the reduction of exchanges between its eastern and western
parts. The Muslim conquest brought a new regional power and a new source of con-
flicts, thus contributing also to the break-up of the Roman unity of the Mediterranean
in late antiquity. This was the end of a unique configuration in the history of the
Mediterranean, characterized by political and economic unity under a single Empire,
a configuration often seen as a model, despite the fact that it accounts for a relatively
brief historical period. The medieval period, in contrast, is characterized by competi-
tion between regional powers for both political and economic control of the
Mediterranean and its networks.
From Muslim to Latin MediterraneanUntil the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the shores of the Mediterranean were hence-
forth shared and disputed between Muslim (in the south and east), Byzantine (north-
east) and Latin (north-west) powers. The balance of power among these three regions
evolved over time. Until the tenth century, western Europe’s difficulties and the
establishment of the Carolingian capital far to the north left the Mediterranean to
Byzantium and, above all, to the Muslims. Gradually, however, Latin naval powers—
first Italian then also Catalano–Aragonese—succeeded in dominating the western, but
also the eastern Mediterranean, marginalizing Byzantine and Muslim powers. None
of these states, however, was ever able to exercise hegemonic control over the entire