212 CHAPTER SEVENuit yas a discrete field of stud y(and therefore lives on as a prejudice), that is,
that high-qualit y“classical” architecture and design were impossible after the
middle of the third centur yand that therefore high qualit yimplies an earl y
date, and crudit ya late date. In realit y, apparent differences in qualit ytell us
more about social and economic differences, or differences in esthetic sensi-
bilities or religious predispositions, or about the prejudices of scholars, than
about chronology.
A Booming Economy?
Since the classic stud yof G. Tchalenko, it has been commonplace to explain
the explosion in construction in S yria and Palestine in late antiquit yb ysup-
posing that there was an economic boom between the fourth and sixth centu-
ries; more recentl yit has been argued that the era of prosperit ycontinued
even beyond the middle of the sixth century, to the very eve of the Muslim
conquest.^39 Tchalenko argued that the boom was related to the rise of olive
monoculture in some areas, but this view now needs to be qualified.^40 It has
more recentl ybeen suggested that the boom was fueled b ydevelopments
outside the traditional eastern Mediterranean economy, especially in Arabia,
the evidence for which is that pre-Islamic Arabic poems sometimes mention
products imported from Syria.^41 The influence of the rise of Constantinople
on the Syrian economy should also be considered.
In addition to factors that affected Syria generally, Palestine was the benefi-
ciar yof Christian theolog y, which led to extensive investment b ythe emperors
and other grandees in ecclesiastical and monastic foundations. But Avi-Yonah
was right to be equivocal about the effects of Christianit yon the Palestinian
economy. Much Christian investment had only short-term consequences; for
example, church construction created onl ybrief spurts of demand for labor.
And much investment was absolutel yunproductive: all the silver plate depos-
(^39) See G. Tchalenko,Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord, 3 vols. (Paris: Paul Geuthner,
1953–1958); for reservations about some of Tchalenko’s conclusions, see G. Tate, “La Syrie a l’e ́poque byzantine: Essai de synthese,” in J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann, eds.,Arche ́ologie et
Historie de la Syrie ii(Saarbru ̈cken: Saarbru ̈cker Druckerei und Verlag, 1989, pp. 96–116. For
arguments that the boom lasted into the seventh century, see M. Whittow, “Ruling the Late
Roman and Earl yB yzantine Cit y.”
(^40) Tate,Les campagnes, demonstrated that the limestone massif had been inhabited since the
first centur y, that its econom ydepended heavil yon grain culture and livestock, and that the
villages in the region were more traditionall yrural—more agriculturall yoriented, less planned,
less economicall ydiverse—than Tchalenko had supposed. Nevertheless, he too attributed the
burst of construction in the late fifth centur yto the production of olive oil, marketed not interna-
tionall ybut mainl yto the surrounding cities.
(^41) See Sartre,Bostra, pp. 119–39.