Modern historiography, unanimous, considered decisive the role of populations called Maurs then Berbers in the evolution of Roman Africa in the third centuries before the Arab conquest; but it strangeley never tried to explain what could have been this role, wom importance and aspects were only sketched, often in a dark way, within essays or huge synthesis, more richs in general considerations than in scientific analysis. History of Maurs, of their place in african society, of their relationship with succeeding powers between the first crisis symptoms of the Western Roman Empire and the Arab presence, and their possible responsibility in the latter's success, was still to be written down. But we remembered the risky bet that could be such a research project. Even without the usual problems of all Ancient History, this topic had two specific obstacles to overcome that may had greatly limited its range. The first was in the rarity and particular nature of textual sources : Greeks, Latins, Syrians or Arabs, available written sources were almost all issued outside the Berber world and from circles often hostile or despising people considered mainly as barbarians. This first difficulty was increased by the scientific legacy that we recieved. A century and half of educated research on North African Late Antiquity made a really rich base that couldn't be neglected. But in the same time, historiographical analysis unveiled immediately how what we called five evidence prisma distorted or made harder the use of these studies when they mentioned Berbers.
Allying their influence, these two phenomenons exerted a particularly reducing effect on the studies devolved to Maurs of the Byzantine period, the era that this study had to privilege as the last before the collapse of romanity in Africa, and in the same time the one that in its initial phase, let us most sources. Relationship between Byzantines and Berbers were almost always seen as only a face of an history that was first about the Empire. And the difficulties regarding documentation for some, an ideological bias for many, reduced this topic to a study of military means used by Greeks to submit barbarians considered as naturally hostiles.
Then, we wanted there, and it was the fundamental base of our research, consider at the contrary every form of relationship of Byzantines, but as well Romans and Vandals, with Berbers in an African perspective first, and not a roman, vandal or byzantine one. Without trying to systematically "reverse" history, and never neglecting other social groups present then in Africa, this study was mainly based on Maurs themselves, whom identity was the great mystery of this time. Eternal Jugurthas or disguised Africans for scholars, they were always submitted to the quest of the one definition, that by principle disregarded their complexity. Radically opposed to C.Courtois, P.A. Février own his thesis of the ambigious Maur only trough this shared bias. Basing the criticism of sources on the maur identity, our method tried to take the problem to its source, with much hope as it was accompanied by a parallel hypothesis : the apparent instability and chaos of Berber history between the Vth and VIIth centuries may be explained first by their own structures, and critically from their integration in African romanity. To use the chosen example, understanding of apparently really confuse events of Libyan Wars of 530-550 could be based more, according this hypothesis, on a highlighting of the complexity of Maur world on which the Empire was confronted, and on the perception that the latter had, rather than a study about military problems or byzantine administration.
Was this hypothesis profitable? Summaries of recorded results seems at least proving that it deserved to be followed. After a preliminary critical analysis of the exceptional source that are Vandalic War of Procopus and critically Johannide of Corripos, and the elaboration of an utilization method for this texts, a first representation of the maur world imposed itself, characterized both by its important presence in the new byzantine Africa, but as well by its fundamental division in two categories. Based on two of the analysis criterium seen previously and that had fortunatly inspired Corippos's reflexion, the insertion degree in the Empire and the attitude before it, this division opposed groups considered as within the provinces and accustomed to romanity, and groups defined as "syrtics", considered foreign to the roman world and its civilization. Considered and written down by a direct witness, a Roman of Africa of 550's, this division broke right from the beggining all clichés on the one and intemporal Maur. The study demonstrated then its relevance, deepeining the original characters of each group.
Began on the syrtic peoples, localized on the modern libyian territory, this study was blocked quickly by the aforementioned historiogaphical obstacles. On two groups, Austuriania and Laguatan, was elaborated a grand theory assimilating many "syrtic" tribes to a "new race, Neoberbers" : defined as hords of camel-ridders akin to modern Tuareg, these tribes were supposed to be engaged since the IIIrd century in a great East/West migration, leading them to invade the most romanised provinces of Africa, and first Byzacena, since the end of Vth or early VIth, beforme taking over Maghreb in the following centuries. Widespread since half a century, this theory implied both a socio-cultural definition of the whole of Maur peoples, and an interpretation of Berbero-Byzantine conflicts, the essential objectives of this very book. Without accepting it or rejecting it at first, we used it at first as a base hupothesis on our study about "Outer Maurs", considering the possibility to abandon it if it was to be inefficient at some point.
And this is what effectively happened. Critical analyisis and collation of an important lot of sources often neglected lead us to propose a new representation of Laguatan and of their semi-desertic Libya's neighbors. Issued probably from ancient Nasmons, Laguatan and Austuriania, clearly pagans and that practiced a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life, never went in Antiquity in great migrations to the West. Excluding exceptional raiding in 544-548, they at the contrary continuously searched, and eventually succeeded, to take the control of the Tripolitan, then Cyrenean predesert, where Arabs found them in the VIIth century.
This conclusion, confirming while limiting them, the particularities of the syrtic ensemble, strengthened as well the distinction of "Inner Maurs" relatively to this group. Without early migrations of great nomads in Byzacena or Numidia, we had to suppose that maurs populations of these regions determined themselves their fate, relatively of an original socio-economical and cultural evolution, that was still to be examined.
This part of the study was the longer and in the same time, the most decisive as it was about the less known groups of african society, living in former romanized regions, quickly christianized in the IIIrd and IVrd centuries, and without native urprising between the Ist and Vth centuries. Presence, number, past and critically the identity of these population in Corripus and Procopius' era created many questions. We had then in a first time, by a precise study of their three main representants of the mid VIth, Antalas, Cusina, and Iaudas, be sure of their localisation, then attempt to understand, wondering about their past, what justified both their classification as Maurs and their particular status. The density of chapters that was develloped on this questionary only reflects the complexity of the answer. Any too global view became wrong. On the chronological matter first, as it appeared that a part of the VIth Maurs was issued from populations that in the Vth weren't officially considered as such; on the social and cultural matter then, as a suite of intermediary situation could be guessed in "Maur" country between Afri and Mauri: on religion then, as the christianisation of tribes was extremly unequal. Inner Maurs' past have both the representation of latinized and christianized chiefs as the imperator Masties in Aurès, and highlanders as dark as Frexes of Guenfan in Byzacena S-W; it unites tribes that in the IVth had an acknowledged automony under the leadership of customary chiefs or prefects, and rural communauties agglomerated in villages in roman demesnes. Key of all the behaviroial ambigiuities to people as Antalas or Cusina face to the byzantine power, this past didn't obliterated an essential reality, that was clearly percieved by their Africano-Roman neighbours and established their unity : these populations all became in the mid VIth "Maurs" because they were integrated to a tribal structure. Neither strictly politic, religious or cultural, the base of their collective identity, highlighted by Corippos, was before everything the gens.
A far more flexible structure than modern historiography implies, totally compatible with Roman citizenship, tribe indeed survived in Byzacena and southern Numidia even in the IVth century, but depending on the situation, in two different levels : either it remained an autonomous entity with an official status; or it was only an organisation of village's social relationships, able to maintain a living reality even for groups serving great landowners. Its existance within provinces didn't mattered to the Empire : with their leaders invested by governors or prefects, even official tribes, with roman citizenship, christanized or about to be, were indeed peaceful and probably more or less integrated to roman economical structures. The regular silence of contemporary sources is less surprising, as well the absence of native agitation movements. These were generally rare in central provinces, as the Berber policy of the Empire allied fortunatly strength, flexibility and pragmatism. Rome didn't distinguished two, but probably three Maur categories. Face to Inner Maurs, it knew and tried to isolate a given number of unstable saharian groups, for exemple in the south of Tobna or in Tripolitana. Against these gens, limes was maintained, but most of all reinforced by agreements with a third kind of tribes, placed to the borders. Some of these officialy served the Empire as gentiles units, other contended to enjoy the roman neighborhood, gaining the right to lead their cattle in province, or selling their goods or workforce.
This balanced system was only gradually put in question in the Vth century. Probably shaken by the Vandal invasion, it collapsed only after the 480's, for reason still unknown, probably as much political than economical : inner difficulties of Hasding regime, issued mostly from its religious policy, mixed themselves to an impoverishment of southern Byzacena and Numidia counryside, maybe provoked by a slight climatic oscillation. Saharians progression in Tripolitana then began, leading little by little bordering tribes whom originality disappeared. In the same time, more in the North, first uprising appeared, sometimes to the initiative of second circle tribes, there too with a rising effective of gentes, that absorbed thanks to the flexibility of their structure, a destabilized rural proletariat. Increased continuously in the following half-century, this movement produced definitive effect with the Byzantine presence : duality of the Berber world, clearly drawn, when the inner complexity of each of these great groups, Inner and Outer Maurs, increased.
Did Justinian's men knew and understood this extreme complexity? Our work points that they came in 533 while largely ignoring it. Underestimating difficulties, and ignoring critically the originality of the Inner Maur group, Byzantines provoked a fighting process that may have been wished for by Romans of Africa. The seemed to have first compromised with the gentes presence in the provinces, using the clear will to find a modus vivendi with the Empire.
In reality, referring to a largely unrealistic and artificial mode, Justinian's men worked, as soon Vandals defeated, to eliminate these communities judged all equally foreign and barbarians. A first wave of conflict was born out of it, whom the Empire managed to take the upper hand only by changing of strategy, and compromising with some leaders. Once the peace established and the roman power reinforced, the prefect Solomon didn't renounced to the schema designed by Justinian in 533 and it definitely seem that these initiatives caused the great wars of 544-548. Succession of defeats for three years, they weren't catastrophic for Constantinople : heterogeneity of the coalition uniting Inner Maurs and syrtic tribes was translated indeed by divergent strategies, preventing every decisive victory. Jean Troglita and the return to realism once practiced by Solomon in 546 saved imperial position in Africa : the byzantine general eventually choose to come back to Fall 533 situation, acknowledging inside provinces maur communities, that with leaders and particular customs, maintained a relative autonomy.
That this balance, if it had been chosen since 533, would have been unstable anyway, the few we know of the post-548 seems to prove it with the short mentions of Maur wars in the chronicles. Still, the lack of knowledge of african realities by the byzantine power certainly aggravated a political crisis developped since the end of Vth century, that could have, at term, lead to a Berbero-ROman society akin to the model we see then in Mauretania. The tentative of Imperator Masties in Aures unveil the possibilities of such process. Byzantine reconquest then broke this evolution, not wished, admittedly, by Romans of Africa if Corripos is to be trusted. Then was recreated an isolate of traditional romanity in a western world where everywhere could be seen cultural and social fusion between Latins and Barbarians. The history of this isolated, between 548 and first Islamic attacks, wasn't reduced to a succession of war : it did had its time of prosperity, as discovered more and more by archeologists. But in all Arab texts, insisting on the distinction in Ifrikiyya of Berbers, Afarik and Rum, does prove that the byzantine era maintained communautarian firm distinction that Justinian laws and Solomon strongholds proclaimed right from the beginning.
And still, potentialities of the multiples nuances of African societies, and particularly maurs, didn't disappeared by the VIIth century, as proven by the history of the Arab conquest, and the first appearance of Botr/Branès that achieve this book. Outer Maur submission, Botr, was made in Cyrenaica and Tripolitan in mere years, and since the 670's Lawata and Zenata were associated to Islamic expeditions. On the contrary, in Byzacena and Numidia, in the Inner Maur country, renamed Branès maybe because of the christianisation, conquerors were opposed by regular alliance of Berbers and Romans, lead by greek Gregoire, Berber Kusayla and then, at least in the first part of this adventure, by the famed and mysterious Kahina. These spontaneous unions point well all the synthesis possibilities that could have appeared one century earlier between each side.
They lead us to close this book on what should be more than a paradox. C.Courtois, achieving his thesis, tought that the real drama of roman Africa wasn't the Vandal invasion, but the riebirth of a Berber world remained itself, meaning rejecting necessary the romanity. At the end of this long study, we wonder if the real rupture in this history wasn't the byzantine reconquest. Without this, in an easter Maghreb where the roman influence was really strong, the Maur expansion could have lead, not without violence, to a berbero-roman civilisation, original and dirable, as was merovingian civilisation in Gaul. The "divine surprise" that was Belisarius' successful expedition, aprooved by a roman society proclaiming its fear of the Maur, broke this possibility. Maybe did it as well condamned the future of the romanity it claimed to save.
