From Pirate to Admiral: The Tale of Barbarossa

 

The island of Lésbos, in the Aegean Sea, is now part of Greece, but between 1462 and 1912, it lay under Turkish dominion. During the 1470s Lésbos was the birthplace of one of the Ottoman Empire’s greatest heroes. The Mediterranean pirate who would ultimately be remembered as Barbarossa (Italian for “Redbeard”) went by many names during his career: Khiḍr, Hayreddin Pasha, the “Pirate of Algiers,” and even the “King of the Sea,” but the name Barbarossa began as an appellation for him and his brother ʿArūj (or Oruç)—the Barbarossa brothers.

The Barbarossa brothers were already experienced pirates in the Mediterranean when Spain completed its conquest of Granada in 1492, defeating the last vestige of Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula, and Muslim immigrants from the region took refuge in North Africa. By 1505 the Spanish and the Portuguese were looking to make territorial gains in North Africa, and they began to attack coastal cities. Enraged by these attacks on fellow Muslims, Khiḍr and ʿArūj served as privateers under the direction of Korkud (one of the sons of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid II) to disrupt Spanish and Portuguese shipping in the western Mediterranean. The sultan’s death in 1512, however, spawned a succession fight between his sons Ahmed and Selim. Selim defeated Ahmed and began a purge of Ahmed’s supporters. Selim was also distrustful of Korkud, and he executed him. In response, the Barbarossa brothers fled to North Africa to separate themselves from a government that likely would have been hostile to them, and they joined the region’s various kingdoms in their struggles against Spain.

Over the next three years, the Barbarossa brothers rose in prominence among the North African communities and preyed on Spanish and Portuguese shipping as independent corsairs. In 1516, forces under the brothers’ command attacked Algiers, and the city fell to ʿArūj. The Ottomans recognized this development as an opportunity to expand their influence in North Africa, and they offered their funding and political support to the brothers (which allowed ʿArūj and Khiḍr to consolidate their gains). The Ottomans then offered the nominal titles of governor of Algiers to ʿArūj and chief sea governor of the western Mediterranean to Khiḍr, but the brothers were not yet full-fledged subjects of the Ottoman Empire. 

ʿArūj died battling the Spanish in 1518, and the Spanish recaptured Algiers the following year. During this period, Khiḍr (now known as Hayreddin) assumed the title Barbarossa and stepped up to continue the fight, for which he sought help from the Ottomans. Although Algiers changed hands several times over the next decade, the region it controlled became known as the Regency of Algiers, the first corsair state, which was autonomous but grew more and more dependent upon the Ottoman military for protection over time. The Ottomans would later use Algiers as their primary base of operations in the western Mediterranean.

Barbarossa’s formal association with the Ottomans grew over the same period. Süleyman the Magnificent, who had become sultan after Selim’s death, captured Rhodes in 1522 and installed Barbarossa as the beylerbeyi(governor). After Barbarossa and his forces captured Tunis in 1531, Süleyman made him the grand admiral (kapudan pasha) of the Ottoman Empire, and he served as admiral in chief of the Ottoman navy.

Perhaps Barbarossa’s most famous battle was his victory at Preveza (in Greece) in 1538 over a combined fleet with elements from Venice, Genoa, Spain, Portugal, Malta, and the Papal States. The key to his victory was his use of galleys instead of sailing ships. Because galleys were driven by oars and thus did not depend on the wind, they were more maneuverable and reliable on the sides of bays and islands shielded from the wind than sailing ships were. Barbarossa defeated the combined force by using only 122 galleys against 300 sailing ships. His victory opened Tripoli and the eastern Mediterranean to Ottoman rule. After Barbarossa led additional military campaigns, including one in which he assisted the French against the Habsburgs in 1543 and 1544, he died in Constantinople in 1546.

SOURCE 

John P. Rafferty

Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, Le 30 juin 1960, Zaïre indépendant

 

How does one learn about history? In my case, I have learned about the histories of the United States and other countries through history classes and lectures, history books, novels, period dramas, museums, monuments, and visiting historical landmarks. People also learn about history from family stories passed down from generation to generation, from oral histories, online discussion threads, documentaries, television shows, and videos posted on platforms like YouTube.

Envisioning history

Map with the cities Kinshasa and Lubumbashi in Democratic Republic of the Congo (underlying map © Google)

Congolese painter Tshibumba Kanda Matulu envisioned creating the history of Zaïre (present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo) in a series of one hundred paintings in an effort to educate his people about the history of their country. While his series starts with life before European contact in the 15th century, it focuses largely on Belgian colonization and the decade following independence from Belgium in 1960. He realized his vision after befriending the expatriateanthropologist, Johannes Fabian, who provided financial support and encouragement to the artist to paint this series. In 1973–74, Tshibumba brought to Fabian paintings that portrayed his version of the country’s history. After Tshibumba laid down the paintings in Fabian’s living room, he narrated each scene, and then conversed with Fabian.

The paintings from Tshibumba’s History of Zaïrewere published in 1996 by Fabian in the book, Remembering the Present: Painting and Popular History in Zaire. Each painting is accompanied by Tshibumba’s narration, fragments of conversations between Tshibumba and Fabian, and clarifying information from Fabian. Sadly, Tshibumba likely did not live to see the publication of the book. In the preface, Fabian notes that the two kept in contact after he left Zaïre in 1974. However, after 1981, Tshibumba’s whereabouts were unknown and he has not been heard from since. Fabian and one of his colleagues attempted to locate him in the 1980s, but with no success.

Official Congo government portrait of the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, 1960

A prime minister and a king

One of the most reproduced paintings from Tshibumba’s History of Zaïre is Le 30 juin 1960, Zaïre indépendant (June 30, 1960, Independent Zaïre). The painting portrays a significant historical event: in the capital city of Kinshasa (formerly called Léopoldville), the first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Émery Lumumba, delivered a speech in front of a crowd and in front of the Belgian king, Baudouin (who is to the right), during the celebration of Zaïre’s independence from Belgium. In his speech, Lumumba openly condemned and criticized the Belgians for the atrocities they committed under their colonial authority. The title of the painting appears in the upper right corner as a banner. The choice to include the name “Zaïre” for the title is anachronistic, as the country was still known as the Belgian Congo. In 1971, Mobutu Sese Sekochanged the names of the country and its largest river to Zaïre in an effort to replace names given by the colonizers with indigenous names. 

Detail, Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, Le 30 juin 1960, Zaïre indépendant, c. 1970–73, acrylic on flour sack, 45.72 x 63.5 cm (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) © Estate of Tshibumba Kanda Matulu

In the center we see Lumumba, addressing the smiling crowd of men and women. Deep in the background, a blue flag with a large, central yellow star and six smaller stars on the left represents the flag of Zaïre from independence day in 1960 to 1963. Outfitted in a striped suit, white button-down shirt, patterned tie, and handkerchief in his chest pocket, Lumumba raises his right arm and points towards the sky with his index finger. His left hand touches a globe that depicts a stylized image of the African continent. At the bottom of the globe, and to the left, a chain is represented. Since the subject of the painting is about independence from Belgium, it is likely that the broken chain (cropped by the edge of the painting) signifies the break with Belgium.

Tshibumba Kanda Matulu,Le 30 juin 1960, Zaïre indépendant (detail), c. 1970–73, acrylic on flour sack, 45.72 x 63.5 cm (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) © Estate of Tshibumba Kanda Matulu

To the right and behind Lumumba is King Baudouin of Belgium, outfitted in a khaki suit, red sash, white button-down shirt, black tie, and other accessories. Holding a hat and sword in his hands, the king smiles widely and tilts his head slightly forward. Tshibumba points out that in reality, Baudouin was angry as he listened to Lumumba. He notes, “A king has to smile when it is difficult. He must put on a little smile.” Behind him is a cloth backdrop reminiscent of the national flag at the time Tshibumba painted this work in the early 1970s: a background of blue and two vertical bands of red outlined in yellow. In the bottom right corner of the painting, we see the painter’s signature, Tshibumba K.M.

Tshibumba’s history: fact or fiction?

Tshibumba noted that the point of his history series “is to help one another so that we learn the history of our country correctly.” While the majority of his paintings in his history series are based on historical events, Fabian points out that Tshibumba is “an interpreter of his country,” and what he “shows and tells is impressive; it is often amusing, shocking, incredible, and plainly erroneous. Above all, his History is not just a story but an argument and a plea.” Fabian notes that there are discrepancies between the histories portrayed in Tshibumba’s paintings and histories produced by Congolese and outsider journalists and scholars, but Tshibumba’s voice is valuable and should not be dismissed. Indeed, his perspective is evident in many of his paintings.

Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, La Mort historique de Lumumba, Mpolo et Okito, c. 1970–73, acrylic on flour sack, 44.93 x 71.12 cm (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) © Estate of Tshibumba Kanda Matulu

For example, in La Mort historique de Lumumba, Mpolo et Okito (The historical Death of Lumumba, Mpolo and Okito), Tshibumba depicts the assassinations of Lumumba and his associates, Maurice Mpolo, and Joseph Okito. They were murdered on January 17, 1961, but their deaths were only announced publicly three weeks later (on February 13). At the time, the details of their assassinations were disputed. For La Mort historique, Tshibumba takes creative license and imagines their deaths in his painting. We see Lumumba wearing a white tank top, striped dress pants, a gold watch, and belt, lying on the ground. His eyes are closed, his arms are outstretched in front of him (with untied rope, perhaps showing that he was bound). Behind him are Mpolo and Okito, who are obscured by Lumumba’s body.

Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, La Mort historique de Lumumba, Mpolo et Okito(detail), c. 1970–73, acrylic on flour sack, 44.93 x 71.12 cm

Tshibumba clearly saw Lumumba as a martyr and national hero. In the painting, he draws a connection between the deaths of Lumumba and Jesus Christ. In the background to the right, we see Golgotha, where Jesus and two thieves were crucified. Golgotha is represented by three crucifixes encircled by a crown of thorns (which was placed on Jesus’ head), and an eye floating above them. Tshibumba depicts Lumumba with a bleeding wound on the right side of his torso, paralleling the wound on Jesus’ side, where he was pierced during his crucifixion. The presence of Mpolo and Okito echoes the presence of the two thieves that are crucified alongside Jesus. Tshibumba said, “…in my view, Lumumba was the Lord Jesus of Zaïre. Above, I painted six [small] stars, because he died for unity [of Zaïre].”  In the upper left of the background, we see the national flag from 1960–63: a large yellow star with six small stars arranged vertically to the left.

Tshibumba’s view that Lumumba was a national hero was not uncommon at the time he painted his series. Although Mobutu led a coup d’état against Lumumba in September 1960, ordered Lumumba’s arrest in December 1960, and was involved in his assassination, Mobutu declared in a speech that Lumumba was a national hero. This was a strategic move meant to unify the country’s people and to legitimize Mobutu as the rightful successor of Lumumba. 

Etienne Bol, Tshibumba Kanda Matulu painting, 1973, printed 2015, digital print on diasec mount, 45.72 x 60.64 cm (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) © Etienne Bol

Congolese popular painting

Tshibumba’s work is often regarded as exemplary of Congolese popular painting, which emerged during the 1960s and 1970s in urban cities (such as Lubumbashi, where Tshibumba was born) following Belgian colonial rule. Congolese popular painting is “generally understood to refer to nonacademic paintings produced for both local and international audiences … comprising mostly figurative paintings that provide some form of social and/or political commentary on past and present.” The phrase “nonacademic paintings” points to the training of their creators—mainly, painters who have not had formal training in school and produce and sell their paintings on the street, as opposed to galleries or museums. These painters tend to create paintings with the same themes repeatedly (with modifications) and make their living selling these works to local clients, expatriate patrons, or tourists. The themes and subject matter (such as landscapes and flora and fauna) that painters portray vary and depend on the expectations or tastes of their clients. Generally, buyers would have a preference for certain subjects and would buy one or two works from one particular painter. These paintings would be hung in domestic spaces and act as conversation pieces.

While Tshibumba’s History of Zaïre stems from Congolese popular painting, it is exceptional because he was at liberty to paint what he believed to be the significant events in his country’s history thus far. Moreover, due to the publication of Remembering the Present, Tshibumba’s paintings were not just viewed locally; they were made available to international audiences.

Notes:

[1] While it is conventional to refer to an artist by their last name, I refer to Tshibumba Kanda Matulu by his first name in this essay. This follows the scholarship on Tshibumba produced by the main expatriate anthropologists who worked with him: Johannes Fabian and Bogumil Jewsiewicki. Other scholarship on Congolese popular painting generally refers to Tshibumba by his first name.

[2] It should be noted that the version of this painting reproduced in this essay is slightly different from the version reproduced in Johannes Fabian’s Remembering the Present: Painting and Popular History in Zaire. Instead of the 1960–63 national flag, the version reprinted in Remembering the Present is replaced with the building of Kinshasa’s post office. According to Tshibumba, people organized in the square in front of the post office for public gatherings. See Fabian, Remembering the Present, p. 92.

[3] Ironically, the name “Zaïre” came from the Portuguese misunderstanding of the KiKongo word for river, which is N’zadi. Kevin Dunn points out that the choice to use Zaïre instead of N’zadi is not clear. See Dunn, Imagining the Congo: The International Relations of Identity, pp. 110–111.

[4] Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, quoted in Johannes Fabian, Remembering the Present, p. 92.

[5] Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, quoted in Johannes Fabian, Remembering the Present, p. 15.

[6] Johannes Fabian, Remembering the Present, p. xi.

[7] Tshibumba Kanda Matulu, quoted in Johannes Fabian, Remembering the Present, p. 122.

[8] Kevin Dunn, Imagining the Congo, p. 114. For a succinct retelling of Lumumba’s arrest and assassination, see Gabriella Nugent, “From camera to canvas: The case of Patrice Lumumba and Congolese popular painting,” p. 84.

[9] Sarah Van Beurden,  “Congo Art Works: Popular Painting ed. by Bambi Ceuppens and Sammy Baloji (review),” p. 94.

SOURCE 

DR. KRISTEN LACISTE

The Priest-King sculpture from the Indus Valley Civilization

 

An intricate statue, carved out of steatite more than four thousand years ago, Priest-King (as the figure has come to be known) is among the most recognizable artifacts from the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the oldest and largest Bronze Age civilizations in the world. 

Depicted with half-closed eyes, curved ears, a beard, and thick lips, the figure in this sculpture wears a garment draped over his left shoulder and tucked under his (now-broken) right arm. The surface of the garment has raised trefoil motifs and circles carved in shallow relief. The figure’s hair is parted in the middle and held together by a diadem set with a circular ornament, matching the one he wears on his right upper arm. 

While it’s difficult to know the original appearance of the sculpture, a fragment of shell inlay was recovered from one of its eyes, and traces of red pigment remain in the garment’s design, indicating that it might originally have been colored with dye and embellished with other materials. The incised lines carved to represent his beard extend into the area of the cheeks and were never polished, suggesting that the sculpture remained unfinished.

The small, 18 cm tall bust dates back to the Mature Harappan Period. It was excavated at the site of Mohenjo-daro in the present-day Sindh province of Pakistan by the archaeologist Kashinath Narayan Dikshit during a 1925–26 excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India.

Reading the material remains of an ancient civilization

Mohenjo-daro was an important prehistoric city from the Indus Valley civilization (sometimes referred to as the Harappan Civilization), known for its well-planned cities, large-scale architecture, and one of the earliest urban sanitation systems in the world. Named after the Indus River, along whose banks the civilization developed, the Indus Valley Civilization encompassed a vast swath of present-day eastern Pakistan and northwestern India. Although there have been multiple excavations, archaeological explorations, and studies of sites associated with the civilization, information about this ancient culture is still limited because their script remains undeciphered. 

Our knowledge of the Indus Valley Civilization is mainly premised on the scholarly analysis of its material remains. The predominant objects found in most Indus Valley sites are seals and terracotta figurines of animals and humans. The seals, which depict animals, and have lines of script, are understood to have been used primarily in trade as a designatory device.

Stamp seal and modern impression: unicorn and incense burner (?), c. 2600–1900 B.C.E. (Mature Harappan), burnt steatite, 3.8 x 3.8 x 1 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

Typically, the front of the seal is carved in intaglioso that a positive imprint is produced on the material on which it is impressed. The seals were used to stamp clay insignia on ropes, to seal and secure packages during transportation, and by traders and merchants to designate their goods by name, place of origin and so on. 

Trade routes between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus River Valley (underlying map © Google)

Their discovery from sites beyond the known Indus Valley region—such as Kish and Umma in present-day Iraq—is indicative of an early system of trade with other societies such as the Mesopotamian Civilization of Western Asia. On the other hand, the purpose of the terracotta figurines remains unclear, as do their stylistic origins. In the absence of textual sources, scholars look for answers by comparing them to contemporaneous Mesopotamian examples and later South Asian art.

Priest King, Mohenjo-daro, white, low fired steatite, 17.5 x 11 cm (photo: Harappa.com; National Museum, Karachi)

Stone sculptures such as the Priest-King are relatively rare and possibly only represent a small fraction of the stone objects that might have been produced by the Indus Valley Civilization. The sculpture is made of steatite, an easy-to-carve stone used extensively by the Indus Valley inhabitants to make seals, beads, tablets, as well as statues such as this one, although the latter are much rarer. The civilization also attained a high level of technical sophistication in manufacturing steatite objects starting from the Neolithic period, employing the controlled use of fire to whiten and harden the stone. The Priest-King, too, is made in this manner. 

Let’s take a closer look at the sculpture to understand whom it may represent and how we might interpret it.

Priest King, Mohenjo-daro, white, low fired steatite, 17.5 x 11 cm (photo: Harappa.com; National Museum, Karachi)

Who was the Priest-King?

Many scholars have attempted to establish the figure’s identity and status. Some have studied its physiognomic type, concluding that its treatment of the beard, which differs from later examples of South Asian art, might mean that the figure depicts a foreigner. Additionally, garments covering only the left shoulder were also commonly seen in art from the Mesopotamian Civilization, which was situated around 3000 kilometers away from the Indus Valley Civilization but had trade links with it.

Similarly, the trefoil motifs have also been compared to the cloud motif seen in ajrakh block-printed fabrics which were being produced for export around the time the statuette was made.The trace of red pigment found on the shawl gives us early evidence of the use of madder, a type of natural red colorant extracted from the roots of the Indian madder plant, used by the Indus Valley dyers to produce ajrakh cloth with red patterns. However, some scholars argue that what we see on the shawl is not a patterned cloth, but evidence of early embroidery, as the trefoil forms are raised.

The sculpture’s half-open eyes have led to speculation that the figure is engaged in yogic meditation, although scholars cannot confirm that yoga and its associated rituals were practiced in that period in the same way that it is practiced today. The extended arm may have been meant to rest on the knee, with the body arranged in a seated posture. 

Holes pierced under the ears suggest that a headdress might have been attached to the sculpture. This could have been a horned headdress, similar to that worn by the figure on the famous Pashupati Seal, who is thought to possibly depict a prototype of the Hindu god, Shiva. 

Pashupati Seal, 2500–2400 B.C.E. (Mohenjo-daro, Indus Valley Civilization), steatite, coated with alkali, and baked (National Museum New Delhi)

Archaeologist John Marshall considered these factors when he dubbed the statuette a “king-priest,” which archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler later inverted to “priest-king.” Wheeler’s name for the figure was based on his assumption that the Indus Valley Civilization had socio-cultural affinities with Mesopotamia, with a social structure that was governed by authority figures that were akin to the priest-kings or governors of Sumer.

However, until we have a better understanding of the cultures of the Indus Valley, it is not possible to confirm whether the sculpture is a portrait of a deity, a historical figure, or a representation of an abstract concept. In spite of that, this small object exudes a sense of quiet authority and offers us an important insight into the mastery Indus Valley craftspeople had over sculpting steatite. 

Artifacts from Mohenjo-daro were initially kept at the Lahore Museum and later moved to the Central Imperial Museum in Delhi (now the National Museum, New Delhi). In 1972, the statuette was officially handed over to the Government of Pakistan as per a clause in the Shimla Agreement, a peace treaty signed by India and Pakistan in July 1972. At the time of writing, the sculpture is housed in the National Museum at Karachi. 

SOURCE 

THE MAP ACADEMY