SBS-13, 2019 PDF

STUDIES IN BYZANTINE
SIGILLOGRAPHY
13
Studies in Byzantine Sigillography
13
Founded by
Nicolas Oikonomides
Edited by
Nicolas Oikonomides (vol. 1-6)
Werner Seibt (vol. 7)
Jean-Claude Cheynet and Claudia Sode (vol. 8-12)
Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt and
Christos Stavrakos (vol. 13)
STUDIES IN BYZANTINE
SIGILLOGRAPHY
13
Edited by
Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt
and
Christos Stavrakos
H
F
Editorial Board
Ivan Jordanov, Bulgaria
Ioanna Koltsida-Makre, Greece
John W. Nesbitt, USA
Vivien Prigent, France / United Kingdom
Werner Seibt, Austria
Elena Stepanova, Russian Federation
Published with the financial support of the “Association Internationale des

Études Byzantines”
Cover design: Theodoridis Graphic Arts. Garibaldi str.10, GR-45221,

Ioannina, Greece, e_theodo@otenet.gr
Cover illustration: Seal of Theodoros Styppeiotes (collection A.-K. Wassiliou-

Seibt 478)
© 2019, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re-
trieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
D/2019/0095/57
ISBN 978-2-503-58373-0
e-ISBN 978-2-503-58374-7
DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.116702
Printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS
Foreword vii
Abbreviations ix
NEW FINDS AND SEAL COLLECTIONS
Gert Boersema, A Dutch Collection of Late Antique and

Early Christian Lead Seals 3
Vera Bulgurlu, The Byzantine Lead Seals in the Balıkesir

Kuva-yi Milliye Museum Collection 33
Jean-Claude Cheynet, Sceaux du xie siècle trouvés en Palestine 47
PROSOPOGRAPHY
Ioannes G. Leontiades, The Seal of Theodoros Styppeiotes
Protonobellisimos and Megas Sakellarios (Early 1150s).
A Contribution to Prosopography of the Comnenian Period 71
Werner Seibt, The Theodorokanoi. Members of the

Byzantine Military Aristocracy with an Armeno-Iberian Origin 81
Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt, Leon Gabras

Kaisar. Ein Beitrag zur Prosopographie der frühen Palaiologenzeit 93
ADMINISTRATION, HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY,

PROFESSION
Andreas Gkoutzioukostas, The Theme of Drougoubiteia 107
Werner Seibt, Ἐπίσκoπος τῆς Ἀτέλου. Residierte der Bischof

von Atel in Chazaria (am unteren Don)? 121
Christos Stavrakos – Christos Tsatsoulis, A

Rare Lead Seal of a Goldsmith (Χρυσογλύπτης) from the
Unpublished Collection of Zafeiris Syrras (London) 131
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PIETY
John Cotsonis, An Image of Saint Nicholas with the
“Tongues οf Fire” on a Byzantine Lead Seal 151
Ioanna Koltsida-Makre, The Collection of Byzantine

Bread Stamps in the Loulis Museum (Aghiou Georgiou Mills),
Piraeus, Greece 167
INDEXES
Index of Proper Names and Terms 185
Index of Iconography 205
Index of Metrical Inscriptions 207
VI
Foreword
The idea to establish a special periodical for Byzantine sigillography goes

back to 1983. In this year, shortly after George Zacos had passed away,
the director of Dumbarton Oaks (Giles Constable) invited Nicolas
Oikonomides, John Nesbitt, and Werner Seibt to elaborate a proposal
for the seals project in Dumbarton Oaks. The circle of trained Byzantine
sigillographers was quite small at that time.
These three scholars searched at the same time for ways to promote
the sigillographic discipline in general, to demonstrate the importance
of this primary source, and to make the results better accessible for spe-
cialists in other domains of Byzantine research. As a first step they postu-
lated a round table for sigillography in every coming Byzantine congress
(and starting with the congress in Washington, 1986, that was accom-
plished). To promulgate the papers of this table ronde a new periodical,
“Studies in Byzantine Sigillography”, was advised; N. Oikonomides, the
senior sigillographer of Dumbarton Oaks, was ready to act as editor and
became successful in obtaining Dumbarton Oaks as publisher. To offer a
forum for more scholars attracted by sigillography an international sym-
posium between every congress was discussed, and the results should
also be published in this new series.
The first volume of SBS collected the papers of the table ronde of
Washington and appeared already in 1987. The First international sym-
posium was organized in Athens (1988), the results were made avail-
able in the second volume of SBS (1990). After that round tables during
the congresses and international symposia between these events became
standard, the latter were held in Vienna, Shumen/Veliki Preslav, Berlin,
Ioannina, and Istanbul; the next one will follow in St Petersburg (2019).
According to a proposal of N. Oikonomides also bibliographic notes
about articles and auction catalogues were integrated in some volumes.
N. Oikonomides could publish six volumes of SBS, but passed away
in 2000, so W. Seibt accepted the task of editing the 7th volume (with
the papers of the symposium in Shumen/Veliki Preslav) at the request of
Alice-Mary Talbot, Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks.
After that J.-Cl. Cheynet (with the assistance of Cl. Sode) took
charge of editing the next volumes (8–12), first with K. G. Saur
(München – Leipzig) as publisher (vol. 8–9), later on with De Gruyter,
but retired after the 12th volume (2016).
Foreword
The sigillographic community, gathered at the 23rd International

Congress of Byzantine Studies in Belgrade (2016) judged the continua-
tion of the series as absolutely necessary and entrusted A.-K. Wassiliou-
Seibt and Ch. Stavrakos with this task.
The new volume gathered especially selected papers held at the con-
gress in Belgrade and at the symposium in Istanbul (2014). All under-
went the process of peer reviewing.
We thank the authors of the articles, the peers, and the Associa-
tion Internationale des Études Byzantines (for a financial support), and
would like to dedicate this volume to the memory of Nicolas Oikono-
mides, the archegetes of the series.
Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt – Christos Stavrakos

Vienna / Thessaloniki – Ioannina
VIII
Abbreviations
ADSV: Antičnaja Drevnost᾿ i Srednie Veka

AE: Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς
BHG: Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, ed. F. Halkin, (3Bruxelles, 1957–67)
BMGS: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BnF: Bibliothèque nationale de France
Bulgurlu, Bizans Mühürleri: Bulgurlu, Bizans Kurşun Mühürleri (Istanbul,
2007)
Byz: Byzantion
ByzSl: Byzantinoslavica
BV: Byzantina Vindobonensia
Byzantine and Rus’ Seals: H. Ivakin – N. Khrapunov – W. Seibt (eds), Byzan
tine and Rus’ Seals. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on
Rus’-Byzantine sigillography. Kyiv, Ukraine, 13–16 September 2013
(Kiev, 2015)
BZ: Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CFHB: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
Cheynet, “Antioche et Tarse” : J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Sceaux byzantins des musées
d’Antioche et de Tarse”, TM 12 (1994) 391–478, pl. I–XIII
Cheynet, Société: J.-Cl. Cheynet, La société byzantine: l’apport des sceaux (Paris,
2008)
Cheynet, Zacos: J.-Cl. Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection Zacos (Bibliothèque na
tionale de France) se rapportant aux provinces orientales de l’Empire
byzantin (Paris, 2001)
Cheynet et al., Istanbul: J.-Cl. Cheynet – V. Bulgurlu – T. Gökyıldırım, Les
sceaux byzantins du musée archéologique d’Istanbul (Istanbul, 2012)
Cheynet – Theodoridis, Sceaux patronymiques: J.-Cl. Cheynet – D. Theodo
ridis, Sceaux byzantins de la collection D. Theodoridis. Les sceaux patro
nymiques (Monographie 33) (Paris, 2010)
Cheynet – Vannier: J.-Cl. Cheynet – J.-Fr. Vannier, Études prosopographiques
(Paris, 1986)
Corinth XII: G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects [Corinth XII] (Princeton,
1952)
CSHB: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae
Darrouzès, Notitiae: J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopo
litanae (Paris, 1981)
Dated Seals: N. Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals
(Washington, D.C., 1986)
ΔΧΑΕ: Δελτίον Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας
Abbreviations
De adm. imp.: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed.

Gy. Moravcsik, tr. R. J. H. Jenkins, 2nd ed. (Washington,  D.C., 1967)
DHGE: Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques
DO: Dumbarton Oaks
DOCoins cf. Grierson, Catalogue
DOP: Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DOSeals: Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg
Museum of Art, 1–3, ed. J. W. Nesbitt – N. Oikonomides (Washing-
ton, D.C., 1991, 1994, 1996); 4–5, ed. E. McGeer – J. W. Nesbitt –
N. Oikonomides (Washington, D.C., 2001, 2005); 6, ed. J. W. Nes-
bitt – C. Morrisson (Washington, D.C., 2009)
ΕΕΒΣ: Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν
ΕΕΦΣΠΘ: Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς Πανεπιστημίου
Θεσσαλονίκης
ÉO: Échos d’Orient
EPLBHC: A. G. Savvides – B. Hendrickx (eds), Encyclopaedic Prosopographical
Lexicon of Byzantine History and Civilization, I-III (Turnhout, 2007-
2012)
Felix, Islamische Welt: W. Felix, Byzanz und die islamische Welt im früheren 11.
Jahrhundert (BV 14) (Vienna, 1981)
Genève: M. Campagnolo-Pothitou – J.-Cl. Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection
George Zacos au Musée d᾿art et d᾿histoire de Genève (Geneva, 2016)
Gkoutzioukostas, Απονομή: A. E. Gkoutzioukostas, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης στο
Βυζάντιο (9ος-12ος αιώνες) (Thessaloniki, 2004) (Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και
Μελέται 37)
Grierson, Catalogue III: Ph. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the
Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore collection, III, 1–2
(Washington, D.C., 1973)
Guilland, Recherches: R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines I–
II (Berlin – Amsterdam, 1967)
Hagios Nikolaos: Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen
Kirche I–III, ed. G. Anrich (Leipzig – Berlin, 1913)
Hecht: J. Nesbitt – A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt – W. Seibt, Highlights from the Ro
bert Hecht, Jr., Collection of Byzantine Seals (Thessaloniki, 2009)
IFEB: Institut français d’études byzantines
IRAIMK: Izvestiya Rossiyskoy Akademii Istorii Materiaľnoy Kuľtury
Iviron II: P. Lemerle – N. Oikonomidès – D. Papachryssanthou, Actes Iviron,
II, Du milieu du xie siècle à 1204 (Archives de l᾿Athos 18) (Paris, 1990)
Janin, Églises: R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l᾿empire byzantin, Ière
partie. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumenique. III. Les
églises et les monastères (Paris, 21969)
JIAN: Journal international d’archéologie numismatique
X
Abbreviations
JÖB: Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (formerly Jahrbuch der Öster

reichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft)
Jordanov, Corpus I, II, III: I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria,
Vol. I, Byzantine Seals with Geographical Names (Sofia, 2003), Vol. II,
Byzantine Seals with Family Names (Sofia, 2006), Vol. III (Sofia,
2009)
Jordanov, “Corpus, Addenda 1”: I. Jordanov, “Corpus of Byzantine Seals from
Bulgaria, volume, 1–3, Sofia, 2003, 2006, 2009. Addenda et Corri-
genda (1)”, Numizmatika, Sfragistika i Epigrafika 7 (2011) 189–228
genda (2)”, Bǔlgariya v Evropeǐskata Kultura, Nauka, Obrazovanie,
Religiya, Chast 1 (Bulgaria in European Culture, Science, Education,
Religion, Part 1 (Šumen, 2015)
genda (3)”, Pismenost, Knižovnici, Knigi: Bŭlgarskata sleda v kultur
nata istorija na Evropa (Šumen, 2018)
Jordanov, Preslav: I. Jordanov, Pečatite ot strategijata v Preslav (Sofia, 1993)
Jordanov – Zhekova: I. Jordanov – Zh. Zhekova, Catalogue of Medieval Seals at
the Regional Historical Museum of Shumen (Šumen, 2017)
Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα: I. Koltsida-Makre, Βυζαντινά μολυβδόβουλλα
συλλογής Ορφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη Νομισματικού Μουσείου Αθηνών (Athens,
1996)
Konstantopoulos: K. M. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν
Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου (Athens, 1917; reprinted
from JIAN 5 [1902]–10 [1907])
Kestner I–II: W. Seibt, Ein Blick in die byzantinische Gesellschaft. Die Bleisiegel
im Museum August Kestner, I (Rahden/Westfalen, 2011); A.-K. Was-
siliou-Seibt – W. Seibt, Der byzantinische Mensch in seinem Umfeld.
Weitere Bleisiegel der Sammlung Zarnitz im Museum August Kestner,
II (Rahden/Westfalen, 2016)
Laurent, Bulles métriques: V. Laurent, Les bulles métriques dans la sigillographie
byzantine (Athens, 1932; offprint from Hellenika 4 [1931]–8 [1935])
Laurent, Corpus: V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire byzantin, V, 1–3,
L’église (Paris, 1963–72); II, L’administration centrale (Paris, 1981)
Laurent, Orghidan: V. Laurent, La collection C. Orghidan (Paris, 1952)
Laurent, Vatican: V. Laurent, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican (Vati-
can, 1962)
Lavra I–IV: Actes de Lavra I–IV, ed. P. Lemerle – A. Guillou – N. Svo-
ronos – D. Papachryssanthou (Archives de l᾿Athos 8) (Paris,
1970, 1977, 1979, 1982)
LCI: Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie
XI
Abbreviations
Leontiades, Θεσσαλονίκη: I. G. Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα του Μουσείου

Βυζαντινού Πολιτισμού Θεσσαλονίκης (Thessaloniki, 2006) (Βυζαντινά
Κείμενα και Μελέται 40)
Lihačev, IZIGI: N. P. Lihačev, Istoričeskoe značenie italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi:
Izobraženija Bogomateri v proizvedenijah italo-grečeskih ikonopiscev i
ih vlijanie na kompozicii nekotoryh proslavlennyh russkih ikon (St. Pe-
tersburg, 1911)
Lihačev, Vostok: N. P. Lihačev, Molivdovuly grečeskogo Vostoka, ed.
V. S. Šandrovskaja (Naučnoe nasledstvo 19) (Moscow, 1991)
MAIET: Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii Tavrii
Metcalf, Byzantine Seals from Cyprus I: D. M. Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals
from Cyprus (Nicosia, 2004)
Metcalf, Byzantine Seals from Cyprus II: D. M. Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals
from Cyprus. II (Nicosia, 2014)
MK: Münzkabinett
MM: F. Miklosich  I. Müller, Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et
profana, I–VI (Wien, 1860–90) (repr. Athens, 1996)
MÖNG: Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft
NE: Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων
ODB: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
Oikonomidès, Listes: N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des ixe
et xe siècles (Paris, 1972)
PBW: Prosopography of the Byzantine World, 2011 edition, http://www.pbw.
kcl.ac.uk/
PG: Patrologia Graeca
PO: Patrologia Orientalis
Polemis, Doukai: D. I. Polemis, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Pro
sopographaphy (London, 1968)
PLP: Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (Wien, 1976–96)
PLRE: Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1971–92)
PmbZ I: Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–
867), ed. R.-J. Lilie et al. (Berlin, 1999–2002)
PmbZ II: Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Zweite Abteilung
(867–1025), ed. R.-J. Lilie et al. (Berlin, 2013)
REB: Revue des études byzantines
Regesten: F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches I–V
(München, 1924–65); fasc. I, 1–2, new edition by A. E. Müller
(München, 2009, 2003); fasc. II and III, new edition by P. Wirth
(München, 1995, 1977); fasc. V, by F. Dölger and P. Wirth (München
– Berlin, 1965)
Regestes: Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, by V. Grumel,
new edition by J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1972); II–III, by V. Grumel, new
XII
Abbreviations
edition by J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1989); IV, by V. Laurent (Paris, 1971);

V–VII, by J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1977, 1979, 1991)
RN: Revue numismatique
Šandrovskaja, Sfragistika: Iskusstvo Vizantii v sobranijah SSSR (Katalog vys-
tavki) (Moscow, 1977), I–III, section “Sfragistika” by V. Šandrovskaja
Šandrovskaja – Seibt: V. S. Šandrovskaja – W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel
der Staatlichen Eremitage mit Familiennamen. 1, Sammlung Lichačev.
Namen von A bis I (Wien, 2005)
SBS: Studies in Byzantine Sigillography
Schlumberger, Mélanges: G. Schlumberger, Mélanges d’archéologie byzantine
(Paris, 1895)
Schlumberger, Sig.: G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Empire byzantin (Pa
ris, 1884, repr. Torino, 1963)
Seibt, Bleisiegel: W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, I. Teil,
Kaiserhof (Wien, 1978)
Seibt, Skleroi: W. Seibt, Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische
Studie (Wien, 1976)
Seibt  –  Zarnitz: W. Seibt – M. L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als
Kunstwerk. Katalog zur Ausstellung (Wien, 1997)
Seyrig: J.-CI. Cheynet – C. Morrisson – W. Seibt, Les sceaux byzantins de la
collection Henri Seyrig (Paris, 1991)
Skoulatos, Personnages: B. Skoulatos, Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade,
Université de Louvain, Recueil de Travaux d’Histoire et de Philologie,
6ème série, (Louvain, 1980)
Sode, Bleisiegel: C. Sode, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin II (Poikila Byzan-
tina 14) (Bonn, 1997)
Sokolova, Imperial Seals: I. V. Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial Seals: The Cata
logue of the Collection = Pečati vizantijskih imperatorov: katalog kolle
kcii (St. Petersburg, 2007)
Speck, Bleisiegel: P. Speck, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin (West) (Poikila
Byzantina 5) (Bonn, 1986)
Stavrakos, Bleisiegel: C. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Fami
liennamen aus der Sammlung des Numismatischen Museums Athen
(Wiesbaden, 2002)
Szemioth – Wasilewski: A. Szemioth – T. Wasilewski, “Sceaux byzantins du
musée national de Varsovie,” Studia Zródłoznawcze, Commentationes
11 (1966) 1–38; 14 (1969) 63–89
TIB: Tabula Imperii Byzantini
TM: Travaux et mémoires
Viz. Vrem.: Vizantijskij Vremennik
Wassiliou, Corpus I: Al.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel
mit metrischen Legenden. 1, Einleitung, Siegellegenden von Alpha bis
inklusive My (WBS 28/1) (Wien, 2011)
XIII
Abbreviations
Wassiliou, Corpus II: Al.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel

mit metrischen Legenden. 2, Siegellegenden von Ny bis inklusive Σφραγίς
(WBS 28/2) (Wien, 2016)
Wassiliou – Seibt, Bleisiegel  II: Al.-K. Wassiliou – W. Seibt, Die byzantini
schen Bleisiegel in Österreich. 2, Zentral- und Provinzialverwaltung
(Wien, 2004)
WBS: Wiener Byzantinistische Studien
Zacos, Seals II: G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals II, ed. J. Nesbitt (Bern, 1984)
Zacos – Veglery: G. Zacos – A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I (Basel, 1972)
ZRVI: Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta
XIV
NEW FINDS AND SEAL
COLLECTIONS
Gert Boersema
A Dutch Collection of Late Antique and

Early Christian Lead Seals
In the last twenty years there have been some meaningful advances in
the study of Roman seals with distinctively Christian iconography. They
were singled out for the first time in a short study by Asamer and Win-
ter (1999), publishing nine examples with diverse imagery from private
collections. Another major contribution was made by Jeffrey Spier in his
study of late antique and early Christian gems (2007). Acknowledging
the fact that the same imagery and a similar range of styles appear on
hardstone gems, glass pendants, gold and silver discs, rings and lead seals,
all of these different media are referenced in his catalogue, and a concise
catalogue of lead seals with Christian devices is added in an appendix. 1
Below, I will endeavour to make a third contribution to this area of re-
search by presenting a Dutch collection of 24 lead seals from late Antiq-
uity, formed over the last twenty years. 2 Nearly all of these seals have no
known parallel examples, and some of their devices are unprecedented
on lead seals. In the discussion below, known parallels and similar seals
will be referenced, and meaningful connections with other media will
also be noted, most importantly to hardstone gems, which are related
functionally to seals. 3
1
Spier (2007) 189–91.
2
If seals presented here have appeared in public auctions, this is stated in the de-
scription. The other examples have been traded and gifted from other collectors or ac-
quired privately.
3
I would like to thank István Vida and Jeffrey Spier for their time and effort com-
menting on this article. Of course, any mistakes and oversights are my own.
Studies in Byzantine Sigillography. Volume 13, ed. by Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt

and Christos Stavrakos (Turnhout, 2019), pp. 3–32
©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117245
Gert Boersema
Fig. 1
1) Constantine II Caesar (326–37)
Double sided lead seal, struck with a boulloterion. 11 × 13 × 4 mm, field
13 mm, 3.00 gr., die axis 12.00.
Found near Heerlen (ancient Coriovallum), Netherlands (Portable Antiquities
of the Netherlands number 00019667).
Obverse: [CON]STANTINVS IVN NOB C; laureate bust to right.

Reverse: Victory advancing left, holding palm branch and wreath.
The dignity of nobilissimus caesar identifies the owner of this seal as

Constantine II, son of Constantine the Great. He is distinguished from
his father by the use of junior after his name. Leukel describes a very
similar seal with an identical legend, but the bust is shown wearing a
paludamentum and on the reverse Victory is advancing right. Another
related seal published by Leukel shows the bust of Constantine II caesar
on one side, and the bust of his father, the emperor Constantine I on
the other. Both seals were reportedly found in Trier and like this exam-
ple, both were evidently produced with a boulloterion. 4 Next to these, a
considerable number of uniface lead seals (Plomben in German), bearing
bust and titles of Constantine II, both as caesar and augustus were found
in Trier. 5 Another uniface lead seal of Constantine II caesar was found
in Ickham, Kent, Great Britain. 6 Seals produced with a boulloterion,
like the present seal and the two described by Leukel, are the exception
in the fourth century. Almost all of the seals that can be dated to this
period with some certainty take the form of a Plombe with a globular or
4
Leukel (1991) 73 and 74. Cf. 75-77, similar but very poorly preserved.
5
Leukel (1991) 78–80, belonging to Constantine II as caesar and 82–99 as augustus.
6
Collingwood and Wright (1990) 2411.22, with a bust facing right wearing a
paludamentum and legend [CONSTANTINVS] IVN NOB C. See 2411.20–21 for a
seal type attributed to Constantine I, that could conceivably also belong to Constantine II.

A Dutch Collection of Late Antique and Early Christian Lead Seals
conical reverse. 7 But, as this seal shows, both sealing methods were in use
simultaneously for a considerable period of time, until by the late fifth
century, boulloterion use is predominant. It is perhaps no coincidence
that the known find spots for the seals of Constantine II are located in
the praetorian prefecture of Gaul, the borders of which took shape dur-
ing the reign of Constantine I. Constantine II had been named caesar
in ad 317, together with his older half-brother Crispus, who was ap-
pointed commander of Gaul, residing in Trier. Although it is not ex-
plicitly stated in the sources, we can assume that Constantine II took
over this role after Crispus’ unfortunate fall from grace and death in ad
326. Even though Constantine II had been nobilissimus caesar since ad
317, with these events in mind, the seals bearing this title will probably
belong to the period after ad 326, until the death of Constantine I in ad
337, when Constantine and his brothers became augusti. After the divi-
sion of the empire between the three brothers, Constantine II’s territory
continued to coincide with the praetorian prefecture of Gaul.
2) Bassus (second half of the 4th c.-early 5th c.)

Uniface lead seal. 18 × 14 × 5 mm, field 13 mm, 1.94 gr.
Ex Münzzentrum Rheinland 164, 684
Obverse: large christogram with circular legend BACCOC Φ.

Reverse globular, flat around the rim.
Two parallel examples provenienced to Cherson and environs are in

the collection of the State Hermitage Museum. 8 Both seals have fragmen-
tary inscriptions and earlier editors could offer only a partially transcribed
legend. The seal presented here makes clear that the type belonged to a
person bearing the Roman cognomen Bassus. The letters are arranged in a
circle surrounding a large christogram, representing the first two letters of
the name of Christ. The additional letter Φ to the left of the christogram
7
See Weiss (2006) for examples showing the Tetrarchs; Münzzentrum Rheinland
151, 868 shows name and portrait of Licinius I; Leukel describes a considerable number
of uniface lead seals belonging to Constantine and his sons: Leukel (1991) 64–104. The
boulloterion of Constans caesar identified by N. Oikonomidès (1987), is more likely to
be a forger’s tool to produce counterfeit solidi, as it was believed to be by earlier editors.
The dies imitate an actual Constans gold solidus type (RIC VII 696, no. 104), including
the mint mark and the valuation in the reverse field.
8
M-8725 and M-12217, ed. Alekseienko (2016), no. 4 and 5, dated 5th-6th cen-
turies. One from the collection of N.P. Likhachev, acquired in Sevastopol, the other
found in Chersonesos.

Gert Boersema
appears weakly struck on the seal presented here, but is clearly visible on
the Hermitage examples. Numerous christograms appear on lead seals,
both as their primary design and as additions to other imagery. Most of
these are to be dated to the reign of Constantine the Great, and to the
second half of the fourth century. 9 In later Roman and Byzantine times,
the cross becomes the most preeminent Christian symbol. In some cases
however, a third-century date should be considered as well. Christograms
begin to appear on gems set into finger rings as early as the beginning of
the third century. These gems, although they are mostly considered to be
decorative, because the engraving appears in the positive, could have been
used to seal in lead. 10 The present seal of Bassus, with its relatively small
size, and the name prominently engraved, should be dated to the second
half of the fourth or early fifth century. The identification of the seal’s
owner is problematic because Bassus is a very common Roman cognomen.
A possible candidate is Anicius Auchenius Bassus, governor of Campania
between ad 372 and 382 and urban prefect in ad 382–83, known to have
been a Christian. 11 Another possibility is Junius Bassus (ad 317–59), who
died in office as urban prefect and was buried in the famous sarcophagus
conserved at the Museum of Saint Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. 12
Fig. 2
9
Ficoroni (1740), 33 = Still (1995) 1553 = Spier (2007) S18; Dissard (1905)
699 = Still (1995) 1254 = Spier (2007) S19; Culica (1975–1976) 131 = Spier (2007)
S20; Leukel (1992) 331–40 = Spier (2007) S21; Leukel (1995) N243-N252 = Spier
(2007) S21; Leukel (2002), 333; Asamer and Winter (1999), 1–2 = Spier (2007) S22
(see also note 10 below); Collingwood and Wright (1990) 2411.38 = Still (1995) 312 =
Spier (2007) S23; Still (1995) 314–15, 323, 783, 1632–33, 1685, 1697–98; Spier (2007)
S24-S25; CNG 216, 540/3; Münzzentrum Rheinland 169, 824; Gorny & Mosch 229,
2013 and below, no. 3 (with further bibliography), no. 15 and no. 19.
10
Spier (2007) publishes a series of small gems engraved with christograms dating
to the third century: 112–32. A lead seal from Trier described by Asamer and Winter
(1999, 1) may well date to the second half of the third century as well. For discussions of
the christogram in early Christian art see Spier (2007) 32–34 and Jensen (2000) 148–50.
11
PLRE I Bassus 11.
12
PLRE I Bassus 15.

3) Maximinus, praetorian prefect of Gaul (371–76)

Double sided lead seal, struck with freely applied dies. 15 mm, field 12 mm,
5.96 gr., die axis 1.00.
Ed. Vida et al. (forthcoming). Ex Münzzentrum Rheinland 173, 533.
Obverse: MAXIM-[I]NE; draped, bare-headed bust to right within

pearled border.
Reverse: Large christogram within pearled border.
Fig. 3
Seals naming Maximinus are known in relatively large numbers and

have appeared in scholarly articles and public auctions for almost a cen-
tury. 13 A corpus of 38 Maximinus seals will be published forthcomingly
by István Vida and co-authors. 14 Vida et al. identify four sets of dies,
all of which show the named portrait and the christogram. Only type I
has MAXIMINE as legend, the others read MAXIMIN, and there are
some other minor differences. The certain find spots are all situated in
Pannonia, although one example is reportedly from Trier. 15 The most
recent writers identify the seal’s owner as Maximinus, praetorian prefect
of Gaul in ad 371–76, fellow countryman and supporter of Valenti
nian I, known from the work of Ammianus Marcellinus. 16 Tackling the
13
Alföldi (1931) 1–8; Göbl (1969) 58–59; Dembski (1975) 49–64, 12; Leukel
(1995), 153–242, N251–252; Still (1995) 288–92; Weiser (1997) 547, 3 and public
auctions Frank Sternberg 26, 470; Italo Vecchi 5, 984; Münzzentrum Rheinland 151,
883 and 173, 533 (this seal).
14
Vida et al. (forthcoming). Their paper will also include the seal presented here.
I am very grateful to István Vida for allowing me to read and use this research at this early
stage.
15
Leukel (1995) 201, N251.
16
Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae XXVIII. Other candidates have been pro-
posed by earlier editors. Due to the christogram on the reverse, Alföldi (1931) thought

Gert Boersema
problem that Maximinus’ seals were predominantly found in another

prefect’s territory, Still connects their production with Valentinian’s mil-
itary campaign of ad 375, starting in Trier, where Maximinus had his
seat. He proposes that Maximinus, as praetorian prefect of Gaul, made
arrangements for the campaign, organizing the army’s supply chain and
that the seals found in Pannonia are evidence of this. 17 Vida et al. doubt
this, and make the important observation that Maximinus was a Pan-
nonian himself, since he was born in Sopianae (modern Hungary). They
believe the seals show extensive communication of Maximinus with his
private estates in Pannonia. Some of the find spots may be connected to
Valentinian’s campaign, and might indicate that Maximinus combined
his support for his countryman Valentinian I with his own financial in-
terests, but not all of them need to be. Maximinus’ seals were produced
with freely applied dies, not with a boulloterion. This is evidenced by
1) an occasional shift in the placing of the dies on obverse and reverse,
sometimes dramatically; 2) slightly diverging die axes, not being exactly
12.00 all of the time and 3) die links between the four sets of dies. 18 Die
links are hard to explain when the use of a boulloterion is assumed, but
may be expected to occur with freely applied dies. As earlier editors
did, the name is read here as a vocative. On fourth century gems and
gold and silver discs with named portraits, quite a few vocatives appear,
sometimes accompanied by the word vivas. 19 Conceivably, Maximinus’
die-cutter followed the tradition of ancient gem carving while spelling
the name.
4) Aeternalius, proconsul of Asia (396)

Ex Gorny & Mosch 156, lot 2515 = Münzzentrum Rheinland 151, 884 (lead
oxide removed).
Maximinus was a cleric in the middle of the fourth century while Göbl (1969) initially
believed that Maximinus was an unknown general of Magnentius. Still (1995) 73–75
first identified the seal’s owner as Maximinus, the preatorian prefect of Gaul. Weiser
(1997) arrived at the same conclusion independently. Still’s identification is followed by
Vida et al. and by the present author.
17
Still (1995) p. 73.
18
Weiser (1997) 547 reached this conclusion on the basis of one seal with a die
shift of 2 mm.
19
Spier (2007) 1–4, 16–27, 35–69 are named portraits. Vocatives appear on metal
intaglios 40, 43, 52, 61. Two more vocatives appear in Spier (2011) add. 12 and 13, as
well as on a lead seal reading …E VIVAS (add. 15).

Obverse: AETE[RNA]LIUS; facing, bare-headed bust of Aeternalius,

wearing a cuirass and a paludamentum fastened with a fibula over the
right shoulder.
Reverse slightly conical.
Fig. 4
An official with the name of Aeternalis, who had a very short tenure
as proconsul of Asia in ad 396 can be identified as the probable owner of
this seal. 20 In literary sources his existence is only known from the Codex
Theodosianus. 21 Possibly he is the addressee of an epigram by Claudian. 22
Resembling facing busts are found on Roman seals predominantly from
the second half of the fourth century onwards, consistent with a dating
to the turn of the fourth century.
5) Two fish flanking anchor (second half 3rd c.–early 4th c.)
Uniface lead seal, possibly a gem impression. 13 × 16 × 6 mm, oval field
10 × 13 mm, 3.06 gr.
Ex Münzzentrum Rheinland 134, 689.
Obverse: Two fish flanking anchor.

Reverse globular.
20
PLRE II, Aeternalis.
21
Cod. Theod. 4.4.3 and 11.39.12.
22
Claudian, Carm. Min. 3.

Gert Boersema
Fig. 5
Leukel publishes a similar seal with two fish flanking an anchor and
traces of an inscription. 23 Another seal of fine style, possibly also the im-
pression of a gem, is described by Dissard. 24 Images of anchors or fish
are not necessarily Christian, but the combination of an anchor and two
fish into one design seems to be a very early, exclusively Christian inven-
tion. 25 Both fish and anchor are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria,
writing at the turn of the second century, as appropriate devices to be
used by Christians on their seals. 26 Fish and fishermen occur frequently
in scripture and patristic writing. The apostles were “fishers of men” and
a good number of stories and parables feature fish. 27 Apart from being a
reference to these passages in scripture, a fish could serve as a symbol of
baptism and the eucharist or could even be referring to Christ himself,
through the acrostic IXΘYC. 28 Many levels of meaning were attached to
23
Leukel (1995) N443, reportedly from Trier.
24
Dissard (1905) 697 = Still (1995) 1122, possibly from Lyon. Dissard (1905)
698 = Still (1995) 1499 is another lead seal with anchor and fish, also reportedly a gem
impression, but no photo.
25
Jensen (2000) 140, but see Spier (2007) 41–49.
26
Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.59.2–3.60.1. The list includes dove, fish,
ship, lyre and anchor, of which only the ship is attributed a Christian meaning by Cle
ment. He seems more resolved to explain why certain devices may not be used, like idols,
images of war and portraits of lovers and prostitutes.
27
Luke 5:1–11; Matthew 4:18–19; Mark 1:16–17 (fishers of men). Matthew
14:15–21; Mark 6:35–44; 8:1–8 (the multiplication of the loaves and fishes); John
21:1–8 (miraculous catch of fish).
28
Jensen (2000) 46–59; Spier (2007) 41; Spier (2007–2008) 5. The acrostic
IXΘYC, for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior” occurs on a number of gems, notably in
combination with the fish and achor motif (Spier (2007) 198–205) and in inscriptions,
notably the epitaph of Licinia, in the Museo Nazionale in Rome, which also shows an
anchor and two fish (Spier 2007–2008, 196–97).

the fish simultaneously, and this is wonderfully captured by Tertullian in

his treatise on baptism: “But we, being little fishes, as Jesus Christ is our
great Fish, begin our life in the water, and only while we abide in the wa-
ter are we safe and sound.” 29 Unlike the fish, the anchor as a symbol did
not capture the imagination of Christian writers, nor does it occur much
in scripture. There is only the remark by Paul that the hope of salvation
is the “anchor of the soul.” 30 The anchor does occur very frequently in
early Christian funerary inscriptions in the catacombs. Spier publishes
a number of gems engraved with the fish and anchor motif, many with
inscriptions that identify the imagery as Christian. Another large group
of gems without inscriptions show the anchor and fish motif with the
anchor shaped like a cross. These gems are provenienced to virtually all
parts of the Graeco-Roman world and can be dated to the third century,
with only a few early fourth century exceptions. 31 This date is proposed
here for the seal as well.
6) Good Shepherd (4th c.)

Obverse: Good Shepherd standing facing, head left, wearing short tunic,
carrying sheep across his shoulders, with its head to left. Two more sheep
on either side, their heads looking back.
Reverse conical.
Fig. 6
29
Tertullian, De Bapt. 1, translation E. Evans, Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism
(London 1964).
30
Hebrews 6:19.
31
Spier (2007) 198–210 (with inscriptions); 211–64 (without inscriptions); 265–
98 (anchor in shape of cross).

Gert Boersema
A very similar seal is published by Asamer and Winter, the only dif-
ference being a star in the left field of their seal. 32 Three more examples
are mentioned by Still. 33 Two more seals depicting the Good Shepherd
are discussed below (no. 7 and 8). Representations of the Good Shep-
herd were widely used by early Christian image makers and appear on
many different media, even though by the middle of the fourth century
they began to decline in favour. A very early example is a clay lamp made
for a Christian patron by the Florentius workshop in Italy, active at the
turn of the second century and producing mainly for a pagan clientele. 34
The image of the ram-bearing youth, or kriophoros, is much older than
Christianity, dating back to the Bronze Age. However, arguing the case
of gems depicting the Good Shepherd, Spier concludes that most, if not
all of them were used by Christians, because they are all of third century
date and later, and because a significant number of these gems have dis-
tinctively Christian symbols or inscriptions. 35 The existing image of the
kriophoros could be appropriated by Christians and endowed with new
meaning by virtue of widely used shepherd allegories in the scriptures of
both Testaments. 36 The Good Shepherd appears in the New Testament
as a symbol of salvation and sacrifice, figuring in the famous parable of
the lost sheep, and in the Gospel of John, where Jesus calls himself the
Good Shepherd who gives his life for the sheep. Early Christian writers
also associate the Good Shepherd with Christ. 37 Tertullian, at the end of
the second century, remarks that Christ is depicted as the Good Shep-
herd on drinking cups. 38
32
Asamer and Winter (1999), no. 4 = Spier (2007) S10.
33
Still (1995) 1655, from Moesia Inferior; 1702, from Pannonia and 1745, from
Thrace.
34
Spier (2007–2008) 171–72.
35
Spier (2007) 54.
36
Psalm 23; Ezekiel 34 and 37:24; Jeremiah 3:15 and 23:4; Zachariah 13:7; Mat-
thew 10:6; 18:12–14; Luke 15:3–7; John 10: 1–21. Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25 and 5:4.
37
Clement of Alexandria’s Hymn to Christ the Savior in Paedagogus 3.12; Augu
stine, Tract. in Joh. 46.3.
38
Tertullian, De Pudicitia 7.1–4 and 10 ff.

7) Good Shepherd and married couple (second half of the 4th c.)
Ex Saint Paul Antiques 1, 217.
Obverse: in upper register, Good Shepherd, standing facing, wearing tu-

nic, carrying sheep across his shoulders with its head to left. Two more
sheep on either side. In lower register, confronted heads of a married
couple, with the husband facing right, the wife facing left. In the cen-
tre, between two horizontal lines, inscription ICOV XPICT: Ἰ(η)σ(οῦ)
Χριστ(έ).
Reverse globular, with a broken out channel.
Fig. 7
Fig. A.
A seal from the collection of J. G. Kiss, Hungary (fig. A), probably

from Moesia or Dacia, is so remarkably similar to this example that there
can be little doubt they belonged to the same owner. At first sight, they
seem to be identical, but there are a few minor differences. On the Kiss
example, a small cross appears in the lower register, the legend reads
ICOV XPICT, with an added T, and most strikingly, there is a tiny bust

Gert Boersema
of a child added between the busts of the married couple. He is prob-

ably a boy because he is facing right, like the father. The Kiss seal is in an
excellent state of preservation, and the clear inscription proves to be very
useful in the reading of the legend on the corroded seal presented here.
Images of Christian married couples, sometimes with their children, be-
gin to appear on gems and intaglio engraved gold and silver discs during
the Constantinian period and will be discussed further with no. 18 and
19 below. The cross appearing on the Kiss seal suggests a later fourth
century date for both.
8) Good Shepherd and Jonah (?) (4th c.)

Obverse: in upper register, Good Shepherd standing facing, wearing

tunic, carrying sheep across his shoulders. Two more sheep on either
side, their heads looking back. In lower register, Jonah reclining beneath
gourd vine (?).
Reverse flat.
Fig. 8
The style of the Good Shepherd in the upper register and the design
comprised of two semicircles is very similar to no. 7 above. The figure in
the lower register might be identified as Jonah reclining under the gourd
vine, although this is by no means certain. The traditional depiction of
this last scene of the narrative series conventionally shows Jonah nude,
reclining on his back, sometimes with his right leg crossed over his left.
One side of a double sided seal published by Asamer and Winter depicts
this scene. 39 Although the seal presented here might show the overhang-
39
Asamer and Winter (1999) 8. The other side shows Daniel in the lion’s den.

ing branch of the tree, the pose of the reclining figure is significantly
different. Scenes from the narrative cycle of Jonah were very popular in
early Christian art, from the third century onwards, and as with other
imagery like the fish, Daniel and the Good Shepherd, could be awarded
meaning on different levels. The association with resurrection is already
present in scripture, where Jonah is presented foreshadowing the death
and resurrection of Jesus: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in
the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth”. 40 Because Jonah was immersed in water when
he was thrown out of the boat, there is also the connection to baptism.
Especially the last narrative scene could be taken to symbolize the nudity
of initiates at baptism, who are dipped in the baptismal font and reborn. 41
9) Daniel in the lion’s den (4th c.)

Ex Gorny and Mosch 229, 2144.
Obverse: Daniel, nude, standing left, arms raised in prayer; on either side
a lion, their heads looking back.
Reverse conical with a rounded top.
Fig. 9
The scene of Daniel in the lion’s den, occuring in scripture in the 6th
chapter of the book of Daniel is relatively well attested on Roman seals.
Asamer and Winter describe two seals of very similar style and also attest
the scene on a double sided seal from Hungary, with Jonah reclining on
Matthew 12:39–41 and 16:4; Luke 11:29–32.

40
Jensen (2000) 173.

41

Gert Boersema
the either side. 42 Nine further examples, all with find spots in the West-
ern Roman Empire, are known. 43 The scene of Daniel in the lion’s den
is one of the earliest images appearing in Christian art and continues to
be depicted on all sorts of media throughout late Antiquity. Because of
their visual similarity, and because of the shared symbolism of personal
salvation, the scene is often combined with the Good Shepherd. In fact,
Eusebius tells us that the emperor Constantine adorned the fountains in
the marketplace of his new capital with gilded brass statues of the Good
Shepherd and Daniel. 44
10) Daniel slaying the Babylonian Dragon (second half of the 4th c.-
early 5th c.)
Obverse: Daniel, nimbate, wearing short tunic, standing right, feeding

poisoned cake to the Babylonian dragon
Reverse slightly globular.
Fig. 10
42
Asamer and Winter (1999) 5–6 and 8. Even though they express some reser-
vation, no. 6 most likely depicts Daniel. The figure is depicted nude, while Thekla and
Menas appear clothed. Also, the camels flanking saint Menas are usually depicted with
their long necks and heads downwards, as shown on their no. 7.
43
Culica (1975–1976) 41 = Spier (2007) S8b; Turcan (1987) 61, from Lyon =
Still (1995) 1798 = Spier (2007) S8c; Leukel (1995) N257 = Spier (2007) S8d; Idem
N310 = Spier (2007) S8e, reportedly from Trier, a double sided seal with a monogram
on the other side. On this seal, Daniel appears to be wearing a tunic; Still (1995) 1687, a
double sided seal from Pannonia with an inscription on the other side; Idem 1620, from
Moesia Inferior, possibly the Good Shepherd; Idem 1729, from Thrace; Idem 1746, from
Thrace, possibly Menas according to Still; Spier (2007) S8a.
44
Eusebius, Vita Constantini III.49.

The scene refers to the last of the deuterocanonical additions to the

book of Daniel, “Bel and the Dragon”, verses 23–30. According to the
narrative, the king of the Babylonians orders Daniel to worship a great
dragon, but Daniel rebukes him, saying that he only worships the Lord
his God, and that he is able to kill the dragon without weapons. After
the king allows him to proceed, he prepares cakes (mazas) and mixes
in pitch, fat, and hair. When the dragon eats the cakes, it bursts open
from within. The image of Daniel slaying the dragon is relatively rare in
early Christian art, and it is unknown on lead seals and hardstone gems.
It is found mostly on fourth century sarcophagi, 45 and on a remarkable
gold glass in the British Museum dating to the late fourth century, which
shows a scene similar to the seal presented here. 46 Daniel stands to the
right, feeding the serpent, rising up from a pile of rocks. He is looking
back to a standing figure of Christ, a composition which opens up the
possibility of a Christian interpretation of the scene as an allegory of
Christ’s triumph over Satan. 47 This is confirmed by sarcophagus sculp-
ture, where the Babylonian dragon is often depicted coiled around a tree,
or tree trunk, alluding to the serpent of the Garden of Eden. On one
sarcophagus from Arles, the scenes of Daniel and the dragon and Adam
and Eve and the serpent are paired. 48
11a, b) The sacrifice of Isaac (first half of the 4th c.)

Uniface lead seals
a) 19 × 21 × 7 mm, field 14 mm, 9,14 gr. Ex Leu Numismatik 3, 1259
Obverse: Abraham standing right, holding dagger in uplifted right hand

and placing his left hand on Isaac, kneeling before him; to left, tree with
ram in front; to right above, altar; to right below, star.
Reverse bulky with thick channel.
b) 17 × 15 × 6 mm, field 12 mm, 4,38 gr.
Obverse: similar but scene reversed, no altar and no star; to right above,
perhaps hand of God.
Reverse globular.
45
Deichmann (1967) 60, 146, 189, 555, 674, 694, 776, 804, 954 and Christern-
Briesenick (2003) 34, 40, 61, 96, 118, 170, 248, 251, 273, 350, 363, 365, 418, 593.
46
BMC 619; Howells (2015), no. 23. No. 22 shows a related scene of Daniel
standing, holding the poisoned cake.
47
Spier (2007–2008) 221.
48
Christern-Briesenick (2003), no. 146.

Gert Boersema
Fig. 11a Fig. 11b
Spier describes two lead seals from private collections showing the
sacrifice of Isaac, both of different style and with minor variants of
composition. 49 Spier no. S4 shows the ram prominently standing on an
exergual line with its head turned back, and adds the inscription EIC
ΘEOC below, while S5 shows the scene to the right. The sacrifice of
Isaac occurs in early Christian art from the third century onwards on
a wide range of media, including gems, gold glass and glass pendants. 50
The conventional depiction of the scene shows Abraham holding a dag-
ger over Isaac, turning his head back towards the ram. This is clear on
11a, but the orientation of Abraham’s head is not certain on 11b. Ad-
ditional elements like the altar and the hand of God halting the sacri-
fice are not always included. Already in scripture, Abraham’s offering of
Isaac is connected to resurrection, and patristic writers begin to view the
episode christologically, foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ. 51 In addi-
tion, not only the sacrifice of Isaac could be considered a prefiguration of
Christ’s sacrifice, also the ram that is eventually sacrificed in his place can
be seen this way, adding another level of meaning to the imagery. Lastly,
the scene could serve as a symbol of personal salvation, along the same
lines as Jonah and Daniel.
49
Spier (2007), S4 and S5.
50
Jensen (2000) 143; Spier (2007) 65–66. See Spier (2007) 412–14 for gems,
Howells (2015) p. 94–95 for gold glass and Auction L. Alexandrer Wolfe – F. Sternberg
23, 20.11.1989, 266 and Wamser (1998) 240 for glass pendants.
51
Hebrews 11:17–19 (cf. Romans 8:32). The early second century Epistle of
Barnabas mentions the offering of Isaac as a “type” of Christ’s sacrifice. See Jensen (2000)
143–48 for a thorough discussion, with more references to patristic writing and early
Christian liturgy.

12) Lamb of God (second half of the 4th c.-early 5th c.)
Obverse: Lamb of God to right, head facing, wearing nimbus; above

head, cross; to left, dove holding branch; to right, perhaps NL or HL.
Reverse slightly raised along the channel and possibly a textile imprint.
Fig. 12
The Lamb of God also appears on a lead seal published by Spier. 52

This example has the lamb standing to left, with a cross placed in the
right field. There is no nimbus and no dove. Three parallel examples are
known of a type that possibly shows the Lamb of God and a christo-
gram, but their state of preservation prevents a certain identification of
both devices. 53 No. 16 below may have an image of the Lamb of God as
well. In its earliest representations, the Lamb of God is usually shown in
a pastoral context with the Good Shepherd, but from the middle of the
fourth century onwards, it develops individually as an allegory of Christ
and a passion symbol. This was made possible by a number of scriptural
references to Christ as the sacrificial lamb, most notably in John the Bap-
tists’ proclamation “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world.” 54 The dove in the left field may be interpreted as Noah’s dove,
holding the olive branch, discussed further below (no. 15).
52
Spier (2007), S11, from a private collection.
53
Culica (1975–1976) 40 = Still (1995) 1632 and Culica (1979) 133 = Still
(1995) 1633. Still (1995) mentions a third example of the type. All from Moesia Inferior.
See Still (1995) 202–03 for a short discussion.
54
John 1:29 and 36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Revelation 5:6–14. For a discussion of
Lamb of God imagery, see Jensen (2000) 141–42.

Gert Boersema
13a-c) Christ teaching the apostles (second half of the 4th c.)
Uniface lead seals.
a) 15 × 17 × 6 mm, field 14 mm, 3.82 gr.
Obverse: Christ seated left on high-backed seat, raising his right hand in
a gesture of speech; in front, three standing apostles; in field above, X.
Reverse globular.
b) 15 × 15 × 8 mm, field 13 mm, 5.33 gr.
Obverse: same as 13a but X in upper field uncertain.

Reverse globular, one half broken off along the channel.
c) 18 × 15 × 3 mm, oval field 15 × 12 mm, 3.04 gr.
Obverse: same as 13a but scene reversed and Christ is possibly holding a
scroll. Above the head of the apostle closest to Christ is a small horizon-
tal line. In field above, retrograde inscription IHCO-V.
Reverse almost flat, with no visible channel.
Fig. 13a Fig. 13b
Fig. 13c Fig. B
A lead seal with similar iconography but no inscription is described

by Spier, who identifies the imagery as Christ teaching the apostles. 55
Christ is represented as a teacher in catacomb paintings and on sar-
cophagi, usually as a beardless youth, seated facing, holding a scroll and
55
Spier (2007) S9. Christ is seated left.

raising his right hand in a gesture of speech. 56 Although the three seals
presented here portray some striking similarities with the conventional
scene, note the high-backed seat and the speech gesture, there are some
major differences as well. On the lead seals, Christ is depicted seated in
profile, with only three apostles. On the other hand, as pointed out by
Spier in his short comment, the image on the seal type is nearly identi-
cal to a device encountered on late fourth-century glass pendants. These
also show Christ as a beardless figure seated in profile to the left, his right
hand raised in a gesture of speech and addressing the apostles. 57 The
identification of the seated teacher as Christ is confirmed by another
type of late fourth-century glass pendant that identifies the seated fig-
ure as Jesus Christ with the retrograde legend EIHCOV-X. 58 On this
pendant, the scene is composed differently, with Christ seated facing,
his right hand raised in a gesture of speech, and the twelve apostles po-
sitioned in groups of six to his left and his right (see fig. B). The clear in-
scription lends weight to the reading of retrograde IHCO-V on no. 13c
and explaining the X on no. 13a as referring to Christ, which could be
deemed problematic on the basis of the seals alone.
14) Christ with Peter and Paul (?) (late 4th-early 5th c.)
Ex Herbert Grün 67, 718.
Obverse: Christ, nimbate, seated facing, his head turned right, on dais.
He is holding a scroll in his left hand. To his left and right, two standing
figures (Peter and Paul?), facing Christ.
Reverse almost flat with channel broken out.
The absence of any diadem or crown on the seated figure’s head sug-
gests his identification as Christ rather than the emperor. He is depicted
56
Wilpert (1903) 243–49; Spier (2007–2008) 183.
57
Entwistle and Corby Finney (2013) nos 25–27 showing the twelve apostles
standing in three rows of four. See for two more examples of this type A. Wolfe and
F. Sternberg XXIII, 269 and Stiegemann (2001) 300, no. IV.18.5. Entwistle and Corby
Finney describe the seated figure as “grasping a sword”, explaning the scene as possibly
illustrating Matthew 10:34 where Jesus says that he did not come to bring peace, but
to bring a sword. This seems very far-fetched. The object is by no means certain to be
a sword, and Christ is not grasping it. His hand is evidently making a gesture of speech
below the uncertain object depicted in the upper field.
58
Former collection P. Fischer, Germany = Peus 421, 1334. Entwistle and Corby
Finney (2013) 152–53 reference more examples of this type.

Gert Boersema
seated in the traditional pose of Christ as teacher (see the discussion

above with no. 13). During the second half of the fourth century, this
teacher iconography started to develop towards the more dogmatic tra-
ditio legis type, in which a glorified Christ is giving the New Law, in the
form of an opened scroll, to the apostles. 59 Sometimes instead of the
apostles, only Peter and Paul are shown on the left and right of Christ,
notably on the central panel of the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, but
also in the apse mosaic of the Sta. Constanza Mausoleum in Rome. The
imagery of the seal presented here may be related to contemporary tra-
ditio legis types. In any case, if Peter and Paul are indeed depicted to his
left and his right, this may also indicate a date in the late 4th, early fifth
century.
Fig. 14
15) Noah’s dove (first half of the 4th c.)

Uniface lead seal. 19 × 19 × 11, field 14 mm, 12.66 gr.
Obverse: within pearled circle, Noah’s dove standing left on branch;

above, christogram; circular legend (starting at 5 o᾿clock) XPICTE
BOHΘI ΔIA ΠANTOC: Χριστέ, βοήθ(ει) διὰ παντός.
Reverse globular, in the form of a chestnut with a large channel.
The inscription on this lead seal is an invocation of Christ to aid the

seal’s owner forever. Compare the parallel legend on no. 21 below. In
early Christian art, doves may be depicted merely decoratively, perched
in trees in pastoral or bucolic scenes, but they may also allude to scrip-
ture as Noah’s dove, returning to the ark with an olive branch, or as the
Holy Spirit, appearing at the time of Christ’s baptism. Both Noah’s ark
59
Jensen (2000) 94–102 and 107–09.

and Christ’s baptism start to appear in art at a very early stage, from the
third century onward. Spier describes a small number of gems depicting
Noah’s dove carrying a branch in its claws or beak. 60 A lead seal in the
collection Récamier shows a dove. 61 The cross above its head suggests a
Christian interpretation of the dove, but not necessarily as Noah’s dove.
On no. 12 above, a dove carrying a branch appears with the Lamb of
God as the main device.
Fig. 15
16) Zosimos (first half of the 4th c.)

Uniface lead seal. 19 × 18 × 6 mm, oval field 15 x 13 mm, 4.99 gr.
Ex Gorny & Mosch 97, 1306 = Münzzentrum Rheinland 101, 557 = Münz-
zentrum Rheinland 105, 6198. A parallel example appeared in Classical
Numismatics Group 388, 677.
Obverse: within pearled circle, Lamb of God (?) standing left within
dotted circle, uncertain object above; circular legend (starting at 7 o᾿
clock) ZWCIMON ZHCHC.
Reverse globular.
The legend translates “May you let Zosimos live”. The image within
the dotted circle seems to be a four-legged creature, possibly a horse or
a sheep (compare the parallel example in fig. C). The latter possibility
would open up identification of the image as the Lamb of God (see above
no. 12). But considering there are no additional distinctively Christian
elements in the seal design, and that legends containing ZHCHC and
60
Spier (2007) 304–06 and 411 with Noah in the ark as the main device.
61
Dissard (1905) 693 = Still (1995) 864 = Spier (2007) S12. There is a large B and
a star to the left of the dove, and a circular legend CEI below. Possibly, the wreath is a
letter O and part of the legend, with which it is aligned.

Gert Boersema
its Latin equivalent vivas appear in both Christian and pagan contexts,
the identification of the main device as the Lamb of God must remain
tentative.
Fig. 16
Fig. C
17) Holy rider (4th c.)

Obverse: rider on horseback left, nimbate, spearing demon below.

Reverse globular.
The imagery on this seal is very similar to the well published “holy
rider” iconography encountered on a heterogeneous group of haematite,
bronze and lead magical amulets. 62 Their date is debated. Most amulets
seem to date to the fifth to sixth centuries, but fourth and even third
62
Bonner (1950) 294–327; Matantseva (1994); Michel (2001) 430–54; Spier
(2014). Known find spots mainly in Syria-Palestine, but also in North Africa and Asia
Minor.

century dates are also proposed. 63 Usually, on the gems, a rider who is
not nimbate spears a female demon, depicted slightly in front of the
horse, raising her hand in a defensive gesture. The horseman is identi-
fied by a legend as Solomon, drawing on the late antique tradition of the
Old Testament king as master of demons, appearing prominently in the
pseudepigraphical Testament of Solomon. Related imagery is found on
bronze and lead amulets, sometimes very crudely engraved. On these,
the rider is not identified as Solomon and he is always nimbate. The de-
mon is usually lying prostrate directly below the horse, as if she is already
dead, and sometimes the spear is shaped like a cross. By the sixth century,
the holy rider had entered orthodox Byzantine iconography as a warrior
saint spearing a serpent. Although amulets with holy rider imagery are
known today in relatively large numbers, the scene is unprecedented on
a Roman lead seal. This is not surprising because magical imagery rarely
crosses over onto seals. 64 However, a similar design of a rider spearing
a serpent appears on a lead seal published by Asamer and Winter. This
double sided seal, produced with freely applied dies and dating to the
fourth century, shows a rider with a serpent below on one side, and a
retrograde christogram on the other. 65
Fig. 17
63
Michel (2001) dates the haematite gems to the fourth century, and the bronze
amulets to the fifth and sixth centuries, while Spier (2001, 103; 2014, 44) prefers to date
the whole group to the fifth to sixth centuries. Walter (1991) proposes different stages
of iconographical development, even considering a third-century date for the first holy
rider images.
64
Three lead seal types with magical imagery and inscriptions appear in Dissard
(1905) 700–02.
65
Asamer and Winter (1999) 2. Due to a damaged obverse, it remains uncertain
whether the rider is wearing a nimbus or even holding a spear. Asamer and Winter ten-
tatively describe the mount as a lion but this is problematic considering the lack of good
iconographical parallels for a lion rider. Most likely, the seal depicts a rider on horseback,
pulling the reins.

Gert Boersema
Fig. 18
18) Married couple (4th c.)

Uniface lead seal. 21 × 21 × 4 mm, oval field 13 × 15 mm, 6.34 gr.
Obverse: confronted busts of a married couple. The wife facing right and
the husband facing left; traces of a circular legend: DEO or ΛΕΟ above
the busts, right perhaps CM, below …IV.
Originally, the legend of this seal probably included the names of

the portrayed individuals. If the legend indeed reads DEO, this word
may have been part of the phrase vivas in Deo or spes in Deo, identifying
them as Christians. Vivas in Deo, and to a lesser extent spes in Deo, is
found primarily on fourth century small artefacts like gems, rings and
gold glass. 66 On lead seals, the phrase is rare, as is the word vivas by itself.
Still describes a seal with a draped bust to right and the legend …S IN
DEO. Another seal with a bust to right and the legend …E VIVAS is
published by Spier. 67 Another example can be added with no. 16 above,
reading ZHCHC in the legend, the Greek equivalent of vivas. Portraits
of married couples, with or without their children, are found notably
on intaglio engraved silver and gold discs, and to a lesser extent on jew-
elry, gems and glass pendants. 68 Almost all of these these objects date to
the fourth century and many have added christograms or crosses iden-
tifying the spouses as being Christians. On lead seals, married couples
66
For gems, metal intaglio engraved discs and rings, see Spier (2007) 23, 57, 172,
737, 754–55, R9, R15, R45, R52, R55–59 (Vivas in Deo) and R26 and R60 (Spes in Deo).
See Howells (2015) 44 for a gold glass medallion with the legend Vivas in Deo.
67
Still (1995) 209; Spier (2011) add. 15.
68
Spier 1, 25, 26 (gems), 35–48, 59, 61–66 (discs); Entwistle and Corby Finney
(2013) 17–20 (glass pendants).

occur with some frequency, although it is often difficult to distinguish

busts of private citizens from imperial busts, even on examples in good
condition. 69 See no. 7 above and no. 19 below for two more seals with
portraits of married couples.
19) Married couple (second half of the fourth c.)

Double sided lead seal, struck with freely applied dies. 15 mm, field 15 mm,
3.04 gr., die axis 7.00.
Obverse: two busts of a married couple, with one bust shown upside
down below the other. To left and right, ΠIC-TIC. All within wreathed
border.
Reverse: Large christogram with pellets in the fields, within wreathed
border.
Fig. 19
Although portraits of married couples are found on a wide range

of fourth century objects (as discussed with no. 7 and 18 above), this
inventive “playing card” design seems to be unprecedented. The word
πίστις appears on either side of the busts and probably refers to the cou-
ple’s marital virtue of loyalty (Lat. fides) and not to their Christian faith,
even though the christogram might suggest otherwise. In early Christian
material culture, the word does not seem to appear as an acclamation
of the Christian faith, yet the word does appear frequently in marital
(wedding rings) and martial (soldier’s rings) contexts. 70 The reverse of
this seal shows the christogram placed within a wreath of Victory, which
prevents an early, pre-Constantinian date.
69
Spier (2007) S1; Cf. Leukel (1995) N115-N146 (mainly in poor condition);
Münzzentrum Rheinland 151, 865 and 905 and Münzzentrum Rheinland 169, 824.
70
Cf. Spier (2007) X28, arguing against the word πίστις referring to the Christian
faith on a third-century carnelian gem.

Gert Boersema
20) Tetramorph (later 4th century-first half 5th c.)

Uniface lead seal. 17 × 16 × 4 mm, field 15 mm, 3,49 gr.
Obverse: Tetramorph consisting of a facing human head in the center,

an eagle with spread wings on top, a protome of a bull to left and a lion’s
head to right. Cross above the eagle.
Reverse almost flat with a slightly raised channel and possibly a textile
imprint.
Fig. 20
The four creatures as seen in the tetramorph find their origin in a

vision of Ezekiel and in the Book of Revelation. Ezekiel describes four
“living creatures” accompanied by four whirling wheels, whose purpose
it is to support God’s throne. Each creature has four wings and is four-
faced, shaped like a man, a lion, a bull and an eagle in each of the four
directions. 71 In the Book of Revelation, John envisions four creatures
standing around God’s throne, all covered in eyes and with six wings,
the first like a lion, the second a bull, the third a man and the fourth an
eagle. They are repeating God’s praise day and night. 72 Patristic writers
interpret the creatures of Revelation as referring to Christ. Irenaeus, for
example, connects Christ’s kingship to the lion, his sacrifice to the bull,
his earthly ministry to the man and his promise of the Holy Spirit to the
eagle. 73 Jerome, in the preface to his commentary on Matthew, connects
Christ’s incarnation to the man, his passion to the bull, his resurrection
to the lion and his ascension to the eagle. These aspects were usually also
linked to each of the four Gospels, but the pairings vary with differing
71
Ezekiel 1: 4–28. The creatures reappear in 10:1–22, where they are named cherubim.
72
Revelation 4:6–8.
73
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III,11, 8.

interpretations. 74 In Christian art, the earliest representations of the four

creatures date from the early fifth century, contemporaneous with the
lead seal presented here, but they are depicted separately, as in the apse
mosaic of Santa Pudenziana and on the woodwork on the doors of Santa
Sabina in Rome. The first instance of a combined design in the form of a
tetramorph seems to be an illumination in the Syriac Rabula Gospels of
the late sixth century. The page depicting the Ascension shows Christ in
a mandorla supported by four angels and the four creatures in the form
of a tetramorph. The addition of four wheels indicates that Ezekiel’s vi-
sion is alluded to, rather than the Book of Revelation. This seal shows
that the pictoral image was already conceived by the early fifth century.
The tetramorph on the seal probably does not refer to Ezekiel’s vision
or to the evangelists directly. There are no added elements like wheels
and eyes (Ezekiel) or scrolls, books and nimbi (evangelists) supporting
any singular interpretation. Rather, the added cross on top of the eagle’s
head suggests a christological interpretation of the design, with each
creature signifying an aspect of Christ.
21) Invocation (4th-5th c.)

Uniface, hexagonal lead seal. 17 × 22 × 5 mm, field 15 mm, 9.41 gram.
Obverse: ICOV X|PICTE | BOHΘI | AEI: Ἰ(η)σοῦ Χριστέ, βοήθ(ει)

ἀεί, in four lines, with horizontal lines above and below the lines of the
legend, all within a circle.
Reverse flat.
Fig. 21
74
The traditional pairing originated in Victorinus of Pettau’s commentary on the
Apocalypse and is followed by Epiphanius of Salamis (Treatise on Weights and Measures
35) and Jerome: man-Matthew, lion-Mark, bull-Luke, eagle-John. Irenaeus switches Mark
and John. Augustine, (The Harmony of the Gospels I, 6) switches Matthew and Mark.

Gert Boersema
The legend, which translates “Jesus Christ, help forever”, resembles

the invocation of Christ found on no. 15 above, adding the name of Je-
sus and substituting διὰ παντός for its synonym ἀεί. The date must re-
main tentative.

Bibliography
Alekseienko N. A. “Late Roman and Early Byzantine seals from Cherson and
its Environs” in N. A. Alekseenko, V. A. Nessel’, Scientific Notes of
Crimean Federal V. I. Vernadsky University., Series: Historical Sci-
ence (2016) Vol. 2 (68), No. 1., 59–69
Alföldi, A., “A pannoniai őskereszténységnek néhány numizmatikai vonat-
kozású emléke”, Numizmatikai Közlöny 30–31. (1931–32) [1933]
1–8
Asamer, B. and H. Winter, “Antike Bleiplomben mit christlichen Motiven in
österreichischen Sammlungen”, Numismatische Zeitschrift 106/07
(Wien 1999) 119–26
Bonner, C. Studies in magical amulets chiefly Graeco-Roman (Ann Arbor 1950)
Christern-Briesenick, B. (Ed.), Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage,
Bd. 3: Frankreich, Algerien, Tunesien (Mainz 2003)
Collingwood, R. G. and R. P. Wright, Roman Inscriptions of Britain, vol. 2,
fascicule 1 (1990) 87–124
Culica, V., “Plumburi comerciale din cetatea Romano-Bizantina de la Izvoarele
(Dobrogen).” Pontica 8 (1975) 215–62
———, “Plumburi comerciale din cetatea Romano-Bizantina de la Izvoarele.”
Pontica 9 (1976): 116–33
———, “Plumburi comerciale din cetatea Romano-Bizantina de la Izvoarele
(Addenda et corrigenda).” Pontica 12 (1979): 144–49
Deichmann, F. W. (ed.), Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, Bd.1:
Rom und Ostia
Volume 1 (Wiesbaden 1967)
Dembski, G., “Römische Bleisiegel aus Österreich (Eine Materialvorlage)”,
Römisches Österreich 3 (1975) 49–64
Dissard, P., Collection Récamier – Catalogue des Plombs Antiques (Paris 1905)
Entwistle, C. and P. Corby Finney, “Late Antique Glass Pendants in the British
Museum” in
C. Entwistle and L. James (eds), New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on
Byzantine Mosaics and Glass (London 2013) 131–77
Ficoroni, F., I Piombi Antichi (Rome 1740)
Göbl, R. “Spätantike Bleibulle eines Maximinus aus Carnuntum”, MÖNG 16.
(1969) 58–59
Howells, D. T., A Catalogue of the Late Antique Gold Glass in the British Mu-
seum (London 2015)
Jensen, R. M., Understanding Early Christian Art (New York 2000)
Leukel, H. J., “Römische Bleiplomben aus Trierer Funden (Teil I)”, Trierer Pe-
termänchen 5 (1991) 7–64
———, “Römische Bleiplomben aus Trierer Funden (Teil II)”, Trierer Peter-
mänchen 5 (1992) 64–125

Gert Boersema
———, “Römische Bleiplomben aus Trierer Funden (Teil III)”, Trierer Peter-

mänchen 5 (1993) 124–55
———, “Römische Bleiplomben aus Trierer Funden (Nachtrag)”, Trierer Peter-
mänchen 9 (1995) 153–242
———, Römische Bleiplomben aus Trierer Funden 1995–2001 (Trier 2002)
Matantseva, T., “Les amulettes byzantines contre le Mauvais Oeil du Cabinet
des Médailles” in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 37 (1994)
110–21
Michel, S., Die magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum (London 2001)
Oikonomidès, N. “Le boullôtèrion du césar Constant (336/37), trouvé à Beau-
mont-sur-Oise”, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography I (1987) 105–15
Spier, J., Late Antique and Early Christian Gems (Wiesbaden 2007)
———, Picturing the Bible – The earliest Christian art (Fort Worth 2007–08)
———, “Late Antique and Early Christian Gems, Some Unpublished Exam-
ples”, in C. Entwistle and N. Adams, Gems of Heaven (London 2011)
193–207
———, “An Antique Magical Book Used for Making Sixth-Century Byzantine
Amulets?” in Dasen, V. and Spieser, J.-M. (eds) Les savoirs magiques
et leur transmission de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance (Turnhout 2014)
43–66
Stiegemann, C. (Ed.), Byzanz. Das Licht aus dem Osten: Kult und Alltag im
Byzantinischen Reich vom 4. bis 15. Jahrhundert; Katalog der Aus-
stellung im Erzbischöflichen Diözesanmuseum Paderborn (Paderborn
2001).
Still, M. C. W., Roman Lead Sealings, (London 1995, doctoral thesis)
———, “Opening up imperial lead sealings”, Journal of Roman Archaeology
6 (1993) 403–08
Turcan, R., Nigra Moneta (Lyon 1987)
Vida, I. A., Z. Mráv and T. Szabadváry. “The lead sealings of Maximinus”
(forthcoming)
Walter, C., “The Intaglio of Solomon in the Benaki Museum and the Origins of
the Iconography of Warrior Saints”, Deltion XAE 15 (1989–90) peri-
odos Δ (Athens 1991) 33–42.
Wamser, L. (Ed.), Rom und Byzanz: Archäologische Kostbarkeiten aus Bayern.
Katalog der Ausstellung der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung München,
20. Oktober 1998 bis 14. Februar 1999 (München 1998)
Weiser, W., “Bleisiegel der Spätantike und des Rhomäischen (‘Byzantinischen’)
Mittelalters”, Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt (November 1997)
Weiss, P., “Die Tetrarchie in Bleisiegeln der Reichsverwaltung” in D. Boschung
& Werner
Eck, Die Tetrarchie (2006), p. 229–48
Wilpert, J., Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms (Freiburg 1903)

Vera Bulgurlu
The Byzantine Lead Seals in the Balıkesir

Kuva-yi Milliye Museum Collection
The Balıkesir Museum was founded in 1996. It was named “Kuva-yi

Milliye” to commemorate the meetings held in the building during the
Turkish War of Independence in 1923. The lead seals presented here are
preserved in the museum, and are given with the inventory numbers of
the museum. 1
The city of Balıkesir is the administrative center of the province of
the same name located in north-western Asia Minor, in the coastline and
hinterland of the Asiatic side of the Dardanelles. The name “Balıkesir”
comes from “Palaeo-kastro”; the Greek word “palaio’” which means “old”
and “kastro”, in Turkish “hisar”. 2 In ancient times the area was known as
“Mysia”, after the Mysian tribe from Thrace which settled there in the
twelfth century bc.
Roughly between the years 130/31 and 134/35, the Emperor Hadri-
an chose this area as a good hunting ground, and established a settlement
there known as Ἀδριανοῦ Θῆραι. Adrianou Therae is first mentioned as
a bishopric, suffragen of Kyzikos, in the Council of Chalcedon, 451.
A bishopric of Adrianou Therae is also mentioned jointly with the town
of Ἀχυραοῦς, Achyraous, in notitia 10. 3
1
I am grateful to the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and Culture, to the former
museum Director Neriman Özaydın and the present Director Funda Ünal for giving me
permission to study and publish the seals, and to the Assistant Director Filiz Yılmaz for
her help. I am indebted to Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt for her support and for
arranging my stay at the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Vienna. Many
thanks also to both Werner Seibt and Alexandra Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt for allowing me
to use their extensive personal library on seals.
2
M. İlgürel, Encyclopedia of Islam V, 5, (Istanbul, 1992), 12–14.
3
Darrouzès, Notitiae, Not. 10, 84–85: ὁ Ἀδριανοῦ Θηρῶν ἤτοι Ἀχυράους. Cf. K.
Belke, Bithynien und Hellespont (TIB 13), forthcoming, lemma Adrianou Therai.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117246
Vera Bulgurlu
An Arab source, Al ʿUmarī, also refers to the same area as Ακīrā (Ohi-
ra / Achyraous); this name is also found in the Comnenian period, when
many fortresses were built there for protection against the Turks. 4
H. Ahrweiler mentions Achyraous as on the route of Michael VIII,
when he went from Meteorion (Gürdük Kalesi) to Constantinople after
learning that Constantinople had been retaken. 5
In 1304, the Emirate of Karesi, a Turkish tribe from Asia Minor, set-
tled in the area, judging it to be “a beautiful and well-populated place”.
Balıkesir became one of their chief towns and was called Karasi. Karasi
was soon absorbed into the Ottoman state by Orhan Gazi. However,
interestingly enough, the name “Karasi” remained and was only changed
to Balıkesir in 1926.
Karesi was among the dynasties established in western Anatolia in
the reign of Andronikos II (1282–1328), part of a steady infiltration
of Turks into the region. 6 The town was located in a rectangle of ter-
ritory bounded in the north by the western half of the Marmara Sea,
the mountains Temnos (Dumanlı), and the Dardanelles; in the west by
Adramytteion (Edremit) on the Aegean; in the south by the fertile val-
ley of Memaniomenos (Bekir Çay); in the east by the Sipylon Mountains
(Manisa Dağ). The capital city lay in a key location for routes leading to
the east, or, conversely, from the east to the west and Constantinople.
Out of eleven lead seals in the museum collection ten were recov-
ered from villages surrounding the city of Balıkesir. Only inv.no. 2178,
Christophoros Hypatos, is from the archaeological excavation of Güreli
Hamam in Edremit, led by Dr. Ahmet Yaraş. 7
4
C. Foss, Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor, (Aldershot,
1996), V 150, 161–66, 183.
5
H. Ahrweiler, “L’histoire et la géographie de la région de Smyrne entre les deux
occupations turques (1081–1317)”, TM 1 (1965), 73, n. 394.
6
Doukas II 3, p. 35, 1–2 (ed. Grecu): ἑτέρα Φρυγία ἡ μεγάλη…(ἑάλω) παρὰ τοῦ
Καρασή. Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri (Ankara, 1937), 33–35.
7
At present lecturer at the Trakya University. I would like to thank him for allow-
ing me to publish this seal.

The Byzantine Lead Seals in the Balıkesir Kuva-yi Milliye Museum Collection
Catalogue
The inventory numbers on the seals are those given by the Balıkesir
Kuva-yi Milliye Museum. The seals have not been published. 8
1. Emperor Konstantinos IX Monomachos (1042–55)
Inv.no. 2007. Acquired by court order.

Fine earth-colored patina. Effaced surfaces. Struck off-centre to the left. Mixed
Latin and Greek letters.
D. 35 mm. Thickness: 4.5 mm.
Ed. (very similar): Zacos – Veglery I, no. 79c.
Obv.: Bust of Christ Pantocrator, bearded, facing, wears nimbus cru-

ciger decorated with five dots in each limb, here only visible in the right
hand limb. Wears chiton and himation, fold of himation draped over
right arm and hand, Bible in left hand (barely visible). The sigla IC–XC are
erased. On the right, circular inscription, barely visible: …NOV.. /[EMMA]
- NOV[ΗΛ]. Border of dots.
Rev.: Half-length figure of Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos,
bearded, facing, wearing crown with large cross formed of pellets and
pendants ending in three strings of pearls. Wears divitision and loros
with pattern of large squares. Holds cruciform scepter in right hand and
globus cruciger in left. Circular inscription. Border of dots.
+CΩS..I- AOCRAT
Cωnst[an]ti(nos) autocrat(or)
8
The seals were presented at the International Colloquium on Rus’ian-Byzantine
Sigillography in Kiev 13th-16th September 2013, “Sphragistic Meridian”, organized by
Mr Oleksii Sheremetiev.

Vera Bulgurlu
The images and inscriptions are similar to those on Constantine’s gold

coin. 9 Similar seals but from different boulloteria and with variations
in the inscription on the reverse: Zacos – Veglery, Seals I/1, no. 79a,b;
Jordanov, Corpus I, 107–09; Sokolova, Imp. Seals, 108; Seibt – Zar-
nitz 1.1.6 (but on the reverse with basileus Romaion, not autocrator);
SBS 3 (1993), 203; Bulgurlu, Bizans Mühürleri, 19; DOSeals 4, 73.11;
Cheynet et al., Istanbul, 1.30 and 1.33 (with extensive references); Zacos
(Genève), 9–11.
2. Emperor Konstantinos X Doukas (probably 1065–67)
Inv.no. 1175. Purchased from a villager.

D. 23 mm. (half )
Fine earth patina. Right half of the seal, broken down the channel. Chip missing
on the lower right field. Interestingly, the left half of a very similar seal is preserved
in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum Collection, see Bulgurlu, Bizans Mühürl-
eri, no. 22. Effaced surfaces.
Ed. (parallels): Schlumberger, Sig., 421 (drawing); Zacos – Veglery, Seals I/1,
no. 88, Type B; Seibt, Österreich I, no. 22; DOSeals 6, 78.5; Sokolova, Imperial
Seals, 126–27; Jordanov, Corpus III, 14, Type B; Seibt – Zarnitz 1.1.7; Bulgurlu,
Bizans Mühürleri 22; Cheynet et al., Istanbul, 1.35.
Obv.: Christ, bearded, facing, seated on throne with curved back and
jewelled edges. Wears nimbus cruciger, chiton and himation, fold of hi-
mation draped over right arm and hand, holding jewelled Bible in left.
The sigla IC–XC and the circular inscription [EMMA] – NOVΗΛ are erased.
Border of dots.
9
Ph. Grierson, Catalogue III, (London, 1982), plate 50, no. 914.

Rev.: Emperor Constantine X Doukas, bearded, standing facing. Wears

crown with large cross formed of four pellets and pendants, divitision
and loros. End of loros is folded over his left arm and hangs down. Holds
globus cruciger in left hand, right hand uplifted. On his right, part of the
figure of the Virgin Mary; she wears bejewelled nimbus, chiton and ma-
phorion, right hand raised and resting on the Emperor’s crown in bless-
ing. Above, siglum M. The circular inscription is erased.
+ΚΩΝRACΛ-[ΟΔΟVKAC]
Κων(σταντῖνος) βασ(ι)λ(εὺς) [ὁ Δούκας].
The inscriptions have been reconstructed from the Zacos seal and the Is-
tanbul Archaeological Museum one (Bulgurlu, seal no. 22) like the miss-
ing half of ours, which is in better condition. The images and inscrip-
tions are similar to those on Constantine’s gold coin. 10 The first scene
of a religious figure crowning the Emperor appears on the gold coins of
Alexandros I, where he is being blessed by St. Alexander. In the eleventh
and twelfth centuries, the scene becomes popular on seals and coins with
Christ, the Theotokos and rarely a saint. 11
Werner Seibt connects the image of the Virgin Mary blessing the
Emperor as related to the victory of the Byzantine armies in the Bal-
kans over the Uzan attacks in 1065, when the Uzans were decimated by
a sudden epidemic and this was attributed to a miracle of the Theotokos.
According to Seibt, the seal can therefore be dated to between 1065 and
1067 (before his death). 12 The Marian cult was very strong, especially
after the iconoclasm, but also before. 13
As opposed to the preceding seal of Constantine IX (cat. no.1), Con-
stantine is henceforth written with a K, and the letters are purely Greek.
10
Grierson, Catalogue III, plate 51, no. 917.
11
A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin, (Strasburg, 1936; repr. London,
1971), 112–22.
12
Seibt, Bleisiegel, 93.
13
About the Marian cult in Byzantium up to the iconoclastic period, see L. Mari
Peltomaa et al. (eds), Presbeia Theotokou. The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and
Places in Byzantium, 4th to 9th centuries, (Vienna, 2015), esp. A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Die
sigillographische Evidenz der Theotokos und ihre Entwicklung bis zum Ende des Iko-
noklasmus”, 233–42. The book also includes an extensive bibliography on the subject.

Vera Bulgurlu
3. Eustathios bestarches, epi tou koitonos kai eidikos

(mid-eleventh century)

D. 32 mm. Thickness: 6.0 mm
Ed. (parallel): Laurent, Corpus II, no. 619.
Fine earth patina. Damaged on the obverse by a deep scratch. Effaced surfaces.
Obv.: Bust of warrior saint, facing, with thick, curly hair down to the
shoulders. Carries shield on the left arm. Sigla effaced. In Laurent’s seal,
the obverse is a little bit clearer, and he identifies the saint as possibly
St. Theodoros. But it is St. Eustathios, the patron saint of this person
(cf. esp. the vestiges of the curly hair above the left shoulder). 14
Rev.: Inscription of five lines with a cross formed of four pellets between
two leaves at the end:
..ΕR,Θ,|ΕVCΤΑΘΙ|RECTAPXH|EΠΙΤ,ΚΟΙΤ,|SΕΙΔΙΚ, --
[+ Κ(ύρι)]ε β(οή)θ(ει) Εὐσταθίῳ βεστάρχῃ ἐπὶ τ(οῦ) κοιτ(ῶνος) (καὶ)
εἰδικ(ῷ).
Βestarches was a title, relatively high at this time. Ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος was an
official in charge of the imperial bedchamber, reserved for eunuchs. Dur-
ing the eleventh century it was used sometimes also as a title, even for
barbatoi. 15 Εἰδικός stems from the Greek “private”, “special” and refers
to the Emperor’s private treasury. According to Laurent, the εἰδικός was
14
Cf. W. Mayerhofer, Die Ikonographie der männlichen Heiligen auf byzantinis-
chen Bleisiegeln, Diplomarbeit Univ. Wien, (Wien, 2007), 35–36.
15
ODB 1, 681; Oikonomides, Listes, 301–05; J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Note sur l᾿épi tou
koitônos” in: L. M. Hoffmann – A. Monchizadeh (eds), Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Pe-
ripherie (Wiesbaden, 2005) 215–25.

the official responsible for the administration of the εἰδικόν. He identi-

fies Eustathios correctly as the person whose signature is on a πιττάκιον
dated February 1045, as it is identical with the one on Eustathios’ seal. 16
4. Andronikos Palaiologos Komnenodoukas (c. second half thir-

teenth – first half fourteenth century)
Inv.no. 1005. Gift of a villager from the village of Ovacık, 11 km north of Balıkesir.
Whitish earth patina. Slightly off-centre. Piece missing from upper channel open-
ing. Untidy and uneven letters.
Ed. (parallel): Schlumberger, Sig., 653 (drawing).
Obv.: Metrical inscription in four lines. Border of beads.
ΑΝΡΟ|ΝΙΚCΦΡΑ|CAΠΑΛΑ|ΙΟΛΟΓ
Rev.: Metrical inscription in four lines ending in a cross. Border of beads.
ΚΟΝΟ|ΚΩΝΕΚ|ΡΙΗCANAK|TOPΩN+
Ἀνδρονίκου σφράγισμα Παλαιολόγου | Κομνηνοδουκῶν ἐκ ρίζης

ἀνακτόρων.
It is not possible to attribute this seal to a certain Andronikos Palaiologos

Komnenos Doukas; there were several homonymoi in the thirteenth or
fourteenth century who could also probably claim an imperial ancestor.
Laurent, Corpus II, 304; MM V 1, 2–3, 14; Oikonomidès, Listes 141.

16

Vera Bulgurlu
Andronikos, the father of Michael VIII ( 1247), 17 seems to be too early

for this seal type.
5. Manuel Dimyres, Sebastos (late thirteenth–fourteenth century)
Inv.no. 1851. Found in Burhaniye. 18 Acquired through court case.

Cracked down the middle on the obverse. Image rather rough.
Ed. (parallels, though partially with small differences): Konstantopoulos, no. 491
and 622; Gray Birch, no. 17,806; Schlumberger, Sig., 673 (drawing, read as
Limyre, which he related to the town of Limyra in Lykia); Lihačev, Vostok, 278,
no. 6; Stavrakos, Bleisiegel, 63; Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus II, 2373 (with detailed
references); Genève, 205E.
Obv.: Christ standing on suppedaneum, facing, wears nimbus cruciger,

chiton and himation, right arm folded in the himation, holding Bible in
left hand. Sigla IC–XC. Traces of border of beads.
Rev.: Metrical inscription in six lines, ends in a decoration of curling
vine. No border visible.
.ΦΡΑΓ..|ΓΕΝΟΙΚ..|ΚΡΑΤΟCΘVΛ.|ΓΕΟΙΚΤΡΩΑΝ|ΗΛCEBAΩ|TΩΔΙVP.
[Σ]φραγ[ὶς] γενοῦ μοι κ[αὶ] κράτος, Θ(εο)ῦ Λ[ό]γε,

οἰκτρῷ Μανουὴλ σεβαστῷ τῷ Διμύρ[ῃ].
17
Polemis, Doukai, 156–57, no. 141, n. 5; Cheynet – Vannier,176–78, no.32 ( J.-
Fr. Vannier); Zacos – Veglery I/3, p. 1559; Schlumberger, Sig., 653 (drawing; a different
legend, also metric).
18
Burhaniye is the old “Kemer Edremit”, where the inhabitants of the coastal Edre-
mit moved 4 km inland to escape the piracy prevalent at the times. The name “Kemer”
comes from the Roman aqueduct nearby.

A Manuel Dimyres is known from a ΧIV century manuscript refer-

ring to him as a poet and a scribe. 19
6. Theodotos Phrangopoulos (thirteenth century)

Badly scratched on the obverse, corroded. Piece broken off at the channel opening.
Untidy letters. Effaced.
Obv.: Theotokos facing, seated on thokos with cushion. Holds Christ

Child on her chest, probably Galaktotrophousa type. Of the sigla only
at left traces of MP.
Rev.: Ιnscription (non metrical) in seven lines. No visible border.
…Δ.|ΤΟVCΦΡΑΓ.|CMATOVΦΡ|ΓΓΟ.O.ΟYC|KE.ΠΝΓ.|ΕTOVΘVT|ΛΟΓΟV
[Θεο]δ[ό]του σφράγ[ι]σμα τοῦ Φραγγο[π]ο[ύ]λου

σκέ[π(οις)], Πάναγ[ν]ε τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ μ(ή)τηρ Λόγου.
There are some palaeographic peculiar features, esp. concerning Alpha,

and in the word μ(ή)τηρ, as My, Tau, Eta and Rho are ligated.
The first name Theodotos is not sure, but seems to be preferable to
Theodoros. Phrangopoulos was a family of “Frankish origin”, verbatim
“son (or descendant) of a Frank”, but could also mean simply a Latin,
someone from the West. The family is mentioned from the eleventh
to the fifteenth century, both on seals and in documents. They are not
necessarily all of the same family. One of the first known members was
PLP, no. 5420; Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus II, 2373.

19

Vera Bulgurlu
Hervé (Ἐρβέβιος) Phrangopolos. A seal of his published by W. Seibt

reads “Erbebios Phrankopoulos ho Gallos”, clearly establishing that his
origins were (Norman) from France. 20 There is a Nikolaos mystikos in
Laurent. 21 In another article, Laurent also includes a list of the Phran-
gopouloi appearing in the sources. 22 A metric seal of Theodore Phran-
gopoulos from the second or third quarter of the thirteenth century is
published in Seibt – Zarnitz (3.3.4). Another Theodore Phrangopou-
los, πρόεδρος (eleventh century), is published in Jordanov; 23 and a Leon
Phrangopoulos (dated 2nd half of the twelfth century) by Stavrakos. 24 I
have not found any mention of a Theodotos Phrangopoulos.
7. Christophoros hypatos and atriklines of the Trikonchos (?)

(ninth century, perhaps 840/60)
Inv.no. 2178. From the archaeological excavation of Güre Hamam in Edremit

(Adramyttion).
Effaced, some corrosion, off-center. Piece missing on the obverse.
D. 22 mm. Thickness: 33 mm.
Obv.: Cruciform invocative monogram Laurent V with tetragram . -.

|Δ-Λ: Θεοτόκε βοήθει [τ]ῷ [σ]ῷ δούλῳ. No border visible.
20
W. Seibt, “Übernahm der französische Normanne Hervé (Erbebios Phrangopo-
los) nach der Katastrophe von Mantzikert das Kommando über die verbliebene Ostar-
mee?” SBS 10 (2010), 89–96.
21
Laurent, Corpus II, 126.
22
Laurent, “Légendes sigillographiques et familles byzantines”, EO 30 (1931),
472–473; Hervé (no. 8) and two Theodoroi (nos 17 and 18) are mentioned in this list.
R. Janin, “Les Francs au service des Byzantins”, EO 29 (1930), 63–65.
23
Jordanov, Corpus II, no. 737.
24
Stavrakos, Bleisiegel, 271.

Rev.: Partly damaged inscription in four lines. No border visible.
XPHCT.|ΦΟΡVΠΑS|ATPHK,TIC|..ONX.
Χρ(ι)στ[ο]φόρῳ ὑπά(τῳ) (καὶ) ἀτρ(ι)κ(λίνῃ) τ(ῆ)ς [(Τρι)κ]όνχ[ου].
Above the Pi in ὑπάτῳ there is probably a small Alpha. The last two lines
are of uncertain reading; we follow a suggestion of W. Seibt.
The atriklines or artiklines/artoklines was in charge of the order
during imperial banquets. The Trikonchos, used for such banquets, was
built under Theophilos in the Grand Palace in 840. 25
8. Ban… … (eleventh century, perhaps first half )
Inv.no. 2010. Acquired through court case.

Entrance and exit of the channel chipped, very dark. Untidy, uneven letters.
D. 24.5 mm. Thickness: 3 mm.
Obv.: St Theodoros standing facing, holding shield in left hand, spear in

right. Sigla barely visible: -Θ-Ε-Ο|Δ--Ρ-Ο-C. Border of beads.
Rev.: Partly damaged, difficult readable inscription in four lines. Border
of beads.
+KEBOHΘ|ΤΟCOΔOVΛΟ|ΒΑΝ…|….
+ Κ(ύρι)ε βοήθ(ει) τ(ῷ) σ(ῷ) δούλ(ῳ) Βαν… …
Cf. R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, (Paris, 1964), 113–15.

25

Vera Bulgurlu
Irregular letters, closed Beta, though from the eleventh century. The
name remains unclear; perhaps we have to do with the slavonic title
“ban”, but there are also names beginning with Ban- or Van-. The name
is probably followed by a title, but the remains of the letters do not help.
9. Georgios Chandrenos (thirteenth century, perhaps first half )
Inv.no. 2009. Obtained by court order. Found in Burhaniye.

Struck twice. Channel cracked down the middle on the obverse. Corroded.
Obv.: Badly effaced inscription (beginning of a dodecasyllable) in three

lines, starting with a cross. Wreath border.
+CΦΡΑ|ΓΙCMAΓΡ|ΑΦN
Rev.: Metrical inscription in four lines. Wreath border.
XAN|ΔΡΗΝΟV|ΓΕΡΓΙ|OV
Σφράγισμα γραφῶν | Χανδρηνοῦ Γεωργίου.
The surname Chandrenos is known from several seals: Nikolaos (late

eleventh century) in the former Zacos collection; Konstantinos (elev-
enth/twelfth century); 26 Leon (twelfth century, second to third third); 27
26
Wassiliou, Corpus I, 787.
27
Wassiliou, Corpus I, 11 (with etymology of the name).

and Eustathios (Chantrenos) (late twelfth century). 28 It is unclear if a

Ioannes Chand (…) (eleventh/twelfth century) was also a Chandrenos. 29
10. Theodoros mandator and phylax (?) (seventh century)
Inv.no. 591. Obtained by court order.

D. 23,5 mm. Thickness: 3.0 mm.
Obv.: Cruciform monogram. In the center diamond-shaped Θ, on the

right N, on the left M, at the top  over T and P, below A in Δ and prob-
ably Omega. Possible solution: Θεοδώρου μανδάτορος.
Rev.: Cruciform monogram. In the center diamond-shaped Θ with a
small O in the middle, on the right , on the left probably K, at the top Φ
and V. Wreath border. Possible solution: 30 θείου φύλακος.
If this hypothesis is right, Theodoros had the title of mandator and was
in charge of the imperial treasury. 31
28
Wassiliou, Corpus I, 1429 (protekdikos); II 1765 (chartophylax).
29
Cf. W. Seibt – A.-K. Wassiliou, Review of Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα, BZ
91 (1998), 148, to no. 298.
30
I am indebted to W. Seibt for this suggestion.
31
Θεῖος = βασιλικός.

Vera Bulgurlu
11. Alexios (thirteenth–fourteenth century)
Inv.no. 2008. Obtained by court order.

Damaged by small hollows at the top and bottom on both sides. Sigla on the
obverse unusually large.
D. 30 mm. Thickness: 4 mm.
Obv.: Theotokos seated on throne without back, facing, holding Christ

Child on her lap with both hands, wears maphorion and chiton. Christ
wears nimbus and himation. Mary’s chiton falls in “elegant” folds on the
left hand side. No border visible. Sigla  – ΘV.
Rev.: Metrical inscription in eight or nine lines, small letters. Border of
beads.
..ONABΡO|.N.AIOMO|NΦΕΡΗCΛΙΘΟ|ΝΟPΟCNOHTONΠ|
ΡΟCΓ.ΑΦΑCEEINK|VPOCAΛΕΙΟC.|KIT.ΠΟΝΑ…|……C
[Εἰκ]όνα βρο[τ]ῶν [κ]αὶ (ὠ)μὸν φέρ(ει)ς λίθον

ὄρος νοητὸν πρὸς γ[ρ]αφὰς ἔ(χ)ειν κῦρος
Ἀλέξιος .κιτ .πονα ….ς. 32
In the unreadable end of the legend there could have been a family name
or a title.
32
In the reconstruction we follow a suggestion of A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt; however,
the end of the legend remains obscure.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
Sceaux du xie siècle trouvés en Palestine
J’ai eu l’occasion d’aller à l’Eretz Israel Museum de Tel-Aviv où j’ai obtenu

l’autorisation de photographier les sceaux byzantins du cabinet Kad-
man inclus dans ce musée et, d’autre part, à Jérusalem, j’ai pu également
photographier les plombs conservés au Musée de la Flagellation chez
les Franciscains. Une partie de ces derniers a été publiée par F. Manns
il y a 40 ans 1. Je suis également en train d’achever, en collaboration avec
le collectionneur, la publication des sceaux de la collection Eidelstein.
Or, ces divers plombs ont été trouvés localement, notamment ceux de la
coll. Eidelstein, qui proviennent plus précisément de Césarée de Pales-
tine 2. Dans son édition des sceaux du Musée de la Flagellation, F. Manns
précise que le fonds conservé est issu de deux sources, l’achat auprès
d’antiquaires de Jérusalem et l’acquisition de la collection privée d’un
avocat de cette même ville, et pour l’auteur, les sceaux « à n’en pas dout-
er » sont originaires de Palestine 3. Malgré tout, les antiquaires ont pu ac-
quérir des pièces venant de Beyrouth par exemple et, à mes yeux, un petit
doute subsiste sur la localisation de leurs trouvailles, mais cela ne change
pas l’impression d’ensemble. Je joindrai quelques bulles médiévales de
l’ancienne collection Seyrig, actuellement à la B(ibliothèque) n(ationale
de) F(rance), dont la provenance de Tyr est assurée, car cette ville n’est
jamais tombée sous la domination byzantine aux xe et xie siècles.
La grande majorité des plombs, découverts sur le territoire des an-
ciennes provinces de la Palestine byzantine, ont été frappés avant la
1
Bruno Callegher et moi-même avons le projet de publier cette collection.
2
Je remercie Adolfo Eidelstein de m’avoir autorisé à publier ici trois sceaux de sa
collection. Le catalogue de l’ensemble de sa collection est en voie d’achèvement.
3
F. Manns, “Les sceaux byzantins du Musée de la Flagellation”, Studii biblici Fran-
ciscani 26, 1976, 213 ; désormais : Manns, Flagellation. Cette conviction est renforcée par
l’examen des sceaux de la collection qui comporte des bulles parallèles à celles du Cabinet
Kadman et de la collection A. Eidelstein. Quelques-uns sont communs avec les sceaux
du fonds Seyrig de la BnF qui ont été pour une large part acquis en Syrie.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117247
Jean-Claude Cheynet
conquête musulmane des années 635–45. Cependant, une minorité de

sceaux sont nettement postérieurs. Ils permettent d’affirmer qu’il n’y a
pas d’époque de rupture complète, à part peut-être le viiie siècle, encore
rencontre-on un sceau de Bèsèr, patrice et stratège 4. Le nom spécifique
du personnage permet de l’identifier, il a laissé plusieurs bulles. Selon
Théophane, c’était un proche du futur Léon III, qui, après avoir été cap-
turé en Syrie, s’était converti à l’islam. Une fois libéré, il se mit au ser-
vice de l’empereur et, doté d’un esprit « sarakinophrôn », l’encouragea à
proclamer l’iconoclasme comme doctrine 5. Ce sceau prouve qu’une fois
arrivé aux plus hautes charges, Bèsèr entretenait encore des relations avec
au moins un correspondant en Palestine.
Dès la première moitié du ixe siècle, les bulles d’un silentiaire impé-
rial, d’un spathaire et archonte de Chypre, ainsi que celle de Damien,
commerciaire de Thessalonique et paraphylax d’Abydos, attestent de
liens dont on ignore les circonstances 6. Les archontes de Chypre of
fraient un précieux relais entre les deux Empires. A partir du xe siècle,
les sceaux conservés deviennent plus abondants.
Je voudrais m’attarder sur les bulles encore plus nombreuses qui peu-
vent être datées plus particulièrement du xie siècle ou du tout début
du xiie siècle. A cette époque, la Palestine était soumise au califat fati
mide du Caire, qui contrôlait notamment Jérusalem, jusqu’à sa prise par
Atziz, un émir turc, vers 1071. Les Turcs seldjoukides perdirent de nou-
veau la ville au profit des Fatimides en 1098, quelques mois avant que
les croisés ne s’en emparent, en juillet de l’année suivante. Il faut donc
tenter d’expliquer la présence de sceaux byzantins contemporains. Les
relations de l’Empire byzantin avec le califat fatimide sont bien con-
nues. Après une période de franche hostilité jusqu’à la fin du règne de
al-Hakim, les deux puissances entretinrent des relations diplomatiques
pacifiées, voire cordiales. Les Fatimides obtinrent des livraisons de blé
lorsqu’une famine menaça l’Egypte, puis ils recherchèrent l’alliance des
basileis contre un ennemi commun, les Turcs seldjoukides, des sunnites
qui voulaient mettre fin au califat fatimide. Plus tard, les Byzantins ser-
virent d’intermédiaires entre les Francs, au moment où ceux-ci entrepre-
naient leur grand pèlerinage armé, et les Fatimides, puis, après la prise
de Jérusalem en 1099 et une défaite des Francs en 1102 à Ramla, Alexis
4
Cabinet Kadman, désormais Kadman, inv. 8654.
5
PmbZ, no 1010.
6
Kadman, inv. 69245 et 8648, Studium biblicum franciscanum (désormais SBF),
inv. 111.

SCEAUX DU XIe SIÈCLE TROUVÉS EN PALESTINE
Comnène, selon sa fille Anne, envoya une délégation au Caire pour ra-
cheter les captifs francs. La ville de Césarée de Palestine fut finalement
conquise par les croisés en 1101. La collection Eidelstein contient trois
bulles latines de l’époque des croisades, émises par des ecclésiastiques.
Parmi ces sceaux, certains ont appartenu à des officiers, nommément
cités comme tels ou connus par ailleurs pour leurs activités militaires,
celles de :
– Jean, protospathaire, épi tou Chrysotriklinou et stratège de Laodi-
cée (milieu du xie siècle) 7
– Constantin, hypatos, stratège des Kassènoi
– Alexandre Maniakès, vestarque et stratège
– Basile, parakoimomène 8
– Philarète Brachamios, protosébaste et domestique d’Orient
– Thathoul Pakourianos, protonobélissime et archonte des ar-
chontes.
A ces bulles, on peut joindre celles du vestarque Jean Goudélès, de Bar-

das Karantènos, hypatos et homme du basileus, de Michel Képhalas
(?), vestarque, et d’une épouse de militaire, Irène, proto(?)spatharissa et
stratègissa.
Tous ces sceaux datent de la seconde moitié du xie siècle. Dans
quelques cas, il semble possible de justifier leur découverte en Palestine,
mais ces conjectures restent hypothétiques, par manque d’informations
dans les sources narratives byzantines, peu disertes sur les événements
locaux, mais aussi faute de pouvoir dater les sceaux à l’année près.
La Laodicée dont Jean était le stratège (sceau no 1) est nécessaire-
ment celle de Syrie, même si le qualificatif de μεγάλη qui la caractérise
n’est pas mentionné. Jean était donc un de ces stratèges de la frontière
orientale qui entretenait une correspondance dont, évidemment, la na-
ture nous échappe.
Le rôle de Constantin, hypatos et stratège des Kassènoi (sceau no 2),
venant donc de Kasè en Cappadoce 9, ne trouve pas d’explication évi-
dente. Il semble cependant que des troupes de ce thème aient été par-
7
Manns, Flagellation, no 9. Je n’ai pas retrouvé cette bulle sur place lors de mon
séjour à Jérusalem.
8
SBF, inv. 131, éd. erronée de Manns, Flagellation, no 22.
9
F. Hild – M. Restle, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Ly-
kandos (TIB 2) (Wien, 1981) 202.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
fois déployées hors de leur territoire dans le thème de Sôtèropolis 10 et

en Bulgarie 11. Auraient-elles été à nouveau déplacées en renfort plus au
sud, face aux Turcs ? Constantin est le seul stratège de Kasè que nous
connaissons, mais curieusement son sceau est conservé en plusieurs ex-
emplaires : l’un, à Munich provenant de l’ancienne collection Zarnitz 12,
un autre de l’ancienne collection Hecht, une pièce de l’ancienne collec-
tion Zacos (BnF 3551), une autre de la collection Al. Wassiliou-Seibt 13,
et les deux bulles, d’un type différent, trouvées en Bulgarie 14. Est-ce le
seul effet du hasard statistique ou ce stratège joua-t-il un rôle important
que les chroniqueurs n’auront pas jugé utile de rapporter ?
Les noms de Maniakès, de Goudélès et de Karantènos, voire Képha-
las, si la restitution du nom est exacte, retiennent l’attention. Un Mani-
akès, Constantin, était présent au concile des Blachernes en 1094 et por-
tait la dignité de sébaste, exceptionnellement élevée pour qui n’était pas
membre de la famille impériale 15. C’est un signe de l’influence qu’exerçait
encore la famille, cinquante ans après la mort de Georges Maniakès, le
rebelle de 1043. Alexandre Maniakès n’était que vestarque (sceau no 3),
dignité infiniment plus modeste et sans doute obtenue une ou deux dé-
cennies auparavant. Les Maniakai avaient été en relation avec les émirs
locaux, du temps où Georges avait conquis Edesse et occupé le poste
de catépan de ce nouveau thème 16. Ils avaient donc une expérience de
l’Orient.
10
Kasès, une ancienne tourme du Charsianon, selon le De Administrando Imperio,
fut élevée au rang de thème. En 1046, une citerne située dans la forteresse d’Anakopia
fut restaurée par le concours de deux personnages dont un taxiarque de Kasès. Inter-
venait-il au titre de taxiarque à la tête de troupes venant renforcer une région haute-
ment stratégique à cette date ou, moins vraisemblablement, était-il originaire de la ville ?
[W. Seibt, The Byzantine Thema of Soteropolis-Anacopia in the 11th Century, Bulletin
of the Georgian National Academy of Science, 6/2 (2012) 176].
11
On a retrouvé deux sceaux de ce personnage en Bulgarie, avec la dignité de
protospathaire et hypatos et le même saint Eustathe au droit [ Jordanov, Corpus II, nos
289–90 ; III, nos 1550–1550A].
12
Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung, inv. 580.
13
Sur cette bulle et sur l’emplacement de Kasè, cf. P. Charalambakis, On the To-
ponymy and Prosopography of some Minor Military-Administrative Districts in Byzan-
tium : Kas(s)e, Vindaion, Mauron Oros, KAREN (2017/3), 28–39, ci-après : Charalam-
pakis, Toponymy.
14
Jordanov, cf. notre note 11, rangés au patronyme Kassianos.
15
P. Gautier, “Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). Étude prosopographique”,
REB 29 (1971) 217.
16
PBW, sub verbo.

Bardas Karantènos, hypatos (sceau no 4), se présente comme le

représentant personnel de l’empereur du moment, sans qu’il soit pos-
sible de déterminer de quel basileus il s’agit, Constantin X, Romain
Diogène ou Michel VII. Il y a une hésitation sur la lecture du nom en-
tre Karantènos et Sarantènos. La bulle parallèle de l’Ermitage ne per-
met pas de lire la première lettre du nom, mais Elena Stepanova qui la
publie, rappelle que Gustave Schlumberger avait édité, sans donner de
reproduction, un exemplaire trouvé en Syrie sur lequel il lisait Saran-
tinos 17. Celui-ci se trouverait à Paris, mais je n’en ai pas connaissance.
Cependant, Ivan Jordanov dans son Corpus considère qu’il s’agit bien de
l’exemplaire de l’Ermitage 18. Les traces de lettres sur la bulle de Césarée
correspondent à un K plutôt qu’à un S. De plus, le prénom Bardas est at-
testé chez les Karantènoi et non chez les Sarantènoi 19, deux lignées qu’il
convient de séparer. Telles sont les deux raisons qui font préférer la lec-
ture Karantènos, mais le doute ne sera levé qu’en disposant d’une légende
conservée dans sa totalité.
Le prénom de ce personnage, Bardas, suggère des alliances au sein
des familles orientales de l’ancienne faction des Phocas, ou de celle des
Sklèroi. L’activité d’un Karantènos à Césarée serait particulièrement
intéressante. Bardas a adressé en Palestine un document. La date pré-
sumée de son sceau (1060–80) suggère que son activité soit liée à des
négociations avec les Fatimides, au moment où grandissait la menace
des Seldjoukides, plus précisément sous Romain Diogène, pour contrer
l’offensive d’Alp Arslan. Le choix d’un Karantènos se justifierait par la
connaissance que la lignée avait de l’Orient, car l’un d’entre eux, Cons
tantin, avait été nommé duc d’Antioche par Romain III Argyre, son
beau-frère. Son action fut appréciée, car il corrigea l’effet désastreux de
l’expédition manquée de l’empereur. Comme pour Alexandre Maniakès,
le choix de Bardas pourrait s’expliquer par des réseaux anciens, organisés
par des parents plus vieux d’une ou deux générations, réseaux qui au-
raient été sauvegardés et réactivés à cette occasion.
Le nom de Goudélès est aussi celui d’une illustre lignée orientale
(sceau no 5). Le sceau d’un Jean protonobélissime, à l’effigie de saint
Georges, est connu par une édition de G. Schlumberger, mais le nô-
tre, étant à l’effigie de saint Nicolas, doit être attribué à un homonyme,
17
E. Stepanova, “Ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως and ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ βασιλέως on Byzantine
Seals” dans : Byzantine and Rus’ Seals, 135–36.
18
Jordanov, Corpus II, no 185.
19
Laurent, Orghidan, no 334. Le sceau, à l’effigie de la Vierge, est plus ancien de
près d’un demi-siècle.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
qui vivait dans le dernier quart du xie siècle. Faute de la mention d’une
fonction, nous ignorons pourquoi l’une de ses bulles a été retrouvée en
Palestine. Il faut cependant rappeler qu’un Goudélès, l’un des premiers
personnages de l’Orient, a soutenu la prise de pouvoir de Nicéphore III
Botaneiatès 20. Le nouvel empereur aura pu déléguer le soin de négocier
en Orient à un membre de cette famille qui lui était fidèle.
Le plus illustre des Képhalas, Léon, défendit victorieusement Larissa
contre Bohémond de Tarente et, en récompense, Alexis Comnène lui
offrit d’importants domaines 21. La famille est encore attestée aux xiie et
xiiie siècles. A l’époque de Michel (sceau no 6), la lignée semble donc en-
gagée dans les affaires militaires et ce dernier a peut-être servi en Orient,
pour le compte de Nicéphore III ou d’Alexis Comnène.
La présence d’une bulle ayant appartenu à Philarète Brachamios
(sceau no 7) est plus aisée à justifier, car cet officier fut en charge de la
région d’Antioche à partir de 1078 et se révéla fort actif puisque c’est
certainement le personnage dont on a conservé le plus grand nombre de
plombs. Le sceau date du règne d’Alexis Comnène, peut-être avant que
Philarète n’ait perdu Antioche 22. En tant que duc d’Antioche, il avait la
responsabilité de surveiller la frontière syrienne où les Byzantins avaient
gardé des forteresses, bien après leur défaite à Mantzikert. Ce rôle du
duc d’Antioche est souligné par la présence de la bulle d’un autre duc,
sous le règne de Constantin Monomaque, celle de Romain Sklèros trou-
vée à Tyr 23. Philarète négociait-il avec un émir turc dissident des grands
Seldjoukides, ou avec les Fatimides, si ceux-ci s’étaient maintenus dans
certaines parties côtières de la Palestine ?
Il est possible que le parakoimomène Basile lui ait été lié (sceau no 8).
Son sceau est aussi connu par ailleurs, puisqu’une de ses bulles est con-
servée au musée d’Antioche, ce qui témoigne d’une activité en Orient.
20
E. T. Tsolakes, Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς Χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση (Ioannes Sky-
litzes Continuatus), Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν, Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου
105 (Thessalonique, 1968) 172.
21
Skoulatos, Personnages 176–78 ; PBW, sub verbo.
22
Sur la carrière du personnage et ses sceaux, cf. G. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre
Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés : étude sur les pouvoirs Arméniens dans le Proche-Orient médi-
terranéen (1068–1150) (Lisbonne, 2003) 5–357 ; Cheynet, Société byzantine, 390–410 ;
Cheynet – Theodoridis, Sceaux patronymiques, nos 37–43, W. Seibt, “Philaretos Bracha-
mios – General, Rebell, Vasall?”, dans E. Chrysos et E. Zachariadou (éd.), Καπετάνιος και
Λόγιος/Captain and Scholar : papers in memory of Demetrios I. Polemis (Andros, 2009)
281–95 ; J.-Cl. Cheynet, E. Erdogan et V. Prigent, Sceaux des musées de la Turquie ori-
entale, Karaman, Nevşehir, Malatya, Maraş, REB 74 (2016) 295–97, nos 8 et 9.
23
Seyrig, no 158.

Al. Wassiliou-Seibt dans son commentaire rapproche ce Basile du para-

koimomène homonyme, actif peu de temps à Edesse vers 1086/1087.
Matthieu d’Edesse rapporte en effet que cette année-là, un « illustre »
romain, l’eunuque Basile le parakoimomène, avait reçu de la part de
Philarète la garde de la ville d’Edesse, pendant que lui-même se rendait
en ambassade auprès de Malik Shah. L’eunuque fut assassiné par un au-
tre officier de Philarète, Parsama, qui prit sa place 24. L’identification,
quoique vraisemblable, n’est pas totalement assurée. Le personnage n’est
pas connu par les sources byzantines. Curieusement, dans la légende de
son sceau, Basile reprend la thématique de son illustre prédécesseur, Ba-
sile Lécapène, celle de la victoire sur les barbares 25, soit ici, non plus les
Arabes, mais les Turcs. Sans doute le Basile de la fin du xie siècle voulait-
il en appeler, en cette époque de difficultés en Orient pour l’Empire, au
souvenir des exploits de son prédécesseur homonyme, accomplis sous le
règne des empereurs militaires.
Marash, Germanicée pour les Byzantins, avait été l’une des villes le
plus longtemps tenue par Philarète. A la suite de sa reconquête par les
croisés, en 1097, Germanicée fut confiée à un Arménien ou un Géor-
gien, Thathoul, dont les sceaux nous apprennent que le second nom était
Pakourianos (sceau no 9) 26. Cet archonte des archontes a laissé plusieurs
bulles, issues de boullôtèria différents. Ce plomb, datable des années
autour de 1100, est sans doute lié aux relations que Thathoul avaient
nouées avec les chefs croisés qu’il avait, un temps, accompagnés et qui
étaient alors devenus maîtres de la région de Césarée.
La présence du sceau d’une épouse de militaire peut s’expliquer par
une lettre adressée à son mari envoyé en mission (sceau no 10). Il est éton-
nant de trouver dans l’ancienne collection Seyrig un second sceau de
même type, celui de Kostantina Pékoulina, prôtospatharissa, topotèrètissa
du thème des Cibyrrhéotes, trouvé à Tyr 27. Le stratège des Cibyrrhéotes
et son second étaient aussi, dans une certaine mesure, des officiers de
24
Chronicle of Matthiew of Edessa. Translated from the Original Armenian with
a Commentary and Introduction by A. E. Dostourian (New York – Londres, 1993)
152–53. Cf. Wassiliou, Corpus II, 129–30.
25
Deux officiers contemporains, dans la légende de leurs sceaux, demandent aussi
à leur protecteur de leur offrir des victoires : Tatikios, [Wassiliou, Corpus I, no 611 ; sceau
Zacos (BnF) 3257] et Philarète Brachamios (ibid., no 1382).
26
W. Seibt, “The Byzantine Seals of the Pakourianos Clan”, dans Representing His-
tory : Theoretical Trends and Case Studies. International Conference Dedicated to 90th
Anniversary of Academician Mariam Lordkipanidze’s Birth. Proceedings, (Tbilisi, 2014)
133–34.
27
Seyrig, no 306. Le sceau date du xie siècle.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
la frontière, puisqu’ils protégeaient les communications maritimes de la

Méditerranée orientale, y compris autour de Chypre.
Nous trouvons aussi dans les collections israéliennes des sceaux de
civils :
– Nicolas (?), hôrreiarios impérial
– Constantin, spatharocandidat, protonotaire 28
– N., anagrapheus de Mésembria, l’homme du basileus
– Jean, protospathaire, mystographe, juge de l’Hippodrome… 29
– Constantin Splèniarios, proèdre et logothète du génikon.
Figurent également plusieurs bulles métriques comportant seule-

ment un prénom sans fonction ou dignité, et des sceaux anonymes sur
lesquels aucun commentaire ne peut être fait, sinon de s’étonner de la
discrétion des sigillants qui étaient en relation avec la Palestine.
D’une façon plus générale, les sceaux de fonctionnaires civils appel-
lent moins de commentaires, car ils offrent peu d’indices pour fonder
des hypothèses. Toutefois, on notera à nouveau la présence d’un homme
du basileus (sceau no 11). Sa fonction à Mésembria rend compte de la
présence d’une pièce parallèle trouvé en Bulgarie, mais ne justifie pas la
trouvaille en Orient. C’est sa qualité d’homme du basileus qui doit ex-
pliquer son rôle en Palestine, sans qu’on puisse affirmer qu’il fût person-
nellement présent dans la région.
Plus intéressante est la bulle d’un responsable des greniers (sceau
no 12). Elle n’implique évidemment pas davantage la présence de
l’intéressé à Césarée, mais sa datation serait compatible avec celle de la
livraison de blé aux Fatimides sous le règne de Constantin IX Mono-
maque. Il pourrait s’agir de blé public, ce qui justifierait l’action d’un
hôrreiarios. Cet hôrreiarios n’était pas rattaché à un grenier précis, et sa
qualité d’impérial renforce le caractère officiel de sa fonction. Le blé fut-
il livré au port de Césarée, du moins en partie ? A l’époque protobyzan-
tine, de vastes horrea avaient été construits dans la ville 30. Or des armées
fatimides qu’il fallait ravitailler opéraient en permanence en Palestine
pour contenir les tribus locales 31.
28
Kadman, inv. 69324 B.
29
Kadman, inv. 69315.
30
J. Patrich, Studies in the Archaelogy and History of Caesarea Maritima, Caput Ju-
daeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Leyde – Boston,
2011) 108–09.
31
Par exemple, les campagnes du Turc al-Dizbirî contre les tribus arabes rebelles de
Syrie et Palestine, cf. Th. Bianquis, Damas et la Syrie sous la domination fatimide (359–

La bulle d’un logothète du génikon inconnu jusqu’ici, Constantin

Splèniarios (sceau no 13), suggère que des questions financières furent
évoquées dans le document que scellait le plomb. Constantin, proèdre,
est aussi connu par une bulle inédite de Dumbarton Oaks, qui ne fait pas
état d’une fonction quelconque 32. La date du sceau, selon l’épigraphie et
la dignité reçue par Constantin, est à placer au dernier tiers du xie siècle.
En 1088, Théodore Aktouarios était seulement magistre 33. Les Splènia
rioi étant d’une lignée sans doute plus prestigieuse, Constantin peut
avoir obtenu, dès avant cette date, une dignité plus élevée, mais sa bulle
date du tournant des années 1080. Bien entendu, nous sommes réduits
aux hypothèses sur la raison qui explique ces tractations financières, la
plus vraisemblable étant que ce sceau aurait accompagné un document
contenant la promesse ou le versement effectif d’une somme d’argent
destinée à trouver des alliés contre les Turcs.
Ces sceaux ne représentent qu’une partie de ceux qui datent des xe et xie
siècles dans les collections mentionnées plus haut, mais ils sont parmi les
plus exploitables et permettent d’affirmer que les Byzantins ne cherchèrent
pas seulement des secours en Occident face à la menace turque, mais qu’ils
menèrent aussi en Orient une politique active, que les sources narratives,
toujours centrées sur la capitale, passent en bonne part sous silence.
Les relations ne cessèrent point au xiie siècle, lorsque la province fut
passée pour l’essentiel sous le contrôle des Latins d’Orient, comme en
témoignent quelques sceaux byzantins conservés dans les mêmes collec-
tions :
– Etienne Eléodôritès, protonobélissime (milieu du xiie siècle) 34,
– Eudocie, sébastè, dignité indiquant qu’il s’agit d’une princesse
Comnène ou Doukas 35,
– Syméon, patriarche d’Antioche (début du xiiie siècle) 36.
468/969–1076) : essai d’interprétation de chroniques arabes médiévales, vol. 1 (Publications

de l’Institut français de Damas) (Paris, 1986) 415–523.
32
DO 55.1.3331 : Constantin Splèniarès, proèdre. Sur cette lignée, cf. Zacos (Ge-
nève) 95, no 77 (commentaire du sceau du questeur Georges Splèniarios).
33
R. Guilland, “Les logothètes : études sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire
byzantin”, REB 29 (1971) 11–24.
34
Kadman, inv. 69332. Une pièce parallèle est citée dans Wassiliou, Corpus II, no
2888.
35
Kadman, inv. 69316.
36
SBF, inv. 124, éd. Manns, Flagellation, no 18. Les patriarches titulaires du siège
d’Antioche résidaient à Constantinople.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
Le plus récent des sceaux date de l’époque des Paléologues, celui de

Constantin Kladôn 37, personnage inconnu par ailleurs, qui pourrait être
associé aux négociations engagées par Michel VIII avec les Mamelouks
pour le libre passage par le Bosphore des bateaux chargés d’esclaves desti-
nés à renforcer leur armée. Il y a une part d’hypothèse dans les quelques
réflexions précédentes tant sur l’origine des bulles que sur les explications
à leur présence sur le sol palestinien ou syrien du Sud, mais elle n’interdit
pas, en dépit du modeste nombre d’exemplaires trouvés, de tirer quelques
conclusions vraisemblables. Les sceaux témoignent de la permanence
des relations transfrontalières quels que soient les partenaires du viie
au xiiie siècle, avec un moment privilégié au cours de la seconde moitié
du xie siècle, correspondant à la montée du péril turc, même si l’on ne
peut prouver que toutes ces bulles témoignent de liens diplomatiques. La
liste des sceaux évoqués dans ce texte est assez brève, mais elle permet ce-
pendant de bien distinguer les deux niveaux de relations diplomatiques
que l’Empire entretenait avec ses voisins. D’une part la diplomatie impé-
riale, la mieux connue par des sources, était exercée par des ambassadeurs
ou des personnages chargés d’une mission précise, qui venaient de Cons
tantinople et dont certains étaient même les « hommes » de l’empereur.
D’autre part, les commandants des circonscriptions frontalières mainte-
naient des liens avec leurs voisins immédiats. Cette diplomatie de pro
ximité est moins bien connue, sauf quand un auteur réside en province,
comme Yaḥyā d’Antioche qui décrit, par exemple, les négociations d’un
chef local, Ibn Musaraf, avec plusieurs ducs d’Antioche 38. C’est une situ-
ation normale que souligne Kékauménos quand il conseille à un stratège
de la frontière de se méfier d’un étranger voisin de son territoire, qui lui
envoie des messages et des cadeaux 39. Le matériel trouvé dans l’ancienne
province byzantine de Palestine reflète bien ces rapports, beaucoup plus
denses qu’on ne le soupçonnerait à la lecture des chroniqueurs.
37
Kadman, inv. 8636. Une bulle parallèle est éditée par Al. Wassiliou-Seibt (Cor-
pus I, no 1183) qui la date de la seconde moitié du xiiie siècle.
38
Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn-Sa’íd al-Anṭākī, Continuateur de Sa’íd ibn-Biṭríq, III–
I. Kratchkovsky (éd.) ; Traduction française annotée par Fr. Micheau et G. Troupeau,
PO 47, fasc. 4, (Turnhout, 1997) 133–41, 145–47, 155–59.
39
Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni e consigli di un galantuomo, a cura di Maria Dora
Spadaro (Alexandrie, 1998) 102–09.

Annexe : sceaux inédits ou corrigés (sauf Maniakès)
1) Jean, protospathaire épi tou Chrysotriklinou et stratège de

Laodicée
Ed. : Manns, Flagellation, 224–25, no 9 (lecture partielle) et photo
graphie, pl. 26.
Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, saint Jean Prodrome de face, en

pied, tenant en main droite une longue croix processionnelle et en main
gauche un rouleau. Dans le champ, de part et d’autre de l’effigie, épigraphe
en colonne, O|.|G–P r |DR|m|OS: Ὁ [ἅ]γ(ιος) [Ἰω(άννης) ὁ] Πρ(ό)δρ(ο)μος.
Au revers, légende sur cinq lignes restantes, précédée d’une croisette
et surmontée d’une autre croisette accostée de tirets :
-+-|+KEb2Y2|6Iv5ASPAY2|.PIT2rXGKL|.STRAT2G2|.9AvDIK2
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Ἰω(άννῃ) (πρωτο)σπαθ(αρίῳ) [ἐ]πὶ τ(οῦ) χρ(υσο)-
(τρι)κλ(ίνου) [(καὶ)] στρατ(η)γ(ῷ) [Λ]αωδικ(είας).
Μilieu du xie siècle.
2) Constantin, hypatos et stratège des Kassènoi

Kadman, inv. 69267.
Dia. : 20. Des. : Flan trop petit, à peine échancré à l’orifice inférieur
du canal ; le droit est usé.
Inédit.
// : a) Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung, inv. 580 [venant de la
vente Münz Zentrum 78 (septembre 1994), n° 802] ; b) Zacos (BnF)
3551 ; (c) CNG, Vente Triton XI (janvier 2008), no 1184 ; (d) coll.
Al. Wassiliou-Seibt 428.
Ed. des // : a) Charalampakis, Toponymy, 28–29 ; b) Zacos II, n° 425
(lu patrice).

Jean-Claude Cheynet
Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, saint militaire de face en pied,

tenant lance et bouclier. L’épigraphe en colonne est effacée ; d’après les
pièces parallèles, il s’agit de saint Eustathe [ø|EU|S - TA|YI|v2].
Au revers, légende sur six lignes, rognées à gauche :

.KEb2.|.vNSTAN|.INvUPAT2|.STRATIG2|.vNKAS|.HNvN
[+] Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)[θ(ει) Κ]ωνσταν[τ]ίν(ῳ) ὑπάτ(ῳ) [(καὶ)] στρατιγ(ῷ)
[τ]ῶν Κασ[σ]ηνῶν.
1050–80.
3) Alexandre Maniakès, vestarque et stratège

Coll. Eidelstein, inv. AE 28.
Dia. : 26. Des. : Flan de grand module, mais partiellement écrasé.
Inédit.
// : Coll. Better.
Ed. du // : Ch. Stavrakos, “Unpublizierte Bleisiegel der Familie Ma-
niakes: Der Fall Georgios Maniakes”, SBS 8 (2003) 102, no 2 (frappé
avec le même boullôtèrion).

Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, buste de l’archange Michel, im-

berbe, aux cheveux bouclés, dans sa tenue impériale traditionnelle, te
nant en main droite un sceptre bouleté et trifolié. Dans le champ les
sigla, M–X: Μ(ι)χ(αήλ).
Au revers, inscription en six lignes, précédée d’une croisette :

+KEbY2|ALEJAN|DRObESTA|RXH=STRA|TIG2TOMA|NIAK2
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Ἀλεξάνδρ(ῳ) βεστάρχῃ (καὶ) στρατ(η)γ(ῷ) τ(ῷ)
Μανιάκ(ῃ)
Dernier tiers du xie siècle.
4) Bardas Karantènos, hypatos et homme du puissant

et saint empereur
Dia. : 28. Des. : Légèrement échancré aux orifices du canal ; partielle-
ment écrasé et oxydé.
Inédit.
// : Ermitage, M-6117.
Ed. du // : Schlumberger, Sig., 696, no 2.
Au droit, dans une bordure de grènetis, saint Théodore en pied,

revêtu du costume militaire, chlamyde sur la tunique courte, tenant en
main droite une longue lance, la gauche appuyée sur un bouclier tou-
chant le sol. Inscription en colonne de part et d’autre de l’effigie : .9A|9G -|
9Y9E|O|Dv|R2: [Ὁ] ἅγ[ιος] Θεόδωρ(ος).

Jean-Claude Cheynet
Au revers, légende sur sept lignes :

.9b9A9R9DA|9UPATvTv|9KARAN9T9I9Nv|6A6N5vTwKRA|TEw=AGIwH|MONbASI|LEOS
[+] Βάρδᾳ ὑπάτῳ τῷ Καραντινῷ ἀν(θρώπ)ῳ τοῦ κρατεοῦ (καὶ) ἁγίου
ἡμ(ῶ)ν βασιλέ(ω)ς.
1060–80.
5) Jean Goudélès, vestarque

SBF, inv. 107.
Dia. : 16. Des : Flan rogné au sommet ; points d’écrasement sur les
deux faces.
Inédit.
Au droit, dans une bordure de grènetis, saint Nicolas de face, en

buste, bénissant et tenant le Livre. Dans le champ, épigraphe en colonne
de part et d’autre, ø|N|I – K|O|L2 : Ὁ ἅ(γιος) Νικόλ(αος).
Au revers, légende sur quatre lignes, précédée d’une croisette :

+6KEb2Y2|6Ivb9ESTAR|XH9T9ONG9w|D9ELHN
+Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Ἰω(άννην) βεστάρχη(ν) τὸν Γουδέλην.
6) Michel Képhalas (?), vestarque

Coll. Kadman, inv. 69320.
Dia. : 16. Des. : Conservation médiocre ; flan indenté ; usure et oxy-
dation sur les deux faces.
Inédit.

Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, saint Michel à mi-corps de face,

reconnaissable au lôros droit dont il est revêtu. De part et d’autre de
l’effigie, épigraphe en colonne, 5A|X2–5M|9H : Ἀ(ρ)χ(άγγελος) Μη(χαήλ).
Au revers, légende sur cinq lignes, précédée d’une croisette :

+6KE9b2Y2|MIX9AHL|bESTA9R.|TO9KEFA|LA
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Μιχαὴλ βεστάρ[χ(ῃ)] τ(ῷ) Κεφαλᾷ.
7) Philarète Brachamios, protosébaste et domestique de l’Orient

SBF, inv. 169.
Dia. : 30. Des. : Flan trop petit ; frappe décentrée ; la partie droite du
revers est presque oblitérée.
Ed. : Manns, Flagellation, 228, no 13 (lecture erronée).
// : Vente Spink 132, no 126.
Ed. du // : Cheynet, Société, 405; Wassiliou, Corpus I, no 650c.
Au droit, dans un cercle de perles inséré entre deux cercle de grènetis,

saint Théodore de face en pied, en son costume militaire accoutumé, la main

Jean-Claude Cheynet
gauche posée sur une épée, non un bouclier, la main droite paraît inclinée
jusqu’à la taille, tenant une lance, effacée comme l’épigraphie en colonne.
Au revers, légende métrique sur sept lignes :

.OM9E.|.IKON..|.9SAYLH..|.KEPOI2P9R9v|.O9NSEbA9S.|.NFILAR.|.ONbRA.
[Δ]ομέ[στ]ικον [Ἑῴα]ς ἀθλη[τὰ σ]κέποι(ς) πρῶ[τ]ον σεβασ[τῶ]ν
Φιλάρ[ετ]ον Βρα[χ(άμην)].
Après 1081.
La dignité de sébaste a été conférée pour la première fois à un do-

mestique des Scholes sous Nicéphore III Botaneiatès au profit d’Alexis
Comnène 40. On ignore quand Philarète a obtenu cette même dignité.
Alexis Comnène, devenu empereur, a accordé à Philarète cette ultime
promotion, sans doute avant que ce dernier ne perde Antioche en
décembre 1084.
8) Basile le parakoimomène
SBF, inv. 131.

Dia. : 25. Des. : Flan trop petit et fortement rogné dans sa partie su-
périeure ; légèrement échancré aux orifices du canal.
Ed. : Manns, Flagellation, 234, no 22 (lecture erronée) ; texte revu et
corrigé, datation et commentaire dans Wassiliou, Corpus II, no 1686.
// : Antioche, musée, inv. 2359 ; Musée de Genève, fonds Zacos, inv.
CdN 2004–344.
Ed. des // : Cheynet, “Antioche et Tarse”, no 161 ; Zacos (Genève), no 68.
40
Zacos – Veglery, no 2707.

Au droit, dans une bordure de grènetis, saint Basile de face en pied,

en sa tenue épiscopale, tenant le Livre et bénissant. Dans le champ, épi
graphe en colonne de part et d’autre, O|A|GI|O|9S – S.|L|9E : Ὁ ἅγιος [Βα]-
σ[ί]λε[ιος].
Au revers, légende métrique sur huit lignes dont les deux premières sont
restées hors champ ; la dernière ligne est accostée de croisillons de perles :
….9ARA9KOI9M.|.vNIKAS9K.|9T2EX9YRv2PR.|9TANEUSOIS|TRI9SMAK|(9A9R(
[Ὁμωνύμῳ σῷ τῷ π]αρακοι[(μω)]μ[(έ)ν]ῳ | νίκας κ[α]τ᾿ἐχθρῶ(ν)
πρ[υ]τανεύσοις, τρισμάκαρ.
9) Tatoul Pakourianos, protonobélissime et archonte des archontes

SBF, inv. 113.
Dia. : 28. Des. : Flan un peu trop petit ; légèrement échancré à l’orifice
supérieur du canal ; usé au droit comme au revers, qui est aussi en voie
d’oxydation.
Inédit.
// : RHM-Shumen, inv. 15503.
Ed. du // : Jordanov, Corpus III, n° 525.
Au droit, dans une bordure de grènetis, saint Théodore de face, en

pied, en sa tenue militaire, armé de la lance en main droite, la gauche
appuyée sur un bouclier posé sur le sol. L’épigraphe en colonne est con-
servée seulement à gauche de l’effigie, O|A|GI|O2 : .|..|Δ|Ρ|O2,
Ὁ ἅγιο(ς) [Θε(ό)]δ(ω)ρο(ς).

Jean-Claude Cheynet
Au revers, légende sur cinq lignes, surmontée et suivie d’un losange

de perles accosté de tirets :
9 -|TATwLHS|5ANvbELL2S2M2|=ARXv2TvN9A.|XONTvNOP9A|9KOURIANO2|-(-
-(
Τατούλης (πρωτο)νωβελλ(ί)σ(ι)μ(ος) (καὶ) ἄρχω(ν) τῶν ἀ[ρ]χόντων ὁ
Πακουριάνο(ς).
c. 1100.
10) Irène, prôtospatharissa et stratègissa

SBF, inv. 122.
Dia. : 26. Des. : Fendu le long de la ligne de canal ; écrasé sur les deux
bords du flan ; oxydé.
Inédit.
// : Fogg 1191
Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, buste de la Vierge esquissant des

deux mains le geste de l’orante. De part et d’autre de l’effigie, les sigles :
[6M6hR] – 6YU: M(ήτ)ηρ Θ(εο)ῦ.
Au revers, légende sur cinq lignes, précédée d’une croisette :

+YKEbO.|EIR9HNH..|PAYAR,K,|..RATH.
+ Θ(εοτό)κε βο[ήθ(ει)] Εἰρήνῃ [(πρωτο)σ]παθάρ(ισσᾳ) κ(αὶ) στ]ρα
τή[γ(ισσᾳ)]
Premier tiers du xie siècle. C’est la pièce parallèle qui rend certaine la
lecture de la dignité.

11) N., [spatharocandidat, épi tou chrysotriklinou] et anagrapheus de

Mésembria, l’homme du basileus
Coll. Kadman, inv. 8656.
Dia. : 23. Des. : Flan trop petit, ce qui a laissé le début de la légende
hors champ, comme sur l’exemplaire parallèle ; flan percé et assez oxydé.
Inédit.
// : Coll. privée bulgare.
Ed. du // : Jordanov, Corpus I, no 47.6 et III, no 1347.
Au droit, dans une bordure de grènetis, Vierge en buste de face, ten-

ant des deux mains le Médaillon. Trace des sigles à peine distincts, à
gauche de l’effigie.
Au revers, légende sur sept lignes dont les deux premières sont per-
dues :
|….|.9=AN.|GRAF2.ESH|.bRIA2O|.6N6Y6OSTw|bASIL2
[… σπαθαρ(οκαν)δ(ι)δ(ᾶτος) ἐπὶ τ(οῦ) χρ(υσο)(τρι)κλ(ίνου)] (καὶ)
ἀν[α]γραφ(εὺς) [Μ]εση[μ]βρία(ς) ὁ ἄνθ(ρωπ)ος τοῦ βασιλ(έως).
xie siècle (second quart). Le titre de spatharocandidat est vraiment

modeste pour un homme de l’empereur après 1050, mais le w est déjà en
forme approximative de fer à cheval.

Jean-Claude Cheynet
12) N., hôrreiarios impérial

Des. : 22. Dia. : Petites échancrures aux orifices du canal, surfrappé ;
en voie d’oxydation.
Inédit.
Au droit, buste de la Vierge, de face, voilée et nimbée, esquissant des

deux mains le geste de l’orante.
Au revers, inscription sur trois lignes :

… … |.v9bv9RI|9ARIO
[+……ῳ β(ασιλικῷ) ὡρ(ε)ιαρίǫ.
Première moitié du xie siècle. Le nom de l’hôrreiarios est illisible, car
la surfrappe n’a pas marqué le flan.

13) Constantin Splèniarès, proèdre et génikos

SBF, inv. 132.
Dia : 32. Des. : Flan déformé et rogné dans sa partie supérieure ;
frappe décentrée ; partiellement écrasé sur les deux faces.
Inédit.
Au droit, dans un cercle de grènetis, Vierge assise de face sur un trône

sans dossier, tenant l’Enfant devant elle.
Au revers, légende sur six lignes, précédée d’une croisette :

+6YKE|bOHY9H|6K6vN5AEDR.|KAIGENIK2|TvSPLH|9NIAR2
+ Θ(εοτό)κε βοήθη Κων(σταντίνῳ) (προ)έδρ[ῳ] καὶ γενικ(ῷ) τῷ
Σπληνιάρ(ῃ).

PROSOPOGRAPHY
Ioannes G. Leontiades
The Seal of Theodoros Styppeiotes

Protonobellisimos and Megas Sakellarios
(Early 1150s). A Contribution to Prosopography
of the Comnenian Period
Theodoros Styppeiotes was one of the most important and influential

personalities on emperor Manuel’s court; the latter placed his trust in
this favorite transferring to him a key position for running the admini
stration of the empire. Otto Kresten dedicated a detailed study to this
man. 1 Narrative sources offer already much information about his ca
reer, but an imposing new lead seal in the collection A.-K. Wassiliou-
Seibt extends our knowledge.
Description, edition and analysis of this seal are accompanied by in
quiries about the family name Styppeiotes during the middle-Byzantine
period, focusing on the cursus honorum of Theodoros Styppeiotes. The
new seal:
Vienna, Private Collection Wassiliou-Seibt 478. – D. 30 mm; field 28 mm;

inner field 23 mm. On reverse struck off-center, to the left. Breaks at both ends
of the channel.
Parallel specimens: Brussels, NB, Collection Kimps 82; Kiev, Private Col
lection Oleksei Sheremetiev, no VP-1 (unpublished).
Ed. (first specimen): Laurent, Corpus II, 783 (misread and insufficient)
On the obverse the blessing hand of the Lord. In field up XER6KU:

Χε(ὶ)ρ Κ(υρίο)υ. Between two borders of dots, the beginning of the in
scription:
+YEODVROETONQVPE..........
Θεόδωρόν με τὸν Στυπε[ιώτην γένει]. The ligature Q is remarkable.
O. Kresten, “Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes”, JÖB 27 (1978) 49–103.

1

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117248
Only in a small number of seals the prayer is addressed to the cross (as
symbol of the victory of good against evil) or even to the Hand of the
Lord (Χεὶρ Κυρίου), depicted on the obverse. The motif of the vigilant
and protecting Hand of God for his intimates is from the bible (Old
Testament, Num. 11, 23; Exodus 9.3. New Testament, Luc 1.66; Acta
Apostolorum 11.21) and was adopted by the Church Fathers.
The legend continues on the reverse in six lines. Border of dots.

PRVTON.|bELLISIMON..|THSAŸIASM.|GANSAKELL9A|RIONUCOYE9N|SKEPOIS
πρωτον[ω]βελλίσιμον [ἐκ] τῆς ἀξίας μ[έ]γαν σακελλάριον ὕψοθεν σκέποις.
The full text of the metrical inscription (three dodecasyllables with

a caesura after the fifth, seventh and seventh syllable respectively) reads:
Θεόδωρόν με τὸν Στυπειώτην γένει

πρωτονωβελλίσιμον ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας
μέγαν σακελλάριον ὕψοθεν σκέποις
The aforementioned Theodoros Styppeiotes appears in an epigram in

the Codex Marcianus gr. 524 as Θεόδωρος γένος μὲν ὢν Στυπειώτης, | τὴν
ἀξίαν δὲ νῦν κανικλείου φέρων 2 (quite similar to the first dodecasyllable).
We cannot exclude the possibility that two similar seal-types with
the legend Θεοδώρου σφράγισμα τοῦ Στυπειώτου 3 also belong to the
same person. In addition we know two parallel or similar types of an
anonymous seal with the inscription Ἐγὼ τὸ κῦρος καὶ γραφαῖς (καὶ)
πρακτέ[οις] | δικαιοδότου καὶ κανικλείου νέμω which undoubtedly must
2
Sp. Lampros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” NE 8 (1911) 3–59, 123–92, here 32, no
6524–25, cf. also 31, no 65inscr.. Addressed to an icon of St. Demetrios in Styppeiotes’ house
church. He had decided to enlarge this church in hope for healing from an illness.
3
Wassiliou, Corpus, I 905 (a-b).

THE SEAL OF THEODOROS STYPPEIOTES PROTONOBELLISIMOS AND MEGAS SAKELLARIOS
belong to the same person because of the mention of the high functions
of ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου καὶ δικαιοδότης. 4
Bearers of this name are attested from the ninth to the fourteenth
centuries. The first known person is Στυππειώτης (c. 883), 5 δομέστικος
τῶν σχολῶν 6 in the reign of Basileios I. (867–86). Κεστά was never one
of his names, it was simply a mistake of the copyists who read it in the
manuscript instead of κατά. 7 Over the passage of time, the bearers of this
surname are distinguished by achieving high-ranking political and mili
tary positions, among other offices. Among those high-ranking bearers
of this surname are Μιχαὴλ Στυπειώτης (924), 8 patrician under Roma
nos I Lakapenos (920–44) and Μιχαὴλ Στυππειώτης (1116) 9 the able
officer of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118).
The surname of the family derives, without doubt, from the medi
eval oikonym Στυπεῖον, 10 the name of a fortress on the Astibos River, in
Paeonia, modern Štip, in FYROM, with the ethnonym ending –ώτης. 11
Owners of seals with this family name are recorded through the
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. 12 The family name is also attested
in the Palaeologan era. 13
Theodoros Styppeiotes, pupil and friend of Theodoros Prodromos,
was descended from a prominent family, was wedded to Eudokia Kom
nene, who was probably a distant relative of the emperor, otherwise her
4
Wassiliou, Corpus, I 681. Cheynet et al., Istanbul, 116, no. 2.52.
5
Theophanes Continuatus, Vita Basilii 5061 (ed. Ševčenko [CFHB 42], Berlin,
2011, 184) (Στυπιώτης). Skylitzes, 14448 (Στυπειώτης). Symeon Magistros, 132, 25 (ed.
Wahlgren [CFHB 44, Berlin, 2006, 269159) (Στουπιώτης, Στυππιώτης etc.). Cf. PmbZ
23699 (Kesta [sic]).
6
Ioannes Skylitzes, 27041 (ed. Thurn [CFHB 5], Berlin, 1973). Symeon Magis
tros, 132, 25 (269159, ed. Wahlgren).
7
Theophanes Continuatus, 5061 and ap. crit (184–85, ed. Ševčenko).
8
Ioannes Skylitzes, 21917–18. Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 81 f. and PmbZ 25177.
9
Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 82.
10
Ioannes Skylitzes, 3515 (φρούριον … τοῦ Στυπείου, Στυπίου, Στουπ[ίου]), 35888
(Στυπείου, Στυπίου, Στουπίου), 15656–57 (Λέων… ὅν Ἀποστύπην ἐκάλουν, cf. ap. crit.
(Ἀποστύπιου).
11
N. P. Andriotis, Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής (Thessaloniki,
3
2001), 463. H. Moritz, Die Zunamen bei den byzantinischen Historikern und Chro
nisten, I–II [Programm des Königlichen Humanistischen Gymnasiums in Landshut für
das Schuljahr 1896/97, 1897/98] (Landshut, 1897–1898), I 29, II 42. Kresten, “Styp
peiotes,” 83–84.
12
Jordanov, Corpus II, 385–89, nos 678–81; 3/1, 181, no. 456, 513, no. 1570.
Cheynet et al., Istanbul, 707–08, no. 7.109.
13
PLP 11 (1991) 27003–27004.

husband would have borne the title πανσέβαστος σεβαστός and would
have been referred to as γαμβρός (scil. of the emperor), 14 and they had
children, 15 of which at least one son was named Manuel. 16
Most of the information we have on the life and times of Theodoros
Styppeiotes is due to the work of Niketas Choniates. 17 According to this
historian, Styppeiotes was one of those men who, in the early years of
Manuel I Komnenos’s reign (1143–80) were in the full confidence of the
emperor and exerted complete control over the state’s administration. 18
Besides the man responsible for financial matters, known from the
reign of Ioannes II Komnenos, μέγας λογαριαστὴς καὶ πρωτονοτάριος τοῦ
δρόμου Ioannes of Poutza 19 and the μεσάζων Ioannes Hagiotheodorites, 20
was Theodoros Styppeiotes, 21 who was foremost in Manuel’s favor.
Theodoros Styppeiotes is mentioned for the first time in sour
ces in 1142 22 and not 1150/51, 23 when as γραμματικός, 24 an official of
the imperial chancery, he accompanied the emperor Ioannes II Kom
nenos (1118–43), during his second campaign in Cilicia. 25 The word
γραμματικός can signify scribe or secretary. According to Dölger and
Karayannopulos the term γραμματικός replaced that of asekretis under
the Komnenoi. 26
14
L. Stiernon, “Sébaste et gambros,” REB 23 (1965) 222–43. Kresten, “Styppei
otes,” 51–52.
15
Basilike Kouphopoulou, “Δύο ανέκδοτα ποιήματα για τον γιο του Θεόδωρου
Στυππειώτη,” Byzantina 15 (Thessaloniki, 1989) 351–67, here 36494.
16
Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 36119, 36469.
17
Niketas Choniates 5484–5912, 11020–11374 (ed. van Dieten [CFHB 11], Berlin,
1975).
18
19
Niketas Choniates 5475–78, 85–87. Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 50.
20
Niketas Choniates 5478–80. Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 50.
21
22
W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte [WBS XI] (Wien,
1974), 517, LXXI46–49. Cf. P. Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180
(Cambridge, 1993), 42, n. 51, 429 (1142). PBW (1141)
23
Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos 514, 521 (1150/51).
24
Theodoros Prodromos, LXXIinscr., 1, 6 (ὑπογραφεύς) (516, ed. Hörandner). Io
annes Kinnamos 18414 (ed. Meineke [CSHB 26], Bonn, 1835) (ὑπογραμματεύς).
25
Theodoros Prodromos, LXXI (516–18 Hörandner). Magdalino, Manuel, 429–
30 (1142). PBW (1141).
26
F. Dölger – J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre. Erster Abschnitt,
Die Kaiserurkunden [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII/3,1,1 = Byzantini
sches Handbuch III/1,1] (München, 1968), 64. Ι. Ε. Karagiannopoulos, Βυζαντινή

The γραμματικός Theodoros Styppeiotes’s 27 career under Manuel I

Komnenos was constant and exceptional. He was at first placed in the
service of the μεσάζων Ioannes Hagiotheodorites in 1143, as his immedi
ate subordinate and became more influential over time. 28 He was possibly
honored with the title πρωτονωβελλίσιμος in that period (early 1150s) and
ascended to the office of μέγας σακελλάριος, as attested by our seal. The of
fice of σακελλάριος, or from 1079 onwards μέγας σακελλάριος, 29 steadily
loses its duties, which pertain to the inspection of the state’s finances, but
does not disappear, as Dölger 30 believes. Rather, it now refers to the head
of a bureau with duties regarding income from merchant marine activ
ity. The relevant imperial acts are registered in its σέκρετον. 31 From 1079
onwards, it controls another fund from which the senate’s ρόγαι are paid. 32
However, Theodoros Styppeiotes’s ambition to rid himself of Io
annes Hagiotheodorites and take his position would not let him rest. 33
Thus, he exploited the first available opportunity that presented itself
and cooperated in his enemy’s removal. 34 The way to his own advance
ment was now unhindered. In at least mid-1155, 35 Theodoros Styppei
otes was honored with the office of ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου. 36 The keeper of
this office was the warden of the imperial inkstand with the purple ink.
Διπλωματική, Α. Αυτοκρατορικά Έγγραφα [Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και Μελέται 4] (Thessaloni

ki, 2 1972), 157. Cf. ODB 2 (1991) 866 s. v., A. K(aždan).
27
Niketas Choniates 5482–84.
28
29
ΜΜ, V, p. 139 (04. 1079).
30
F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung be
sonders des 10. u. 11. Jahrhunderts [Byzantinisches Archiv 9] (Leipzig – Berlin, 1927)
(repr. Hildesheim, 1960), 17–18. Cf. N. Oikonomidès, “L’évolution de l’organisation
administrative de l’empire byzantin au xie siècle (1025–1118),” TM 6 (1976) 125–52
(= N. Oikonomides, Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade [CS 369]
[Aldershot 1992], X), 135, n. 58.
31
Era L. Branouse, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου, Α´ – Αὐτοκρατορικά,
[Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρον Βυζαντινών Ερευνών] (Athens, 1980), 92B38 (1186),
10758, 108B33 (1197). Lavra, I, no. 6738, 103 (May 1196), no. 6812, 27, 45–46 ( June 1196).
32
ΜΜ, V, p. 9, 139 (04. 1079). Cf. Oikonomides, “Évolution,” 135.
33
34
35
Georges et Dèmètrios Tornikès, Lettres et discours, Introduction, texte, analyses,
traduction et notes par J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1970), 142–44, no. 17.
36
Niketas Choniates, 594–5. Ioannes Kinnamos, 18416. Theodoros Prodromos,
LXXIIinscr., 33, 34, LXXIII12 (522, 525 Hörandner). Lampros, “Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ,” 31–32,
no. 65inscr., 25, 155, no. 261inscr., no. 262inscr.. Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα” 361inscr.,
20
, 362inscr., 25. Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 89.

His main duty, from the mid-ninth century onwards, was the validation
of the imperial documents with the purple ink, obviously as the succes
sor of the quaestor sacri palatii (κοιαίστωρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ παλατίου), who had
this responsibility until then. 37 This was one of the foremost positions in
the imperial chancery until the end of the empire, not least because of
its constant and direct relationship with the emperor, while its occupant
could also participate in the litigation of political or criminal cases. 38
The ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου Theodoros Styppeiotes was now in the full
confidence of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos, or as Niketas Choni
ates writes, he enjoyed μεγίστη οἰκείωσις. 39 Certainly the historian did
not approve of the circumstances through which Styppeiotes arrived
at the zenith of his career, but he did laud him for his administrative
abilities, pleasant character and open-mindedness. 40 The co-operation
between Manuel and his chief minister (μεσάζων) Styppeiotes was ex
ceptional, exemplary even: ἡρεῖτο δὲ ὅσα ἐπέττατε βασιλεύς, ἐπέττατε δ’
οὗτος ὅσα έκεῖνος ἠβούλετο (“he complied with everything that the em
peror ordered; the emperor ordered everything that he advised”). 41
Consequently he was awarded other important offices, 42 judicial and
financial, became the head of the civil administration, 43 and achieved far
greater power as μεσάζων than that wielded by his predecessor Ioannes
Hagiotheodorites. 44
The chrysobull of 1158, perhaps one of the last documents before
the condemnation of Theodoros Styppeiotes, contains the following en
try: διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου καὶ δικαιοδότου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Στυπειώτου. 45
37
F. Dölger, “Der Kodikellos des Cristodulos in Palermo. Ein bisher unbekannter
Typus der byzantinischen Kaiserurkunde”, Archiv für Urkundenforschung 11 (1929)
1–65 (= F. Dölger, Byzantinische Diplomatik [Ettal, 1956], 1–74), 50–65. Karagianno
poulos, Διπλωματική, 102, 111, 153–54. J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System
in the Ninth Century (London, 1911), 117. E. Stein, Untersuchungen zur spätbyzantini
schen Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte [Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschichte
2] (Hannover, 1923–1925) (repr. Amsterdam, 1962), 39. Oikonomidès, Listes, 311.
38
Gkoutzioukostas, Απονομή 186 and n. 834 with all relevant bibliography.
39
Niketas Choniates 596.
40
41
Niketas Choniates 5911–12. Cf. Magdalino, Manuel 254.
42
43
Magdalino, Manuel 198.
44
Magdalino, Manuel 254–55.
45
Ruth Macrides, “Justice under Manuel I Komnenos: Four Novels on Court Busi
ness and Murder,” Fontes Minores VI (1984) 99–204 (= R. J. Macrides, Kinship and Justice
in Byzantium, 11th-15th Centuries, [CS 642], [Aldershot, 1999], IX), N. I, 12051–52, 55–56.

The δικαιοδότης, whose important duties Styppeiotes also executes, is, in

the twelfth century, the presiding judge of one the four most important
courts of Constantinople. 46
An anonymous poem, written on the occasion of Theodoros Styp
peiotes’s son Manuel’s accident, names him ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου καὶ
δικαιοδότης καὶ μέγας λογιστὴς τῶν εὐαγῶν σεκρέτων. 47 Styppeiotes was
absent at the time of the accident, accompanying Manuel, 48 perhaps on
the emperor’s 1158/59 campaign in Cilicia, and was informed of the
fact by mail. 49 The poem’s editor believes that the accident and the po
em’s composition took place during the aforementioned campaign and
therefore dates it to 1158/59. 50 Theodoros Styppeiotes, after achieving
the high-ranking judicial office of δικαιοδότης, evidently also occupied
the, also high-ranking, financial office of μέγας λογαριαστὴς τῶν εὐαγῶν
σεκρέτων. The εὐαγεῖς οἶκοι were gradually transformed into imperial do
mains. 51 They were renamed as εὐαγῆ σέκρετα and were, above all, fis
cal organizations. 52 Their head was the οἰκονόμος or μέγας οἰκονόμος τῶν
εὐαγῶν οἴκων, who appears between 1001 and 1019 and disappears after
1088. 53 Alexios Komnenos’ reforms of the empire’s financial services, in
all likelihood after 1091, resulted in the founding of two large bureaus
for the control of the empire’s finances, which were named τὰ δύο μεγάλα
λογαριαστάτα or λογαριαστικά σέκρετα. 54 The official responsible for the
management of the crown’s property was the μέγας λογαριαστὴς τῶν
εὐαγῶν σεκρέτων (1099), while to the contrary the μέγας λογαριαστὴς
τῶν σεκρέτων (1094) was, as head of the fiscal σέκρετα, responsible for
the state’s property. 55
F. Dölger – P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453.
2.Teil (1025–1204), zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage, (Μünchen, 1995), 232–33,
no. 1426. Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 36120, 36225. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 99–103.
46
Oikonomidès, “Évolution” 135. Gkoutzioukostas, Απονομή, 226–30, here 227–
29, with all relevant bibliography.
47
Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 36225–26.
48
49
50
Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 355.
51
Oikonomidès, “Évolution,” 140.
52
Oikonomidès, “Évolution,” 139.
53
Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 41. Oikonomidès, “Évolution,” 139–40.
54
Dölger, Finanzverwaltung, 18, n. 1. Oikonomidès, “Évolution,” 140–41.
55
Oikonomidès, “Évolution,” 141. Macrides, “Justice,” 106.

Theodoros Styppeiotes had finally reached the zenith of his power

and authority. His brilliant career came to an unfortunate end in the
first months of 1159 with his conviction, blinding and severing of his
tongue. 56 Historical opinions differ as to the reasons for his conviction.
Ioannes Kinnamos 57 and Rahewin, 58 continuator of Otto von Freising,
believe the reason to be a conspiracy against the emperor, while Nike
tas Choniates 59 attributes it to the slander of the envious λογοθέτης τοῦ
δρόμου Ioannes Kamateros.
To summarize, it must be noted that: The seal we are publishing confirms

the continuation of the office of μέγας σακελλάριος in the twelfth century.
Κεστά was never one of the δομέστικος τῶν σχολῶν Styppeiotes’ names.
Theodoros Styppeiotes appeared in the historical sources in 1142 in the
reign of Ioannes II Komnenos, earlier than was previously believed. The
likely presence of Theodoros Styppeiotes at Manuel’s camp during that
emperor’s campaign in Cilicia (1158/59) as attested by the poem which
describes his son’s accident, possibly demands the re-evaluation of Ni
ketas Choniates’s judgment regarding the λογοθέτης του δρόμου Ioannes
Kamateros’s activity and the reconsideration of our views of him.
56
57
Ioannes Kinnamos, 18414–1851.
58
Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica, ed.
F.-J. Schmale (trad. A. Schmidt) (Darmstadt, 1965) III 58 (54)-59 (54); (506–08).
59
Niketas Choniates, 110–13.

Synopsis of Theodoros Styppeiotes᾿ cursus honorum
– γραμματικός (1142): Theodoros Prodromos, LXXIinscr. (516

Hörandner [before 1150/51]). ὑπογραφεύς: Theodoros Prodromos,
LXXI6 (516 Hörandner). Cf. Choniates 5482–84. Magdalino, Manuel
429 (late 1142). Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 90 (before mid-1155). PBW
(1141). ὑπογραμματεύς: Ioannes Kinnamos, 18414.
– πρωτονωβελλίσιμος καὶ μέγας σακελλάριος (early 1150s): seal (Was
siliou-Seibt 478).
– ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου (mid-1155): Georges et Dèmètrios Tornikès, Let
tres et discours, 142, no. 17inscr.. Ioannes Kinnamos, 18416 (Meineke).
Lampros, “Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ,” 31, no. 65inscr., 32, no. 6525, 155, nos 261in
scr.
, 262 inscr.. Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 361inscr., 20, 362inscr., 25.
Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 89.
– ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου (May 1156): L. Petit, “Le monastère de Notre
Dame de Pitié en Macédoine,” IRAIK 6 (1900) 334 and 58–59. Dölger −
Wirth, Regesten 226–27, no. 1409. Cf. Kresten, “Styppeiotes,” 88.
– πρωτονωβελλίσιμος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου (12 May 1157): Ι. Sakkelion,
Πατμιακή Βιβλιοθήκη, (Athens, 1890), 316 and n. 6 (πρωτονοτάριος was
never one of his offices, it was simply a mistake of the copyist who read it
in the manuscript instead of πρωτονωβελλίσιμος).
– ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου καὶ δικαιοδότης (November 1158): Macrides,
“Justice,” N. I, 12051–52, 55–56; Dölger − Wirth, Regesten 232–33, no. 1426.
Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,” 36120, 36225. Cf. Kresten, “Styp
peiotes,” 59, n. 45, n. 46, 63, 99–103.
– ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου καὶ δικαιοδότης καὶ μέγας λογιστὴς τῶν εὐαγῶν
σεκρέτων (before 1158/59): Kouphopoulou, “Ανέκδοτα ποιήματα,”
36226, cf. also 354–55.

Werner Seibt
The Theodorokanoi. Members of the

Byzantine Military Aristocracy with an
Armeno-Iberian Origin
Some Theodorokanoi are mentioned in short notes of the Byzantine lit-

erary sources, and already in the past a small number of seals were known.
Concerning the origin of the family the armenologist Nicolas Adontz
preferred an Armenian one, as a combination of Theodoros with the
Armenian suffix –akan, similar like in the name Kamsarakan. 1 Also for
Peter Charanis the Theodorokanoi were an Armenian family. 2 Aleksan-
dr Pessakhovich Kazhdan was already more cautious and spoke about a
“presumably” Armenian origin. 3 But in the important prosopographical
lexicon of the Armenians edited by Hračʽ Ačaŕyan we cannot find a single
note about this name, though there is quite much about Tʽeodoros 4 and
Tʽoros. 5 Just recently Jean-Claude Cheynet voted for a Georgian origin. 6
The earliest seal mentions a John Theodorokanos monachos, displaying
a late invocative monogram with the tetragram on the obverse. This seal
from the former Schlumberger collection is nowadays in the Hermitage. 7
1
N. Adontz, “Notes Arméno-Byzantines. IV. La famille de Théodorokan,” Etudes
Arméno-Byzantines (Lisbon, 1965), 160. But we should have in mind that there are a dozen
of non-Armenian names in late Byzantine sources ending with –κάνος or –κανός, cf. PLP,
Abkürzungsverzeichnis und Gesamtregister (Vienna, 1996), 426 (Namen rückläufig).
2
P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine empire (Lisbon, 1963), 45.
3
A. P. Kazhdan, Armjane v sostave gospodstvujushchego klassa vizantĳskoj imperii v
XI–XII v. (Erevan, 1975), 97–99. The author enumerated seven persons.
4
H. Ačaŕyan, Hayocʽ anjnanunneri baŕaran, II (Erevan, 1944, repr. Beirut, 1972),
296–304 (51 numbers).
5
L.c. 345–65 (173 numbers).
6
J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Les généraux byzantins face aux Bulgares au temps de Basil II et
le destin de leur familles”, Evropejskijat jugoiztok prez vtorata polovina na X – načaloto na
XI vek. Istorija i kultura. (Sofia, 2015), 360: “ils étaient Géorgiens”; cf. 361–62.
7
M-7156. For the photo we thank Lena Stepanova.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117249
Werner Seibt
The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
The reverse legend reads: + Ἰω(άννῃ) – μοναχ(ῷ) – τῷ Θεο-δωρ(ο)

κά-νῳ. A single dot on either side of the last line. “Theodorokanos” is
looking like a family name, but perhaps it was only the given name of
this man before he became a monk. Schlumberger dated to the ninth
century, 8 Père Laurent to the first half of the eleventh century; 9 I would
prefer late tenth or first quarter of the eleventh century.
The first prominent Theodorokanos (here it is the given name) served
in the army of Basil II during the first invasion of Bulgaria; c. 999 he was
appointed commander (probably strategos) of Philippoupolis with the
rank of patrikios. 10 In the following year (1000) he headed (together
with the protospatharios Nikephoros Xiphias) an army proceeding to
the north and capturing Preslav, Preslavica and Pliska. 11 But soon after-
wards Xiphias succeded Theodorokanos as strategos of Philippoupolis,
because the latter was already an “elderly man”. 12
We know two quite similar (but not identical) seals of a Theodoro-
kanos as patrikios and dux of Adrianopolis, with a bust of St George
and the usual invocation on the obverse; one was found in Preslav, 13 the
8
Schlumberger, Sig. 401, no. 2 (with facsimile).
9
Laurent, Corpus V, 2, no. 1403.
10
Skylitzes, 343, 79–80.
11
Skylitzes, 343, 83–344, 88.
12
διὰ γῆρας, according to Skylitzes, 345, 38–40. For the seal of Nikephoros Xiphi-
as as πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ στρατηγὸς Θρᾴκης καὶ Ἰωαννουπόλεως from this period see A.-
K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Das byzantinische Verteidigungssystem an der Balkangrenze (Ende
10.-Ende 11. Jh.). Neue Erkenntnisse aus der systematischen Nachlese der narrativen
Quellen und dem Siegelbefund”, ByzSl 75 (2017), 171–72.
13
Jordanov, Preslav, 194; idem, Corpus, I 3.2; III 1107.

THE THEODOROKANOI
other one was offered in an auction. 14 The reverse legend on the Bul-
garian exemplar reads: [+] Θεο-[δ]ωροκάν(ος) – [πα]τρίκιος – [κ]ὲ δοὺξ
Ἀ-δριανοπο-λιτ(ῶν). It could well be that we have to do with the same
Theodorokanos as the previously mentioned general, since an Armenian
named John, who commissioned an Armenian manuscript in Adriano-
ple (now in Venice) in 1006/1007, calls himself protospatharios and
proximos of the dux Theodorokanos. 15
The story becomes more complicated by two other seals types men-
tioning again a Theodorokanos (as single name!), first as protospatharios
of the Chrysotriklinos and strategos of Artach, 16 then as protospathar-
ios of the Chrysotriklinos and archegetes of Anatole (with the legend
on both sides of the seal). 17 At first glance there could be some tempta-
tion to combine the two persons, as protospatharios is one step lower
to patrikios, 18 but the seals of the protospatharios are some years later
than the ones of the patrikios, as we can see by the ligature , and also
the ligature O-V comes already near to the horse-shoe-type (). I would
date the seals of the protospatharios to 1020/1040, so this man should
be another person than the patrikios and dux of Adrianopolis.
In the following cases Theodorokanos appears as a family name. Sky-
litzes mentions a Georgios Theodorokanos, strategos of Samos, who
defeated – together with Beriboes, the strategos of Chios – an Arab
fleet invading the Cyclades in the time of Constantine VIII. 19 There
are seals of Georgios Theodorοkanos as protospatharios and strategos
of Sion in Erebarkeion (Erivarkʽ, southwest of lake Van) (1025/1055) 20
14
Auction Gorny & Mosch 118, 14.-15.10.2002, 2589.
15
Cf. DOSeals 1, p. 123.
16
One seal in Berlin, MK 775/1922 (ter), already published by V. Chapot, “An-
tiquités de Syrie”, REA 6 (1904), 33 f. (reading APTAK, but the piece shows clearly AP-
TAX), the other one in the Fogg Museum, 2093, ed. DOSeals, 5 11.1. By mistake I. Jor-
danov (Corpus, I 3.2) proposed Ἄρτ[ζε]. Artach lies in the east of Antiocheia. The legend
reads: + Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) – τῷ σῷ δού-λῳ Θεοδ(ω)-ροκάνῳ – (πρωτο)σπαθαρ(ίῳ) / ἐπὶ
τοῦ – Χρ(υσο)τρ(ι)κλί-νου (καὶ) στρ(α)-τηγῷ τοῦ – Ἀρτάχ.
17
Konstantopulos 594. The author could not decipher the end, proposing only
AP.H..-CHT.C.NA.O.., but A. Kazhdan was already on the right way presuming archegetes
(Armjane, 99, no. 7). We can read APXH[Γ-Ε]TH THC A-NATOΛ.
18
Cf. Jordanov, l.c.
19
Skylitzes, 373, 11–14.
20
Seal of the first Zarnitz collection, now in Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung,
no. 604; ed. W. Seibt, “Byzantinische Siegel als Quelle für die historische Geographie:
Chancen und Probleme,” K. Belke – F. Hild – J. Koder – P. Soustal (ed.), Byzanz als
Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeer-
raumes (VTIB 7) (Vienna, 2000), 179–80. The legend is distributed to both sides of

Werner Seibt
and as protospatharios of the Chrysotriklinos and strategos (1030/

1060). 21
To greater prominence rose a Basil Theodorokanos, one of the lead-
ing generals (with the rank of patrikios) under Georgios Maniakes dur-
ing his successful invasion of Sicily; together with him he was deported
to Constantinople and imprisoned in 1040, because Stephanos, the em-
peror’s brother-in-law, had brought them under suspicion of a rebellion. 22
Probably he was freed quite soon afterwards, perhaps he was still in 1040
in northeastern Anatolia. 23 When emperor Constantine IX Monoma-
chos had realized that Maniakes, who was again supreme commander
in Italy, had started an usurpation, he sent Basileios Theodorokanos as
magistros and katepano of Italia to fight him; he arrived in Bari in Feb-
ruary 1043, but was recalled already in June 1043 to defend Constan-
tinople against a fleet from the Rus’. 24 We know two very similar seals of
this man as protospatharios and strategos, with a bust of St George on
the obverse (1020/1040). 25
A seal, again with a bust of St George on the obverse, mentions a
Nikephoros patrikios and strategos; it dates from a period between 1025
and 1055. 26
Another boulla stems from an Asotes Theodorokanos, who does not
mention a title or an office, with a bust of St Demetrios on the obverse,
and the reverse legend has only four lines: [+] Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) – τῷ σῷ
δού(λῳ) – [Ἀ]σώτι τô [Θ]-εοδορ(ο)κ(άνῳ) (c. 1030/1060). 27
the seal: + Κ(ύρι)ε βοή-θει τῷ σῷ – δού(λῳ) [Γ]εωργί(ῳ) – (πρωτο)σπαθαρί(ῳ) – (καὶ)

στατ(ηγῷ) / Σηό[νι] – τοῦ Ἐρε-βαρκείου [τ(ῷ) – Θε]οδορω-κάνῳ.
21
DO 58.106.5653. The legend – on both sides of the seal – reads: + Κ(ύρι)ε
[β(οή)θ(ει) – τ]ῷ σῷ [δού(λῳ) – Γ]εωργίῳ - [(πρωτο)]σπαθα-ρ(ίῳ) / ἐπὶ [τοῦ] Χρ(υσο)-
τ[ρ(ι)κ]λ(ίνου) (καὶ) στρ(α)-τιγ(ὸς) ὡ Θεο-δωροκά-ν(ος).
22
Skylitzes, 406, 4–5. Cf. Cheynet, Pouvoir, 48–49, no. 44.
23
Cf. Skylitzes, 413, 1–2 (Alusianos, patrikios and strategos of Theodosiupolis,
pretended being his θεράπων, when he escaped secretly to Thessalonica.)
24
Falkenhausen, Süditalien, 92, no. 50; Dominazione, 96–97, no. 50. Skyitzes,
431,71–432, 2.
25
Seyrig, 215; the reverse in the Utpadel collection (Munich) reads: [Β]ασιλ(είῳ)
– [(πρωτο)]σπαθ(αρίῳ) (καὶ) – [σ]τρατηγ(ῷ) – [τ]ῷ Θεο-[δ]οροκ(άνῳ).
26
Auction Heidelberger Münzsammlung 23, 1998, 295 = Auction Peus Nachf.
376, 29.-30.10.2003, 1369 (dated 1057/1063). The reverse legend reads: [Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)
θ(ει)] – τῷ σ(ῷ) δού(λῳ) – Νικηφόρ(ῳ) – π(ατ)ρι(κίῳ) (καὶ) στρα-τ(η)γ(ῷ) τῷ Θεο-δωρ(ο)
κάν(ῳ).
27
DO 55.1.3364. W. Seibt, “Probleme der historischen Geographie Bulgariens im
späteren 10. und 11. Jahrhundert – ein sigillographischer Beitrag,” Acta Musei Varnaensis

THE THEODOROKANOI
Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC
Ἀσώτης is the Byzantine transliteration of the Armenian name Ašot,

quite common in the Armenian aristocracy, 28 but became also popular
– via the “Iberian” Bagratids – in Iberian countries. 29
Seals mentioning the name Constantine Theodorokanos seem
to originate from at least two different persons. A type with the title
patrikios, and St George on the obverse is to be dated between 1020 and
1040; it has still the older form of the ligature O-V (). 30 I. Jordanov pub-
lished a seal in quite bad condition, where he read Constantine Theo-
dorokanos, anthypatos patrikios 31 with the help of a parallel in the Her-
2 (2004), 254; fig. 1a on p. 261. J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Généraux” (cf. n. 6), 361, with n. 72,
preferred a somehow later date: “règne d’Alexis Comnène”.
28
Cf. H. Ačaŕyan, Hayocʽ anjnanunneri baŕaran, I (Erevan, 1942, repr. Beirut,
1972), 180–91 (67 numbers); F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg, 1895; repr.
Hildesheim, 1963), 44–45.
29
We should have in mind the different meanings of the term “Iberia”. Already
in antiquity that was the name of the Eastern Georgian kingdom. In middle Byzantine
times also the small principality of Tao in North-eastern Anatolia was called Iberia;
the majority of the population had become more or less “Georgian” (Čans, Lazians,
Kartvelians), and the dynasty, a branch of the (Armenian) Bagratids, became more and
more “Georgian”; the last sovereign, Davit kuropalates, could conquer vast territories in
Western Armenia from Muslim emirs, reaching down till Mantzikert, with the result of
an Armenian majority in his quite enlarged principality. When he had passed away the
Byzantine emperor established here the dukate of Iberia (only a small part in the north
remained under Georgian dominion). And sometimes even Armenians who accepted
the dogma of Chalkedon and lived in union with the Byzantine church (separated from
the Armenian church) were also called Iberians.
30
One exemplar in Athens (462) was at last published by Stavrakos, Bleisiegel, 89;
there is a parallel piece in Paris (BnF, old series 1219). The reverse reads on five lines:
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) – τῷ σῷ δού(λῳ) – Κων(σταντίνῳ) π(ατ)ρι(κίῳ) – τῷ Θεοδ(ω)-ρ(ο)
κάν(ῳ).
31
Jordanov, Corpus, II 228; III 476 A.

Werner Seibt
mitage. 32 The legend is distributed to both sides of the seal: + Κ(ύρι)ε

βο-ήθει τῷ – σῷ δούλῳ – Κων(σταντίνῳ) / ἀνθυ-πάτ(ῳ) π(ατ)ρι(κίῳ) – τῷ
Θεο-δορ(ο)κάν(ῳ).
The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
Probably the types of seals bearing the titles patrikios and patrikios
anthypatos belong to the same person, the type with the higher rank im-
mediately after the first one.
And we know a lot of seals of another Constantine Theodorokanos
without a title, with a quite small diameter and a “Perlband”-border
(c. 1060/1090); at least nine were found in Bulgaria, e.g. in Silistra and
Preslav, 33 but there are more in different museums or were offered in
auctions. 34 Small differences point to three types at least. It is tempting –
but not sure – to combine this man with the homonymous proedros, an
adversary of the usurper Nikephoros Bryennios in 1078, who was taken
prisoner and died shortly afterwards. 35
Problematic is the seals type of a Theodorokanos patrikios and
katepano of Edessa. A first exemplar was found in Gaziantep and edited
by Cyril Mango and Marlia Mundell Mango. 36 On the beginning of the
32
M-1799, ed. Šandrovskaja, Sfragistika, 728 (without illustration). We thank
Lena Stepanova for the photo of this seal.
33
Cf. at last Jordanov, Corpus, III 1891–1899.
34
Schlumberger, Sig., 707, no. 1; Laurent, Orghidan, 471; Fogg 1377 and 1505;
DO 47.2.1312–1314 and 55.1.3354; two seals in the former Zacos collection; Auction
Münz Zentrum 97, 6.-8.1.1999, 787; Auction Peus Nachf. 376, 29.-30.10.2003, 1381;
cf. also Diaconu, Pontica, 25 (1992), 359–61; Cheynet et alii, Istanbul, 7.113.
35
Skylitzes Cont. (ed. Tsolakes), 173, 21 f.; Michael Attaleiates (ed. Tsolakes), 190,
9–18. Cf. Cheynet, Pouvoir, 83 f., no. 104. Proedros was in the 1070s still a high title.
36
C. Mango and M. Mundell Mango, “Byzantine lead seal of the patrician Theo-
dorokanos, doux and katepano of Edessa (?),” R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in ancient coinage

THE THEODOROKANOI
conjectured obverse they wanted to read + Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)[θ(ει) δ]ουκ(ός),

which was certainly wrong. Recently I. Jordanov could publish in the
second part of the Addenda to his Corpus a similar seal, found in Pliska. 37
At the beginning of the conjectured obverse he proposed + Tού[τ]ου,
again misleading. Nearly at the same time a third exemplar was detected
in the museum of Maraş. 38 The editors deliberated – with doubts  on
ἀνθυπάτου.
Seal found in Pliska
Seal in the museum of Maraş
Taking into account the inner symmetry of the seal I would prefer
to read: [+ XA-T]ATOV[P-H]OV KATE-ΠΑNΩ E-ΔECC,. On the other side,
from Turkey (London, 1996), 153–54; fig. on pl. 69.

37
Jordanov, “Corpus, Addenda 2”, 248–49, no. 68 (1205a); fig. 68 on p. 300.
Cf. also I. Jordanov, “Pečatite na Teodorokan, patricĳ i katepan na Edesa (sredata na XI
v.),” ADSV 42 (2014), 163–75. For the photo we thank Ivan Jordanov.
38
J.-Cl. Cheynet – E. Erdoğan – V. Prigent, “Sceaux des musées de la Turquie
Orientale: Karaman, Nevşehir, Malatya, Maraş”, REB 74 (2016), 294–95, no. 7. For the
photo we thank Jean-Claude Cheynet.

Werner Seibt
which should be the real obverse, I restitute in the first (lost) line a
word like σφραγίς, proposing [CΦΡΑΓ, - Θ]ΕΟΔΩ[P,]-KAN ΙΚ-OV. The
legend consists of two dodekasyllaboi, though the first one with an ir-
regular caesura after the 8th syllable: Σφραγὶς Θεοδωροκάνου πατρικίου
Χατατουρίου κατεπάνω Ἐδέσσης.
I would like to attribute this seal to the Khatchatur, who later be-
came dux of Antiocheia. This Khatchatur/Χατατούριος, 39 the last an-
chor of the dethroned emperor Romanos Diogenes, is well known as
dux of Antiocheia from 1069 to 1072. In August 1069 he was sent by the
emperor to Kilikia, where he should join a strong detachment from the
imperial army to intercept a Turkish army returning home after a devas-
tating invasion of Central Anatolia. Khatchatur camped with his troops
in Mopsuestia, but the enemies could escape unharmed. The Byzantine
sources introduce this general as a commendable and experienced per-
sonality: ἀνδρὶ γενναίῳ καὶ πολλὰ ἐπιδειξαμένῳ τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς προτερήματα
πρότερον. 40
In 1071 dux Khatchatur made a raid into the emirate of Aleppo, hop-
ing to invest the uncle of the emir Maḥmūd, Ἁṭīya, as new emir, but
failed. 41
When the emperor Romanos Diogenes had returned from Seljuk
capitivity a coup d’état in Constantinople declared him dethroned, and
the new rulers tried to get rid of him. They ordered Khatchatur to fight
him. But the dux of Antiocheia went over to Romanos and became his
most important assistant. Both spent the winter 1071/1072 with their
troops in Kilikia, preparing for the war to come. But when the impe-
rial troops under Andronikos Dukas arrived there in the spring of 1072,
Khatchatur was taken prisoner. Andronikos treated him with care, but
we are not informed about his future fortune. Till now we did not have
information about his family circle. Concerning his title as dux of Anti-
ocheia I would guess that he was at least bestarches, probably magistros.
Taking into account Theodorokanos’ relatively low rank of patrikios and
the titles of the known katepano since 1059 we would propose a date in
the 1050s for his command in Edessa, perhaps even in the first half. We
should have in mind, that ad 1050 a considerable part of the tagmata of
39
The – exclusively  Armenian name Khatchatur means “present of the cross or
to the cross”.
40
Skylitzes Cont., 138, 11–13; Attaleiates, 106, 26–28 has the same sentence, only
using γνωρίσματα instead of προτερήματα.
41
K.-P. Todt – B. A. Vest, Syria (Syria Prōtē, Syria Deutera, Syria Euphratēsia)
(TIB 15/1) (Vienna, 2014), 218.

THE THEODOROKANOI
the East was transferred to the Balkans to fight the Petchenegs; so the
Syrian ducates lost partially their strategic importance. 42
Two seals are of additional significance for the question of the ethnic
origin and cultural identity of the Theodorokanoi (though they surely
accentuated their membership of the Byzantine military aristocracy), as
they document the name Tzotzikios.
J.-Cl. Cheynet published recently a pretentious seal of the former
Zacos collection 43 mentioning a Theodorokanos Tzotzikios (without
title or office). 44
Seal of the former Zacos collection (BnF)
On the obverse there are two standing figures, at left the Theotokos,
probably holding a medallion with the bust of Christ before her breast, 45
and at right St George with a small martyr’s cross in his right hand. The
reverse has two busts on either side of a big Latin cross on three steps
(additionally crossed at the intersection of the two arms); at left St John
Prodromos, at right St Nicholas. An inscription in small letters runs
along the border of the seal from 9–3 o’clock: + CΦΡΑΓ, ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟ-ΚΑΝΟ
ΤΟ Ο.. - + Σφραγ(ὶς) Θεοδωροκάν(ῳ) τ(ῷ) Τζοτζ[ικ(ίῳ)]. In this case
Theodorokanos looks like the given name, but Tzotzikios as the family
name. Perhaps only his mother came from the family Theodorokanos.
We would like to date the seal to the third quarter of the eleventh cen-
42
Cf. Felix, Islamische Welt, 117.
43
Now in Paris, Zacos (BnF) 606.
44
Cheynet, “Généraux” (n. 6), 361–62. We thank Jean-Claude Cheynet for the
photo.
45
A special version of the Nikopoios-type, sometimes called Machairotheisa.

Werner Seibt
tury. 46 Tzotzikios is the transliteration of the Georgian Ĵoĵik; a family of

this name is well documented in Tao. 47
From about one generation later comes a seal (not well preserved)
attesting a Tzotzikios (?) Theodorokanos, kuropalates and dux, with a
standing figure of St John Prodromos on the obverse. 48
Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC
The reverse reads: O.IK,  KPOΠAΛΑ-ΤΗC S ΔΞ – Ο ΘΕΟΔΩ-ΡΟΚΑΝ,

 Τζο[τζ]ίκ(ιος) κουροπαλάτης (καὶ) δοὺξ ὁ Θεοδωροκάν(ος). Here is
Theodorokanos apparently the family name, Tzotzikios the given name.
In the Synodikon of the Iviron monastery is mentioned an Arsenios
Theodorokanos probably active in the time of Alexios I Komnenos. 49
Quite important is the synchronous seal of a Taronites Theodorokanos
nobellisimos in the coll. Thierry, whose first name could have been Anthi-
mos (with a standing figure of St Nicholas on the obverse); 50 the father
of this man probably had married a Taronitissa. The reverse legend reads:
…-. .NΘ.Μ. – ΤΩ ΤΑΡΩΝ.-ΤΗ ΜΑΚΑΡ – ΝΩRΕΛΛ…-.Ω ΤΩ ΘΕ.-ΔΩΡΟΚΑ.-Ω
– [Σκέπη or Φύλαξ or Σκέποις -Ἀ]νθ[ή]μ[ῳ] τῷ Ταρων[ί]τῃ, μάκαρ,
νωβελλ[ισίμ]ῳ τῷ Θε[ο]δωροκά[ν]ῳ. Probably two dodekasyllaboi.
46
J.-Cl. Cheynet (p. 362) preferred the first half of the eleventh century.
47
Cf. Cheynet, “Généraux”, 362–63; 364.
48
DO 55.1.3355. For the photo we thank Jonathan Shea.
49
Iviron II, p. 6, no. 75 (for May 21).
50
Coll. Thierry (Etampes) 152, ed. Cheynet, Société, 79, fig. 100, and Cheynet,
“Généraux” (n. 6), 362–63, thinking about a given name like Euthymios / Ἐνθύμιος. But
cf. S. Nikolaros, “Die Taronitai. Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie”. Mil-
lennium 14 (2017) 269–70, no. 26.

THE THEODOROKANOI
It could well be, that the newly published seal of a Georgios pro-
tokuropalates, whose family name started with ΘΕΔ, stems also from a
Theodorokanos, who served under Alexios Komnenos. 51
The very small seal 52 of a Romanos Theodorokanos (without a title,
with the legend on both sides) stems from the late eleventh or beginning
of the twelfth century. 53
Perhaps there existed for some time also a Lavra of this family, if a
seal in the former Zacos collection is interpreted right. On the obverse
we see a bust of the Theotokos, the hands raised in a modest gesture
of prayer before her breast (minimal orans). 54 The reverse has only four
lines: + THC Λ-ΑRΡΑC Τ- ΘΕOΔΡΟ-ΚΑΝC. The seal stems probably from
the last third of the eleventh century.
We do not have any information about this family in the twelfth
and thirteenth century. Only for the middle of the fourteenth century
(1352) a miles Theodorokanos from Philadelphia is mentioned as mem-
ber of an embassy to Rome. 55
It makes sense to postulate an Armeno-Iberian origin of the family
Theodorokanos.
51
J. Valeriev, “Oloven pečat na Georgi Teodorokan, protokuropalat, ot rajona na
kŭsnoantičnĳa grad Zaldapa”, Dobrudža 30 (2015), 467–68; Jordanov, “Corpus, Ad-
denda 2”, 229, no. 20. 516a; photo on p. 297. On the obverse there is a bust of St George.
52
The diameter of the field has only 10 mm.
53
Athens 626, at last published by Stavrakos, Bleisiegel, 90: +  Θ(εοτό)κε βο-ήθει
τῷ  σῷ δού-λῳ / Ρωμα-νῷ τῷ  Θεοδω-ροκάν(ῳ).
54
“Minimalorantengestus” according to Herbert Hunger.
55
H. Ahrweiler, “Philadelphie aux xive siècle (1290–1390), dernier bastion de
l’hellénisme en Asie Mineure”, Comptes rendues des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions
et Belles-Lettres 127 (1983/1), 193; cf. Cheynet, “Généraux” (n. 6), 363.

Leon Gabras Kaisar. Ein Beitrag zur

Prosopographie der frühen Palaiologenzeit
Dank der Arbeiten von Antony Bryer und Hratch Bartikian verfügen wir
über ein ziemlich detailliertes Bild zu den Trägern des Familiennamens
Gabras, 1 dessen ältestes Mitglied, Konstantinos Gabras strategos, schon
für 979, in Zusammenhang mit der Revolte des Bardas Skleros, doku-
mentiert ist. 2 Als geographische Wirkungsbereiche ihrer Tätigkeit bzw.
temporärer Sesshaftigkeit zählen, über das byzantinische Reich hinaus,
das Kaiserreich von Trapezunt, das Sultanat von Ikonion (Rum) bzw.
die in sein Territorium integrierten autonomen Emirate und schließlich
vielleicht Gothia (Theodoro/Mangup) auf der Krim.
Als Kerngebiet der Machtausübung der Gabrades stellte sich ab der
zweiten Hälfte des 11. Jh.s. der byzantinische Verwaltungsbezirk (the-
ma) Chaldia heraus, wo sie zunächst als Militärkommandanten (dukes)
wirkten, bis sie sich unter Konstantinos Gabras 3 1126 vom Reich abspal-
teten und Chaldia zu ihrem eigenen Herrschaftsgebiet erklärten, nicht
zuletzt mit Hilfe der Rum-Seldschuken. Die Etablierung der letzteren in
1
In der Regel wird von einer armenischen Herkunft der Familie Gabras (gor/
goroz “tapfer”) ausgegangen. Es finden sich aber auch Berührungspunkte im Griechi
schen (γαῦρος, “stolz”) und im Aramäisch-Syrischen (g-b-r, “Heros”, “Mann”). Vgl.
zuletzt Bartikian, “Les Gaurades à travers les sources arméniennes”, in: L᾿Armenie et
Byzance (Byzantina Sorbonensia 12) (Paris, 1996) 19–30. Cf. EPLBHC 37–39 (s. v.
Gabras/Gabrades, House) (D. Kassapides – V. Stepanenko).
2
A. Bryer, “A Byzantine Family: the Gabrades, ca. 979-ca. 1653”, University of
Birmingham Historical Journal 12/2 (1970) 174, Nr. 1; H. M. Bartikian (Mpartikian),
Η βυζαντινή αριστοκρατική οικογένεια των Γαυράδων (Γαβράδων). Ιστορική, προσωπογραφική
και γενεαλογική μονογραφία (Athen, 1993), 29. – Zur Revolte des Bardas Skleros s. J.-
Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963–1210) (Paris, 1990) 27–29 und
33–34. Ausführlicher zu diesem Bardas Skleros s. Seibt, Skleroi 29–58.
3
Bryer, “Gabrades”177, Nr. 5. Bartikian, Γαυράδες 45. A. G. K. S. Sabbides, “Ο
βυζαντινός Πόντος στην περίοδο απο τον 4ο αιώνα μ. Χ. έως την ίδρυση του κράτους των
Μεγάλων Κομνηνών, το 1204”, in: ders. (Hrsg.), Ο βυζαντινός Πόντος (4ος–15ος αι. μ. Χ.)
(Athen, 2013) 35–36. EPLBHC 38, Nr. 7 (Gabras, Constantine).

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117250
Kleinasien, bedingt durch die Niederlage der Byzantiner bei Mantzikert

(1071), und die darauf folgende Gründung des Sultanats von Ikonion
(das bis 1307 existierte) 4 bewirkte, dass einige Gabrades in seldschuki
schen Dienst traten. 5 Nach der Eroberung Konstantinopels durch die
Lateiner (1204) und der darauffolgenden Gründung zweier antago-
nistischer byzantinischer Staaten auf kleinasiatischem Boden, Nikaia
und Trapezunt, die das Sultanat von Ikonion territorial voneinander
trennte, spielten die Gabrades keine unwichtige Rolle im Kaiserreich
von Trapezunt, 6 nicht zuletzt deswegen, weil dieses auch Chaldia, das
einstige Herrschaftsgebiet der Gabrades, umfasste. Hingegen sind im
Nizänischen Kaiserreich keine Gabrades dokumentiert.
Unsere bisherigen Informationen zu den Gabrades können durch ein
sowohl inhaltlich als auch rhetorisch anspruchvolles Siegel bereichert
werden, das einen Leon Gabras, mit dem sehr hohen Titel καῖσαρ, er-
wähnt. Das Stück wurde in einer deutschen Auktion zum Verkauf ange-
boten. 7 Die Av.-Seite schmückt ein ästhetisch nicht gerade gelungenes
Standbild der Theotokos orans (ohne Kind vor der Brust). Zu beiden
Seiten der Darstellung die Siglen  / V für Μ(ήτ)ηρ Θ(εο)ῦ. Das My
hat die für die Palaiologenzeit charakteristische Form; die Mittelhaste
des Theta ragt über den Kreis hinaus und schließt rechts an das auf einer
Basis stehende Ypsilon an. Die Längsstriche über dem nomen sacrum
sind geschwungen. Die gesamte Darstellung umrahmt ein dickes Perlen-
band. Die Rv.-Seite füllt eine aus sechs Zeilen bestehende Legende, mit
einem Kreuz voran:
4
Das Sultanat wurde schließlich zwischen türkischen beys aufgeteilt, die unab-
hängige Staaten auf dessen Territorium gründeten. Zu den letzten Jahren des Sultanats
von Ikonion s. speziell C. Cahen, The Formation of Turkey. The Seldjukid Sultanate of
Rūm: Eleventh to Fourtheenth Century (Harlow, 2001) 211–33.
5
Bryer, “Gabrades” passim.
6
Dazu s. umfassend S. Karpov, Ιστορία της αυτοκρατορίας της Τραπεζούντας (Athen,
2017). A. G. K. Sabbides, Οι Μεγάλοι Κομνηνοί της Τραπεζούντας και του Πόντου. Ιστορική
επισκόπηση της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας του μικρασιατικού ελληνισμού (1204–1461) (Thes-
saloniki, 32016). Chr. Samuelides, Η αυτοκρατορία της Τραπεζούντας. Τα 250 χρόνια του
Ελληνικού Μεσαιωνικού Κράτους των 21 Κομνηνών αυτοκρατόρων του Πόντου (1204–1461)
(Athen, 2007). A. Bryer, The Empire of Trapezunt and the Pontos (London, 1980).
7
Auktion Hirsch 253, 27.-29.09.2007, Nr. 2846 (ohne Lesevorschlag). Angezeigt
in SBS 12 (2016) 158.

LEON GABRAS KAISAR
Siegel des Leon Gabras kaisar (nach Auktion Hirsch 253, 27.-29.09.2007,

Nr. 2846)
+ HPAC | Kφvcc |ckHo IO|v oτ | KcΡ ΓΒΡ| ckΠoΙc

Γῆρας, ἐκφύσασα σκ(ύ)μνον Ἰούδα | Λέοντα κ(αί)σαρ(α) Γαβρᾶ(ν) σκέποις
„Behausung, die den Nachkommen Judas geboren hat, mögest Du den
kaisar Leon Gabras beschützen“.
Obwohl am Ende von KcΡ und ΓΒΡ keine Kürzungsstriche er

kennbar sind, lösen wir beides aus syntaktischen Gründen mit dem Ak-
kusativ auf. Das paläographische Gesamtbild lässt uns das Stück in die
frühe Palaiologenzeit chronologisch eingrenzen. Herausgegriffen seien
die Buchstaben Alpha und Lambda, die im oberen Bereich eine verlän
gerte Haste nach links aufweisen, die vertikale Haste des Delta und das
auf einer Basis stehende Ypsilon. Die einfache Form des Alpha kommt
nur einmal vor (bei γῆρας). Das Rho am Ende der vorletzten Zeile ist aus
Platzgründen hochgestellt.
Die inhaltlich und rhetorisch anspruchsvolle Siegelinschrift (nicht
metrisch) kombiniert Gedankengut des Alten und Neuen Testaments.
Sie beginnt mit einer metaphorischen Anrufung an die auf dem Av.
dargestellte Gottesmutter als „Behausung“ (γῆρας 8) des Nachkommen
Judas (scil. Jesu Christi), eben weil über sie Gott der Herr eine menschli-
che Gestalt angenommen hat. Jedoch zugleich wird auf die Genealogie
Jesu Christi (Mat 1.1–17) rückgeschlossen, expressis verbis auf Juda, den
Sohn Jakobs, der als junger Löwe (σκύμνος λέοντος) bezeichnet wird,
dessen Nachkommen für die Ankunft des Herrn sorgen werden (Ge
8
Grundbedeutung “Hülse”, “Schale”, s. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexi-
con (Oxford,14 2000) 315. Ich konnte dieses Wort als Bezeichnung der Theotokos in
Gegensatz zu οἶκος, χωρίον oder δοχεῖον (scil. Θεοῦ) (S. Eustratiades, Ἡ Θεοτόκος ἐν τῇ
Ὑμνογραφίᾳ [Paris, 1930] passim) anderweitig nicht belegen.

nesis 49.8–12. Cf. dazu die Interpretation des Ioannes Chrysostomos

als „Vorankündigung“ [οἰκονομία] der Geburt des Herrn, PG 54, 574,
Z. 14 ff.), gerade deswegen, weil der Siegelinhaber mit Vornamen Leon
heißt. Diese bewusst gewählte rhetorische Ausdrucksweise seitens des
Sieglers entspricht seinem extrem hohen Status in der Gesellschaftspyra-
mide, der durch den Titel kaisar gegeben ist.
Leon Gabras war zweifellos eine der angesehensten und hochran-
gigsten Persönlichkeiten seiner Zeit, weil dieser Titel grundsätzlich
den Schwiegersöhnen des amtierenden Kaisers vorbehalten war. In
Ausnahmesituationen konnte man ihn aber (ähnlich wie andere hoch-
gradige Rangtitel) mächtigen Würdenträgern außerhalb des Reichster-
ritoriums verleihen, um sie aus diplomatischen Gründen enger an die
Interessen des Staates zu binden. Einen hochdekorierten Leon Gabras
konnten wir in der gesamten Palaiologenzeit weder in den narrativen
Quellen noch auf Inschriften belegen. Die Möglichkeit, dass Leon Ga-
bras kaisar am Hof der Palaiologen oder des Kaiserreiches von Trape-
zunt lebte, ist sehr gering, wenn nicht überhaupt ausgeschlossen; wäre
das der Fall gewesen, sollte er doch über die narrativen Quellen bekannt
sein. Demzufolge ist anzunehmen, dass es sich um einen Würdenträger
außerhalb des byzantinischen Reiches bzw. des Kaiserreiches von
Trapezunt handelt, der aber aufgrund seiner Position und Macht eine
Schlüsselfunktion für Beziehungen (nicht nur diplomatischer Natur)
zu einem der beiden Reiche hatte und deshalb mit diesem extrem hoch-
gradigen Titel gewürdigt wurde. Diese Taktik war von den Byzanti
nern ja bekanntlich schon mehrfach in der Vergangenheit angewendet
worden.
Um den potentiellen geographischen Wirkungsbereich des obigen
Sieglers einzuschränken, ziemt es sich einerseits den wenigen nachweis-
baren Spuren der Gabrades im 13. und früheren 14. Jh. nachzugehen
und andererseits den historisch-politischen Kontext ihres geographi
schen Lebensraumes in Betracht zu ziehen. Beginnen möchten wir mit
jenen Gabrades, die als kleinere Emire im nordwestlichen Armenien
ausschließlich in Kolophonen bzw. Randnotizen von Handschriften
armenisch-chalkedonensischer Klöster der von überwiegend chalkedo-
nitischen Armeniern bewohnten Bezirke Akn-Çemişgezek der Provinz
Theodosiupolis/Erzerum im 13. und frühen 14. Jh. bezeugt sind. Diese
waren zwar den Rum-Seldschuken unterstellt, genossen jedoch eine
gewisse Selbständigkeit. Die dort ansässigen Armenier wurden von der
armenisch-monophysitischen Kirche abschätzig Cad bzw. Cat῾ („man-
gelhaft“, „unvollkommen“) genannt, weil sie der byzantinischen Kirche

LEON GABRAS KAISAR
beigetreten waren. 9 Einer von ihnen hieß Leon Gabras und wird in der
armenischen Handschrift Nr. 336 (f. 155) des Klosters der hl. Jakoboi
von Jerusalem als „Herrscher des Landes Salik [scil. Çemişgezek]“ (im
Original steht išχanut῾iwn) für 1272 bezeugt. 10 Zu diesem Zeitpunkt
waren die Rum-Seldschuken bereits de iure den mongolischen Ilchanen
unterstellt (ab 1250), deren Obrigkeit auch das Kaiserreich von Trape-
zunt bis zum Beginn der Regierungszeit Andronikos᾿ II. (1263–66)
reibungslos anerkannte. 11 Allerdings empfiehlt sich eine Gleichset-
zung des Leon Gabras kaisar mit dem gleichnamigen Emir von Salik/
Çemişgezek nicht, denn letzterer war politisch zu unbedeutend, um
vom Kaiser mit dem hohen Titel kaisar ausgezeichnet zu werden.
Eine bedeutendere Persönlichkeit hingegen muss zweifellos jener
Gabras (Vorname unbekannt) gewesen sein, den ausschließlich Ibn
Shaddad, der Biograph des mamelukischen Sultans von Ägypten, Bay-
bars I. (1260–77) unter der Form Ghadras als Gouverneur (archon) von
Sinope bezeugt. Als Manuel I. (1238–63), Kaiser von Trapezunt, Sinope
1254 kurzfristig von den Rum-Seldschuken zurückgewinnen konnte,
beauftragte er Ghadras mit dem Kommando der Stadt, der schließlich
bei der Verteidigung von Sinope gegen die Rum-Seldschuken 1265/1266
ums Leben kam. 12 Der endgültige Verlust Sinopes für die Trapezuntiner
fiel in die Regierungszeit Andronikos᾿ ΙΙ. (1263–66), der es sich – im
Unterschied zu seinem Vorgänger Manuel I. (1238–63) – mit den mon-
golischen Ilchanen verscherzt hatte, die daraufhin die Seldschuken bei
der Eroberung der Stadt unterstützten. 13
Gerade die Hafenstadt Sinope, die aufgrund ihrer geographischen
Lage (auf dem Übergang zu einer dem Festland vorgelagerten Halb
insel) der wichtigste Umschlagplatz, Verbindungsknoten, Handelszen-
trum und Kontrollposten zwischen Süd- und Nordküste des Schwarzen
Meeres, und darüber hinaus sowohl ins Landesinnere Kleinasiens
als auch nach Nikaia bzw. Konstantinopel war, wird der Kaiser in die
Hände eines bewährten, erprobten und vertrauenswürdigen Komman-
9
Bartikian, Γαβράδες 75–87. Cf. D. Korobeinikov, Byzantium and the Turks in the
Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 2014) 87.
10
Bartikian, Γαβράδες 77–79.
11
Karpov, Ιστορία 411–13, 449.
12
Ibn Shaddad, angeführt in C. Cahen, „Quelques textes négligés concernant
les Turcomans de Rûm au moment de l᾿invasion Mongole“, Byzantion 14 (1939) 138.
Cf. Bryer, Gabrades 181, Nr. 15; Karpov, Ιστορία 414. Sabbides, Μεγάλοι Κομνηνοί 66.
13
Karpov, Ιστορία 416; Sabbides, Μεγάλοι Κομνηνοί 65–66 (mit älterer Bibliogra-
phie).

danten gelegt haben, der wohl im Interesse seines Kaisers die guten Ver-
hältnisse zu den Ilchanen nicht betrüben sollte, deren Oberherrschaft
sowohl das Sultanat von Rum als auch das Kaiserreich von Trapezunt
anerkennen mussten. Obwohl die Quellen keinerlei Hinweise bezüglich
weiterer Gabrades in Sinope und Umgebung enthalten, könnte man
eventuell davon ausgehen, dass ein Strang der Familie sich dort be
reits etabliert hatte und nach dem Fall von Sinope (unter der Voraus-
setzung, dass er nicht ausgerottet wurde) ausgewandert ist. Bryer erwog
die Hypothese einer Migration auf die Krim, 14 nicht zuletzt deswegen,
weil – allerdings erst in späteren und nicht ganz zuverlässigen Quellen
– für die Zeitspanne ca. 1391-ca. 1458 die Familie Khovra als Regenten
des autonomen griechischen Fürstentums Theodoro/Mangup greifbar
sind. Die etymologische Gleichsetzung von Khovra mit Gabras geht
auf Vasiliev zurück und wurde – zumindest früher – mehrfach in der
Forschung akzeptiert. 15 Im Unterschied zu Bryer, der eine potentielle
Abstammung der Khovra, Fürsten von Theodoro/Mangup, vom oben
erwähnten Kommandanten von Sinope in Erwägung zog, dachten
Vasiliev und Brand an eine eventuelle Herkunft aus dem Stamm des be-
reits am Beginn dieses Aufsatzes angeführten selbständigen Herrschers
von Chaldia, Konstantinos Gabras, 16 da ihnen der Kommandant von
Sinope unbekannt geblieben war.
In der Forschung wird im Allgemeinen davon ausgegangen, dass die
Krim bereits vor dem 4. Kreuzzug und bis ca. Mitte der 20er-Jahre des
13. Jh. in einem Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zum Kaiserreich von Trape-
zunt stand, 17 weil:
1) für 1223 in der von Ioannes/Ioseph Lazaropulos (*um 1310 oder
etwas früher-† vor Dezember 1369) verfassten Synopsis der Wunder-
taten des hl. Eugenios (Patron von Trapezunt) bezeugt ist, dass Cherson
und die „gothischen Klimata“ jährlich dem Kaiser von Trapezunt Steu-
ern entrichteten, 18
14
Bryer, “Gabrades” 172–73; 184.
15
A. A. Vasiliev, The Goths in the Crimea (Cambridge, Massachussets, 1936) 153.
Cf. Bryer, “Gabrades“ 172. Bartikian, Γαβράδες 93–94.
16
Zu seiner Person s. Bryer, „Gabrades“ 177. Zum Aufstand dieses Gabras s.
Cheynet, Pouvoir 104.
17
F. A. Brand, Die letzten Schicksale der Krimgoten (St Petersburg, 1890) 44–45.
Vasiliev, Goths 157. Karpov, Ιστορία 459–60.
18
J. O. Rosenqvist, The hagiographic Dossier of St Eugenios of Trebizont in Codex
Athous Dionysiou 154. A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Commentary
and Indices (Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 5) (Uppsala, 1996) 310.1161–1165:“Ναῦς τις
πεφορτισμένη μετὰ τῶν δημοσιακῶν τελεσμάτων τῆς Χερσῶνος καὶ τῶν ἐκεῖσε κλιμάτων

LEON GABRAS KAISAR
2) in der Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae (1204) die Krim nicht

unter den einstigen Territorien des Byzantinischen Reiches erscheint 19
und
3) der (geographisch nicht näher definierbare) Terminus Perateia
(„Land jenseits des Meeres“, „Land über der See“) ab 1282 Bestandteil
der Titulatur der Kaiser von Trapezunt war. 20
Die oben genannte Synopsis ist zugleich der einzige schriftliche
Beleg schlechthin, der über eine enge Relation bzw. ein bestehendes
Abkommen zwischen Cherson sowie den „gothischen Klimata“ (der
Terminus als solcher kann für diese Zeit ebenfalls geographisch nicht
genau eingeschränkt werden) und dem Reich von Trapezunt berichtet, 21
Γοτθίας, καὶ δημοσιονομικοῦ ἄρχοντος Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Πακτιάρη καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων τινῶν
Χερσωνιτῶν, ἐρχομένη ἐνταῦθα συγκομίσαι τῷ βασιλεῖ Γίδῳ (scil. Andronikos I. [1222–
1235]) τὰ ἐπέτεια τέλη, κυμαινομένης τῆς θαλάσσης Σινώπην προσώκειλε”. Von der Grund-
bedeutung des Wortes κλίμα könnte man hier an Gebirgsabhänge der Krim zu Cherson
hin denken. Cf. M. G. Nystazopulu, Ἡ ἐν τῇ Ταυρικῇ Χερσονήσῳ πόλις Σουγδαία. Συμβολὴ
εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τοῦ μεσαιωνικοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ τῆς νοτίου Ρωσίας (Athen, 1965) 18–19.
19
A. Carile, „Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie“, Studii Veneziani 7 (1965) 125–
305. Cf. Vasiliev, Goths 152.
20
Erstmals belegt im Chrysobull für Venedig (anno 1319). Dazu s. A. Tzavara, „I
trattati commerciali tra Venezia e l᾿imperio di Trebisonta, 1319–1396“, Thesaurismata
41/42 (2011/2012) 41–87, 57 (Sigillium von März 1364). Bis anno 1282 lautete der
Titel der Kaiser von Trapezunt βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων. Danach βασιλεὺς
καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ πάσης Ἀνατολῆς, Ἰβηρίας καὶ Περατείας. Zu den wenigen erhaltenen
Urkunden der Kaiser von Trapezunt s. N. Oikonomides, „The chancery of the Grand
Comnenoi: imperial tradition and political reality“, Archeion Pontu 35 (1979) 299–333
(speziell zur Titulatur 327–29, wobei Ἰβηρία auf ein hauptsächlich von „Iberern“ bevöl
kertes Gebiet innerhalb des Kaiserreiches von Trapezunt bezogen ist, das nach dem
Autor eventuell mit Lazike im östlichen Teil des Reiches zu verbinden ist). G. Prinzing,
„Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch. Zwischen regionaler Aufspaltung und
erneuter Zentrierung in den Jahren 1204–1282“, in: R. Gundlach – H. Weber (eds),
Legitimation des Herrschers. Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator
(Stuttgart, 1992) 129–83, hier 173–76. – Nach standardisierter byzantinischer Tradi-
tion führten sowohl die Kaiser in Nikaia/ab 1261 wieder in Konstantinopel als auch
jene in Trapezunt in den von ihnen unterschriebenen Urkunden den Titel βασιλεὺς καὶ
αὐτοκράτωρ. Anders hingegen verhält es sich auf den Münzen und Siegeln, wo sie sich
δεσπότης nennen. Im Grunde genommen handelt es sich jedoch um Synonyme. Cf. C.
Morrisson, „Thirteenth-century Byzantine Metallic Identities“, in: J. Herrin – G. Saint-
Guillain (eds), Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (Farn-
ham – Burlington, 2011) 135–36. Eine Ausnahme bildet das einzige bisher erhaltene
Goldsiegel (1374) des Kaiserreiches von Trapezunt, auf dem sich Alexios III. (1349–
1390) in Anlehnung an seine Unterschrift in der Urkunde (Chrysobull) αὐτοκράτωρ
nennt. Cf. Oikonomides, „The chancery“ 327.
21
Ähnlich Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 18–19 (die κλίματα Γοτθίας werden dort allge-
mein als der gebirgige Teil der Krim interpretiert).

jedoch nicht a priori als Zeugnis der Abhängigkeit (dependence) 22 zu

bewerten ist, zumal die Entrichtung von jährlichen „Steuern“ auch im
Rahmen eines Tributverhältnisses denkbar wäre. Ebenso problematisch
ist u. E. die Gleichsetzung von Perateia in der Titulatur der Kaiser von
Trapezunt mit der Krim bzw. Gothia, 23 oder sogar die Auffassung, dass
darunter die Krim und Sinope zusammen zu verstehen wären, 24 weil die
Quellen keine Informationen über Gebiete auf der Krim enthalten, die
im späteren 13. und 14. Jh. dem Kaiserreich von Trapezunt gehört haben
bzw. von ihm abhängig gewesen wären. Die territoriale Obrigkeit auf der
Krim hatten de iure zu dieser Zeit bekanntlich die Mongolen/Tataren,
die sich aber nicht auf der gesamten Halbinsel etabliert hatten. U. E. ist
Perateia bestenfalls entweder als ein (undefinierbarer) Sammelbegriff
für einzelne Stützpunkte/Basen des Kaiserreiches von Trapezunt auf
der Krim zu verstehen, oder vor dem Hintergrund eines regionalen Ab-
hängigkeitsverhältnisses einzelner Teile der Krim von Trapezunt, 25 über
welches wir keinerlei Informationen aus den Quellen schöpfen können.
Archäologische Funde des ausgehenden 13. und fortgeschrittenen 14.
Jh. aus dem Kaiserreich von Trapezunt in Sudak/Sugdaia (trapezunti-
nische Keramik sowie Münzen trapezuntinischer Kaiser aus der Wende
des 13. zum 14. Jh. und aus dem Jahr 1332 26) bürgen vor allem für Bezie-
hungen (primär im Handelsbereich) und Kontakte zu Teilen der Krim,
sind daher nicht als Zeugnisse politischen Einflusses zu vereinnahmen.
Die eigentliche Etablierung der mongolischen Herrschaft auf der
Krim, die sich ab deren zweitem Angriff (anno 1238) abzeichnete, be-
22
Vasiliev, Goths 160–61 (mit Literaturhinweisen).
23
Vasiliev, Goths 161–62 und 187–88. Karpov, Ιστορία 460 (mit Referenzen).
24
Bryer, „Gabrades“ 173: „The Grand Komnenoi may have regarded not only the
Crimea, but the Crimea and Sinope combined, as the Perateia … in their title“. Diese
Suggestion ist schon deswegen abzulehnen, weil der Begriff Perateia in der Titulatur der
Kaiser von Trapezunt nicht vor 1282 vorkommt und Sinope damals schon lange nicht
mehr Bestandteil des Kaiserreiches von Trapezunt war.
25
Cf. die ähnliche Interpretation von Oikonomides, „The chancery“ 329–30:
“Περατεία […] could be a name for the Crimea (Transmarine Provinces) […] it seems
that relations between the Orthodox Christians of the two sides of the Black Sea re-
mained active throughout the centuries […]. Perateia could also mean any other Trape-
zuntine possession which was not accessible by land from Trebizont, such as Batoum.
All this is very confused and the question remains open. What seems certain to me, is
that Perateia must have corresponded to a territory over which the Trapezuntine em-
peror had real authority or, at least, overlordship, in 1282 or later”. Zudem s. A. G. Κ.
Sabbides, Το κράτος των Μεγάλων Κομνηνών της Τραπεζούντας (1204–1461). Η Βυζαντινή
Αυτοκρατορία του Πόντου. Μια ευσύνοπτη ιστορική επισκόπηση (Athen, 22017) 40–42.
26
Karpov, Ιστορία 460 (mit Literaturhinweisen).

LEON GABRAS KAISAR
schränkte sich auf den östlichen Teil der Halbinsel, wo sie auch einen
Kommandanten in Solkhat (Eski-Krim) installierten. Für die südwest-
liche Krim hingegen und deren gebirgigen Teil, Gothia, kennen wir
keinen mongolischen Kommandanten. Cherson, Mangup, Eski-Ker-
men, Phullai zählen zu den befestigten Städten, die weitgehend keinen
direkten mongolischen Einfluss in der Verwaltung und der Führung
der lokalen politischen Geschäfte gehabt haben dürften. 27 De facto be-
schränkte sich somit die mongolische Oberhoheit in der südwestlichen
Krim auf die Einnahme von jährlichen Steuern. Durch die Entrichtung
dieses jährlichen Tributs seitens der Bevölkerung an die fremden Herren
war ein gewisser Unabhängigkeitsstatus gesichert. 28 Interessant sind in
diesem Zusammenhang die Zusätze im Synaxar von Surož, zumal diese
die Obrigkeit von Sebastoi in Sudak nach dem Abzug des mongolischen
Militärs (1249) bezeugen. 29 Allem Anschein nach handelte es sich da-
bei um einheimische lokale Würdenträger, 30 die in guten Beziehungen
zum Kaiser von Trapezunt standen, jedoch keine griechisch-byzantini
sche Herkunft hatten, wie aus der Mehrheit der Bei- bzw. Familienna-
men (in etwa Manitzes, für 1262 bezeugt; Toptes, für 1284; Alupsu, für
1295, 1299, 1317, 1319; Kultupei, für 1307) eindeutig zu entnehmen ist.
Als Christen trugen sie griechische Vornamen, wie Polykarpos, Antoni-
os, Timotheos, Georgios, Konstantinos u.s.w. 31 Sie führten als Vasallen
der Mongolen die politischen und administrativen Geschäfte der Stadt,
entrichteten ihnen Steuern, genossen aber doch einen gewissen Grad an
Selbständigkeit. 32 Als Konsequenz der Etablierung der mongolischen
Herrschaft auf der Krim führt Georgios Pachymeres (1242–1310) an,
dass die einheimische Bevölkerung der Halbinsel zur Regierungszeit
des byzantinischen Kaisers Michael VIII. Palaiologos in einem Assimi-
lierungsprozess mit den Tartaren stünde: Sprache, Kleidung und diverse
Gepflogenheiten werden adaptiert. 33
27
Vasiliev, Goths 164. Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 24–28.
28
Vasiliev, Goths 164.
29
Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 76. Karpov, Ιστορία 459–60.
30
Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 77 und 81.
31
Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 81.
32
Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 27–28.
33
George Pachymèrès, Relations historiques II, V, 4.14–18 (ed. Failler 445): Ὡς
δὲ χρόνου τριβομένου, ἐπιμιγνύντες σφίσιν (scil. Mongolotataren) οἱ περὶ τὴν μεσόγαιον
κατῳκημένοι, Ἀλανοὶ λέγω, Ζίκχοι, Γότθοι καὶ Ῥὼς καὶ τὰ προσοικοῦντα τούτοις διάφορα
γένη, ἔθη τε τὰ ἐκείνων μανθάνουσι καὶ γλῶτταν τῷ ἔθει μεταλαμβάνουσιν καὶ στολήν, καὶ εἰς
συμμάχους αὐτοῖς γίνονται. Cf. Vasiliev, Goths 172.

Im gebirgigen Gothia bzw. Mangup/Theodoro, wo bisher kein mon-

golischer Kommandant überliefert ist, sind leider erst für die Zeit vor
Mitte des 14. Jh. lokale christliche Fürsten (principes) bezeugt, die zwar
Vasallen der Mongolen waren, aber eine gewisse Selbständigkeit genos-
sen. Informationen über die dortigen Verhältnisse davor beziehen wir
leider keine. In den erhaltenen Quellen finden sich nur wenige indirekte
Zeugnisse, die unter Umständen auf die Existenz von weitgehend fort-
geschrittenen autonomen Verwaltungsstrukturen in Gothia zu einem
früheren Zeitpunkt hinweisen könnten. Als Nogai 1298/1299 seine ver-
heerenden Plünderungszüge entlang der gesamten Südküste der Krim
unternahm, ist anzunehmen, dass Teile der Bevölkerung in die gebirgige
Zone der Krim geflohen sind. Bezeugt ist das für Sugdaia in einem Patri-
archatsakt von 1317/1318, der sich eventuell auf die Ereignisse von 1298
bezieht. 34 In diesem Zusammenhang wurde sogar angenommen, dass
sich die christlich-griechischsprachige Bevölkerung der südlichen Krim
unter Führung einer Adelsfamilie griechisch-trapezuntinischer Her
kunft zusammengeschlossen habe. 35 Als ältester namentlich bezeugter
princeps von Mangup galt früher ein gewisser Demetrios (1361–62), der
als Vasall der Mongolen von Olgerd, dem König von Litauen (1341–
77), besiegt wurde. 36 Neuere Forschung hat allerdings sehr wahrschein-
lich gemacht, dass statt Demetrios eher ein Name wie Demirbeg / Te-
mer / Timur / Temir anzunehmen ist, 37 der keineswegs mit Mangup
zu verbinden wäre; demgemäß fällt dieses Indiz in sich zusammen.
Jedoch ist ein princeps di Gothia unbekannten Namens bereits vor der
Mitte des 14. Jh. bezeugt; er soll mit dem byzantinischen Kaiser An-
dronikos III. Palaiologos (1328–41) in Konflikt geraten sein. Zugleich
dient diese Information als indirekter Hinweis für die Unabhängigkeit
des Fürstentums Gothia (Mangup/Theodoro), wie bereits Vasiliev be-
34
Nystazopulu, Σουγδαία 42, A. 13. Bereits beim ersten Angriff der Mongolen auf
Sugdaia (1223) soll ein Teil der Bevölkerung in die Berge geflohen sein. Über diesen
Angriff und seinen Folgen berichten die Randnotizen im Synaxar von Surož (Nr. 8),
sowie arabische Quellen, in etwa Ibn-al-Athir, Chronicon XII (ed. Tornberg) (Leyden,
1853) 248 = Recueil des historiens des Croisades, Historiens orientaux II, I, 160. Cf. Ny
stazopulu, Σουγδαία 24. Vasiliev, Goths 162.
35
A. G. Gercen, “Doros – Feodoro (Mangup): Ot rannevizantijskoj kreposti k
feodal᾿nomu godoru”, ADSV 34 (2003) 107.
36
Vasiliev, Goths 184–85, mit A. 4, 198.
37
V. L. Myc, Kaffa i Feodoro v XV veke. Kontakty i konflikty (Simferopol’, 2009)
16–25. Cf. M. Kizilov, Krymskaja Gotĳa (Simferopol’, 2015) 71.

LEON GABRAS KAISAR
merkte. 38 Besser informiert über das Fürstentum Mangup und seine

Beziehungen zu Trapezunt, aber auch zu Byzanz sind wir erst für das 15.
Jh. 39 Leider wurden diese Informationen des Öfteren anachronistisch
für die Erhellung der historischen Situation noch vor dem Beginn der
Paläologenzeit missbraucht. Die interessante Titulatur des Fürsten von
Mangup, Alexios, als αὐθέντης πόλεως Θεοδωρὼ καὶ παραθαλασσίας 40 in
einer Inschrift von 1427, sei trotz des zeitlichen Abstandes zu unserem
Zusammenhang hier angeführt, weil παραθαλασσία die Eingliederung
von (geographisch nicht näher definierbaren) Küstengebieten in das
Territorium des Fürstentums ausdrückt (Kalamita, im Golf von Se
vastopol’, war die eigentliche Hafenstadt der Fürstentums), ähnlich wie
Perateia in der Titulatur der Kaiser von Trapezunt ab 1282.
In den genealogischen Listen der altrussischen Aristokratie wird für
eine Zeit gegen Ende des 14. Jh. ein Stepan Vasilyevich (also Sohn eines
Vasil/Basileios) mit dem Beinamen Khovra (oder Komra) als Herrscher
von Mangup, Sugdaia und Balaklava (Symbolon/Cembalo) erwähnt,
während die Barkhatnaya Kniga („Samtbuch“) dieselbe Person als Herr-
scher von Sudak, Mangup und Kaffa nennt. Von ihm sollen alle späteren
Fürsten von Mangup stammen, 41 die nach einigen Forschern ihre Wur-
zeln in einem Strang der Gabrades haben, welcher vom Kaiserreich von
Trapezunt ausgewandert sein soll. Diese Suggestion basiert, wie bereits
eingangs angeführt, auf der Verbindung von Khovra mit Gabras, welche
von Vasiliev erwogen wurde. Um diese Gleichsetzung zu untermauern,
verwies letzterer auf die Existenz des Toponyms Gavri/Gavry/Gavra
östlich von Mangup. 42 Neuere Forscher 43 verwarfen die Gleichsetzung
38
Theodoro Spangundino, patritio Constantinopolitano, De la origine deli im-
peratori Ottomani, ordini de la corte, etc., ed. K. Sathas, Documents inédits rélativs à
l᾿histoire de la Grèce au moyen âge IX (Paris, 1890) 143.17–19: et havendo controversie il
detto Andronico Paleologo con il principe di Gothia et con li Bulgari, con il re Stephano di
Servia. Cf. Vasiliev, Goths 183, A. 1.
39
Vasiliev, Goths 192 ff. Karpov, Ιστορία 462–63.
40
N. Bănescu, “Contribution à l᾿histoire de la Seigneurie de Théodoro-Mangup
en Crimée”, BZ 35 (1935) 33, mit A. 3. Nystazopulu-Pelekidu, Σουγδαία 51.
41
Vasiliev, Goths 198–99. Bryer, „Gabrades“ 184.
42
Vasiliev, Goths 158, mit A. 2: “As a survival of the influence of the Gabrades
(Gavrades) in Crimean Gothia may serve the name of the village Gavri, Gavry, or Gavra,
east of Mankup, near Belbek”.
43
Ch.-F. Bajer (H.-V. Beyer), Istorija krymskich gotov kak interpretacija Skazanija
Matfeja o gorode Feodoro (Ekaterinburg, 2001) 199–205 und 210–11. V. P. Stepanenko,
Legenda o Gavrach i Chersones v russkoj i sovetskoj istoriografii. Istoriografija balkanskogo
crednevekov᾿ja (Tver᾿, 1990) 87–96. Anders hingegen S. T. M. Fadeeva, Knjačestvo Feo-
doro i ego knjaz᾿ja. Krysko-gotskij sbornik (Simferopol᾿, 2005) 21; 25–30, die doch die

von Khovra mit Gabras jedoch und schlossen somit die Herkunft der
Fürsten von Mangup von einem Strang der trapezuntinischen Gabrades
aus.
In Anbetracht dessen, dass obiges Siegel den anderweitig bisher nicht
bezeugten Leon Gabras mit dem hohen Titel kaisar dokumentiert, der
mit ziemlich großer Sicherheit in den griechischen narrativen Quellen
erwähnt worden wäre, wenn er entweder im Kaiserreich von Trapezunt
oder im byzantinischen Reich aktiv gewesen wäre, erwägen wir – ausge-
hend von der politischen Situation auf der Krim in der frühen Palaiolo-
genzeit – als eventuellen Wirkungsbereich primär den gebirgigen Teil
der Halbinsel (und einzelne Städte?). Dann wäre Leon Gabras καῖσαρ
der dortige lokale Machthaber, der zwar de iure ein Vasall der Mongolen
war, de facto jedoch die Führung in der Hand hatte und aufgrund seiner
Position für das Kaiserreich von Trapezunt als enger Partner und Ver-
bündeter hoch interessant und wichtig sein konnte. Somit würde sich
auch die Verleihung des extrem hohen Titels καῖσαρ durch den trapezun-
tinischen Kaiser an ihn erklären lassen. 44 Dadurch erwartete man natür-
lich eine Vertiefung der politischen, wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen
Verbindungen. Bedauerlicherweise kann diese Suggestion mangels wei
ter führender historischer Quellen nicht stärker untermauert werden.
Gabrades für Fürsten von Mangup hält. Vgl. auch Karpov, Ιστορία 462, der anführt, dass
die Ansicht einer byzantinischen Abstammung der Fürsten von Mangup eher die vor-
herrschende ist.
44
Bei Pseudo-Kodinos rangiert der kaisar an dritter Stelle, unmittelbar nach dem
sebastokrator, dem wiederum der despotes vorangesetzt ist, ed. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Ko-
dinos. Traité des Offices (Paris, 1966) 344.9–10. Die Möglichkeit, dass dieses Taktikon
(zwischen 1360 und 1390) in Trapezunt verfasst worden sei und nicht in Konstantin-
opel, ist groß. A. Bryer, „Greeks and Türkmens. The Pontic Exception“. DOP 29 (1975)
140, mit A. 109; R. Stefec, “Aspekte griechischer Buchproduktion in der Schwarzmeer-
region“. Scripta 7 (2017) 216, 232, A. 138. Cf. R. Macrides – J. A. Munitiz – D. Angelov,
Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies (Farnham,
2013) 282–83.

ADMINISTRATION, HISTORICAL
GEOGRAPHY, PROFESSION
Andreas Gkoutzioukostas
The Theme of Drougoubiteia*
The evidence of lead seals, in combination with the rich documentary

sources of the monasteries of Mount Athos, advances our knowledge of
the administrative organization of the geographical region of Macedo-
nia, especially during the tenth-eleventh centuries. Unlike the themes of
Boleron, Strymon and Thessaloniki, 1 however, the neighbouring theme
* This paper was presented at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies,
Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016, Round Table: The Evaluation of Sigillographic Data for
Research on the History of Byzantium organized by J.-Cl. Cheynet and A.-K. Wassiliou-
Seibt. See the extended summary in the Proceedings of the Congress, ed. B. Krsmanović,
L. Milanović, Belgrade 2016, 1291–1294 (http://www.byzinst-sasa.rs/srp/uploaded/
PDF%20izdanja/round%20tables.pdf). I would like to thank Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassi
liou-Seibt for helping me with the dating and reading of certain seals and the anonymous
reviewer for valuable remarks.
1
See for example S. Kyriakides, “Τὸ Βολερόν”, ΕΕΦΣΠΘ 3 (1934) 289–494
[= Idem, Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται, IΙ-V (Thessaloniki, 1939), no. IV, 27–232]. P. Lemerle,
Philippes et la Macédoine Orientale à l’epoque chrétienne et byzantine. Recherches d᾿histoire
et d᾿archéologie (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 158) (Paris,
1945), 157–68. Th. Papazotos, Σημειώσεις στο “Βολερόν” του Στ. Κυριακίδη. Μερικά
νέα στοιχεία, Θρακική Επετηρίς 2 (1981) 233–43. A. Stavridou-Zafraka, Τα θέματα του
Μακεδονικού χώρου. Το θέμα Στρυμόνος, International Symposium “Βυζαντινή Μακεδονία
324–1430 μ.Χ.”, Thessaloniki 29–31 October 1992, (ΕΜΣ – Μακεδονική βιβλιοθήκη 82)
(Thessaloniki, 1995), 307–19; Eadem, “Slav Invasions and the Theme Organization in
the Balkan Peninsula”, Βυζαντιακά 12 (1992) 167–79, p. 169–72. Eadem, “Τα θέματα του
Μακεδονικού χώρου. Το θέμα Θεσσαλονίκης ως τις αρχές του 10ου αι.”, Βυζαντινά 19 (1998)
157–70, 160 ff.. Eadem, “The Development of the Theme Organization in Macedonia”,
Byzantine Macedonia, Identity, Image and History. Papers from the Melbourne Confer-
ence July 1995, ed. J. Burke and R. Scott (Melbourne, 2000), 128–38. Chr. Kyriazopou-
los, Η Θράκη κατά τους 10ο-12ο αιώνες. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της πολιτικής, διοικητικής και
εκκλησιαστικής της εξέλιξης (Thessaloniki, 2000), 200–27. B. Krsmanović, “Das Problem
der sogenannten zusammengesetzten Bezirke auf dem Balkan im 11. Jahrhundert – Zwei
Fallbeispiele”, ZRVI 46 (2009) 65–87. A. Gkoutzioukostas, “Judges of velum and judges
of the hippodrome in Thessaloniki (11th c.)”, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 20 (2010) 67–84.
E. Chatziantoniou, “Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με την οικονομική διοίκηση του θέματος
Βολερού, Στρυμόνος και Θεσσαλονίκης (11ος αι.)”, Βυζαντιακά 30 (2012–2013) 149–90.
Eadem, “The kritai/praitores of Βoleron, Strymon and Thessalonike in the 11th cen-
tury. Prosopography and provincial administration”, Βυζαντινά 34 (2015–2016) 111–

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117251
of Drougoubiteia has not been systematically studied. 2 The officers of

the theme, the precise location of which has been the subject of vari-
ous views, are mostly attested on seals published mainly during recent
decades. 3
It is known that the Slavic tribe of Drougoubitai, which gave the
theme its name, is attested for the first time in the Miracles of St De-
metrius. According to this narrative, the Sermesianoi crossed the Dan-
ube and reached the Keramesios kampos (plain), near Thessaloniki. From
there, their leader Kouver sent an embassy to the emperor Constan-
tine IV (668–85), asking for permission to settle there with his people.
He also asked for access to food supplies from the neighbouring Slavic
tribe of Drougoubites, who were obviously under the imperial authority. 4
Various opinions have been expressed about the exact location of the
Drougoubite settlement, mentioning a region of Pelagonia, to the west
70. S. Georgiou, “Ο βέστης και πραίτωρ πάσης Θετταλίας Μιχαήλ. Παρατηρήσεις για
τη διοίκηση της Θεσσαλονίκης στα τέλη του ΙΑ´ αιώνα”, Βυζαντιακά 30 (2012–2013)
195–209. Α.-Κ. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Reconstructing the Byzantine Frontier on the Bal-
kans (Late 8th-10th c.)”, REB 73 (2015) 229–39. A. Gkoutzioukostas, “Remarks on the
krites and the judicial and fiscal units of Boleron, Strymon and Thessaloniki (11th c.)”,
International Symposium: Lire les Archives de l’Athos, Athens 18–20 November 2015
(forthcoming 2019).
2
The only special study on the officers of the Drougoubiteia theme, is that of
I. Jordanov, “The Seals of Thema Druguvitia”, Numizmatica, Sfragistica i Epigraphica 10
(2014) 223–39, where a catalogue of seventeen officers, listed in alphabetical order, is
cited. I would like to express my special thanks to Prof. Ivan Jordanov for sending me his
article and to his daughter Desislava Yordanova-Petrova, Assistant Professor in South-
West University “Neofit Rilski” (Blagoevgrad) for the translation of the article in Greek.
3
See previous note. See also I. Jordanov, Corpus I, p. 69. Β. Krsmanović, The Byz-
antine province in change (On the threshold between the 10th and the 11th century) (Bel-
grade/Athens, 2008), 207, note 146. Cheynet et al., Istanbul, 294–95, where eight kritai
of Drougoubiteia are cited. See also PBW (2011), http://pbw.kcl.ac.uk, where under the
location of Drougoubiteia 14 dignitaries are mentioned. For a very brief reference to the
theme and some of its dignitaries see also D. K. Tsoulkanakes, Το Βυζάντιο και οι Σλάβοι
του Ελλαδικού χώρου. Συμβολή στη Μεσαιωνική Ιστορία της Ελλάδας κατά την περίοδο 6ος-10ος
αι. (Thessaloniki, 2015), 205–06, who has taken into consideration only the seals pub-
lished in DOSeals 1, 21.1–3.
4
P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénetra-
tion des Slaves dans les Balkans, vol. I: Le texte, vol. II: Le commentaire (Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique) (Paris, 1979, 1981), vol. Ι, 228.28–30, 229.9–12: “Ὡς
λοιπὸν μετὰ νίκης περάσαντα τὸν αὐτὸν Κούβερ μετὰ τοῦ εἰρημένου σὺν αὐτῷ παντὸς λαοῦ
τὸν προαφηγηθέντα Δανούβιν ποταμόν, καὶ ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὰ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μέρη, καὶ κρατῆσαι τὸν
Κεραμήσιον κάμπον. … Καὶ τότε … ἔστειλε πρὸς τὸν κύριον τῶν σκήπτρων, πρεσβεύσων
αὐτῷ ἐφ’ ᾧ μεῖναι μετὰ τοῦ σὺν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχοντος λαοῦ ἐκεῖσε, αἰτῶν κελευσθῆναι τὰ
παρακείμενα ἡμῖν τῶν Δρουγουβιτῶν ἔθνη δαπάνας κατὰ τὸ ἱκανὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπιχορηγῆσαι· ὃ
δὴ καὶ γεγένηται”. See also A. Gkoutzioukostas, “The Prefect of Illyricum and the Prefect
of Thessaloniki”, Βυζαντιακά 30 (2012–2013) 45–80, 66.

The Theme of Drougoubiteia
of Thessaloniki. It seems, however, as is attested by Ioannes Kameniates

(late ninth century), 5 that they inhabited the Kampania plain, or more
accurately its central part, as has recently been argued. 6
The first attestation of a state officer connected with the Drougoubi-
tai is the seal of Peter, basilikos protospatharios and archon Drougoubiton
(the head of the homonymous Slavic tribe), published by Alexandra-
Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt and dated to the first half of the ninth century. 7
Peter was recognized and appointed as the head of Drougoubitai by the
Byzantine emperor in the framework of a policy of integration and con-
trol of the Slavic groups, since such archons of Slavic tribes, who were
clearly Byzantine officials, are also mentioned in other seals dating from
the beginning of the eighth to the tenth century. 8
A strategos of Drougoubiteia (theme) is attested for the first time in
the Escurial Taktikon (971–73). 9 This is the first testimony for the ex-
istence of the Drougoubiteia theme. I had previously suggested in my
paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies
that the administrative unit of Drougoubiteia could have been created
earlier, since a seal published by I. Jordanov and Z. Zhekova, 10 which
can be dated in the second half of the tenth century, perhaps before the
5
Ioannis Caminiatae de expugnatione Thessalonicae, ed. G. Böhlig (Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 4) (Berlin, 1973), 6.1–7: “Ἀλλ’ ἱκανῶς ἐν τούτοις
τά τε πρὸς ἀνατολὴν καὶ βορρᾶν τῆς πόλεως, ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ τὰ πρὸς νότον διαγραψάμενοι τὴν
πρὸς δύσιν αὐτῆς τοῦ χώρου θέσιν κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἱστορήσωμεν. ἔστιν ἕτερον πεδίον, ἀπ’
αὐτοῦ τοῦ τείχους τῆς Ἐκβολῆς ἀπαρχόμενον, τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ ὄρους ἁπτόμενον, τῇ λαιᾷ δὲ τῇ
θαλάσσῃ συνομοροῦν, ἀμύθητον κάλλει ταῖς τῶν ὁρώντων ὑποκείμενον ὄψεσιν…διήκει δὲ τὴν
ἡλίου δύσιν ἀποσκοποῦν, ἕως τινῶν ἄλλων ὀρέων ὑψηλῶν καὶ μεγάλων παρατεινόμενον, ἔνθα
καὶ πόλις τις Βέρροια καλουμένη κατῴκισται, καὶ αὐτὴ περιφανεστάτη τοῖς οἰκήτορσί τε καὶ
πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις οἷς αὐχεῖ πόλις τὴν σύστασιν. ἐμπεριέχει δὲ τῷ διὰ μέσου χώρῳ τὸ πεδίον
τοῦτο καὶ ἀμφιμίκτους τινὰς κώμας, ὧν αἱ μὲν πρὸς τῇ πόλει τελοῦσι, Δρουγουβῖταί τινες καὶ
Σαγουδάτοι τὴν κλῆσιν ὀνομαζόμενοι, αἱ δὲ τῷ συνομοροῦντι τῶν Σκυθῶν ἔθνει οὐ μακρὰν
ὄντι τοὺς φόρους ἀποδιδόασιν…”.
6
E. Chatziantoniou, Συμβολή στον εντοπισμό της σλαβικής εγκατάστασης των
Δρουγουβιτών, Philotimia: Studies in honour of Alkmene Stavridou-Zafraka, ed. Th. Kor-
res et al. (Thessaloniki, 2011), 105–33, with bibliography.
7
A-K. Wassiliou, “Neue Siegel der 1. Hälfte des 9. Jh. aus Südostbulgarien. Mit
einem Appendix zu den Drugubiten”, Numismatic and Sphragistic Contributions to His-
tory of the Western Black Sea Coast, International Conference, Varna 12–15 septembre 2001
(Varna, 2004), 246–52, 249–50.
8
W. Seibt, “Siegel als Quelle für Slawenarchonten in Griechenland”, SBS 6 (1999)
27–36; Gkoutzioukostas, “Prefect of Illyricum” 67–69, with bibliography.
9
Ν. Oikonomidès, Listes, 267.6.
10
Jordanov – Zhekova, no. 321; Jordanov, Corpus III, no. 1432 (tenth–eleventh
century). PBW (Symeon 20153).

Escurial Taktikon, mentions the basilikos protospatharios Symeon, who

performed his duties, probably as krites, in Strymon and Drougoubi-
teia, according to the reading of the letters of the last two lines of the
obverse: .ΠΙ Τ CΤP,- Μ,..S ΔP. But thanks to a better photo provided
by Prof. I. Jordanov, it is now clear that the seal mentions a person who
performed his judicial duties only in Strymon: on the obverse, a bust
of St John Prodromos, with the circular inscription AΓ, Ι R, T C .
῞Αγ(ιε) Ἰω(άννῃ) β(οήθει) τῷ σῷ [δ(ούλῳ)]; on the reverse, CVME-N R,
A, CΠΑΘ, – K EΠΙ Τ, ΟΙΚ, – KPIT, CTP,-M,.. ΙΡ: Συμεὼν β(ασιλικῷ) (πρωτο)
σπαθ(αρίῳ) κ(αὶ) ἐπὶ τ(ῶν) οἰκ(ειακῶν) κριτ(ῇ) Στρ(υ)μ(ό)[ν(ος)] [τ(ῷ)]
Ξ(η)ρ(ῷ). While not clear, the end is surely not ΛΕΡ, but ΙΡ (probably a
family name like Xeros (?). 11
The first krites of the theme of Drougoubiteia mentioned in the sources

is the judge of Strymon and Drougoubiteia Nikolaos, attested on a seal
attached to the document of a judicial decision dated in December 995, 12
although he subscribes it as krites of Strymon and Thessaloniki. Nikolaos
also subscribes another document (November 996) as krites of Strymon,
Thessaloniki and Drougoubiteia. 13 The inconsistency of Nikolaos’ office
between the seal and the documents led the editors of Actes d’Iviron to
wonder whether Nikolaos might have been appointed krites of Strymon
and Drougoubiteia, created his boulloterion, and later taken over re-
sponsibility for the theme of Thessaloniki as well. 14 According to other
opinions, however, if Nikolaos was krites of Strymon, Thessaloniki and
Drougoubiteia, the omission of the theme of Drougoubiteia in his sub-
11
I would like to express my special thanks to Werner Seibt and my colleague Ale
xandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt for the accurate reading and dating of the seal.
12
Iviron I, no. 9.
13
Iviron I, no. 10.
14
Iviron I, no 9, p. 157.

scription of the first document cannot be easily explained. 15 For this

reason it has been recently claimed that the theme of Drougoubiteia was
smaller and less important than the two others and could, therefore, be
easily omitted. 16 But such an interpretation is not convincing.
In our opinion, it cannot be excluded that Nikolaos was krites only
of Strymon and Drougoubiteia before December of 995, at which time
he was krites of Strymon and Thessaloniki, according to his subscription,
but was still using his old boulloterion. Consequently, he did not men-
tion the theme of Drougoubiteia in the document, probably because he
no longer had jurisdiction there. Besides, the fact that in certain, al-
though rare, cases, the full title of an administrative or judicial unit is
omitted in documents or narrative sources, because an affair concerned
only one of its regions or themes, 17 cannot solve the problem or allow us
to argue that this is why Nikolaos omitted the theme of Drougoubiteia,
since the case concerned a land dispute in the theme of Thessaloniki but
he subscribes as krites of the Strymon theme as well. It seems that the
theme of Strymon was the common element between Nikolaos’ previous
and new positions, which allowed or made it easier for him to use his
old boulloterion, if that is the case. The following year, in 996, he was
appointed as krites to the extended unit of Strymon, Thessaloniki and
Drougoubiteia. 18
The theme of Drougoubiteia had common borders not only with that
of Thessaloniki, as is also indicated by the above-mentioned subscription
of Nikolaos as krites of Strymon, Thessaloniki and Drougoubiteia, but also
with the theme of Strymon, according to the testimonies of the krites of
Strymon and Drougoubiteia Nikolaos mentioned above, and one more
seal published by I. Jordanov, on which Christophoros, asecretis, krites
of Drougoubiteia and perhaps of Strymon is mentioned. 19 Consequently,
the theme of Drougoubiteia extended from northwest of Thessaloniki to
the north of Thessaloniki, as N. Oikonomides suggested, and shared a
15
E. Papagianni, “Αγιορειτικές μαρτυρίες για τη δικαστική εξουσία στο θέμα
Θεσσαλονίκης κατά τον Ι´ αιώνα”, Αναμνηστικός Τόμος Στυλιανού Ν. Κουσούλη (Athens,
2012), 415–27, 420–21, where it is mentioned that the problem remains unsolved and
needs further investigation.
16
Chatziantoniou, “Εγκατάσταση Δρουγουβιτών” 119, note 52.
17
See H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantin
aux ixe-xie siècles, BCH 84 (1960) 1–109 (= Études sur les structures administratives et
sociales de Byzance, VR, [London, 1971], VIII), 83, note 5.
18
See also Jordanov, “Thema Druguvitia” 223.
19
See the table of kritai, no. 3.

border with the theme of Strymon as well, 20 probably as far as the east
bank of the Strymon, south of Lake Kerkini.
It has been assumed, however, that the theme of Drougoubiteia lay
to the north of the city of Serres. 21 But at the same period the theme of
New Strymon appears in the Escurial Taktikon; this was probably located
north of the Roupel pass, while the old theme of Strymon extended from
Roupel to the Aegean coast, according to the recent study of Alexan-
dra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt. 22 Another opinion situated the theme of
Drougoubiteia only to the west of Thessaloniki, in the central part of the
Kampania plain, where the Slavic tribe of Drogoubitai was settled and
the bishopric of Drougoubiteia located, 23 but soon this assumption was
correctly reconsidered, 24 since it cannot be accepted that neighbouring
but not contiguous themes could be united into a single administrative,
fiscal and judicial unit, as in the case of Drougoubiteia and Strymon. 25
Furthermore, the bishopric of Drougoubiteia, 26 the exact location and
20
Oikonomidès, Listes 357–58. See also DOSeals 1, p. 84. I. Jordanov, Corpus I, p.
69. Koltsida-Makri, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 45, p. 39. A. Stavridou-Zafraka, “Slav invasion
and the Theme Organization in the Balkan Peninsula”, Βυζαντιακά 12 (1992) 165–79,
135. Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 293.
21
C. Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025) (Oxford, 2005),
398: “the themes of Strymon and Drougoubiteia, located to the north of the important
eastern Macedonian towns of Thessalonika and Serres respectively”.
22
A.-Κ. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Reconstructing the Byzantine Frontier on the Balkans
(Late 8th-10th c.)”, REB 73 (2015) 229–39, 236–39.
23
See Chatziantoniou, “Εγκατάσταση Δρουγουβιτών” 117–22, where she had ini-
tially argued against Oikonomides’ opinion, but she finally agrees with Oikonomides.
See next note.
24
Ε. Chatziantoniou, “Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με την οικονομική διοίκηση του
θέματος Βολερού, Στρυμόνος και Θεσσαλονίκης (11ος αι.)”, Βυζαντιακά 30 (2012–2013)
149–93, 150, note 4. Eadem, “The kritai/praitores of Βoleron, Strymon and Thessa-
lonike in the 11th century. Prosopography and provincial administration”, Βυζαντινά 34
(2015–2016) 111–70, 121, note 38.
25
See Gkoutzioukostas, “The judges of the Macedonia theme (9th-12th c.)”, JÖB 63
(2013) 113–26, 116, note 20.
26
Τhe existence of the episcopal periphery of Drougoubiteia is attested from
the ninth century, when Petros, bishop of Drougoubiteia, participated in the Synod
of 879/80. A bishopric of Drougoubiteia under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of
Thessaloniki is mentioned in the Notitiae Episcopatuum 7 (early tenth century), 9 and
10 (late tenth century), 13 (twelfth century) and in another catalogue of the bishoprics
under the metropolis of Thessaloniki (late eleventh century) comprised in manuscripts
from the fouteenth century published by J. Darrouzès, although these documents can-
not be regarded as absolutely safe testimonies. See E. Chatziantoniou, Η Μητρόπολη
Θεσσαλονίκης από τα μέσα του 8ου αι. έως το 1430. Ιεραρχική τάξη – Εκκλησιαστική
περιφέρεια – Διοικητική οργάνωση (Thessaloniki, 2007), 134–38. Eadem, “Εγκατάσταση
Δρουγουβιτών”, 125–30.

extent of which is the subject of different views, does not a priori define
the boundaries of the theme of Drougoubiteia.
Despite the fact that the theme of Drougoubiteia bordered those of
Thessaloniki and Strymon, there is no mention of this or of any financial
or judicial officer serving there, in the documents of Mount Athos in
the eleventh century. This, in our view, is probably because there was no
longer a single theme of Strymon, Drougoubiteia and Thessaloniki, but
another, more easterly, one had been created comprising Boleron, Stry-
mon and Thessaloniki, a unit that appears very often in the eleventh cen-
tury. 27 One would not expect, therefore, any mention of Drougoubiteia,
since the land disputes referred to in the documents of the monasteries
of Mount Athos concerned mainly the region of the themes of Thessa-
loniki and Strymon.
At this point the existence of one more financial unit should be
mentioned, that of the dioikesis of Smolenon, which was attached to the
new dioikesis of Thessaloniki and Serres. 28 This unique reference to the
dioikesis of Smolenon is important, in our view, since we conclude that
the dioikesis, and the theme of Smolenon 29 as well, extended from the up-
per reaches of the Ardas River and the region of modern Smolyan, in
Bulgaria, to the Nestos, for otherwise such a connection with the neigh-
bouring dioikesis of Serres, that is of Strymon, would not be possible. The
case of the theme of Smolenon is, like the Drougoubiteia, another example
of a theme that took its name from the core tribe of a Slavic settlement.
Most military and civil functionaries of the theme of Drougoubiteia
are known from the sigillographic material. While from the narrative
sources we know only Nikolaos the protospatharios and krites of Strymon
and Drogoubiteia mentioned above (995) and one more anonymous
krites to whom two letters of Michael Psellos are addressed (eleventh
century), the seals attest one strategos of Drougoubiteia, 11 kritai of Drou-
goubiteia, one archon of Drougoubiteia, whose real exact function in the
theme of Drougoubiteia is not known, 30 and two anagrapheis of the same
27
It has been argued that the unification of Boleron, Strymon and Thessaloniki
was permanent, after 1033 or 1027, or possibly even earlier. See Chatziantoniou,
“Παρατηρήσεις” 151–52. See also eadem, “Kritai” 111. But see Gkoutzioukostas, “Re-
marks” (see n. 1).
28
Lavra Ι, no. 39.1,9 (1079): “βέστου, βασιλικοῦ νοταρίου τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν
οἰκειακῶν, στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἀναγραφέως Σμολένων σὺν τῇ νέ(ᾳ) διοική(σει) Θεσσαλον(ίκης)
(καὶ) Σερρῶν”. Cf. Chatziantoniou, “Παρατηρήσεις”, 156–57.
29
P. Soustal, Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos) (TIB 6) (Vienna, 1991)
451.
30
See below note 59.

theme, who are dated in the eleventh century. 31 Apart from the seals of
strategos that are dated in the third quarter of the tenth century, all the
other seals are dated in the eleventh century. In the next century there is
no mention to the theme of Drougoubiteia, which was probably absorbed
into the theme of Thessaloniki. To the above dignitaries we should add
the krites Thomas who is mentioned on an unpublished seal from the
private collection of Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt, no. 116:
Obv.: Metrical inscription of five lines preceded by a cross between two bars:
ΓΡΑΦΑC | CΦΡΑΓΙΖ | S ΛΟΓΟVC |TC EΓΓ|ΡΑΦ,
Rev.: Metrical inscription of five lines preceded by a decoration:
ΘΜΑ | ΔΙΚΑCT | ΔΡΟVΓΟV | RITIAC | OΛΗC
Γραφὰς σφραγίζω καὶ λόγους τοὺς ἐγγράφου(ς)

Θωμᾶ δικαστοῦ Δρουγουβιτ(εί)ας ὅλης
Consequently, the military and civil officers of the theme of Drougou-

biteia known to date are the following:
Strategos
1. Ἰσα(ά)κιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ στρατηγὸς
Δρογουβιτείας 32 (third quarter of the tenth century).
31
See the relevant tables below.
32
Jordanov, Preslav, no. 220–221b; Jordanov, Corpus I, no. 24.5a-f. Idem, Cor-
pus III, no. 1180–1185 (six specimens from the same boulloterion). Idem, The Collection
of Medieval Seals from the National Archaelogical Museum of Sofia (Sofia, 2011), no. 102
(tenth-eleventh century). Idem, “Thema Druguvitia” 228–29 (970–80). See also PBW
(Isaakios 20105).

Kritai
1. Νικόλαος, πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ κριτὴς Στρυμόνος καὶ
Δρουγουβιτείας (December 995 33 and November 996 34).
2. Μιχαήλ, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος καὶ κριτὴς Δρογουβιτείας 35 (c. first
quarter of the eleventh century).
3. Χριστόφορος, ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας 36 καὶ
Σ[τρυμόνος](?) 37 (first third of the eleventh century).
4. Λέων, ἀσηκρῆτις καὶ κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας 38 (second quarter of
the eleventh century).
5. Γρηγορᾶς Σαυλοϊωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ
ἱπποδρόμου καὶ τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας 39 (before the middle of the
eleventh century).
6. N.N. … κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας 40 (before the middle of the ele
venth century).
33
Iviron, no. 9.53, 55; Dated Seals, no. 72.
34
Iviron, no. 10.1–2, 62.
35
Cheynet et al., Istanbul, no. 3.55 (first half of the eleventh century), accord-
ing to whom Michael was κριτὴς Δρογουβιτ(ῶν), but it could be also completed as
Δρογουβιτ(είας).
36
Jordanov, Corpus Ι, 24.9. Jordanov – Zhekova, no. 288 (Χριστόφορος,
πριμικήριος…Δρουγουβιτείας…). PBW (Christophoros 20129). Cf. W. Seibt, BZ 98.1
(2005) 131, where it is suggested that Christophoros was probably asekretis and krites
of Drogoubiteia; Jordanov, Corpus ΙΙΙ, no. 1198 (eleventh century) (Χριστόφορος,
ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας [καὶ]…). If this person is identified with Christo-
phoros, asekretis and krites of Macedonia (1020–1040) (see Gkoutzioukostas, “Judges in
Macedonia” 122, no. 5), then a previous stage of Christophoros’ career in the theme of
Drougoubiteia (and maybe in Strymon?) is depicted on the seal.
37
After the end of the geographical name in the 4th line of the reverse we read
S (for καί), the next letter could be a C. The rest is unclear. I would like to thank A.-
K. Wassiliou-Seibt for the reading of the seal.
38
Τhree specimens from the same boulloterion: two published by Jordanov, Pre-
slav, no. 222–23; Jordanov, Corpus Ι, no. 24.7a-b. Idem, Corpus ΙΙΙ, nos 1187–1188
(tenth–eleventh century), and one published by Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 45
(eleventh century). W. Seibt – A. K. Wassiliou, review of Koltsida-Makri, BZ 91.1
(1998) p. 146. PBW (Leon 20275). Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 294 (first half of the elev-
enth century).
39
DOSeals 1, no. 21.3 (eleventh century) (where the proposed reading was N.
Χρυσέλιος;). For the correction of the surname and the reading of the name of the
owner see Seibt BZ 84/85 (1991/1992) 549. Jordanov, Corpus Ι, no. 24.2. Idem, Cor-
pus ΙΙ, no. 644 and III, no. 1176 (eleventh century). Idem, “Thema Druguvitia”, 225–26
(tenth–eleventh centuries). PBW (Gregoras 20101). See also Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p.
294, who date the seal in the middle of the eleventh century.
40
Jordanov, Corpus I, no. 24.4 (without picture); Idem, Corpus, no. 1179 (eleventh
century): “N.,…….κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας”; PBW (Anonymous 20273).

7. Θεόδοτος, 41 ἀσηκρῆτις καὶ κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας 42 (middle of

the eleventh century). 43
8. Ἰωάννης Κ…, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ
ἱπποδρόμου καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας 44 (middle of the eleventh cen-
tury).
9. Ἰωάννης ᾿Ελεσβάαμ, πατρίκιος, ἀνθύπατος καὶ κριτὴς
Δρουγουβιτείας (1050–70). 45
10. Βασίλειος Τζιρίθων, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ
Δρουγουβιτείας (1060–75). 46
11. N., βεστάρχης καὶ κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας (between 1060–78). 47
12. Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ
Δρουγουβιτείας 48; πρωτοσπαθάριος, ὕπατος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ
Δρουγουβιτείας 49 (last third of the eleventh century).
41
Cf. PBW (Theodoros 20106), where the wrong reading Theodoros instead of
Theodotos is adopted.
42
Jordanov, Corpus I, no. 24.3, who proposes as an alternative reading of the ob-
verse [(πρι)μι]κιρ(ίω) τ[ῆς] δρουγ(α)[ρίῳ] (rather τοῦ δρουγγαρίου), but this is not con-
vincing. Jordanov, Corpus III, no. 1177 (eleventh century). Idem, “Thema Druguvitia”,
226. We read clearly KIΡT instead of KΡΙΤ, but this is probably a mistake of the engraver
of the boulloterion.
43
See also Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 294.
44
Jordanov, Corpus ΙΙΙ, no. 1178 (eleventh century).
45
Lihačev, IZIGI, pl. 7, no. 10. Jordanov, Corpus II, no. 211. Idem, Corpus III,
no. 1178Α. PBW (Ioannis 20134). According to Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 294 (middle
of the eleventh century). Later Ioannes became krites of Thrace and Macedonia (last third
of the eleventh century). See Gkoutzioukostas, “Judges of Macedonia” 125, no. 34. If
this was the immediately later stage of his career, then he should have served in the theme
of Drougoubiteia in the decade of 1060.
46
Jordanov, Corpus Ι, no. 24.1. Idem, Corpus ΙΙ, no. 716. Idem, Corpus ΙΙΙ,
no. 1175. PBW (Basileios 214) (1050–1070). Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 294 (middle of
47
E. Kurtz – F. Drexl, Michaelis Pselli scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedi-
ta, v. II, Milan 1941, no. 90, 118.24 ff.: “Τῷ κριτῇ Δρουγουβίτου. Χρυσέ μου βεστάρχα…”,
where Psellos asks a krites to accept as his subordinate one of his relatives and no. 91
(Τῷ αὐτῷ), where Psellos seems to recommend another subordinate to the krites. PBW
(Anonymous 2413). M. Jeffreys – M. D. Lauxtermann, The Letters of Michael Psellos.
Cultural Networks and Historical Realities (Oxford, 2017), 213–14, who dates the letters
around 1060–1067. The title of βεστάρχης is the highest borne by the kritai of the mod-
est theme of Drougoubiteia known to date. This fact indicates, in our opinion, that a later
dating can also be suggested.
48
Jordanov, “Thema Druguvitia”, 226–27 (1040–160); Idem, Corpus, Addenda
2”, no. 67.
49
Jordanov, Corpus I, no 24.10. PBW (Theodoulos 20105). Cf. W. Seibt, BZ 98.1
(2005) 131. See also Jordanov, Corpus III, nos 1199–1201 (middle of eleventh century),
where two more specimens from the same boulloterion are published. Idem, “Thema

13. Θωμᾶς, δικαστὴς Δρουγουβιτείας (last third of the eleventh

century). 50
Financial dignitaries – anagrapheis

1. Κωνσταντῖνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), ἀσηκρῆτις (?), δήμαρχος (?) 51
καὶ ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας 52 (first quarter of the eleventh
century).
2. Μιχαὴλ Σκληρός, πρωτοπρόεδρος καὶ ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας
(around 1080). 53
Other officials
Πέτρος Μόσχος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος καὶ ἄρχων Δρουγουβιτείας 54 (be-
fore middle of the eleventh century).
Finally, another interesting element to which little attention has been

paid is the fact that we know the place where many of the seals of officers
of Drougoubiteia were found, thanks to the Corpus of Byzantine Seals
from Bulgaria published by Ivan Jordanov:
– Three of the seals of Isaakios strategos of Drogoubiteia were found
in Preslav, and three in other unknown regions of Bulgaria (third
quarter of the tenth century).
Druguvitia”, 227–28. Cheynet et al., Istanbul, p. 294–95, who date the seals of Theodou-
los in the second half of the eleventh century.
50
See above.
51
For the reading δήμαρχος see W. Seibt, BZ 84/85 (1991/1992) 549.
52
Only half of a seal. Jordanov, Preslav, no. 477. Idem, Corpus I, no. 24.6. Jor-
danov – Zhekova, no. 287. Jordanov, Corpus III, no. 1186 (tenth–eleventh century)
(πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ χρυσοτρικλίνου…). PBW (Konstantinos 20334).
53
From two different boulloteria: a) Three specimens from the collection of Dum-
barton Oaks (see DOSeals 1, no. 21.1) and ten specimens found in places in Bulgaria (see
Jordanov, Corpus III, no. 1189–1197Α [1080–1090],[with all the previous editions]),
b) a specimen from a private Bulgarian collection (see Jordanov, Corpus III, no. 1197B).
See also PBW (Michael 126). See for this person, who is later mentioned as kouropalates
(1095), Seibt, Skleroi, no. 24.
54
DOSeals 1, no. 21.2 (eleventh century).The editors suggest that “the Drou-
goubitai had a separate administration inside the theme (of Drougoubiteia)”, although
“Δρουγου[βη]τία[ς] instead of “Δρουγουβιτῶν” is inscribed on the seal. See also Chat
ziantoniou, “Εγκατάσταση Δρουγουβιτών”, 120–21 note 56, who assumes that the
archon had probably military duties and was subordinate of the doux of Thessaloniki.
Cf. also Jordanov, “Thema Druguvitia”, 236. In any case, the function of the archon of
a theme needs further investigation. See A. Stavridou-Zafraka, “Theme Organisation in
Macedonia” 135–36. For Petros see also PBW (Petros 20103).

– The seal of krites Christophoros comes from Silistra (first third of

– The seal of krites Gregoras Sauloioannes was found in the locality
of Gradishteto, near Lyubimets in the district of Haskovo (first
half of the eleventh century).
– Two seals from the same boulloterion of krites Leon were found
in Preslav (second quarter of the eleventh century).
– The seal of krites Theodotos was found near the village of Polski
Gradetz (middle of the eleventh century).
– The seal of krites Ioannes K… was found in the region of Elkhovo
(Melnitsa) (middle of the eleventh century).
– One seal of krites Theodoulos comes from the region of Plovdiv
or Pazardzhik, another one from Aquae Calidae near Burgas, and
two specimens from the same boulloterion from other, unknown
places (second half of the eleventh century).
– The seal of an anonymous krites was found in the region of Grad-
ishteto, near modern Simeonovgrad (eleventh century).
– The seal of anagrapheus Konstantinos was found in Preslav (first
quarter of the eleventh century).
– Of the ten seals of anagrapheus Michael Skleros (around 1080),
which come from the same boulloterion, one was found in Pre-
slav, one in Stara Zagora, one in the stronghold near the village of
Kipilovo (district of Sliven), one in the stronghold near the vil-
lage of Zlati Voyvoda, one in the stronghold near Simeonovgrad,
one in Ahtopol (Agathoupolis), and four from uncertain places,
perhaps some of them from Preslav. The find-spot of another
specimen from a private collection in Varna that comes from a
different boulloterion is not known.
– The seal of krites Ioannes Elesbaam was found in an unknown re-
gion of Bulgaria (1050–70).
– The seal of krites Basileios Tzirithon was found in an unknown
location in Bulgaria (1060–75)
It is undoubtedly surprising that most of the above seals were found in

areas of Thrace distant from the theme of Drougoubiteia where their own-
ers performed their duties. 55 But this and the fact that another branch
of the Slavic tribe of Drogoubitai is also attested in the region of Philip-
55
See also Jordanov, “Thema Druguvitia”, 236–37, 239, who justifiably wonders
whether the finding of so many seals of kritai of Drougoubiteia in Bulgarian lands is re-
lated to any additional jurisdiction they had there.

poupolis do not mean that we should search for another location for the
theme of Drougoubiteia, in the region of Thrace for example. 56
The finding of seals of the strategos of Drougoubiteia Isaakios in Pre-
slav, far away from the place of his jurisdiction, has been correctly in-
terpreted as a result of his participation in military operations there. 57
Besides, the strategos Isaakios was then appointed strategos of Thrace
and Ioannoupolis and of Thrace and Macedonia as well. 58 The seals of
the other officers of the theme of Drougoubiteia found in various places
in Thrace was the product of correspondence with officials, relatives or
friends who lived or performed their duties there. For example, some of
the seals of Michael Skleros could have been attached to letters sent to
Constantine Skleros, who served as krites of Macedonia and Thrace dur-
ing the same period (last quarter of the eleventh century). 59 It should
also be mentioned that Michael was later appointed exisotes of the West
and krites of Thrace and Macedonia. 60 The same career from the theme
of Drougoubiteia to the theme of Macedonia and Thrace is also attested
for the krites Ioannes Elesbaam. 61 We may suppose that Michael and
Ioannes had some contacts with officers and/or private persons of the
theme where they would continue their career. Some seals could also
have been transferred to regions very remote from Drogoubiteia for a
variety of reasons. For example, the seal of Christophoros, asecretis, krites
of Drougoubiteia and perhaps of Strymon, found in Silistra is seriously
damaged and holed and reduced to just one third of its original size. It
could, therefore, have been used as a button or something like that, as
I. Jordanov observed, 62 and may have arrived in Silistra with its owner.
In any case, the evidence of seals for the officers of Drougoubiteia should
be taken into consideration concerning the network of contacts and
their distance in Byzantium, especially in the 11th century.
56
Ι. Dujčev, “Dragvista-Dragovitia”, REB 22 (1964) 215–21 (= Medioevo Bizanti-
no-Slavo, v. 2, Rome 1968, 137–45). Wassiliou, “Neue Siegel”, 250.
57
N. Oikonomidès, “À propos de la première occupation Byzantine de la Bulgarie
(971-ca 986)”, ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ: Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, II (Byzantina Sorbonen-
sia 16), (Paris, 1998), 581–89, mainly 582.
58
Jordanov, Corpus I, no. 46.9.
59
Gkoutzioukostas, “Judges in Macedonia”, 123, no. 13.
60
61
62
See note 36.

Werner Seibt
Ἐπίσκoπος τῆς Ἀτέλου. Residierte der Bischof

von Atel in Chazaria (am Unteren Don)?
Kürzlich erschien in einer Auktion das Siegel eines Nikolaos, Bischof

von Atel. 1 Auf dem Avers eine Büste der Theotokos vom Episkepsis-
Typus, die Arme in orans-Haltung erhoben, vor der Brust ein Medaillon
mit einer Christus-Büste, den pränatalen Gottessohn symbolisierend.
Da dieser Bildtypus erst kurz nach der Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts ge-
schaffen wurde, 2 ergibt sich a priori ein terminus post quem von ca. 1060.
Zu beiden Seiten die üblichen Siglen  /ΘV – Μ(ήτη)ρ Θ(εο)ῦ.
Die Buchstaben der fünfzeiligen Revers-Legende sind zwar an der
Oberfläche etwas beschädigt, aber zweifelsfrei lesbar:
ΘΚΕ R,Θ, – NIKOΛΑΩ – ΕΠΙCKOΠ, – THC ATE-Λ
Θ(εοτό)κε β(οή)θ(ει) Νικολάῳ ἐπισκόπ(ῳ) τῆς Ἀτέλου.
Zu beiden Seiten der letzten Zeile je ein Punkt (bzw. eine Perle).
1
Auktion Pecunem (München), 35, 6.10.2015, 822.
2
Vgl. W. Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln,
besonders im 11. Jahrhundert,“ SBS 1 (1987), 53–55. Dieser Bildtypus wird in der rus-
sischen Orthodoxie „Znamenie“ („Gottesmutter des Zeichens“) benannt.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117252
Werner Seibt
Das Siegel stammt höchstwahrscheinlich aus einer Zeit zwischen

ca. 1060 und ca. 1090. In der verdienstvollen Ausgabe der notitiae epis-
copatuum von Père Darrouzès wird man einen Bischofssitz Atel nicht
finden. Am nächsten kommt ihm eventuell ὁ Ἀστήλ in notitia 3 (die
im Wesentlichen aus der Zeit 802/05 stammt 3), und zwar in der (of-
fenbar nur geplanten, aber nicht verwirklichten) ἐπαρχία Γοτθίας, die
das damalige Chazarenreich kirchlich organisieren sollte. Dort heißt es
übrigens: ὁ Ἀστήλ, ἐνῶ λέγεται ὁ Ἀστὴλ ὁ ποταμὸς τῆς Χαζαρίας, ἔστιν δὲ
κάστρον. 4
Ἄτελ / Ἀτήλ / Ἀτίλ(λ)ας wird von türkischem Ätil / Itil abgeleitet
und bezeichnet offenbar mehrere Flüsse, 5 nicht zuletzt die Wolga. Auch
Ἀτελκούζου, das Siedlungsgebiet der Ungarn vor der Landnahme am
Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts, 6 ist wohl damit zu verbinden.
Bei Theophanes (zum Jahr 678) erscheint der untere Don, bevor
er in das Azovsche Meer mündet, als Ἄτελ, wobei allerdings fehlerhaft
angenommen wird, dass sich stromaufwärts die Wolga mit dem Don
(ΤάναϊϚ) vereint hätte. 7
3
C. Zuckerman, “Byzantium’s Pontic policy in the notitiae episcopatuum,”
C. Zuckerman (Hrsg.), La Crimée entre Byzance et le khaganat Khazar (Paris, 2006),
206; ders. (K. Cukerman), “Politika Vizantii v severnom Pričernomor’e po dannym no-
titiae episcopatuum,” MAIET 16 (2010), 404.
4
J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981),
245, 779. Es gab Bestrebungen, das Chazarenreich, oder zumindest Teile davon zu mis-
sionieren, aber schließlich konnte nur das Erzbistum Phulloi auf der Krim eingerichtet
werden. Vgl. auch Nicholas I patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins
– L. G. Westerink (CFHB VI) (Washington, DC, 1973), Brief 68, S. 315 (aus dem Jahr
919–1. Hälfte 920). Astel wird gerne mit Itil, der chazarischen Hauptstadt, identifiziert,
die eher an der Wolga gesucht wird; dort gab es unter anderem auch Christen, vgl. B. N.
Zachoder, Kaspĳskĳ svod svedenĳ o Vostočnoj Evrope, I (Moskau, 1962), 147. Atel würden
wir aber eher nicht mit Itil verbinden wollen.
5
Vgl. G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II (Berlin, 1958 / 1983), 77–79.
6
Dazu vgl. C. Zuckerman, “Les Hongrois au pays de Lebedia: Une nouvelle puis-
sance aux confins de Byzance et de la Khazarie ca. 836–89,“ Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο (9ος
– 12ος αι.) (Athen, 1997), 55–56; dens. (K. Cukerman), “Vengry v strane Levedii: novaja
deržava na granicach Vizantii i Chazarii ok. 836–89 g.” MAIET 6 (1998), 662–63.
7
Theophanes, 356, 21–27 (de Boor): … ἐν τῇ λεγομένῃ Μαιώτιδι λίμνῃ, εἰς ἣν
εἰσάγεται ποταμὸς μέγιστος … λεγόμενος Ἄτελ, εἰς ὃν εἰσάγεται ὁ λεγόμενος Τάναϊς ποταμός
… Die beiden Ströme kommen einander einmal relativ nahe, aber es gibt keine natürliche
Verbindung.

ἘΠΊΣΚOΠΟΣ ΤῆΣ ἈΤΈΛΟΥ
Schon vor einigen Jahren wurde auf der Krim das Siegel eines
Katepano 8 von Cherson und Chazaria gefunden. Auf dem Avers ist ein
Standbild der Theotokos abgebildet, vom Hagiosoritissa-Typus, nach
rechts zur Hand Gottes gewendet, und die Revers-Legende lautet:
+ ΘΚΕ R,Θ, – ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΩ – RECTAPXH – S KATEΠΑΝ, – XEPCΩNOC – S
XAZAP, TΩ – AΛΑΝΩ
Θ(εοτό)κε β(οή)θ(ει) Νικηφόρῳ βεστάρχῃ (καὶ) κατεπάν(ω) Χερσῶνος
(καὶ) Χαζαρ(ίας) τῷ Ἀλανῷ.
Auch hier zu beiden Seiten der letzten Zeile je ein Punkt (bzw. eine
Perle). 9
Für die Datierung ist an eine Periode zwischen 1060 und 1080 zu
denken. Die russischen Quellen berichten vom Tod Rostislavs, des
Fürsten von Matracha, am 3. Februar 1067, der angeblich dem byzan-
tinischen Katepano angelastet wurde, und dass dieser später (vielleicht
ca. 1069) von seinen eigenen Leuten gesteinigt wurde. 10 Nikephoros
könnte dieser Katepano gewesen sein, denn der (damals schon) nied-
rigere Rangtitel Bestarches deutet eher auf 60er als auf 70er Jahre hin.
Bekanntlich stammt von Michael / Oleg Svjatoslavič ein Siegeltypus

als Archon und Dux von Matracha / Tamatarcha / Tmutarakan’ und
„ganz Chazarien“. Auf dem Avers ein Standbild des Erzengels Michael
8
Ein Katepano bzw. Dux besaß ein übergeordnetes Kommando; es konnten ihm
durchaus Strategen untergeordnet sein, im speziellen Fall eventuell solche von Sugdaia,
Bosporos und Gotthia, falls diese Regionen damals noch byzantinisch waren und einen
eigenen Strategen hatten. Gotthia unterstand nach dem Untergang des Chazarenreiches
zumindest kurzfristig einem byzantinischen Turmarchen, und was Bosporos betrifft,
könnte das Thema schon im früheren 11. Jh. verloren gegangen sein; cf. C. Zuckerman,
“The end of Byzantine rule in North-eastern Pontus“, MAIET 22 (2017), 308; 311–12;
320–21. Von der vorgeschlagenen Lesung ὁ Τζ(ο)ύ[λ]α τοῦ Ποσφόρ(ου) auf dem Siegel
eines Georgios Protospatharios, ed. N. Alekseyenko, L’administration byzantine de
Cherson. Catalogue des sceaux (Paris, 2012), 237, no. 159 bin ich allerdings nicht über-
zeugt.
9
Vgl. N. A. Alekseenko – Ju. A. Cepkov, “Katepanat v Tavrike: Legendarnye
svidetel’stva ili istoričeskie realii“, Chersonesskĳ sbornik 17 (2012), 15–17; Abb. S. 17.
Dieses Siegel hat eine große Diskussion ausgelöst und wurde mehrfach neu abgebildet, z.
B. in V. N. Čchaidze, „Chazarĳa“ XI veka: K voprosu o lokalizacii (po dannym vizantĳs-
kich molivdovulov (Preprint: Moskau, 2016), 28, Abb. 17.
10
Povest’ vremennych let (St Petersburg, 1996) (im Folgenden: PVL) 72; Pol-
noe sobranie Russkich letopisej I 166. Cf. Zuckerman, “End of Byz. Rule“, 306–08.
Zu Matracha, wo auch nicht wenige byzantinische Siegel gefunden wurden, vgl. V. N.
Čchaidze, Tamatarcha. Rannesrednevekovyj gorod na Tamanskom poluostrove (Moskau,
2008); dens., Vizantijskie pečati iz Tamani (Moskau, 2015).

Werner Seibt
mit gezücktem Schwert, 11 der rechts unten von einem – recht klein
dargestellten – Mann in Proskynese verehrt wird (womit der Siegler
selbst gemeint ist). 12 Als Beischrift findet sich: Ὁ ἀρχ(άγγελος) Μιχ(αὴλ)
ὁ Χ(ω)νιάτ(ης).
Die siebenzeilige Revers-Legende, die auf einem Siegel der Sammlung
Sheremetiev besonders gut lesbar ist, lautet:
+ KE ROHΘ, – ΤΩ CΩ ΔΛ, – ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΑΡ-ΧΟΝΤΙ S ΔΟV-KA MATPAX, –
ΠΑCHC XAZA-PIAC
Κ(ύρι)ε βοήθ(ει) τῷ σῷ δούλ(ῳ) Μιχαὴλ ἄρχοντι (καὶ) δούκα
Ματράχ(ων) πάσης Χαζαρίας. 13
Abgesehen von dem kleinen grammatischen Fehler (δούκα statt
δουκί) 14 ist das Siegel sehr anspruchsvoll; das Bulloterion wurde von ei-
nem Meister seines Faches geschnitten, wohl in Konstantinopel.
Seit längerem ist ein relativ ähnlicher Siegeltypus bekannt, von dem
heute bereits acht Exemplare existieren (sie stammen zumeist von der
Krim bzw. der Taman-Halbinsel). 15 Auf dem Avers ebenfalls ein Stand-
bild des Erzengels Michael, aber weniger kriegerisch, wohl mit einem
Szepter (oder Labarum) in der Rechten und einem Globus in der Linken.
Die Revers-Legende lautet:
+ KE R,Θ, - MIXAHΛ – ΑΡΧΟΝΤ, ΜΑ-ΤΡΑΧ, ΖΙΧΗ-ΑC S ΠΑCHC – XAZAPI-AC.
Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Μιχαὴλ ἄρχοντ(ι) Ματράχ(ων) Ζιχήας (καὶ) πάσης
Χαζαρίας.
11
Dieser Bildtypus erscheint nicht zuletzt auch auf einem Histamenon-Typus des
Kaisers Isaakios I. Komnenos (1057–1059): Ph. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine
Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, vol. III, part 2
(Washington, DC, 1973), 762, Class II; Taf. 63, 2.1–5.
12
Die Darstellung des Sieglers findet sich in Byzanz – abgesehen vom Kaiser – nur
äußerst selten, war aber im Westen durchaus geläufig.
13
Ο. Alf ’orov, “A Seal of Michael, Archon and Doux of Matracha and All Kha
zaria (in Oleksii Sheremetiev’s Collection)”, in: Byzantine and Rus’ Seals, 97–104; Abb.
1 auf S. 97.
14
Außer es handelt sich um eine volkssprachliche Form, von δούκας statt δούξ ab-
geleitet.
15
S. zuletzt E. Stepanova, “New finds from Sudak,” SBS 8 (2003), 129–30, Nr.
12; V. Bulgakova, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Osteuropa. Die Funde auf dem Territorium
Altrußlands (Wiesbaden, 2004), 238–41, Nr. 3.2.1.2; dies., “Sigillografičeskij kompleks
porta Sugdei (materialy podvodnych issledovanij 2004–2005 gg.)“, Sugdejskij sbornik
3 (2008), 321–22, Nr. 40; Čchaidze, Chazarija (wie A. 9), 10–11; 26, Abb. 11–12.

Dass hier neben Matracha auch Zichia genannt wird, bedeutet nicht
viel; damals hieß die Diözese der Archiepiskope von Matracha Zichia. 16
Kürzlich wurde ein dritter, ähnlicher Siegeltypus entdeckt, leider
bislang nur durch eine nicht sehr gut erhaltene Hälfte eines entlang des
Kanals gebrochenen Siegels bekannt. Die Avers-Seite dürfte letzterem
Typus entsprechen, die Revers-Legende konnte bislang nicht überzeu-
gend geklärt werden. 17 Als weiteren Lesungsvorschlag möchte ich zur
Diskussion stellen:
+ KE [R,Θ,] – ΜΙΧΑΗ[Λ ΑP-Χ]ΟΝΤ[I S ΔOVK-A T]ON Z[IXIA,] –
MATP[AX]-N S Π[ΑC, XA]-ZA[PIAC].
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Μιχαὴλ ἄρχοντι (καὶ) δούκα τ(ῶ)ν Ζιχία(ς),
Ματράχων (καὶ) πάσης Χαζαρίας.
Der erste Siegeltypus Michaels ist sicher der früheste, 1083 und kurz
danach, der neue wäre nach obiger Interpretation der folgende, wohl
auch relativ früh, cα. 1085, der so zahlreich belegte zweite Typus (ohne
„Dux“) dagegen der letzte, cα. 1086–94.
Die meisten Forscher nehmen an, dass mit der Bezeichnung „Dux“
zum Ausdruck käme, dass Michael zumindest in diesen Jahren wie ein byz-
antinischer Amtsträger fungierte. Das ist nicht sicher auszuschließen, aber
keineswegs stringent. 18 Über die genauen Absprachen zwischen dem Kai-
ser und dem Fürsten aus der Rus’ wissen wir nicht Bescheid, aber Michael
schied offiziell zumindest als „Verbündeter“ aus Konstantinopel, vielleicht
anfangs sogar mit einer gewissen byzantinischen militärischen Unterstüt-
zung. 19 Möglicherweise sollte diese Bezeichnung auch nur zum Ausdruck
bringen, dass Michael den byzantinischen Dux in Chazaria „beerbte“. 20
Jedenfalls hat Michael diese Bezeichnung ohnehin bald abgelegt. 21
16
Darrouzès, Notitiae (s. A. 4), 346 (not. 11, 139–40). In früherer Zeit war die
ser geographische Terminus viel weiter gefasst gewesen. Vgl. auch Zuckerman,”End of
Byz. Rule“, 308–10.
17
Vgl. Čchaidze, Chazarija, 13–14, bes. A. 83; 27, Abb. 15; Zuckerman, “End of
Byz. rule”, 314. Ich danke Viktor Čchaidze für die Zusendung eines Photos.
18
Man beachte in diesem Zusammenhang, dass Michael keinen byzantinischen
Titel trägt!
19
Michael hat bekanntlich während seines Aufenthalts im Reich eine byzantini
sche Adelige geheiratet, Theophanu Muzalonissa, deren prachtvolles Siegel als
ἀρχόντισσα Ρουσίας erhalten ist; vgl. z. B. Bulgakova, Bleisiegel in Osteuropa (s. A. 15),
Nr. 3.2.1.3a-b.
20
Michael hat jene Chazaren, die ihn an den Kaiser ausgeliefert hatten, verfolgt
und sich dort mit Gewalt durchgesetzt.
21
Wann die – zumindest für spätere Zeit gut bezeugten – engen Verbindungen
mit den Kumanen begannen, wissen wir allerdings nicht.

Werner Seibt
Es liegt nahe anzunehmen, dass das Chazaria des byzantinischen

Katepano in etwa mit dem Michaels identisch war. 22 Man hat es daher vor
allem zwischen den beiden Zentren Cherson und Matracha angenom-
men, primär in der östlichen Krim. 23 Das wäre möglich, erscheint mir
aber nicht sicher. Es sei gestattet, eine andere Hypothese in den Raum
zu stellen, nämlich die Frage, ob alle drei Termini, der Bischofssitz Atel
und das (kurzfristig) byzantinische bzw. dann (vielleicht auch nur kurz
fristig) unter die Kontrolle eines Fürsten aus der Rus’ gelangte Chazaria
in etwa dieselbe Region bezeichnen. In diesem Fall wäre davon auszuge-
hen, dass ein Gebiet im ehemaligen Chazarenreich zumindest kurzfristig
unter byzantinische Hegemonie gelangte, worauf Kaiser und Patriarch
hier auch einen Bischofssitz errichteten. Bald danach, spätestens am
Beginn der Regierung Alexios’ I. Komnenos, nach der Freilassung Mi-
chaels aus byzantinischer Konfinierung (1083), wäre dieses Gebiet dann
in den Machtbereich eines Fürsten aus der Rus’ gekommen. Unter dieser
Prämisse ist in erster Linie an eine Region am Don zu denken, eventuell
inklusive der Stadt Sarkel, 24 die eine sehr gemischte Bevölkerung hatte
und neben Chazaren, Alanen und Menschen aus der Rus’ vielleicht auch
Byzantiner und Angehörige anderer Völker zählte. Die Familien aus der
Rus’ spielten offenbar eine besondere Rolle, in russischen Quellen wird
Sarkel Belaja Veža genannt, und der archäologische Befund deutet auf
eine gewisse wirtschaftliche Bedeutung dieses Zentrums, wo auch Chris-
ten wohnten. 25
Dieses Gebiet wäre auf sich allein gestellt den mächtigen turkstäm-
migen Nachbarn, im 11. Jh. zunächst den Pečenegen, dann, bald nach
22
Wenn das πάσης nicht primär auf eine gewisse Megalomanie zurückgeht, wie sie
gerade in dieser Zeit blühte, wäre es allerdings schon denkbar, dass Olegs Chazaria noch
größer als das (ehemals) byzantinische war.
23
Vgl. bes. Čchaidze, Chazarija.
24
Es gab natürlich auch andere Regionen, die gelegentlich als Chazaria / Gazaria
bezeichnet werden konnten, nicht zuletzt auf der Krim. Vgl. Zuckerman, “Pontic policy“
(s. A. 3), 223–26; V. P. Stepanenko, “Ešče raz o lokalizacii Chazarii v XI v.,“ MAIET 19
(2014) 368–78; Čchaidze, Chazarĳa.
25
Zu der hypothetischen Identifizierung von Sarkel bzw. Belaja Veža mit Chazaria
(die allerdings einigen Widerspruch hervorgerufen hat) vgl. G. E. Afanas’ev, “Kto že v
dejstvitel’nosti postroil Levoberežnoe Cimljanskoe gorodišče?“ Rossĳskaja archeologĳa
2011/3, 108–19; dens., “Gde že byla Chazarija? Dostojanie pokolenii 2 (6) 2009, 34–41;
für die Übermittlung eines pdf danke ich Fjodor Androščuk. – Zu Sarkel allgemeiner
vgl. auch S. A. Pletneva, Drevnerusskij gorod v kočevij stepi (Simferopol, 2006); V. S.
Flerov, Goroda i zamki Chazarskogo kaganata. Archeologičeskaja real’nost (Moskau,
2010), 28–41; für die Übermittlung eines pdf des letzteren Artikels danke ich N. Khra-
punov.

der Mitte des Jahrhunderts, den Kumanen / Polovcern, militärisch nicht

gewachsen gewesen und daher auf die Unterstützung durch mächtigere
Partner angewiesen; 26 das konnten einerseits Fürsten der Rus’, ander-
erseits zumindest zeitweise auch die Byzantiner sein. In diesem Zusam-
menhang sei daran erinnert, dass nach dem Tod Jaroslavs des Weisen
(1054) die strategische Bedeutung der Rus’ abnahm, da anstelle einer
starken Zentralmacht in Kiev / Kyiv das Reich unter seine Söhne auf-
geteilt wurde, die unter einander nicht genügend harmonisierten. An-
dererseits schien Byzanz damals auf einem Höhepunkt seiner Macht
zu stehen, seine Grenzen wurden mehrfach erweitert und von der sich
anbahnenden Wirtschaftskrise wussten jedenfalls nur Wenige Bescheid,
am allerwenigsten im Ausland.
Die militärischen Kommandanten der byzantinischen Besitzun-
gen auf der Krim wurden offenbar auch über die Grenzen ihres ei-
gentlichen Amtsbereiches hinaus aktiv. Auf die Ereignisse um Rosti-
slav Vladimirovič, den Archon von Matracha, haben wir oben bereits
hingewiesen. Der Katepano Nikephoros, ein Alane, mag mit den Alanen
am unteren Don engere Kontakte gepflegt haben. Auch dass Michael /
Oleg Svjatoslavič als Archon von Matracha 1079 von „kosare“ 27 gefan-
gen genommen und gerade den Byzantinern ausgeliefert wurde, gehört
in diesen Zusammenhang. Es wäre denkbar, dass Byzanz eine gewisse,
wohl eher nur kurze Zeit den Schutz von Verbündeten am unteren Don
übernahm, ohne dass damit eine volle Eingliederung in das Themensys-
tem verbunden sein musste. 28 Es ist schon richtig, dass dieses Gebiet ein
weit „vorgeschobener Posten“ war. Aber auch die byzantinische Krim
grenzte nicht direkt an anderes byzantinisches Territorium, ganz zu
schweigen vom kleinen Thema Anakopia-Soterupolis in Abchazien!
Andererseits war Byzanz ja auch mit dem Königreich der Alanen ver-
bündet und sicherlich um einen gewissen Einfluss in Matracha bemüht.
Die Beziehungen zur Rus’ konnten im Vertrag zwischen Jaroslav und
Kaiser Monomachos, der durch die Heirat von Vsevolod Jaroslavič mit
einer Monomachaina c. 1052 besiegelt wurde, auf eine neue Basis ge
26
Gerade der Vormarsch der den Petschenegen überlegenen Kumanen veränderte
das zuvor bestehende „strategische Gleichgewicht“.
27
PVL 87. Was soll sich hinter diesem Begriff anderes als „Chazaren“ verbergen?
Oft ging man jedoch von Pečenegen oder Chazaro-Bulgaren aus.
28
Im 10. Jahrhundert fand man eine praktikable „Übergangslösung“ in Bezug auf
das armenische Fürstentum Taron: Der amtierende Fürst wurde zunächst zum byzanti-
nischen Strategen ernannt, konnte aber weiter seine Herrschaft behalten; nach seinem
Tod sollte hier ein byzantinisches Thema errichtet werden.

Werner Seibt
stellt werden, 29 und auch zu Georgien bemühte sich insbesondere Kaiser

Konstantinos X. Dukas um ein besseres Verhältnis. 30
Die politischen Verhältnisse um das Azovsche Meer waren in der
fraglichen Zeit instabil und die wenigen Informationen sind oft nicht
eindeutig genug. Die Nachricht, dass Gleb Svjatoslavič als Fürst von Ma-
tracha 1068, als die Straße von Kerč zugefroren war, die Entfernung von
Matracha nach Kerč vermessen ließ, 31 wird oft als Indiz dafür gewertet,
dass Kerč damals zu seinem Machtbereich gehörte, 32 was m. E. aber
nicht so sicher ist. Auch ein Passus in einem Brief des Theophylaktos von
Ochrid an Gregorios Taronites vom Sommer 1103 33 sollte nicht über-
bewertet werden. Hier ist die Rede von einem militärischen Erfolg des
Gregorios kurz zuvor über den Emir von Sivas, Ghâzi ibn-Dânišmend,
sicherlich in Ostanatolien; 34 in diesem Zusammenhang wird (wohl et-
was übertrieben) behauptet, der Emir (Τανεσμάν) hätte die „griechischen
Städte am Don und an der Maiotis“ tributpflichtig gemacht. 35 Auch die
Anspielung des Manuel Straboromanos, Protonobellisimos und Megas
Hetaireiarches, in seinem Logos an Kaiser Alexios I. Komnenos (1103
oder kurz davor) auf einen gewissen byzantinischen Erfolg παρὰ τὸν
Κιμμέριον βόσπορον 36 ist nicht sehr aussagekräftig und wenig konkret.
Die Einrichtung eines eigenen Bistums würde sehr gut zu einer
näheren Anbindung der Region am unteren Don an Byzanz passen.
Suffraganbistümer waren jeweils von einer Metropolis abhängig. Erz
bistümer (wie Cherson oder Matracha) kämen dafür nicht in Frage. In
29
Vgl. W. Seibt, “War Maria ἡ εὐγενεστάτη ἀρχόντισσα eines Siegeltypus aus der
Rus’ die gesuchte Monomachaina oder eher Maria Dobronega?“ ByzSl 75 (2017), 116–
22.
30
Vgl. W. Seibt, “Der byzantinische Rangtitel Sebastos in vorkomnenischer Zeit“,
TM 16 (2010), 761–62.
31
Vgl. A. A. Medynceva, Tmutarakanskĳ kamen’ (Moskau, 1979).
32
Z. B. G. G. Litavrin, “A propos de Tmoutorokan”, Byz 35 (1965), 230.
33
P. Gautier, Théophylakte d’Achrida. Lettres (CFHB XVI/2) (Thessaloniki, 1986),
Brief 81, 13–15; S. 427; vgl. S. 121–26.
34
Vielleicht war Gregorios damals Dux von Iberia, wahrscheinlich nicht Dux von
Trapezunt, in welcher Position er dann 1104 rebellierte.
35
Ὅτε γὰρ Τανεσμὰν φορολογεῖν εἰωθὼς τάς τε ἄλλας περὶ τὸν Πόντον ἑλληνίδας
πόλεις ἐντὸς Τανάϊδος ποταμοῦ καὶ λίμνης Μαιωτίδος… Ein türkischer Raubzug in diese
Gegend kann aber nicht ausgeschlossen werden. Andererseits darf aus dieser Stelle auch
nicht geschlossen werden, dass Gregorios selbst dort aktiv geworden wäre. Vgl. Zucker-
man, “End of Byz. Rule“, 316–17.
36
P. Gautier, “Le dossier d’un haut fonctionnaire d’Alexis Ier Comnène, Manuel
Straboromanos,“ REB 23 (1965), 190, 26–27. Cf. Zuckerman, “End of Byz. Rule“, 315–
16.

erster Linie wäre an den Metropoliten der Rus’ zu denken, in zweiter

eventuell an den von Alania, was aber weniger wahrscheinlich ist. Was
die Rus’ betrifft, residierte der Metropolit von Anfang an in Kiev. Ge
rade für die fragliche Zeit ist allerdings zu bedenken, dass – als Folge
der politischen Entwicklung – ca. 1069 der Bischof von Černigov /
Černihiv zum Metropoliten Μαυροκάστρου ἤτοι νέας Ρωσίας aufstieg,
und wenig später, ca. 1073, jener von Perejaslavl’ zum Metropoliten
Ρουσίου / Πρεσθλάβας. 37 Wir gehen von einer Unterstellung Atels unter
Kiev aus. Leider gibt die Bischofsliste notitia 11, die etwa aus dieser Zeit
stammt (nach 1082/84), bei den Metropolen keine Suffragane an.
Was Nikolaos, den Bischof von Atel betrifft, wies ein Gutachter dan
kenswerter Weise auf den interessanten Umstand hin, dass etwa in der
fraglichen Zeit ein Nikolaos / Nikula, ein Mönch des Kiever Höhlen
klosters, „Bischof von Tmutarakan“ / Matracha wurde, frühestens 1078,
vielleicht aber erst in den 80er oder 90er Jahren des XI. Jahrhunderts. 38
Da in Matracha jedoch ein Erzbischof saß, scheidet er für eine Identifi-
zierung aus.
In den 70er Jahren des 11. Jh. stürzte das Byzantinische Reich in eine
sehr schwere Krise, an mehreren Fronten erlitten die kaiserlichen Trup-
pen empfindliche Niederlagen, zu den sonstigen inneren Problemen (wie
Rebellionen und Usurpationen) kam eine drückende Wirtschaftskrise.
Für den wirksamen Schutz der Krim und erst recht eines Außenpostens
am Don fehlten auf einmal die Reserven. 39 Unter solchen Bedingun-
gen musste den führenden Kreisen am unteren Don eine weitere enge
Verbindung mit Byzanz wenig opportun erscheinen und sie lehnten sich
eher wieder an die Rus’, insbesondere an das relativ nahe Matracha an,
wovon der 1083, bald nach dem Regierungsantritt Alexios’ I., aus By
zanz zurückgekehrte Oleg / Michael profitierte, der dann hier bis 1094
residierte, allerdings sehr bald enge Beziehungen zu den Kumanen /
Polovcern, den neuen Herren der Steppe, aufnahm.
Diese politische Konstellation dauerte bis ins frühe 12. Jh. an. Wie
uns die „Nestorchronik“ an ihrem Ende berichtet, kam es 1116 zu
Kämpfen der Polovcer mit Pečenegen und „Türken“ , in die auch Trup-
37
Vgl. bes. K. Cukerman (C. Zuckerman), „Duumviraty Jaroslavičej. K voprosu o
mitropolĳach Černigova i Perejaslavlja,” D’neslovo (Kyiv, 2008), 40–50.
38
M. Heppell, The Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery (Cambridge, MA, 1989),
145, 119. Nikula lebte zu einem Zeitpunkt, als Nikon Abt des Höhlenklosters war
(1078–1088), noch im Kloster.
39
Es ist nicht einmal sicher, welche Stellungen auf der Krim gehalten werden
konnten.

Werner Seibt
pen aus der Rus’ eingriffen, und im Jahr darauf wurde Sarkel / Belaja
Veža von den Polovcern eingenommen; damals sind viele Bewohner auf
das Gebiet der Rus’ emigriert. 40 Vielleicht ging in dieser Zeit auch das
Suffraganbistum Atel unter.
Povest’ vremennych let zu den Jahren 1116 und 1117, S. 129 (ed. Lichačev).
40

Christos Stavrakos – Christos Tsatsoulis
A Rare Lead Seal of a Goldsmith

(Χρυσογλύπτης) from the Unpublished
Collection of Zafeiris Syrras (London)
Zafeiris Syrras began collecting Byzantine seals in March 2003; since

then he has continued to acquire Byzantine lead bullae and at this mo-
ment in time the collection numbers close to 1000 pieces. The collection
is expected to grow, as the interest of the collector in Byzantine lead seals
remains unequivocally high. It is one of the most important private col-
lections of lead seals internationally, not only in terms of the number of
seals but also in terms of quality and historical importance of its articles.
Christos Stavrakos is working on the publication of this collection and it
was also the focus of his summer fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks. 1
Some other seals of this collection are presented in the Festschrift for
Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, due to be published in the next months. 2 They
are the seals of Nikētas Tornikēs (twelfth century, possibly mid-centu-
ry), Basileios bishop of Hexamilion (mid 11th – early twelfth century),
Michaēl Tzikandylos (or Tzykandylēs) (mid tewelfth century–2nd half
of twelfth century), Maria, nun and zōstē (3rd decade of eleventh–ear-
ly twelfth century), Nikēphoros Melissēnos, magistros, vestarchēs and
katepanō (1065–75), Theodora Komnēnē, pansebastē (1130–80) and
Kōnstantinos Theodōrokanos (2nd half of eleventh–early twelfth cen-
tury; probably between 1060–80).
There are a number of significant seals in the collection of Zafeiris
Syrras, which serve to enrich our knowledge on Byzantine civilization.
1
The publication of the collection of Zafeiris Syrras was the research project I un-
dertook during the summer fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks (Washington DC) in 2014.
I gathered a trove of important bibliographical information in the research library and I
would like to extend my warmest thanks to everyone at Dumbarton Oaks.
2
Forthcoming publication with Zafeiris Syrras.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117253
One of these is presented here; a seal crafted by a heretofore unknown

goldsmith in middle-Byzantine period.
A bust of St Ioannes Chrysostomos is depicted on the obverse of our
seal. The poor condition of the lead seal does not allow us to discern any
iconographical details of the depiction. However, it is certain that John
is depicted with bishopric attire as he holds the Book of Gospels in his
left hand, and the right one is placed on his chest in the position of bless-
ing. The inscription of the obverse (pic. 1) is partly destroyed:
̣ - ΙΩ̣
̣ – o // ☧ - .-.
Ὁ ἅ(γιος) Ἰω(άννης) ὁ // Χρ(υσό)[στ(ο)μ(ος)]
Οn the well preserved reverse (pic. 2); the inscription:

̅ � ᾶςΠ̣ΑΘΑ | Ρ,ΕΠιΤΟυ | ☧Γκλ,ϗ☧ | γλυπτ | 
ΚeRΘ̣ | τωςωΔ̣ | ΙΩ̅ 
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) τῷ σῷ δού(λῳ) Ἰω(άννῃ) (πρωτο)σπαθαρ(ίῳ) ἐπὶ
τοῦ Χρ(υσο)(τρι)κλ(ίνου) (καὶ) χρ(υσο)γλύπτ(ῃ).
It is noteworthy that the first compound χρυσο- of the words
Χρυσόστομος, Χρυσοτρίκλινος and χρυσογλύπτης are written in the same
way, as the well-known abbreviation of XP (☧).

A RARE LEAD SEAL OF A GOLDSMITH
The seal is dated in the second half of the eleventh century. The own-
er of the seal has chosen for the obverse of the seal a Saint with the same
name as his. The most interesting fact, however, is that the saint was not
Ioannes Prodromos or Ioannes Evangelista, who were the most common
from the iconographical point of view as in several other cases of seals
of Ioannes, but Ioannes Chrysostomos (Χρυσόστομος = Golden Mouth).
Christos Tsatsoulis presents in his thesis (work in progress) about
the invocations to the divine on the Byzantine seals the fact that several
seal owners who portrayed Ioannes Chrysostomos, chose puns with the
word χρυσὸς (gold):
– Σεναχερεὶμ οἰκέτην δικολογοῦντα ὁμωνυμοῦντα, Χρυσορήμων, δίδοις
σκέπη (eleventh century) 3
– Τῷ Δοξαπάτρει τῷ φύλακι τῶν νόμων σύγκρινε, θύτα Κυρίου, χρυσοῦν
στόμα (eleventh–twelfth centuries) 4
– Εὐγενιώτην, χρυσεπής, Βάρδαν σκέποις (twelfth century) 5
– Φερώνυμος σὴν φυλακὴν Θείαν, μάκαρ, Εὐγενιώτῃ, προσνέμοις
χρυσορρόα (twelfth–thirteenth centuries) 6
– Ποταμὲ χρυσόρυθρε διδασκαλίας, σκέποις Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Μεσοποταμίτην
(thirteenth century) 7
At this point, we can observe that Ioannes overstates and spots

his work with the noble metal of gold: it is χρυσογλύπτης, ἐπὶ τοῦ
Χρυσοτρικλίνου and he chooses Ioannes Chrysostomos as the Saint of his
seal. The purpose of the iconographical choice in combination with his
imperial title and profession is obvious.
The terminus technicus χρυσογλύπτης is not attested as a noun in the
Byzantine written sources. Moreover, such a description of a profession
is completely unknown.
The word in the uniqueness of its meaning is in fact a Byzantine ha-
pax legomenon. Initially we thought that it was a mistake in the writing
or a unique specialty in the choice of the owner of the seal or our mistake
in the reading based on damages in the malleable lead. But after research
made by Christos Stavrakos in the Dumbarton Oaks’ sigillographic pho-
3
Wassiliou, Corpus II 1920.
4
Jordanov, Corpus III 1869.
5
Wassiliou, Corpus I 803.
6
Jordanov, Corpus III 1882.
7
Genève 355.

tographic archive during his summer fellowship in 2014, another seal of

a χρυσογλύπτης was found. 8
It is a seal dated back to the same period with that of Zafeiris Syrras,
or a little earlier (second half of the eleventh century). 9
On the obverse (pic. 3) there is a bust of St Eythymios. The Saint is
depicted with a very long beard and his arms are in the position of orans
(the right thumb is particularly highlighted). From the inscription we
can only read a V on the left and the letters I-OC on the right.
The inscription on the reverse (pic. 4):

+ΚΕR,Θ, | ΕVΘVMIΟ | ΑCΠΑΘΑΡ, | ΕΠ,Τ ☧ΓΚ́Λ ́ | ΘΕCM,ΓΡΑ, | S R☧ΓΛ,Π|ΤΗ
Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Εὐθυμίο (πρωτο)σπαθαρ(ίῳ) ἐπ(ὶ) τοῦ Χρ(υσο)(τρι)
κλ(ίνου) θεσμ(ο)γρά(φῳ) (καὶ) β(ασιλικῷ) χρ(υσο)γλ(ύ)πτῃ.
V. Laurent transcribed the end of the inscription erroneously as (καὶ)
β(ασιλικῷ) χρ(υσο)τ(ε)λῇ.
The Pi at the end of the last but one line is damaged, looking at first
glance like an Eta.
We begin our observations on the χρυσογλύπτης based on these two
relevant testimonies which originate only from Sigillography. Both
χρυσογλύπται are dated to the second half of the eleventh century. They
bear the title πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου. The first is exclu-
sively χρυσογλύπτης, while the other was additionally θεσμογράφος, who,
according to A. Gkoutzioukostas, was an official who recorded judicial
decisions. 10 They both chose to depict on the obverse of the seal a Saint
with the same name as theirs, while one of them chose the Saint with a
nickname relevant to his work with gold.
8
I wish to express my graditude to the colleagues of Dumbarton Oaks for the
permission to use the photograph.
9
Laurent, Corpus II no. 678.
10
Gkoutzioukostas, Απονομή 200–01; 313.

Furthermore, Leontios, bishop of Neapolis on Cyprus (sixth–sev-

enth century), in one of the Fragmenta of the Apologia against the
Jews, speaks about εἰκόνας δύο Χερουβὶμ χρυσογλύπτων κατασκευάσαι
κατασκιαζόντων τὸ ἱλαστήριον, 11 when he refers to the depiction of the
divine element and the decoration of the chapel.
Although between the source and the seals there is a significant time
gap, we can accept without any doubt that χρυσογλύπτης is associated
least with the process of gold and the construction of works of art. The
fact that one of them is βασιλικὸς χρυσογλύπτης allows us to assume that
inside the Great Palace there existed a skilled professional category of
specialized goldsmiths.
From Byzantine sources we are aware of the following professions
and services related to gold:
Χρυσογλύπτης, χρυσοχόοι, χρυσοχεῖον καὶ χρυσοκλαβάριον
The χρυσοχόος, is perhaps the oldest profession directly related to gold.

It is attested already in the Homeric texts, and signifies, according to its
name, the specialized laborer who works with gold. 12 In the Byzantine
sources, both in the texts of the Church Fathers and in the formal state
legislation, the Basilika, 13 the χρυσοχόοι were considered to be artisans,
11
V. Déroche, “L’Apologie contre les Juifs de Léontios de Néapolis”, ΤΜ 12 (1994)
45–104, 66.
12
Demetrakos 7932. Regarding goldsmiths and goldsmithing in Byzantium see:
G. Prinzing, “Streiflichter auf Goldsmiede im Byzanz der mittelbyzantinschen Zeit”,
in Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte, Festschrift für Falko Daim zu
seinem 65. Geburtstag. J. Drauschle et. al. (eds.), (Monographien des RGZM, 150),
Mainz 2018, 763-772; A. Rhoby, “Gold, Goldsmiths and Goldsmithing in Byzantium”
in: A. Bosselmann-Ruickbie (ed.), New Research on Late Byzantine Goldsmiths’ Works.
Mainz 2019 (in print).
13
H. J. Scheltema and N. van der Wal, Basilicorum libri LX. Series A, vols 1–8.
Groningen, 1:1955; 2:1956; 3:1960; 4:1962; 5:1967; 6:1974; 7:1974; 8:1988.]:
1:1–435, 2:439–842, 3:847–1236, 4:1241–1558, 5:1559–1944, 6:1945–2430,
7:2435–2726, 8:2735–313, B LIV, 6, 8 = C X, 66, 1: Τοὺς ἐπιστήμονας τῶν τεχνῶν τοὺς
περιεχομένους τῷ ὑποτεταγμένῳ βρεβίῳ ἐν ἑκάστει πόλει διατρίβοντας πασῶν τῶν λειτουργιῶν
σχολάζει προστάσομεν, ἐπειδὴ εἰς τὸ μαθάνειν τοὺς τεχνίτας σχολὴ ὁφείλει παρασχέσαι, ὅπως
ἄν ἐπιθυμήσωσι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐμπειρότεροι γενέσεθαι καὶ τοὺς παῖδας διδάξαι. Καὶ ἔστιν ἡ γνῶσις
οὕτως· ἀρχιτέκτονες, ἰατροί, ἱπποιατροί, ζωγράφοι, ἀνδριαντοπλαστοί, μαρμαράριοι, κρα[ββ]
α[τοποιοί], οἱ τὰ λακκία ποιοῦντες, καρ[δαρ]άριοι, ἁρματοποιοί, λιθοθῆκται, τουτέστιν οἱ
τοὺς διαφανεῖς λίθους ἀκονοῦντες, οἰκοδομοί, γλυπταὶ ξύλων, μουσωταί, χρυσωταί, λευκάνται,
τουτέστι νεάται, ἀργυροκόποι καὶ βαρβαρικάριοι· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ τιτρῶντες τοὺς μαργαρίτας,
χαλκεῖς, χωνευταί, οἷον μολυβδουργοὶ καὶ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι, γλύπται τέκτονες, βρεκάριοι,
ζυγοστάται, κεραμεῖς, χρυσοχόοι, ὑελοῦργοι, πλουμάριοι, σφετλοποιοί, ἐλεφαντουργοί,
σκυτοτόμοι, κναφεῖς, σαγματοποιοί, γλυπταί, λευκάνται, τῶν λιναρίων κνήσται, τέκτονες,
πεταλουργοί (henceforth: Basilica).

similarly to the χαλκουργοί, the κεραμεὶς and the ζωγράφοι, despite the fact
that they worked with the most precious of metals. According to the
teachings of Christ, the accumulation of wealth goes against Christian
morality. This is probably the reason why this particular profession was
grouped together with the others, despite the fact that its laborers work
with the precious metal of gold.
Current research has been unable to locate as of yet lead seal of any
χρυσοχόος. In contrast, this profession appears very often in inscriptions
and engravings. According the editors, many χρυσοχόοι of Jewish origins
have been attested. 14
Of particular note are the three inscriptions which mention a sub-
ject of the empire who, besides being a χρυσοχόος is also an ecclesiasti-
cal official. The first is from a σωματοθήκη from Korykos, in Isauria and
mentions a πρεσβύτερος καὶ χρυσοχόος. 15 The second is a funeral inscrip-
tion which was found on Rhodes and mentions a διάκονος καὶ χρυσοχόος, 16
while the third, which was also found on a funeral stele in Tyros bears the
inscription: θεοφιλ(εστάτῳ) Ἀντονίῳ διακό(νῳ) χρυσωχοῦ. 17 The publisher
of this particular inscription believes that this Antonios was διάκονος τοῦ
χρυσοχόου. Our research failed to locate such an official. We therefore
believe the genitive χρυσωχοῦ might possibly be a common grammatical
error. The correct inflection would be χρυσοχόῳ. According our opinion
this Antonios is διάκονος and χρυσοχόος.
There are other inscriptions from the necropolis of Korykos, accord-
ing to which church officials were also κεραμεὶς 18 or λινοξόοι. 19 It appears
that the lower clergy was allowed to maintain a profession, in tandem
with their spiritual duties. The prerequisite was, of course the alignment
of said profession with their position in the clergy. 20 During the early
14
See below the list of goldsmiths from inscriptions (footnote 66).
15
ΜΑΜΑ 3, 336.1: Εὐγενίου πρεσβυτέρου χρυσοχόου. Cf. L. Duchesne, “Les né-
cropoles chrétiennes de l’Isaurie”, BCH 7(1883) 230–46, 10 (henceforth: Duchesne,
“Nécropoles”).
16
P. Carratelli, “Supplemento epigrafico Rodio”, Annuario della Scuola Archeo-
logica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 30–32, N.S. 14–16 (1952–1954),
247–316, 86: ἔνθα [κ]ατάκιτε Ἰσίδωρος διάκονος χρυσοχόος.
17
J.-P. Rey-Coquais, “Inscriptions grecques et latines découvertes dans les fouilles
de Tyr 1. Inscriptions de la nécropole”, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 29 (1977), n. 201
(henceforth: Rey-Coquais, “Inscriptions”).
18
Duchesne, “Nécropoles” 11.
19
Ibid. 19.
20
E. Papagianni, Οικονομικά του έγγαμου κλήρου στο Βυζάντιο, Athens 1986, 27–28
(henceforth: Papagianni, Οικονομικά).

and middle Byzantine periods 21 the vast majority of the clergy made
their living through a profession. 22 At the same time, however, as is at-
tested by the inscriptions of other σωματοθῆκαι, there were also χρυσοχόοι
in Korykos who were not members of the clergy. 23
The large geographical distance between the three regions (Korykos
– Rhodes – Tyros) where the inscriptions of χρυσοχόοι were discovered,
allows us to hypothesize with some degree of certainty that it was a com-
mon practice for members of the lower clergy to maintain a profession
in parallel with their spiritual duties, even if said profession had to do
with the processing of gold, a symbol of wealth and luxury.
After all, such a practice was not foreign to the history of Christi-
anity. According to the book of Exodus: καὶ περιείλαντο πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τὰ
ἐνώτια τὰ χρυσᾶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἤνεγκαν πρὸς Ἀαρών. Ἐδέξατο ἐκ
τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἔπλασεν αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ γραφίδι καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ μόσχον
χωνευτὸν καὶ εἶπεν “οὗτοι οἱ θεοί σου, Ἰσραήλ, οἵτινες ἀνεβίβασάν σε ἐκ γῆς
Αἰγύπτου”. Καὶ ἰδὼν Ἀαρὼν ᾠκοδόμησεν θυσιαστήριον κατέναντι αὐτοῦ, καὶ
ἐκήρυξεν Ἀαρὼν λέγων “Ἑορτὴ τοῦ κυρίου αὔριον”. 24 It was therefore Aaron,
brother of Moses, who first held the dual position of ecclesiastical official
and professional, namely that of goldsmith. In fact, the creation of the
χωνευτὸς μόσχος out of gold required the skills related to the χρυσογλύπτης
of our lead seal.
A notable mention of χρυσοχόοι is to be found in the Ἐπαρχικὸν
Βιβλίον of Emperor Leo VI, in the chapter Περὶ ἀργυροπρατῶν, where the
amount of silver one was permitted to purchase in order to work was
written. 25 It is worth noting that, according to the text, the χρυσοχόος
could either be a free man or a slave. 26 Furthermore, the same passage
of the Ἐπαρχικὸν Βιβλίον refers to the person in charge of the guild of
χρυσοχόοι as προεστὼς τῶν χρυσοχόων, who was required to be notified if a
guild member had surpassed the allowed quantity of metal. 27
21
Ibid. 77.
22
Ibid. 32.
23
Duchesne, “Nécropoles” 54–55.
24
Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit
A. Rahlfs 2 vols, Stuttgart 1935, I.141–42.
25
J. Koder, Das Eparchenbuch Leons de Weisen (CFHB 33), Vienna 1991, 2.8.
26
Ibid. 2.8. For a χρυσοχόος as slave see: Methodius, Vita S. Theophanis Confesso-
ris, ed. V. V. Latyshev, Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences de Russie, ser. 8, Cl. hist-philol.
xiii/4(1918)3; C. Mango, Βυζάντιο: Η αυτοκρατορία της Νέας Ρώμης. (transl. D. Tsouga-
rakes), Athens 19993, 62.
27
Ibid. 2.6, 2.8.

The next passage stresses the prohibition of working with gold or

silver by the χρυσοχόοι within their home. This activity was required to
be carried out only in their workshops in the Mese. Finally, for one to
become a goldsmith, the ἔπαρχος had to be informed. 28
We can accept that the profession of χρυσοχόος was also practiced dur-
ing the late Byzantine period. Ioannes Kantakouzenos commissioned a
χρυσοχόος to create crowns for his coronation ceremony: Ἐδόκει δὲ ἤδη καὶ
τὸν τῶν βασιλέων τρόπον στέφεσθαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ πατριάρχης ὁ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων
παρῆν αὐτῷ καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων ἄλλοι οὐκ ὀλίγοι. Καὶ χρυσοχόοις ἐπιτρέψας
στέμματα κατασκευάζειν, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα ἐπιτήδεια πρὸς τὴν τελετήν, ἐπεὶ
πάντα ἦσαν ἤδη παρεσκευασμένα, ἐστέφετο ὑπὸ Λαζάρου τοῦ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων
πατριάρχου κατὰ μῆνα Μάϊον, ἡνίκα καὶ Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ
Ἑλένης τῆς μητρὸς τῶν ἰσαποστόλων βασιλέων ἡ μνήμη γίνεται. Ἔστεφε δὲ καὶ
αὐτὸς κατὰ τὸ ἔθος Εἰρήνην βασιλίδα τὴν γαμετήν. 29
According to Ν. Oikonomides, either in the tenth or the eleventh
century, the office of ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου was established; its duties were
similar to those of the χρυσοεψητής. 30 However, we believe that the estab-
lishment of the office of ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου must be dated in the time
before 920. According to the chronicle of Logothetes, during the reign of
Theophilοs: Φιλόκοσμος δὲ ὢν αὐτὸς Θεόφιλος κατεσκεύασε διὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος
τοῦ χρυσοχείου, λογιωτάτου πάνυ ὄντος καὶ συγγενοῦς Ἀντωνίου πατριάρχου,
τὸ τε Πενταπύργιον καὶ τὰ δύο μέγιστα ὄργανα ὁλόχρυσα, διαφόροις λίθοις
καὶ ὑελίοις καλλύνας αὐτά, δένδρον τε χρυσοῦν ἐν ᾧ στρουθίον ἐφεζόμενον
διὰ μηχανῆς τινὸς μουσικῶς ἐκελάδουν. Ἐκαινούργησεν δὲ καὶ τὰς βασιλικὰς
στολὰς ἀνανεώσας καὶ χρυσοϋφάντους κατακοσμήσας. 31
We have also discovered a lead seal of an ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου, 32
which has already been connected by Laurent 33 with a certain official
who participated in a conspiracy against the Emperor Romanos I Leka-
penos in favor of Constantine VII. The chronicle of Logothetes inform
us: ἐμηνύθη δὲ τότε παρὰ Θεοκλήτου νοταρίου τῆς ὑπουργίας ἡ κατὰ Ῥωμανοῦ
28
Ibid. 2.10.
29
L. Schopen, Ioannis Cantacuzeni ex imperatoris historiarum libri iv. 3 vols, Bonn
1:1828; 2:1831; 3:1832, 564.
30
Oikonomidès, Listes 317.
31
St. Wahlgren, Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon (CFHB 44), Berlin
2016, 130.9 (henceforth: Logothetae Chronicon).
32
Cheynet et al., Istanbul 2.1: Ἀναστασίῳ βασιλικῷ πρωτοσπαθαρίῳ καὶ ἄρχοντι τοῦ
[χ]ρυσο[χείου]. From the same period see another ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου: PmbZ 550, and
from the eleventh century: PmbZ 2615.
33
Laurent, Corpus II 663.

βασιλέως ἐπιβουλὴ Ἀναστασίου σακελλαρίου καὶ ἄρχοντος τοῦ χρυσοχόου, καὶ

Θεοδωρήτου κοιτωνίτου, καὶ Δημητρίου νοταρίου βασιλικοῦ τοῦ εἰδικοῦ, καὶ
Νικολάου τοῦ Κουβάτζη, καὶ Θεοδότου πρωτοκαράβου. 34 Anastasios is de-
scribed thus in Theophanes Continuatus: Ἀναστασίου σακελλαρίου καὶ
ἄρχοντος τοῦ χρυσοχέστου. 35
We observe that in every case Anastasios was undoubtedly ἄρχων
τοῦ χρυσοχείου, as is written on his lead seal: Ἀναστασίῳ βασιλικῷ
πρωτοσπαθαρίῳ καὶ ἄρχοντι τοῦ χρυσοχείου.
It is our belief that the lead seal, as a more reliable source, directly
transmits the function of Anastasios. The different writing in the histo-
riographical source (τοῦ χρυσοχέστου) is quite likely due to an error by the
writer or an anachronism.
During that period the σακελλάριος was the highest-ranking finan-
cial official of the Empire, 36 a fact which signifies that the office of
ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου was of crucial hierarchical stature. According to
J.-Cl. Cheynet, the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου was the man in charge of the
service responsible for the χρυσοχεῖον of the Great Palace. 37 Laurent,
who first published the lead seal, supported the hypothesis that the
χρυσοχεῖον was a gold-smithing workshop. 38 According to Demetrakos:
τὸ χρυσόχεστον ἢ χρυσοχοεῖον was a place ἐν ᾧ ἐχέετο, ἐχύνετο εἰς κοσμήματα
ἢ σκεύη ὁ χρυσός, ἐπιτιθεμένης ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν κρατικῆς σφραγίδος ἐμφαινούσης
τὸ ἐξ ὅλου ἢ κατὰ ποσοστὸν γνήσιον. Ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχέστου ὁ ἀνώτατος
ἐπόπτης τῆς σημάνσεως τοῦ χρυσοῦ. 39
The lead seal describes Athanasios only as ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου and
not as σακελλάριος, and for this reason it must be considered certain that
it predates the conspiracy, which was the cause for his promotion. Seeing
as the conspiracy and the promotion both took place in 920–21, the seal
must be dated with certainty to before 920–21, after which Anastasios
also became σακελλάριος. In this case, we are therefore chronologically in
the first fifth of the 10th c., with the office of ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου already
functional.
34
Logothetae Chronicon 136.18.
35
I. Bekker, Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Geor-
gius Monachus (CSHB), Bonn 1838, 400.
36
Oikonomidès, Listes 101, 107, 113, 145, 312.
37
Cheynet et al., Istanbul 2.1: Il était à la tête de joaillerie du Grand Palais.
38
Laurent, Corpus II p.341: Le chrysocheion est essentiellement une manufacture
d’orfèvrerie.
39
Demetrakos 7931.

Besides the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου, there was also the χρυσοχός, 40 who
participated in the ceremony of the imperial Court: ἀκολουθεῖν δὲ εἰς τὰς
προελεύσεις τοὺς ῥάπτας τοὺς βασιλικοὺς καὶ τοὺς χρυσοκλαβαρίους καὶ τοὺς
χρυσοχοῦς, βαστάζοντες καὶ αὐτοὶ σπαθία τὰ βασιλικὰ εἰς τὰς θήκας αὐτῶν. 41
He received a regular salary from the imperial treasury: οἱ χρυσοχοὶ τοῦ
βασιλικοῦ σκεύους μιλ. δʹ. 42 In this case, the use of the plural precludes an
identification of the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου with the χρυσοχοῦς. The χρυσοχὸς
was in the service of the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου and had the responsibility
of melting and smelting the gold, similarly to the χρυσοχόοι mentioned in
the Ἐπαρχικόν Βιβλίον.
According to C. Morrisson the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου was undoubt-
edly identified with the χρυσοεψητής. 43 The duties of both were, quite
clearly, related to gold. However, the reference in sources of the same
period both to the χρυσεψητὴς and to the ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου do not al-
low us to conclude on the concurrence of the two functions.
The concept of the χρυσεψητὴς must not have been unknown in the
Empire, in particular to a circle of erudite, educated men, as is proven
by a letter of Theodore Studites, who mentions: ἐπικρατείτω λοιπὸν ὁ
χρόνος, πληθυνέσθωσαν οἱ μάρτυρες, δοκιμαζέσθω ὁ ἀκίβδηλος χρυσός· οὐ
γὰρ εἴη ἀξιόδεκτος τῷ χρυσεψητῇ θεῷ τις μὴ κεκαθαρμένος, ταῖς ἀρκούσαις
διαπυρώσεσι τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως ἀποδεικνύς. 44
Furthermore, we are aware of five already published lead seals of
χρυσεψηταί:
1. Ἰωάννῃ ὑπάτῳ, χρυσ(οε)ψητῇ καὶ ἄρχοντι τοῦ βλαττίου, (8th c.,
730/31), 45
2. Ἰωάννῃ χρυσεψητῇ, παραφύλακι Ἀβύδου καὶ κομερκιαρίῳ (9th c., 3rd
quarter), 46
40
41
Ibid. 133.
42
De Cerimoniis, 800, 802, 805.
43
C. Morrisson, Το βυζαντινό νόμισμα: παραγωγή και κυκλοφορία, in: A. Laiou,
Οικονομική Ιστορία III 48. Regarding the χρυσεψητὴς see Α. Gkoutzioukostas,
Παρατηρήσεις για τον χρυσ(ο)επιλέκτη, in: Th. Korres, P. Katsoni, I. Leontiades, A. Goutz-
ioukostas (eds), Φιλοτιμία. Τιμητικός τόμος για την ομότιμη καθηγήτρια Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-
Ζαφράκα. Thessaloniki 2011, 229, footnotes 33–34 (henceforth: Gkoutzioukostas,
“Παρατηρήσεις”).
44
G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae Epistulae, vol. 1–2 (CFHB 31), Berlin 1992, 1,
492.
45
Zacos – Veglery 241. Oikonomides, Dated Seals 31. Cheynet et al., Istanbul 1.58
(and 1.57).
46
Wassiliou – Seibt, Bleisiegel  II 155.

3. Λέων βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσεψητὴς καὶ κουμερκιάριος

Δύσεως καὶ Δοραχίου (10th c.), 47
4. Λέοντος χρουσο(η)ψητοῦ, Πανθηρίου χρυσο(η)ψητοῦ (10th/11th c.). 48
5. Στεφάνῳ βασιλικῷ σπαθαροκανδιδάτῳ καὶ χρυσεψητῇ(?) τῷ Λιναρᾷ
(11th c.). 49
The De Cerimoniis informs us of another χρυσεψητής, from the peri-

od of Michael III: Ἰστέον, ὅτι τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν φώτων τοῦ βασιλέως Μιχαὴλ
προσφέροντος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ποτήριον χρυσοῦν ἐκ λίθων τιμίων καὶ μαργάρων
ἠμφιεσμένον, τὸ μὲν ποτήριον προστάξει τοῦ βασιλέως Μιχαὴλ σπαθάριος καὶ
χρυσοεψητὴς ἐβάσταζε, τὸ δὲ ποτηροκάλυμμα σιλεντιάριος, περιπατοῦντες
ἀναμεταξὺ τῶν δύο μαγίστρων. καὶ τῶν ἁγίων θυρῶν πλησίον γενόμενος ὁ
βασιλεὺς ἦρεν τὸ ποτήριον, καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον τέθεικεν αὐτὸ
εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τράπεζαν. Ὁ δὲ πατριάρχης λαβὼν τὸ ποτηροκάλυμμα ἀπὸ τοῦ
σιλεντιαρίου ἐπέδωκεν αὐτὸ τῷ βασιλεῖ. Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἐπέθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ
ἁγίᾳ τραπέζῃ. 50
According to Κ. Matschke the χρυσοχοεῖον was the imperial jewelry
workshop, which was administered by a seperate ἄρχων. During the mid-
dle Byzantine period, the responsibility of ensuring the purity of the pre-
cious metals was entrusted to a special official, the ζυγοστάτης, 51 who, as
we have discovered in the course of our research, could also be a special-
ized artisan – professional. 52
We consider it to be very likely that inside the χρυσοχεῖον, the gold
which was destined either for the mint or for the creation of jewel-
ry 53 was purified. The latter function was most likely carried out by the
χρυσογλύπτης, a profession which was unknown to research until recently.
Also, as this was the workshop in which the gold was heated and
melted, it must have been located either in close proximity with or in the
same location as the χρυσοπλύσια, 54 where the unprocessed precious met-
47
DOSeals I 12.6.
48
Cheynet et al., Istanbul 2.45.
49
Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα 137.
50
De Cerimoniis 631.
51
K.-P. Matschke, Μεταλλεία, in: Laiou, Οικονομική Ιστορία I.205–13, 211 (hence-
forth: Matschke, “Μεταλλεία”).
52
Basilica B LIV, 6, 8 = C X, 66, 1.
53
Gkoutzioukostas, “Παρατηρήσεις” 230–31.
54
Demetrakos 7926: In Strabo, the χρυσοπλύσια were located near the goldmines.

als were stored, as Niketas Choniates informs us: 55 διαρπάζουσιν οὐ μόνον

ὁπόσα χρήματα εὕραντο παρὰ τοῖς Χρυσιοπλυσίοις ἔτι ταμιευόμενα (ἦσαν δὲ ἄνευ
τῶν μὴ κεκομμένων εἰς νόμισμα ὑλῶν χρυσίου κεντηνάρια δώδεκα, ἀργυρίου
τριάκοντα καὶ τοῦ ἐκ χαλκοῦ κόμματος διακόσια), ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶν ἕτερον, ὅπερ
εἶχον αἱ χεῖρες ἑνός τινος μεταφέρειν ῥᾳδίως ἢ καὶ πολλῶν συνερχομένων ὁμοῦ.
Ὅπλων δὲ μετήνεγκαν μυριάδας τὰς ὁπλοθήκας εἰσιόντες. Προέβη δὲ τὰ τῆς
ἁρπαγῆς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἔνδον τῶν βασιλείων νεώς, ὥστε καὶ κόσμους ἀπορραγῆναι
ἁγίων εἰκασιῶν καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἱερώτατον κλοποφορηθῆναι σκεῦος, οὗ ἔνδοθεν
φήμη ἄνωθεν διαρρέει καὶ ἐς ἡμᾶς καταβαίνουσα τὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιστόλιον
συνεπτύχθαι, ὅπερ οἰκείαις χερσὶν ἐξέθετο πρὸς τὸν Αὔγαρον.
The χρυσεψητής, as his name suggests, according to J.-Cl. Cheynet,
was responsible for the melting of the gold in the imperial workshops
and for its distribution either to the mint or to the χρυσοχεῖον. 56 The
lexicon of Souda mentions: Χρυσοεψητεῖον: ἔνθα χωνεύουσι καὶ ἕψουσι τὸν
χρυσόν. 57 Demetrakos supports that it is: ὁ χωνεύων, τήκων τὸν χρυσόν. 58
The χρυσεψητὴς is also mentioned in the Taktikon Uspenskij 59 and the
De Cerimoniis. 60 According to A. Gkoutzioukostas the χρυσεψηταὶ were
tasked with either ascertaining the purity of the gold or with purifying it
from other metals through the smelting process. 61
The χρυσοκλαβάριος who is also mentioned together with the χρυσοχὸς
was tasked with repairing the gold stripes of the official outfits of the em-
peror and, according to previous researchers, the χρυσόκλαβον was a sec-
tion of the Great Palace. 62 We can make the similar hypothesis that the
χρυσοχεῖον was quite likely also a section of the Great Palace. We know of
three published lead seals of officials related to the χρυσόκλαβον:
– Παγκρατίῳ ἄρχοντι τῶν χρυσοκλαβαρίων (8th-9th c.), 63
– Σεναχηρεὶμ ὁ ἅρχων τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου (10th/11th c.), 64
55
J. van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae historia, pars prior (CFHB. Series Berolinensis
11.1), Berlin 1975, 347.
56
Cheynet et al., Istanbul 2.45: Le chrysoèpsètès était chargé de superviser la fonte de
l’or dans les ateliers impériaux, or destiné au monnayage ou à la joaillerie.
57
Suda, Lexikon 576. Demetrakos 7922.
58
Demetrakos 7920.
59
60
De Cerimoniis 736, 789.
61
Gkoutzioukostas, “Παρατηρήσεις” 229–30.
62
Leontiades, Θεσσαλονίκη, p.108.
63
Zacos – Veglery 2281.
64

– Γρηγορίῳ σπαθαροκανδιδάτῳ καὶ μειζοτέρῳ τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου (11th

c. 1020–60). 65
The third case is quite likely the person in charge of the workshop, who
was promoted from ἄρχων to μειζότερος.
We can therefore conclude that from the ninth century onwards
the workshop of the χρυσοχεῖον was founded, headed by the ἄρχων τοῦ
χρυσοχείου. The responsibilities of the χρυσεψητής, χρυσογλύπτης and the
χρυσοχόοι (of the Great Palace) were either related to or overseen by the
ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου which must be differentiated from the χρυσοχόοι
who were private subjects. Furthermore, the, χρυσοχεῖον, χρυσόκλαβον
and χρυσοπλύσια, workshops specialized in the coverage of the needs
of the Palace, must have been located in close proximity to each other,
within the Great Palace.
Also, many χρυσοχόοι are known to us from inscriptions. 66
65
Leontiades, Θεσσαλονίκη 34.
66
Εὐγενίου πρεσβυτέρου χρυσοχόου (ΜΑΜΑ 3, 336); Ἑρμοφίλου χρυσοχόου καὶ
Θεοδότης from Korykos (ΜΑΜΑ 3, 386); Σωματωθίκι διαφέρουσα Θεοδούλου χρυσοχοῦ
from Korykos (ΜΑΜΑ 3, 394); Ἑρμοφίλου χρυσοχόου / Ἑρμοφίλου ἀδελφιδοῦ δεσπότου from
Korykos (ΜΑΜΑ 3, 411b); Θήκη Κόνωνος / Εὐηθίου τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου χρυσοχοῦ from Ko-
rykos (ΜΑΜΑ 3, 517a); Θεοφίλου χρυσοχόου from Korykos (Duchesne, “Nécropoles”
55); ἔνθα κατάκιτε Ἰσίδωρος διάκονος χρυσοχόος from Rhodes (P. Carratelli, Supplemento
epigrafico Rodio, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in
Oriente 30–32, N.S. 14–16 [1952–1954], 247–316, 86); Μνήσθητι Κύριε, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
σου τῷ σῷ δούλῳ Ποθητῷ χρυσοχ(όῳ) / αἰχμαλώτου. Κύριε, βοήθει τῷ σῷ δούλῳ from Athens
(A. C. Orlandos, Τὰ χαράγματα τοῦ Παρθενῶνος. Ἤτοι ἐπιγραφαὶ χαραχθεῖσαι ἐπὶ τῶν κιόνων
τοῦ Παρθενῶνος κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοχριστιανικοὺς καὶ βυζαντινοὺς χρόνους. Τῇ Συνεργασίᾳ
Λ. Βρανούση, Athens 1973, 19); ἐκ φιλοτιμίας [τ]οῦ φιλοχρ[ίστ]ου ἡμῶ[ν] δεσπότου
Ἰουστινιανοῦ, ἀνυσθείσης <δ>ιὰ Ἰωά[ννου] ἁ<γι>ω(τάτου) μητρ(ο)π(ολίτου), ἐκτίσθη διὰ
Δουσαρίου κ(αὶ) Ἰοβίου προν(οητῶν) χρυσοχ(όων) προβά(των) παρὰ τῶν δημωτι(κῶν). ἔτους
υλδ from Bostra, 539/40 (IGL Syr, 13.1, 9129.1); Τῆς ψηφώσεως τὸ εὐπρεπὲς ἐν χρόνοις
γέγονεν Γενεσίου τοῦ ἁγι(ω)τ(άτου) ἡμῶν ἐπισκ(όπου) ἐκ προσφορᾶ[ς Ἰ]ωάννου χρυσοχόου καὶ
Σαώλα Κο.ησσαμσιοῦς τῷ γοχ’ ἔτει μηνὸς Σεπ[τ]εμβρίου α’ χρό(νων) ιε’ ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος) from
Gerasa, 611 (C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa. City of Decapolis, New Haven 1938, 335); Εὐλογίου
Στεφάνου χρυσαχοῦ from Gerasa (C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa. City of Decapolis, New Haven
1938, 353); Σόρι διαφ[έρ]οτα Ἀναστασίου χρυσοχοῦ from Tyros (Rey-Coquais, “Inscrip-
tions” n. 80); Μνῆμα διαφέρων θεοφιλ(εστάτῳ) Ἀντονίῳ διακό(νῳ) χρυσωχοῦ from Tyros
(Rey-Coquais, “Inscriptions” n. 201); [ὁ δεῖνα β]ουλευτὴς χρυσοχόος μετὰ τῆς συνβείου Εὐ…
from Sardeis, 350–400 or end of the fourth century (CIJ 751a(6).1; L. Robert, Nou-
velles inscriptions de Sardes. 2 vols, Paris 1964, I.13); Αὐρ. Ἑρμογένης Σαρδιανὸς βουλευτὴς
[χρυσο]χόος ἐπλήρωσα τὴν εὐχὴν from Sardeis, 350–400 or end of the fourth century (CIJ
751a(7); L. Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes. 2 vols, Paris 1964, I.14); ἐκ φιλοτιμίας
Ἰσακίου χρυσοχόου (Ibid. 865.1); Μνημόριον Λεοντίου πατρὸς τοῦ ῥιββὶ Παρηγορίου καὶ
Ἰουλιανοῦ παλατίνου ἀπὸ χρυσοχοῶν (Ibid. 1006.1).

Χρυσοτελὴς
The office of χρυσοτελὴς was a financial position. 67 He was responsi-
ble for the collection of the χρυσοτελεία tax. According to A. Gkoutzi-
oukostas these officials were servants of the central financial service of
the γενικὸν λογοθέσιον and were dispatched to the provinces, in order to
collect taxes which were paid in gold coins. 68
We know of seventeen published seals of these particular officials: 69
Basileios, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἀσηκρήτης καὶ χρυσοτελὴς τοῦ Ἀνατολικοῦ
(11th c.), 70 Nikolaos, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Θρᾳκησίων
(10th – 11th c.), 71 Christophoros, χρυσοτελὴς (10th – 11th c.), 72 Michael,
χρυσοτελὴς Κολωνείας (early 11th c.), 73 Ioannes, σπαθαροκουβικουλάριος
καὶ χρυσοτελὴς τοῦ Χαρσιανοῦ (11th c.), 74 Leon, χρυσοτελὴς Χαρσηανοῦ
(11th c.), 75 Michael, πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς (11th c.), 76 Michael
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, πρωτονοτάριος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς (11th c.), 77 Nikolaos,
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Σάρδεων (11th c.), 78 Romanos,
ἀσηκρῆτις καὶ χρυσοτελὴς (11th c.), 79 Ioannes Kenchres, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ
τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, νοτάριος τοῦ φύλακος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Ἀνατολικῶν
(mid-11th c.), 80 Michael Kynochorites, χρυσοτελὴς (late 11th c.), 81 Ni-
kephoros Tzouroules, κουροπαλάτης καὶ βασιλικὸς χρυσοτελὴς (11th –
12th c.), 82 Leon, βασιλικὸς νοτάριος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς (11th c.), 83 Stephanos
67
Demetrakos 7929.
68
Α. Gkoutzioukostas, “Συμβολή στη μελέτη του βυζαντινού φορολογικού
μηχανισμού: η περίπτωση του χρυσοτελή”, Βυζαντιακά 26 (2007) 65–82.
69
The list has also been published in part by Cheynet et al., Istanbul 3.17.
70
Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα 15; DOSeals III 86.15.
71
DOSeals III 3.4.
72
73
Seyrig 174.
74
DOSeals IV 40.6.
75
Ibid 40.7.
76
77
Ibid 680.
78
DOSeals III 32.1.
79
80
Cheynet et al. Istanbul 3.17; Genève 105.
81
82
Jordanov, Corpus III 441–48.
83
Zacos, Seals II 556.

βασιλικὸς σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς of Peloponnese (11th c.), 84

Niketas, χρυσοτελὴς (?) (11th c.), 85 Ioannes, πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ χρυσοτελὴς
τῶν Ἀρμενιακῶν (11th c). 86
We have also discovered a Theodoros κουβουκλήσιος καὶ βασιλικὸς
κουράτωρ τῆς θείας χρυσοτελείας. 87
Χρυσ(ο)επιλέκτης
According to Α. Gkoutzioukostas the χρυσεπιλέκται were a form of
τραπεζίται or καταλλάκται. 88
Χρυσοκόπος
A funeral inscription of uncertain dating from Ankara mentions an
Ioannes χρυσοκ(όπος). 89 Due to this word appearing abbreviated in the
inscription, the reading χρυσοκόπος is uncertain. This is the only refer-
ence to date to a χρυσοκόπος. We cannot hypothesize with certainty on
his function. From a philological point of view the second word of this
compound word, the verb κόπτω, also means “κατασκευάζω μεταλλικὰ
νομίσματα διὰ κοπῆς μεταλλικῶν ἐλασμάτων”. 90 According to the first pub-
lisher of the inscription χρυσοκόπος was a goldsmith and the term has been
formed by analogy with ἀργυροκόπος, the usual word for a silver smith.
He further posited that the term must have been χρυσοχόος. 91 We believe
that the reading, instead of χρυσοκόπος could also be χρυσοκ(λαβάριος).
In any case, if the reading χρυσοκόπος is correct, his duties must not have
been related to the minting of coins, as there was never a Byzantine mint
in Ankara. It is worth noting at this point that the mines of Adramy-
tion and the Taurus mountains were located a significant geographi-
cal distance away from Ankara, and therefore we cannot connect the
84
Ibid. 714.
85
Ν. Banescu, “Les sceaux byzantins trouvés à Silistrie“ Byz 7(1932)321–31, n.2;
SBS 5, 49.
86
BnF, Zacos 3601, mentioned by Cheynet et al., Istanbul 3.17.
87
88
Gkoutzioukostas, Παρατηρήσεις 237.
89
SEG 27 (1977) 873: ἐνθάδε κεκύμητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἰωάννης καὶ χρυσοκ(όπος),
ὁ πάντων φίλος, ὁ καὶ καμιλάρις. ἐτελιώθι μη(νὶ) Μαρτίῳ ιη’ ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος).
90
Demetrakos 3967.
91
S. Mitchell, “Notes and Studies, No. 1: Inscriptions of Ancyra”. Anatolian Stud-
ies 27(1977) 63–103, 97–98.

χρυσοκόπος with activities related to the mining or processing of the gold

ore. 92
The interpretation of the inscription is entirely problematic. Besides
the χρυσοκόπος, questions arise regarding the word καμιλάρις. We cannot
be certain if this is a profession or a surname.
In conclusion, we believe that the κοπιαταί, who were responsible for
tombs and funerals, 93 are in no way related to the χρυσοκόπος.
Χρυσοϋποδέκτης
A marble funerary stele discovered at Tyros bears the sole epigraphi-
cal testimony for the χρυσοϋποδέκτης, an official tasked with gathering
taxies payable in gold, ho is also often attested in papyri of the VIth cen-
tury. 94
The word χρυσοϋποδέκτης is compound and is comprised of two
words: χρυσὸς and ὑποδέκτης. The ὑποδέκτης, according to Demetrakos, is
a treasurer who received the funds destined for the public treasury. 95
Ioannes Chrysostomos mentions: Νυνὶ δὲ ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους
καὶ καπήλους παρῆλθον ἡμῖν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι τῇ περὶ ταῦτα φροντίδι· καὶ δέον
αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν μεριμνᾷν καὶ φροντίζειν τῶν ὑμετέρων, οἱ δὲ, ὑπὲρ ὧν
ὑποδέκται καὶ φορολόγοι καὶ λογισταὶ καὶ ταμίαι μεριμνῶσιν, ὑπὲρ τούτων
καθ’ ἑκάστην κόπτονται τὴν ἡμέραν. 96
The Βασιλικὰ contain the following descriptions: Οἱ ὑποδέκται τῶν
δημοσίων χρημάτων 97 and Λαμβανέτωσαν δὲ οἱ ὑποδέκται τοῦ μὲν σίτου
τὴν πεντηκοστήν, τῶν δὲ κριθῶν τὴν τεσσαρακοστήν, οἴνου δὲ καὶ λάρδου
εἰκοστήν· οἱ δὲ ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ ὑποδέκται καὶ κριθῆς καὶ σίτου τεσσαρακοστὴν
λαμβανέτωσαν, οἴνου δὲ καὶ λάρδου πεντεκαιδεκάτην μοῖραν. 98
Based on accounts from papyri regarding the χρυσοϋποδέκται 99 we
can hypothesize that they were in possession of gold, which they had
92
Matschke, “Μεταλλεία” 210.
93
Codex Theodosianus, (ed.) Th. Mommsen – P. Meyer, Theodosiani Libri XVI
Constitutionibus Sirmodianis. [Codex Theodosianus, 1/2]. Berlin 1904, 13.1.1. Cf. also
the notes of Papagianni, Οικονομικά, 39–40.
94
Rey-Coquais, “Inscriptions”, n .90: Οἰκὶν Πιστῶν Θεοκτίστου χρυσοϋποδέκτου. Cf.
E. Trapp et al., Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität. 8. Faszikel, Vienna 2017, 2026.
95
Demetrakos 7459.
96
PG (1857–1866), 58.762.27.
97
Basilica, A.VII, B LVI, 2, 59 = C X, 1, 9.
98
Ibid. A. VII, B LVI, 11, 9 = C X, 72, 9.
99
Cf. F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der
griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder, usw., aus Ägypten. 3 vols,

either collected as taxes, or which they were to pay to other people on

the orders of their superiors.
Χρυσοσηρικοπράτης
The only reference we have to the χρυσοσηρικοπράτης is from the cor-
rection of the reading of a lead seal of the Greek Orphanides-Nikolaides
collection (on the obverse Mother of God; on the reverse the inscrip-
tion: Θεοτόκε βοήθει τῷ σῷ δούλῳ Γεωργίῳ χρ(υσο)σ[η]ερικοπράτῃ (11th c.). 100
Sigillography also informs us of an ὁλοσηρικοπρ(άτης), who, according
to the publisher, was in charge of the state monopoly on silk garments. 101
Χρυσώνης
According to Demetrakos, the χρυσώνης, was ὁ χρυσαμοιβός, ὁ ἐπὶ
χρυσῷ βρενθυόμενος…οἱ κόπτοντες τὰ χρυσὰ νομίσματα ἐν νομισματοκοπείῳ. 102
The profession of χρυσώνης is frequently mentioned in papyri of the 6th c. 103
The Miracles of Sophronius (6th-7th c.) inform us: Περὶ Ἰωάννου
τοῦ Χρυσώνου τοῦ σεσημμένους τοὺς μηροὺς ἔχοντος: Καὶ Ἰωάννου δὲ
μνημονεύσωμεν, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ τῶν εὐπατρίδων ἦν, καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ χρυσῷ
βρενθυνομένων ἐτύγχανεν· ἔνθεν γὰρ καὶ Χρυσώνης ἐλέγετο, τοῦ τε κτήματος
καὶ τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως πρὸς τοῦτο αὐτὸν συνωθούντων τὸ ὄνομα· οὐκ ἂν γὰρ
Χρυσώνης καὶ χρυσίου χηρεύων ἐλέγετο, εἰ μὴ κτῆμα χρυσίου λαμπρότερον πρὸς
τῶν ἁγίων τὴν ῥῶσιν ἐδέξατο· ὃ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀφθόνως τοῖς προσιοῦσιν χαρίζονται,
μηδένα τῆς αὐτῶν δωρεᾶς ἀποστρέφοντες, εἰ μὴ λίαν τις ᾖ βδελυρὸς καὶ τῆς
Berlin 1925–1931, III.180 (henceforth: Preisigke, Wörterbuch); C. Wessely (Hrsg.),

Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde. Vol. VIII. Leipzig 1908, Amsterdam 1965
(reprint), 228; 256; 1091; 1111; 1128; 1277; Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Koeniglichen
Museen zu Berlin. Vol. 2., Berlin 1898, 675; G. Vitelli – D. Comparetti, Papiri Greco-
Ergizii. 3 vols, Milan 1906, 1910, 1915, Ι.11; Η. Ι. Bell (ed.), Greek Papyri in the Brit-
ish Museum. Catalogue, with Texts. Vol. IV. The Aphrodito Papyri. With an Appendix
of Coptic Papyri ed. by W. E. Crum., Milan 1972, 1453; Papiri greci e latini. Vols I–VI.,
Florence 1912–1920, III. 238; J. Maspero, Catalogue général des antiquités Égyptiennes
du musée du Caire. Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine, Osnabrück/Milan (reprint) 1973,
III. 67283.
100
Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα 138. Cf. Book review W. Seibt – A.-K. Wassi
liou, BZ 91 (1998) 146–50.
101
Laurent, Corpus II 657; Zacos – Veglery 1706, The ὁλοσηρικοπράτης was a
control agent in the state monopoly of all-silk textiles, cf. V. Laurent, “Une source peu
étudiée de l’histoire de la Sicile au haut moyen âge: La sigillographie Byzantine“, Byzan-
tino-Sicula 1 (1968) 22–50, 36.
102
Demetrakos 7932–7933.
103
Preisigke, Wörterbuch III.181.

αὐτῶν εὐεργεσίας ἀνάξιος, ἢ δι’ ἀπιστίαν κληρωσάμενος τὸ ἀνάξιον, ἢ δι’ ἔργων

μοχθηρῶν ἀνεπίστροφον βούλησιν. 104
Χρυσωτὴς
The χρυσωτής, 105 was an artisan who covered various items and possi-
bly even surfaces with gold. We have identified χρυσωταὶ in ancient greek
inscriptions, for the most part from Athens 106 and Laconia, 107 in Byzan-
tine alchemical texts 108 and once in an order of the Basilica. 109 Its only
mention in the Basilica leads us to the conclusion that even after the 10th
c. χρυσωταί, as specialized laborers, continued to exist. The Ἐπαρχικὸν
Βιβλίον makes no reference to the guild of χρυσωταί. This means that the
number of χρυσωταὶ was so small as to be insufficient for the foundation
of a guild, or was in decline in the early 10th c.
Conclusions
The value of this particular seal of Zafeiris Syrras focuses on the facts:
– For the first time we have the name of a heretofore unknown office
or profession relevant to the elaboration of gold (χρυσογλύπτης),
– The name indicates the fabrication of works of art made of gold
and possibly of sculptures of various dimensions,
– There is also an indication of the existence of first class goldsmiths
inside the imperial Palace,
– Finally, the proof of existence of χρυσογλύπται and βασιλικοὶ
χρυσογλύπται in the eleventh century is very important because
it originates from a period when gold in Byzantium had multiple
mixings and was not circulated in pure form.
104
N. Fernández Marcos, Los thaumata de Sofronio. Contribución al estudio de la
“Incubatio” cristiana, Manuales y anejos de “Emérita” 31. Madrid 1975, 18.
105
Demetrakos 7933.
106
IG II 1495; SEG 15 (1958) 120.
107
IG V 1, 209.
108
M. Berthelot – C. É. Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, Vol. 2, Paris
1888, 2, 322.
109
Basilica B LIV, 6, 8 = C X, 66, 1.

PIETY
John Cotsonis
An Image of Saint Nicholas with the “Tongues

of Fire” on a Byzantine Lead Seal*
Among the 17,000 lead seals belonging to the collections of Dumbarton

Oaks and the Fogg Museum of Art, 1 there are hundreds of seals that
have often been categorized as purely “iconographic” or “anonymous”
seals. These seals bear a religious figural image on both their obverse and
reverse, without any accompanying inscription indicating the name of
their owner or his honorary title or office held within the civil, ecclesi-
astical or military bureaucracy. 2 Of these anonymous seals with bilateral
religious figural imagery, one previously unpublished specimen of par-
ticular interest will be the subject of this paper.
This seal (fig. 1), assigned to the second half of the eleventh century,
bears on its obverse a bust of the Archangel Michael, dressed in the im-
perial loros, holding a scepter in his right hand and a globus cruciger in
his left, and flanked by his identifying sigla Μ—Χ [Μ(ι)χ(αὴλ)]; on the
reverse is a bust of Saint Nicholas, blessing with his right hand and hold-
* I wish to thank John Nesbitt for his insightful comments when reading an earlier
draft of this paper.
1
For an overview and history of this collection and its sources, see DOSeals 1, vii–
viii. For the online cataloguing of this collection, see http://www.doaks.org/resources/
seals (accessed 10 January 2017).
2
For discussion of “iconographic” or “anonymous” seals, see N. Oikonomides,
Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, D.C, 1985), 10 and idem, “The Anonymous Seal,”
SBS 4 (1995), 71–72. For a discussion of “anonymous” seals bearing metrical inscrip-
tions, see Wassiliou, Corpus I, pp. 38–45.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117254
John Cotsonis
ing a gospel book in his left, and flanked by an identifying inscription:

|ΝΙΚ|Ο|Λ Ὁ ἅ(γιος) Νικόλ(αος)]. 3
3
Dumbarton Oaks Collection BZS.1951.31.5.3483 (Fogg 3483). For designating
the “obverse” and “reverse” of a bilateral iconographic seal without an invocative inscrip-
tion to guide the direction of “reading” the seal, I have followed the convention of the
Byzantine heavenly hierarchy in which the angels have precedence over the holy hierarchs,
thereby prioritizing the Archangel Michael with the obverse of this seal and assigning
Nicholas to the reverse. For the relative ranking of sacred personages in the Byzantine
heavenly hierarchy which was clearly established by the time of our seal in the eleventh-
century liturgical rite of the prothesis (ἡ πρόθεσις), see V. Laurent, “Le ritual de la proscomi-
die et le métropolite de Crète Élie,” REB 16 (1958), 129–30, with discussion of the dating
of the eleventh-century rubrics at 118–21. See also R. Taft, The Great Entrance: A History
of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom,
2nd ed. (Rome, 1978), 25–26, esp. n. 61; M. Altripp, Die Prothesis und ihre Bildausstattung
in Byzanz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Denkmäler Griechenlands (Frankfurt am
Main, 1998), 55–56 and 64–65; T. Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform: A Study of Liturgi-
cal Change in the Byzantine Tradition, trans. P. Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY, 2010), 210–
20; H.-J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith, trans. Matthew J.
O’Connell (New York, 1986), 98–99; and S. Muksuris, Economia and Eschatology: Li-
turgical Mystagogy in the Byzantine Prothesis Rite (Brookline, MA, 2013), 42–43 and esp.
50–51, n. 37. Muksuris provides a parallel Greek and English text of the contemporary
prothesis rite, 7–11, where the hierarchical order of saintly figures is listed. For an overview
of the arrangement of images of holy personages in the decorative schemes of post-Icon-
oclastic churches according to the heavenly hierarchy, see O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic
Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London, 1948; repr. New Rochelle,
New York, 1976), 16–29; H. Maguire, “The Cycle of Images in the Church,” in Heaven
on Earth: Art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. L. Safran (University Park:, PA, 1998),
121–51 and idem, “The Heavenly Court,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204, ed.
H. Maguire (Washington, DC, 1997), 247–58. Concerning the hierarchical arrangement
of sacred figures found on the three tenth-century ivory triptychs, that in the Palazzo Ven-
ezia in Rome, that in the Museo Sacro in the Vatican and the Harbaville triptych in the
Musée du Louvre, see E. Kantorowicz, “Ivories and Litanies,” Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 70–76, who sees the order of saintly figures as reflecting
the heavenly realm and proper liturgical order; while J. Durand and M. Durand, “À pro-
pos du triptyque ‘Harbaville’: quelques remarques d’iconographie médio-byzantine,” in
Patrimoine des Balkans: Voskopjë sans frontiers 2004, ed. M. Durand (Paris, 2005), 133–55
and A. Eastmond, “The Heavenly Court, Courtly Ceremony, and the Great Byzantine
Ivory Triptychs of the Tenth Century,” DOP 69 (2015), 71–93, observe a different order
of the sacred figures than found in monumental decoration and understand the ivories’
programs as stressing the economy of salvation (Durand and Durand) or the triptychs
representing different views of the heavenly court and the tensions between personal de-
votions and the corporate nature of the imperial ceremony of the Constantinopolitan
court (Eastmond). In depictions of the Last Judgment, the images of the saved, or saintly
categories of figures, are arranged in a similar, but not always consistent, hierarchical order
among the various versions of the scene. For discussion of the arrangement of the cat-
egories of holy figures in scenes of the Last Judgment, see M. Angheben, “Les Jugements
derniers byzantins des xie–xiie siècles et l’iconographie du jugement immediate,” Cahiers
archéologiques 50 (2002), 120–21 and N. Ševčenko, “Images of the Second Coming and
the Fate of the Soul in Middle Byzantine Art,” in Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christian-
ity, ed. R. Daly (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 254.

AN IMAGE OF SAINT NICHOLAS WITH THE “TONGUES OF FIRE”
Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Bequest of Thomas Whit-

temore, BZS.1951.31.5.3483 (photo: Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Byzantine
Collection, Washington, DC)
Αbove each column of Nicholas’ inscription there appear tear-shaped

globules. Encircling both the obverse and reverse images are borders of
dots. The tear-shaped globules accompanying Saint Nicholas on this
sphragistic specimen are a unique representation of this holy hierarch.
Among other iconographic seals in the Dumbarton Oaks and Fogg
collections paring the Archangel Michael with Saint Nicholas, none of
these depict the latter with the tear-shaped globules. No other such im-
age of the saint with this iconographic device is known on seals from
any other collection or in any other media. In addition, the tear-shaped
globules are not found with any other holy figure, except for a number
of images of the Virgin and a very few with Christ. It is unlikely that the
engraver of this sphragistic image of Nicholas made a thoughtless egre-
gious error that deviated from accepted iconographic custom. Rather,
as will be shown in this discussion, this artistic device of the tear-shaped
globules flanking Nicholas is a carefully selective image that conveys
great meaning.
On seals, however, there are numerous examples of the tear-shaped
globules flanking various iconographic types of the Virgin. Among the
major published collections, there are ninety-five such pieces where
this device appears above the customary sigla of the Virgin, the ΜΡ ΘΥ
(Μήτηρ Θεοῦ-Mother of God). Most of these, eighty-three, belong to
the eleventh century; eight are from the tenth/eleventh century; two
from the eleventh/twelfth century; and two belong to the twelfth. One
example, also from the Dumbarton Oaks collection, is an eleventh-
century seal issued by an individual named Sabbas (fig. 2). In my earlier

John Cotsonis
study, these tear-shaped globules accompanying sphragistic Marian im-

ages were identified as the “tongues of fire”. 4
Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.4505 (photo: Dumbarton Oaks Collection,

Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC)
The “tongues of fire” are not found with images of the Virgin in other
media except for a few coins: a two-thirds miliaresion of Constantine IX
Monomachos (1042–55); a two-thirds miliaresion of Constantine X
(1059–67); a tetarteron of Michael VII Doukas (1071–78); and a follis of
Alexios I issued before his monetary reforms of 1092. 5 On coins, howev-
er, the “tongues of fire” also appear with three different images of Christ:
on an anonymous follis, assigned to the years 976–1035; on a two-thirds
miliaresion issued by Michael VII Doukas (1071–78); and on a tetart-
eron issued by Alexios I, again before his monetary reforms of 1092. 6 The
numismatic examples, like their sphragistic counterparts, also exhibit the
“tongues of fire” possibly as early as the late tenth century, while the ma-
jority belongs to the eleventh. On the seals, however, this iconographic
detail occurs only with the image of the Virgin, and is now seen, uniquely
with a depiction of Nicholas, also from the eleventh century.
As demonstrated in my earlier work, the “tongues of fire” themselves
are also found in other media and contexts. They are employed to repre-
sent the fiery tongues in the descent of the Holy Spirit in scenes of the
4
For a discussion of seals with Marian images flanked by the “tongues of fire”, see
J. Cotsonis, “The Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’ on Byzantine Lead Seals,” DOP 48
(1994), 221–27, where our fig. 2 was first published also as fig. 2.
5
Ibid., 222–23, figs 5–8, where the numismatic examples with Marian images are
further discussed and illustrated.
6
Ibid., 223, figs 9–11, where the numismatic examples with images of Christ are
further discussed and illustrated.

Pentecost, as in the eleventh-century Dionysiou lectionary. 7 Or closer

to the seals with Marian iconography and the “tongues of fire” are the
images that illustrate the verses of Psalms 44: 2 and 71: 6 in the marginal
psalters, verses that typologically refer to the Incarnation, especially the
Old Testament prefiguration of the rain falling on Gedeon’s fleece. 8
Although the themes of the Incarnation and Gedeon’s fleece have
a long history in both Byzantine liturgical and artistic expression, the
sphragistic iconographic device of the “tongues of fire” appeared on a
group of seals with Marian imagery, the majority of which belong to
the eleventh century, and a few contemporary coins. The sigillographic
iconography does, however, parallel other eleventh-century phenom-
ena that reflect a new attitude toward religious images, whereby icons
were perceived to take on a more dynamic and interactive role within
the sphere of devotional practices. A most significant example is that of
the so-called habitual or usual miracle (τὸ σύνηθες θαῦμα) involving an
image of the Virgin in the Marian church of Blachernai in Constantino-
ple. Michael Psellos describes this phenomenon from the year 1075. 9 In
this text Psellos relates that at Blachernai there was an icon of the Vir-
7
S. Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, 1 (Athens, 1973), 174,
fig. 213. See also Cotsonis, “Tongues of Fire,” (see n. 4), 223, fig. 13.
8
For discussion of these miniatures and the literature related to their interpreta-
tion, see Cotsonis, “Tongues of Fire,” 223–25, figs. 14–16.
9
For the more recent edition of this text, see Λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ ἐν Βλαχέρναις γεγονότι
θαύματι, ed. E. Fisher, Michaelis Pselli Orationes hagiographicae (Stuttgart, 1994), 200–
29. For an English translation of this text, see E. Fisher, “Discourse on the Miracle that
Occurred in the Blachernae,” in Michael Psellos on Symeon the Metaphrast and on the
Miracle at Blachernae: Annotated Translations with Introductions (2014) (http://chs.
harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5488) (accessed 12 January 2017). For more re-
cent literature than my 1994 article concerning the “usual miracle” at Blachernai, see
B. Pentcheva, “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon of the ‘Usual Miracle’ at Blach-
ernai,” Res 38 (2000), 35–55 (revised as a chapter in her subsequent publication Icons and
Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium [University Park, PA, 2006], 145–63); S. Papa-
ioannou, “The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Image,” JÖB 51 (2001), 177–98; A. Se-
moglou, “Le voile ‘miraculeux’ de la Vierge Kykkotissa et l’icône du ‘miracle habituel’ des
Blachernes: Un cas d’assimilation dans l’iconographie byzantine,” Cahiers balkaniques 34
(2006), 15–29; C. Barber, “Living Painting, or the Limits of Painting? Glancing at Icons
with Michael Psellos,” in Reading Michael Psellos, ed. C. Barber and D. Jenkins (Lei-
den, 2006), 126–30; idem, Contesting the Logic of Painting: Art and Understanding in
Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Leiden, 2007), 80–83 and 97–98; idem, “Movement and
Miracle in Michael Psellos’s Account of the Blachernae Icon of the Theotokos,” in Envi-
sioning Experience in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Dynamic Patterns in Texts and
Images, ed. G. De Nie and T. Noble (Farnham, Surrey, 2012), 9–22; E. Fisher, “Michael
Psellos on the ‘Usual’ Miracle at Blachernae, the Law and Neoplatonism,” in Byzantine
Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. D. Sullivan, E. Fisher and
S. Papaioannou (Leiden, 2012), 187–204.

John Cotsonis
gin covered by a veil. Every Friday evening, the veil mysteriously rose
and remained suspended in midair before a large crowd. In explaining
the event, Psellos claims that the Divine Spirit descends upon the image
(τοῦ Θείου Πνεύματος ἄντικρυς κάθοδος). 10 He describes how the form of
the Virgin is changed and receives her animated presence (τὴν ἔμψυχον
ἐπιδημίαν αὐτῆς). 11 Further into the account, Psellos refers to the phe-
nomenon as a new manifestation of the Spirit (νέα πνεύματος ἔμφασις). 12
Elsewhere, Psellos recorded the activity concerning another elev-
enth-century image that exhibited similar lifelike characteristics, the cel-
ebrated icon of Christ Antiphonites that belonged to the empress Zoe. 13
According to Psellos, the empress would turn to this icon when express-
ing gratitude for favors received or beseech it when troubles befell her. In
response to the petitions of the empress, the figure of Christ would turn
either red to indicate a favorable reply or pale to portend an unfavorable
outcome. Psellos refers to the image as almost alive (μικροῦ δεῖν ἔμνουν
εἰργάσατο τὸ εἰκόνισμα) 14 and says that Zoe would speak to it as if it were
animated (καὶ ὡς ἐμψύχῳ διαλεγομένην). 15
10
Λόγος, 205: 135–36. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.4.
11
Λόγος, 205–06: 135–36. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.4. and n. 25, where the
author acknowledges the scholarly discussion devoted to the translation and significance
of the Greek word ἔμψυχος (animate, ensouled, living) as it relates to its use and percep-
tion of Byzantine sacred art of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The term ἔμψυχος
γραφή (“living painting” or “ensouled painting”) appearing in the works of Michael Psel-
los first entered scholarly art-historical discussion via H. Belting, Likeness and Presence:
A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. E. Jephcott (Chicago, 1994), 261–96.
A critique of Belting’s interpretation was set forth by R. Cormack, “Living Painting,” in
Rhetoric in Byzantium, ed. E. Jeffreys (Aldershot, 2003), 235–53. Following Cormack’s
initial reinterpretation of Belting’s analysis, other scholars have further nuanced the term
ἔμψυχος γραφή: Barber, “Living Painting?,” (see n. 9), 118–30; idem, Contesting the Logic
of Painting (see n. 9), 71–98; idem, “Movement and Miracle,” (see n. 9), 9–22; B. Pentch-
eva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park, PA,
2010), 191–208; and G. Peers, “Real Living Painting: Quasi-Objects and Dividuation
in the Byzantine World,” Religion and the Arts 16 (2012), 433–60.
12
Λόγος, 212: 329–30. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.14.
13
Michaelis Pselli Chronographia, edited, translated and commented by D. R.
Reinsch (Berlin, 2014), 133–34. For more recent discussion of this icon, see L. James,
Light and Colour in Byzantine Art (Oxford, 1996), 83–85; Barber, Contesting the Logic
of Painting, 83–86; Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon, 184–87; and Peers, “Real Living Paint-
ing,” 441–43.
14
Michaelis Pselli Chronographia, 133.
15
Ibid., 134.

In yet a third text, Psellos employed almost identical terms when

describing an icon of the Crucifixion. 16 He characterizes the panel as a
form of animated painting (ἡ ἔμψυχος αὕτη γραφὴ) 17 and values the im-
age for its verisimilitude and sense of movement (τῷ δοκεῖν ἐμψυχῶσθαι
σύμπασαν τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ μηδεμιᾶς ἀμοιρεῖν τῶν κινήσεων). 18 According to
Psellos, the beauty of this icon does not originate in its colors but rather
derives from the scene’s resemblance to nature and its kinetic qualities
(δὲ οὐκ ἐκ χρωμάτων τὰ τοιαῦτα δοκεῖ συνεστάναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔοικε τὸ σύμπαν
ἐμψύχῳ φύσει καὶ ἀτεχνῶς κινουμένη). 19
These references support the interpretation that the “tongues of
fire” flanking images of the Virgin on seals depict a Descent of the Holy
Spirit. The sphragistic iconography corresponds to a period in which the
potential for images to take on life through the Holy Spirit was acknowl-
edged. The adoption of such images for personal use, such as seals, also
reflects these eleventh-century artistic and devotional currents. Various
scholars have associated this new, animated style of painting (ἡ ἔμψυχος
αὕτη γραφή) of the eleventh century with the increased use of images
in private devotions. 20 It is from this period that images of the Virgin
flanked by the “tongues of fire” were chosen by individuals for their seals.
That is, objects of personal use were used to reflect their owners’ piety.
Given the cultural climate of the eleventh-century understanding of
animated or enlivened images in Byzantium, one can understand the use
of the “tongues of fire” on the Virgin’s images on seals in light of the
Blachernai Marian weekly icon-phenomenon, the empress Zoe’s image
of the Christ Antiphonites and the icon of the Crucifixion described by
Psellos. What is of particular interest here is that the “tongues of fire” ap-
16
For the more recent edition of this text, see Λόγος εἰς τὴν σταύρωσιν τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ed. Fisher, Michaelis Pselli Orationes hagiographicae (see n. 9), 116–
98. For more recent discussion of this text, see eadem, “Image and Ekphrasis in Michael
Psellos’ Sermon on the Crucifixion,” ByzSl 55 (1994), 44–55; Belting, Likeness and Pres-
ence (see n. 11), 269–72; Barber, “Living Painting?,” (see n. 9), 121–25; idem, Contesting
the Logic of Painting (see n. 9), 72–80; idem, “Movement and Miracle,” 10–13; Pentch-
eva, The Sensual Icon (see n. 11), 191–94; and Peers, “Real Living Painting,” (see n. 11)
437–41.
17
Λόγος εἰς τὴν σταύρωσιν, 197: 862–63.
18
Ibid., 196: 845–46.
19
Ibid., 196: 856–58.
20
For a summary of scholarly literature devoted to this topic, see J. Cotsonis, “The
Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the Saints (Sixth-
Twelfth Century), Byz 75 (2005), 410–12. See also Cormack, “Living Painting,” (see n.
11), 244; Barber, Contesting the Logic of Painting, 88–93; Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon,
194–98; Peers, “Real Living Painting,” 441–43.

John Cotsonis
pear as well on an eleventh-century seal with the image of Saint Nicho-

las. As stated above, this iconographic device does not accompany other
saints’ images. This transfer of the “tongues of fire” from the Virgin to
Nicholas may well reflect a common or similar perception of these two
sacred personages among the Byzantines.
In the realm of seals, the images of the Virgin and Nicholas are the
most commonly found. From my database of 11,506 religious icono-
graphic seals drawn from the major published collections, the Virgin
appears most frequently: 4,698 seals bear her image, the single largest
sphragistic iconographic category. 21 The Mother of God was under-
stood by the Byzantines as the intercessor par excellence, a unique po-
sition she enjoyed as the mother who could move her Divine Son to
compassion on behalf of believers. 22 But the next most popular figure
is that of Nicholas, with 1,017 sigillographic examples, also testifying
21
For the predominance of the image of the Virgin on lead seals, see Oikono-
mides, Byzantine Lead Seals (see n. 2), 13–14; W. Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos
auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln, besonders im 11. Jahrhundert,” SBS 1 (1987), 35–56;
W. Seibt – M. L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk. Katalog zur Aus-
stellung (Vienna, 1997), 104–06; V. Penna, “The Iconography of Byzantine Lead Seals:
The Emperor, the Church, the Aristocracy,” ΔΧAE 4, 20, (1998), 261–74; eadem, “The
Mother of God on Coins and Lead Seals,” in Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin
in Byzantine Art, ed. M. Vassilaki (Athens, 2000), 212–17; Cotsonis, “The Contribu-
tion of Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n. 20), 400–14; W. Seibt, Ein Blick in die byzanti-
nische Gesellschaft: Die Bleisiegel im Museum August Kestner (Rahden, 2011), 23–24;
A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Die sigillographische Evidenz der Theotokos bis zum Ende des
Ikonoklasmus,” in Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and
Places in Byzantium (4th-9th Century), ed. L. M Peltomaa et al. (Vienna, 2015), 233–42.
22
For some discussion of the Virgin as intercessor, see I. Kalavrezou, “Images of
the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou,” DOP 44 (1990), 165–72;
eadem, “The Maternal Side of the Virgin,” in Mother of God, 41–46; H. Hunger, “Heim-
suchung und Schirmherrschaft über Welt und Menschheit: Μήτηρ Θεοῦ ἡ Ἐπίσκεψις,”
SBS 4 (1995), 33–42; I. Djordjević – M. Marković, “On the Dialogue Relationship
Between the Virgin and Christ in East Christian Art,” Zograf 28 (2000/2001), 13–48;
J. Cotsonis, “The Virgin and Justinian on Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi of Hagia Sophia”
DOP 56 (2002), 52–55; idem, “Religious Figural Images on Byzantine Lead Seals as a
Reflection of Visual Piety during the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Cahiers archéologiques
56 (2015), 8–10; N. Koutrakou, “Use and Abuse of the ‘Image’ of the Theotokos in the
Political Life of Byzantium (with Special Reference to the Iconoclast Period),” in Images
of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. M. Vassilaki (Alder-
shot, 2005), 77–90; N. Tsironis, “From Poetry to Liturgy: The Cult of the Virgin in
the Middle Byzantine Era,” in Images of the Mother of God, 91–99; Pentcheva, Icons and
Power (see n. 9), 111–17; The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images,
ed. L. Brubaker and M. Cunningham (Farnham, 2011); Presbeia Theotokou (see n. 21).
For the Virgin as the most frequently depicted intercessory figure in funerary images, see
T. Papamastorakis, “Funerary Representations in the Middle and Late Byzantine Peri-
ods,” ΔΧAE 4, 17 (1994), 285–304.

to his great intercessory role in the Byzantine world. 23 These two fig-
ures far outnumber all the other holy figures found on seals: the next
largest group is the Archangel Michael and the military saints George
and Theodore whose frequencies are in the 700s. Another significant
observation is that among the published seals that bear a religious image
on both the obverse and reverse, either anonymous or with the names
and offices/titles of their owners included, the pairing of the images of
the Virgin and Nicholas occurs most frequently: 99 examples. 24 The
next most frequent pairing is that of the Virgin and the Archangel Mi-
chael, with sixty-four specimens. The sphragistic linking of the Virgin
and Nicholas prefigures their common pairing on bilateral icons that are
known from the late Byzantine period. 25
Nancy Ševčenko observed that a large proportion of the fresco cycles
depicting the life of Nicholas are set in funerary contexts and may well
have expressed their donors’ hope in the power of the saint’s intercessions
on behalf of their souls on the day of judgment. 26 She has also pointed
out how in the numerous hymnological canons composed in honor of
Saint Nicholas the endings repeatedly remind the faithful of the immi-
nent day of judgment and the great need for an intercessor like Nicholas. 27
Henry Maguire has also attributed Nicholas’ popularity to the saint’s
23
See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 433–37 and
E. Stepanova, “The Image of St. Nicholas on Byzantine Lead Seals,” SBS 9 (2006), 185–
95. For Nicholas as the most powerful intercessor, after the Virgin, and the popularity of
his images, see N. Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (Turin, 1983),
21–23, 161–62 and 172–73; eadem, “San Nicola nell’arte bizantina,” in San Nicola:
Splendori d’arte d’Oriente e d’Occidente, ed. M. Bacci (Milan, 2006), 61–70; H. Magu-
ire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice: The Saints, Art and Justice in Byzantium,”
in Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, ed. A. Laiou – D. Simon
(Washington, DC, 1994), 227–38 and idem, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their
Images in Byzantium (Princeton, 1996), 169–86.
24
See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 436 and
Stepanova, “The Image of St. Nicholas,” 195.
25
G. Stričevič, “Double-Sided Icons of the Virgin and St Nicholas,” in Sixteenth
Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers (Baltimore 1990), 24–25. See
also Maguire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” 236. For an example of one of
these later bilateral icons pairing the images of the Virgin and Nicholas, see Vassilaki,
Mother of God (see n. 21), no. 66.
26
Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (see n. 23), 159–62 and
173.
27
N. Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar: The Role of a Ninth-Century Hymnogra-
pher in Shaping the Celebration of the Saints,” in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead
or Alive, ed. L. Brubaker (Aldershot, 1998), 112, esp. n. 37 (repr. in her The Celebration of
the Saints in Byzantine Art and Liturgy [Farnham, Surrey, 2013], I).

John Cotsonis
perceived role in the administration of earthly justice and as an advocate

of heavenly justice at the Last Judgment. 28 Nicholas’ role as a defender
is clearly demonstrated in one of the shrines in Constantinople that is
dedicated to him. This shrine, or rather chapel, known as ta Vasilidos (τὰ
Βασιλίδος), enjoyed a prestigious location: behind the apse or east end
of Hagia Sophia. 29 Not only was this structure attached to the most im-
portant church in the capital, but it also functioned as a place of asylum
or refuge (προσφύγιον-prosphygion). Anna Komnene related that it was
built long before her time for the purpose of granting safety to those ac-
cused of various crimes. 30 In this respect Nicholas resembles the Virgin,
for she acted as the greatest of humanity’s intercessors and her image was
especially linked to the ekklesiekdikoi, or tribunal of priests attached to
Hagia Sophia, and their proceedings in dealing with those seeking asy-
lum in the Great Church. Her image appears on the seals of the ekklesiek-
dikoi. 31 George Stričevič has also discussed how bilateral painted icons
of Nicholas and the Virgin may have had an intercessory funerary or
post-funerary function. 32 Both Nicholas and the Virgin have been given
epithets related to the concept of victory. Nicholas’ very name refers to
the people’s victory (νίκη λαοῦ): 33 in the Encomium Methodii, dedicated
to the saint c. 860, the author refers to Nicholas as the “victory-creating
general of the saved” (ὁ νικοποιὸς τῶν σωζομένων στρατηγὸς), 34 a term
approximating one of the epithets used for the Virgin as victory-bearer,
the Nikopoios (Νικοποιὸς). 35 In addition, Anna Komnene also records
28
Maguire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” (see n. 23), 227–38 and idem,
The Icons of Their Bodies (see n. 23), 169–86.
29
Janin, Églises, 368–69. See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead
Seals,” (see n. 20), 435.
30
Anna Komnene, 66: 44–50 (ed. Reinsch – Kambylis). See also Janin, Églises, 369
and Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 435–36.
31
Cotsonis, “The Virgin and Justinian on the Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi,” (see n.
22), 41–55.
32
Stričevič, “Double-Sided Icons of the Virgin and St. Nicholas,” (see n. 25), 25.
See also Maguire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” (see n. 23), 236; Cotsonis,
“The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n. 23), 436.
33
Encomium Methodii, in Hagios Nikolaos, I, 155: 1 and C. W. Jones, Saint Nicho-
las of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan: Biography of a Legend (Chicago, 1978), 7–8.
34
Encomium Methodii, 155: 2–3.
35
For some discussion of the Marian iconographic type Nikopoios, see W. Seibt,
“Der Bildtypus der Theotokos Nikopoios: Zur Ikonographie der Gottesmutter-Ikone,
die 1030/31 in der Blachernenkirche wiederaufgefunden wurde,” Byzantina 13/1
(1985), 550–64; ODB, 3, 2176; C. Maltezou, “Βενετία καὶ Βυζαντινὴ Παράδοση: Ἡ
Εἰκόνα τῆς Παναγίας Νικοποιοῦ,” in Μνήμη Δ. Α. Ζακυθηνού, ed. N. Moschonas, 2 (Ath-

the existence of a church dedicated to Saint Nicholas in the Blachernai

region of Constantinople, close to the celebrated homonymous Marian
shrine, discussed above, and the Blachernai palace. 36 Such physical prox-
imity of the two shrines near an imperial palace would naturally create
a close association of the cults of the two holy figures in the minds of
the Byzantines. Viewed in this light, the extreme popularity of the im-
age of Nicholas upon seals and in other media and the culture is read-
ily understandable. His associations with the cult of the Virgin endow
him with such prestige. And the closeness of his image with that of the
Virgin is understandable, including the adopting of the “tongues of fire,”
especially in the eleventh-century context of sacred images regarded as
empsychos graphe as described above.
And like the animated or empsychos graphe image of the Virgin of
the usual miracle at Blachernai, eleventh-century Constantinople also
had claim to two celebrated miracle-working images of Saint Nicho-
las. 37 One was enshrined in the church of Saint Nicholas Molivotοs (τοῦ
Μολιβωτοῦ) and was known as the bloody or bleeding icon (thauma de
imagine cruenta): 38 when certain imperial guards came and harassed the
monks at this monastery, one monk in particular was sorely disturbed
by the episode and when lighting the lamps he accidently struck the icon
of Saint Nicholas which then began to bleed profusely (καὶ κρουνίδες
αἱμάτων εὐθέως ἐκενοῦντο ποταμηδόν). During the night, Nicholas ap-
peared to the emperor, most likely Constantine X Doukas (1059–67),
and recounted the misdeed and instructed the emperor to rectify the
situation. The emperor then went to the monastery, saw the bleeding
icon of the saint (καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ ἀγίου εἶδεν εἰκόνα κατῃμαγμένην)
and besought Nicholas’ forgiveness. After restoring peace, the emperor
granted the monastery imperial favors. In 1200, Anthony of Novgorod
ens, 1994), 7–20; M. Schulz, “Die Nicopea in San Marco: Zur Geschichte und zum Typ
einer Ikone,” BZ 91:2 (1998), 475–501; Pentcheva, Icons and Power (see n. 9), 76–80.
36
Annα Komnene, 310: 88–90. For a history of this church, its location and the
possibility that the original shrine was built by Justinian and dedicated to Saints Priskos
and Nicholas, another homonymous holy figure than Nicholas of Myra, see Janin, Ég-
lises, 369–71; Jones, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan, 12–13; Ševčenko, The
Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (see n. 23), 19; eadem, “Canon and Calendar,”
(see n. 27), 108; and G. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, D.C, 1984), 44 and 337–38.
37
M. Bacci, “Il corpo e l’immagine di Nicola,” in San Nicola (see n. 23), 21.
38
Hagios Nikolaos, I, 415–16. The narrative is from the text of the Encomium Neo-
phyti, assigned by Anrich to c. 1200; Hagios Nikolaos, II, 149–54 and 431–32. For the
church of Saint Nicholas Molivotοs (τοῦ Μολιβωτοῦ), see Janin, Églises, 372–73.

John Cotsonis
visited this monastery and described how this icon was covered with
a gilt silver revetment that was removed whenever the emperor would
come to kiss the saint’s wounded image and then it would be recovered. 39
The second famous icon of Saint Nicholas was kept in the homonymous
chapel behind the apse of Hagia Sophia, referred to as ta Vasilidos (τοῡ
Βασιλίδος), mentioned above. 40 During the reign of one of the emperors
Romanos this icon was known to cure a lame man, to whom the saint
had previously appeared and instructed him to be taken to his chapel (ta
Vasilidos) in order to be healed. Once there, the lame man immediately
recognized the saint due to the shared likeness of the holy hierarch in
the image and vision (…ὁρᾷ τὸν μέγαν καὶ περιβόητον ἐν θαυματουργίας
Νικόλαον,…ἀληθῶς ἐν εἰκόνι γεγραμμένον) after which he embraced the
icon panel and was healed (καὶ θᾶττον ἐπιλαμβάνεται μὲν τῆς σανίδος, ἐν
ᾗ ἐκτετύπωτο ὁ ἅγιος…). The text recounts how after the miracle many
offered up praise and glory and kept the memory of the great wonder.
This healing episode was memorialized even later in the fourteenth cen-
tury when Nikephoros Kallistos again referred to this miraculous image
in his paraphrase of the saint’s miracles. 41
These images of the holy hierarch that portrayed him with easily rec-
ognizable verisimilitude, which bled, and performed miraculous cures
were perceived by those who encountered them as actual exchanges with
the saint himself. They were animated with the saint’s living presence;
they were, therefore, empsychos graphe in character just as the contem-
poraneous image of the Virgin at Blachernai that was involved with the
usual Friday miracle. The “tongues of fire” accompanying Nicholas’ im-
age on our seal reinforce the perception of this similarity and rank the
hierarch’s miraculous images among the celebrated “living” icons of the
capital. The owner of our seal may have been an actual pilgrim to one
or both of these shrines where he or she may have venerated the images
39
B. de Khitrowo, Itinéraires russes en Orient (Geneva, 1889), 110. See also Janin,
Églises, 372–73.
40
Hagios Nikolaos, I, 349–52. – Anrich is uncertain as to which emperor Romanos
this is, and states that the oldest manuscripts containing this miracle account are from
the eleventh century but already present reworked texts. He prefers to assign the event
described to the reigns of Romanos I Lekapenos (920–44) or to Romanos II (959–63).
He only rules out the possibility of Romanos IV Diogenes (1068–1071) while leaving
Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034) a possibility (p. 349). See also Hagios Nikolaos, II,
143, for the eleventh-century dating of the earliest manuscripts with this miracle event.
In addition, see Janin, Églises, 368–69.
41
Hagios Nikolaos, I, 352–53. See also Janin, Églises, 368.

and where he or she may even have been a recipient of a healing miracle
worked by the saint.
As noted previously, the obverse of our seal bears the image of the
Archangel Michael. On seals the images of the Archangel Michael and
Nicholas are both popular. After the Virgin, their depictions on seals oc-
cur most frequently: among the published seals of my database, Nicho-
las is found on 1,017 specimens while Michael is represented on 768.
Like Nicholas, several aspects of the archangel contributed to the popu-
larity of his cult: he enjoyed strong imperial connections and military
associations; he was known as a healing figure with pilgrimage shrines;
and his association with the judgment of souls at death and their trans-
port to the next world. 42 At one level one can understand the pairing
of these two saints, the Archangel Michael and Nicholas, bilaterally on
an individual’s seal. But general popularity is only a partial explanation.
Another factor to consider is that the owner may have shared a name
with either the archangel or the saintly hierarch. Yet this hypothesis, too,
is not a necessarily strong assumption: it has been demonstrated that,
statistically, individuals who issued seals with saintly images did not usu-
ally select an image of their homonymous saint. 43
Whatever the motive was for the iconographic choice of this seal
owner, the selection of images reflects a rather particular, specific and
individual devotion. Although the images of the Archangel Michael
and Saint Nicholas are among the most popular sacred figures found on
seals, their sphragistic pairing is strikingly rare. Among the 574 anony-
mous seals with bilateral religious figural imagery in the Dumbarton
Oaks and Fogg collections, just 13, or 2.3%, unite the Archangel and
42
For some literature devoted to the various aspects of the cult of the Archangel
Michael, see J. P. Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael, Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des
vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes (Leiden, 1977); V. Saxer, “Jalons pour server à
l’histoire du culte de l’Archange Saint Michel en Orient jusqu’à l’Iconoclasme,” in Noscere
sancta miscellanea in memoria di Agostino Amore OFM (1982), ed. I. V. Janeiro (Rome,
1985), 382–91; ODB, 2, 1360–1361; B. Martin-Hisard, “Le culte de l’archange Michel
dans l’empire byzantin (viiie-xie siècles),” in Culto e Insediamenti Micaelici nell’Italia
Meridionale fra Tarda Antichità e Medioevo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Monte
Sant’Angelo 18–21 Novembre 1992, ed. C. Carletti  G. Otranto (Bari, 1994), 351–73;
C. Jolivet-Lévy, “Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel dans l’Orient byzantine:
Le témoignage de quelques monuments de Cappadoce,” Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de
Ciuxà 28 (1997), 187–98; G. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2001), 157–93; Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine
Lead Seals,” (see n. 20), 438–47; R. Cline, Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the
Roman Empire (Leiden, 2011), 158–65.
43
J. Cotsonis, “Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals:
A Means of Investigating Personal Piety,” BMGS 32/1 (2008), 1–37.

John Cotsonis
Nicholas. Of the 11,506 seals that bear religious figural imagery drawn
from the major published collections, just 21, or 0.2%, have depictions
that include both Michael and Nicholas, either together on one side or
dispersed over the obverse and reverse. These 21 seals reflect at least 8
different owners. From the 21 seals that include inscriptions indicating
their owners’ titles and/or offices, a variety of officials are found among
the ecclesiastical, civil and military bureaucracies: monk, priest, krites,
hypatos and doux. The imagery of our seal, therefore, reflects a visual pi-
ety that is not frequently depicted. It is highly personalized and indi-
vidual in nature. He or she may have preferred to link the images of two
members of the heavenly hierarchy who were most strongly associated
with judgment after death and the care of souls, reflecting his or her own
spiritual need for powerful intercessors. This bilateral arrangement func-
tioned as a visual invocation to potent sacred intermediaries on behalf
of the seal owner while alive, but also expressed his or her hope for their
divine assistance at the time of death.
The Archangel Michael has a long history as a psychopompos, a sa-
cred figure present at the hour of an individual’s death and leading the
soul into the next world. 44 In the middle Byzantine apocalypse tales, it
is Michael who escorts travelers and souls between this world and the
other world where the visions of judgment and the punishment of sin-
ners take place, while all along the Archangel pleads as a great intercessor
for mercy on behalf of the sinners. 45 In iconographic depictions of the
Last Judgment, archangels are customarily included as members of the
heavenly court. 46 In both a twelfth-century icon of the Last Judgment
from Sinai and the contemporary mosaic of the Anastasis/Last Judg-
ment in the cathedral of Torcello, the Archangel Michael is provided
a prominent position close to Christ, and he is dressed in the imperial
loros and holds the scepter and globus cruciger as he does in the image
44
O. Meinardus, “Der Erzengel Michael als Psychopompos,” Oriens Christianus
62 (1978), 166–68.
45
J. Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community
in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge, 2007), 205–06, 235–38 and 297–99.
46
For more recent literature devoted to depictions of the Last Judgment, see Ang-
heben, “Les Jugements derniers byzantins,” (see n. 1), 105–34; Ševčenko, “Images of the
Second Coming,” (see n. 3), 250–72; A. Volan, “Picturing the Last Judgment in the Last
Days of Byzantium,” in The Kariye Camii Reconsidered, ed. H. Klein, R. Ousterhout 
B. Pitarakis (Istanbul, 2011), 423–46; V. Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium:
The Fate of the Soul in Theology, Liturgy, and Art (Cambridge, 2017), 53–73; The Depar-
ture of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church: A Patristic Anthology,
ed. N. Hatzinikolaou (Florence, AZ, 2017), 458–680, passim.

on our seal. 47 Angels, albeit unnamed, are depicted as main participants

in scenes of death or the judgment of souls, as in the miniatures of the
Heavenly Ladder of John Klimax in Princeton, dated 1081; the prefato-
ry miniatures of a psalter in the Dionysiou monastery on Mount Athos,
codex 65, from the second quarter of the eleventh century; and in the
miniatures illustrating the service for those struggling to die, the canon
εἰς ψυχοῤῥαγοῦντα (psychorragon) in the horologion on Lesbos, Leimonos
monastery cod. 295, belonging to the third quarter of the twelfth cen-
tury. 48 But in the third verse of the fifth ode of this canon, the voice of
the dying monk cries out directly to the Archangel Michael for aid at
the moment of his death: “Save [me], O great angelic power of God,
Michael, leader of angels. I cannot anymore call your holy name to help
me…” (Σῴζου ὁ μέγας ἄρχων Θεοῦ, Μιχαὴλ ἀγγέλων ἀρχηγέ· οὐκ ἔτι γάρ
σου τὸ ἅγιον ὄνομα καλέσω τοῦ βοηθῆσαι μοι·…). 49 In the horologion, this
verse is accompanied by a miniature depicting the dying monk praying
to an icon of the Archangel Michael suspended above him, in which the
Archangel is identified by inscription and holds a scepter and globe simi-
lar to the depiction on our seal. 50 In addition, it is known that the mid-
dle church, the heroon, of the imperial Pantokrator monastic complex in
Constantinople was dedicated to the Archangel Michael and served as
the mausoleum of the Komnenian dynasty. 51 Although later in time, it
is important to recall that among the fourteenth-century frescoes of the
47
For a convenient pairing of the Sinai icon and the Torcello mosaic, see Anghe-
ben, “Les Jugements derniers byzantins,” 108–09, figs. 3 and 4.
48
Ševčenko, “Images of the Second Coming,” 268–72, where literature concerning
the iconography of death, the dating of the Dionysiou psalter, the dating of the service for
the psychorragon, and references to later Byzantine fresco examples of the canon are pro-
vided. For the manuscript of the Heavenly Ladder, see S. Kotzabassi and N. Ševčenko,
Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to Nineteenth Century: A Descriptive Catalogue
(Princeton, 2010), 117, fig. 135. For images of the Dionysiou psalter, see Pelekanidis
et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, 419–20, figs. 118, 121 and 122. For the most recent
scholarship on the illustrated canon of the psychorragon in the Leimonos horologion, see
Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium, 49–73 and 107–30. He also provides an
English translation of the canon, 135–40.
49
Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium, 137.
50
Ibidem, 122, fig. 38.
51
E. Congdon, “Imperial Commemoration and Ritual in the Typikon of the Mon-
astery of Christ Pantokrator,” REB 54 (1996), 175–80; R. Ousterhout, “Architecture,
Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery,” in Byzantine Constantino-
ple: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoǧlu (Leiden, 2001),
133 and 144–50; P. Magdalino, “The Foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in Its
Urban Setting,” in The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, ed. S. Kotzabassi (Ber-
lin, 2013), 36 and 43–48.

John Cotsonis
funerary chapel of the Chora, also in Constantinople, the image of the

Archangel Michael, rendered in a large medallion, is given a prominent
position at the center of the arch of the bema and in proximity to the
scenes of the Anastasis and Last Judgment. 52
As outlined above, images of Saint Nicholas were frequently placed
in funerary chapels or areas of churches associated with burial, acknowl-
edging the saint’s role in guaranteeing just judgment, especially as a great
intercessor for souls after death. It was also noted that this aspect of the
saint was stressed in liturgical hymns dedicated to him. Thus both the
Archangel Michael and Saint Nicholas were perceived not only as popu-
lar saints, but as especially potent and fervent intercessors within the
celestial hierarchy on behalf of the living and the dead. The owner of
our seal would therefore wisely have selected these sacred portraits for
his or her own personal seal, even if he did not share a homonymous
relation with either sacred personage. Nicholas’ shared aspects with the
Mother of God also help us explain his great popularity, even to the
point where both holy figures revealed their living presence through
miraculous Constantinopolitan icons and both could be depicted with
the “tongues of fire,” especially during the second half of the eleventh
century when our seal was produced. The sphragistic animated, living
image, or empsychos graphe, of Saint Nicholas, which may refer to one of
his two celebrated miraculous icons discussed above, offers the owner of
our seal the opportunity for a more intimate, empathetic and personally
intense interaction with the holy hierarch, who along with the power-
ful psychopomp, the Archangel Michael, will ensure hope for continued
protection and health in this life and for a successful arrival among the
blessed in the next.
52
P. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, 1: Historical Introduction and Description of
the Mosaics and Frescoes (New York, 1966), 242–43 and 3: Plates: the Frescoes, pls. 201
and 242; S. der Nersessian, “Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Pareccle-
sion,” in The Kariye Djami, 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its Intellectual
Background, ed. P. Underwood (New York, 1975), 324–25. For recent discussion of the
function of the parekklesion and its fresco program, see S. Gerstel, “The Chora Parek-
klesion, the Hope for a Peaceful Afterlife, and Monastic Devotional Practices,” in The
Kariye Camii Reconsidered, 129–45.

Ioanna Koltsida-Makre
The Collection of Byzantine Bread Stamps in

the Loulis Museum (Aghiou Georgiou Mills),
Piraeus, Greece*
The Collection of Byzantine bread stamps presented in this article is un-

known to the scientific community; it belongs to the pioneering Loulis
Museum, entitled: “Από το σιτάρι στο ψωμί” (From Wheat to Bread). 1 The
Museum was founded in 2012 by Loulis Mills Corporate, best known
in the market as Mills of Aghiou Georgiou (St George) in Keratsini, Pi-
raeus (fig. 1-2).
Fig. 1
The Aghiou Georgiou Mills constitutes a major company in the

Greek flour industry. The story of the mills began 230 years ago, in 1782,
when a small stone mill came into operation for the first time at the vil-
lage Aetorachi of Ioannina. The company began to be industrialized in
1917, when it relocated to Volos. The museum is housed in the historic
* Many thanks to Professor Emeritus Nikolaos Guioles and Professor Platon

Petridis for their useful advice.
1
https://alevri.com/istoria, http://www.loulismills.gr. The Bread Museum is be-
ing reorganized for a new exhibition under the responsibility of the Director Ms Olga
Manou and the writer.

©FHG DOI 10.1484/M.SBS-EB.5.117255
building of the Mills on Aghiou Georgiou Bay in the area of Keratsini,

in Piraeus; it aims to preserve the history and tradition accompanying
the preparation and use of bread, the basic daily human food in the
Mediterranean diet since the Prehistoric times. The Collection consists
of 500 bread stamps, covering a long period from the fifth to the twenti-
eth century, some being heirlooms and others purchased from antiquar-
ian shops. 2 This article focuses on the several interesting stamps of the
Early and Middle Byzantine periods.
Fig. 2
Bread, as a basic daily food, played a symbolic role in civilization

since antiquity. 3 It was a symbol of peace and health, and was offered as
a gift to the gods. The practice of stamping the loaves of uncooked bread
before baking was an ancient habit for both religious and social reasons
long before the spread of Christianity, such as the offering of bread im-
2
Many of the stamps belonged to the late antiquarian and member of the Associa-
tion: “The Friends of the Numismatic Museum” Frixos Pitsopoulos, who made his collec-
tion available to Loulis Museum. The writer is the General Secretary of the Association.
3
G. Galavaris, Bread and the Liturgy. The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byz-
antine Bread Stamps (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Milwaukee and Lon-
don, 1970) 17–19. P. Perdrizet, ΥΓΙΑ ΖΩΗ ΧΑΡΑ, Revue des études grecques 27 (1914),
266–80, 267, 269. B. Caseau, “Magical Protection and Stamps”, Orientalia Lovaniensia
analecta 219 (2012) 115–33 (Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East Developments
in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period, Proceedings of an In-
ternational Workshop at the Netherlands – Flemish Institute in Cairo on December 2–3,
2009). B. Caseau, “Autour de l’autel: le contrȏle des donateurs et des donations alimen-
taires”, in J. Spieser – E. Yota (ed.), Donations et Donateurs dans le monde byzantin, Actes
du colloque international de l’Université de Fribourg (13–15 mars 2008) (Paris, 2012)
47–73. B. Caseau, “Sceaux”, in M. Martiniani–Reber (ed.), Antiquités paléochrétiennes et
byzantines des collections du musée d’art et d’histoire (Genève, 2011) 173–83. B. Caseau,
“Les marqueurs de pain, objets rituels dans le christianisme antique et byzantin”, in I. Pa-
tera – H. Bernier (eds), Dossier de publications. La culture matérielle 2–14 (= Revue de
l’histoire des religions, Objets rituels. Méthodes et concepts croisés 231 [2014] 519–617).

THE COLLECTION OF BYZANTINE BREAD STAMPS
printed with animal images to Asclepius to ensure good health. 4 When

the Eucharistic bread began to be imprinted by the use of Christian sym-
bols, the stamps, which from the ancient times sometimes functioned
magically as objects of protection, have clearly acquired a Christian
character. 5
There are two types of religious bread: the Eucharistic bread, usually
known as prosphora (i.e. offering) that is meant to fulfill the mystery of
the Divine Eucharist and the Eulogia bread used for blessing. 6
The first one bears signs corresponding to the symbolism and the ben-
edictions of the mystery. It is a round cake distinguished from ordinary
bread by the impression on it which contains the letters IC–XC / NI-
KA (“Jesus Christ conquers or is victorious”). This invocation expresses
the victory of Christ on the particular object, whereby the faithful par-
ticipates in the triumph of the victory over death. The central part of
the bread stamped in this way symbolizes the body of Christ, the Lamb,
used in the Holy Communion. 7 Speaking about eulogiai (blessed ob-
jects) in general, we refer to objects or materials which, in contact with
anything sacred, acquire spiritual power, the beneficial effect of which is
passed on to the owners of these objects. As far as the eulogia bread is
concerned, it is the bread that has received and carries a blessing. 8 It is
given to the faithful for health, happiness and protection in a variety of
circumstances and special occasions, such as following the divine service,
on the saints’ days and at the great festivals as well. Besides, according
to Patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos, the faithful should take blessed
bread to chase away bad thoughts and restore the body’s health. 9 The
eulogia bread was sealed with a special stamp, usually bearing the image
4
Galavaris, Bread 25. Idem, Cradle of Christianity. The Israel Museum, ed. Y. Is-
raeli and D. Mevorah, ( Jerusalem, 2000) 97. R. Kakish, “Ancient bread stamps from
Jordan”, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14 (2014) 20–21.
5
Caseau, “Magical Protection” 120–28.
6
Galavaris, Bread 40–108,09–166. Caseau, “Marqueurs de pain” 12–13. D. Stav-
rou – Michalski – S. Stamati, Πρόσφορο και Άρτος, (Athens, 2012) 57–63.
7
Galavaris, Bread 65–69, 167–85. Caseau, “Marqueurs de pain” 12–13. Ch. Wal-
ter, “IC XC NIKA. The Apotropaic Function of the Victorious Cross”, REB 55 (1997)
193–220.
8
Galavaris, Bread 109–66. D. Papanikola-Bakirtze (ed.), Καθημερινή ζωή στο
Βυζάντιο, Θεσσαλονίκη, Λευκός Πύργος Οκτώβριος 2001-Ιανουάριος 2002 (Athens, 2002)
196.
9
B. Caseau, “Byzantine Christianity and Tactile Piety (Fourth–Fifteenth Centu-
ries)”, in S. Ashbrook – H. and M. Mullett (eds), Knowing Bodies, Passionate Souls. Sense
Perceptions in Byzantium (Washington, DC, 2017) 209–21, 217.

of the honored saint, as well as inscriptions of blessing such as: “God’s

blessing” (Εὐλογία Κυρίου)), “the blessing of the Lord upon us” (Εὐλογία
Κυρίου ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς) and other similar expressions wishing for “health”
(ὑγεία), “life” (ζωή) and “joy” (χαρά). 10
The Byzantine bread stamps of the Loulis Museum are made of
stone, clay and metal. They have various shapes and dimensions rang-
ing from 3 cm to 14 cm. The Eucharistic marble stamps, in particular,
are dated to the early Christian and Middle-Byzantine periods. Similar
bread stamps dated to the same periods are kept at the British Museum
(a stamp from Cyprus), 11 the Jerusalem Museum, 12 and the Menil Col-
lection in Houston, Texas. 13 At this point, it should be noted that several
problems arise in general to the issue of dating bread stamps; the fact
is that most of these stamps kept in museum collections are objects of
unknown origin and environment, which means that they are not ex-
cavation finds. These objects of religious purposes bear a long tradition,
having been used in the same forms for centuries. 14 Especially for the
Loulis Collection, the accurate dating of the stamps is not possible and
is mainly based on comparative data. The lettering of the inscriptions is
certainly an essential element of dating. On some stamps coming from
Russia the letter  (Ny) appears as H (Eta), a fact that leads to dating
them to the Middle Byzantine Period.
The common feature of the stone Eucharistic stamps of the Loulis
Collection is the rectangular face. Each is divided into four sections with
an incised cross, wherein the inscription IC–XC/NI-KA is reversed so
that the dough impression is normally read from left to right.
The stamps bear various Christian symbols on the lateral sides, most-
ly crosses with simple linear rendering or flaring arms, crosses with rays
in the quarters of the arms, simple sloping lines resembling a building
gable, stylized trees and stars (or perhaps christograms). The design of a
fishbone and successive triangles in the shape of a clepsydra are also en-
10
Cf. footnote no 3. Early Christian stamps with interesting representations
and inscriptions have come to light recently during excavations in Delphi. P. Petridis,
La céramique protobyzantine de Delphes. Une production et son context, École française
d’Athènes, Fouilles de Delphes V, Monuments figurés 4 (Paris – Athènes, 2010) 110–13,
pl. 37, fig. 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197.
11
Galavaris, Bread 75, fig. 38.
12
Cradle of Christianity 97.
13
G. Vikan – J. Nesbitt, Security in Byzantium. Locking, Sealing and Weighing
(Washington, D. C., 1980) 14–15, fig. 27.
14
Cradle of Christianity 97. Caseau, “Magical Protection” 117. N. Feig, “A Byzan-
tine Bread Stamp from Tiberias”, Liber Annuus 44 (1994) 594. Kakish 27.

graved as well as letters, e.g. Α, Ν, M, Χ etc. Some of these symbols may

be regarded as signs of property, i.e. the initials of the owners (fig. 3).
Fig. 3
The stone stamps of the collection are divided into four groups, ac-
cording to the shape of their handle. The first [A] group nos B2, B3, B4,
B8, B9 (fig. 4) from European Turkey (Eastern Thrace), no. 259 from
the East Balkans, no. 264 from Odessa (fig. 5), consists of stamps with a
pyramidical handle. The stamp no. B9 is broken at the top, where there
is probably a suspension hole, while the suspension holes of the stamps
nos B2 and 259 are visible. Additionally, on the lateral side of B9 appears
a sheltered crucifix (this motive is very common in the western tradi-
tion, just nowadays), the middle of which is also diagonally crossed. The
presentation has on the each side, left and right, the Latin initials I. / S.
for I(esus) S(alvator).

Fig. 4
a b
Fig. 5

The second [B] group, (no photo) stamps nos Β6, Β7, Β12, from
European Turkey (fig. 6), nos Β13, 257, 253, 274 from East Balkans
(fig. 7), and no. 256 from Odessa (fig. 8) have got either a pyramidical or
a quadrilateral handle with globular or semicylindrical top. The stamp
no. 256 (fig. 8) of this group resembles a human figure, while the handle
of the stamp no. 274 is perhaps a lion’s head (fig. 7).
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Fig. 8
The third [C] group, nos Β1, Β10, Β11 (no photo) from European
Turkey (fig. 9), consists of stamps with short handle and a mounting
hole on the top. The stamp no. Β10, forming steps on the handle, is par-
tially broken at the top.
Fig. 9
The fourth [D] group, no. Β5 (broken at the top) from European Tur-
key and no. 484 from Russia, includes two cruciform stamps (fig. 10).
Fig. 10

The stamp no. 259, from the East Balkans (fig. 5a-b), shows several
particularities. The square face, divided in four parts, is engraved with dif-
ferent symbols instead of the usual inscription IC–XC/NI-KA: a cross
enclosed in a rectangle on the upper left division, while on the upper
right is only a star visible. On the bottom left the letter Z and right the
letter A. Could we suggest in this case a cryptographical form of a prayer
or could we interpret Z and A as initials of ζ(ωὴ) α(ἰωνία)? There are also
many decorative symbols on the lateral sides such as a fishbone, the let-
ters Α, Ν, M and a figure like a sailboat.
The most impressive stamp of stone is the no. 67 (diameter 14 cm,
weight 303 gr.) originating from Cappadocia (fig. 11), which repre-
sents the multiplication of the five loaves [Matthew (14, 13–21), Mark
(6, 30–44), Luke (9, 10–17), John (6, 1–14)]. It is a circular stamp of
pale yellow limestone, with two small through-suspension holes that ap-
pear right and left at the top of the basket and are better visible from the
back. It is decorated with a particularly elaborate relief depiction of the
miracle of the five loaves multiplication. The miracle is a manifestation
of Christ’s omnipotence, underlining the responsibility of Christians in
the struggle to meet the material needs of society. In the center, Christ
is depicted behind a large basket of breads, flanked on either side by two
apostles. He is touching the bread with his left hand, while raising his
right hand in front of his chest to bless. Around the border and above
the heads of the figures a semicircular inscription:
οΧΡΗ..οc BΛO APTs N TH EPIO for Ὁ Χρ(ι)[στ]ός, (εὐ)λογ(εῖ)ς
ἄρτους ἐν τῇ ἐρ(ή)μ(ῳ). 15 In the halo the inscription: Ο Ω Ν for ὁ ὤν.
Fig. 11
15
Cf. similar inscription of the sixth century on a clay pithos lid in an Early–
Christian monastery of Crete: ἐ[βλ]όγιεση, Κύ(ριε), / [τ]ό ὖκο σου, Κύριε, / λύκας τε ὠ
ἐβλογιέσα τους πέτε/ ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς δύο ὑκθίους in Α. Bandy, The Greek Christian Inscrip-
tions of Crete (Athens, 1970), document 36, with another version of the inscription, in

The figures are robust and well-designed referring to the standards

of the Palaiologan era. The palaeographical style of the inscription and
in the halo of Christ is a combination of Byzantine and Modern Greek
letters. The Omega in the halo of Christ is the type occurring in Mod-
ern Greek times. The Sigma appears in both forms, the Byzantine C and
the Modern Greek Σ, but also in minuscule form in the word ἄρτους.
The letter Epsilon on the other hand appears in three forms: Byzantine
(E), Modern Greek (E) and the minuscule form (at the beginning of the
verb). We may therefore assume that we have in our hands a very fine
stamp of relatively modern times based perhaps on a Byzantine pattern/
model. Such a phaenomenon was very common in the nineteenth cen-
tury. 16
The collection includes three terra-cotta stamps, belonging to dif-
ferent types. The stamp no. 255 from Jerusalem (fig. 12) is glazed, with
rectangular face and adorned with an incised cross, enclosed in a rec-
tangular frame; in the four divisions the usual inscription: NI–KA /
IC–XC. The handle is elongated and occupies the entire width of the
rear face. The engraving is elaborate and accurate. According to the type,
this stamp can be dated to the sixth and seventh centuries; however, the
lettering and the glaze lead to a later dating, probably to the thirteenth-
fourteenth century or to the post-Byzantine period.
Fig. 12
M.Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae 4 (Roma, 1970), no 468. Many thanks to the Direc-
tor Emeritus of the Epigraphic Museum Dr Charalampos Kritzas for the information.
G. De Jerphanion, Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce. Une nouvelle province de l’art byzan-
tin (Paris, 1925–1942) Text I, i, 278, pl. I., pl. 66.1, 66, 2, 36, 4.
16
A-K. Wassiliou, “Siegel in Kopie und Fälschung”, in C. Gastgeber (ed.), Kopie
und Fälschung (Graz, 2001) 125–52.

The stamp no. 44, from Damascus (fig. 13), is circular (diameter

13.5 cm) of reddish-brown clay with a broken flattened handle, en-
graved with a cross with flaring arms in a circle. In the four quarters
there are small crosses in rhombuses, on triangles, and the composition
is framed with alternating triangles. This is a simple type of a Eucharistic
bread stamp, referring to the usual depictions with a plain cross of the
Early Christian times and can be dated to the 6th/7th c. Parallels of this
type originate from excavations in Athens, in the area of Amygdaleza in
Attica, in Messenia and in Ancient Corinth; there are also many other
parallels of similar type coming from other areas. 17
Fig. 13
The stamp no. 272 from Syria (fig. 14) is intact, circular, made of red-
dish clay, with a long forked handle and a suspension hole. Τhe circular
17
Ν. Guioles, “Παλαιοχριστιανική σφραγίδα ευχαριστιακού άρτου από την Αθήνα”,
ΔΧΑΕ 24 (2003) 361–62. Y. D. Varalis, “Un sceau paléochrétien de pain eucharistique
de l’agora d’Argos”, BCH 118 (1994) 331–42 and in D. Athanasoulis – A. Vassiliou (eds),
Βυζαντινό Μουσείο Αργολίδας, Κατάλογος μόνιμης έκθεσης (Athens, 2016), no. 6 (Y. Vara-
lis). Galavaris, Bread 27–28, 37, fig. 18, 169–70. Feig 591–94. E. Gkine-Tsophopoulou,
“Παλαιοχριστιανικὴ βασιλικὴ στὴ θέση ‘Μυγδαλέζα’ Ἀττικῆς”, ΑΕ 119 (1980) 91–92,
pl. 22γ. Th. Provatakis, Βυζαντινὰ καὶ μεταβυζαντινὰ κειμήλια τῆς Ἱερᾱς Μητροπόλεως
Μεσσηνίας (Thessalonike, 1976) 23–29. Β. Weinberg – G. Davidson, “The minor objects”
in Corinth. Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, V.12 (1952), no. 2854–2862. S. Arvanite, “Πήλινη σφραγίδα άρτου” in Ε. Dore
– P. Velissariou – M. Michaelides, “Κάτω Κάστρο. Η πρώτη φάση των ανασκαφών στο
Βενετικό φρούριο της Χώρας Άνδρου”, Ανδριακά Χρονικά 34 (2003), 184–87, fig. 96. G. So-
teriou, “Αἱ χριστιανικαὶ Θῆβαι τῆς Θεσσαλίας”, ΑΕ 68 (1929) 105, fig. 141. S. Phritzilas,
“Πήλινες σφραγίδες άρτου της ύστερης αρχαιότητας”, in D. Papanikola-Bakirtze, N. Kou-
soulakou (eds), Κεραμική της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας από τον Ελλαδικό χώρο (3ος-7ος αι. μ. Χ.),
Επιστημονική Συνάντηση, Θεσσαλονίκη 12–16 Νοεμβρίου 2006, τ. Α´(Thessalonike,
2010) 322–30, fig. α-β.

face shows in relief an isosceles cross with flaring arms. In the quarters
four stout birds are depicted; the first top left bends the head to collect
its food. A small bulge on its back deforms the quite worn image. It is a
bread stamp, simple in form, decorated with a cross, dated to 6th/7th c.; a
good parallel comes from an excavation in the city of Patrai and another
one is a eulogia bread stamp from Aegina. 18 Similar stamps are kept in
different museum collections. 19 One unpublished stamp, very similar to
that of the Loulis Collection, dated to sixth and seventh centuries with
a cross and four stout birds, possibly peacocks, is kept in the Monastery
of Aghia Lavra at Kalavryta. 20
The peacocks refer to the idea of Paradise, as symbols of eternity, im-
mortality and regeneration. 21 Birds may also symbolize the Holy Spirit
that appeared as a dove above the head of Christ in the Baptism. 22 Pea-
cocks and other birds are very familiar symbols in Christian art.
Fig. 14
18
A. Koumouse – A. Moutzale, “Παλαιοχριστιανική σφραγίδα ευχαριστιακού άρτου
από την Πάτρα”, Σύμμεικτα 17 (2005–2007) 9–20. Papanikola-Bakirtze, Καθημερινή ζωή
196, no. 220.
19
Galavaris, Bread 61, fig. 29.
20
Many thanks to Dr Anna Lampropoulou for the information. The stamp will be
published by the Director of the Ephorate of Achaia Antiquities Dr A. Koumouse.
21
LCI, vol. 3, 1971, 409–11.
22
Caseau, “Sceaux” 182–83.

The collection contains three interesting metal seals as well. Metal

stamps were used to seal various materials such as bricks, mortars, ceram-
ics, plaster, medical signs, bread, clay, wax and skins. 23
The bronze rectangular stamp no. 263 (fig. 15) from Ephesus
(5.7 × 2.9 cm, weight 49 gr.), with a broken rear suspension ring, bears
the inscription ΤΡΥΓ/ΗΤΟC (τρυγητός), that means vintage, written
normally from left to right. Similar stamps, dating to early Christian
times, are preserved in many museum collections; 24 they usually bear
inscriptions with wishes or plain names assigned to the holders or the
artisans. The stamp should be intended for a eulogia bread to ensure,
through divine intervention and blessing, a good and profuse vintage. 25
Fig. 15
The bronze stamp no. 265 from Damascus (fig. 16), same type with
the previous one, is also rectangular in size (5.7 × 3.3 cm), with a small
handle. On the face double pattern: in the center, an isosceles incised
cross framed by a second one, wider with rectangular small frames in the
quarters of the cross. It may be dated to the Early Christian period of the
6th-7th c.
23
Vikan – Nesbitt, Security 27.
24
M. Grünbart, “Die byzantinischen Metallstempel im British Museum”, Mit-
teilungen zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 6 (2009)
171–79. M. Grünbart, “Byzantine Metal Stamps in a North American Private Collec-
tion”, DOP 60 (2006) 13–24. Caseau, “Magical Protection” 116–28. Caseau, “Autour de
l’autel” 64–67.
25
Caseau, “Autour de l’autel” 50.

Fig. 16
The stamp no. 275 from Crete (fig. 17) is circular (diameter 4, 4 cm),

with an integral handle. On the face seven rings form a rosette, prob-
ably they might refer to the sacred number seven. Similar stamps are
kept in different museum collections, bearing usually invocative inscrip-
tions and wishes for good life (ζωή) and health (ὑγεία), and the blessing:
Εὐλογία Κυρίου ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς etc. 26
Fig. 17
Caseau, “Magical Protection” 121 fig. 2, 127, fig. 7 and footnote no 3.

26

In conclusion, we assume that the Loulis Collection displays a big

variety of bread stamps that greatly enriches our knowledge in the field
of the symbolic sealing of the bread for the ritual of the Christian wor-
ship. The collection gives us a clear and complete image of the different
types of bread stamps and their timeless use over the centuries, taking of
course into account the remarkable set of post-Byzantine bread stamps
exhibited in the Loulis Museum. Additionally, it essentially contributes
to the establishment of more precise chronological criteria than before,
resulting in a more accurate classification of the bread stamps by the
comparative method.

INDEXES
Index of Proper Names and Terms
Ἀβύδου,
παραφύλαξ, Δαμιανός, κομμερκιάριος Θεσσαλονίκης, 48
παραφύλαξ, Ἰωάννης, χρυσεψητής, κομμερκιάριος, 141
Ἁγιοθεοδωρίτης, Ἰωάννης, μεσάζων, 74, 75
Ἀδριανοῦ Θῆραι, 33
Ἀδριανούπολις, 82
Ἀδριανοπολῖται, 83
Aeternalius, proconsul Asiae 8, 9
Aκīrā, 34
Ἀκτουάριος, Θεόδωρος, μάγιστρος 55
Ἀλανοί, 101
Ἀλανός, Νικηφόρος, βεστάρχης, κατεπάνω Χερσῶνος καὶ Χαζαρίας, 123
Ἀλέξανδρος Ι, 37
Ἀλέξανδρος,
see Μανιάκης
Ἀλέξιος, 46
Πακτιάρης, 99
Ἀλουσιάνος, πατρίκιος, στρατηγὸς Θεοδοσιουπόλεως, 84
Amygdaleza (findspot), 177
ἀναγραφεύς,
Δρουγουβιτείας, 113
Δρουγουβιτείας, Σκληρός, Μιχαήλ, πρωτοπρόεδρος, 117
Δρουγουβιτείας, Κωνσταντῖνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), ἀσηκρῆτις (?),
δήμαρχος (?),117, 118
Μεσημβρίας, (Ν.), σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου,
ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, 54
Ἀναστάσιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου, 139
Ἀνατολῆς,
δομέστικος, Βραχάμιος, Φιλάρετος, πρωτοσέβαστος, 49, 61, 62
Ancient Corinth (findspot), 177
Ἀνδρόνικος, Παλαιολόγος, Κομνηνοδούκας, 39
Ἄνθημος,
see Θεοδωροκάνος
Ταρωνίτης
ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως,
Καραντηνός, Βάρδας, ὕπατος, 49, 59, 60
(Ν.), σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου,

ἀναγραφεὺςΜεσημβρίας, 54, 65
ἀνθύπατος,
Ἐλεσβάαμ, Ἰωάννης, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Θεοδωροκάνος, Κωνσταντῖνος, πατρίκιος, 86
Τζιρίθων, Βασίλειος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
Δρουγουβιτείας,116
Ἀντιοχείας,
πατριάρχης, Συμεών, 55
Ἀντώνιος, διάκονος, χρυσοχόος, 136
Ἀποστύπης, Λέων, 73
Ἀρσένιος,
Ἀρτάχ, 83
ἄρχων,
Δρουγουβιτείας, Μόσχος, Πέτρος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 117
Δρουγουβιτῶν, Πέτρος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, 109
Κύπρου, Ν., σπαθάριος, 48
Ματράχων, Ζιχήας καὶ πάσης Χαζαρίας, Μιχαήλ, 124, 125
τοῦ βλαττίου, Ἰωάννης, ὕπατος, χρυσ(ο)εψητής, 140
τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου, Σεναχερήμ, 143
τοῦ χρυσοχείου, 138, 143
τοῦ χρυσοχείου, Ἀναστάσιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, 139
τῶν ἀρχόντων, Πακουριάνος, Τατούλης, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 49, 63, 64
τῶν χρυσοκλαβαρίων, Παγκράτιος, 142
Μιχαήλ, δοὺξ Ζιχίας, Ματράχων καὶ πάσης Χαζαρίας, 125
Μιχαήλ, δοὺξ Ματράχων, πάσης Χαζαρίας, 124
ἀσηκρῆτις,
Κ…, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου
καὶΔρουγουβιτείας, 116
Βασίλειος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσοτελὴς τοῦ Ἀνατολικοῦ, 144
Θεόδοτος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Κωνσταντῖνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), δήμαρχος (?), ἀναγραφεὺς
Λέων, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 115
Ῥωμανός, χρυσοτελής, 144
Χριστόφορος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας (καὶ Στρυμῶνος ?), 111, 115
Asiae,
proconsul, Aeternalius, 8, 9
Ἀστήλ, 122

Ἀσώτης,
Ἄτελ / Ἀτήλ /Ἀτίλ(λ)ας, 121, 122, 126, 129, 130
Athens (findspot), 177
ἀτρικλίνης/ἀρτοκλίνης, 43
Χριστόφορος, ὕπατος (καὶ ἀτρικλίνης) τῆς Τρικόγχου, 42
αὐθέντης,
πόλεως Θεοδωρὼ καὶ παραθαλασσίας, Ἀλέξιος, 103
Ἀχυραοῦς/Achyraous, 33, 34
Balaklava (Symbolon/Cembalo), 103
Balıkesir, 33, 34, 35
Βάρδας,
see Καραντηνὸς
Βασίλειος,
Θεοδωροκάνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγός, 84
Λακαπηνός, 53
Τζιρίθων, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
ἐπίσκοπος Ἑξαμιλίου, 131
παρακοιμώμενος, 49, 51, 52, 62, 63
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἀσηκρῆτις, χρυσοτελὴς τοῦ Ἀνατολικοῦ, 144
Basileus Romaion, 36
Bassus, 5, 6
Βεριβόης, στρατηγὸς Χίου, 83
Βέρροια, 109
βεστάρχης,
Ἀλανός, Νικηφόρος, κατεπάνω Χερσῶνος καὶ Χαζαρίας, 123
Γουδέλης, Ἰωάννης, 60
Κεφαλᾶς (?), Μιχαήλ, 49, 60, 61,
Μανιάκης, Ἀλέξανδρος, στρατηγός, 49, 58, 59
Εὐστάθιος, ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος καὶ εἰδικός, 38
Ν., κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Βησήρ, πατρίκιος, στρατηγός, 48
Blachernai, 155, 161, 162
Βολερόν, 107, 113
Βραχάμιος,
see Φιλάρετος
Burhaniye (findspot), 40
Γαβρᾶς, 96, 103
Κωνσταντῖνος, 93, 98

Λέων, καῖσαρ, 93, 94, 95, 104

Γάλλος (ὁ), Φραγγόπουλος, Ἐρβέβιος, 42
γαμβρός, 74
Gavri / Gavry / Gavra, 103
γενικός, Σπληνιάριος, Κωνσταντῖνος, πρόεδρος, 54, 67
Γερμανίκεια, 53
Γεώργιος,
Θεοδωροκάνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, στρατηγός,
84
Θεοδωροκάνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Σηὼν τοῦ Ἐρεβαρκείου,
83
Θεοδωροκάνος, στρατηγὸς Σάμου, 83
Μανιάκης, 50, 84
Σπληνιάριος, 55
Χανδρηνός, 44
χρυσοσηρικοπράτης, 147
γῆρας, 95
Γίδος, 99
Γουδέλης, Ἰωάννης 49, 50, 60
Γότθοι, 101
Got(t)hia, 101, 102
Γρηγορᾶς, Σαυλοϊωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου καὶ
τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας, 115, 118
Γρηγόριος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, μειζότερος τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου, 143
Campaniae,
proconsul, Anicius Auchenius Bassus, 6
Černigov / Černihiv, 129
Cherson /Chersonnesos (findspot), 5
Χερσῶνος καὶ Χαζαρίας,
κατεπάνω, βεστάρχης, Νικηφόρος, Ἀλανός, 123
Damascus (findspot), 177, 179
Δαμιανός, κομμερκιάριος Θεσσαλονίκης, παραφύλαξ Ἀβύδου, 47
Demirbeg/Temer/Timur/Temir, princeps of Mangup, 102
δήμαρχος (?), Κωνσταντῖνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), ἀσηκρῆτις (?),
ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Δημήτριος,
see Demirbeg/Temer/Timur/Temir
δικαιοδότης, 72
Στυππειώτης, Θεόδωρος, ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, 76
δικαστής, Δρουγουβιτείας, Θωμᾶς, 114, 117

Διμύρης, Μανουήλ, σεβαστός, 40

διοίκησις,
Θεσσαλονίκης καὶ Σερρῶν, 113
Θεσσαλονίκης, Σερρῶν καὶ Σμολένων, 113
δομέστικος,
τῆς Ἀνατολῆς, Βραχάμιος, Φιλάρετος, πρωτοσέβαστος, 49, 61, 62
τῶν σχολῶν, 62
τῶν σχολῶν, Στυππειώτης, 73
Δοξαπάτρης, 133
δούξ,
Ἀδριανοπολιτῶν, Θεοδωροκάνος, Ν. πατρίκιος, 83
Ζιχίας, Ματράχων καὶ πάσης Χαζαρίας, Μιχαἠλ, ἄρχων, 125
Ματράχων, πάσης Χαζαρίας, Μιχαήλ, ἄρχων, 124
Θεοδωροκάνος, Τζοτζίκιος, κουροπαλάτης, 90
Δρουγουβιτείας,
ἄρχων, Μόσχος, Πέτρος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 117
κριτής,
Ἐλεσβάαμ, Ἰωάννης, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, 116, 118
Κ…, Ἰωάννης, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,πρωτοσπαθάριος,
ἀσηκρῆτις,116, 117, 118
Σαυλοϊωάννης, Γρηγορᾶς, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,
πρωτοσπαθάριος, 115
Σκληρὸς, Μιχαήλ, ἀναγραφεύς, πρωτοπρόεδρος,117
Τζιρίθων, Βασίλειος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, 116,
118
Θεόδοτος, ἀσηκρῆτις, 116
Θεόδουλος,, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου, πρωτοσπαθάριος, 116
Θεόδουλος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ὕπατος, 116
Θωμᾶς (δικαστής), 114, 117
Ἰσαάκιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ στρατηγός, 114
Κωνσταντῖνος, ἀναγραφεύς, ἀσηκρῆτις (?), δήμαρχος (?),
πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), 116
Μιχαήλ, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 115
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος 110, 111, 115
Ν., βεστάρχης, 116
Ν., 115
Χριστόφορος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος( ?), ἀσηκρῆτις 111, 115
Δρουγουβιτῶν,
ἄρχων, Πέτρος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, 109
Drougouvitai, 108, 109, 115, 117

Ἔδεσσα, 50, 53, 86, 87, 88

Edremit/Adramytteion (findspot), 42
εἰδικόν, 38
εἰδικός, Εὐστάθιος, βεστάρχης, ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος, 38, 39
Εἰρήνη, πρωτοσπαθάρισσα καὶ στρατήγισσα, 49, 64
ἐκκλησιέκδικοι, 160
Ἐλαιοδωρίτης, Στέφανος, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 55
Ἐλεσβάαμ, Ἰωάννης, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116,
118
emperors / empresses,
Alexios I Komnenos, 62, 73, 126
Andronikos II Palaiologos, 34, 97
Basileios I, 73
Constans, caesar, 5
Constantine I, 4, 5, 6, 16, 35, 37
Constantine II, caesar 4, 5, nobilissimus, caesar, 5,
Constantine IV, 108
Constantine VII, 139
Constantine IX Monomachos, 35, 37, 154
Constantine X Doukas, 36, 37, 128, 154, 161
Ioannes II Komnenos, 74
Manuel I Komnenos, 74, 97
Michael VII Doukas, 154
Michael VIII Palaiologos, 101
Nikephoros III Botaneiates, 62
Romanos I Lakapenos, 139
Theophilos, 43
Zoe, 156
ἐξάκτωρ, Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
Ἑξαμίλιον, 131
ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, 75, 76
Στυππειώτης, Θεόδωρος, δικαιοδότης, 76
ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος,
Εὐστάθιος, βεστάρχης καὶ εἰδικός, 38
ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου,
Εὐθύμιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, θεσμογράφος, βασιλικὸς χρυσογλύπτης,
134
Θεοδωροκάνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Ἀρτάχ, 83
Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Λαοδικείας, 49, 57

Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσογλύπτης, 132

Ν., σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀναγραφεὺς
Μεσημβρίας, 65
ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκειακῶν,
Ξηρός, Συμεών, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος, 110
Epiphanius, 29
ἐπίσκοπος,
Ἀτέλου, Νικόλαος, 121
Ἑξαμιλίου, Βασίλειος 131
Ἐρβέβιος (Φραγγόπουλος), 42
Ἐρεβάρκειον, 84
Erzerum / Theodosioupolis, 96
Eski-Kermen, 101
Εὐγένιος, πρεσβύτερος, χρυσοχόος, 136
Εὐγενιώτης, Βάρδας, 133
Εὐδοκία,
Κομνηνή, 73
σεβαστή, 55
Εὐθύμιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, θεσμογράφος,
βασιλικὸς χρυσογλύπτης, 134
Εὐστάθιος,
βεστάρχης, ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος καὶ εἰδικός, 38
fides, 27
Gaziantep (findspot), 86
Ghadras, 97
Goldsmith, 131
Ζιχήα / Ζιχία 124, 125
Ζίκχοι, 101
Zosimos, 23
ζωστή, Μαρία, μοναχή, 131
Heerlen /ancient Coriovallum (findspot), 4
Hervé Phrangopoulos, 42
Θεόδοτος,
Φραγγόπουλος, 41
ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116, 118
Θεόδουλος,
πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
πρωτοσπαθάριος, ὕπατος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Θεοδώρα, Κομνηνή, πανσεβάστη, 131

Θεοδωροκάνος, 81, 83, 89

Ἄνθημος, Ταρωνίτης, 90
Ἀρσένιος, 90
Ἀσώτης, 84, 85
Βασίλειος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγός, 84
Γεώργιος, πρωτοκουροπαλάτης, 91
Γεώργιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, στρατηγός, 84
Γεώργιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Σηὼν τοῦ Ἐρεβαρκείου, 83, 84
Γεώργιος, στρατηγὸς Σάμου, 83
Ἰωάννης, μοναχός, 81
Κωνσταντῖνος, 131
Κωνσταντῖνος, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, 86
Κωνσταντῖνος, πατρίκιος, 85
λαύρα, (τοῦ), 91
Νικηφόρος, πατρίκιος, στρατηγός, 84
Ν. πατρίκιος καὶ δοὺξ Ἀδριανοπολιτῶν, 83
Ν. πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, στρατηγὸς Ἀρτάχ, 83
Ῥωμανός, 91
Τζοτζίκιος, 89
Τζοτζίκιος, κουροπαλάτης, δούξ, 90
Θεόδωρος,
Ἀκτουάριος, μάγιστρος, 55
Πρόδρομος, 73
Στυππειώτης, 73
Στυππειώτης, ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, δικαιοδότης, 76
Στυππειώτης, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, μέγας σακελλάριος, 71
Φραγγόπουλος, πρόεδρος, 42
κουβουκλήσιος, βασιλικὸς κουράτωρ τῆς θείας χρυσοτελείας, 145
μανδάτωρ καὶ φύλαξ (?), 45
θεσμογράφος, Εὐθύμιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου,
βασιλικὸς χρυσογλύπτης, 134
Θεσσαλονίκης, 107 (theme)
κομμερκιάριος Δαμιανός, παραφύλαξ Ἀβύδου, 48
κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Θεσσαλονίκης, Νικόλαος, 110, 111
Θωμᾶς, κριτής (δικαστής), Δρουγουβιτείας, 114, 117
Ickham /Kent (findspot), 4
Jonah, 14, 15, 18
Ἱπποδρόμου,
see κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου

Ἰσαάκιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος καὶ στρατηγὸς Δρουγουβιτείας, 114,

117, 119
Junius Bassus, praefectus urbis 6
Ἰωάννης,
Ἁγιοθεοδωρίτης, μεσάζων, 74, 75
Γουδέλης, βεστάρχης, 49, 60
Ἐλεσβάαμ, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116, 118
Θεοδωροκάνος, μοναχός, 81
Καματηρός, λογοθέτης τοῦ δρόμου, 78
Κεγχρῆς, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, νοτάριος τοῦ
φύλακος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Ἀνατολικῶν, 144
Κ…, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου καὶ
Δρουγουβιτείας, 116, 118
Χανδρηνός (?), 45
πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 51
πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, στρατηγὸς Λαοδικείας, 49,57
πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, χρυσογλύπτης, 132
πρωτοσπαθάριος, μυστογράφος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου, 54
πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Ἀρμενιακῶν, 145
σπαθαροκουβικουλάριος, χρυσοτελὴς Χαρσιανοῦ, 144
χρυσεψητής, παραφύλαξ Ἀβύδου, κομμερκιάριος, 141
χρυσ(ο)εψητής, ἄρχων τοῦ βλαττίου, 140
χρυσοκόπος, 145
Κ…, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,
Kaffa, 103
Καῖσαρ, Γαβρᾶς, Λέων, 93, 94, 95, 104
Kaisareia/Palestine (findspot), 47, 51
Καματηρός, Ἰωάννης, λογοθέτης τοῦ δρόμου, 78
Kampania (plain), 109, 112
Kamsarakan, 81
Καραντηνός, 50
Βάρδας, ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, ὕπατος, 49, 51, 58, 59
Karasi/Karesi/Καρασή, 34
Κασσηνῶν, στρατηγός, Κωνσταντῖνος, ὕπατος, 49, 57, 58
Κασσῆς, στρατηγός, 50
κατεπάνω,
Ἐδέσσης, Χατατούρης, πατρίκιος, 87, 88
Χερσῶνος καὶ Χαζαρίας, Ἀλανός, Νικηφόρος, βεστάρχης, 123
Kemer Erdemit, 40

Κεφαλᾶς, 50
Λέων, 51
(?), Μιχαήλ, βεστάρχης, 49, 60, 61
Keramesios (kampos), 108
Kerč, 128
Kerkini (lake), 112
Khovra (family), 98, 103 (or Komra)
Κιβυρραιωτῶν,
τοποτηρήτισσα, Πεκουλίνα, Κωνσταντίνα, πρωτοσπαθάρισσα, 53
Kiev, 129
Κιμμέριος βόσπορος, 128
Κλάδων, Κωνσταντῖνος, 56
κοιαίστωρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ παλατίου, 76
Κολωνείας,
χρυσοτελής, Μιχαήλ, 144
κομμερκιάριος,
Δύσεως καὶ Δοραχίου, Λέων, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσεψητής,
141
Θεσσαλονίκης, Δαμιανός, παραφύλαξ Ἀβύδου, 48
Ἰωάννης, χρυσεψητής, παραφύλαξ Ἀβύδου, 141
Κομνηνή,
Εὐδοκία, 73
Θεοδώρα, πανσεβάστη, 131
Κομνηνοδούκας, Ἀνδρόνικος, Παλαιολόγος, 39
Korykos, 136, 137
Kouver, 108
κουβουκλήσιος, Θεόδωρος, βασιλικὸς κουράτωρ τῆς θείας χρυσοτελείας,
145
κουράτωρ τῆς θείας χρυσοτελείας, Θεόδωρος, κουβουκλήσιος,145
κουροπαλάτης,
Θεοδωροκάνος, Τζοτζίκιος, δούξ, 90
Τζουρούλης, Νικηφόρος, βασιλικὸς χρυσοτελής, 144
κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,
Σαυλοϊωάννης, Γρηγορᾶς, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας,
115
Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, μυστογράφος, 54
κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου,
Τζιρίθων, Βασίλειος, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας,
116, 118
Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116

Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ὕπατος, κριτὴς τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116

κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας,
Κ…, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ασηκρῆτις, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,
116
Ξηρός, Συμεών, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκειακῶν, 110
Σαυλοϊωάννης, Γρηγορᾶς, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου,
115
Θεόδοτος, ἀσηκρῆτις, 116
Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου, 116
Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, ὕπατος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου, 116
Λέων, ἀσηκρῆτις, 115
Μιχαήλ, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 115
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 110, 111
Ν., βεστάρχης, 116
Χριστόφορος, ἀσηκρῆτις, (καὶ Στρυμῶνος ?), 111, 115
κριτὴς Θεσσαλονίκης,
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος 110,111
κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος,
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 110
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Θεσσαλονίκης, 110
Κύπρου, ἄρχων, σπαθάριος 48
Κωνσταντίνα, see Πεκουλίνα
Κωνσταντῖνος,
Γαβρᾶς, 93, 98
Θεοδωροκάνος, 131
Θεοδωροκάνος, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, 86
Θεοδωροκάνος, πατρίκιος, 85
Κλάδων, 56
Σκληρός, 119
Σπληνιάριος, πρόεδρος, γενικός, 54, 55, 67
πρόεδρος, 55
πρωτοσπαθάριος (?), ἀσηκρῆτις (?), δήμαρχος (?), ἀναγραφεὺς
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, πρωτονοτάριος, 54
ὕπατος, στρατηγὸς Κασσηνῶν, 49, 57, 58
Λαοδικείας, στρατηγός, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ
Χρυσοτρικλίνου, 49, 57
λαύρα, τοῦ Θεοδωροκάνου, 91

Λέων,
Ἀποστύπης, 73
Γαβρᾶς, καῖσαρ, 93, 94, 95, 104
ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 115, 118
βασιλικὸς νοτάριος, χρυσοτελής, 144
βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσεψητής, κουμερκιάριος Δύσεως καὶ
Δοραχίου, 141
χρυσοτελής Χαρσιανοῦ, 144
χρυσο(η)ψητής, 141
Λιναρᾶς, Στέφανος, βασιλικὸς σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσεψητής (?), 141
Lyon (findspot), 10
μάγιστρος, Ἀκτουάριος, Θεόδωρος, 55
μανδάτωρ, Θεόδωρος, καὶ φύλαξ (?), 45
Mangup / Theodoro, 98, 101, 102, 103
Μανιάκης, 50
Ἀλέξανδρος, βεστάρχης καὶ στρατηγός, 49, 51, 58, 59
Γεώργιος, 50, 84
Μανουήλ, 74
Διμύρης, 41
Διμύρης, σεβαστός, 40
Marash (Γερμανίκεια), 53
Μαρία, μοναχή, ζωστή, 131
Matracha / Tamatracha / Tmutarakan᾿, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128,
129
Μαυρόκαστρον, 129
Maximinus, praetorian prefect 7, 8
mazas, 17
μειζότερος τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου, Γρηγόριος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 143
Μελισσηνός, Νικηφόρος, μάγιστρος, βεστάρχης, κατεπάνω, 131
μεσάζων, Ἁγιοθεοδωρίτης, Ἰωάννης, 74, 75
Μεσημβρίας,
ἀναγραφεύς, Ν., ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, 54
Μεσοποταμίτης, Ἰωσήφ, 133
Μιχαήλ,
Κεφαλᾶς (?), βεστάρχης, 49, 60, 61
Σκληρός, πρωτοπρόεδρος, ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας, 117, 118, 119
Στυππειώτης, 73

Στυππειώτης, πατρίκιος, 73
Τζικάνδυλος (Τζυκανδύλης), 131
ἄρχων, δοὺξ Ζιχίας, Ματράχων καὶ πάσης Χαζαρίας, 125
ἄρχων, δοὺξ Ματράχων, πάσης Χαζαρίας, 124
ἄρχων Ματράχων, Ζιχήας καὶ πάσης Χαζαρίας, 124, 125
πρωτοσπαθάριος, χρυσοτελής, 144
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, πρωτονοτάριος, χρυσοτελής, 144
χρυσοτελὴς Κολωνείας, 144
Molibotos, Church of St. Nikolaos, 161
μοναχή, Μαρία, ζωστή, 131
μοναχός, Θεοδωροκάνος, Ἰωάννης, 81
Μόσχος, Πέτρος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, ἄρχων Δρουγουβιτείας, 117
Muzalonissa, Theophanu, ἀρχόντισσα Ῥουσίας, 125
μυστικός, Νικόλαος, 42
μυστογράφος, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου, 54
Νικήτας, χρυσοτελής (?), 145
Νικηφόρος,
Ἀλανός, βεστάρχης, κατεπάνω Χερσῶνος καὶ Χαζαρίας, 123
Θεοδωροκάνος, πατρίκιος, στρατηγός, 84
Μελισσηνός, μάγιστρος, βεστάρχης, κατεπάνω, 131
Ξιφίας, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Θρᾴκης καὶ Ἰωαννουπόλεως, 82
Τζουρούλης, κουροπαλάτης, βασιλικὸς χρυσοτελής, 144
Νικόλας (?), βασιλικὸς ὡρρειάριος, 54
Νικόλαος,
ἐπίσκοπος, Ἀτέλου, 121
κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 110, 111, 115
κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Θεσσαλονίκης, 110, 111
μυστικός, 42
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Θρᾳκησίων, 144
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Σάρδεων, 144
νοτάριος,
τοῦ φύλακος,
see Κεγχρῆς, Ἰωάννης
Λέων, χρυσοτελής, 144
Ξηρός, Συμεών, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκειακῶν, κριτὴς
Στρυμῶνος, 110
Ξιφίας, Νικηφόρος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, στρατηγὸς Θρᾴκης καὶ
Ἰωαννουπόλεως, 82
Odessa (findspot), 171, 173

Ohira (Achyraous), 34
Oleg Svjatoslavič, 123
Olgerd, king of Lithuania, 102
ὁλοσηρικοπράτης, 147
Παγκράτιος, ἄρχων τῶν χρυσοκλαβαρίων, 142
Πακουριάνος, Τατούλης, ἄρχων τῶν ἀρχόντων, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 49,
63, 64
Πακτιάρης, Ἀλέξιος, 99
Παλαιολόγος, Ἀνδρόνικος, Κομνηνοδούκας, 39
Paleo-kastro, 33
Palestine, 24, 47, 51, 52, 54, 56
Πανθήριος, χρυσο(η)ψητής, 141
Pannonia 7, 8, 12, 16
πανσεβάστη, Κομνηνή, Θεοδώρα, 131
πανσέβαστος, 74
Παραθαλασσία, 103
παρακοιμώμενος, Βασίλειος, 49, 51, 53, 62, 63
παραφύλαξ,
Ἀβύδου, Δαμιανός, κομμερκιάριος Θεσσαλονίκης, 47
Ἀβύδου, Ἰωάννης, χρυσεψητής, κομμερκιάριος, 141
patriarchs,
Συμεών, Ἀντιοχείας, 55
Nikolaos ΙΙΙ Grammatikos, 169
πατρίκιος,
Ἀλουσιάνος, στρατηγὸς Θεοδοσιουπόλεως, 84
Ἐλεσβάαμ, Ἰωάννης, ἀνθύπατος, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Θεοδωροκάνος, Κωνσταντῖνος, 85
Θεοδωροκάνος, Κωνσταντῖνος, ἀνθύπατος, 86
Θεοδωροκάνος, Νικηφόρος, στρατηγός, 84
Θεοδωροκάνος, Χατατούρης, κατεπάνω Ἐδέσσης, 87, 88
Θεοδωροκάνος, Ν., δοὺξ Ἀδριανοπολιτῶν, 83
Στυππειώτης, Μιχαήλ, 73
Τζιρίθων, Βασίλειος, ἀνθύπατος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
Βησήρ, στρατηγός, 48
Pelagonia, 108
Perateia, 99, 100
Πέτρος,
Μόσχος, σπαθαροκαδιδᾶτος, ἄρχων Δρουγουβιτείας, 117
βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἄρχων τῶν Δρουγουβιτῶν, 109

Phrangopouloi, 42
Phrangopoulos, Hervé, 42
Phullai, 101
πίστις, 27
praefectus praetorio, 7
praefectus urbis, 6
proconsul Asiae, Aeternalius, 8, 9
Πρόδρομος, Θεόδωρος, 73
πρόεδρος,
Σπληνιάριος, Κωνσταντῖνος, γενικός, 54, 67
Φραγγόπουλος, Θεόδωρος, 42
προεστὼς τῶν χρυσοχόων, 138
prosphora, 169
πρωτονοτάριος,
Κωνσταντῖνος, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, 54
Μιχαήλ, σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσοτελής, 144
πρωτονωβελλίσιμος,
Ἐλαιοδωρίτης, Στέφανος, 55
Πακουριάνος, Τατούλης, ἄρχων τῶν ἀρχόντων, 49, 63, 64
Στυππειώτης, Θεόδωρος, μέγας σακελλάριος, 71
Ἰωάννης, 51
πρωτοπρόεδρος, Σκληρός, Μιχαήλ, ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας, 117
πρωτοσέβαστος,
Βραχάμιος, Φιλάρετος, δομέστικος τῆς Ἀνατολῆς, 49, 60, 61
(β.) πρωτοσπαθάριος,
Θεοδωροκάνος, Βασίλειος, στρατηγός, 84
Θεοδωροκάνος, Γεώργιος, στρατηγὸς Σηών τοῦ Ἐρεβαρκείου, 83, 84
Κ…, Ἰωάννης, ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου καὶ
Ξηρός, Συμεών, ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκειακῶν, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος, 110
Ξιφίας, Νικηφόρος, στρατηγὸς Θρᾴκης καὶ Ἰωαννουπόλεως, 82
Σαυλοϊωάννης, Γρηγορᾶς, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου καὶ
Ἀναστάσιος, ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοχείου, 139
Θεόδουλος, ἐξάκτωρ, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Θεόδουλος, ὕπατος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς Δρουγουβιτείας, 116
Θεοδωροκάνος, στρατηγός, 84
Ἰσαάκιος, στρατηγὸς Δρουγουβιτείας, 114
Ἰωάννης, μυστογράφος, κριτὴς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἱπποδρόμου …, 54

Ἰωάννης, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Ἀρμενιακῶν, 145

Κωνσταντῖνος, ἀσηκρῆτις (?), δήμαρχος (?), ἀναγραφεὺς
Λέων, χρυσεψητής, κουμερκιάριος Δύσεως καὶ Δοραχίου, 141
Μιχαήλ, χρυσοτελής, 144
Νικόλαος, κριτὴς Στρυμῶνος καὶ Δρουγουβιτείας, 115
Πέτρος, ἄρχων τῶν Δρουγουβιτῶν, 109
(β.) πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου,
Κεγχρῆς, Ἰωάννης, νοτάριος τοῦ φύλακος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Ἀνατολικῶν,
144
Εὐθύμιος, θεσμογράφος, βασιλικὸς χρυσογλύπτης, 134
Θεοδωροκάνος, στρατηγὸς Ἀρτάχ, 83
Θεοδωροκάνος, ἀρχηγέτης Ἀνατολῆς, 83
Ἰωάννης, στρατηγὸς Λαοδικείας, 49, 57
Ἰωάννης, χρυσογλύπτης, 132
πρωτοσπαθάρισσα,
Πεκουλίνα, Εἰρήνη, τοποτηρήτισσα τῶν Κιββυραιτῶν, 53
Εἰρήνη, στρατήγισσα, 49, 64
ψυχοπομπός, 164
quaestor sacri palatii, 76
Ramla, 47
Rings, 26, 27
Rostislav, Vladimirovič, 123, 127
Ῥωμανός,
Θεοδωροκάνος, 91
ἀσηκρῆτις καὶ χρυσοτελής, 144
Ῥώς, 101
Σαγουδάτοι, 109
σακελλάριος (μέγας), Στυππειώτης, Θεόδωρος, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 71
Salik/Çemişgezek, 97
Σαραντηνός, 51
Sarcophagus/sarcophagi, 17, 20, 22
Sarkel / Belaja Veža, 126, 130
Σαυλοϊωάννης,
see Γρηγορᾶς
σεβαστή, Εὐδοκία, 55
σεβαστός, 62, 74, 101
Μανουήλ, Διμύρης, 40
Σεναχερείμ, 133
ἄρχων τοῦ χρυσοκλάβου, 143

Σέρραι, 113
σιλεντιάριος, 47
Sinope, 97, 98
Σκληρός,
Μιχαήλ, πρωτοπρόεδρος, ἀναγραφεὺς Δρουγουβιτείας, 117, 118, 119
Σμόλενα, 113
Solomon, 25
Sopianae, 8
σπαθάριος, ἄρχων Κύπρου, 47
σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος,
Λιναρᾶς, Στέφανος, χρυσεψητής (?), 141
Μόσχος, Πέτρος, ἄρχων Δρουγουβιτείας, 117
Βασίλειος, ἀσηκρῆτις, χρυσοτελὴς τοῦ Ἀνατολικοῦ, 144
Κωνσταντῖνος, πρωτονοτάριος, 54
Μιχαήλ, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας, 115
Μιχαήλ, πρωτονοτάριος, χρυσοτελής, 144
Νικόλαος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Θρᾳκησίων, 144
Νικόλαος, χρυσοτελὴς τῶν Σάρδεων, 144
Στέφανος, χρυσοτελὴς Πελοποννήσου, 145
Ν., ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀναγραφεὺς
Μεσημβρίας, 65
σπαθαροκουβικουλάριος, Ἰωάννης, χρυσοτελὴς Χαρσιανοῦ, 144
Σπληνιάριος,
Γεώργιος, 55
Κωνσταντῖνος, πρόεδρος, γενικός, 54, 55, 67
Stepan, Vasilyevich, 103
Στέφανος,
Ἐλαιοδωρίτης, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, 55
Λιναρᾶς, βασιλικὸς σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσεψητής (?), 141
βασιλικὸς σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος, χρυσοτελὴς Πελοποννήσου, 145
στρατήγισσα, Εἰρήνη, πρωτοσπαθάρισσα, 64
στρατηγός,
Ἀρτάχ, Θεοδωροκάνος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, 83
Δρουγουβιτείας, Ἰσαάκιος, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, 114, 117
Θεοδοσιουπόλεως, Ἀλουσιάνος, πατρίκιος, 84
Θρᾴκης καὶ Ἰωαννουπόλεως, Ξιφίας, Νικηφόρος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, 82
Κασσῆς, 50
Κασσηνῶν, Κωνσταντῖνος, ὕπατος, 49

Λαοδικείας, Ἰωάννης, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, 49

Σάμου, Θεοδωροκάνος, Γεώργιος, 83
Σηών τοῦ Ἐρεβαρκείου, Θεοδωροκάνος, Γεώργιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, 83
Χίου, Βεριβόης, 83
Θεοδωροκάνος, Βασίλειος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, 84
Θεοδωροκάνος, Γεώργιος, πρωτοσπαθάριος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χρυσοτρικλίνου, 84
Θεοδωροκάνος, Νικηφόρος, πατρίκιος, 84
Μανιάκης, Ἀλέξανδρος, βεστάρχης 49, 58, 59
Στουπιώτης, 73
Βησήρ, πατρίκιος, 48
Στ(ο)υπ(ε)ῖον, 73
Στραβορωμανός, Μανουήλ, πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, μέγας ἑταιρειάρχης, 128
Στρυμών, 107, 110, 115
Στυπειώτης, 73
Στυππειώτης,
Μιχαήλ, 73
Μιχαήλ, πατρίκιος, 73
Θεόδωρος, 73
Θεόδωρος,
γραμματικός, 79
δομέστικος τῶν Σχολῶν, 73
ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, 79
ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, δικαιοδότης, 76
ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, δικαιοδότης, μέγας λογιστὴς τῶν εὐαγῶν οἴκων /
σεκρέτων, 77, 79
πρωτονωβελλίσιμος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κανικλείου, 79
πρωτονωβελλίσιμος, μέγας σακελλάριος, 71, 79
ὑπογραμματεύς, 79
ὑπογραφεύς, 79
Sudak / Sougdaia, 100, 103
Συμεών,
Ξηρός, βασιλικὸς πρωτοσπαθάριος, ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκειακῶν, κριτὴς
Στρυμῶνος, 110
πατριάρχης Ἀντιοχείας, 55
σχολαί,
see δομέστικος τῶν σχολῶν
Σωτηρούπολις, 50, 127
Τάναϊς (river), 122, 128
Τανεσμάν, 128
Ταρωνίτης, Θεοδωροκάνος, Ἄνθημος, 90

Τατούλης,
see Πακουριάνος
Temer / Timur / Temir, 102
Τζικάνδυλος (Τζυκανδύλης), Μιχαήλ, 131
Τζιρίθων, Βασίλειος, ἀνθύπατος, πατρίκιος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
Τζουρούλης, Νικηφόρος, κουροπαλάτης, βασιλικὸς χρυσοτελής, 144
Theodoro / Mangup, 98, 102
Tetrarch, 5
Τζοτζίκιος,
τοποτηρήτισσα, Πεκουλίνα, Εἰρήνη, πρωτοσπαθάρισσα, 53
Τορνίκης, Νικήτας, 131
Trapezunt, 93, 96, 97, 100
Trier, 7
Τρίκογχος,
see ἀτρικλίνης τῆς Τρικόγχου, 42
Valentinian I, 7, 8
ὕπατος,
Καραντηνός, Βάρδας, ἄνθρωπος τοῦ βασιλέως, 49, 50, 58, 59
Θεόδουλος, πρωτοσπαθάριος, κριτὴς τοῦ βήλου καὶ τῆς
Ἰωάννης, χρυσ(ο)εψητής, ἄρχων τοῦ βλαττίου, 140
Κωνσταντῖνος, στρατηγὸς Κασσηνῶν, 49, 57, 58
Χριστόφορος, 34
Χριστόφορος, ἀτρικλίνης τῆς Τρικόγχου, 42
Φιλάρετος, Βραχάμιος, πρωτοσέβαστος, δομέστικος τῆς Ἀνατολῆς, 49
Φιλιππούπολις, 82
Φραγγόπουλος,
Ἐρβέβιος, 42
Θεόδοτος, 41
Θεόδωρος, 42
Θεόδωρος, πρόεδρος,42
Λέων, 42
φύλαξ (?), Θεόδωρος, μανδάτωρ, 45
Χαζαρία 122, 123, 124, 125, 126
Χανδρηνός,
Γεώργιος, 44
Εὐστάθιος, 45
Ἰωάννης, (?), 45

Λέων, 44
Νικόλαος, 44
Χατατούρης, Θεοδωροκάνος, πατρίκιος, κατεπάνω Ἐδέσσης, 87, 88
Χριστόφορος,
ἀσηκρῆτις, κριτὴς Δρουγουβιτείας (καὶ Στρυμῶνος ?), 111, 115, 118,
119
ὕπατος, 34
ὕπατος καὶ ἀτρικλίνης τῆς Τρικόνχου, 42
χρυσοτελής, 144
χρυσαμοιβός, 147
(β.) χρυσογλύπτης, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 141, 143, 147
χρυσ(ο)επιλέκτης, 145
χρυσ(ο)εψητής, 138, 140, 140, 141, 142, 143
χρυσοκλαβάριος, 142, 143, 145, 146
χρυσόκλαβον, 135, 142, 143
χρυσοκόπος, 145
χρυσοπλύσια, 142, 143
χρυσοσηρικοπράτης, 147
χρυσοτέλεια, 144, 145
χρυσοτελής, 144, 145
χρυσοϋποδέκτης, 146, 147
χρυσοχεῖον, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141
χρυσοχ(ό)ος / χρυσοχ(ό)οι, 135, 136, 138, 140, 143
Ἀντώνιος, διάκονος, 136
Εὐγένιος, πρεσβύτερος, 136
χρυσώνης, 147
χρυσωτής, 147
(β.) ὡρρειάριος, 54
Νικόλας (?), 54
Ν., 66

Index of Iconography
Abraham, 17, 18 teaching the apostles, 20, 21

Anchor, with Peter and Paul (?), 21
see fish Jonah, 14
Apostles, 20 Kriophoros, 12
Paul (?), 21, 22 Lamb (of God), 19, 23, 24
Peter 21, 22 Lion, 15, 25, 28, 29
Ascension, 29 Lion’s den, 15
Babylonian dragon, 16, 17 Loros, 35, 37
Bird, 178 Mandorla, 29
Bull, 28, 29 Married couple 13, 14, 26, 27
Chiton, 36, 37, 40, 46 Married couple with child 14
Christogram, 5, 6, 7, 19, 26; (with Nimbus cruciger, 35, 36, 40
a wreath of Victory), 27 Noah᾿s arc, 22
Constantine IX Monomachos, 35 Noah᾿s dove, 22, 23
Constantine X Doukas, 37 paludamentum, 4, 9
Cross, 11, 13, 19, 26, 28, 35, 37, Peacock, 178
170, 175, 177, 178, 179 Pearl, 35
Crown, 21, 35, 37 Pellet, 27, 35, 37
Daniel, 15, 16, 17 Rider 24, 25
Demon (femal), 25 Rosette, 180
Diadem, 21 Saints,
Divitision, 35, 37 Basileios, standing, 62, 63,
Dove, 19, 22, 23 Demetrios, bust, 84
Eagle, 28, 29 Eustathios, bust, 38; standing,
Fish flanking anchor, 9, 10, 11 58
Globus cruciger, 35, 37, 151, 164 Euthymios, bust, 134
Good Sheperd, 11, 12, 13, 14, George, bust, 82, 84, 85
15, 16 George as martyr and Theo-
Hand of the Lord, 71, 72 tokos, standing, 89
Holy rider, 24, 25 John Chrysostomos, bust, 132
Horse, 23, 25 John Prodromos, bust, 110;
Isaac, 17, 18 standing, 57, 90
Jesus Christ (bust), 35; (seated Michael, bust, 58, 59, 61, 151,
on throne), 36; (standing, 153; standing: 61, 62,
suppedaneum), 40 123, 125
blessing the breads, 175 Michael ὁ Χωνιάτης, 124
Index of Iconography
Nikolaos, bust, 60, 151-152, Episkepsis type (bust), 121

154; standing, 90 Hagiosoritissa type (standing),
Nikolaos, with “tongues of 123
fire”, 163 “Minimalorantengestus”
Theodoros, 159, bust: 38, (minimal orans) type, 64,
standing: 43, 59, 63 66, 91
Scepter, 35 Nikopoios type, 65, 67 (en-
Shield, 38, 43 throned), 89 (standing)
Sheep, 11, 13, 14, 23 Enthroned, with Child, 41
Spear, 25, 43 (Galaktotrophousa?), 46
stamp (bread stamp), 167, 168, standing and blessing, 37
169, 170, 171, 174 Tongues of fire, 154, 157, 162
stamps (cruciform), 176, 179, 180 Tunica, 11, 16
Suppedaneum, 40 Victoria holding palm branch
Tetramorph, 28, 29 and wreath, 4
Theotokos, Virgin, see Theotokos
Blachernitissa type (standing), Warrior, 25, 38
95

Index of Metrical Inscriptions
(1)
Ἀνδρονίκου σφράγισμα Παλαιολόγου
Κομνηνοδουκῶν ἐκ ῥίζης ἀνακτόρων, 39
(2)
Γραφὰς σφραγίζω καὶ λόγους τοὺς ἐγγράφους
Θωμᾶ δικαστοῦ Δρουγουβιτείας ὅλης, 114
(3)
Ἐγὼ τὸ κῦρος καὶ γραφαῖς (καὶ) πρακτέοις
δικαιοδότου καὶ κανικλείου νέμω, 72
(4)
Εἰκόνα βροτῶν καὶ ὠμὸν φέρεις λίθον
ὄρος νοητὸν πρὸς γραφὰς ἔχειν κῦρος
Ἀλέξιος .κιτ.πονα….ς, 46
(5)
Εὐγενιώτην, χρυσεπής, Βάρδαν σκέποις, 133
(6)
Θεοδότου σφράγισμα τοῦ Φραγγοπούλου
σκέποις, Πάναγνε τοῦ Θεοῦ μήτηρ Λόγου, 41
(7)
Θεόδωρόν με τὸν Στυππειώτην γένει
πρωτονωβελλίσιμον ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας
μέγαν σακελλάριον ὕψοθεν σκέποις, 72
(8)
Θεοδώρου σφράγισμα τοῦ Στυππειώτου, 72
(9)
Ὁμωνύμῳ σῷ τῷ παρακοιμωμένῳ
νίκας κατ᾿ ἐχθρῶν πρυτανεύσεις, τρισμάκαρ, 63
Index of Metrical Inscriptions
(10)
Ποταμὲ χρυσόρρειθρε διδασκαλίας,
σκέποις Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Μεσοποταμίτην, 133
(11)
Σεναχερεὶμ οἰκέτην δικολογοῦντα
ὁμωνυμοῦντα, Χρυσορρήμων, δίδοις σκέπη, 133
(12)
Σκέποις Ἀνθήμῳ τῷ Ταρωνίτῃ, μάκαρ,
νωβελλισίμῳ τῷ Θεοδωροκάνῳ, 90
(13)
Σφραγὶς γενοῦ μοι καὶ κράτος, Θεοῦ Λόγε,
οἰκτρῷ Μανουὴλ σεβαστῷ τῷ Διμύρῃ, 40
(14)
Σφράγισμα γραφῶν Χανδρηνοῦ Γεωργίου, 44
(15)
Τῷ Δοξαπάτρει τῷ φύλακι τῶν νόμων
σύγκρινε, θύτα Κυρίου, χρυσοῦν στόμα, 133
(16)
Φερώνυμος σὴν φυλακὴν Θείαν, μάκαρ,
Εὐγενιώτῃ προσνέμοις, χρυσορρόα, 133


SBS-13, 2019 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SBS-13, 2019 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

STUDIES IN BYZANTINE

Published with the financial support of the “Association Internationale des

Cover design: Theodoridis Graphic Arts. Garibaldi str.10, GR-45221,

Cover illustration: Seal of Theodoros Styppeiotes (collection A.-K. Wassiliou-

© 2019, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium.

Printed on acid-free paper.

NEW FINDS AND SEAL COLLECTIONS

Gert Boersema, A Dutch Collection of Late Antique and

Vera Bulgurlu, The Byzantine Lead Seals in the Balıkesir

Jean-Claude Cheynet, Sceaux du xie siècle trouvés en Palestine 47

Werner Seibt, The Theodorokanoi. Members of the

Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt, Leon Gabras

ADMINISTRATION, HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY,

Werner Seibt, Ἐπίσκoπος τῆς Ἀτέλου. Residierte der Bischof

Christos Stavrakos – Christos Tsatsoulis, A

Ioanna Koltsida-Makre, The Collection of Byzantine

Index of Proper Names and Terms 185

Index of Iconography 205

Index of Metrical Inscriptions 207

The idea to establish a special periodical for Byzantine sigillography goes

The sigillographic community, gathered at the 23rd International

Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt – Christos Stavrakos

ADSV: Antičnaja Drevnost᾿ i Srednie Veka

De adm. imp.: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed.

JÖB: Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (formerly Jahrbuch der Öster­

Leontiades, Θεσσαλονίκη: I. G. Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα του Μουσείου

edition by J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1989); IV, by V. Laurent (Paris, 1971);

Wassiliou, Corpus II: Al.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel

A Dutch Collection of Late Antique and

Studies in Byzantine Sigillography. Volume 13, ed. by Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt

Obverse: [CON]STANTINVS IVN NOB C; laureate bust to right.

The dignity of nobilissimus caesar identifies the owner of this seal as

2) Bassus (second half of the 4th c.-early 5th c.)

Obverse: large christogram with circular legend BACCOC Φ.

Two parallel examples provenienced to Cherson and environs are in

3) Maximinus, praetorian prefect of Gaul (371–76)

Obverse: MAXIM-[I]NE; draped, bare-headed bust to right within

Seals naming Maximinus are known in relatively large numbers and

problem that Maximinus’ seals were predominantly found in another

4) Aeternalius, proconsul of Asia (396)

Obverse: AETE[RNA]LIUS; facing, bare-headed bust of Aeternalius,

Obverse: Two fish flanking anchor.

the fish simultaneously, and this is wonderfully captured by Tertullian in

6) Good Shepherd (4th c.)

Obverse: in upper register, Good Shepherd, standing facing, wearing tu-

A seal from the collection of J. G. Kiss, Hungary (fig. A), probably

of a child added between the busts of the married couple. He is prob-

8) Good Shepherd and Jonah (?) (4th c.)

Obverse: in upper register, Good Shepherd standing facing, wearing

9) Daniel in the lion’s den (4th c.)

Matthew 12:39–41 and 16:4; Luke 11:29–32.

Jensen (2000) 173.

Obverse: Daniel, nimbate, wearing short tunic, standing right, feeding

The scene refers to the last of the deuterocanonical additions to the

11a, b) The sacrifice of Isaac (first half of the 4th c.)

Obverse: Abraham standing right, holding dagger in uplifted right hand

Obverse: Lamb of God to right, head facing, wearing nimbus; above

The Lamb of God also appears on a lead seal published by Spier. 52

Obverse: same as 13a but X in upper field uncertain.

A lead seal with similar iconography but no inscription is described

seated in the traditional pose of Christ as teacher (see the discussion

15) Noah’s dove (first half of the 4th c.)

Obverse: within pearled circle, Noah’s dove standing left on branch;

Jean-Claude Cheynet, Sceaux du xie siècle trouvés en Palestine 47

Index of Proper Names and Terms 185

Index of Iconography 205

Index of Metrical Inscriptions 207

JÖB: Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (formerly Jahrbuch der Öster

edition by J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1989); IV, by V. Laurent (Paris, 1971);