Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations

21 2018 ISSN 1301-2746 ADALYA The Annual of the Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations (OFFPRINT) ADALYA The Annual of the Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations (AKMED) Adalya, a peer reviewed publication, is indexed in the A&HCI (Arts & Humanities Citation Index) and CC/A&H (Current Contents / Arts & Humanities) Adalya is indexed in the Social Sciences and Humanities Database of TÜBİTAK/ULAKBİM TR index. Mode of publication Publisher certificate number ISSN Publisher management Worldwide periodical 18318 1301-2746 Koç University Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Sarıyer / İstanbul Publisher Editor-in-chief Editor Advisory Board English copyediting © Production Printing Mailing address E-mail address Umran Savaş İnan, President, on behalf of Koç University Oğuz Tekin Tarkan Kahya (Members serve for a period of five years) Prof. Dr. Engin Akyürek, Koç University (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Mustafa Adak, Akdeniz University (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Nicholas D. Cahill, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Thomas Corsten, Universität Wien (2014-2018) Prof. Dr. Edhem Eldem, Boğaziçi University / Collège de France (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan, Emeritus, Istanbul University (2016-2020) Prof. Dr. C. Brian Rose, University of Pennsylvania (2018-2022) Prof. Dr. Christof Schuler, DAI München (2017-2021) Prof. Dr. R. R. R. Smith, University of Oxford (2016-2020) Mark Wilson Koç University AKMED, 2018 Zero Production Ltd. Abdullah Sok. No. 17 Taksim 34433 İstanbul Tel: +90 (212) 244 75 21 • Fax: +90 (212) 244 32 09 [email protected]; www.zerobooksonline.com Oksijen Basım ve Matbaacılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. 100. Yıl Mah. Matbaacılar Sit. 2. Cad. No: 202/A Bağcılar - İstanbul Tel: +90 (212) 325 71 25 • Fax: +90 (212) 325 61 99 Certificate number: 29487 Barbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 22 Kaleiçi 07100 Antalya - TURKEY Tel: +90 (242) 243 42 74 • Fax: +90 (242) 243 80 13 https://akmed.ku.edu.tr [email protected] Contents Gizem Kartal The Neolithic Cave Settlements of the Antalya Region in Southwestern Anatolia: A Comparative Perspective in Terms of Chipped Stone Assemblages ........................................................................................... 1 Derya Yalçıklı Two Neolithic Ritual Centers in East Mysia (NW Turkey): The Baltalıin and İnkaya Caves ............................. 19 Nurcan Kayacan Oval Points and Cattle-Hunting Practices in Central Anatolia during the 8th Millennium BC ..................... 45 Yalçın Kamış Acemhöyük Buluntuları Işığında Erken Tunç Çağı’nda Orta Anadolu’nun Güneyinde Çark Yapımı Seramiğin Ortaya Çıkışı ...................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Murat Akar – Demet Kara Into the Hinterland: The Middle Bronze Age Building at Toprakhisar Höyük, Altınözü (Hatay, Turkey) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Gonca Dardeniz – K. Serdar Girginer – Özlem Oyman-Girginer A Pottery Kiln from Tatarlı Höyük (Adana, Turkey) and its Implications for Late Bronze Age Pottery Production in Cilicia and Beyond ......................................................................................................................................................... 117 S. Gökhan Tiryaki The Sanctuary with the Relief of the “Twelve Gods” in the Elmalı Highlands: On the Iconography of “Leto, her children, and the Nymphs” in Ancient Southwest Anatolia ............................................................................. 135 Elif Özer – Murat Taşkıran The Sillyon Main City Gate .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 151 Şükrü Özüdoğru – Düzgün Tarkan Kibyra Geç Antikçağ Hamamı ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Mustafa Adak Die Melas-Brücke bei Kotenna und die Familie des Stanamoas ................................................................................................. Urs Peschlow Die Gabriel-Platte in Antalya. Rekonstruktion und ursprünglicher Kontext Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 211 ................................................................ 229 .................................................................................................................................................................... 245 Aytaç Dönmez Xanthos West Agora II: Alteration and Transformation in the Byzantine Period ...................................................... 277 Contents IV Hüseyin Metin – Salih Soslu The Altıkapılı Cave Church at Pisidia .................................................................................................................................................................. 315 Merih Erol Becoming Protestant: Greek Orthodox Responses to Conversion in 19 th-Century Ottoman Anatolia .. 335 Evren Dayar 1853 Antalya İsyanı ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 363 Funda Solmaz Şakar – Neriman Şahin Güçhan Building System Characterization of Traditional Architecture in Cappadocia, Turkey ..................................... 379 ADALYA 21, 2018 Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations Ünal DEMİRER – Nilgün ELAM * Abstract Öz In this article, twelve Byzantine lead seals found during the excavations of 2010-2017 in Kibyra Magna are, published. The inscriptions on these seals show that they formerly belonged to persons who can be identified with certain administrative and fiscal officials. They served between the 7th to early 8th centuries in the strategiai of the Anatolikoi and of the Kibyrraiotai, which then developed independently of the other themes. The seals in question include: those of an archon (Georgios) and two apo eparchontes (Pantoleon and Eusebios), a chartoularios (Theophylactos), a protector or protiktor (Martinos), and two prelates (Zotikos and Prokopios) who are thought to be the bishops of Kibyra Magna. The remaining five seals fall into anonymous category since no authority or family name of their owner is depicted on them. This study aims to present and evaluate their data concerning the history of the city and the region. Bu çalışmada Kibyra’da 2010-2017 yılları arasında yapılan kazılarda bulunan on iki adet Bizans kurşun mührü yayımlanmıştır. Üzerlerindeki yazıtlar, bu mühürlerin kuruluşu 7. yy. - 8. yy. başı arasında daha sonra birbirinden bağımsız birer thema’ya dönüşecek olan Anatolikoi ve Kibyrraiotai strategia’larında görev yapmış bir archon (Georgios), iki apo eparchon (Pantoleon ve Eusebios) gibi idari görevlilerle mali bir bürokrat olan bir chartoularios (Theophylaktos), bir protektor ya da proktiktor (Martinos) ve iki kent piskoposuna (Zotikos ve Prokopios) ait olduklarını göstermektedir. Geriye kalan beş mühür ise üzerlerinde herhangi bir makam ve aile ismi bulunmadığından anonim kategorisindedir. Bu çalışma, bu materyalin kent ve bölge tarihi ile ilgili verilerini sunmayı ve değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Keywords: Kibyra Magna, Byzantine sigillography, lead seals, monograms. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kibyra Magna, Bizans sigillografisi, kurşun mühürler, monogramlar. Seal impressions/seals1 found from around the 5th millennium B.C.2 onwards are usually double-faced official stamps that were, designed to prevent a document or object from unauthorized usage. Materials such as clay3 or wax were initially used as bullae in seals with a small ring in the neck or a hole within the seal through which a string or rope was * Assistant Prof. Dr. Ünal Demirer, MAKÜ GMYO, Mimari Restorasyon Programı, Gölhisar Burdur. E-mail: [email protected] Assistant Prof. Dr. Nilgün Elam, Anadolu University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of History, Eskişehir. E-mail: [email protected] 1 Cheynet – Caseau 2009, 133 write “The history of this tradition for Byzantine studies is complex, but G. Schlumberger, the founding father of Byzantine sigillography, is probably responsible for the use of the word ‘seal’ instead of ‘bulla’”. 2 Branigan 1976, 158; Feind 2010, 33. 3 It is suggested that the number of clay seals of the Roman period found only at Zeugma was 100,000; see Doksanaltı – Sağlan 2008, 79. 246 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam passed 4 . As a solution for the fragility and durability of such materials, the Romans began to use lead 5 (very rarely gold and silver), among the metals which are more durable and resilient and then compressed by double-mouthed boulloteria 6 . Lead seals (molybdobullae)7 were also usually used for commercial purposes in the Roman era8. Lead seals were also used extensively in the Byzantine world between the 5th and 15th centuries. In every area of life since the 6th century onwards, the use of sacred figures is evidence of the influence of Christianity. Along with iconographic elements, the name of the owner, his honorary title(s), his office along with the name of its location and sometime (but not always) his family name were depicted on the seals. Therefore, they provide important information on the administrative, military, social and religious issues of their time due to the religious symbols and titles on them. These titles and names provide important prosopographical information concerning the religious and bureaucratic hierarchy9. The office accompanied by the title of owner secure the authenticity of the document and trade goods on which the seals were bound. These elements symbolized trust in communication or commerce10. An important part of the lead seals of Byzantine Anatolia in the collections of Turkish museums have already been published by sigillographers of the Western world. During the last years, Byzantine seals found during excavations and preserved in inventories of archaeological museums or some private collections have started to attract the interest of Turkish researchers11. The city of Kibyra was situated at the intersection point of the Roman provinces of Phrygia, Pisidia, Caria and Lycia. After the administrative reform under Emperor Diocletian (284-305), the region in which the city is located was included in the administrative district of Caria12. After the abolition of the prefectural system, the city seems to have still been part of the administrative unit governed by a Quaestor Justinianus Exercitus who commanded the troops of Caria, Cyprus, Dodecanese, Cyclades, Moesia and Scythia13. After the establishment of the strategiai which developped to the themes, the military troops stationed in the region including Kibyra (Kibyratis) called droungos which formed the central core of an administrative district controlled by a droungarios. The narrative sources make us think that the region of Kibyratis the troops established geographi-cally would have been under the jurisdiction of a strategos 14 of the strategia (στρατηγία) of the Anatolikoi15. 4 Grünbart 2006, 13; Grierson, 1966, 239. 5 Cheynet 1997, 110; 2005, 39. 6 Bulgurlu 2007, 17-18; Cheynet 2010a, 97-98; Jordanov 2003, 187; Grierson 1966, 253, fig. 9; Nesbitt 1977, 111. 7 Feind 2010, 35. 8 Farhi 2009, 295. 9 Feind 2010, 37, Abb. 3; Oikonomides 1983, 147; Bulgurlu 2007, VII. 10 Jordanov 2003, 187. 11 Kaygusuz 1982, 299-306; Bulgurlu – İlaslı 2003, 131-151; Bulgurlu 2005, 251-260; Bulgurlu 2007; Bulgurlu 2011, 277- 292; Erol – Ünal 2012, 117-123; Elam 2015, 227-235; Elam 2017, 335-366; Elam forthcoming (a); Elam forthcoming (b). 12 Kapsalis 1968, 356-357. 13 Seeck 1876, 45. This status remained valid until the time of the emperor Justinian I. At that moment, the islands were detached from the administrative district of Asia and became part of Scythia; see Yannopoulos 1990, 203 n. 11. 14 For strategos (στρατηγòς), pl. strategoi (στρατηγοì) and his role in the Byzantine theme, see ODB, 1964, 2034- 2035. 15 The literary sources mention these four military districts -- Anatolikoi, Armenianiakoi, Opsikioi, and Thracesioi as “themes (θέματα)” and locate them in the final decades of the 7th century. The most important information comes Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 247 The territory was donated by the administrative authority and entrusted to strategoi in the last decades of the 8th century. The strategos of the Anatolikoi controlled the area stretching from the Aegean coast to Lycaonia and Isauria until the area of the exercitum Armenianus, which was organized as military district of the Armeniakoi. The eastern jurisdiction area of the Anatolikoi has been identified with the territories of the provinces of Pisidia, Lycaonia (partly), Cappadocia Secunda, Cappadocia Prima (partly), Galatia Secunda, Phrygia Pacatiana and Phrygia Salutaria. Amorion remained the capital city of the Anatolikoi until the Arab invasion in 838. After the fall of Amorion to the Arabs, the strategoi seem to have moved their office to Polybotoi (modern Bolvadin)16. After the detachment of the territories of the first Anatolian strategiai, the region including Caria, formerly under the control of the Anatolikoi and not the Karabisianoi17, was annexed to the new strategia (pl. strategiai) of the Kibyrraiotai from De Thematibus (Περί θεμάτων), the work of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetus, and many Tactica (military books of tactics) of that period as well as the political and military organization of the Byzantines; see De Thematibus, 13-39. The theme of the Armeniakoi is mentioned for the first time in Theophanes’ Chronographia in 667; see Theophanes 1883, 348, 352. The reference of the theme of the Anatolikoi in 669 is also mentioned. The theme of Opsikioi is mentioned for the first time in 680 on the lists of the officers who accompanied Emperor Constantine IV (668-685) during the Ecumenical Council; Mansi 11, 1765, 209. The theme of Thracesioi appears in 687 first in the iussio of Emperor Justinian II (685-695/705-711) to the Pope for the ratification of the acts of the 6th Ecumenical Synod (680/681), which also mention the naval theme of Karabisianoi; see Mansi 11, 1765, 737. The emergence of the themes is dated by the majority of researchers to the first half of the 7 th century. Modern historiography has adopted their term. Several theories have been formulated for the creation of this military and administrative unit. Ostrogorsky 1981, 163-165 argued that the themes founded under Emperor Heraclius (610641), shortly before or after the Persian War (620-628), constituted his military and administrative reform. The army was reorganized into major military units called “themes”, which settled in Anatolia in administrative units and took that name. Both the military and the civilian administration passed into the hands of the military unit’s head, strategos. This view, based on anachronistic references to the term “theme” in Theophanes’ Chronographia for the reign of Heraclius, has been contradicted; I. Karayannopoulos 1959, 16 formulated a second theory on the issue by suggesting the long-term evolution of this institution. It began in the Early Byzantine period (6th century) where the first examples exist of the union of the military and civilian administration under the military chief on the exarchates. He believed that, based on the fact that the military estates and consequently the institution of soldier-farmers are testified by the sources only in the 10th century, their existence before the end of the 9th century must be excluded. This view is partially contradicted by Lilie 1976, 29-30 who believed the emergence of the themes should be placed around 635-670 and should be seen as a consequence of the Arab attacks which led to new conditions on the eastern border of the Empire. The issue of the themes has become a major issue greatly discussied among historians. For the various views of scholars on the historical development of the themes see Kyriakides 1953, 392-394; Haussig 1957, 90-114; Koder 1990, 155-165; ODB 89-90, 2035; Treadgold 1997, 315; Haldon 1993, 8; and Lounghis 1998, 69-111, 113 ff. For further information see Vlysidou 1998, 69-111, esp. 89-91. 16 For the evolution of the theme of the Anatolikoi see Vlysidou 1998, 96-97; Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 203 n. 3, 218 n. 66; ODB 79-80. 17 Another “so-called theme” -- the Karabisianoi -- is unified by the scholars with the theme of the Kibyrraiotai as its allegedly origin. The Karabisianoi theme or theme of the Karabia (καράβια=ships), is considered a military and administrative unit of the Byzantine Empire from about the 7th to the 8th centuries. The fleet of the Kibyrraiotai evolved from the fleet and seafaring tradition of the Karabisianoi in the 8th century. For the discussions on this, see also Ahrweiler 1966, 19-31; Lemerle 1981, 154-162; Antoniades-Bibicou 1966, 63-98; Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1994, 150-151 and Pryor – Jeffreys 2006, 25, 32, 267; Another opinion suggests that the Karabisianoi came from the Quaestura exercitus of Justinian I (527-565). According to this view, they were greatly strengthened under Emperor Justinian II (685 - 695); see Haldon 1999, 8, 74; and Ragia 2004, 293-296. The first mention of the theme is in the 7th century during the reign of Constantine IV (668-685); see Leontsine 2001, 49-56 and Florin 2014, 276297. The first “strategos of the ships” refers to Sisinnios in the “Miracles of St. Demetrius” dated to around 680. Besides Sisinnios, two other generals of the Karabisianoi are documented by sigillographic evidence: Theophilos (710-711) and Ioannes (-715); see Avramea 1997, 100-101. The fleet constituting the theme is believed not to have had a territory or a permanent harbour, but stationed where the empire needed it. Some others believe that it had its headquarters in Pamphylia, Kalymnos, or Rhodes even perhaps Samos. According to this view, however, he had the administrative structure of a “theme” with a chief-general and inferior officials, so he was also referred to as a strategida or strategato. The fleet of the Karabisianoi was used against the Arabs in the 8th century. But after the revolt of the Karabisianoi’s strategos named Ioannes in 715, it was divided into smaller parts. It is believed that in this way the Kibyrraiotai emerged as a separate fleet as well as a naval “theme”; see ODB 1105-1106. Scholars who connect the personnel of these two navies seem to believe that they depended on a single naval command. Zuckerman 2005, 117-121 indicated reasonably that “this scholarly construction has no support in the sources and 248 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam presumably about 74018. The institution of vassilikon (imperial) kommerkion (pl. kommerkia) (or apotheka)19 of the strategia, which is considered the nucleus of the later Byzantine themes, developed from the 730s onward. Four examples of sigillographic material give evidence on the chronology of the establishment of the imperial kommerkia in the strategiai of the Anatolikoi and the Kibyrraiotai. Three of them belonged to officials of the kommerkion of the strategia of the Anatolikoi and the last one belonged to their counterpart in the strategia of the Kibyrraiotai. The first Anatolikoi seal dates to around 732/33-736/37, the second to 739/40, and the third to 920-95020. The first two coincide with the joint reign of Leo III and Constantine V (720-741) while the third with the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos (920-959) who gives extant information about the themes in his De Thematibus. The fourth seal issued by the imperial kommerkion of the strategia of the Kibyrraiotai is solid evidence for the chronology of its establishment to 739/4021 before the organization of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai22. The should be dismantled”. Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 203-217, 221 claimed earlier that until the last decades of the 8th century, we cannot talk about any Byzantine navy which can be connected with the so-called “theme of the Kibyrraiotai”. Based on the information provided by three Byzantine chroniclers this historian emphasize that in the 7th century there was not even any permanent Byzantine navy. Theophanes, Nikephoros and Zonaras record an encounter that occurred in 678 between the fleet of the Byzantines and the fleet of Arabs that was on its way home after five year-long unsuccessful siege of Constantinople. Their fleet was devastated by a terrible storm which dragged it to the coast of Syllaion (Sillyon) in Pamphylia. They also write that the Byzantine contingents fought against the enemy “on the coast” under the strategos of the Kibyrraiotai. However Byzantine troops which fought on the coast against the Arabs had no relation with a navy but were actually a land army; see Theophanes, 354.8ff.; Nikephoros, 32.21 ff.; and Zonaras 1870, 224.4-8. For the extant discussions on the alleged connection of the Karabiasianoi with the Kibyrraiotai, see Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 203-211, esp. 208-209. Vlyssidou 1998 (b), 153, n. 25 suggests that the navy of the Kibyraiotai was established by Emperor Leon III (717-741); see also Zuckerman 2005, 107-125. For Syllaion of Pamphylia see also Hild – Hellenkemper 2004, 395-402 and ODB 1980; For strategis see also ODB 1963. 18 The links between the Anatolikoi and the Kibyrraiotai districts seem not to have been broken even after their elevation to the rank of the “theme”. According to Tactica 1863, col. 980C-D dating to the reign of Leo VI (886 - 912), the strategos of the Kibyrraiotai was obliged to put at the disposal of the strategos of the Anatolikoi the adequate means necessary to transport by sea the forces of the Anatolikoi. Since such an obligation is not mentioned for other themes, this appears to be a tradition dating back to the time when the district of the Kibyrraiotai and their troops were still called a droungos and commanded by a droungarios. They formed a subaltern unit of the strategia of the Anatolikoi. This contrasts with the definition as the theme of Anatolikoi given by Yannopoulos 1991, 527, not. 38. For more on the droungos, see also ODB 664. 19 Late Roman administration system in provinces maintained in the 7 th century. It is considered that “it was adjusted to the late Roman provincial division in the 7th c., and at that time, at least, it would have been neither possible nor desirable to replace it with a completely new system”. The existence of the ἀποθῆκαι (apothekai, warehouses) of the provinces attests this information. The warehouses as an economic institution proves the idea that the provinces continued to play in this period a functional role. Thus, this shows that the “thematic” provincial administration, which is attested by the sources of the 10th century, is an institution which dates later than the 7th c. For apothekai see Ragia 2009, 195-243, especially 196-197; Ragia 2008-2012, 113-144. 20 The first is dated to 732/3 by Zacos - Veglery 1972, no. 245, while Nesbitt - Oikonomides 1996, no. 86.37 date to 736/37. The second seal found by N. Elam in the Pamukkale Museum (no. E 4203). The combination of titles on the Pamukkale seal makes it very interesting and unique, because there is not a parallel specimen which associates all its titles (imperial kommerkion of strategia of the Anatolikoi). On the other kommerkion seals only the title, imperial kommerkion, and the name of the location are visible, but not the special term strategia. The Pamukkale seal was first presented during the ARISTEIA workshop in 2015 at the Academy of Athens. For the details see Elam forthcoming (a), no. 1. For the third seal (Hermitage M6094) see SBS 1993, 172, n. 8. Among all the imperial kommerkia, only that of the Anatolikoi functioned until 776. The regular function of the institution is confirmed by the seals dated to 755/6, 758/9, 760/1, 773/4, and 776; see Ragia 2012, 125, n. 59. The seals related to the Byzantine “kommerkia of strategiai” were generally ignored by scholars until a seal of kommerkion of the Thrakesioi was quoted by Brandes 2002, 557, no. 234a; see also Cheynet 2010b, 9 and Zuckerman 2005, 131, 177. 21 For the emergence of the kommerkion of (the strategia) of the Kibyrraiotai see Zacos - Veglery 1972, no. 261; Brandes 2002, appendix 1, no. 236; Cheynet 2010b, 9, no. 5. Ragia 2008-2012, 130, n. 79. 22 Until the discovery of the related seals the time of establishment of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai, because of the silence of the literary sources, remained unknown. The question of the chronology of the theme as well as how it emerged (from which theme) has been expressed by the scholars in various point of views. According to the Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 249 strategos of the Kibyrraiotai is believed to have been based first in Syllaion and most probably Attaleia after the 9th century23. As examined recently by Zuckerman, although the Byzantine literary sources of the 7th century mention the settlement of the thematic armies in the Anatolian provinces, the themes took their full shape as administrative units in a long process which followed in the second half of the 8th century. The 300 year-long process of the development of Byzantine themes and the transformation of these military districts to administrative units was not completed until the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century. In order words, the themes were the product of the late 7th-early 9th centuries and originated in the late 7th-early 8th century strategiai, which go back to the exarchates of the Emperor Justinian I (527-565). The evolution and completion of the Byzantine theme as an administrative unit was accomplished by the iconoclastic emperors and completed by their Macedonian successors by creating a functional army. It also seems that the strategoi, who commanded the thematic armies, did not immediately become the civilian administrators of thematic land, where the soldiers were colonized. The emergence process for the theme of the Anatolikoi, which started with the colonization of military units on the ground in the 680s was completed especially by the 10th/11th century. But the time of creation of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai coincided with the detachment of the territory of the theme of Anatolikoi in the second half of the 8th century24. A new source for this view comes from the term “imperial kommerkion of strategia” (βασιλικόν κομμέρκιον στρατηγίας), which appears in the seals 25 worthy of a detailed earlier historiographical explanation, the “theme” of Kibyrraiotai was developed from the first known Byzantine maritime theme i.e. that of the Karabisianoi in early 8th century and before the Kibyrraiotai elevated to a theme their territory were governed by a drungarios who was subordinated to the strategos of the Karabisianoi”. When the Kibyrraiotai emerged as a “theme” in 731/2 (or 732/3, a date of their first strategos, named Manes, mentioned by Theophanes), the Karabisianoi allegedly vanished. See Savvides 1990, 139-165; Savvides 1989, 121-162; Savvides 1998, 24-45 (= Συμβολές, no. 25, 235-256). Gregoriadou-Ioannidou, rejecting the status attributed by scholars to Manes as first strategos of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai, stated that he was only the droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai, not an independent person from the strategos of the Anatolikoi, but completely subjected to the latter. See Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 203-212, 220, especially 211-212 and 217-218. The emergence date of the “theme” of the Kibyrraiotai discussed extantly by the scholars who put the date before 732. See Vlyssidou 1998 (b), 204, not. 25; Yannopoulos 1990, 212. Yannopoulos points out that other testimonies, except from Theophanes a 9th century source (Theophanes, 370.24) should be taken into account. In the Taktika of Emperor Leon VI (886912) the strategos of the Kibyrraiotai is recorded to have been obliged to put at the disposal of the strategos of the Anatolikoi. See Tactica, 1863, col. 980C-D. In 743/4 when Artavasdos strategos of Armeniakoi revolted, “a fleet of Kibyrraiotai” appeared to act on the side of the Emperor Konstantinos V (741-775) against the rebel general. The presence of the fleet of the Kibyrraiotai at this time clearly demonstrates the establishment of the first naval theme of the Byzantine State. Therefore, it seems reasonably to accept the idea that the “theme of the Kibyrraiotai” was established in the last years of the reign of Leo III (717-741) or at the beginning of the reign of Konstantinos V (741-775). It should be remembered that the thematic institution is a product of a long-lasting development. Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 220-221; For this long-process of the establishment of, especially, the theme of Anatolikoi (with sixteen other themes) see Vlysidou 1998, 69-111. Only during the reign of Konstantinos V (741775) one finds the first evidence of a unification of military and political authority under a strategos of the theme in the sense of the military-administrative institution. See I. Karayannopoulos 1956, 470, 501-502; Karayannopoulos 1959; especially 34ff, 59-71; Dölger 1955, 191, n. 1, 192; Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 221. For the literature on the Byzantine theme see Zuckerman 2005, 128-134. 23 For the theme of the Kibyrraiotai see Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 203-212; Savvides 1989, 121-162; Savvides 1998, 24-45; ODB 79-80. 24 For discussions regarding the formation process of the Byzantine themes and the importance of the strategiai in this process, see Zuckerman 2005, 127-134. For the evolution of the theme of the Anatolikoi and the relationship between the Anatolikoi and the Kibyrraiotai, see Vlyssidou 1998 (a), 69-111, esp. 90, n. 129 and 103. See also Krsmanovic, 2008, 20-21 and n. 38; 27-28 nn. 57, 59, 29; n. 67; 31; 39; 43; 58; 64; 65 n. 150; 65; 69; 76; 78 n. 5, 95 n. 99, 110, 162 n. 374; and 177 n. 16. 25 This group of three pieces consists of three Thrakesioi seals that were struck by the office of imperial kommerkion. The first is dated to 741/742 (indiction 10), the second to 745/746 (indiction 14) and the third to 744/745 (indiction 250 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam explanation. As is known, the kommerkiarioi of the 8th century were responsible for supplying military troops on behalf of the emperor26. After examining a seal belonging to the imperial kommerkion of the strategia of Hellas, Stavrakos stated that this title on the seals reveals that the Isaurian emperors since Leo III aimed for direct control of supplying military troops and taxes. It is also evidence of the transformation that occurred in these thematic posts in the 8th century. That is, the control of these posts had been transferred from the local officials (kommerkiarioi) to the domains of the strategoi, and hence attached directly to the control of the central administration. Their offices (in strategiai) were called imperial kommerkia (βασιλικὰ κομμέρκια)27. Cheynet, after examining the seals belonging to the Kibyrraiotai alongwith the Thracesioi and the Hellas that bear the same title, implies the existence of strategiai of the Kibyrraiotai (likewise of the other two) as new territorial divisions existing only since the 7th century28. He also claimed that the process of the establishment of strategia especially in Anatolia has been completed before the middle of the the 8th century. He emphasizes that “the seals are evidence for the definition of a provincial administrative reform in the whole Empire, which enacted ‘an extremely rational organization with valid rules’ in all provinces”. As noted by Cheynet, the dates of the seals enable us to follow the steps of territorialization and until the beginning of the 8th century29. On the difficulty of determining the exact time of the appearance of the themes, Cheynet thinks that the themes of the Anatolikoi (also Thracesioi and Hellas) had already gone through the same transformation at 744/45. In the final third of the 8th century the strategoi and their subordinate personnel, i.e. tourmarches, along with their locations of function, appear on their seals with the same title but with restricted authority30. As the posts of the strategoi, strategiai were officially in use around 750. Cheynet states that this development of the Isaurian period may have marked an important step in the evolution of the districts (strategiai) toward the themes. The small number of seals bearing the term “strategia” prohibits definitive conclusions, as Cheynet underlines, and their concentration within a few years is probably not a coincidence. So the appearance of the first land-owner 13). All were struck during the joint reign of Leon III and Constantine V (720-741). The last piece has the legend “imperial kommerkion of the strategia of Hellas” and dates to 738/739 (indiction 7). See Zacos - Veglery 1972, no. 261. Munich Staatmuseum no. 499 and Seibt-Zarnitz 1997, no. 1-3-8 (ind. 14 [745-746]. The Hellas seal was firstly published by Schlumberger and examined later by other researchers; see Schlumberger 1895, 221-222, no. 37, drawing; Konstantopoulos 1917, no. 35; Lihacev 1924, 107-198, no. 8; Millet 1924, 313-314, fig. 37; Laurent 1929-1930, 622, no. 4; Bibicou 1963, 231, no. 67; Zacos - Veglery 1972, no. 254. See also Brandes 2002, 556; and Stavrakos 2010, 149-150. 26 For the imperial reforms on the kommerkiarioi, see Oikonomides 1986, 33-53; and Cheynet 2010b, 3; For kommerkiarioi generally see Oikonomides 1972, 113,33; 313, 343; Cheynet 2010b, 7; ODB 1141. 27 Brandes 2002, 556; Nesbitt - Oikonomides 1994, no. 8 stated that “the term strategia of Hellas was used before the appearance of the term ‘theme of Hellas’”. Stavrakos follows the opinion Nesbitt and Oikonomides. After examining the bulla of imperial kommerkion of the strategia of Hellas dated to 738/739 and that of the imperial kommerkion of diocese of Hellas dated to 736/737 Stavrakos 2010, 160, no. 444 concluded that “they are evidence of a shift in the control of imperial kommerkion from diocese to a more central economical department of the themata, i.e. strategia, so that it would be under the control of the strategos of Hellas”. 28 Cheynet 2010b, 10. 29 Cheynet notes also that no sign exists indicating an existing link between the new commanders and the administration of traditional provinces. A bulla of a topoteretes of Pakatiane of the first half of the 8th century is the only evidence of a link between a military command and a traditional province. For the Pakatiane seal see Seibt – Wassiliou Seibt 2004, no. 339. Cheynet 2010b, 11-12, note 45 also underlines that in these dates the topoteretes was an officer of the tagmata but not of the military themes, that is, the new provinces. The tagma, (pl. tagmata) unit of the elite regiments created by the Byzantine emperor Constantine V and formed the central army of the empire in the 8th to 11th centuries. For tagma see ODB 2007. 30 Cheynet 2010b, 12. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 251 families of Anatolia as representatives of the military aristocracy under the Isaurian emperors is a natural result. This shows, according to Cheynet, “a certain stability which corresponds to a provincial organisation of older troops and leads to the formation of territorial themes during the first half of the 8th century”31. Having accepted the possibility of the creation of some new but relatively small-scaled military posts to fight against Arabs and the Slavs, Cheynet suggests that primitive functions may have transformed later, giving example of the disappearance of the themes of Thracesianoi, Karabisianoi, or Hellas. He argues that this significant course of change was not realized immediately, and that complete authority in thematic administration was not suddenly transferred to the same person, i.e. strategos. He states also that “the strategoi did not hand over the fiscal functions, because the ‘old Roman dioceses’ were acting within the framework of the divided districts into the traditional provinces. In addition to that kommerkiarioi and their appointments have been put into practice directly depends upon the the imperial decision since the reign of Leo III”32. Cheynet locates the reform of the provincial administration, which created large military units, that is στρατηγίαι in Anatolia, between the 7th-9th centuries33, not in the time of the emperor Constantine V (741-775), but specifically in the reign of Leo III (717-741)34. Remembering also that the Arab invasions continued to harass the territory of the Anatolikoi until the 10th century, the reason for the necessary long-range formation of the themes can be understood. This transitional period between the old and the new administrative systems was completed as thematic formation with its political-military feature during the 10th century, as indicated by B. Krsmanovic35. Kibyra is confused by Theophanes with the other Kibyra (Kibyra Mikra of Isauria)36 and is located by Constantine VII erroneously among the coastal cities along the coasts of Isauria37. He does not even mention it perhaps because of his lack of interest in the cities of inland of Anatolia38. However, as duly noted by Yannopoulos, there were two cities named Kibyra in 31 Cheynet 2010b, 13. 32 Cheynet 2010b, 14. 33 Cheynet 2010b, 14. 34 Cheynet 2010b, 10. 35 Krsmanovic 2008, 20-22, 24, 58, 64, 76, 86, 100, 130, 174, and 176. 36 In his narration Theophanes Theophanes 1838, 367.10-12 omits Kibyra Magna (Great), but refers to Kibyra Mikra (Small). Yannopoulos 1991, 524, not. 26 thinks that Theophanes does not mention Kibyra Magna. We think the Byzantine historian actually mentions Kibyra Magna but confuses the city with coastal Kibyra Mikra, because of the same reasons as Constantine VII. 37 Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos (913-959) located Kibyra between Antiochia Micra and Selinonte, and recorded that the name of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai was derived from Kibyra. See De Thematibus, 1952, 79.25-27: “… Ἀντιόχεια ἡ μικρά. Ἒπειτα Κιβύρρα πόλις ἐκείνη, …εἶτα Σελινοῦς, μικρόν πολισμάτιον ...”, 79.35-39: “καὶ τοσαύτη μἑν ἡ τοῦ Κιβυρραιώτου περιοχή. Ἒλαβε δἑ τἡν προσωνυμίαν, ὥσπερ ἔφαμεν, τοῦ καλεῖσθαι Κιβυρραώτης ἀπὁ Κιβύρρας, εὐτελοῦς καὶ ἀκατονομάστου πολίσματος ...”, 152; Yannopoulos believes that Constantine VII speaks only of the Kibyra Mikra which is located along the coasts of Isauria, between Selinonte and Antiochia Mikra, and seems to ignore the Kibyra Magna of Caria. Yannopoulos 1991, 524, not. 23, 527 thinks that Kibyra Magna is not even mentioned by the Notitiae Episcopatuum, and the conciliar acts are completely silent. However we think that the city mentioned by the Notitiae and the conciliar records as Kibyra is Kibyra Magna not Kibyra Mikra. In our communication Hild expressed his opinion to us that that he does not believe that the name of “Kibyrraiotai is coming from Kibyra; Yannopoulos pointed out that the Emperor did not know the district making many mistakes without having mentioned the names of the more important cities. 38 In his De Thematibus, the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos does not mention cities like Kibyra located in the interior of Anatolia, but only places useful to define the boundaries of the themes. For the theme of the Kibyrraiotai in particular, he seems to have disposed texts to be able to mention the boundaries of the theme and to locate the cities. But neither Hierocles nor the Notitia Episcopatuum is attributed to the emperor Leo VI the Wise and patriarch Photios (858-867, 877-886) seem to be among the sources he quoted because the De Thematibus 79, 252 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam the Anatolian territory covered by the strategia/theme of the Kibyrraiotai39. Kibyra Magna located in Caria and near the borders of Lycia was well-known in Antiquity. It was the center of the whole the region called Kabalida of Caria. It was the chief city of the district Kibyratis. In 84 B.C. the city was occupied by the Romans. During the reform of Diocletian, the province of Asia was divided into smaller seven ones: Lydia, Caria, some Aegean islands, Phrygia Pacatiana, Phrygia Salutaria, and Pamphylia. The emperor had Kibyra encompassed in the administrative district “prefecture of Caria”, which was governed by a “provincial proconsul” in each province40. The city appeared also as an episcopal seat, dependent on Aphrodisias/ Stauropolis (city of the Cross), the Ecclesiastical Metropolis of Caria. The city remained as a suffragan bishopric of the metropolitans of Stauropolis until the 7 th century. Hierocles mentions Kibyra as the second largest settlement (οἰκισμός) of Caria after the city of Stauropolis41. Kibyra was represented in eight Ecumenical Councils. Bishop Letodios (Λετόδιος) or Letodoros (Λετόδωρος) attended the first Council held in Nicaea (325)42. Leontios (Λεόντιος) participated in the Council of Constantinople (381)43; Apellas (Ἀπελλᾶς) took part in the Council of Ephesos (431)44. The city seems to have not been represented at the Council of Chalcedon (451), while bishop Erasmios or Erasimos was present at the second Council of Constantinople (553)45. The bishop of Kibyra was absent at the third Council of Constantinople 31-38 does not mention several coastal cities mentioned by these two sources. See De Thematibus. Emphasizing this fact, Yannopoulos states that the documents consulted by Constantine VII should not have been unfamiliar to the army, since all the cities he mentioned were of strategic importance. The emperor’s care to specify the position of the islands, coastal towns, mouths of rivers, capes, and sometimes distances, indicates that his sources on the coastal cities were of maritime origin, a species of portolan charts. This explains not only the presence of Little Kibyra in the enumeration of the cities of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai, but also the presence of other settlements known only for their port facilities. Yannopoulos 1991, 527-529 claimed that the etymological origin of the theme of Kibyrraiotai is coming from Kibyra of Caria, not the other small coastal town Kibyra of Isauria, as Constantine VII writes. He added the main reason was the emperor’s ignorance about the existence of the important city of Kibyra in Caria; see Yannopoulos 1987, 161-163, and especially 1989, 307-314. Yannopoulos 1991, 527, not. 29529 states that contemporary historiography overestimated Constantine VII’s knowledge and sense of precision, something to be continually controlled. He criticizes Loungis 1990 saying that he “cannot follow Loungis, who attributes to Constantine VII fabulous knowledge and considers the emperor as an infallible authority, even whose errors are voluntary in order to make the reading of his writings impossible”. 39 Yannopoulos Yannopoulos 1991, 520-529 excluding the other homonymous cities, identified Carian Kibyra as the city from which the name of the theme of Kibyrraiotai originated. For the theme of Kibyrraiotai see also ODB 1127. 40 Under Galerius and Maximinus (305-311) the province of Pisidia was detached from the province of Lycaonia and annexed to the diocese of Asiana; see Jones 1964, 43, 284-602; Kapsalis 1968, 356-357; Yannopoulos 1991, 524-525. See also the quotation from ancient sources by Pertusi 1952, 151, as well as the brief bibliography in Janin 1951, col. 826-827. 41 Hierocles Synecdemus, 690.1, 33; De Thematibus, 79.35: “... καὶ παρέρχεται τἡν Ταυρόπολιν ...” 79.39: “Καὶ τοσαύτη μἑν ἡ τοῦ Κιβυρραιώτου περιοχή. Lequien 1740, 904 locates Kibyra in Caria. However, Turner 1899, 76-77 identifies Kibyra as Kibyra Mikra, another episcopal seat (modern Horzum of Adana) in provincia Isauria. Laurent 1963, 382 adopted the Turner’s localization. Fedalto 1988, 196 and Ruggieri 1996, 229 followed the Lequien’s identification and put Kibyra as an episcopal seat in Caria. Kibyra is mentioned in the ecclesiastical lists given by Notitia Episcopatuum; See Notitia 1, 284, Notitia 2, 347; Notitia 3, 465; Notita 4, 302; Notitia 7, 362; Notita 9, 244; Notitia 10, 296; Notitia 13, 300; also Darrouzès 1981 and Janin 1912, coll. 826-827. Yannopoulos 1991, 525 identifies Kibyra as a part of the Caria and locates it in its correct geographical location two km west of a village named Horzum in the Gölhisar district of Burdur province. 42 Lequien 1740, 904 named the prelate Leontios I; Turner 1899, 76-77 called him Letodorus; According to Janin 1912, col. 826 he was Letodorus who attended the first council of Nicaea in 325; Fedalto 1988, 196 and Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233 follow Turner. 43 Lequien 1740, 904 named the bishop Leontios II; see also Turner 1907, II, 460-461; Fedalto 1988, 196, Ruggieri 1996, 229. 44 ACO, I, I, II, 5.64: “Ἀπελλᾶ Κιβύρας”; 1,1,7, 86.64: “Ἀπελλᾶ Κιβύρας”; Fedalto, 1988, 196; Ruggieri, 1996, 229, 233. 45 ACO, IV, I, 6.25; 23.5; 35.19; 42.7; 206.16: “Erasimo reuerentissimo episcopo Cibyrae”, ACO, IV, I, 228, 25: “Erasimus misericordia dei episcopus Cibyritanorum civitatis”; Fedalto 1988, 196; Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 253 (680/681)46. The participation of Kibyra’s bishop named Paulos (Παῦλος) in the meetings of the Quinisextum Council (690/691) is evidenced by his signature47. Bishop Gregorios (Γρηγόριος) participated in the second Council of Nicaea (787)48 and Stephanos (Στέφανος) in the Council of Constantinople (869)49. The sigillographic material brings two unknown bishops of Kibyra to light. A seal dated to the second half of the 9th century is evidence of the existence of a bishop named Basilios and reads Βασίλιος, ἐπίσκοπος Κηβύ[ρ(ρας)]50. The name of a second bishop of the city, Prokopios (Προκόπιος), is provided by his seal of the 10th century. It reads ἐπίσκοπος Κιβύρρα(ς)51. 1 - Georgios archon (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2010-51 Context: Upper Agora, 1st Terrace Diameter: 27 mm. Parallel(s): Obv.: Inscription of three lines. + ΘEOTO| KEBOH| ΘΗ: Θεοτόκε βοήθῃ [Mother of God (Theotokos) aid]52 Rev.:Inscription of four lines. Inscription starts with a small cross. Border of dots. + ΓΕωP|ΓΙΑP|ΧΟΝΤ|ωC Γεωργίου ἄρχοντως [(sic.) instead of ἄρχοντος)]: of archon Georgios Commentary: On the reverse the title of the owner is depicted. Archon (pl. archontes) (ἄρχων, pl. ἄρχοντες) was a title derived from the Greek verb “ἄρχω”, (“to rule, administer).” Archon is a very rare title and observed only after the 6th century on seals53. Synonymous with megistana (μεγιστάνα) and dynatos (δυνατός), the term archon was given to any official who obtained power in the Byzantine world. High-ranking officials like strategoi (στρατηγοί), as well as personal servants or friends of emperor (οἰκείοι), were also given this honorary title. Archontes carried out various special duties54. The archontes of Aegean islands like Crete and Cyprus as well as Dalmatia are listed in the 9th century Taktikon of Uspenskij. Archon, except for being a title of any powerful noble or magnate, is technically, used to refer to a class of provincial governors. In the 8th to 9th centuries, archontes appear as governors of certain peripheral provinces like Dalmatia, Cephaloni, Crete and Cyprus, which are inferior in status to the themata. Based on the seals dated to the 10th-12th centuries that, commemorate the archontes as governors of various cities like Krateia 46 Lequien 1740, 904; Darrouzès 1975, 45; Fedalto 1988, 196; Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233. 47 Lequien 1740, 904 does not mention his name. Ohme 1990, no. 167, 163 and 296 shows him as the bishop of Kibyra: “Παῦλος επίσκοπος πόλεως Κιβύρας”; see also Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233. 48 Mansi 13, 1767, col. 393Β:. “Γρηγόριος ἀνάξιος ἐπίσκοπος Κιβύρης”; Fedalto 1988, 196; Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233. 49 Mansi 14, 1769, col. 44D: “Stephano amicissimo episcopo Cibyrae.”; Fedalto 1988, 196; Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233. 50 Cheynet – Morrisson – Seibt 1991, 174, no. 254; Perhaps two additional seals can be attributed to this prelate. See Laurent 1963, no. 648 and Laurent 1972, no. 1793. Seibt 1974, no. 76 and 79 proposed a correction of its reading. Oikonomides 1974, 747 suggested a different reading for it. 51 Laurent 1963, no. 520; Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1994, no: 68.1; Ruggieri 1996, 229, n. 51. 52 Diethart 1982, 79-82; Oikonomides 1985, 11; Bulgurlu 2007, 24. 53 Petrides 1906, 215-216; ODB 160. 54 Tsougarakis 1990, 141. 254 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam (Gerede), Claudioupolis (Bolu), Chrysopolis (Shkodra) and Athens, it is assumed that the term archontia (ἀρχοντία) referred to the area under the control of an archon55. Archontes were also placed in charge of various naval bases and trade stations as well as semi-autonomous Slavic-inhabited areas (Sclaviniae) under Byzantine sovereignty. The holders of several financial posts also received this title, such as the head of the mint (ἄρχων τῆς χαραγῆς) and administrators of the imperial workshops, arsenals, etc. Foreign rulers were also honored with this title56. In the 8th to 9th centuries, the title archon was considered important but of secondary rank between the other charges (chartularios, protonotarios, tourmarches). These titles are also most often associated with the dignity of kandidatos57. It is necessary to say a few words about the region and the period to which the Kibyra seal belongs. The narrations of Nikephoros and Theophanes give some clues by recording the defeat of Byzantine ships against the Arabs in 697/8. The chroniclers write that the command of these ships was entrusted by Emperor Leontios to the patrician Ioannes, who attempted to retake Carthage from the Arabs but failed. On their way to home, while on Crete, the officers and soldiers deposed Ioannes. Renouncing Leontios they proclaimed Apsimaros as emperor. In his work Nikephoros writes “… and they elected a man named Apsimaros who happened to be the archon (leader), what the Romans used to call droungarios”, and “he commanded an army which consisted of the people named Kourikiotai, who originated from (or resided in) a region subordinated to the Kibyrraiotai…” Theophanes writes with almost same words: “… and they elected Apsimaros as emperor and re-named him as Tiberios, who happened to be droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai and he was one of the people named Kourikiotai …”. Nikephoros recognizes Apsimaros the archon as the droungarios of the military garrison (στρατός) originating from (or residing in) Korykos (or Kourikos) which was subordinated to the Kibyrraiotai58. 55 ODB 160. 56 Schlumberger 1884, 412 stated: “It was called ‘the Byzantine archons’, as we said in the West “‘the barons, the high French barons’”; see also Herrin 1975, 260; Munro-Hay 1991, 145; Bulgurlu 2007, 257. 57 Nichanian 2013, 618. 58 Nikephoros 1880, 40.1-4: “... ψηφίζονται δἑ Ἀψίμαρον ὅνομα, στρατοῦ ἂρχοντα τῶν Κουρικιωτῶν τυγχάνοντα, τῆς ὑπὁ Κιβυρραιωτῶν χώρας, ὂν δρουγγράριον ‘Ρωμαίοις καλεῖν ἔθος”. Theophanes 1883, 370.23-25: “… ψηφισάμενοι βασιλέα Ἀψίμαρον δρουγγάριον τῶν Κιβυρραιωτῶν εἰς Κουρικιώτας ὑπάρχοντα Τιβέριον αυτον μετονομάσαντες …”. The record of Theophanes who relates Apsimaros to the Kibyrraiotai and that of Nikephoros who describes Apsimaros as the “droungarios of army of Kourikiotai” have been extensively debated by modern historiography. Zonaras 1870, 224.4-8 is the only chronicler who mentions a droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai that commanded the troops from Korykos (a city will be connected to the theme of Seleucia) already in 698. The account of three Byzantine chroniclers is also available in Leon Grammatikos’ Chronographia 166.11. Pertusi 1952, 151-152 translated as: “being chief of the army of the Kourikiotes of the region under the jurisdiction of the Kibyrraiotai”. He proposed that this would respect much better the structure and the logic of the text of Nikephoros. Pertusi also noted that these Κουρικιῶται could not be the inhabitants of Korykos, because in this case they would have to have the name of Κωρυκαῖοι. Therefore, these are soldiers “residing in Korykos”, without being from the city. So the Kibyrraiotai must also be “soldiers residing in Kibyra” without originated from the city. See also Yannopoulos 1991, 523, n. 19-21. Antoniadis-Bibicou 1966, 95, n. 5 argued that “the droungarios Apsimaros simply commanded an army composed of the people of Korykos”, adding that their native town was no longer part of the empire. But a seal from this period showed the existence of a kommerkiarios and an apotheke in Korykos disproving, we think, only the second part of her argument. Compare Schlumberger 1905, no. 215 dated by Zacos - Veglery 1972, 180, to 690/1. Wassiliou-Seibt (in TIB 8) 2004, 407 states that the narration of the Byzantine historians on a strategos of the Kibyrraiotai (638) is anachronistic because their definition of Apsimaros as drungarios (698) is related to a period prior to the establishment of the theme of the Kibyrraiotai. Mango – Scott 1997, 517 suggested that the passage regarding Nikephoros may describe only “the squadron of Korykos”. Recalling that no droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai or Kourikiotai is attested elsewhere, Zuckerman 2005, 122-123, 141-142 points out that Theophanes introduces Apsimaros as the droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai. But he also writes that this officer is someone who actually belonged to the Kourikiotai, which can be identified with “the squadron Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 255 The records of Theophanes, who relates Apsimaros with the Kibyrraiotai, and of Nikephoros, who describes Apsimaros as the droungarios of the forces of Kourikiotai whose town subordinated to the territory of (the people of) Kibyra (Κιβυρραιωτῶν χώρα), may be ample evidence of the administrative priority of this Kibyra to Korykos. Combining the information of these two Byzantine historians with the data given by the two seals belonging to an archon of Kibyrraiotai (ἂρχων τῶν Κιβυρραιωτῶν), Zuckerman claimed that Apsimaros may be defined as the first attested civilian official of the Kibyrraiotai59, just like the patrician (eunuch) Ioannes who was appointed by Leontios as commander of the same naval campaign towards Carthage60. This is evidence of the non-existence of an organized Byzantine navy in 698 (see n. 17), which is strengthened also by the accounts of three Byzantine chroniclers who write about another fight given by the Byzantine armies against the Arab fleet off the coast of Finike (714/15). Theophanes, Nikephoros, and Zonaras write that any imperial servant upon whom the emperors relied could be assigned to the command of the “alleged Byzantine navy”, just like the civil bureaucrat (genikos logothetes) Ioannes was chosen by the emperor Anastasios II (713-715) to fight against the Arab fleet in that year61. This information reveals that neither Ioannes nor Apsimaros or the last Ioannes were professionals who had distinguished themselves in seafaring or proved their talent in maritime affairs but were civil bureaucrats. The command of the land forces on ships was entrusted to Ioannes, while Apsimaros was chosen by his people because he was already their leader in the district of the Kibyrraiotai where they were residing or had originated. The interpretation regarding the position of Apsimaros, before his ascent to the Byzantine throne as Tiberios III (698-705), may be also applied to the status of Georgios, owner of our Kibyra seal. It could be amply reliable evidence on the status of the archon Georgios who seems to have shared a similar fate with Apsimaros. They were endowed of Korykos”. Korykos is defined as the base of “the major naval command” of this time. Hild and Hellenkemper determined that Apsimaros was droungarios of the Kourikiotai, commander of the fleet of Korykos and also the high-commander on the Kibyrraiotai ships and droungarios of Kibyrraiotai. For Korykos and further discussion on Apsimaros’ status, see Hild – Hellenkemper 1990, 46, 315, esp. 316, not. 34, 403, nn (esp.) 64, 77-80. But there is a very important detail that the scholars have overlooked. As already argued by Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 207221, esp. 212-218 a droungarios was only a subaltern officer of the strategos, commander of a land army; therefore, “droungarios of the Kibyrraiotai” can only be the commander of a droungos, which consisted of a thousand men, under the command of a strategos of the Kibyrraiotai. Neither strategos nor droungarios corresponded to naval posts in Byzantine military terminology of the 7th to 8th centuries because the Byzantine naval organization was still under construction. Therefore, droungarios should be considered an officer of the land army. It is a fact that the Byzantium, which in the vital geographical area included large segments of the sea, during its early epoch (324565) showed little interest in its marine power until the continuing Arab naval threat after the two unsuccessful sieges of the Arab fleets against Constantinople in 673-678 and 717-718. The Byzantines possessed neither any unified and independent (from land army) naval administration nor specific naval posts or titles. They had the same titles applied to the land army like strategos, droungarios etc. The phenomenon is observed even when there was a unified naval command under a strategos, and later when the naval forces have been divided into an imperial and thematic fleet, the naval operations often run not by naval officials of career but any officials who were judged worthy of it. All necessary for someone to be assigned to the highest command of a naval campaign was to gain the trust of the emperor. See Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982, 207-221, esp. 203-204 and 211-219, suggested that the existence of the Kibyrraiotai as a particular maritime theme could be accepted only when the naval forces were characterized/mentioned specifically as the naval forces of the Kibyrraiotai. 59 Wassiliou-Seibt in TIB 8, 2004 407, 412-413, n. 146 defines the archon as “das Oberhaupt fremdstämmiger Völkerschaften (the head of foreign tribes)” Zuckermann 2005, 123, not. 143 thinks that in this case the term ἂρχων could not designate “the head of foreign tribes”. 60 Theophanes, 370.8-9; Nikephoros, 39.15-16; For the other patricians who led an expedition against Cherson of Crimea in 711 see Theophanes, 377.22 ff and 379.17 ff.; Nikephoros, 44.14ff and 46.16 ff. 61 According to Theophanes and Nikephoros another civil bureaucrat Georgios (genikos logothetes) was among the commanders who were sent in a mission against Cherson in 711. See Theophanes, 385.9ff.; Nikephoros, 50.19ff; For the assignement of the civil officials by the emperors the command of armies see Ioannes Skylitzes, 183.61; Leon Grammatikos, 66.2. 256 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam with the same title which means the same authority as city governors as well as its hinterland. In the 7th century, as indicated above, although the establishment of the first thematic armies (under the command of strategoi) had already started in the Anatolian plateau, the civil authority was still in the hands of the representatives of the old Roman ruling elite. In this context, we may conclude that our seal testifies to the existence of an archon who was established in Kibyra as an active actor of the old state administrative system, still in valid under the strategos of the Anatolikoi. 2 - Pantoleon apo eparchon (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2011-5 Context: Agora, Colonaded Street Diameter: 22,5 mm. Parallel(s): The most important parallel is another seal of Pantoleon struck from the same boulloterion and found in Limyra. It is now preserved in the Antalya Museum collection (Museum Inv. No. 2008/B 159). Obv.: Inscription of three lines. Border of dots. ΠΑΝΤ|OΛΕΟΝ|ΤΟC Rev.: Inscription of three lines. Border of dots. AΠΟ|ΕΠΑΡΧ|ωN Παντολέοντος ἀπὁ ἐπάρχων (of Pantoleon apo eparchon) Seibt notes that several other persons named Pantoleon are known by their seals from the same period. But none of these seals resembles our seal, but only that of one Pantoleon who appears with the title of imperial spatharios62. Commentary: Eparchy (ἐπαρχία) was the Greek equivalent of the praefectum, i.e. province of the Roman Empire. For this reason, eparchy was used especially in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire to identify the provinces63. The dignity of apo eparchon (ἀπὁ ἐπάρχων) or apo hyparchon (ἀπὁ ὑπάρχων) (Lat. Praefectus praetorio: former provincial governor) is attested since the 5th century64. The title ex- prefectus refers in fact to an honorary charge, that of former prefect of the cities or the praetorio who was no longer in office or who had obtained honorary office. In other words, it is equivalent to an imperially awarded title whose origin lies in the dignities of the late Roman period65. 62 Seibt 1978, 178; Cheynet et alii 2012, no. 5.67; PBE: Pantoleon 3. 63 Zadornov 2016, 122. 64 According to the 5th century Byzantine historian Zosimos, it was an honorary title, created in the period of the Constantine I (324-337) and not corresponding to any office. It was given to the emperor’s closest relatives and children. In Byzantine protocol, the provincial governor “praefectus praetorio” was even above him; see Zosimus 1887, 98.5-18; see De cerimoniis, 158; Guilland 1982, 31. The symbol of the title was a diploma made of ivory. However the title was removed after 1100; see also Bury 1911, 22, 121, 124; Guilland 1967, 132-169; Guilland 1976, VII-XIV; ODB 1600; Schlumberger 1884, 506. Herrin 1975, 253-284 stated that “studies of the administrative structure rely heavily on lists of officials and their honorary titles and on records of persons attending important functions at court, which reflect the significance attached to particular posts and the seniority of offices.” The list of the offices is as follows: hypatos from ca. 690, but mainly to the early 8th century until 822/3; apo hypaton mainly ca. 630 to ca. 697; patrikios 659 onwards, 690/2 to 708; protospatharios 727 to 729; spatharios 825 to 826; stratelates 679/80, up to 689/90; scribon until 691/2; balnitor 718/19 to 724/5; apo eparchon mainly from 698/9 to 720-ca. 729; kandidatos, 717?; silentiarios 776 to 780; see Metcalf 2013, 129-130; cf. Bulgurlu 2007, 256. 65 On this dignity, see ODB 133-134; 1911, 23 ff.; Vitale 2014, 6-7; Oikonomides 1972, 296; Guilland 1982, 30-44; Guilland 1967, 1, 159, 343; 2, 81, 115, 221-222, 225; Haldon 1990, 393. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 257 The importance of the dignity is testified in the middle of the 7 th century. The numerous seals of the 7th and early 8th centuries are the evidence that the dignity of apo eparchon as well as stratelates (master of the militia) and silentiarios represent titular senatorial dignities in late Roman times. Apo eparchon, as a senatorial dignity could be combined with other titles66. As a member of the late Roman senatorial elite, the existence of holders of this dignity, indicate the dominance of the privileged landowning aristocracy67. In the 7th century these dignity-holders reached the summit of the Byzantine hierarchy, and its holders held a place in the group of first – degree - functionaries together with master of militia and chief. But the excessive increase in the number of dignity-holders seems to have caused its distinctive status to cease. This led to its devaluation and rapid disappearance in the first half of the 8th century like other senatorial dignities. The relatively reduced frequency of this dignity on seals indicates the low value of dignity as early as the 7th century. This decrease in the number of dignities may not be related to the devolution of its holders over time, but to the subordinate level of the functions exercised by the small number of active apo eparchontes in the administration. The subordinated position of the apo eparchontes may also have led them not to strike seals in a significant number. The circulation of the seals mentioning a dignitary like apo eparchon in a geographical region comes into prominence because it reveals its social surface and the influence of dignity owners. But the dignity was quickly devalued since from the second half of the 6th century, second-ranked officials could acquire the dignities of ex-prefect or stratelates. These new conditions challenged the apo eparchontes’ status or functions and caused to its quick reduction to the second rank. As a main factor, the difficulties of public finances at the time contributed to the continuous detoriation of the position of the dignity68. Only one apo eparchon is attested in a textual source the last praefectus Praetorio of Italy, Theodoros “Kalliopas”. At a later stage of his career in the 7th century he was promoted to patrician and exarchos of Italy69. Therefore, the 7th century formed a decisive step in the career of civil servants like these apo eparchontes. The transformations of the time threatened the members of these dignityholders to a senatorial class of landowners and senior officials. In the same period, holders of the dignity of apo eparchon survived and still occupied a median position. The dignity listed after the patricians and consuls but before the stratelates. However, in the first third of the 8th century with the disappearance of the dignities of stratelates and illustrious and the dignity of apo eparchon falling to the lowest level of dignities, the apo eparchon fell to the lowest level of dignities. In the first third of the 8th century, new “imperial” dignities appeared, and the majority of the members of this class along with those titled stratelates and illustrious disappeared completely. The sigillographic study of the apo eparchontes confirms the survival of certain ruling class beyond the 7th century, which passes through into the service of the emperor and the imperial administration70. But the new position of apo eparchontes reveals an erosion in the institutional structures of Late Antiquity. As seen frequently on the seals of this century, the members of this class lost their former privileges and authority, something related to the 66 Winkelmann 1985, 45ff; Nichanian 2013, 605-606. 67 Haldon 1990, 393, 394, 396, n. 62, 385 sates this turning point to the second half of the 7th century onwards; Nichanian 2013, 605, 607. 68 Haldon dates this turning point to the 2nd half of the 7th century onward. See Haldon 1990, 393, 394, 396, not. 62, 385; Nichanian 2013, 605-606. 69 Laurent 1962, no. 99 = Zacos – Veglery 1972, no. 2923 = DOSeals 1 no 2.2: Theodore apo eparchon and eparchos (= exarchos) of Italy. On the exarchos see Liber pontificalis, I, 332 and 338 (PmbZ no 7295): Nichanian 2013, 605. 70 Nichanian 2013, 606-607. 258 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam collapse of the old functions in the 8th century. Although for the 7th century, in contrast to the 8th century, it is difficult to differentiate a function usually associated with this dignity, the apo eparchon stand mostly alone and, not with any other dignity which corresponded to a function or office71. Now the holders of the senatorial dignity of apo eparchon, like hypatos (consul)72, seems to have been confined to secondary military and especially civil functions, i.e. control of state workshops or toll collection; such as notarioi, chartoularioi, etc).73 The dignity of the apo eparchon is never associated with new functions corresponding with real military or civil authority, such as strategos or logothetes (λογοθέτης)74, but only with former functions deprived of their power or the new secondary charges. Only the seals of kommerkiarioi (κομμερκιάριοι)75 at the beginning of the 8th century who begin to use the title apo eparchon testify to the recovery of the old senatorial dignity by a class of tradesmen or imperial administrators. They were enriched by the collection of customs duties and by the imperial apotheke management, and thus acquired a title. The dignity of the apo eparchon is not mentioned in the Taktikon Uspenskij of 842, and shows that it did not survive the 9th century, for it is mentioned for the last time at the end of that century. Philotheos’ Kletorologion written in 89976 presents it as the lowest senatorial dignity, immediately below the title of silentiarios77. Reiske followed by Guilland, based on a passage Kletorologion, considered that the 71 Nichanian 2013, 606-607; ODB 133-134. 72 Hypatos (ὓπατος) is the Greek equivalent of the Roman consul. In the 6th century hypatos and apo hypaton (ex- consul) became honorary titles and lost their importance over time. In the Philotheos’ Kletorologion, the hypatos is listed after spatharios. Several seals show that the hypatos was associated with spatharios. In the 10th century Tactikon of Escorial, hypatos appears as an office with judiciary functions. See Oikonomides 1972, 296, 325. The texts of the 11th century again present hypatos as a dignity but a higher rank than the protospatharios. It disappeared after 1111. See Oikonomides 1972, 296, 325; Seibt 1978, 342-346; ODB 963-964. 73 Bury 1911, 23-24; Guilland 1982, 30-44; Oikonomides 1972, 89,12; 99,15; Brubaker - Haldon 2011, 593; Haldon 1990, 199, n. 104. 74 Logothetai appear as high official sekretikoi (bureaucrats) in the Tactica of the 9th and 10th centuries, specifically as heads of one of the many departments but not with exclusively fiscal functions. The origin is not clear. The Notitia Dignitatum does not include the term, but it was common in the 6th century as a designation for fiscal controllers on various levels of the administrative ladder. The seals of simple logothetai are concentrated in the 6th to 7th centuries. Their status radically changed around the 7th century when the office of Praetorian prefect lost its importance and individual departments became independent. The chiefs of some departments (Dromos, Genikon, Stratiotikon and Agelai) were named logothetai (λογοθέτης του δρόμου, λογοθέτης του γενικού, λογοθέτης του στρατιωτικού, λογοθέτης των αγέλων). Under Emperor Alexios I (1081-1118) the civil administration tried to be coordinated under the control of a single official, i.e. logothetes ton sekreton whom the megas logotheres replaced later. The bureau (sekreton) of a logothetes, logothesion, is visible through the 11th century. For the detailed information see Guilland 1971, 5-10; ODB 1245-1248. Notarios (Νοτάριος), notary was a title of officials who were responsible for registering transactions and certifying documents. They are mentioned by various names (Notarios, taboullarios, tabellion, symboliographos, nomikos), whose meaning changed in time. Late Roman notarii were primarily stenographers who recorded the minutes of important meetings, while Byzantine tabullarioi were officials. They were often involved in fiscal operations and served in numerous departments in Constantinople as well as provinces. Seals of the imperial taboullarioi are concentrated in the 6 th to 7th centuries. Since the 6th century their major function was restricted to the preparation of documents (a function described by the term “symboliographos/contract composers”). The guild of taboullarioi, as defined by the Book of the Eparchos, formed a private body under the control of imperial authorities. 75 Kommerkiarioi first appear during the reign of emperor Anastasios (491-518 AD). Oikonomides 1986, 33-53 writes “These officials were responsible the collection of kommerkion, a tax on the circulation and sale of the goods”. For further information see Morrisson – Seibt 1982, 223; Ragia 2009, 197-198; Nichanian 2013, 606-607. 76 Oikonomides 1972, 89, 12 and 99, 15. 77 ODB 133-134; Nichanian 2013, 606. A silentiarios (σιλεντιάριος) was a court attendant whose first duty was to secure order and silence in the palace. These office-holders are first mentioned in 326/28. Low-ranking servants at the time of Constantine I, the silentairioi became spectabiles in the 5th century, and their decuriones were illustres in the 6th century. In the late 5th century one of them became emperor, i.e. Anastasios I. After the 6th century their role decreased and became ceremonial. In tactica and on seals the term is used as a title, not an office. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 259 title of apo eparchon was equivalent to the stratelates of the themes (ἡ τοῦ στρατηλάτου ἐπὶ θεμάτων ἀξία ἤτοι ἡ ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων ὀνομαζομένη). According to Nichanian this was an attempt to reattach the origin of the title apo eparchon to the old prefects (governors of provinces or eparchies) instead of to the ex-prefects (former governors) of the Byzantine capital city. Nichanian points out that “the reasoning for linking the apo eparchon to the obscure expression of ‘stratelates of themes’ and drawing an indication of their status as provincial governor is unclear, because the title of stratelates refers to the master of late Roman militia and in no case to a civilian governor”. Nichanian emphasizes that Reiske’s attempt to dissociate the title of apo eparchon from the Late Antique honorary charge of ex-prefect is due to the extreme devaluation of the title in the 9th century. He adds that, like the honorary office of prefect, stratelates belonged to the group of first-degree functions that followed exactly the same evolution and was even, in terms of precedence, immediately inferior to the dignity of the apo eparchon in the 7th century78. The sigillographic material with the old civil dignitaries is the main evidence for the continuation of the Late Roman administrative system in the Byzantine provinces during the 7th to 8th centuries. A seal from the early 8th century belonging to another Pantoleon who appears as “imperial kandidatos and archon of Theologos (Ephesos)”79 represents solid evidence for this continuation. Pantoleon appears on a chronogically earlier seal as a paraphylax, which reveals his position. He was guardian of St. John the Theologos whose church and relics were preserved inside the walls of the fortress80. Combining this with the aforementioned seal, it is understood that Pantoleon was later honored with the dignity of imperial kandidatos and promoted to the rank of archon, i.e. governor of Ephesos 81. As for Pantoleon, the owner of our seal, might have been an administrative official in charge who was established in Kibyra (or Aphrodisias, metropolis of Caria addressed to his collocutor in Kibyra) and responsible for a state workshop in the service of the emperor. This seal seems to have been struck in a period when Pantoleon was positioned under the control of a strategos of the Anatolikoi, but with valid civilian authorities. Our seal also indicates the existence of a low-ranking land-owner class in Kibyra, the region Kibyratis. They were honored with the dignity of the apo eparchon and charged with controlling state workshop(s) in the service of the imperial administration. Moreover, it is evidence of an apo eparchon in charge of Kibyra who was responsible for its urban administration in behalf of the central administrative mechanism. We think the Kibyra seal with an old Roman civil dignity (apo eparchon) indicates that the Late Roman administrative system continued in Byzantine Kibyratis during the 7th century. Oikonomides 1972, 296 thinks that the last datable mention of silentiarios comes from the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas but Guilland 1967, pt. 17, 33-46 concludes that silentiarioi still existed in the 11th-12th centuries. For further on silentiarios, see Bury 1911, 24-35; ODB 1896. 78 Guilland 1982, 31; De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae, 158; Nichanian 2013, 605-606. 79 Zacos – Veglery 1972, no. 2282A. 80 Theophanes, 469-470: “εἰς Ἒφεσον καὶ εἰς τὁν Θεολόγον εὐξάμενος τὁ κωμέρκιν ...”; Genesios, 121: “Ἱωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου τῆς ἐπαρχίας ...”; Anna Komnena, 2, 91.14: “.... πόλιν τινἁ Ἐφεσίων ... ἐν ᾗ πάλαι τέμενος ἐπ’ ὀνόματι Ἱωάννου ἀποστόλου τοῦ θεολόγου ἵδρυτο. καὶ ... ἂλλα φρούρια ...”. 81 Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1996, 30, no. 14.1; PBE: Pantoleon 11; For the archontes serving in coastal areas, see Ahrweiler 1966, 54-61 and esp. 58 n. 3 and 270 n. 3. Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam 260 3 - Eusebios apo eparchon (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2016-9 Context: Agora, Tholos Nymphaeum. Diameter: 29 mm. Parallel: Obv: Cruciform invocative monogram. Type I 82. Θ at center, HE ligated to the left, B at bottom, K on the right and TO ligated at top. ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ (Θεοτόκε βοήθει): Mother of God (Theotokos) aid Rev: + ΕVC|ΕBIωAΠ|OΕΠAP|XωN Εὐσεβίῳ ἀπὁ ἐπάρχων Theotokos (Mother of God), aid apo eparchon Eusebios! Commentary: This second seal strengths the idea that in the 7th century Kibyra was governed by a governor in charge (in the city itself or in Aphrodisias, metropolis of Caria), as part of the strategia of the Anatolikoi in which the military forces were established and controlled by a strategos83. 4 - Prokopios (?) (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2011-138 Context: A1T, East Stoa. Diameter: 18 mm. Parallel(s): Obv: Bust of Christ and nimbus cruciger with wreath border. The iconography on the obverse represents Christ’s bust because the nimbus (halo) is in the shape of a cross. The widespread expectation of the figures of Jesus on the seals, which frequently reflect Christian iconography, is reversed84. Although he is not often seen as a baby in the Virgin Mary’s lap, Christ is rarely seen as an adult figure, as in this example. Rev.: Greek cross85, circular inscription, between double-row borders of dots. ΠΡΟΚΟΠΙΟV or PωCHNIOV or CICINNIOV EΠICK, Προκοπίου or Ρωσινίου/ or Σισινίου ἐπισκ(όπου) (of Prokopios or Rosinios or Sisinios) The legend on the reverse is uncertain; the letters are damaged and reading is very difficult. Προκοπίου ἐπισκ(όπου) is a possible reading, so it is probably the seal of a bishop. The names Rosinios or Rusenios are unknown while the names of Sisinnios or Prokopios86 are too common to date the bulla. The most probable reading seems to be Prokopios. Commentary: It is often the reverse of the seals which provides precise information about the names, titles and their period87. The find context of the seal is from 5th to 6th century strata. 82 Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1996, 239. 83 see no. 3. 84 Bulgurlu 2007, 21. 85 Cheynet 1997, 108; Koltsida-Makre 1995, 43. 86 Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1994, 170, no: 68.1; Ruggieri 1996, 229, 233; Lequien 1740, 903; Sisinnius was the bishop of Stauropolis in Caria and attended the Council of Constantinople in 692; see PBE, Sisinnius 9. 87 Cheynet 1997, 108 offers three criteria for the dating of the seals: external appearance, epigraphic characteristics and the content of the inscription. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 261 The epigraphic characteristics of the present seal also suggest a date in the 7th century. One possible theory suggests that its owner was a bishop named Prokopios. He is the second Prokopios, namesake of above-mentioned Prokopios, whose existence is attested by a seal at Dumbarton Oaks collection dated to the 10th century. Because this seal has totally different characteristics, we can assume that he is the first Prokopios who served in the same seat, sometime in the 7th century. That the location of the function is not represented on the seal make us think that the prelate would not need to mention his position in his correspondence especially in a region where he was already known. 5 - Zotikos (?) (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2014-Etd1 Context: Agora, 1st Terrace Street, East Stoa, 6th Shop. Diameter: 24 mm. Parallel(s): Editions: Cotsonis, 2009, 59. Obv.: Eagle with uplifted wings and head right with wreath border. In the field above the eagle’s head is a star. Rev.: I at center, Z (?) on the left, ω at bottom, K on the right and T ligated at top. (ω, I, T, K, ) attached to a cross potent88, best solution is = Ζωτικοῦ (of Zotikos). Commentary: The seal is badly damaged, but a good example for seals of the early Byzantine period (with depiction of an eagle). Above the eagle is a star. On the reverse is a cruciform monogram including on the top , at the base a ω, on the right there is a K, and on the left the letter is destroyed. But it seems that in this letter there was a superior horizontal stroke. The most probable solution is ZωTIKΟV. The name is attested at this time, particularly for ecclesiastical personages. Zotikos could have been a bishop. St. Zotikos Orphanotropos is commemorated in the Synaxarion along with Tarsizios, Kyriakos and Sokios who were martyred in Alexandria. In the Synaxarion seven martyrs named Zotikos are recorded89. Bishop Zotikos who represented Harpasa (modern Arpaz/Esenköy-Aydın) at the Council of Chalkedon (451) is also attested 90. In the conciliar list of bishops who participated in the Council of Trullo held in Constantinople in 692, a Zotikos is also mentioned as the bishop of Bareta in Asia. He appears in the Quinisext Council and signed the acts as Ζωτικὸς ἀνάξιος ἐπίσκοπος πόλεως Βαρέτων τῆς Ἀσιανῶν ἐπαρχίας91. Although the function and the location are not depicted on the seal we think that the prelate would not have mentioned these data especially in his private or unofficial correspondence. 88 Taş – Özcan 2015, 225. 89 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanum, December 31.2: 359.33; December 30: 358.53. January 8: 376.55.- 96.29, 362.26, 376.56. For the other saints named Zotikos see Synaxarium, 1089. 90 Mansi 7, 1762, 157.9-10: Ζωτικός ἐπίσκοπος πόλεως Ἁρπασῶν. 91 Ohme 1990, 145-170; esp. 154, no. 80; Mansi 11, 993 recorded the name of the prelate incorrectly as Zotios. 262 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam 6 - Martinus protector or protiktor (6th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2014-Etd93 Context: Agora, 1st Terrace, East Stoa Diameter: 23 mm. Parallel(s): Zacos – Veglery 1972, no: 930. DO 58.106.2942. Another specimen struck from the same boulloterion is preserved in the collection of the Selçuk Museum; see: Cheynet 1999, 334, no: 26, pl. 43, 26; Cheynet 2003, 165 (PLRE: Martinus 5) Obv.: Inscription of three lines. |RI|N (of Martinos). Wreath border. Rev.: Inscription of three lines. O|IC|OO[S]: of protector or protictor. Wreath border. Commentary: The inscription on Byzantine seals is usually in Greek, so this seal with a Latin inscription is exceptionally rare. Especially after the 6th century it is quite unusual to find an inscription in a different alphabet such as Latin, Arabic, or Armenian92. Other alphabets except for Greek were completely abandoned after the 7th century93. It is also noteworthy that we may have the second seal of this person, since one copy was found in Ephesos, and therefore both are dated to the 6th century94. The possible reading of Martinus’ title is protiktor (pl. protiktores) (Lat. protectors). The protiktores designated members of the troop which was created ca. 250. They were responsible for the protection of the emperor. Protiktores were also called protectors domestici who served as members of the emperor’s staff. They were assigned to fulfill special duties: to arrest and execute political enemies, levies and inspections as well as to supervise posts and customs. After 400 they shifted toward court service. They are considered to have been the predecessors of the Scholae Palatinae, an elite group fulfilling a variety of missions based in the headquarters of the Palatine Guards in Constantinople95. The record for Palatine Guards on seals dates from the first phase of emperor Justinian II’s reign (685-695)96. The term protiktor is also described as a leading citizen endowed with some duties such as tax collection in the Byzantine provinces. This is based on information in the Life of Theodoros of Sykeon97. It is also described as a local aristocrat or notable in the Byzantine cities98. In the Codex of Theodosianus and Codex of Justinianus, protiktor is mentioned as a rank, whose holder was director of the arsenal, tribunus or praepositus fabricae and a first-class military officer.. Protiktores seem to have disappeared in 438 according to the Codex Theodosianus99. The seal obtained during the Kibyra excavations seems to belong to a protiktor (protector) charged with collecting taxes in the region on behalf of the higher fiscal authorities in Constantinople rather than a person who was a member of Palatine guards. 92 Bulgurlu 2007, 24. 93 Bulgurlu 2007, 8; Coulie – Nesbitt 1989, 121. 94 Cheynet 1999, 334. 95 For protiktores (προτίκτορες) see ODB 1743. 96 Ragia 2009, 204; Haldon 1984, 133, 153; Stewart 2017, 40-41. 97 Kazhdan 1997, 63. 98 Wickham 2005, 203, n. 200. 99 Codex Theodosianus, 10, 22, 3; Codex Justinianus, 11, 10, 2; Codex Theodosianus Novella no. 6, 1; Guilland 1956, 125. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 263 7 - Ioannes / Theophilos (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2016-08 Context: Agora, Tholos Nymphaeum. Diameter: 26 mm. Parallel(s): Obv: Cruciform invocative monogram. Ι at center,  on the left, and at top: Ἰωάννου. Border of dots. at bottom, N on the right Rev: Inscription in three lines: + ΘΕ|OφI|ΛΟY. Border of dots. Ἰωάννου / Θεοφίλου = of Theophilos (son) of Ioannes. Commentary: Names on both sides are quite common on Byzantine seals and generally in the genitive case. Both surfaces carry monograms, linear inscriptions or as on this example, a monogram on the obverse. The owner’s name is inscribed on the reverse100. 8 - Nektarios (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2017-08 Context: Agora South Terrace Wall. Diameter: 19 mm. Parallel(s): Obv.: The Annunciation. Virgin Mary standing (l.) and the archangel Gabriel (r.); holding a scepter (r. hand) and advancing toward the Virgin who stands frontally. Her gestures are not clearly visible and she seems to hold a spindle. There is no visible border or inscription. In the center there must have been an inscription that read Χαιρετισμὸς (salutation). Rev.: Cruciform monogram. O in the center, TPV on the top,  on the base, NE ligated on the left and K on the right. Possible solution: NEKTPIOV = Νεκταρίου (of Nectarios). Commentary: The figures and scene on the seal are not very clear, but the presence of the two sacred figures suggests the great possibility of Virgin Mary and Gabriel at the Annunciation. Annunciation. Here Jesus’ birth was announced in advance by the archangel Gabriel. The Annunciation is quite commonly found in iconographic scenes on pre-Iconoclastic lead seals. Gabriel is generally on the right side of the figure of Virgin Mary, and both are nimbated101. 9 - Nektarios (8th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2017-Etd18 Context: Agora South Terrace Wall Diameter: 15 mm. Parallel(s): Obv.: Invocative cruciform monogram of an indeterminate type. The extremities are poorly preserved except for the T at the top; in the field τῷ - [σῷ] -δού -λῳ. Maybe Θεοτόκε βοήθει τῷ [σῷ] δούλ[ῳ]: Mother of God aid. Traces of border of dots. 100 Nesbitt 1977, 112-113, type C. 101 Cotsonis 2009, 61-62, figs. 5-6. Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam 264 Rev.: Invocative cruciform monogram; the extremities are poorly preserved. T, Ρ and Ω at the top,  on the bottom, ΝE on the left, K on the right: ΝEΚΤΡΙω (to Nektarios). It is identical to sample no. 2017-08 found in Kibyra. The name in the genitive case would agree poorly with the invocation developed in the dative. Commentary: The monogram on the obverse is classified by Laurent as type V:102 Θεοτόκε βοήθει τῷ σῷ δούλῳ (Mother of God, aid your servant103) and on the reverse, again that of the monogram of Nektarios as in 2017-08. There are two persons who used this name as a variant. The first is Niketas, bishop of Ilion in Hellespontos. He attended the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and was known as Neileos or Nektarios. The second is also a Niketas, bishop of Mele in Bithynia. He attended the same council and is also known as Nektarios104. 10 - Theophylaktos chartoularios (2nd half of the 8th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2017-09 Context: Agora South Terrace Wall Diameter: 25 mm. Parallel(s): Obv.: Cruciform monogram, Λ on the left and K on the right,  on the base and T on the top, Θ, Ф and E in the centre. The name reads ΘEOφVΛKTOV. Rev.: Inscription of three lines with border of dots. XPT|OVΛ|PIOV Θεοφυλάκτου χαρτουλαρίου= (Seal of) Theophylaktos chartoularios. Commentary: Cross motifs began to be used in the 4th century and became widespread with the prohibition of figurative descriptions during the iconoclastic period. On the obverse of the seals certain types invocative monograms were used such as “Mother of God, aid”. On the reverse inscriptions or monograms contained the name of the owner. Occasionally, his title, post, post’s location sometimes, and family name were provided105. In this case we are not so fortunate. The term chartoularios (χαρτουλάριος) (pl. chartoularioi) was derived from χάρτης (official document). It designated a Byzantine administrative official who had various responsibilities at times. In the 4th century the early chartoularioi, as lower-ranking officials, were employed in large administrative services at the central administration or provinces, such as of the praefectus praetorio, magister militum, etc. They were responsible for keeping the archives106. The first attested “chartoularios of the divine logothesion” was during in the 7th century in the text of Miracula of St. Artemios107. In the 9th to 10th centuries, the chartoularioi became officials with fiscal and archival duties in the central and provincial administrations, 102 Seibt 2016, 7: “Invocative monograms started around the middle of the 7th century. In the second half of the 7th century the type Laurent I dominated, in the 8 th and 9 th centuries the type Laurent V. Both read Θεοτόκε βοήθει (“Mother of God, help!”), often combined with the tetragram τῷ σῷ δούλῳ (your servant) in the free quarters of the monogram”. 103 This phrase is commonly found on hundreds of major or minor objects; see Rhoby 2009, 68-69. 104 PBE: Niketas 18, Niketas 19. 105 Erol – Ünal 2012, 117-123 esp.120; Tekocak – Mimiroğlu 2010, 120. 106 Schlumberger 1884, 461 considered that “in Byzantium there were countless varieties of chartularioi” and showed twenty-five examples. See also Bulgurlu 2007, 266; Çakmakçı 2017, 56; Goodwin 2005, 46. 107 Papadopoulos – Kerameus 1913, 23-29. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 265 i.e. chartoularios of the genikou (χαρτουλάριος του γενικοῦ), chartoularios of stratiotikon logothesion (χαρτουλάριος τοῦ στρατιωτικοῦ λογοθεσίου) and chartoularios of dromon (χαρτουλάριος τοῦ δρόμου). The parallel functions of chartophylax (χαρτοφύλαξ) who served in the ecclesiastical hierarchy caused confusion between the two terms108. In the central bureaucracy a chartoularios could have been the superior of an entire sekreton (office) such as a chartoularios of the sakella or vestiarion. As certain seals indicate, the “chartoularioi of the genikon” and “chartoularioi of stratiotikon” were entitled “megas” from the end of the 10th century. They could also command the army during the battle. In the 12th century some prominent individuals were honored with the title of chartoularios and military tasks. From the 13th century onwards, the megas chartoularios (μέγας χαρτουλάριος) was a high-ranking official. Like a protostrator (πρωτοστάτωρ), he was in the entourage of the emperor and expected to lead the horse of his master109. But it seems apparent that this seal belonged to a fiscal bureaucrat who functioned in a provincial sekreton (office) and was affiliated with the office of kommerkion of the strategia of the Kibyrraiotai110. Chartoularios was among the main political subordinates of the strategos. They were assigned from the central offices in Constantinople: the praitor (guardian) or krites (judge) assumed the litigation of civil and criminal matters together with the strategos. The essential mission of the chartoularios was to keep the lists of soldiers who were established in the thematic territory and to report to his superior logethetes in the central named logothetesion tou stratiotikou (λογοθεσίον τοῦ στρατιωτικοῦ)111. If the Kibyra’s territory remained under the mandate of the strategia of the Anatolikoi until the second half of the 8th century (ca. 776) and then that of Kibyrraiotai, we may conclude that Theophylaktos, whose seal is found in the Kibyra excavations, was a provincial chartoularios who served in the city under the higher fiscal bureaucrats who settled in the capital city of the strategia of the Anatolikoi or the Kibyrraiotai. This seal may alternatively be considered as evidence of Theophylaktos’ presence in Kibyra with a duty to enlist soldiers from the region Kibyratis after having obtained the order of his superior official who served at the bureau of the stratiotikon logothesion in the capital city of the strategia. Our seal may according to a third possibility indicate that Theophylaktos, who settled in Amorion or Syllaion (or Attaleia), and sent an official document regarding fiscal matters to his subordinate officer in charge in Kibyra, perhaps ordering the recruitment of troops. This is a possibility since according to a conciliar account and the Miracles of St. Demetrios the Karabisianoi who are described as “sailors” serving in the Byzantine ships as well as the soldiers of the Kibyrraiotai, were enlisted from the districts of Lycia and Caria112. If it is not possible to refer to an organised nor a permanent Byzantine navy nor professional admirals who 108 Darrouzès 1970, 20. 109 Bury 1911, 83; Guilland 1976, pl. 18, 405-426; ODB 416. 110 Cf. the comments nos. 1 and 2. 111 The stratiotikon logothetesion (στρατιωτικοῦ λογοθεσίου) was the central service/office in Constantinople with general responsibilities and responsibilities for the land army. It was directed by a logothetes (λογοθέτης). The office was formed in the 7th century and replaced the Late Roman Praefecture Praetorio. On the competencies for this military office and its composition see especially Bury 1911, 90; Dölger 1927, 21-22. On a lead seal at least, the official mentioned here is called great chartularios. See also Schlumberger 1884, no. 353 and Laurent 1962, 293. 112 Mansi 11, coll. 737-738; For the text of the Miracles of St. Demetrios see PG, 116, col. 1369; Lemerle 1919, 230.30 ff. Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam 266 actually commanded land armies in the ships not specialized sailors for the 7th century then the fact Kibyra was not important for the seafaring tradition is not itself decisive. The crucial matter from the empire’s point of view was to enlist soldiers in adequate number for its land army either the combats on the sea or on the land by means of a provincial chartoularioi like Theophylaktos. We do not think it is important whether Theophylaktos worked in the capital-city of the strategia or in Kibyra. What really matters is that the seal confirms the existence of authorities in the city who were still connected to the higher imperial bureaucrats even under the pressure of the Arab invasions. 11 - Neboulos (7th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2017-Etd32 Context: Agora, Main Street, Steps. Diameter: 18 mm. Parallel(s): Obv.: Bust of the Virgin, veiled and nimbated, with a medallion before her. Crosses on either side with no visible border. Rev.: Cruciform monogram. N on the left, E on the right,  on the top and on the base, Λ surmounted by B. The most probable reading is NEBOUΛ: Νεβούλου (of Neboulos). Wreath border. Commentary: Neboulos is extremely rare name. A seal of a bishop named (probably) Neboulos in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum’s collection was published by Cheynet, Bulgurlu, and Gökyıldırım113. There is another Neboulos seal in the Numismatic Museum of Athens whose owner is Neboulos with the title prôtoskribôn114. But the most famous Neboulos was a Slavic noble or Bulgarian leader. In 692 Emperor Justinian II (685-695) appointed him as commander of the troops raised from the Slavic peoples who had settled in the theme of Opsikioi. He was betrayed and defeated at the battle of Sebastopolis of Armenia Secunda by the Muslim Arabs115. On the Kibyra seal no title depicted, so it is difficult to attach the sigilante to one of the known individuals named Neboulos. Even so we cannot exclude the possibility that its owner may be the above-mentioned Slavic leader. Based on the data given on the above-mentioned chartoularios seal one may assume that Kibyra was a significant military base in the 7th century. His gold ring was found and Seibt corrected the wrong first reading of the inscription on the ring as Neboulos116. 113 Cheynet et al. 2012, n. 6. 81. 114 Gorny - Mosch 2007, lot no. 2527. 115 Nikephoros: De Boor 36.24: “… ἱππικα δὲ στρατεύματα πρὸς τοῖς Θρακᾡοις διαγαγὡν χωρίοις κατὰ τῶν Σκλαβηνῶν εὐθέως ὣρμησε. ... πολλὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε Σκλαβηνῶν γένη τὰ μὲν πολέμῳ τὰ δὲ ὁμολογία παραλαβῶν, ... ἂρχοντα αυτοῖς ἐκ τῶν εὐγενεστέρων ἐπιστήσας Νεβοῦλον τοὒνομα. Εἰς οὓς θαρρήσας λύει τὴν πρὁς τοὺς Σαρακηνοὺς παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς γενομένην εἰρήνην ... ἐκστρατεύει δὲ κατ’αὐτῶν, καὶ κατά τὴν Σεβαστόπολιν γίνεται”. See Nikephoros: Mango - Scott 1997, 38.13; Theophanes: De Boor 6184; PmbZ No. 5233; PBE: Neboulos 1; Gelovani 2007, 174. 116 The initial reading was “Eusebiou Neilou”, see Seibt 1998, 27; Morrisson 2002, 442. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 267 12 - Unidentified (10th century) Excavation Inv. No.: 2014-Etd157 Context: A1T, 80-85 m, West Stoa. Diameter: 34 mm. Obv.: This seal is in a very poor state of preservation. However, a patriarchal cross can be distinguished with maybe another cross on its inferior branch. Also, on three steps there is a circular invocative inscription. Rev.: Corrupted. Illegible. Conclusion The surveys at the beginning of the archaeological excavations in the city of Kibyra yielded 210 examples of an important group of ceramics, of which thousands were recovered in the following years. These were published in 2007117. The biconical ceramics identified as unguentaria and dated to the 6th century provided the first monogram seal imprints from the excavation. Seventeen of these have been found. The imprint was usually found on the base of the ceramics and would have been made from rings or with seal stamps. The monogram at Cat. No. 6 is defined as Eπάρχου and Cat. No. 8 is read as Γέοργου instead of Γεώργου118. An exact similar to Cat. No. 16 was found in Ephesos and similar examples to Cat. No. 15 were found in both Ephesus and Limyra119. Considering the lead seals studied in this article, the existence of Pantoleon at both Ephesus and Limyra as well as the Kibyra and Limyra seals being produced with the same boulleterion it cannot be a coincidence that examples of the Martinus Protector seal were found in both Kibyra and Ephesos. These links were also noticed by Cheynet who worked on the seals housed in the Selçuk Ephesos Museum120. Unfortunately, the fact that only twelve seals were found in the course of ten years of archaeological work does not provide sufficient evidence to give information concerning the names on the seals found in relationship to each other or to other cities. Furthermore, there is no written source in which any of the names mentioned in this study are directly related to the city of Kibyra. The names (without family names) on these seals can be regarded as evidence that the owner of these seals lived in Kibyra. As the work continues and new archaeological, epigraphical and sigillographical examples are found, it may become possible to establish links between the people of Kibyra and the above-mentioned cities. For the time being, it is difficult to draw any broad conclusions based on the small number of seals found in the Kibyra excavations. It may not always be possible to obtain more information about the general socio-economic-cultural history of the town. For example, most of the studied pieces belong to the 7th century, just prior to the establishment of the thematic system. That is the reason why they were not re-used. 117 We owe many thanks to Mr. Ş. Özüdoğru, director of the Kibyra excavations for giving us the opportunity to work on these seals; see Özüdoğru – Dündar 2007, 145-178; By the year 2014, it had been determined that 1,720 samples of the 9500 carried seal impressions; see Özarslan 2014, 187-212, abstract. 118 Özüdoğru – Dündar 2007, 174, fig. 13. 119 Özüdoğru – Dündar 2007, 155; Özarslan 2014, 198. 120 Cheynet 1999, 352. 268 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam It would be a clue, albeit really slight for the transformation in the Byzantine provincial administration system from the 7th century onwards. In the archaeological excavations carried out in Kibyra since 2006, the latest inscriptions and coins have come from the Byzantine layer, which seems to have been heavily inhabited after the 5th century. Finding (no. 10) testifies the constant connection of Kibyra with the higher fiscal authorities in the capital city of the strategia of Anatolikoi or Kibyrraiotai as well as with those settled in Constantinople. It is evidence for the presence of a chartoularios in the city. Two seals of apo eparchontes (nos. 2 and 3) dated to 7th century also support the idea that Kibyra was governed by an apo eparchon who probably settled in the city or in Aphrodisias, the capital city of Caria. Seal no. 5, which probably belonged to another bishop of Kibyra named Zotikos, indicates that the Christian inhabitants of Kibyra had a pastor even in the 7th century, when all of Anatolia suffered from the Persian and Arab invasions. Another seal (no. 4) obtained during the excavations in Kibyra in 2014 (2014-Etd.157) and belonging to Bishop Prokopios supports this idea. Martinos, who appears as a protiktor (seal no. 6), might have been a notable citizen of Kibyra and endowed with some duties such as tax collection in the area. The seals (nos. 7, 8, 9 and 12) belonged to individuals who might have been residents of Kibyra between the 7th and the 10th centuries. These finds support the idea that Kibyra still had inhabitants even during the “Dark Centuries” of the Byzantine Empire. The owner of the seal (no. 11), Neboulos, is possibly the Slavic noble or Bulgarian leader who was appointed by the Emperor Justinian II (in 692) as commander of the Slavic troops that settled in the theme Opsikioi. Combining the data given by the chartoularios seal (no. 10), we think that Kibyra might have been a significant military base in the 7th century. The Byzantine layer of the excavations is dated to the 9th century when Bishop Basileios, the owner of one seal, held in the episcopal seat of Kibyra121. Based on this seal, one could conclude that the city was abandoned in the 9th century. But another already published seal of bishop Prokopios122 is evidence of the continuous existence of the Christian community in the city during the 10th century. In addition to two ecclesiastical seals, the last four find of the excavations coincide with a period called “the dark centuries of Byzantium”. These date from the mid-7 th century to the first half of the 9th century. It was also a time of great political upheaval in the Byzantine world. The Arabs achieved one of the most spectacular and rapid conquests of all time first of all at the expense of Byzantium. During the Arab invasions, middle-sized cities were abandoned because their inhabitants had migrated to metropolises that were much more fortified and secure123. These seals show that Kibyra was inhabited and was not abandoned during the entire 7th century, as indicated by the above-mentioned ecclesiastical seals. New sigillographic material, which will be obtained in the remaining unexcavated parts of Kibyra, we should also shed light on the circumstances of the Byzantine times, which remained in the dark from so many perspectives. 121 Cheynet – Morrisson – Seibt 1991, 174, no. 254. 122 Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1994, 170, no. 68.1; Ruggieri 1996, 229. 123 Lounghis 1985, 139-222. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 269 Abbreviations and Bibliography ACO Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. 1-4, E. Schwartz – J. Straub (eds.) (1914-1940). Ahrweiler 1966 H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer: La marine de guerre, la politique et les institutions maritimes de Byzance aux VIIe-XVe siècles (1966). Anna Komnena Anna Komnena, Alexiad, 2, L. Schopen (ed.) (1878). Antoniadis-Bibicou 1963 H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Recherches sur les douanes a Byzance: L’octava, le “kommerkion” et les commerciaires (1963). Antoniades-Bibicou 1966 H. Antoniades-Bibicou, Etudes d’histoire maritime de Byzance à propos du “Thème des Carabisiens” (1966). Avramea 1997 A. Avramea, Le Péloponnèse du IVe au VIIIe siècle: changements et persistances, Paris (1997). Brandes 2002 W. Brandes, Finanzverwaltung in Krisenzeiten. Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen. Administration im 6.-9. Jahrhundert (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 25) (2002). Branigan 2010 K. Branigan, “Early Aegean Metal Seals and Signets”, SMEA 17, 1976. Brubaker – Haldon 2011 L. Brubaker – J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, ca. 680-850: A History (2011). Bulgurlu – İlaslı 2003 V. Bulgurlu – A. İlaslı, “Seals from the Museum of Afyon (Turkey)”, in: J. Cl. Cheynet – C. Sode (ed.), SBS vol. 8 (2003) 131-151. Bulgurlu 2005 V. Bulgurlu, “Haluk Perk Müze Koleksiyonu’nda Bulunan Dört Bizans İmparator Kurşun Mühürü, Tuliya I, 2005, 251-260. Bulgurlu 2007 V. Bulgurlu, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerindeki Bizans Kurşun Mühürleri (2007). Bulgurlu 2011 V. Bulgurlu, “Seals from the Kadikalesi/Anaia Excavation”, Ηπειρόνδε: Proceedings of the 10 th International Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography (Ioannina, 1-3 October 2009) (2011) 277-292. Bury 1911 J. B. Bury, The Imperial administrative system in the ninth century, with a revised text of Kletorologion of Philotheos (1911). Cheynet et alii 1991 J.-Cl. Cheynet – C. Morrisson – W. Seibt, Les Sceaux byzantins de la Collection Henri Seyrig (1991). Cheynet 1997 J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Byzantine Seals”, 7000 Years of Seals, D. Collon (ed.), British Museum Press (1997). Cheynet 1999 J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Les sceaux Byzantins du musée de Selçuk”, Revue Numismatique 154, 1999. Cheynet 2003 J.-Cl. Cheynet, SBS 8 (2003). Cheynet – Caseau 2009 J.-Cl. Cheynet – B. Caseau, “Sealing Practices in Byzantine Administration”, Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East, I. Regulski – K. Duistermaat – P. Verkinderen (eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo (2009) 113-149. Cheynet 2010a J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Un nouveau boullôtèrion découvert en Turquie”, in: J.-Cl. Cheyney – C. Sode (eds.), Studies on Byzantine Sigillography 10, 2010, 97-98. 270 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam Cheynet 2010b J.-Cl. Cheynet, “La mise en place des thèmes d’après les sceaux: les stratégies”, Studies for Byzantine Sigillography 10, 2010, 1-14. Cheynet et al. 2012 J. Cl. Cheynet et alii, Les sceaux byzantins du Musée archéologique d’Istanbul (2012). Cheynet – Métivier 2016 J.-Cl. Cheynet – S. Métivier, “Note sur les sceaux des évêques de l’Anatolie turque (xiie-xiiie siècles)”, SBS 12, 2016, 33-46. Cotsonis 2009 J. Cotsonis, “Narrative Scenes on Byzantine Lead Seals (Sixth Twelfth Centuries): Frequency, Iconography, and Clientele”, Gesta, 48/1, 2009, 55-86. Coulie – Nesbitt 1989 B. Coulie – J. W. Nesbitt, “A Bilingual Rarity in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection of Lead Seals: A Greek/Armenian Bulla of the Later 10th/Early 11th Centuries”, DOP 43, 1989, 121-123. CSHB Corpus Historiae Historiae Byzantinae CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Çakmakçı 2017 Z. Çakmakçı, “Byzantine Metal Objects in the Şükrü Tül Collection of Antiquities”, TÜBA-KED 15 (2017) 45-63. Darrouzès 1970 J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les offikia de L’église Byzantine (1970). Darrouzès 1975 J. Darrouzès, “Listes épiscopales du concile de Nicée (787)”, REByz 33, 1975, 5-76. Darrouzès 1981 J. Darrouzès, Notitia episcopatuum ecclesiae constantinopolitanae (1981). De Ceremoniis Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae I. Reiske (ed.), 2 vols. (1829). De Thematibus Constantini Porfirogenniti De Thematibus et de Administrando Imperii, I. Bekker (ed.) (1840). De Thematibus Constantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus. Introduzione, testo critico, commento, A. Pertusi (ed.) (1952). Diethart 1982 J. M. Diethart, “Κύριε βοήjει in byzantinischen Notarsunterschriften”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 49, 1982, 79-82. Dölger 1927 F. Dölger, Beitrage zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung des 10. und 11. Jahrhundert (1927). DO Seals Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art. 1-6, 1991-2009. DO Seals BZS Dumbarton Oak Seals Web Database Doksanaltı – Sağlan 2008 E. M. Doksanaltı – S. Sağlan, “Karaman Müzesi’nde Bulunan Bir Grup Mühür Baskısı”, Anadolu/Anatolia 34, 2008, 77-100. Dölger 1955 F. Dölger, Zur Ableitung des byzantinischen Verwaltungsterminus θέμα, Historia 4, 1955, 189-198. Elam 2015 N. Elam, “Kütahya Arkeoloji Müzesi’ndeki Bizans İmparator Mühürleri”, Kütahya Müzesi 2014 Yıllığı 50. Yıldönümü, S. Ünan (ed.) (2015) 227-235. Elam 2016 N. Elam, “Kütahya Arkeoloji Müzesi’nden Opsikion strategosu Thomas’a ait bir Bizans Kurşun Mührü”, Höyüktepe Kurtarma Kazıları (2015), M. Türktüzün – S. Ünan (eds.) (2016) 661-668. Elam 2017 N. Elam, “Hüseyin Dalkılınç Özel Koleksiyonundan Sekiz Adet Bizans Kurşun Mührü (Kütahya)”, Kütahya Müzesi 2016 Yıllığı 4, 2017, 335-366. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 271 Elam forthcoming (a) N. Elam, “Preliminary remarks on the unpublished sigillographic collections in the archaeological museums of Alanya, Ankara, Burdur, Ereğli, Eskişehir, Fethiye, Hierapolis, Konya, Kütahya and Yalvaç in Turkey”, in: ARISTEIA II-4492 International Workshop: The prosopography of the thematic administration: old and new evidence on the Opsikion, the Anatolikoi and the Kibyrraiotai, Academy of Athens, Athens, June 2015 (forthcoming). Elam forthcoming (b) N. Elam, Bizans Dönemi’nde Nikaia (İznik): Kent ve Bölge Tarihine Sigillografik Katkılar”, UNESCO Dünya Mirası Olma Yolunda İznik Sempozyumu, İznik, 2015 (forthcoming). Erol – Ünal 2012 F. Erol – E. Ünal, “Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası’ndan Ele Geçen bir Bizans Kurşun Mührü”, Ömer Çapar’a Armağan (2012) 117-123. Farhi 2009 Y. Farhi, “Roman Imperial Lead Sealing from Ramat 2009, 295-298. Fedalto 1988 G. Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, 1 (1988). Feind 2010 R. Feind, Byzantinische Siegelkunde. Eine Einführung in Die Sigillographie von Byzanz, Münzen & Sammeln (2010). Florin 2014 C. Florin, The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050: The Early Middle Ages (2014). Gelovani 2007 N. Gelovani, “From the History of Political Relations between the Caliphate and Byzantium in Transcaucasıa in the 680s”, ICANAS 38, 10-15 September 2007 (2007) 169-177. Genesios C. Lachmann (ed.), Genesius Historia (1834). Goodwin 2005 T. Goodwin, “Part II: Countermarks from after the Arab Conquest”, Supplement to Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 183, 2005, 41-53. Gorny - Mosch 2007 Gorny - Mosch Münzhandlung, Auction 156, 5 March 2007, Lot No. 2527. Excavations”, ZPE 170, Gregoriadou-Ioannidou 1982 M. Ioannidou-Gregoriadou, “Το ναυτικό θέμα των Κιβυρραιωτών. Συμβολή στο πρόβλημα της ίδρυσης του”, Byzantina 11, 1982, 207-221. Grierson 1966 P. Grierson, “Byzantine Gold Bullae, with a Catalogue of those at Dumbarton Oaks”, DOP 20, 1966, 239-254. Grierson 1983 N. Oikonomides, “The Usual Lead Seal”, DOP 37, 1983, 147-157. Grünbart 2006 M. Grünbart, “Metal Stamps in a North American Private Collection”, DOP 60, 2006, 13-24. Guilland 1956 R. Guilland, “Etudes de Titulature byzantines”, REByz 14, 1956, 12-157. Guilland 1967 R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions Byzantines 1-2 (1967). Guilland 1976 R. Guilland, Titres et fonctions de l’Empire byzantin (1976). Guilland 1971 R. Guilland, “Les logothetes”, Revue des etudes byzantines 29, 1971, 5-10. Guilland 1982 R. Guilland, “Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin. 3, L’apoeparque”, Byzantinoslavica 23.1, 1982, 30-44. Haldon 1990 J. Haldon, Byzantium in the 7th Century. The Transformation of a Culture (1990). Haldon 1984 J. F. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional, and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580-900 (1984). Haldon 1999 J. Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 (1999). Haussig 1957 H.-W. Haussig, Die Anfänge der Themenordnung (1957). 272 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam Herrin 1975 J. Herrin, “Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180-1205”, DOP 29, 1975, 253-284. Hierocles Hierocles Synecdemus (Le Synecdemus d’Hierocles et l’opuscule geographique de Georges de Chypre. E. Honigmann (ed.) (1939). Hild (forthcoming) F. Hild, Karien (TIB 14) (forthcoming). Hild – Hellenkemper 1990 F. Hild – H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien (1990) (TIB 5) vol. 1 (1990). Hild – Hellenkemper 2004 F. Hild – H. Hellenkemper, Lykien und Pamphylien (2004) (TIB 8) vol. 1 (2004). Ioannes Skylitzes H. Thurn (ed.), Ioannes Skylitzes, Synopsis Historiarum, CFHB (1973). Janin 1912 R. Janin, Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastique (DHGE) 12 (1912). Jones 1964 A. Jones, The Later Roman Empire. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey 1 (1964). Jordanov 2003 I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, 1, Byzantine Seals with Geographical Names (2003). Kapsalis 1968 G. Kapsalis, “Κιβύρα”, in: Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπεδία, έκδ. Π. Δρανδάκη, 2η έκδ, vol. 14 (1968)2 356-357. Karayannopoulos 1956 I. Karayannopoulos, “Contribution au probleme des “themes” byzantins”, Hellenisme Contemporain 10, 1956, 455-502. Karayannopoulos 1959 I. Karayannopoulos, Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung (1959). Kaygusuz 1982 İ. Kaygusuz, “Enez (Ainos)‘de Bulunmuş Molybdobulla (Kurşun Mühür)”, Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 10-11, 1982, 299-306. Kazhdan 1997 A. Kazhdan, The Peasantry, in The Byzantines, G. Cavallo (ed.) (1997). Koder 1990 J. Koder, “Zur Bedeutungsentwicklung des byzantinischen Terminus Thema”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 40, 1990, 155-165. Koltsida-Makre 1995 I. Koltsida-Makre, “The Representation of Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals”, SBS 4, N. Oikonomides (ed.), (1995) 43-51. Konstantopoulos 1900 K. M. Κωνσταντόπουλος, Βυζαντιακάμολυβδόβουλλα: Συλλογή Αναστασίου Κ. Π. Σταμούλη (1900). Konstantopoulos 1917 K. M. Κωνσταντόπουλος, Βυζαντιακά μολυβδόβουλλα του εν. ‘Αθήναις Έθνικοϋ Νομισματικού Μουσείου (1917). Krsmanovic 2008 B. Krsmanovic, The Byzantine Province in Change, on the Threshold between the 10th and 11th century (2008). Kyriakides 1953 S. Kyriakides, “Πώς η λέξις θέμα έφθασεν εις την σημασίαν της στρατιωτικής περιοχής (How the word “theme” obtained the meaning of military region)”, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών (ΕΕΒΣ) 23, 1953, 392-394. Laurent (1929-30) V. Laurent, Bulletin de sigillographie byzantine I, B5 (1929-30) 571-654. Laurent 1962 V. Laurent, Les sceaux byzantins du médaillier Vatican (1962). Laurent 1963-72 V. Laurent, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, 5/1-3, L’Église (1963-1972). Laurent 1981 V. Laurent, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin 2, L’administration centrale (1981). Lemerle 1981 P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Demetrius, 2 (1981) 168-241. Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 273 Leontsine 2001 Μ. Λεοντσίνη, Κωνσταντίνος Δ’ (668-686): Ο τελευταίος πρωτοβυζαντινός αυτοκράτορας (University of Athens Unpublished PhD Thesis 2001). Lequien 1840 M. Lequien, Oriens Christianus 1 (1840). Lemerle 1919 P. Lemerle, Le plus anciens recuiels des miracles de Saint Demetrius et la penetration des Slaves dans les Balkans, I: Le texte (1919). Leon Grammatikos Leonis Grammatici, Chronographia. I. Bekker (ed.), CSHB (1842). Leo VI’ Tactica Leo VI’ Tactica, P. Migne (ed.), P.G. 107 (1863). Lihacev 1924 A. Lihacev, “Datirovannye vizantijskie pecati”, Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii Istorii Material’noj Kul’tury 3, 1924, 152-224. Lilie 1976 R. J. Lilie, Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber, Studien zur Strukturwandlung des byzantinischen Staates im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (1976). Lounghis 1985 Τ. Λουγγής, Δοκίμιο για την κοινωνική εξέλιξη στη διάρκεια των λεγόμενων «Σκοτεινών αιώνων» (602-867), Byzantina Symmeikta, 6, 1985, 139-222. Lounghis 1990 T. Lounghis, Κωνσταντίνου Ζ’ Πορφυρογένητου, De administrando imperio (Πρὸς τὸν ἲιδιον υἱὁν ‘Ρωμανόν). Μία μέθοδος ανάγνωσης (1990). Mansi Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, J. D. Mansi (ed.) vol. 1-53 (1759-1927). Metcalf 2013 D. Metcalf, “Imperial Involvement in the Governance of Cyprus during the years 653-965”, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 43, 2013, 127-136. Millet 1924 G. Millet, “Sur les sceaux des commerciaires byzantines”, Mélanges offerts à m. Gustave Schlumberger, membre de l’Institut, à l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance 2, 1924, 324-326. Morrisson – Seibt 1982 C. Morrisson – W. Seibt, “Sceaux de commerciaires byzantins du VIIe siècle trouvés à Carthage”, Revue Numismatique 24, 1982, 222-241. Morrisson 2002 C. Morrisson, “Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 6”, N. Oikonomides (ed.), Revue numismatique 158, 2002, 440-442. Munro-Hay 1991 S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity (1991). Nesbitt 1977 J. W. Nesbitt, “Double Names on Early Byzantine Lead Seals”, DOP 31, 1977, 109-121. Nesbitt – Oikonomides 1991-2009 J. Nesbitt – N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, vol. 1-6 (1991-2009). Nichanian 2013 M. Nichanian, “La distinction à Byzance: société de cour et hiérarchie des dignités à Constantinople (VIe-IXe s.)”, Travaux et Memoires 17, 2013, 579-637. Nikephoros Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History. Text, translation and Commentary, C. Mango (ed.) (1990). Nikephoros Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopoli, Opuscula Historia, C. de Boor (ed.) (1880). ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1-3 (1991). Ohme 1990 H. Ohme, Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste. Studien zum Konstantinopeler Konzil von 692 (1990). Oikonomides 1986 N. Oikonomides, “Silk Trade and Production in Byzantium from the Sixth to the Ninth Century: The Seals of Kommerkiarioi”, DOP 40, 1986, 33-53. Oikonomides 1985 N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals (1985). 274 Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam Oikonomides 1983 N. Oikonomides, “The Usual Lead Seal”, DOP 37, 1983, 147-157. Oikonomides 1972 N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (1972). Ostrogorsky 1981 G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates (1952) (Ιστορία του Βυζαντινού Κράτους Β΄) (1981). Özüdoğru – Dündar 2007 Ş. Özüdoğru – E. Dündar, “Kibyra Geç Roma - Erken Doğu Roma Dönemi Mühürlü Unguentariumları”, Olba 15, 2007, 145-178. Özarslan 2014 S. A. Özarslan, “A Group of Stamped Terracota Unguentarium from Kibyra”, 8th International Eskişehir Terra Cotta Symposium, 5-20 Sept. 2014 (2014) 187212, Abstract. PBE Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire P. G. Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Graeca 116 Patrologia Graeca, 116, P. Migne (ed.) (1905)2 Papadopoulos – Kerameus 1913 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Noctes Petropolitanae (1913) 23-29. Petrides 1906 S. Petrides, “Sceaux Byzantins”, Échos d’Orient, 9, 1906, 215-216. Pryor – Jeffreys 2006 J. H. Pryor – E. M. Jeffreys, The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ: The Byzantine Navy ca. 500-1204 (2006). Ragia 2004 E. Ragia, Η κοιλάδα του Μαιάνδρου (7 ος -13 ος αι.): γεωγραφία και ιστορία (University of Athens PhD Thesis 2004). Ragia 2009 E. Ragia, “The Geography of the Provincial Administration of the Byzantine Empire (ca. 600-1200): I.1. The Apothekai of Asia Minor (7th-8th c.)”, Byzantina Symmeikta 19, 2009, 195-243. Ragia 2008-2012 E. Ragia, The Geography of the provincial administration of the Byzantine Empire (ca. 600-1200): I.3. Apothekai of Africa and Sicily, Final Notes and Conclusions, Eoa kai Esperia, 8, 2008-2012, 113-144. Rhoby 2009 A. Rhoby, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography”, Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde), Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography, Ioannina, 1-3 October 2009 (2009) 68-69. Ruggieri 1996 V. Ruggieri, “A Historical Addendum to Episcopal Lists of Caria”, REByz 54, 1996, 221-234. Savvides 1990 A. G. K. Savvides, Ἡ Ἀττάλεια ὡς ἔδρα τοῦ βυζαντινοῦ ναυτικοῦ θέματος Καραβησιάνων/Κιβυρραιωτῶν, μέσα 7ου - μέσα 11ου αι., Βυζαντινὸς Δόμος 4, 1990, 139-165. Savvides 1989 A. G. K. Savvides, Ἀττάλεια: 11ος -αρχές 14ου αἰώνα. Ἡ μετάβαση ἀπὸ τὴ χριστιανικὴ στὴ μουσουλμανικὴ ἐξουσία, Βυζαντινὸς Δόμος 3, 1989, 121-162; Savvides 1998 A. G. K. Savvides, The Secular Prosopography of the Byzantine Maritime Theme of the Carabisians/Cibyrraeots”, Byzantinoslavica 59.1, 1998, 24-45. SBS Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 12 volumes, 1987-2016. Schlumberger 1895 G. Schlumberger, Mélanges d’archéologie byzantine (1895). Schlumberger 1905 G. Schlumberger, Sceaux byzantins inedits (cinqueme serie), RN 1905, 321-354. Seeck 1876 O. Seeck, Notitia dignitatum (1876). Seibt 1978 W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik II/1). 1. Teil: (1978). Lead Seals of the Kibyra Excavations 275 Seibt – Zarnitz 1997 W. Seibt – M. L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk (1997). Seibt 1998 W. Seibt, “Neue Aspekte der Slawenpolitik Justinians II. Zur Person of Nebulos und der Problematik der Andrapoda-Siegel”, Vizantiskij Vremennik 55, 1998, 126-132. Seibt – Wassiliou Seibt 2004 W. Seibt – A. K. Wassiliou Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich. 2. Teil: Zentral und Provinzialverwaltun) Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik II/2; D 324) (zusammen mit A.-K. Wassiliou) (2004). Seibt 2016 W. Seibt, “The Use of Monograms on Byzantine Seals in the early Middle-Ages (6th to 9th centuries)”, Parekbolai 6, 2016, 1-14. SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Stavrakos 2010 Ch. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der Sammlung Savvas Kophopoulos: eine Siegelsammlung auf der Insel Lesbos, Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization (SBHC 1) (2010). Stewart 2017 M. E. Stewart, “Breaking Down Barriers: Eunuchs in Italy and North Africa, 400620”, Byzantine Culture in Translation (2017). Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanum Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanum, H. Delehaye (ed.) (1902). Taş – Özcan 2015 T. Taş – F. Özcan, “Haç Motifinin Gelişimi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21, 2015/1, 247-275. Theophanes Theophanes, Chronographia, C. de Boor (ed.), 1-2 (1883-85), repr. (1980). Theophanes Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, C. Mango – R. Scott (eds.) (1997). Treadgold 1997 W. Treadgold, History of the Byzantine State (1997). Tsougarakis 1990 D. Tsougarakis, “The Byzantine Seals of Crete”, SBS, 2, 1990, 137-53. Turner 1899 C. H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima cahonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, 1 (1899). Turner 1907 C. H, Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, 2 (1907). Vitale 2014 M. Vitale, “‘Priest’- ‘Eparchy-arch’- ‘Speaker of the Ethnos’ The Areas of Responsibility of the Highest Officials of the Eastern Provincial Imperial Cult”, Mynemosyne (2014) 1-30. Vlysidou 1998 (a) V. Vlysidou, Θέμα Ανατολικών (Theme of Anatolikoi) in: Η Μικρά Ασία των Θεμάτων (Asia Minor and its Themes). Έρευνες πάνω στη γεωγραφική φυσιογνωμία και προσωπογραφία των βυζαντινών θεμάτων της Mικράς Aσίας (7ος11ος αι.), 69-111, T. Lounghis (ed.) (1998). Vlyssidou 1998 (b) V. Vlysidou, Θέμα Θρακησίων (Theme of Thracesioi) in: Η Μικρά Ασία των Θεμάτων (Asia Minor and its Themes). Έρευνες πάνω στη γεωγραφική φυσ ιογνωμία και προσωπογραφία των βυζαντινών θεμάτων της Mικράς Aσίας (7ος-11ος αι.), 205-234, T. Lounghis (ed.) (1998). Wassiliou-Seibt 1999 A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Metrische Legenden auf byzantinischen Siegeln österreichischer Sammlungen (1999). Wassiliou-Seibt 2004 A. K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Appendix B, I. Militar. Beamte des Themas Kibyraioten, in: H. Hellenkemper – F. Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien (TIB 8) 1 (2004). Wassiliou-Seibt 2011 A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legenden. Teil 1. Einleitung, Siegellegenden von Alpha bis inklusive My (2011). Ünal Demirer – Nilgün Elam 276 Wassiliou-Seibt 2016 A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legenden. Teil 2. Siegellegenden von Ny bis inklusive Sphragis (2016). Wickham 2005 C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400800 (2005). Winkelmann 1985 F. Winkelmann, Byzantinische Rang- und Amterstruktur im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert: Faktoren und Tendenzen ihrer Entwicklung (1985). Yannopoulos 1987 P. Yannopoulos, Histoire et légende chez Constantin VII, Byzantion, 57, 1987, 158-166. Yannopoulos 1989 P. Yannopoulos, “Théophane abrégé au xe siècle”, Byzantina, 15, 1989, 307-314. Yannopoulos 1990 P. Yannopoulos, “Η οργάνωση του Αιγαίου κατά τη Μέσοβυζαντινή περίοδο”, in Πρακτικά Τριημέρου Αιγαίου: 21-23 Δεκεμβρίου 1989 = Παρνασσός, 32, 1990, 200-224. Yannopoulos 1991 P. Yannopoulos, “Cibyra et Cibyrréotes”, Byzantion 61, no. 2, 1991, 520-529. Zacos – Veglery 1972 G. Zacos – A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 1. Basel: J. J. Augustin (1972). Zacos – Nesbitt 1984 G. Zacos – J. W. Nesbitt, Byzantine Lead Seals 2 (1984). Zadornov 2016 A. Zadornov, “Territorial Dioceses and Ethnic Episcopies in the Structure of the Church Organization of the First Bulgarian Kingdom (Canonical Aspects)”, 2016, 121-135. Zeyrek 2005 T. H. Zeyrek, Helen ve Roma Dünyasında Kurşun Kullanımı (2005). Zonaras Zonaras, Epitome historiarum, 3, L. Dindorf (ed.) (1870). Zosimus Zosimus, Historia Nova, L. Mendelssohn (ed.) (1887). Zuckerman 2005 C. Zuckerman, “Learning from the Enemy and More”, in: Studies in “Dark Centuries”, W. Brandes et alii (ed.), Millennium 2 (2005) 127-134. Makale Geliş / Received : 28.12.2017 Makale Kabul / Accepted : 26.02.2018