COLLEGE DE FRANCE - CNRS

CENTRE DE RECHERCHE D’HISTOIRE

ET CIVILISATION DE BYZANCE

TRAVAUX ET MEMOIRES
26

MELANGES
JAMES HOwARD-JOHNSTON

edited by
Phil Booty & Mary WuitTsBy

Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance

52, rue du Cardinal-Lemoine — 75005 Paris
2022
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY
IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO’

by Constantin ZUCKERMAN

The treatise without a title in Greek, dubbed by its first editor, Johannes Meursius
(1611), De administrando imperio (DAD), is the most precisely dated of all literary and.
semi-literary products of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ chancellery. The mix of
ethnographic and historical materials gathered in this roughly structured compendium
carries three references to the “present day” (uéxpi tig ofwepov), which are identified
in the text as indictions 7, am 6457 (27.54 and 29.234—5) and 10, am 6460 (45.40),!
ie. AD 948/9 and 951/2, respectively. Thus, the materials—destined, as stated in the
introduction, for the instruction of Constantine VII’s son Romanus II and edited by the
emperor in person—were gathered over a period of three to four years, in the late 940s
and early 950s. These and other, less direct chronological indications have been brought
together by John B. Bury,” discussed by Romilly J. H. Jenkins,’ and are the foundation
of the commonly accepted date of the treatise.
James Howard-Johnston was the only scholar to point out an apparent loophole in
this reasoning. He observed that the mention of the theme of Tziliapert (53.510) did not

* In the early 1980s, the present writer, an MA student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem at
the time, came for the first time to Oxford in the quest of James unpublished DPhil. I climbed to the
mezzanine of Duke Humfrey’s library, where the only copy available to the public was kept, and took
notes by hand (no photographs were allowed even though early primitive photocopiers already existed
in those ancient times). After I moved to Paris to work on my PhD, I visited Oxford again and met
James in person. Our first heated debate, in a pub where I was the only one to take beer, was followed
by others, at Oxford, when James invited me to give a lecture, and in Paris, for which James, a great
Francophile, always had a soft spot. It is quite emblematical that his Mélanges bring Oxford and Paris
together. | am most grateful to Vivien Prigent who commented on this text in a draft, and to the editors
of the volume for their careful revision and criticism.
1. I refer in parenthesis to chapters and lines of the standard edition (DAT).
2. Bury, The treatise De administrando imperio, pp. 522-4.
3. DAITII, pp. 5-6. Jenkins’ distinction between two stages in the text’s composition, 948-51
and 951~2, is unwarranted. SHcHAVELEV, Treatise, pp. 686-9, proposes a later date, suggesting
Constantine VII’s death in November 959 as the actual terminus ante quem for the composition of the
treatise; he does not explain why the materials gathered would have been left for years without use.

Mélanges James Howard-Johnston, ed. by Phil Booth « Mary Whitby

(Travaux & mémoires 26), Paris 2022, pp. 743-58.
744 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

fit into the mid-tenth-century context, and drew the conclusion that the series of notes
at the end of the treatise, in which this reference occurs, was a later addition to the text
produced by Constantine VII. James associated this addition with Caesar John Doukas,
on whose behalf the preserved copy of the DAI was executed in the 1070s or the early
1080s.* The present study has no higher ambition than to develop this accurate, but
briefly stated observation.

THE THEME OF TZILIAPERT AND THE CATEPANATE OF IBERIA

The last couple of pages of the Paris manuscript of DAI (Parisinus gr. 2009), from
the middle of f. 209' to the middle of f. 211‘, where the manuscript ends, contain an
accumulation of miscellaneous notes. In the printed edition, these notes make up the final
part of chapter 53 (Il. 493-535). But it needs to be stated that the chapter numbers in
DAT belong to modern editors who attach them to the chapter titles of the manuscript.’
Thus, the composition of “chapter 53” reflects the simple fact that the accumulation of
notes at the end was not provided with a distinct title. I will have more to say below on
the manuscript, its date, and the presentation of the notes.
Several notes indicate the location of the sources of aphtha (&p8a), petroleum used
in the preparation of Greek fire. Naphtha-wells are situated, notably, in the themes of
Derzene and of Tziliapert (53.507—11). The mention of the theme of Tziliapert (1. 510) is
the cornerstone of the argument that the whole series of notes cannot belong in the period
of Constantine VII. I will start with a survey of commentaries touching on this toponym.
R. J. H. Jenkins, not being able to locate Tziliapert, suggested in his commentary
on DAI 53 that this place name could be a corruption of Iloinepte-Bayburt. Héléne
Abrweiler described Tziliapert, and Derzene, as “régions pétroliféres du Caucase, extérieures
sans doute, 4 ce moment, aux frontiéres byzantines”. She took this to be an example of
a vague usage of the term thema in the meaning of “region” or “province”, paralleled in
DAI by its application to the Pechenegs (37.15, etc.).” I believe that the parallel is poorly
chosen, since the Pecheneg themata of DAI are rather divisions (a well-attested meaning
of the word thema) or tribes. But the suggestion of locating Tziliapert outside the empire
deserves our notice.
In a great step forward, Nicolas Oikonomideés identified Tziliapert as the city of
Gjuljabert (renamed Ucyol) in northeastern Turkey. In proposing this location, which has
not been contested in later studies, Oikonomidés was aware of the difficulty it involved:
there was no evidence of Byzantine expansion to the region prior or close to the time of
the composition of DAT in the mid-tenth century. He suggested therefore that Tziliapert

4, Howarp-Jounston, The De administrando imperio, p. 305; Ip., Military and provincial reform,
pp. 303-4. ; ‘
5. This observation leaves me sceptical about the recent tendency to consider the number of
chapters of DA as symbolically significant, see NEMETH, Zhe Excerpta constantiniana, pp. 77, 130-1;
cf. SHCHAVELEY, Treatise, pp. 688-9 (with references). To mark the numerical symbolism, the author
would have numbered the chapters. Otherwise the reader, in order to grasp the symbolic number fifty-
three, needed to count the titles one by one.
6. DAIL, p. 209.
7. GtyKaTzi-AHRWEILER, Recherches, p. 79.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO TAS

was annexed to the Empire “soit effectivement, soit par une fiction diplomatique, analogue
4 celle utilisée, sous Léon VI pour le Taron : conférer au gouverneur local le titre de
stratége byzantin.”® Oikonomideés was also aware of the problem created by the absence of
Tziliapert from the Escorial 7zktikon that he himself discovered and published, dating it
between 971 and 975. By way of solution, he suggested that the annexation of Tziliapert
might have been not only nominal but also short-lived.’
The parallel of Taron is hardly pertinent, since this principality was never described
as a theme before its actual annexation in 966/7. We have no knowledge of a local
dynasty at Tziliapert that Byzantium could be courting either. What deserves notice is
that Oikonomidés, not unlike Ahrweiler, sought to place Tziliapert outside the imperial
borders. -
I have dwelt on Oikonomidés’ qualms and hesitations because they disappear without
a trace in some later works that quote his studies as reference. Thus Hans-Joachim Kiihn
lists Tziliapert (948/52) among the earliest wxp&: d.ppevicc. Béporta,, small themes created
on a new pattern.'° Likewise, John F. Haldon lists Tziliapert among the imperial themes
attested from ca. 948-52, the time of composition of DAI." As already mentioned, James
Howard-Johnston was the only one to break with this consensus.
The 2006 publication of two seals of military commanders of Tziliapert by Jean-Claude
Cheynet allows further progress in the debate. One seal belongs to the imperial
protospatharios and kleisourarches of Tziliapert, whose name is poorly preserved,’ the
other, to the imperial protospatharios and strategos of Tziliapert, named Constantine. As
the editor points out, this sequence of titles presents the evolution in the administrative
status of Tziliapert, created as a k/eisoura and then transformed into a thema."°
‘The first implication of this discovery is that it removes all doubts about the reality
of the place name Tziliapert, reading TC[Alnénept on the first seal and TQnA(1)énept on
the second. Thus, Jenkins’ old proposal to consider this form in DAJ as a ghost-name, a
corruption of Ioinepte, becomes obsolete and can no longer be viewed as an alternative
to Oikonomideés’ identification." The other implication is that all suggestions regarding
the extraterritorial or “fictitious” character of the Tziliapert theme become obsolete as
well.!° This was a regular Byzantine military district, first a fortified border region, then
a full-scale theme.
The most substantial issue in regard to the newly published seals concerns their date.
The obverse decoration consisting of an ornate patriarchal cross on steps is very similar

8. Orxonominés, Lorganisation de la frontiére orientale, pp. 287-8, and n. 14 for the quote.
9, Orxonomipks, Les Listes de préséance, p. 355, n. 381.
10. Kin, Die byzantinische Armee, p. 63; cf. Krsmanovic, The Byzantine province, p. 86, who
locates Tziliapert “on the Armenian-Iberian border”. On the “Armenian (&ppyevicé or &ppeviaKd)
themes”, see now ZUCKERMAN, Campaign blueprints, pp. 375-82.
11. Hatpon, Warfare, state and society, p. 88.
12, In Cueynet, Byzantine seals, pp. 107-23, this officer is appropriately described as a
kleisourarches of “an obscure fortress on the border with Georgia’ in the text of the article (p. 110);
however, he becomes, through an editorial oversight, “George the strategos of Tziliaper” in the caption
to the seal (p. 119, no. 7/16).
13. Cueynet, De Tziliapert 4 Sébasté, pp. 213-15.
14. As, for instance, in Pryor & Jerrreys, The age of the dromon, p. xxxviii.
15. Cueynet, De Tziliapert 4 Sébasté, p. 215.
746 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

on both seals. The editor dated the seal of the kleisourarches to the 10° century and the
seal of the strategos to the 10"/11%. He pointed out that the “sceau de clisourarque, en
raison du décor trés développé qui entoure la croix patriarcale, doit étre daté de la seconde
moitié du x’ siécle”. Nevertheless, he accepted 959, the year of Constantine VII's death,
as the terminus ante quem for the creation of the theme, mentioned in DAJ.'° This would
leave a very narrow dating span for the kleisourarches seal, necessarily issued before the
theme was created.
More recently, Werner Seibt suggested reading the partially preserved name of
Tziliapert’s kleisourarches as Bardas, arguing that this officer could be the same man as
Bardas, the katepano of Iberia on a seal with “eine sehr ahnliche Avers-Seite” that Seibt
dated between 1000 and 1020.” The implicit chronological aspect of this argument is
crucial for the present study. Seibt’s proposed identification rules out a mid-tenth-century
dating for the seal of the Aleisourarches, bringing down its date to the late tenth century at
the earliest. This point, as it turns out, does not need to be argued. Jean-Claude Cheynet
authorizes me to quote his revised dating for both Tziliapert seals as the reign of Basil I
(976-1025), ruling out the middle of the tenth century. Vivien Prigent suggested per
Litteras a similar dating.
This consensus of sigillographists removes two stumbling-blocks to reconstructing
the history of the Tziliapert theme. Its absence from the Escorial 7aktikon finds a ready
explanation. The theme did not yet exist when this document was composed in the
early 970s. Admitting a later date for the theme’s creation also removes the difficulty,
pointed out by Ahrweiler and Oikonomideés, of finding a location for Tziliapert within
the mid-tenth-century imperial borders. However, the agreement of the 7aktikon’s data
with the seals’ date only accentuates the gap between this evidence and that of DAJ in
its traditional dating.
A crucial yet unnoticed consideration in dating the seals relates to Tziliapert’s original
status as a Aleisoura. Every kleisoura, a fortified mountain pass on the empire's border,
provided protection for a theme, and the question is to which theme Tziliapert was
originally attached. Its geographical location, as indicated by Oikonomides, leaves no
other option but the “grand théme” or catepanate of Iberia, whose creation becomes
the terminus post quem for the fortification of Tziliapert. As for the establishment of the
catepanate, its dating is still a matter of debate. The date of 1022 or 1023, first proposed
by Nicolas Adontz, was argued in more detail by Karen Yuzbashyan, Hratch Bartikyan
and Valerij Stepanenko.'® However, Werner Seibt has recently opted for an alternative
dating, advanced by Viada Arutjunova-Fidanjan and associating [beria’s creation with the
demise of Kuropalates David III of Tao, in 1000.'? On this occasion, Emperor Basil II
travelled to the region and recovered in person David’s realm bequeathed to him in 990.

16. Cueynet, De Tziliapert 4 Sébasté, p. 214.

17. Szser, Das byzantinische Militarkkommando , Iberia“, p. 148. On the date of the seal, see below.
18. YUZBASHYAN, Apmsucxue zocydapcmea, pp. 183-90; BaRTIKIAN, O yapckom kyparope
Manuuxepra; STEPANENKO & ALEKSEENKO, Dema Mpepus. The scholars’ latest studies that 1 quote
summarize their earlier publications on the subject.
19, ARUTsUNOVA-FIDANJAN, Apmsane-xanxedonume:, pp. 100-4, 109-22 (summarizing the earlier
publications by the author). Hotmes, Basil IZ, pp. 360-2, dodges this debate, followed by KrsMANovIc,
the Byzantine province, pp. 181-2.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO TAT

As pointed out by Seibt, the normal Byzantine practice would have been to endow the
newly acquired territory with a regular military and civilian administration.” To affirm,
as I for my part do, that the catepanate of Iberia was only created in the territory of
David II's principality of Tao-Klarjeti over twenty years after his death, requires weighty
arguments that need to be restated.
‘This is not the place to recall in detail the long career of David the Kuropalates
(PmbZ 21432), and his complex relations with Emperor Basil II, whom he supported
and betrayed, and with King of Kings Gurgen of Iberia-Kartli (PmbZ 22531), whose son
Bagrat (PmbZ 20740), presented in his youth as David's adopted son and heir-designate,
became the king of Abkhazia. David’s main stroke of luck was his timely support for
Basil II against the rebel Bardas Skleros in 978/9, which earned him a singular prize in the
form of territories previously integrated as themes into the Byzantine Empire. As described
by Stepanos (Asolik) of Taron, they included “the kleisoura of Xaltoyarié, Cormayri and
Karin, Basean and Sewuk-Berdak which is Mardali, Hark and Apahunik”.”! With the
exception of the two last-named districts, which corresponded to Arab principalities still
to be conquered, these territories formed a “belt”, in Karen Yuzbashyan’s definition, to
the south of Tao proper and to the north of the principality of Taron, freshly acquired by
Byzantium in 966/7. The most important stronghold, attested in the Escorial Taktikon
as a theme, was Theodosiopolis-Karin, but another theme, Artze-Arzn, located to the
north, was necessarily part of the deal. Yuzbashyan includes in the transfer also the major
fortress of Haw¢ié, the site of the homonymous theme (Chauzizin),” but this is much
less certain. Since Haw¢i¢ is not mentioned specifically, the upper course of the Araxes,
which separates Haw¢ic from Sewuk-Berdak, the southern-most fortress actually attested.
as transferred to David, might have marked the border between the expanded Tao and
the empire, leaving Hawci¢ in Byzantine territory.
David was less lucky in his decision to support the rebellion of Bardas Phokas in
987-9. After its defeat, he was compelled to bequeath to the emperor all his lands,
ancestral and newly acquired alike. When David died ten years later, Basil II, despite
the continuing Bulgarian war and the ongoing campaign against the Arabs, came to the
region to claim his inheritance in person.
The Byzantine tradition on Basil Il’s visit and its aftermath, as represented by
John Skylitzes, is too confused to be of any use: the historian confounds Basil I’s two
expeditions to Tao, in 1000 and in 1021.” Fortunately, we have the contemporary
testimony of Stepanos of Taron, who was describing the events as they occurred. In the
late spring of 1000, Basil II came from Tarsus in Cilicia and camped in the district of
Hawéié. He was met by the kings Gurgen of Iberia and Bagrat of Abkhazia, whom he

20. Sripr, Das byzantinische Militarkommando , Iberia“, pp. 146-7, with n. 4.

21. Stepanos of Taron, III.15, transl. Greenwood p. 244.
22. YUZBASHYAN, «IcxypuaancKult Taxruxon», p. 96, with reference the Escorial Taktikon, ed.
Orxonomipks, Les listes de préséance, pp. 265, |. 19 (@eo80c.wvndAews), 267, |. 30 (KaveiCiov), 269,
1.13 CApt&n, misplaced on the map, p. 399). YuzBasHvAN, p. 136, points out that Oikonomidés’
proposal to place in Armenia the theme of MeAtij (Escorial Tzktikon, p. 269, |. 10, cf. p. 362), based
on a vague assonance, is unwarranted.
23. Skylitzes, ed. Thurn p. 339. George who meets Basil II, presented as “the Kuropalates David’s
brother”, is in fact Bagrat’s young son (see below).
748 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

endowed with high imperial dignities and sent away on friendly terms. An unfortunate
accident set at odds the best troops of Tao-Tayk’, who came to pay homage to their new
suzerain, and Basil II’s 6,000-strong Rus contingent. A brawl over a lost horse developed
into a battle, in which the troops of Tao were decimated and many nobles fell. The
emperor proceeded to the city of Ughtik (Oltisi), the capital of Tao, “and gained control
of all the fortresses and strongholds of Tayk’; he appointed the trustworthy men for them
and took the remaining azats of Tayk’ and conveyed them with himself to be settled in
the country of the Greeks”,”* as was the Byzantine custom. Likewise, Yahya ibn Sa‘id of
Antioch notes: “Entré en possession de toutes les terres géorgiennes, |’empereur y nomma
en son nom des gouverneurs grecs.”” There is no question of creating a single command
in the former principality, which was practically demilitarized after the losses inflicted
by the Rus and the resettlement of the remaining soldiers.
Scholars who quote Stepanos on the unopposed occupation of Tayk’ by Basil II often
neglect the next year’s entry of his chronicle, rightly highlighted by Valerij Stepanenko. In
the year 1001, King Gurgen, pretending offence since he obtained a lesser dignity from
Basil II than his son Bagrat, “went with all his forces and took control of the country of
‘Tayk’.” He was unable to capture the fortress of Ughtik or other strongholds, but visibly
met no other kind of resistance. No imperial forces were available anywhere near. Thus,
at Basil II’s behest, it was the duke of Antioch, Nikephoros Ouranos, and his troops who
“followed the same route as the king” and faced Gurgen in the land of Basean, on the
southeastern outskirts of David’s former principality. Not only did Nikephoros not force
his way into the occupied territory, he avoided confrontation altogether. He stayed in the
region well into the winter and could only conclude peace with Gurgen “on the basis that
the king would do his wishes, whatever he might request”.”° The “king”, Basil 1, must
have made clear to his general that, being engaged on two fronts, he was in no position
to open a third one.
Stepanos’ testimony produces clear proof that Basil II did not create a theme in the
newly recovered principality of Tao-Tayk’ in the summer of 1000. Manifestly, he had
no manpower to spare. A year and half later, a large part of this territory was lost to the
empire. ‘The terms of the compromise that satisfied King Gurgen in the winter of 1001/2,
may be surmised from later events, which show the city of Theodosiopolis as a Byzantine
possession and the region of Ughtik as imperial borderland.”” Thus, the empire recovered
its former thematic territories and kept the southern part of Tao proper, while Gurgen
obtained its northern part. The events of the 1020s, discussed below, supply a fair idea of
the territories involved. Meanwhile, in 1008, King Gurgen died and all his lands passed

24. Stepanos of Taron, III.43, transl. Greenwood pp. 307-10 (p. 310 for the quote).
25. Yahya ibn Sa‘id of Antioch, ed. and transl. Kratchkovsky a Vasiliev p. [252]/460.
26. Stepanos of Taron, III.44, transl. Greenwood pp. 310-11; cf. STEPANENKO, K aucxyccnn 0
Aare, p. 213. .
27. According to Aristakes Lastivertc'i, King Gregory I’s warriors from Tayk’ defeated, ca. 1014,
a small imperial force in the region of Ughtik but stopped short of devastating it, obviously because
they considered this imperial territory as part of their own country; the fortress was to be destroyed
five years later by Gregory himself, during the hostilities against Basil II. The latter re-fortified and
garrisoned the city of Theodosiopolis on the eve of the campaign (transl. Bedrosian pp. 6, 10-12).
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 749

to his son Bagrat III. In 1014, Bagrat III, king of Iberia and Abkhazia, died in his turn,
and his vast domain passed to his young son George (Giorgi) I (PmbZ 22309).
Despite their very different backgrounds, our two best sources, Sumbat, son of David
(Davitis-dze), the Georgian chronicler of the Bagratid dynasty of Tao-Klarjeti, writing
in the 1030s,”8 and the Armenian Aristakes Lastivertc‘i, from the Bagrevand district
adjacent to the Bagratid realm, writing in the 1070s, who both witnessed the events,
provide a concordant view. They describe how in the summer of 1021, after the successful
conclusion of the Bulgarian war, Basil II came with a large host to claim the inheritance
of David the Kuropalates. Faced with this threat, King George I first sent a conciliatory
message, but then adopted a tougher stand. In the lengthy conflict that followed, the
entire region was devastated, including the neighbouring Armenian provinces. Aristakes
attributes George I’s intransigence to his stupidity, Sumbat blames the influence of
ill-disposed nobles, but both authors agree on the basic fairness of Basil II in the final
settlement, reached after the ultimate debacle of the Georgian army in the summer of
1022. According to the former, before the decisive battle, the emperor wrote to George,
“using pleasant words” and “demanding three fortresses with their estates, which Giorgi
had unjustly expropriated from the Curopalate’s portion.” After the victory he claimed
again “my patrimony which the Curopalate had given me.””? Sumbat is even more precise,
speaking of “twelve fortresses and lands in 'T’ao, Basiani, Javakheti and Shavsheti, which
had been inherited by King Giorgi from David kuropalates.”*
‘The latter indication is crucial for my argument. The theme of Tziliapert is situated at
the northeastern limit of the principality of Tao-Klarjeti, facing Kartli proper, or “inner”
(ow or évdotépw) Iberia in the Byzantine geopolitical terminology of the time.*' Before
imperial control was extended over the entire principality, stretching to the countries of
Javakheti and Shavsheti in the north and northeast, the creation of a Byzantine stronghold
at Tziliapert was not possible. The kleisoura could be established as early as the catepanate
of Iberia, in 1022 or 1023. Like the catepanate itself, it must have been conceived as
a bridgehead for further expansion into the kingdom of Iberia. The expansionist plans
were abandoned with Constantine VIII’s demise in November 1028, and it may have
been then that the &/eisoura was converted into a theme.” In any case, the late 1020s is
the terminus post quem both for the seal of the strategos Constantine and for the notes
appended to DAI.
The additional gain of the analysis proposed resides in a better vision of the frontiers of
the successive political entities in the region. The A/eisoura, then the theme, of Tziliapert
marks the northeastern limit of the catepanate of Iberia, thus making it possible to

28. On the date of Sumbat’s chronicle, part of one of the versions of the Georgian historical
anthology Kartlis Cxovreba, see TouMANorE, Medieval Georgian historical literature, p. 154; Rapp,
Studies, p. 339.
29. Axistakes Lastivertc‘i, transl. Bedrosian pp. 21-4.
30. Sumbat Davitis-dze, The life and tale of the Bagrat‘ionis, transl. Abashidze pp. 218-19.
31. On this notion, see BARTIKIAN, O napcKom kyparope Manuykepta.
32. In SrEPANENKO, Muxana Karadaop, the history of the theme of Tziliapert is distorted through
the false assumption that it is attested in the Escorial Taktikon (p. 177); supposedly absorbed in the
realm of David the Kuropalate, it was recreated after his death in 1000 and integrated in the “grand
theme” of Iberia in 1022 (pp. 178~9, 182).
750 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

draw the imperial border with the Kingdom of Kartli along the line from Tziliapert to
Soteriopolis, a theme attested in the Escorial Zaktikon and in an eleventh-century source.*
Two testimonies cited above bear witness to the basic fairness of Basil II’s territorial
claims, restricted to areas that King George I inherited, though indirectly, from David the
Kuropalates. The theme of Iberia was established within the borders of David’s principality
of Tao-Klarjeti as determined ca. 980, after the territorial grant conceded by Basil II (see
Map). The areas north and east of Tziliapert, attached to the principality of Tao-Klarjeti
by Robert H. Hewsen,* belonged in fact to King Gurgen of Kartli and never came under
David’s sway. Tao-Klarjeti and Kartli were briefly united by King Gurgen in 1001 but
re-divided the next year in a treaty negotiated by Nikephoros Ouranos.*°

"THE REBELLIOUS CHERSON AND THE TITLE OF ITS MILITARY GOVERNOR

‘The second part of the notes appended to the text of DAZ describes ways of dealing
with the inhabitants of Cherson if they should rebel (53.512-35). The measures prescribed
mostly concern the economic blockade of the city. They are so specific and precise that
I am inclined to view them not as an abstract textbook case but as a reference to a concrete
and fairly recent experience.
As long as these notes were dated, with the rest of DAY, to the early 950s, the closest
incident of the kind on record was the assassination, by the rebellious Chersonites,
of their strategos Symeon (PmbZ 27469) ca. 896, briefly reported in the chronicle of
Symeon Logothetes.°° With the chronological perspective of the present study, the
stoning, by Chersonite rebels, of their unnamed katepano ca. 1070 (cf. below) might
also be considered. Yet, the uprising scenario as traced in the additional notes to DAI
has a salient feature that rules out this identification: the Chersonites do not harm their
strategos. As the author of the notes points out, the sérategos should receive an imperial
order to cut off all payments normally distributed to the city—clearly, to the city militia
that proved disloyal—and to move away to a safer stronghold. This makes both the above
cases irrelevant.
The only other rebellion in the Crimean Peninsula known in our period is briefly
mentioned by John Skylitzes. He locates it in Khazaria and identifies the rebel as che
archon of this country (tod &pxovtog adtfis), George Tzoules, who was subdued on the
first assault by the naval force dispatched by Emperor Basil II from Constantinople
in 1016.°’ Speculations on the exact position of George Tzoules or Tzoulas, mostly in
Russian-language historiography, were wide and diverse, including the independent or
semi-independent ruler of some variously located relic of the Khazar khaganate (destroyed
ca. 970), as well as the strategos of Cherson.** Scholars have pointed out that no source
describes Cherson and its region as Khazaria,” but nevertheless the latter identification

33. See Serpt, The enigma (with references).

34, Hewsen, Armenia, p. 109, map 83.
35. I mark the demarcation line as traced by YEREMIAN, Kapra 862-953 rr.
36. Symeon Logothetes 133.21, ed. Wahlgren p. 277 (ll. 138-9).
37. Skylitzes, ed. Thurn p. 354.
38. See STEPANENKO, Llyaa u Xepcou.
39. Notably StepANENKO, Apxout Xasapun.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 751

Tziliapert ®

©
Oltisi

Chauzizin
( Hawdié ) b

| ie@ Chantiarte 4 Hark Vp

pl Manian
mel “pahunik
: ‘ a3

Asmostaton © Mush 2
©
“fay, q
Z t
Lake of Van

Taron theme / catepanate (region)

@ Derzene theme (fortress)

® Mush capital (ofa theme / a kingdom)

EH Artanudj fortress

i principality of Tao-Kiarjeti (ca. 980)

catepanate of Iberia (ca. 1023)
one demarcation line of 1002

Map — Byzantium’s northeastern frontier: themes and catepanates

attested in the Escorial Tzktikon (early 970s) and under the reign of Basil II (976-1025).
752 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

still features in the PmbZ (Georgios Tzules 22253). This is due to the fact that numerous
seals found in Cherson and dated from the same period as the rebellion (early eleventh
century) feature George Tzoulas as an imperial protospatharios and strategos of Cherson,
or an imperial protospatharios and strategos with no indication of his place of command.”
However, another contemporary seal from the region features George Tzoulas as a
protospatharios tod Moondép(ov) = Boondpov, the sérategos of the Cimmerian Bosporus.“!
I have recently dealt with the topic at length, showing that the terminological usage of
Skylitzes, while anachronistic for the period he describes, makes perfect sense in the terms
of his own time.” A recently published seal, datable ca. 1060-70, belongs to Nikephoros
Alanos, katepano of Cherson and Khazaria (katendv@ Xepodvog cai XaGapiag). The
title distinguishes between two geographical entities, showing Khazaria, like Cherson,
to be a Byzantine administrative unit. This unit also appears on another seal, from the
1080s, belonging to Michael, better known as Prince Oleg of Tmutorokan, who describes
himself as &pyovtt cai SodKg. Matpé&xov cai ndong XaCaptac.™ As I argued long before
the publication of both seals, Khazaria in question—now clearly located east of Cherson
and west of Matracha-Tmutorokan—had nothing to do with the Khazar khaganate. This
is a region in eastern Crimea where Khazar migrants settled in the late seventh or the early
eighth century. Emperor Alexios Komnenos installed Michael-Oleg in Tmutorokan as
archon and. doux of Matracha and Khazaria in 1083.“ Unsurprisingly, Skylitzes, writing
in the later 1080s, gives the title of archon to the Byzantine military commander of the
area earlier in the century.
The uncontestable fact that the rebellion described by Skylitzes broke out in eastern
Crimea does not exclude the identification of George Tzoulas, the strategos of Cherson,
with the homonymous and strictly contemporary strategos of the Cimmerian Bosporus.
‘The demotion of George from the former position to the latter could explain his uprising.
‘The support that this scion of the most powerful family in Cherson*” must have enjoyed
in his native city would explain why local militia could not be employed to quell the
rebellion and why the strategos of Cherson was sidelined. This scenario conforms in every
detail with the one implied in the DA/ notes, where the rebellion of the Chersonites does
not seem to threaten the strategos in person or impede his movements. Thus, among all.
known rebellions in Crimea, only the one mentioned by Skylitzes can be tentatively
related to the notes appended to DAI.
Recognizing the rebellion of George Tzoulas as the event that inspired the notes on
Cherson appended to DAI provides another terminus post quem for their composition,
1016, which supports the already established one, the creation of the theme of Tziliapert
in the late 1020s at the earliest, by bringing an additional demonstration that the entire

40. ALEKSEENKO, Ladministration byzantine de Cherson, pp. 173-6, no. 89; 234~6, no. 156.
41. Ibid., p. 237, no, 159; no alternative interpretation of the seal has been argued, to my knowledge
(cf. the confused entry Georgios, PmbZ 22221).
42. ZucKERMAN, The end of Byzantine rule, pp. 317, 325-6.
43, ALEKSEENKO & CEPKOV, Karenanar B Taspuke.
44. Atr’orov, A seal of Michael.
45. See ZUCKERMAN, Byzantium’s Pontic policy, pp. 222-4.
46. ZucKERMAN, The end of Byzantine tule, pp. 318-19.
47. On the Tzoulas family, see ALEKSEENKO, Ladministration byzantine de Cherson, pp. 231-8.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO [MPERIO 753

body of notes is largely posterior to the main core of the treatise. However, the history
of Cherson also provides us with a terminus ante quem for the notes.
The title of Cherson’s military governor, after continuing as the strategos of Cherson
for over two centuries, shows a first change in a monumental inscription that carries
the date of April 10, 6567 (ap 1059). There, Leo Aliates is styled patrikios and strategos
of Cherson and Sugdea (natpixiog kai otpatnyog Xepodvos Kai Lovydaiac, JOSPE V,
11). This expansion of nomenclature heralds the subsequent creation of an independent
theme of Sugdea, modern Sudak in eastern Crimea. However, three seals of the same
officer present him as patrikios and strategos with no geographical location.** It is likely he
could be styled in daily usage the strategos of Cherson. The real change takes place a few
years later. The early Rus chronicle, as reflected in the Novgorod I Chronicle and the Tale
of Bygone years, records the demise of Prince Rostislav of Tmutorokan on February 3”,
1067, allegedly poisoned by an unnamed katepano of Cherson. This official was stoned
soon afterwards by the Chersonites, in the chronicler’s perception as God’s punishment
for his crime.” The seal of Nikephoros Alanos, katepano of Cherson and Khazaria (above)
confirms the reality of the title’s change. The katepano, who visited Prince Rostislav at
Tmutorokan, could not have been appointed any later than 1066, which becomes the
terminus ante quem for the redaction of the DA/ notes. Their author, who clearly belonged
to the summit of Byzantine administration, would not have confused a katepano and a
StVALEZOS.
The root of the conflict between the katepano and Prince Rostislav reinforces this
argument. The chronicler explains (ibid.) Rostislav’s alleged murder by the fact that
he started claiming tribute “from the Kasogians and other countries, which scared the
Greeks.” Kasogia was part of Zichia, a country that features prominently in the additional
notes on the sources of naphtha (53.493-511). Apart from the wells of Derzene and
Tziliapert (above), they were all located at the eastern-most extremity of the Black Sea.
“Many wells yielding naphtha” are indicated “outside the city of Tamatarcha” or Matracha
on the Taman peninsula. Then eleven springs of naphtha are described in much detail in
the country of Zichia, extending between the mountains and the coastline southeast of
Matracha. Ten of them are situated “in Zichia”, either “in the region of Papagia” (eig to
uépoc tig Monorytac) or “in the place called Papagi” (év 1@ t6n@ 1 KaAOvLeve Mdnery).
‘The perception of Papagia as a region of Zichia contrasts with the DAJ proper separating
Papagia as a distinct country (x®pa) from the country of Zichia and situating it higher in
the mountains (&v@Bev) (42.99-100). No commentator has dwelt on this differentiated
view of Papagia or noticed that this whole oil-producing region belonged, under the reign
of Constantine VII, to the empire’s arch-enemy, the Khazars, and was inaccessible to the
Byzantine naphtha-harvesters. However, what matters in the present context is that the
conflict over the control of the naphtha sources provides another terminus ante quem for
the composition of the notes. As of the mid-1060s, both the governor’s title changes and
the naphtha country becomes once more inaccessible to the empire.

48. ALEKSEENKO, Busanrulicxas aAMHHMCTpauMa.

49, See ZucKERMAN, The end of Byzantine rule, pp. 312-14, for the sources and the date.
754 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

‘THE ADDITIONAL NOTES OF DAT AND CAESAR JOHN Doukas

‘The only preserved manuscript of DAI (the apographs excluded), the Parisinus
gr. 2009, carries the colophon indicating that it was copied for Caesar John Doukas
by his “home-born servant” (oixoyevods oixétov) Michael Roizaites.” John, who had
previously occupied several prominent positions, was promoted to the dignity of a caesar
upon his brother Constantine’s coronation in November 1059. He is last mentioned, as
Caesar John, by his great-granddaughter Anna Komnena in 1081, in the context of her
father Alexios’ accession to the throne. Since Anna, born in December 1083, claims to
have met her great-grandfather, his death is placed not before the late 1080s. About 1074,
John was tonsured as a monk under the name of Ignatios for his probably involuntary
participation in a rebellion against his nephew, Emperor Michael VI (1071-8), but soon
regained a prominent military and political position. Seals issued in the name of Ignatios
carry the singular combination of titles of monk and caesar, and it is as “monk caesar”
Ignatios that he is commemorated in the typikon of the Christ Philanthropos monastery
founded by his granddaughter Eirene Doukaina, Emperor Alexios I’s wife.*' The question
we need to ask is whether Caesar John Doukas can be linked to the additional notes in
the manuscript that he ordered to be copied.
An essential element of the answer resides in the fact that the additional notes are
totally indistinct in the manuscript as such: they are written by the same hand (of Michael
Roizaites) in the same ink, with no separation from the main text. This is the reason why
they were believed to be part of the original treatise. If we attribute them to Caesar John
Doukas, we would probably have to admit that he first wrote them down in the original
manuscript and then ordered it to be copied. This procedure, while not impossible, is
not the most plausible.
Different considerations have been adduced concerning the exact date of the preserved
copy. Anna Komnena’s testimony shows that her great-grandfather did not give up using
not only his title of caesar but also his secular name John. Several periods in Caesar John’s
career have been suggested as windows of opportunity for the production of the Parisinus
gr. 2009. Recently, Aleksei S. Shchavelev stated a preference for the earlier period,
1059-73. In his view, the copy could then serve John as an educational manual either °
for his nephew Michael, the future emperor, born ca. 1050, or for his own children.”
I doubt that the treatise, which had become entirely outdated in the century and more
that had passed since its composition, could be destined for any such use. A different
indication for dating the copy appears to be more pertinent in the present context. In an
unambiguous passage, the scribe replaced the ethnic designation ‘Papdvoug by the wholly
inappropriate Koudvovg (29.47 apparatus). This Freudian slip was only conceivable when
Cumans became a household name in Byzantium. This could be the case in the 1080s
(to judge by the frequency of their appearance in Anna Komnena’s Alexiad), less likely

50. On the manuscript and the colophon, see Monpratn, La lecture du De administrando imperto.
51. On Caesar John, see Kourourou & VANNIER, Commémoraisons des Comnénes, p. 45, cf.
pp. 63-4 (with references).
52. See MonDRAIN, La lecture du De administrando imperio, p. 490.
53. SHCHAVELEV, Treatise, pp. 681-3.
54, Cf. Monprain, La lecture du De administrando imperio, p. 491.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 755

in the 1070s, but there is no evidence of contact between Byzantium and the Cumans
in the 1060s, when they were taking control of the Pontic steppe. In other words, the
preserved copy of DAI could not have been produced before the mid-1060s, the terminus
ante quem for the composition of the additional notes as established above. This brings
us back to the unlikely scenario of Caesar John writing down the notes in the palace
manuscript of DA/ and having it then copied for his own usage.
An earlier date for the composition of the notes seems to me much more plausible,
in particular if we admit that the instructions on quelling an uprising in Cherson are
based on the experience of 1015-16. Dating the notes to the 1030s would avoid all
contradictions. The notes are clearly inspired by reading the last chapter of DAV, dedicated
to Cherson and the eastern Pontus, but I would not speculate on their author. They appear
as another landmark in “la lecture du De administrando imperio 4 Byzance au cours des
siécles”, to quote the title of Brigitte Mondrain’s article.
Several studies suggest that DA/as it came down to us is based on an earlier collection
of “ethnographic” materials, possibly going back to the reign of Leo VI,® or incorporates
’ chapters on countries and tribes composed many years before Constantine VII conceived
his project.°° The usual claim is that elements of data provided in the treatise, if placed
in an earlier historical context, would fit in admirably and enrich our knowledge of
the period in question. What is always lacking is the crucial complementary argument
showing that these elements contradict or fit any less well the mid-tenth-century situation.
While DAI admittedly integrates parts of earlier literary texts, like all Constantinian
compilations, any attempt to contest the chronological homogeneity of its present-
oriented “ethnographical” core remains to this day a conjecture. It is all the more crucial,
therefore, to clearly set apart the small portion of the manifestly “topical” text that does
not fit into this chronological framework simply because it does not belong to the original
treatise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary sources
Aristakes Lastivertc'i : Aristakes Lastivertcis History, wansl. by R. Bedrosian, New York 1985 (best
available online).
DAI: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Greek text ed. by Gy. Moravcsik;
English transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins (CFHB 1), Washington pc 1967’.
DAI II: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio. 2, Commentary, ed. by
R. J. H. Jenkins, London 1962.
IOSPE : Inscriptiones antiquae Orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, ed. B. Latyschev,
Petropoli 1885-.

55. Cf. lately Sope, Untersuchungen zu De administrando imperio,; HowaRD-JOHNSTON, The De

administrando imperio; SIGNES CODONER, Los eslavos en las fuentes bizantinas.
56. Thus, Koztov, Koucrantan Barpanopoaxsui, retrojects into the 920s the DA/ data on the
Pechenegs.
756 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

Skylitzes : Joannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, rec. 1. Thurn (CFHB. Series Berolinensis 5),
Berlin — New York 1973.
Stepanos of Taron : The Universal history of Step‘anos Taréneci, introd., transl., and commentary
by T. Greenwood, Oxford 2017.
Sumbat Davitis-dze, The life and tale of the Bagrattonis, transl, M. Abashidze, in Kartlis Tskboureba :
a history of Georgia, ed.-in-chief of the English ed. S. Jones, Tbilisi 2014, pp. 211-26.
Symeon Logothetes : Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, rec. 8S. Wahlgren (CFHB 44, 1),
Berolini — Novi Eboraci 2006.
Yahya ibn Sa‘id of Antioch : Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa%d d’Antioche continuateur de Sa%d-ibn-Bitrig.
2, éd. et trad. en francais par 1. Kratchkovsky & A. Vasiliev (PO 23, 3), Paris 1932.

Studies
ALEKSEENKO N., Ladministration byzantine de Cherson : catalogue des sceaux (Occasional
monographs 4), Paris 2012.
— [H.A. Aarxcrrnxo], Busanruiickas aaMuHucrpanua Tappuxu B XI] B. w Hopaa neyarp Appa
Aauara us Xepcona, Xepodvosg Oguata: umnepusa u noauc 8, Simferopol 2016, pp. 9-16.
ALEKSEENKO N., A. & Cepxov Ju. A. [H. A. AagxcreHxo & IO. A. Llenxos], Karenanar s Taspuxe :
ACICHAAPHBIC CBHACTEABCTBa HAH HCTOpuyecKkue peaaun, Xepcoueccnun cbopuux \7, 2012,
pp. 7-17.
Atr’orov O., A seal of Michael, archon and doux of Matracha and all Khazaria (in Oleksii
Sheremetiev’s Collection), in Byzantine and Rus’ seals : proceedings of the international colloquium
on Rus-Byzantine sigillography, Kyiv, Ukraine, 13-16 September 2013, ed. by H. Ivakin,
N. Khrapunov & W, Seibt, Kyiv 2015, pp. 97-104.
ARUTJUNOVA-FrpanjaN V. A. [B. A. ApyrioHops-Ou,ansy], Apmane-xasKudonumot Ha BOCMOUHDLS
epanuyax Busanmuicrou umnepuu : XI 6., Epesan 1980.
Barrikian H. M. [P. M. Barruxan], O yapcxom xyparope Mannuxepra u Buyrpenueit Mepun B
CBS3H C BOCTOUHOH MOANTUKOH Bacnaus I, Gunndu-Putnanppushut 2utgéu 2000, 1, pp. 130-
48; repr. in Ip., Studia armeno-byzantina. 2, triajah 2002, pp. 453-72, published in Greek
as X. Mnaptixian, ‘O covpétap MavtCicept cai tic om TBnpias coi 1 &vatoArKh noditixh tod:
Baowtetov B’, Byzantina symmeikta 14, 2008, pp. 57-75.
Bury J. B., The treatise De administrando imperio, BZ 15, 1906, pp. 517-77.
Cueyner J.-C., Byzantine seals, in 7000 years of seals, ed. by D, Collon, London 1997.
— De Tziliapert 4 Sébasté, Studies in Byzantine sigillography 9, 2006, pp. 213-26.
GLYKATZI-AHRWEILER H., Recherches sur l’administration de ! Empire byzantin aux rx*-x1° siécles,
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 84, 1960, pp. 1-109.
Haxpon J. E, Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204, London 1999.
Hewsen R. H., Armenia : a historical atlas, Chicago 2001.
Homes C., Basil II and the governance of empire (976-1025), Oxford 2005.
Howarp-Jounston J., The De administrando imperio : a re-examination of the text and a te-
evaluation of its evidence about the Rus, in Les centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie,
Byzance et Orient, éd. par M. Kazanski, A. Nercessian & C. Zuckerman, Paris 2000, pp. 301-
36.
 THE ELEVENTH CENTURY IN DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 757

— Military and provincial reform in the East in the tenth century, in 08 S@pov ius tag ypagag
BAénov véew: mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet, éd. par B. Caseau, V. Prigent a A. Sopracasa
(= 7M 21, 1), Paris 2017, pp. 285-309.
Kouroupou M: & VANNIER J.-F, Commémoraisons des Comnénes dans le typikon liturgique du
monastére du Christ Philanthrope (ms. Panaghia Kamariotissa 29), REB 63, 2005, pp. 41-69.
Koztov S. A. [C. A. Kosaos], Koncrantas Barpsnopoaspiit o nevenexcxux «demax» (DAI.
cap. 37) u upo6aema ero uctosnuKos, in Bocmovnas Espona 6 dpesnocmu u cpeduesexoéste.
Muzpayuu, paccerenue, sotina kar paxmopot noaumoeenesa: XXIV Umeruanamamu B. T. Lauymo
(Mocxea, ABH PAH, '18-20.04.2012 2.), Mocxsa 2012, pp. 113-120.
Krsmanovié B., The Byzantine province in change : on the threshold between the 10” and the
II” century, Belgrade — Athens 2008.
Ktun H.-J., Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert: Studien zur Organisation der
lagmata, Wien 1991.
Monparaln B., La lecture du De administrando imperio 4 Byzance au cours des siécles, TM 14,
2002 (= Mélanges Gilbert Dagron), pp. 485-98.
Nimetu A., The Excerpta constantiniana and the Byzantine appropriation of the past, Cambridge
2018,
OrxonominEs N., Les Listes de préséance byzantines des ix° et X° siécles, Paris 1972.
-— Vorganisation de la fronti¢re orientale de Byzance aux x°-x1° siécles et Je taktikon de l' Escorial,
in Actes du XIV’ congrés international des études byzantines. 1, Bucarest 1974, pp. 285-302; repr.
in Ip., Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance : vir'—xv° s., London 1976, no. XXIV.
Pryor J. H & Jerrreys E., The age of the dromon : the Byzantine navy, ca. 500-1204 (The medieval
Mediterranean 62), Leiden 2006.
Rapp S. H., Studies in medieval Georgian historiography : early texts and Eurasian contexts (CSCO.
Subsidia 113), Leuven 2003.
SerBt W., Das byzantinische Militarkommando , Iberia“, in boda jbogtim Joto@og Igo = Scientific
paradigms : studies in honour of Professor Natela Vachnadze, obowolso 2009, pp. 146-70
(146-57 German, 158-70 Georgian).
— The enigma of Soteriopolis, REB 75, 2017, pp. 321-27.
SucHavetev A. S., Treatise De adiministrande imperio by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus :
date of the Paris. gr. 2009 copy, years of compiling of the original codex, and a hypothesis
about the number of authors, Studia ceranea 9, 2019, pp. 681-704.
Siangs Coponer J., Los eslavos en las fuentes bizantinas en los siglos [X—X : el De administrando
imperio de Constantino VII Porfirogéneto, “Mu : revista de ciencias de las religiones 13, 2004,
pp. 115-31.
Sove C., Untersuchungen zu De administrando imperio Kaiser Konstantins VIL. Porphyrogennetos,
in Varia. 5 (Poikila byzantina 13), Bonn 1994, pp. 149-260.
SrepaANENKO V. P. [B. I]. Crenanenxo], K ancxyccun 0 aate oOpasosanusa hemut Mepua,
Buszaumuticxut epemennux 44, 1983, pp. 211-14.
— Mauxana Karadaop, ummeparopcxui xyparop Manuuxepra u «Buyrpenuelt Vsepuu»,
Aumuinas dpesnocme u cpednue gexa 29, 1998, pp. 176-92.
— Llyaa nm Xepcou p poccuiicxofi ucropnorpapun XIX-XX ss., in Poccus u mup : nanopama
ucmopuxeckozo passumus : COopHUK HaytHbIx cmamel, noceaupenuoit 70-remuto ucmoOpUteEcKozo
758 CONSTANTIN ZUCKERMAN

paxysomema YpaarvcKozo zocyapcmeennozo ynusepcumema um. A. M. lopoxozo, Exarepunoypr

2008, pp. 27-35.
— Apxout Xasapuu : crparur Xepcona?, Xepconeccxui cbopuux 16, 2011, pp. 153-61.
STEPANENKO V. P. & ALEKSEENKO N. A. [B. I]. Cremanenxo & H. A. AarxcernKo], Pema Meepua
B XI s, (no Aannprm ccbparncruxu), Aumusnas dpesnocms u cpeduue sexa 39, 2009, pp. 234-40.
Toumanorr C., Medieval Georgian historical literature (VII"~XV" centuries), Traditio 1, 1943,
pp. 139-82.
YEREMIAN S. T. [C. T. Epemau], Kapra «Apmenus u conpeaeanune crparpi B 862-953 rr», in
Vosanucc Apacxanaxeprum, Hemopus Apmenun, nepeBoa c apesueapm. M. O. Aap6unan-
Meauxan, Epesan 1984.
YuzpasHyan K. N., [K. H. lO3samsn], «Qcxypuaascxuit Taxrukon» : Hopplii Busan TMlcKnit
ucrouHUK no ucropuu ApMenun, Becmuux obiuyecmecnnorx nayx AH Apmauccot CCP = lprauplip
Aureus purl alas gfoanfitnchikpp 1975, 5, pp- 91-8.

— Apmsnckue zocydapcmea anoxu Bazpamudos u Busaumua (IX—XI 6e.), Mocxsa 1988.

ZUCKERMAN C., Byzantium’s Pontic policy in the Notitiae episcopatuum, in La Crimée entre Byzance
et le Khaganat khazar, éd. par C. Zuckerman (Monogtaphies 25), Paris 2006, pp. 201-30.
— The end of Byzantine rule in North-Eastern Pontus, Mamepuaso: no apxeosoeun, ucmopun u
amuozpapuu Taspuxu 22, 2017, pp. 311-36.
— Campaign blueprints of an emperor who never campaigned in person : Constantine VII's
treatises on imperial expeditions and De cer. II, 45 (with special regard to the theme of
Charpezikion), TM 22, 1 (= Constantinople réelle et imaginaire : autour de V'euvre de Gilbert
Dagron), Paris 2018, pp. 341-82.