1. See Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire: a social, economic and administrative survey (Oxford 1964) 449–50, 697ff.Google Scholar, 701 and references; Stein, E., Histoire du Bos-Empire II (Paris-Bruges 1949/Amsterdam 1968) 441, 764–5 Google Scholar; Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitate: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 1974) 530–541 Google Scholar; Bratianu, G., Études byzantines d’histoire iconomique et sociale (Paris 1938) 131ff Google Scholar. The grain was then passed on to the praefectus annonae, under the prefect of the City, who was responsible for its distribution to the bakers and to the populace, both in the earlier and later periods. For the tenth century, see To Eparchikon Biblion, ed. Nicole, J. (Geneva 1893) cap. xviii Google Scholar. For the sitōnikon, see n. 3 below.

2. See Notitiae Urbis Constantinopolitanae (in Notitia Dignitatuum utriusque imperii, ed. O. Seeck [Berlin 1876]229–243) v, 13–17; ix, 6; 9; and De Caerimoniis (Bonn) 699⁷-701¹⁷. The granaries in question in the sixth-century ceremony are those tou Stratēgiou, in the Vth region of the City. See Janin, R., Constantinople Byzantine (Paris ² 1964) 431–2 Google Scholar and map 1, G6: these may be identified with the horrea of the Vth region listed in the Not. Urbis Const, (the horrea Troadensia, Valentiaca and Constantiaca). Cf. RE 8 (1913) art. Horreum, 2464. A great deal has been written on the sources of supply of grain, its transportation to Constantinople, and related problems; next to nothing, however, on its internal administration after the sixth century. See for summaries of the literature and Further discussion RE VII/1, 126ff. art. Frumentum (Rostovtzeff); Teall, J., ‘The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire’, DOP 13 (1959) 87–139 Google Scholar; Lilie, R. -J., Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung derAraber (Misc. Byz. Monacensia 22. München 1976) 21–2, 201–227 Google Scholar; Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300–1450 (Cambridge 1985) 44–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Munchen ³ 1963) 286–7.Google Scholar

3. For the seventh century, see below; and for the early eighth century, see Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. De Boor (Leipzig 1883/4) 384¹³; note also Du Cange, Gloss, graec, s.v. 1793; Bratianu, op. cit. (note 1 above) 131ff. For the eleventh century (the establishment of a grain store at Rhaidestos under Michael VII) see Lemerle, P., ‘Byzance au tournant de son destin’, in Cinq études sur le XI^e siecle byzantin (Paris 1977) 249ff.Google Scholar, see 300–302 and literature. The term horreum (ōrreion/ōrreiarionj had by this time lost its specific meaning: note Antoniadis-Bibicou, H., Recherches sur les douanes a Byzance, l’ “octava”, le “kommerkion” et les commercials (Paris 1963) 186 and n.2, 187 Google Scholar; and in particular Mercati, S.G., = Horrearius’, Aegyptus 30 (1950) 8–13 Google Scholar, who notes that the term horrearius, in a variety of Hellenised forms, continued to be used throughout the Byzantine period. It is associated both with monastic and ecclesiastical officials in charge of grain storehouses; as well as with state officials responsible for the imperial lands in the provinces: see, for example, V. Laurent, Les sceaux byzantins du médailler Vatican (= Medagliere della Biblioteca vaticana 1. Città del Vaticano 1962) no. 89 (p.81) and notes (9th cent.); and idem, Documents de sigillographie. La collection C. Orghidan (= Bibliotheque byzantine, Documents 1. Paris 1952) nos. 11 and 252. See also Millet, G., ‘Apothécarios’, BZ 30 (1930) 434–6 Google Scholar. None of these seems to have any connection with the storage of corn in Constantinople, however, the provincial horrearii and synonarii being involved in the supply of grain to the army, and coming under the authority of the thematic prōtonotarii. See, e.g., Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, H., ‘Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantin aux IX^e — Xl^e siecles’, BCH 84 (1960) 1–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see 43; and Haldon, J.F., Byzantine Praetorians: an administrative, institutional and social survey of the Opsikion and tagmata, c. 580–900 (Poikila Byzantina 3. Bonn/Berlin 1984) 314–316 Google Scholar and notes 948–954; although it is quite possible that such officials were also involved in the levying and transporting of grain intended ultimately for the capital itself.

For the seventh century, seals of a basilikos annōnarios, an annōneparchos, a komēs tou artou and chartoularioi tou sitōnikou (see Zacos, G., Veglery, A., Byzantine Lead Seals I (Basle 1972) nos. 2361, 454, 2920A and 2869Google Scholar) are evidence for both the urban and the praetorian praefectural sides of the administration of grain. The annōneparchos seems to be the praefectus annonae, the official in the City prefect’s bureau responsible for the production and distribution of the annonae civicae (cf. the term nykteparchos used of the praefectus vigilum — Jones, Later Roman Empire, 692). The kōmes tou artou may represent the same function, or at least a closely related post. See Jones, Later Roman Empire, 486, 692, 696ff. The annōnarios represents either the same official or more probably a member of the staff’ of the praefectus annonae (alternatively, although less likely, the seal may have belonged to a military optio or commissary officer, referred to also in the 6th century and before by this title — see Jones, Later Roman Empire, 626 for example). The chartoularioi tou sitōnikou represent the bureau of the same name, until Justinian’s time under the City Prefect, thereafter under the praetorian prefect. It administered a special fund for the supplying of Constantinople with corn, separate from that provided by the praetorian prefect’s office from Egypt and stored in the granaries of the comes horreorum (see Jones, Later Roman Empire, 698 and n. 24: Cod. Theod. xiv, 16.1 and 3; Joh. Lydus, De Mag. (ed. Wünsch) iii, 38.) The sitōnikon with its staff of chartularies must have become increasingly important after the loss of Egypt, and probably came to dominate the administration of the corn supply to the granaries of Constantinople and hence of the comes horreorum. See on all these officials V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de I’empire byzantin II: l’administration centrale (Paris 1981) no.1154 and 644ff. (and, for evidence that the annonae civicae issued to the scholares in Constantinople did not cease after 618 and the supposed abolition of this issue, see Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians, 125 and notes 164–7). Of all these, only the sitōnikon seems to have any connection with the granaries and the actual supplying of grain for the City, the others coming under the authority of the City Prefect and being connected with the production of bread and its distribution.

4. For the seals, see Zacos, and Veglery, , op. cit., nos. 2929 and 3066 Google Scholar; the granary watchman: Miracula S. Artemii, in Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., Varia graeca sacra (St. Petersburg 1909/Leipzig 1975) 1–79 Google Scholar, see no. 16, p.16^{11–13, 21–22} (BHG³ 173). See Mango, C., ‘On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople’, Zograf 10 (1979) 40–43.Google Scholar

5. Janin, , Constantinople byzantine, 363; 227–230 Google Scholar; map 1, E7; and, for an alternative view, Tiftixoglou, V., ‘Die Helenianai nebst einigen anderen Besitzungen im Vorfeld des frühen Konstantinopel’, in Studien zur Frühgeschichte Konstantinopels, ed. Beck, H.-G. (Misc. Byz. Monacensia 14. München 1973) 58–63 Google Scholar and notes. For the Heptaskalon, see Prinzing, G., Speck, P., ‘Fünf Lokalitäten in Konstantinopel’, ibid., esp. 194ff Google Scholar; also Müller-Wiener, W., Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion — Konstantinupolis — Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen 1977) 61–2.Google Scholar

6. Not. Urbis Const, ix, 6; 9; see Janin, Constantinople byzantine, map 3; also Müller- Wiener, , op. cit., 22, 61–2 Google Scholar and literature.

7. See Janin, , Constantinople byzantine, 227.Google Scholar

8. Janin, , Constantinople byzantine, 379 Google Scholar and references; and Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, introd., transl. and commentary, eds. Averil Cameron, Judith Herrin (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 10. Leiden 1984) 224–5; Patria tēs Kōnstantinoupōleos, in Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1901/1907) I, 1–18; II, 135–289, see II, ii, 179⁵ (cap. 51).

9. Patria II, ii, 179⁵ (cap. 51); 202^15sq. (cap. 97); Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (in Preger, Scriptores, I, 19–73) 27^8sq’ (cap. 12). See Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 66, 68–69, 104.

10. Parastaseis, loc. cit.

11. DeCaer. 83^23–4, 106¹⁵

12. Janin, , Constantinople byzantine, 104 Google Scholar; Cameron, , Herrin, , Parastaseis, 186–7.Google Scholar

13. Patria II, iii, 246¹¹ (cap. 85) and note; 269^13–17 (cap. 173).

14. Klēterologion of Philotheos (in Oikonomidés, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IV^e et X^e siecles (Paris 1972) 81–235 Google Scholar) see 113³⁵ and comm. 313–4.

15. See Notitia Dig., Oriens (cited note 2 above) xiii, 11; De Caer. ii, comm., 845; in charge of mines: J.B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, with a revised Text of the Kleterologion of Philotheos (Brit. Acad, suppl. papers 1. London 1911) 89 (citing also a seal published by Konstantopoulos, Byzantiaka Molybdoboulla tou en Athēnais Ethnikou Nomismatikou Mouseiou (Athens 1917) no. 206b); Oikonomidés, Listes de préséance (see note 14 above) 314; V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceauxde l’empire byzantin, II: l’administration centrale (Paris 1981) 191–193, and 6 seals (nos. 401–406) dating to the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries. 16. Notitia Dig., Oriens, xiii; Jones, Later Roman Empire, 369, 427ff.

17. Hendy, Studies (cited n. 2 above) 412–413; Klēterologion of Philotheos, 121^15–26

18. Oikonomidés, Listes de préséance, 316 and literature; Bury, Imperial Administrative System, 89; Hendy, M.F., ‘On the Administrative Basis of the Byzan tine Coinage c.400–900, and the Reforms of Heraclius’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12/2 (1970) 129–154 Google Scholar, see 134–5; but with a different view, idem, Studies, 410 and n. 163, 412 and n. 170.

19. See Hendy, Studies, 412 and literature.

20. Jones, , Later Roman Empire, 450 Google Scholar and references, cited n. 1 above; note also that at De Caer. 700^8–9 the emperor inspects the granaries together with the praetorian prefect.

20. It is worth noting that the bureau of the genikos logothetēs included also a number of komites hydatōn, presumably in charge of the metropolitan water-supply (aqueducts and, in particular, cisterns), probably the successors to the hydrophylakes or aquarii under the praetorian prefect of the East. See Jones, , Later Roman Empire, 695–6 Google Scholar and notes; and Cod. Iust, xi, 43.10/4–5 (474–91).

For the granaries of Constantinople, see now also C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IV^e- VII^e siécles) (= Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’histoire et de civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 2. Paris 1985) 40 and notes. I had not yet seen this study when the present note went to press, but I note that Mango briefly discusses the question of the Lamia granary (pp.54–55) and arrives at the same conclusions as those reached here.