^{page 31 note 1} The economic history of the Byzantine Empire lacks adequate general treatment. The following works may be consulted: Runciman, S., Byzantine Civilisation (London, 1933), pp. 163–222;Google ScholarAndreades, A. in Byzantium: an Introduction to East Roman Civilisation, eds. Baynes, N. H. and Moss, H. St. L. B. (Oxford, 1948), pp. 51–70, 71–85;Google ScholarRunciman, S. in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, ii eds. Postan, M. and Rich, E. E. (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 86–118.Google Scholar Most general histories include some commentary upon economic affairs, and particularly relevant to this paper seems to be: Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, trans. Hussey, J. (Oxford, 2nd edn, 1968), pp. 357, 369–72, 374, 393–94.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} The latest treatment seems conclusive: Litavrin, G. G., ‘A propos de Tmutorokan’, Byzantion, xxxv (1965), pp. 221–34.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} An attempt has been made to illustrate the approximate extent of Comnenian territory in Asia Minor in a map to appear in: M. F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081–1261 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, xii) in press. This is largely based on the chroniclers Choniates, Nicetas and Cinnamus, John, and Charanis, P., ‘On the Asiatic Frontiers of the Empire of Nicaea’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, xiii (1947), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar For the construction of fortresses see: Ahrweiler–Glykatzi, H., ‘Les forteresses construites en Asie Mineure face á l'invasion seldjoucide’, Akten des XI internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses (Munich, 1960), pp. 182–89.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} E.g. Atlas of the Arab World and the Middle East (London, 1960), pp. 6, 38–40.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 1} E.g. Laurent, J., Byzance et les turcs seldjoucides dans l'Asie occidentale jusqu'en 1081 (Nancy, 1913), pp. 102–09.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} Brice, W. C., ‘The Turkish Colonization of Anatolia’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxviii (1955–1956), pp. 18–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} The state of Byzantine cities in general during the seventh to ninth centuries forms a problem that has already given rise to a number of articles. A list of the main ones should include: Kazhdan, A. P., ‘Vizantiiskie goroda v VII–XI vekakh’, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, xxi (1954), pp. 164–83;Google ScholarCharanis, P., ‘The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athensand Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries’, Historia, iv (1955), pp. 163–72;Google ScholarOstrogorsky, G., ‘Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959), pp. 47–66;Google Scholar the various papers and commentaries in Actes du XII^e Congrès International d'Études Byzantines, i (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 1–44, 275–98;Google ScholarVryonis, S., ‘An Attic Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins (668–741) from the Thomas Whittemore Collection and the Numismatic Evidence for the Urban History of Byzantium’, Recueil des travaux de l'lnstitut d'Études byzantines, viii (Belgrade, 1963) (Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky, i), pp. 291–300;Google ScholarFrančes, E., ‘La ville byzantine et la monnaieaux VII^e–VIII^e siècles’, Byzantinobulgarica, ii (1966), pp. 3–14. The use made of numismatic material leaves much to be desired.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Ostrogorsky, ‘Byzantine Cities’, pp. 52–61.

^{page 35 note 3} Ibid., p. 59; Frančes, ‘La ville Byzantine’, p. 4.

^{page 35 note 4} Charanis, P., ‘Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire’, Proceedings of the XIII^th International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 1967), Main Paper xiv, pp. 454–59.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} Hudūd al Ālam: The Regions of the World, trans. Minorsky, V. (Oxford, 1937), p. 157.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Ibn Khordâdhbeh, trans. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1889), pp. 77–80.

^{page 36 note 3} Certainly this tendency seems already present in a list of major Anatolian cities occurring in Theophanes’ chronicle drawn up by Ostrogorsky in his article on Byzantine cities (pp. 61–62, note 64). Of the total of 34 cities usually in Byzantine hands during the seventh to ninth centuries no less than 20 are definitely in the coastal plain, and only 9 definitely on the plateau, many of these having obvious military functions. Five form marginal cases.

^{page 37 note 1} For instance, Deuil, Odo of, De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem, ed. Berry, V. G. (Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies, xlii [New York, 1948]), p. 88.Google Scholar Byzantine sources record Russians, Varangians, English, French, Germans, Bulgarians, Turks, Alans, Abasgi and others—Actes de Lavra, eds. Rouillard, G. and Collomp, P., i (Paris, 1937), no. 41, p. 111;Google ScholarActa et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi, eds. Miklosich, F. and Müller, G., vi (Vienna, 1890), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Nicetas Choniates, Bonn edn, p. 273. Concerning the size of the contemporary Byzantine army virtually nothing is known: the Emperor Manuel, writing to Henry II of England, records that the army taken on the Myriocephalum campaign, and including the baggage and siege train, stretched out over ten miles when moving in file owing to the difficulties of the terrain—but this is incapable of verification. See Vasiliev, A. A., ‘Manuel Comnenus and Henry Plantagenet’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xxix (1929/30), pp. 237–38.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} Ahrweiler, H., Byzance et la mer (Paris, 1966), particularly pp. 175–297.Google Scholar An interesting description of the fleet sent against Alexandria by Manuel, in 1169, and recorded by William of Tyre, confirms the strength and elaboration of contemporary Byzantine naval forces: Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum, 20, xiii (Recueil des historiens des croisades: historiens occidentaux, t. i, pt. ii [Paris, 1844], p. 961).Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} Ostrogorsky, G., Pourl'histoire de la féodalité byzantine (Brussels, 1954), pp. 26–54.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Lemerle, P., ‘Recherches sur le régime agraire à Byzance: la terre militaire à l'époque des Comnènes’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale X^e—XIII^e siècles, ii (1959) p. 265–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Ostrogorsky, G., Quelques problèmes d'histoire de la paysannerie byzantine (Brussels, 1956), pp. 25–40.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 4} Typified by the strengthening of the position of the logothetes ton sekreton, controlling and coordinating all the various governmental departments; the creation of the post of megas logariastes, coordinating the genikon and stratiotikon—the financial and military departments; the unification of military and naval command under the megas domestikos and megas doux respectively; the eventual re–establishment of a themal system, each under the short–term civil and military control of its doux kai anagrapheus. See: Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, pp. 200–11, 272–79.

^{page 38 note 5} There should be a close connexion between the growth of the territorial interest and the rapidly developing sense of family and descent as expressed in the evolution of multiple surnames. The course of the latter is well illustrated in: Polemis, D. I., The Doukai, a Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography (London, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} For example, Lemerle, P., ‘Notes sur l'administration byzantine à la veille de la IV^e croisade d'après deux documents inédits des archives de Lavra’, Revue des études byzantines, xix (1961), pp. 258–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Runciman, Byzantine Civilization, p. 169.

^{page 40 note 1} The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, trans. Adler, M. N. (London, 1907), pp. 12, 13;Google Scholar‘Timario sive de Passionibus ejus’, ed. Hase, M. in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Imperiale, et autres bibliothèques (Paris, 1813), pp. 171–73 (2^e partie).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Itinerary, trans. Adler, pp. 2, 3, 76; Documenti suite relazione delle città toscane coll’ Oriente Cristiano e coi Turchi, ed. Müller, G. (Florence, 1879), no. 41, pp. 66–67;Google ScholarGoitein, S. D., A Mediterranean Society, i, Economic Foundations (University of California, 1967), pp. 44–46.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} There is, for example, a useful list of fiscal immunities accorded the ships of various monasteries in Antoniadis–Bibicou, H., Études d’histoire maritime de Byzance à propos du ‘Thème des Caravisiens’ (Paris, 1966), pp. 132–33.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Antoniadis–Bibicou, H., Recherches sur les douanes à Byzance (Paris, 1963), pp. 124–25, 152–53, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} An impression that would be difficult or impossible to prove, but which is generally accepted. Absolute numbers for western residents of the Empire are rare and probably exaggerated. Eustathius of Thessalonica reports that there were sixty thousand westerners in Constantinople in the second half of the twelfth century (Bonn edn, p. 394). The Historia Ducum Veneticorum (vi), claims that there were twenty thousand Venetians in Romania in 1170, of whom ten thousand were caught in Constantinople by Manuel's measures of 1171. See: ed. H. Simonsfeld, MGH, SS, xiv, p. 78.

^{page 41 note 3} Lopez, R. S. in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, ii, p. 309.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Credit facilities on this scale demand the existence of an appreciable number of great merchants or bankers. There is no evidence for such a class in the Byzantine Empire, and in view of the continual governmental restrictions placed upon private economic activity this is hardly surprising. When a Byzantine emperor needed large amounts of cash at short notice he resorted to the regalia, the Church or the magnates. But these were only short–term measures. When, at a later period, he floated loans, he went to foreign states—particularly Venice.

Psellus, in a laudatory description of Michael VII, describes him as knowledgeable in financial matters, but in listing them gives the distinct impression that this involved coinage and annual revenue and expenditure only, credit and loan being ignored completely. It is probably for this reason that Byzantine authors directly equate the physical emptiness of the treasury with imperial bankruptcy. See: Psellus, Michael VII (ii); ed. E. Renauld (Paris, 1928), ii, p. 173: Anna Comnena, 5 (i, ii); Bonn ed., i, pp. 225–27.

A recent study of the wills of two members of the Pacourianus family (1090s), shows the kind of wealth available to magnates of the period. See: Tivchev, P. and Changova–Petkova, G., ‘Au sujet des relations féodales dans les territoires bulgares sous la domination byzantine à la fin du XI^e et pendant la première moitié du XII^e siècle’, Byzantinobulgarica, ii, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Basically consisting of the 40 nummia piece (the follis), and pieces of 20, 10, 5 and 1 nummus. Thessalonica and Alexandria struck on variant scales. Bellinger, A. R., Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, i (Washington, D.C., 1966), pp. 3, 34, 64–65, 196–97, 264–65, 292–93;Google ScholarGrierson, P., Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, ii (Washington, D.C., 1969), pp. 8–32, 151, 209, 242–43, 418–19, 524, 574, 611, 625, 647, 666, 674, 685.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} From the reign of Leo III, the semissis and tremissis were struck on a nominal scale only; the half–follis was also struck occasionally (for instance under Theophilus, see p. 44, n. 2), but the generalization stands.

^{page 43 note 3} Hendy, op. cit., pp. 10–25.

^{page 43 note 4} The mints in more or less continuous operation (particularly for copper) were: Constantinople, Thessalonica, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Sicily, Rome and Ravenna. Various others, mainly military, operated on a temporary basis. See: Bellinger, locc. citt; Grierson, locc. citt.

^{page 44 note 1} According to present information, Thessalonica closed in 630, Nicomedia in 627, Cyzicus in 629, and Antioch in 610. Grierson, op. cit., pp. 36, 37, 38, 40.

^{page 44 note 2} This seems the obvious conclusion of the statistics given by Metcalf, D. M. in ‘The Reformed Folles of Theophilus: their Styles and Localization’, American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, xiv (1968), pp. 132–33. Metcalf prefers to give his characteristic groups S and Z to separate mints in central or southern Greece rather than to Thessalonica, but this follows from his suggestion of a pattern of provincial mints that this author finds unconvincing. Metcalf's group ***, which he assigns to Thessalonica, seems, inturn, to be a Constantinopolitan half–follis.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Despite attempts to prove the contrary. See in particular: Metcalf, D. M., ‘The New Bronze Coinage of Theophilus and the Growth of the Balkan Themes’, ANS Museum Notes, x (1962), pp. 81–98—Google Scholara first statement of the thesis later elaborated in the article quoted in note 2 above in the light of criticisms expressed by Bellinger, A. R. in: ‘Byzantine Notes’, ANS Museum Notes, xiii (1967), pp. 136–41.Google Scholar Also, Metcalf, D. M., Coinage in the Balkans 820–1355 (Thessaloniki, 1965), pp. 31–34;Google Scholar‘Provincial Issues among the Byzantine Bronze Coinage of the IIth Century’, Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, xv (1961), pp. 31–35.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Hendy, op. cit., pp. 78, 98–101, 128–29.

^{page 44 note 5} A subject that has already provided considerable controversy. For the latest general statement, see P. Grierson, ‘Byzantine Coinage as Source Material’, Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Main Paper x, pp. 321–23.

^{page 44 note 6} Bellinger, ‘Byzantine Notes’, pp. 123–31.

^{page 45 note 1} Hendy, op. cit., pp. 181–87, 315–16.

^{page 45 note 2} The possible economic drawbacks to a coinage the predominant motive behind which is stability have been pointed out by Lopez, R. S. in ‘The Dollar of the Middle Ages’, Journal of Economic History, xi (1951), pp. 209–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} The debasement of the gold coinage, which normally assumes such importance in accounts of the Byzantine coinage during the eleventh century, was in fact a temporary phenomenon probably caused more by imperial irresponsibility and eventual military defeat and its consequences rather than by long–term economic trends. If the last had ever existed they had apparently ceased to be operative by the year 1092. See Hendy, op. cit., pp. 316–19.

^{page 45 note 4} Edwards, K. M., Corinth, vi, Coins (Cambridge, Mass., 1933), pp. 121–50;Google ScholarThompson, M., The Athenian Agora, ii, Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period (Princeton, 1954), pp. 67–75;Google ScholarBell, H. W., Sardis, xi(i), Coins (Leiden, 1916), pp. 76–108;Google ScholarMosser, S. Mca., A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin Hoards, ANS Numismatic Notes and Monographs, lxvii (New York, 1935), pp. 64–65, 70;Google ScholarWaage, D. B., Antioch–on–the–Orontes, iv(ii), Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins (Princeton, 1952), pp. 148–68.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} The series from Antioch is, it is true, anomalous, since the city was in Arab hands during the seventh to tenth centuries. It is noticeable, however, that although it fell to the Arabs shortly after the battle of Yarmuk in 636, Byzantine coins continue to appear up to and including the reign of Constans II (641–68) and only then cease. See Waage, op. cit., pp. 164–66.

^{page 46 note 2} The dominant element of the circulating medium in Greece seems to have been the low–value copper tetarteron and its half; that in Asia Minor the higher–value billon trachy which would, because of its value, tend to have been lost less. See Hendy, op. cit., p. 311.

^{page 46 note 3} Bellinger, A. R., Troy, Supplementary Monograph ii, the Coins (Princeton/Cincinnati, 1961), pp. 181–82.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 4} Metcalf, D. M., ‘How Extensive was the Issue of Folles during the Years 775–820?’ Byzantion, xxxvii (1967), p. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 5} Scranton, R. L., Corinth, xvi, Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth (Princeton, 1957), pp. 53, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} For instance, Shear, T. L., ‘The Campaign of 1936’, Hesperia, vi (1937), p. 342.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} E. Condurachi, I. Barnea, P. Diaconu, ‘Nouvelles recherches sur le Limes byzantin du Bas–Danube aux X^e–XI^e siècles’, Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Main Paper vi, p. 193.

^{page 47 note 3} Mango, C. and Hawkins, E. J. W., ‘The Hermitage of St Neophytos and its Wall Paintings’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xx (1966), pp. 204–6.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} It is once more difficult to attempt a comparison with other periods, but an article by C. Delvoye (‘L'architecture byzantine au XI^e siècle’, Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, pp. 225—34) seems to suggest a peak of construction at about this time.

^{page 47 note 5} The coin series from excavations in and around the hippodrome at Constantinople during the years 1927/28 show less consistent signs of this pattern, although traces of the decline between the early eighth and midninth centuries still occasionally occur. See Jones, A. H. M. in Preliminary Report upon the Excavations Carried Out in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 (London, 1928), pp. 46–50,Google Scholar and Gray, B. in Second Report upon the Excavations Carried Out In and Near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 (London, 1929), p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Tivchev, P., ‘Sur les cités byzantines au XI^e–XII^e siècles’, Byzantinobulgarica, i (1962), pp. 145–82; Charanis, ‘Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire’, p. 460.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Goitein, S. D., ‘A letter from Seleucia (Cilicia) dated 21 July 1137’, Speculum, xxxix (1964), pp. 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} Cf. Frančes, E., ‘L'empereur Nicephore I^er et le commerce maritime byzantin’, Byzantinoslavica, xxvii (1966), pp. 41–47;Google ScholarTeall, J. L., ‘The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330–1025’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959), pp. 89–139Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Cipolla, C. M., Money, Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World (Princeton/Cincinnati, 1956), pp. 3–12;Google ScholarKent, J. P. C., ‘Gold Coinage in the Later Roman Empire’, in Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford, 1956), pp. 190–204.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Cedrenus; Bonn edn, ii, p. 530.

^{page 49 note 3} Grierson, P., ‘Commerce in the Dark Ages: a Critique of the Evidence’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., Fifth Series, ix (1959), pp. 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} For the Russian trade see: Vasiliev, A. A., ‘Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia’, Journal of Economic and Business History, iv (1931–1932), pp. 314–34.Google Scholar For the western see: Urkunden zur älteren Handels–und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante, eds. Tafel, G. and Thomas, G., i (Vienna, 1856), no. xiii, pp. 19–25, no. xiv, pp. 26–31, no. xvii, pp. 36–39 (for the apparent balance of trade);Google Scholar Ibn Khordädhbeh, trans, cit., pp. 114–16; Goitein, , A Mediterranean Society, i, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar For the Bulgarian see: the Book of the Prefect (9 [vi], eds. Zepos, J. and Zepos, P. in lus Graecoromanum, ii [Athens, 1931]); infra, p. 51, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Vasiliev, ‘Economic Relations’, p. 325.

^{page 50 note 3} Prohibition of the export of gold is found in both the Codex Justinianus (4, 63, 2) and in the Basilika (56, 1, 20), of precious metals and stones in the Book of the Prefect (2[iv]). Various prohibitions and restrictions on the export of silk are to be found in the Book of the Prefect (4[i], [viii]; 6[xvi]; 8[iii], [v]) and that they were enforced is shown by the experience of Liutprand of Cremona—Becker, J., Die Werke Liudprands von Cremona (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 204–06.Google Scholar Russian merchants were, after 945, allowed to purchase only fifty nomismata worth of silk per person: The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text, trans. Cross, S. H., and Sherbowitz–Wetzor, O. P. (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} Goitein, , A Mediterranean Society, i, pp. 211–14.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 5} Nicephorus Gregoras 2, vi; Bonn ed. i, pp. 42–43.

^{page 51 note 1} Lopez, in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, ii, p. 309.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Trade in agricultural products between the Black Sea ports and the capital seems to have been of considerable importance as late as the fourteenth century. Its results may be seen in the hoards of late Byzantine gold hyperpyra found in the region and its hinterland. For the connexion see: Gerassimov, T., ‘Les hyperpères d'Andronic II et d'Andronic III et leur circulation en Bulgarie’, Byzantinobulgarica, i, pp. 213–36.Google Scholar