A Note on the South-Eastern Borders of the Empire of Trebizond in the Thirteenth

Century
Author(s): David Winfield
Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), pp. 163-172
Published by: British Institute at Ankara
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3642522
Accessed: 15-02-2019 12:44 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Anatolian Studies

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A NOTE ON THE SOUTH-EASTERN BORDERS OF THE
EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

By DAVID WINFIELD

THE CHURCHES OF Ispir 1 and Bayburt,2 standing in do

the castles which command these towns, inevitably pr
" Who built them ? " A final answer cannot be given
are excavated or documentary sources are discovere
stantial evidence, both historical and stylistic, pro
indications for their origin.
Both Ispir and Bayburt stand in an area which h
marcher land, and in the Byzantine period it was in d
between the Armenians, the Georgians and the Byzan
the Persians and Arabs, and later the Turks also makin
the area. Ispir castle stands on a rock dominating the
the River Qoruh, the Acampsis or Boas of the Ancient
commanding a part of the river valley which is wide an
or less a half-way halt for the direct route northward
across the Pontic mountains to the sea at Rize. Baybur
a fertile region to the west of the upper reaches of the Q
a crossroads where the important caravan road from T
and central Asia crosses a less important route from Er
across the mountains to the sea, at Of. There are no ge
separating the two towns, but the few medieval refere
the history of them suggest that their histories were
connected since Bayburt was for a long period a fro
Byzantine Empire,3 while Ispir was outside the frontier
The earliest mention of the two towns that I have found in the
Christian period are in Procopius,4 who mentions Bayburt, and Br
who says that Heraclius occupied Ispir in the course of one
campaigns against the Persians. In 837 under the Emperor Theo
a Byzantine army marched into the lower Caucasus but was defeate
Kars by the Emir of Tiflis. Before it retired a governor from the Arme
princely family of the Bagratids was installed in the castle of Ispir
given the Byzantine title of Consul.6 By 850 the Armenian ruler of
Galaba, was in alliance with the Emir of Malatya and the Paulici
Divrik against the Byzantines, from whom they took the fortr
Aramaniak, near Bayburt.7 However, Galaba was reconciled

1 Fig. Io, Plate XXVc, of preceding article.

2 S. Ballance, " The Byzantine Churches of Trebizond," Anatolian Studies X,
Fig. 20 and p. 167.
3 S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus (Cambridge, i929) p. 121.
4 Procopius, " De Aedificiis," 253, XV.
5 Brosset, Histoire de la Georgie (St. Petersburg, 1849) Tome I, p. 227.
6 R. Grousset, Histoire de L'Arminie (Paris, 1947), p. 354.
7 R. Grousset, op. cit., pp. 366-7.
N*

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 164 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Byzantines a short time later, when both

danger from the Arabs, and it may be
Byzantine suzerainty when Leo VI made h
of Basian in 895.8 The history of Bayburt in
except that Lazaropoulos in his fourteenth
of Saint Eugenios lists a bishop of Baybu
patriarch Methodios and of Basil the Mac
in Byzantine territory at this time sin
suffragan bishop under the Metropolitan
listed in the Nea Taktika of the time of Leo the Wise as one of the seven
strong points of the Theme of Chaldia.9 In 923 the Strategus of Chaldia,
Bardas Boelas, together with Adrian the Chaldian and an Armenian named
Tatzaces, rebelled against the emperor and held out in the castle of
Bayburt until they were forced to surrender by the Byzantine general
John Curcuas.1o
After this date there is a gap in the recorded history of both towns
until the eleventh century, but it seems possible that they both belonged
to an Armenian principality. There is a mention of one Armenian bishop
of Bayburt," although with no date ; and the plain of Hart west of
Bayburt was dominated until recently by a group of fine Armenian
buildings at Vazahan.12 It is unlikely that the Byzantines, with their
dislike of the independent and to them heretic Armenian church, would
have allowed so conspicuous a group of buildings to be put up within the
boundaries of the Empire, and the south-eastern frontier of the Theme of
Chaldia in the tenth century perhaps ran through the mountains to the
west of the plain of Hart.
In the year Iooo the Emperor Basil II marched up from Syria to
claim the province of Tao or Tayk which had been willed to him by the
Bagratid prince of that land.'3 He marched up to Erzincan, the ancient
Eriza or Acilisene, and then turned eastwards as far as the districts around
Ararat. From there he marched north-westwards into the province of Tao
where he left garrisons under Byzantine officers in the castles, and probably
Ispir was among them. Of the return route of Basil from Erzurum nothing
is known, and no mention of Bayburt is made in this campaign, but since
a great many princes came to make their submission to Basil during it,
and Bayburt lay on his lines of communications, it can be assumed that
the town and fortress were under Byzantine control. Twenty-two years
later the old emperor again marched eastwards to deal with the rebellious
king George I of Georgia, and he stayed for nearly two years in the east,
passing the winter months at Trebizond.'" Neither Ispir nor Bayburt is

R. Grousset, op. cit., pp. 474-5.

' E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches (Bruxelles, I935), p. 54-
1 S. Runciman, op. cit., p. 71.
" Le Quien, Oriens Cliristianus I, p. 511.
12 See p. 137 of the preceding article.
S13 G. Schlumberger, L'I2popee Byzantine (Paris, 1900), Tome II, pp. 159-180, 190-8.
" G. Schlumberger, op. cit., Tome II, pp. 469-536.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND 165

mentioned in this second expedition of Basil, but s

his lines of communication, he must have held them
of some topographical interest for one of the campaign
chronicler Arisdagues records how Basil devastated
near Hasankale and deported the entire population t
between Trebizond and Erzurum in Pontic Chald
of Georgian place names in Chaldia during the peri
Trebizond was long ago remarked upon by Brosset, t
them being Tzanicha, the castle of the Tzanichite
explanation of these place names is to be found in th
out by Basil II. The Byzantine annexation continued
half of the eleventh century until it was compl
Monomachus with the deposition of King Gagik of A
years before the battle of Manzikert.16
Well before the middle of the eleventh century the
on Eastern Armenia had begun and by the middl
raids had become large and well organized expeditio
them is not always clear." In 1048-9 a Turkis
Ibrahim Inal sacked Erzurum and ravaged the co
far as Ispir and Parhal, and westwards into Chald
have reached Bayburt.s1 In 1053-4 an expedition un
Erzurum and Ispir but according to Honigmann it w
by a force of Frankish mercenaries serving in th
However, according to Cahen this expedition got mu
to Sebinkarahisar, the ancient Colonea.20 Alp
Caesarea in the heart of the Anatolian plateau a
battle of Manzikert, which was in 107I, and within
battle the Turks had reached the western coast of Anatolia. The Saltuk
emirate of Erzurum is not mentioned until I 103, and the Menguqek
emirate of Erzincan and Divrik is not mentioned until I124,21 but it seems
highly unlikely that the Byzantines would have retained Ispir or Bayburt
after the battle of Manzikert and they may indeed have lost both of them
twenty years before the battle. Trebizond, the capital of the Chaldian
theme, was occupied by the Turks for about a year in Io74-5.22 They were
driven out by Gabras who made the theme into an independent principality
for a short time, and the Turks could not have taken Trebizond if they
had not first taken Bayburt.
Thus the historical evidence does not exclude the possibility that the
castle churches of Bayburt and Ispir might be Byzantine or Armenian

15 G. Schlumberger, op. cit., Tome II, pp. 481-2.

16 R. Grousset, op. cit., pp. 574-58i.
17 M. Cahen, " La premiere pin6tration Turque en Asie Mineure." Byzantion, 18,
1946-8. Pp. I ff. gives details of the Turkish raids.
is R. Grousset, op. cit., p. 588. Honigmann, op. cit., p. I8o. Cahen, loc. cit., p. 15.
19 E. Honigmann, op. cit., p. i8I.
20 M. Cahen, loc. cit., p. 22.
21 M. Cahen, loc. cit., p. 57.
22 Xpioaav0os, 'H iKKalcia TpaTTE O OVros (Athens, 1933), PP. 53-4-

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

buildings of the period before about

is more likely to be Armenian since we
town was the centre of a Bagratid pr
more likely to be Byzantine since the t
the theme of Chaldia. However, ther
date in the case of Bayburt and a re
of Ispir. The castle of Bayburt was e
ruler Mugis-al-Din Tugrul Sah betwe
in the walls of the citadel records his w
and the excellence of the masonry
Anatolian castles and it would still be
by the Russians in the early ninete
unlikely that after engaging in so gr
would have been content to leave a
church dominating the citadel of his
of different periods, although the Se
and there is a small Seljuk mosque on
the dominant part of the citadel with t
The Seljuk mosque is unfortunately
stylistic and historic evidence Mr.
either by the same Tugrul ?ah who bu
mosque at Ispir, and buildings at E
latter supposition is supported by
known in Ispir as Sultan Melik Me
mosque would be in the late twelfth c
thirteenth century. It again seems
tolerant as they may have been, w
small mosque in their citadel whil
dominant building.
The two churches are both in a ver
to determine the interior plan of eith
may have been basilicas, or they may
plan. In so far as the form of them
might be Byzantine churches of the p
is against their being Armenian. Ham
of any decorative work in the church a
when he saw it, and the pentagonal
unknown in Armenia and uncommon
The Armenian churches at Vazahan, w
architectural style in common with th
perfectly acceptable as being in the Arm
centuries. Ispir and Bayburt canno
provincial Armenian churches under t

23" Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, I944), 2 cilt

24 I. H. Konyall, Erzurum Tarihi (Istanbul,
5 W. J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Mino

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND 167

there was perfectly good Armenian building showing n

only 15 kilometres west of Bayburt. There is the fu
in the case of Bayburt by Hamilton's Armenian guid
about the church, confessed that it was Greek.
If then we put aside a pre-Seljuk date for the ch
period for them must be found. The fourteenth an
are a highly unlikely time since the former saw th
regions by the horde of the Black Sheep, followed
while the Ottoman conquest followed in the latter,
church would have been built in such a dominant p
the Ottoman administration around Trebizond was
nineteenth century, when churches were built in d
the then prosperous Greek communities, but we hav
from the I83os that both churches were then in ru
them as antiquities so that they cannot have bee
nineteenth-century conditions.
A reasonable case can, however, be made for t
years of the thirteenth century when there was M
both Seljuk and Trapezuntine lands, but when the S
divided among themselves while the Empire of T
founded state of some vigour and enterprise. In the
thirteenth centuries the power of the Menguqek and
to decline and Kaykubad I, the sultan of Rum, anne
between 1228 and 1230. In doing so he was follo
course to that pursued by the Byzantine emper
centuries earlier. Both rulers annexed provinces i
which might have acted as buffer states warding o
central Asia, and both appeared to have increased th
of their respective states when in fact they were to cr
invasions within a few years. The annexation of th
lands removed two centres of power from the near pro
of Trebizond and again made Ispir and Bayburt w
country into a border region. It does not seem likely th
would have extended their territory greatly towards
years after the foundations of the Empire in 1204.
them in 1214 26 when the emperor Alexios became
of Rum, and in 1222 Melik ~ah besieged Trebizo
without success ; 27 Melik himself was captured, and
for his release was that the vassaldom should cease. But this was renewed
after the battle of Erzincan in 1230 when Kaykubad defeated the troops
of Kwarazm, many of whom fled to Trebizond for a refuge.2s Miller
remarks that it is possible that a Trapezuntine contingent fought for
Alaedin of Kwarazm on this occasion, which would account for the flight

26 T. Talbot Rice, The Seljuks (London, 1961), p. 70.

27 W. Miller, A History of Trebizond (London, 1926), pp. 20-2.
28 W. Miller, op. cit., p. 24.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
168 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

northwards to Trebizond rather

expected. The flight also suggests
far distant from Erzincan, and per
the second range of mountains fro
upper valleys of the river Kelkit,
was by tradition attached to Trebiz
the theme of Chaldia, Cherianon,
were in the river valley,29 and t
along it.a30
The power of the Sultans of Rum
Erzincan, and although Keyhtisrev
of Anatolia, and the vassaldom of
short-lived power which soon fell
sacked Erzurum in 1241, and in 12
at Kusadag on the Erzincan-Sivas r
Anatolia.3' As a result of the batt
vassals of the Mongols, and Fallme
the Seljuks ceased to have any im
history. The Mongols became the d
of Kusadag and it was on them tha
unfortunately we have no record o
except in a passing mention by Wi
Trebizond on his way to the Mongo
subject to the Tartars.32 At the ti
was subject to the Seljuks, and prob
for them, so that the subjection o
taken place immediately after the b
If we examine the situation of
Empire of Trebizond after the batt
thirteenth century it will be seen th
of Trebizond might well have expan
died in 1246 and after his death
where minor rulers warred with
Triumvirate of Seljuk Princes to who
his authority.33 The Seljuk state d
to take its place until the Ottoman T
in Anatolia. It was on the goodwill
the Empire of Trebizond depended
to be explained by the pro-Christia
thirteenth century. Hulagu's prin

29 N. Bees, " Sur Quelques 6veches suff

Byzantion, I, 1924, pp. 117-137-
30 J. G. Taylor, " Journal of a tour in Arm
Society, Vol. 38, 1868, pp. 281-361.
31 T. Talbot Rice, op. cit., p. 74-
32 W. Miller, op. cit., p. 25.
33 T. Talbot Rice, op. cit., pp. 76-7.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND i69

princess, Dokuz Hatun,34 and it was perhaps her influence w

Christian population from sharing the fate of their Moslem
the sack of Baghdad in 1258. Hulagu died in February
before the arrival at his court of a second Christian p
Paleologina, who was to have become his wife. He was su
son Abaga who married Maria in place of his father an
pro-Christian policy. However, it was not only Christia
their court which caused Hulagu and Abaga to favour
powers. The first Mongol defeat came when Hulagu
Mamelukes of Egypt under Sultan Baibars, and thenceforwa
sought alliance with the Christian powers against the Mam
sent embassies to the Pope and to Edward of England
alliance with the Greeks and Armenians. When Baibars invaded Anatolia
in 1277, a Mongol army came there to check him and it may be that t
Trapezuntine emperor George sent a contingent to aid the Mongo
Abaga died in 1281 and after a short interval when his pro-Moslem broth
gained power, the succession went to his son Arghun who also had Christian
sympathies. He in turn was succeeded by Ghazzan who although a Mosle
himself was not anti-Christian in his policies. Ghazzan died in 1316 an
was succeeded by Abu Said, the last ruler of the Mongols of the we
Thus although there are no documentary accounts of the relations betwe
the Mongols and the Empire of Trebizond, it is clear that for reasons
policy and because of their marriage connexions the Mongols favour
Christian alliances in the second half of the thirteenth century and the
might well have allowed some territorial expansion by the empire
Trebizond at the expense of the Seljuks.
The sources for the history of Trebizond in the thirteenth century are
not very adequate and Panaretos, whose chronicle is a major source for
the fourteenth-century events which took place in his own lifetime,
exceedingly brief in his account of the thirteenth century. His is a dr
and factual record of events and he gives to the Emperor Manuel I the
titles of " Great Warrior " and " Most Fortunate ",35 epithets for whi
there must have been a reason since Panaretos gives them to no oth
Emperor. Manuel I reigned from 1238 to 1263 and if there was
Trapezuntine contingent at Kusadag in i240 it must have been he w
ordered them to fight there, but a defeat would hardly qualify him f
the title of Great Warrior. Territorial expansion, and particularly t
occupation of two strong points such as Bayburt and Ispir, provide a bet
explanation. The region around these towns, as we have seen, had cease
to be near to a centre of power with the fall of the Saltuk and Mengug
dynasties, and with the quarrels of the Seljuk Triumvirate it does n
appear that any great obstacle would have prevented Manuel from
taking the two towns. The stylistic evidence of the churches favours th

34 S. Runciman, History of the Crusades (Cambridge, 1954), Vol. III, pp. 299 ff., f
a summary of Mongol history in the later thirteenth century.
35 Lebeau, Histoire du Bas Empire, ed. Saint-Martin and Brosset (Paris, 1835), Tome 18
p. 280, note containing translation of Panaretos, Section III.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 170 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

explanation. The external arrangement of

round side apses accords well with the chur
where this is a common feature, while it is m
over, we know that it was in use in the thi
since this is the form of the apses of Sanct
Manuel I. A thirteenth-century date also do
explaining churches in dominant positions
was entirely reconstructed by the Seljuks,
repaired by them.
There is, on the other hand, no difficult
Emperor of Trebizond whose revenues depe
of it with Moslems, would have left the sm
order not to offend Moslem opinion. A fur
the masonry of the mosque and of the church
that they are not far apart in date. The co
facing of both buildings is the same, and
fashion so that no mortar shows at the exte
is evidence of post-Seljuk repairs in the c
to that in castles along the Black Sea coas
Trapezuntine. A tower and parts of the
along the south-western side overlooking
remains of similar masonry in a wall runnin
cutting off a large section of the Seljuk cas
they could not afford the many hundreds o
for the defence of the whole of the walls, and
area. How long the Trapezuntines might ha
but it was probably not far into the fourt
mentions an expedition of Turks against Tr
of the leaders was a Mehmet Eckeptaris of
of Mongol power in the first quarter of the f
a revival of power in the Georgian kingdo
conquered the Pontic mountain districts of
Ispir in I334.3" How long Ispir remained un
clear, but it is unlikely that they were respo
since it has nothing in common with any ot
If we allow the expansion of the Empire o
perhaps other attempts at territorial expans
George I, the son of Manuel, who was tre
enemy by his archons while campaigning
intelligible."3 If the Trapezuntines were con
an expedition as far south as the Taurus w
question, but if they held Bayburt, it is not im
have sallied as far as the Taurus.

36 Lebeau, op. cit., Tome 20, p. 488. Panaretos, Section XIII.

37 W. E. D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People (London, 1932), p. 122.
38 Lebeau, op. cit., Panaretos, Section IV.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND 171

It remains to explain the other title of Manu

tunate ". The obvious explanation for it is that t
prosperous during his reign, and this is surely the c
attributes the beginning of the silver coinage of Tre
he remarks upon the great and varied mass of asper
reign of Manuel; 39 his currency was so widely use
generic word for money became " Kirmaneoul ".40
great issue of silver coin by pointing to the sack of
1258, an event which put a temporary end to the l
great entrepot for trading caravans from the East
Thereafter much of the far eastern trade was di
serving to increase the wealth of the Empire, and in
land trade was encouraged at the expense of the s
this period because Mongol rule spanned the continen
relative security for the caravans. Although this is tr
the currency of Manuel since there was a considera
and Baghdad was sacked in 1258, while Manuel died
two or three years for the transit trade to recover f
and find a different outlet on the Black Sea at Treb
some two years left in which Manuel might have begun
of the new situation. The sack of Baghdad can mor
forward as a reason for the copious coinage of Joh
thirteenth century, and it is in the last ten years of
Genoese appear to have established themselves at Tr
its increasing importance as a centre of trade.
The only other explanation for Manuel's coinage i
One possible source is the Argyropolis of the Ancien
identifies as Eski Guimiigane 42 although he places i
of the Eparchy. These mines were still being wo
when Hamilton visited them.43 Chrysanthos also m
mountains called the Giimiig Dagl which correspo
present Karagol Daw, but I have heard of no sou
parts. Another is a mine Io kilometres from Baybu
Arab source 45 and by Marco Polo who says " At a
that you pass in going from Trebizond to Tauris
silver mine ".46 Silver coins were minted there with the name of the last
Mongol ruler in the west, Abu Said.47 Thus the sources of silver, if thi

39 W. Wroth, Catalogue of the coins of the Vandals, etc., and of the Empire of Trebizond
(London, 1911), Introduction, pp. LXXVIII-LXXXV.
40J . Bartholomaei, Lettres Numismatiques (St. Petersburg, 1859), p. 35 ff.
41 W. Heyd, Histoire du Commerce du Levant (Leipzig, 1923), Tome II, p. 94.
42 Chrysanthos, op. cit., p. 82.
43 W. J. Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 234-5-
44 Islam Ansiklopedisi, loc. cit., pp. 365-6.
45 Yule and Cordier, Voyages of Marco Polo (London, 1903), quoted in a note in Vol. I,.
pp. 48-9, where there is also an engraving of Bayburt Castle.
46 Yule and Cordier, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 46.
47 Islam Ansiklopedisi, loc. cit., p. 366.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 172 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

-explanation of Manuel's coinage and of his t

he controlled Giimiiiane or Bayburt or possib
The Pontic mountains may appear on a
frontier of the Empire of Trebizond, and th
a natural defence which contributed to its lo
insurmountable barrier and the uplands are e
rich summer grazing grounds. The place nam
in the fourteenth century confirm that the
mountains, was then a part of the Empire, a
the upper reaches of the Kelkit, across the
from the coast, were also regarded as par
mentions three expeditions to Cheriana,48
the re-taking of Sologaina which Chrysanthos 4
Ikisu valley, up which runs a road south acr
The existence of a large Greek population in
Kelkit and Hargit rivers until the exchange
the existence of a number of churches in bot
of a traditionally Greek area, and this furthe
that the fertile upper reaches of the Kelkit wer
Empire.
The object of this note has been to draw attention to a number of
indications as to the south-eastern boundaries of the Empire of Trebizond
in the thirteenth century. The flight of the troops of Kwarazm to Trebizond
in 1230 rather than a retreat eastwards as one would have expected suggests
that they had not far to go before reaching Trapezuntine territory, perhaps
in the upper valley of the Kelkit. The title of " Great Warrior " given to
Manuel I, together with the existence of the castle churches at Ispir and
Bayburt, suggests that he may have captured these towns, and if so, it
becomes easier to understand the expedition of his son George as far south
as the Taurus. Finally Manuel's title of " Most Fortunate " may be
connected with the copious silver coinage of his reign, which suggests that
he controlled a source of silver, and the mines of Eski Guimiigane or
Bayburt, or both of them, may have been the sources. The possibilities
of Manuel having controlled the Hargit valley and the upper reaches of
the Kelkit are strengthened by the identification of place names mentioned
in the fourteenth century by Panaretos, and by the existence of churches
and a large Greek population until recently in the mountains between the
Hargit and Kelkit rivers. There are no records of territorial conquests in
the fourteenth century and if anything the Empire was on the defensive.
If we go back to the thirteenth century the most likely Emperors to have
made additions to their lands were Manuel and his successors George and
John II. It would be useless, however, to insist upon any of these points as
facts. They are put forward only as possibilities which may throw some light
on the still obscure problems of the topography of the Empire of Trebizond.

48 Lebeau, op. cit., p. 493, Section XVIII, 1355; Section XX, 1356; p. 502,
Section XLV, 1374-
"9 Chrysanthos, op. cit., mnap at end of book.

This content downloaded from 212.156.67.74 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:44:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms