Why is this hat identified as the Byzantine Imperial kamelaukion?

Why is this hat identified as the Byzantine Imperial kamelaukion?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Concerning the word kamelaukion/kalemaukion (footnote), we must assume it had several meanings. The common one occurs in Nikephoros Phocas and is head gear for ordinary infantrymen. The second one is an extremely important piece of imperial headgear. Let's only talk about the latter here.

I always see byzantinists (Example) claiming the following two images depict the kamelaukion. But I never get an explanation, how they arrive at the identification.

The fact is that Constantine porphyrogenitus explicitly refers to the kamelaukion as a στέμμα, which coming from a Modern Greek perspective, I don't believe was used for hats (I am still researching this, you are welcome to disprove me). He makes an enormous point of the divine origin of this gear and how it is to be worn only under special circumstances.

This to me argues very much against finding the only Byzantine image of the kamelaukion on non-emperor Chatzikis(Image 1). If I was to search Byzantine images for it, I would look at the stemmata emperors are handed by God on icons commemorating great successes:

I am not saying this is anything like a solid theory. I am just expressing my doubts and asking for the grounds for the usual belief. For one thing, the headgear bestowed unto Basil the Second differs from today's priestly καλημαύκι in terms of colour, but the shape is actually similar, especially if we consider the rarer type without a brim:

Admittedly, stemma doesn't seem fitting for what Basil the Second (Second from last Image) is wearing, but perhaps for what the angel is holding, if the latter is, as I think open.

Why is the type of hat in the first two images often identified as kalemaukion? There must be papers establishing this identity or clear original text that I am unaware of.

Footnote: As far as I know, the word wise identity between older kamelaukion and newer kalemaukion has never been doubted and they are always interpreted as derived from Latin camelaucium

It seems to me we have two different descriptive terms for a piece of headgear. The first term, kamelaukion or kalemaukion from Wikipedia:

In Byzantine times the term kamelaukion was a more general one for formal headgear, including items worn by the Imperial family.

So this term describes a piece of headgear worn by a member of an imperial family.

The second term,that your cited blogger disputes, skiadion, is described here as

a type of hat. In antiquity the term skiadeion designated a sunshade or parasol

An author here in The Portrait in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts. By Iōánnīs Spatharákīssays, says it is a skaidon:

What, for instance, John VIII wears on the medallion of Pisanello and the miniature of Sinait is indeed a skiadon…

It seems these terms could, and are, both be used to describe the hat pictured being worn by John VIII. It is a hat being worn by an imperial leader, and it provides shade.

The shade aspect can actually be seen in a medal of John VII done by Pisanello in 1438-39. The front side shows detail of the famous hat, while the back of the medal actually shows the hat being worn in an outdoor situation, where its function would undoubtedly provide shade. (In this aspect it looks kind of like a modern 'baseball' cap.)

So, it seems either term would be appropriate, it is an imperial hat, and it provides shade.

Justinian I

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Justinian I, Latin in full Flavius Justinianus, original name Petrus Sabbatius, (born 483, Tauresium, Dardania [probably near modern Skopje, North Macedonia]—died November 14, 565, Constantinople [now Istanbul, Turkey]), Byzantine emperor (527–565), noted for his administrative reorganization of the imperial government and for his sponsorship of a codification of laws known as the Code of Justinian (Codex Justinianus 534).

Who was Justinian I?

Justinian I served as emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 527 to 565. Justinian is best remembered for his work as a legislator and codifier. During his reign, Justinian reorganized the government of the Byzantine Empire and enacted several reforms to increase accountability and reduce corruption. He also sponsored the codification of laws known as the Codex Justinianus (Code of Justinian) and directed the construction of several important cathedrals, including the Hagia Sophia.

How did Justinian I become emperor?

Justinian I was born of peasant parents. His name at birth was Petrus Sabbatius. He took the Roman name “Justinianus” from his uncle, Justin. It was through Justin that Justinian advanced. In the early 500s, Justin—a high-ranking military commander in Constantinople (now Istanbul)—took Justinian under his wing. He ensured that Justinian received a Classical education and military training. In 518 Justin ascended the throne of the Byzantine Empire. In 525 Emperor Justin I named his favorite nephew, Justinian, caesar of the Byzantine Empire. In 527 Justinian was elevated to the rank of co-emperor. On Justin’s death on August 1, 527, Justinian became the sole emperor of the Byzantine Empire.

What did Justinian I accomplish as emperor?

Emperor Justinian I was a master legislator. He reorganized the administration of the imperial government and outlawed the suffragia, or sale of provincial governorships. He also sponsored the Codex Justinianus (Code of Justinian) and directed the construction of several new cathedrals, including the Hagia Sophia. In these and other domestic affairs, Justinian excelled. On the foreign front, he struggled. His empire warred constantly with the Persians in the east and the barbarians in the north and west. Justinian’s forces ultimately held off the Persians, but they did not hold off the barbarians.

What was the Code of Justinian?

The Codex Justinianus, or Code of Justinian, was a legal code. It consisted of the various sets of laws and legal interpretations collected and codified by scholars under the direction of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. The code synthesized collections of past laws and extracts of the opinions of the great Roman jurists. It also included an elementary outline of the law and a collection of Justinian’s own new laws. The four-book code was completed in stages. Work on the first book, the Codex Constitutionum, began shortly after Justinian’s elevation in 527. The second book, the Digesta, was drawn up between 530 and 533. The third book, Institutiones, was compiled and published in 533, and the fourth book, Novellae Constitutiones Post Codicem, was completed upon Justinian’s death in 565.

What did people in the late byzantine empire dress like?

As the question says, what did people in the late byzantine empire dress like? All I've managed to find were a few pictures of the second to last emperor, but only one of them shows anything more than the silly hat he's wearing. Also, this doesn't really help with figuring out what people who weren't the emperor wore. (Presumably something less expensive, with a less impractical hat.)

Hi, sorry for the late answer. I bookmarked your question and it took me a while to find the time. As a compensation the answer is a bit more extensive )

I think I can at least partially answer your question, specifically in regards to the kinds of clothing that high ranking dignitaries at the Late Byzantine imperial court were wearing. We are lucky enough to have several sources, pictorial as well as textual, that inform us about this specific topic.

Since antiquity clothing had been an important signifier for social status in Roman society. The most famous example would certainly be the toga, the official dress of the Roman citizen. As long as citizenship wasn’t open to anyone and provided certain legal privileges the wearing of a toga was an obvious display of social prestige. But even after emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to most of the residents of the empire in 212 AD it still retained most of its representative value. In Late Antiquity senators and emperors still liked to be depicted in a slightly modified version of the Roman toga. The most elaborate version was the ornate toga picta worn by the acting consul. In the background of that panel you can also glimpse a new kind of clothing that had become of similar importance to the toga in Late Antiquity. The chlamys, a long cloak that was closed with a brooch at the right shoulder, identified its wearer as a civil servant. As employment in the imperial bureaucracy was the only way to advance into the highest senatorial ranks this was also a potent display of elite status. Within this group of chlamys wearers differing ranks could be signified by the use of different colors. The famous mosaic from San Vitale in Ravenna shows how only the emperor, in this case Justinian I, was allowed to wear a chlamys completely dyed in purple. Everyone else was wearing white.

The coming of the middle ages saw some changes in the field of courtly dress. The most significant was probably the disappearance of the toga. The massive social upheavals that the Roman Empire underwent throughout the 7th century and the fading away of the great senatorial landowners seem to have spelled the end for this ancient symbol of civic identity. On the other hand the imperial bureaucracy survived and so did the garment that symbolized it the most. In this miniature from the 11th century the emperor and his retinue are still depicted in the chlamys like they might have been seven centuries prior. The middle byzantine chlamys seems to have been a little shorter than its late antique counterpart and in some cases it was closed at the breast and not the right shoulder but on the whole it remained a clear sign of continuity with the ancient Roman past. Much younger was a piece of clothing that keeps getting mentioned in middle byzantine literature under the name skaramangion. It is usually identified as a long belted tunic with long sleeves and slits to guarantee better mobility. Maybe it was an import from the Persian east. As the skaramangion was pretty much universally worn by the elite differing colors were again used to signal differences in rank. The 10th century Book of Ceremonies of Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos for example states the following:

Note that on the day of the reception all the aforementioned, from the protospatharioi t the very last man wearing a skaramangion, stood each according to the color and pattern of his skaramangion: that is, those wearing greenish-pink eagles stood on one side and the other, and also those wearing owls (?), and many-ringed (?) eagles, and likewise those wearing seas, and likewise white lions. In a word, as has been said, each stood according to his skaramangion. (De cer., ed. Reiske, 570-82)

So, to finally come to Late Byzantine dress: This era saw even more drastic changes than the transition from antiquity to the middle ages. We know what the courtiers of the Palaiologan era wore from several of their portraits in illuminated manuscripts, icons, wall paintings etc. as well as from a 14th century text, the De Officiis of Pseudo-Kodinos. The later is a treatise on the dignities and ceremonies of the Late Byzantine court, the only work of this kind after the more famous Middle Byzantine Book of Ceremonies.

An obvious innovation would probably be a new found love for flamboyant headgear. You already mentioned John VIII Palaiologos and the “silly hat” that he’s wearing on portraits like this famous medallion made by the Italian artist Antonio Pisanello. However he didn’t actually put that thing on to differentiate himself from his courtiers or underline his status as a ruler. Usually a Late Byzantine emperor would have been depicted like this. On his head sits the kamelaukion, a hemispherical crown with two pearled pendants dangling at the sides and around his body loops the loros, a lavishly embroidered scarf that is probably a distant descendant of the old toga picta of the ancient consuls. Although this is the standard imperial portrait of the time it is unlikely that the emperor would have worn such a complicated dress outside of the most important ceremonial occasions. That means the hat John VIII is wearing on Pisanello’s medallion is actually a little more casual than his ceremonial attire. It was not at all uncommon for other Byzantine aristocrats to posses very similar pieces of headgear, like this portrait from the grave of Manuel Laskaris Chatzikes at the Pantanassa church in Mistras shows. More broadly similar ones can be seen on the heads of some of the courtiers in the background of this miniature showing emperor John VI Kantakuzenos at the council of 1351. It may be that those hats are identical with the skiadion, which Pseudo-Kodinos describes as the usual piece of headgear of a courtier. Besides this he also mentions the skaranikon, which was only worn for special occasions. It was given out by the emperor to holders of high offices and prominently featured an imperial portrait on its front which makes it easily identifiable in the pictorial sources. For example here is the protostrator Theodore Synadenos wearing it in a 14th century miniature. Like in earlier times differences in rank could be visualized by the different colors and materials of the skaranika. While the most elaborate ones were embroidered with gold and featured an engraved portrait of the emperor on a golden plaque the simplest ones were plain red and lacked the imperial portrait.

Beside the skiadion and skaranikon there seems to have been a great variety of other types of elaborate headgear. Especially spectacular is the one worn by Theodore Metochites on the donor’s portrait in his Chora Monastery in Constantinople. Maria Parani tries to link this piece with the high-rising head-covers that were popular at the Mamluk court in Egypt. Other fashion articles equally seem to link Byzantium with the wider world of the eastern Mediterranean. This miniature from a 14th century manuscript from Trapezunt shows a scene from the Alexander Romance while reflecting contemporary styles of clothing. We normally think of the islamic world when seeing turbans like those worn in the painting but it is important to note that they were seemingly equally well liked by near eastern Christians like the Georgians, Armenians or Byzantines. If we again follow Maria Parani the other type of hat depicted in the miniature (a skiadion?) may be an import from even further east with parallels in Central Asia. Others however have tried to connect it to the Latin West.


The chief characteristic of the Roman family was the patria potestas (paternal power in the form of absolute authority), which the elder father exercised over his children and over his more remote descendants in the male line, whatever their age might be, as well as over those who were brought into the family by adoption—a common practice at Rome. Originally this meant not only that he had control over his children, even to the right of inflicting capital punishment, but that he alone had any rights in private law. Thus, any acquisitions made by a child under potestas became the property of the father. The father might indeed allow a child (as he might a slave) certain property to treat as his own, but in the eye of the law it continued to belong to the father.

By the 1st century ce there were already modifications of the system: the father’s power of life and death had shrunk to that of light chastisement, and the son could bind his father by contract with a third party within the same strict limits that applied to slaves and their masters. Sons also could keep as their own what they earned as soldiers and even make wills of it. In Justinian’s day, the position regarding property had changed considerably. What the father gave to the son still remained, in law, the father’s property, but the rules concerning the son’s own earnings had been extended to many sorts of professional earnings and in other acquisitions (such as property inherited from the mother), the father’s rights were reduced to a life interest ( usufruct). Normally, patria potestas ceased only with the death of the father but the father might voluntarily free the child by emancipation, and a daughter ceased to be under her father’s potestas if she came under the manus of her husband.

There were two types of marriage known to the law, one with manus and one without, but the manus type of marriage was rare even in the late republic and had disappeared long before Justinian’s day. Manus was the autocratic power of the husband over the wife, corresponding to patria potestas over the sons.

Marriage without manus was by far the more common in all properly attested periods. It was formed (provided the parties were above the age of puberty and, if under potestas, had their father’s consent) simply by beginning conjugal life with the intention of being married, normally evidenced by the bringing of the bride to the bridegroom’s house. The wife remained under her father’s potestas if he were still alive if he were dead, she continued (as long as guardianship of women continued) to have the same guardian as before marriage. Both spouses had to be citizens, or if one was not, he or she must have conubium (the right, sometimes given to non-Romans, of contracting a Roman marriage). In marriage without manus, the property of the spouses remained distinct, and even gifts between husband and wife were invalid.

Divorce was permitted to the husband in early Rome only on specific grounds. Later, divorce was always possible at the instance of the husband in cases of marriage with manus in marriage without manus, either party was free to put an end to the relationship. A formal letter was usually given to the spouse, but any manifestation of intention to end the relationship—made clear to the other party and accompanied by actual parting—was all that was legally necessary. The Christian emperors imposed penalties on those who divorced without good reason, including prohibitions on remarriage, but the power of the parties to end the marriage by their own act was not taken away.

Concubinage was recognized in the empire as a “marriage” without a dowry, with a lower status for the woman, and with provisions that the children were not legally the father’s heirs. A man could not have both a wife and a concubine. In the 4th century the emperor Constantine first enacted a law enabling the children of such unions to be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. Medieval civil law extended this rule to all illegitimate children.

Persons under the age of puberty (14 for males, 12 for females) needed tutores if they were not under patria potestas. Such tutors could be appointed under the will of the father or male head of the household. Failing such an appointment, the guardianship went to certain prescribed relatives if there were no qualified relations, the magistrates appointed a tutor. Originally, children were considered adults at the age of puberty but, after a long development, it became usual for those between the ages of puberty and 25 to have guardians who were always magisterially appointed. Originally, all women not under patria potestas or manus also needed tutores, appointed in the same way as those for children. By the early empire, this provision was little more than a burdensome technicality, and it disappeared from Justinian’s law.


The crown was made probably somewhere in Western Germany, either under Otto I (with additions by Conrad II), [1] by Conrad II or Conrad III during the late 10th and early 11th centuries. The first preserved mention of it is from the 12th century—assuming it is the same crown, which seems very probable.

Most of the Kings of the Romans of the Holy Roman Empire were crowned with it. Along with the Imperial Cross (German: Reichskreuz ), the Imperial Sword (German: Reichsschwert ), and the Holy Lance (German: Heilige Lanze ), the crown was the most important part of the Imperial Regalia (German: Reichskleinodien ). During the coronation, it was given to the new king along with the sceptre (German: Reichszepter ) and the Imperial Orb (German: Reichsapfel ). The Imperial Regalia of the Holy Roman Empire, especially the Imperial Crown, were kept from 1349–1421 in Bohemia (now in the Czech Republic), where the Carlstein Castle was built to protect them. Between 1424–1796 they were all kept in Nuremberg, Franconia—and could only leave the city for the coronation.

Currently, the crown and the rest of the Imperial Regalia are exhibited at the Hofburg in Vienna—officially "until there is again a Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation". [ citation needed ]

An identical copy is in Aachen in Germany in the Krönungssaal of Charlemagne's former palace, now the town hall. There are also copies of the crown and regalia in the historic museum of Frankfurt, as most of the later Emperors were crowned in the cathedral of the city, as well in the fortress of Trifels in the Electorate of the Palatinate, where the Imperial Crown was stored in medieval times. The newest authorised copy is kept in the Czech castle of Karlštejn along with a copy of the Crown of Saint Wenceslas.

Why Did Constantine Move the Capital to Byzantium?

Byzantium was chosen as the capital of the Roman Empire for its strategic benefits, central position and excellent harbor. Byzantium also symbolized a break from Constantine's predecessors.

Constantine located the capital of the unified Roman Empire on the site of old Byzantium. There were several reasons for his choice, both practical and symbolic. Firstly, Byzantium was closer to the center of the empire making control easier. Rome had become a periphery and Diocletian's choice of Nicomedia in the east was difficult to defend.

The defensive capabilities of Byzantium also made it a sound choice with a peninsula open to land on the west and bordered on the south, north and east by water. The addition of the chain across the bay further limited attempts of invasion. Byzantium also had easy access to the Euphrates frontier and Danube River supplying cisterns and aqua ducts with water. The chain and control of the harbor also provided control over trade through the Black Sea.

Symbolically, it provided Constantine with a break from his predecessors as Nicomedia was the choice of Diocletian and Rome the seat of all the rulers before him. Byzantium also represented his victories as it sat opposite the shore where he defeated Licinius to become the emperor of the entire Roman Empire.

Orthodox Vestments a Priest Wears

In the Orthodox Church the clergy vest in special clothing for the liturgical services. There are two fundamental Christian vestments, the first of which is the baptismal robe. This robe, which is worn by bishops and priests at the service of holy communion and which should always be white, is the &ldquorobe of salvation&rdquo: the white garment in which every Christian is clothed on his day of baptism, symbolizing the new humanity of Jesus and life in the Kingdom of God (Rev 7.9ff).

The second fundamental vestment for Christian clergy is the stole or epitrachelion which goes around the neck and shoulders. It is the sign of the pastoral office and was originally made of wool to symbolize the sheep&mdashthat is, the members of the flock of Christ&mdashfor whom the pastors are responsible. Both bishops and priests wear this vestment when they are exercising their pastoral office, witnessing to the fact that the ministers of the Church live and act solely for the members of Christ&rsquos flock.

As the Church developed through history the vestments of the clergy grew more numerous. Special cuffs for deacons, priests, and bishops were added to keep the sleeves of the vestments out of the way of the celebrants during the divine services. When putting on their cuffs, the clergy read lines from the psalms reminding them that their hands belong to God.

A special belt was added as well to hold the vestments in place. When putting on the belt the clergy say psalms which remind them that it is God who &ldquogirds them with strength&rdquo to fulfill their service. Only the bishops and priests wear the liturgical belt.

All orders of the clergy wear a special outer garment. Deacons, sub-deacons, and readers wear a robe called a sticharion. It is probably the baptismal garment, decorated and made more elaborate. Deacon and sub-deacons also wear a stole called the orarion, probably originally a piece of material upon which were inscribed the liturgical litanies and prayers (orare means to pray). The deacon still holds up the orarion in a position of prayer when he intones his parts of the divine services. The sub-deacon&rsquos orarion is placed around his back in the sign of the cross.

Priests wear their white baptismal robe over which they have their pastoral stole, cuffs and belt. They also wear a large garment called a phelonion which covers their entire body in the back and goes below their waist in front. This vestment was probably developed from the formal garments of the early Christian era and, under the inspiration of the Bible, came to be identified with the calling of the priestly life. When putting on his phelonion, the priest says the lines of Psalm 132:

Thy priests, O Lord, shall clothe themselves in righteousness, and the saints shall rejoice with joy always now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The bishops traditionally probably also wore the phelonion over which they placed the omophorion, the sign of their episcopal office as leading pastor of the local church. When the Christian empire was captured by the Turks in the fifteenth century, however, the Christian bishops of the East were given civil rule over all Christians under Turkish domination. At that time, since there was no longer a Christian empire, the bishops adopted the imperial insignia and began to dress as the Christian civil rulers used to dress. Thus, they began to wear the sakkos, the imperial robe, and the mitre, the imperial crown. They also began to stand upon the orlets (the eagle) during the divine services and to carry the staff which symbolized more their secular power than their pastoral office. At that time as well, the word despota (vladyko or master)&mdasha title for temporal rather than spiritual power&mdashwas used in addressing the bishops, and the clergy began to grow long hair which was also a sign of earthly rule in former times. In the seventeenth century, during the reform of Patriarch Nikon, the Russian Church adopted these same forms for its bishops.

In the Church some of these new insignia were &ldquospiritualized&rdquo and given a Biblical meaning. Thus, the mitres became signs of Christian victory, for the saints receive their crowns and reign with Christ (Rev 4.4). The eagle became the sign of the flight to the heavenly Jerusalem since it is the classical Biblical symbol of Saint John and the fourth gospel (Rev 4.7 Ezek 1.10). The staff became the symbol of Aaron&rsquos rod (Ex 4.2), and so on. It should be understood, however, that these particular insignia of the bishop&rsquos office are of later and more accidental development in the Church.

In relation to the bishop&rsquos service in the Orthodox Church, the use of two special candelabra with which the bishop blesses the faithful also developed. One of these candelabra holds three candles (trikiri – on right) while the other holds two candles (dikiri – on left). These candelabra stand for the two fundamental mysteries of the Orthodox faith: that the Godhead is three Divine Persons and that Jesus Christ, the Saviour, has two natures, being both perfect God and perfect man.

Bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church also wear other special garments. There are, first of all, two pieces of cloth: one square (nabedrennik) and one diamond-shaped (epigonation or palitsa). The former is worn only by priests as a sign of distinction, while the latter is always worn by bishops and is given to some priests as a special distinction of service. Probably these cloths were originally &ldquoliturgical towels.&rdquo Their symbolical meaning is that of spiritual strength: the sword of faith and the Word of God. They hang at the sides of their wearers during divine services.

There are also clerical hats which carry special meaning in some Orthodox Churches&mdashthe pointed hat (skufya) and the cylindrical one (kamilavka). The kamilavka is normally worn by all Greek priests, but only by some clergy in other national Orthodox churches as a special distinction. The kamilavka may be black or purple monks, and by extansion all bishops, wear it with a black veil. The skufya is worn by monks and, in the Russian tradition, by some of the married clergy as a special distinction, in which case the hat is usually purple. Also in the Russian tradition certain married clergy are given the honor of wearing a mitre during liturgical services. In other Orthodox churches the mitre is reserved only for bishops and abbots of monasteries (archimandrites). Generally speaking, especially in the West, the use of clerical headwear is declining in the Orthodox Church.

Finally, it must be mentioned that bishops and priests wear the cross. The bishops also wear the image of Mary and the Child (panagia&mdashthe &ldquoall holy&rdquo). In the Russian tradition all priests wear the cross. In other churches it is worn liturgically only by those priests given the special right to do so as a sign of distinction.

As the various details of clerical vestments evolved through history, they became very complex and even somewhat exaggerated. The general trend in the Church today is toward simplification. We can almost certainly look forward to a continual evolution in Church vestments which will lead the Church to practices more in line with the original Christian biblical and sacramental inspiration.

The Orthodox Church is quite firm in its insistence that liturgical vesting is essential to normal liturgical worship, experienced as the realization of communion with the glorious Kingdom of God, a Kingdom which is yet to come but which is also already with us in the mystery of Christ&rsquos Church.

Our Quality Garments are produced using age-old methods enhanced by modern technology.

We promise top quality workmanship and fabrics in all our garments ensuring comfort and care.

We are committed to the traditional designs of the Orthodox Church.

The beauty and elegance of your clothing from Vesna Vestments will enhance your worship.

After all God deserves our best.

With great gratitude to God we donate percentage of all our sales to Sv. Petka monastery in Serbia to support our church in need.

Why is this hat identified as the Byzantine Imperial kamelaukion? - History no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Late Roman and Byzantine coins

Öz: Bölgenin arkeolojik potansiyelinin anlaşılması amacıyla 2017-2019 yılları arasında gerçekleşt. more Öz: Bölgenin arkeolojik potansiyelinin anlaşılması amacıyla 2017-2019 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen yüzey araş-tırmaları sonucunda Yozgat bölgesindeki en erken iskân izlerinin Geç Neolitik Çağ sonu-Erken Kalkolitik Çağ başlarına kadar geriye gittiği, bölgede Erken Tunç Çağı'ndan itibaren yoğun bir prehistorik yerleşim ağının ortaya çıktı-ğı ve bu iskân sürecinin Geç Demir Çağı, Hellenistik Dönem, Roma Dönemi ve Geç Antik Çağ'da da devam ettiği anlaşılmıştır. Kızılırmak Havzası içerisinde yer alan Yoz-gat'ın kuzeyi antikçağda Pontos Bölgesi ve daha sonra da Galatia Bölgesi sınırları içerisindeyken güneyi ise Kappadokia Bölgesi sınırlarında yer almıştır. Tespit edilen kaya mezarlarının haritalandırılması sonucunda antikçağ Pontos-Galatia sınırı hattındaki Yozgat merkez ilçe, Çekerek ve Aydıncık gibi bölgenin kuzey ilçelerinde yoğunlaştıkları anlaşılmıştır. Kappadokia Bölgesi sınırlarına giren güney ilçelerinde ise ölü gömme geleneklerinde tümülüs mezarların çok daha yaygın olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında, tespit edilen kaya mezarlarının tipleri ve böl-gesel dağılımlarının yanı sıra ele geçtikleri yerleşimlerin de ana karakterleri ve yerleşim kronolojileri değerlendirilmiş-tir. Tespit edilen mezar tipleri arasında arcosolium ve kha-mosorion tipi kaya mezarlarının yoğun olduğu görülmektedir. Fakat bu mezarların yanı sıra Paphlagonia kaya mezarları kapsamında değerlendirilen ve en güneydeki yayı-lım alanı Çorum-Gerdekkaya ile sınırlanan çift sütunlu bir kaya mezarı ve bu bölge için bilinmeyen antropomorfik khamosorion tipi kaya mezarı da bölgenin mezar tipolojisi kapsamında ele alınmıştır.

Abstract: In order to understand the archaeological potential of the region, surveys were conducted between 2017-2019, and as a result of these efforts, it has been determined that the earliest settlement traces in the Yozgat region date from the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic Age, and a dense prehistoric settlement network emerged from the Early Bronze Age, and the settlement process continued during the Late Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antique periods. Yozgat is located in the Kızılırmak Basin, and north of Yozgat was within the borders of the Pontus Region and later the Galatia Region, while to the south was the Cappadocian Region in Antiquity. As a result of mapping the graves found, it was understood that they are concentrated in the northern districts of the region, such as the central district of Yozgat, Çekerek and Aydıncık on the line of the Pontus-Galatia border. In the southern districts, entering the borders of the Cappadocia Region, it was understood that in burial traditions the tumuli were much more common. In this study, in addition to the types and regional distribution of the identified rock-cut tombs, the main characteristics and chronologies of the settlements in which they are located are evaluated. Among the grave types identified, the arcosolium and chamosorium type rock-cut tombs are concentrated. In this context, an an-thropomorphic chamosorium type rock-cut tomb, which is not otherwise known from this region, was also examined within the scope of the tomb typology of the region. Among other graves however, a columnar rock-cut tomb, evaluated within the scope of Paphlagonia rock-cut tombs, and whose southern spreading area was bounded by Çorum-Gerdekkaya, is also discussed.

Abstract/Riassunto The hoard of Honorius and Theodosius II is made up of 110 gold solidus coins. . more Abstract/Riassunto
The hoard of Honorius and Theodosius II is made up of 110 gold solidus coins. 39 of them were minted on behalf of Honorius, 71 on behalf of Theodosius II. All of them were minted in Constantinople. Unfortunately find spot of the hoard, which is preserved at the Sakarya Museum, is not known. Date proposed for this hoard is 455 AD. based on the facts that lifetime of the gold coins were short down from the middle of 4th century and the condition of the collection is very fine.

Sakarya Museum, Fourth century AD, Honorius, Theodosius II, hoard, solidus coins

Viene presentato un ripostiglio di Onorio e Tedosio II consistente di 110 solidi: 39 a nome di Onorio e 71 a nome di Teodosio II tutti sono dalla zecca di Costantinopoli. Le monete sono conservate nella collezione del Museo di Sakarya, ma purtroppo il luogo di rinvenimento è sconosciuto. La data proposta per l’interramento del ripostiglio è il 455 d.C., considerata la breve durata in circolazione della moneta aurea dalla metà del IV secolo in generale e lo stato di conservazione molto buono degli esemplari.

Museo di Sakarya, Quarto secolo, Onorio, Teodosio II, ripostiglio, solidus

The double-headed eagle: the omnipresent emblem of the Habsburgs

Example of a medieval imperial eagle: detail from an imaginary portrait of Charlemagne (after Albrecht Dürer), painting, c.

Albrecht I, stained glass window from the Chapel of St Bartholomew in St Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, c. 1380

Heinrich Vogtherr the Elder: Arms of Emperor Charles V, wood engraving, c. 1547

The coat of arms of Emperor Charles VI on the attic of the Imperial Chancellery Wing of the Vienna Hofburg

As ‘lords of the air’, eagles were always taken as a favourite identification symbol for rulers. But an eagle with two heads? In the lands of the former Habsburg Monarchy, the double-headed eagle is the quintessential emblem of Habsburg dominion. But why did the heraldic animal sprout a second head?

Double-headed eagle, relief, 2nd half of 19th century

Example of a medieval imperial eagle: detail from an imaginary portrait of Charlemagne (after Albrecht Dürer), painting, c.

Albrecht I, stained glass window from the Chapel of St Bartholomew in St Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, c. 1380

Heinrich Vogtherr the Elder: Arms of Emperor Charles V, wood engraving, c. 1547

The coat of arms of Emperor Charles VI on the attic of the Imperial Chancellery Wing of the Vienna Hofburg

Back in Antiquity Roman emperors had chosen the eagle as an emblem of their power. The East Roman or Byzantine Empire, successor to the Roman Empire, adopted this seigniorial symbol and added a second head to the originally one-headed Roman eagle. Firstly, this expressed the secular and spiritual power of the Emperor of Byzantium, secondly the claim to rule in East and West. After the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, the Russian rulers adopted the imperial title (tsar = caesar) and the symbolism of dominion.
The Holy Roman Empire likewise saw itself as the successor to the ancient Imperium and took the eagle as its heraldic beast – albeit in the one-headed version. The black eagle on a gold shield became the symbol of the title of king as well as of the empire.
In the late Middle Ages the double-headed eagle appeared in the empire as well. It was introduced as the mark distinguishing the royal from the imperial title: the king, who was voted in by the electors, attained the title of emperor solely by being blessed and crowned by the pope in Rome. Only then did he have the right of taking the double eagle as symbol of the universal claim to power over Latin Christendom. This concept was elaborated by the custom of placing a halo or nimbus around the two heads, seen as a symbol of the sacred elevation of imperial majesty.
Because the imperial title was from the sixteenth century on almost continuously vested in members of the Habsburg dynasty, the Habsburg emperor adopted the imperial double-headed eagle with an inescutcheon showing the coats of arms of their lands, devised to underscore the ties between the imperial title and the Habsburgs.
When the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806, the Habsburgs adopted parts of the symbolic imagery of the old empire for the Austrian Empire, which was now fully bound up with the dynasty. Henceforth, the double-headed eagle was Austrian. It lost its nimbus, bore an inescutcheon with the coat of arms of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, and was supplemented with the Order of the Golden Fleece. Above this hovered the Austrian imperial crown. When the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary was founded in 1867, a popular interpretation established itself that saw the two heads of the imperial eagle standing for the two halves of the realm.

The University of Texas has re-posted a German list ranging from the puzzling (like "useless eaters") to the obvious (like "stress") with a bunch of good ones in between (including "Nationalism of Rome's subjects" and "Lack of orderly imperial succession": "210 Reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire." Source: A. Demandt, Der Fall Roms (1984)

Do read the 21st century books The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, by Peter Heather and The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins, which are summarized, reviewed and compared in the following review article:

"The Return of the Fall of Rome
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins,"
Review by: Jeanne Rutenburg and Arthur M. Eckstein
The International History Review, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 109-122.

Watch the video: The Byzantine Army, Dark To Golden Age (December 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos