Zatrikion. Chess in Byzantium [Eastern Roman Empire]

In 1025 CE ca, a small byzantine merchant ship, something more than 15 m long, was carrying back to the wider region of Constantinople, glass artifacts and pottery from Syria of the Fatimid Caliphate. Probably seeking for shelter from a heavy weather, it entered in an ancient anchorage, that was used as such for ages. This was on a south-western edge of Anatolia; in the region of ancient Kasara, opposite of the island of Rhodes, now known as Serce Limani, Turkey. The sailors tried to cast an anchor but the wind was strong; the cable held but the anchor's iron shank broke. The ship sank... its remainings were excavated some 1.000 years afterwards, in 1978.

The dating of the shipwreck was possible due to glassy weights of the Fatimid Caliphate and byzantine coins, that were found around; the latest manufactured between 1021-1024 CE. Regarding the possible ethnicities of the ship, they have been recognized the greek and the bulgarian/slavic elements of the Byzantine empire. Strongest indications were tools of more probable Bulgar/Slavic origin; but also many byzantine amphoras that were used as storage or more likely transport ones. On these amphoras were found carved repeated markings/letters of greek alphabet, on some forming complete greek names [eg. Λέων = Leon]; on one of them it was also found a possible Slav name [many pages in Bass et al. [2004 & 2009], van Doorninck [1989]].

But the most interesting find of this shipwreck is an incomplete chess set, now in Bodrum Museum Of Underwater Archaeology...

These wooden chess pieces, more possibly made by red oak, "undoubtedly were carved and shaped fairly quickly, probably with materials at hand. A knife or simple carving tool and a small file appear to have been the only tools used" [Cassavoy in Bass [2004], p. 330]. This should be the basis for Cassavoy to conclude that they were personal possessions and not some merchandise. Quite rational.

Most of these were discovered near the stern of the ship; while the round backgammon-like one, seen in the two photos above [fig.02 & 03], was found towards the front of it. Cassovoy suggested that the chess ones should be captain's, some officer's or even of a wealthy passenger, if any; taking in account that the most significant persons had usually their quarters at the stern.

As I see it, it's possibly an indication that the game of chess wasn't only a royal game. The ship wasn't that big and the crew not so huge. The image that popped up was including all the crew sitting around and watching a game, or even learning how to play. Don't know...

 

Some more findings from Constantinople

Really happy to track the above photo. However, being in a short article, it wasn't accompanied by a detailed account [Celik & Son [2019]]; and the references aren't available online. Thus, I couldn't be informed about other relevant findings in the excavation areas, circumstances of discoveries or even the way of their dating.

In any case, and after a google translation of the article:

The first on left is considered to be rook. It was found in the old Sultanahmet Prison excavation area and it's dated in the middle Byzantine period, that is 8th to early 13th c. CE. It is likely that the dating occurred by comparison with other chess pieces; but can't be sure. By the title of the given by the authors reference, it can be concluded that this piece was discovered in the excavation of the byzantine palace of this area, with initial buildings in the 4th c. CE.

The three on right were all found at the Yenikapi excavation. The two in the middle are considered obviously pawns. Their domed-shape can be associated with similar gaming pieces, not necessarily connected with chess. This aspect of domed pawn-like gaming pieces will be seen towards the end of the post.

The far right ivory piece looks like a king or a queen; dated during 11th-13th c. CE. Yenikapi is the excavation area of the old Theodosius' harbour in Constantinople; started being functionable since late 4th c. CE, where many ancient shipwrecks were discovered. Taking in account the given datings of these shipwrecks [eg. in Kocabas [2015]], the latest being of the 11th c., I understood that this king-piece, as even later, wasn't found in any of them; it could be part of some building of the area.

The above photos were the start for me to refresh the relevant references in byzantine [& some in arabic & spanish] literature around chess.

 

Index

• Zatrikion
• Identification of zatrikion as chess - Ducas' History
• Made by bone and ivory - An Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds
• The earliest possible reference - Achmet's dreambook
• Assyrians invented the zatrikion [?] - Anna Komnene's Alexiad
• King's activity & a misunderstanding - Theocritus' Idyll VI, medieval scholiast
• Fortune-telling texts in greek of arabic origin
• Chess just as a pleasant pastime - Astrology
• Chess is something useless - Astrampsychus' Geomancy
• Chess isn't a good sign - De Arte Persica
• Chess ban??
• As an overview
• Chess in Byzantium as written in arab & spanish sources
• The strange case of Butrint & a short pawn story

 

Zatrikion          up

The word that was used for chess by the Byzantines was zatrikion [=ζατρίκιον]. According to modern etymological works [eg. Babiniotis [2010], p. 529], it should be derived, as an hellenized loan, by the middle persian chatrang, and not arabic shatranj; a suggestion made at least since 1832 by Korais [1832, p. 153]. Forbes [1860, p. 188ff] used this conclusion to support the entrance of chess in the Eastern Roman empire in the mid 7th c. CE through Persia; i.e. when Persians were still using this term, before adopting the arabic equivalent. Murray [1913, p. 163], without arguing against the etymology, doubted the conclusion, as the middle persian term could be in use and after the 7th c. for some 200 years more; thus the loan could have occurred later. I have tracked some more modern historians actually using the Forbes' earlier suggested date, but without some further analysis [eg. Rice [1987, p. 46] writes as date the 6th century].

Another term that we can track in byzantine literature, but really more rarely, is the word scacos [=σκάκος], usually in plural. A term borrowed by the italian word, that was a loan from arabic shah for king. It's the word-root that is in use and nowadays in Greece for chess: skaki [=σκάκι]*.

* I've found one single medieval use of skakos in plural as whippings. It seems appearing in an anonymous greek chronicon of the 16th c.; that it can be read in Sathas [1894], p. 577. And it had possibly survived in a single ms, mentioned as Lincoln 10 in Coxe [1852], pp. 7-9. However I couldn't find a more recent description of this manuscript. In any case I can't know the root of this meaning; the only I could instantly think is being derived allegorically from striking. However, I've also thought of one confusion that occurred in renaissance dictionaries, eg. Fabrot [1647], 'ζατρίκιον'. There sometimes zatrikion is connected with the word zitrion [=ζήτρειον], that stands for prison; a place of punishment for slaves. While the word zitrion is an ancient greek one, it's a little obscure how this connection occurred. PG [131, col. 1224] repeats this connection explaining it as a diminutive. Only possible explanation I could think is the same sounding. However, it should be added that DuCange [1688, p. 459] is avoiding this connection, though both terms are given in his glossarium.

 

Identification of zatrikion as chess - Ducas' History          up

Ducas [more possibly Michael] was one of the last chronographers of the Byzantine empire in the 15th c., who wrote a History for the events mainly between the years 1341-1462 CE. The earliest manuscript where his work survives seems to be BNF gr 1310 [f. 288ff], of the 15th-16th c. On the wars of Timur [=Tamerlane] against Bayezid I, in the early 15th c., Ducas was writing:

Ducas' History, PG 157, col. 837, BNF gr 1310, f. 304 [15th c.]

ὁ δ' αὐτὸς ἐνωτισθεὶς ὅτι Παγιαζὴτ ἐν χερσίν ἦν, κελεύσας πῆξαι σκηνὴν, ἐκάθητο μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔνδον τῆς σκηνῆς παίζων ζατρίκιον· ὅ οἱ Πέρσαι σαντρὰτζ καλοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ Λατίνοι σκάκoν. δηλῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς 'οὐκέτι μοι φροντὶς ἦν περὶ τῆς τοῦ Παγιαζὴτ θηρεύσεως· εἶχον γὰρ αὐτὸν διὰ τῆς ἀναριθμὴτου μου δυνὰμεως ὡς στρουθὶον ἐν παγίδι.' πλὴν τὸ ἀληθὲς ἦν, ὑποκρίνων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ γὰρ εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ διπλασίονα ἐχώρει τὰ τούτου στρατεύματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ μεγάλη φροντὶς καὶ κότος συνεῖχεν αὐτὸν, ἕως οὗ τὰ τῆς τύχης εἶδεν εὐμαρῶς εἰς αὐτὸν διαρρέοντα. τότε καὶ ἐτεχνάζετο και εἰς μύθους ἐχώρει· καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνδραγαθίας ἐμέτρει, τὰ τῆς τύχης δωρήματα. ἀπαγαγόντες οὗν αὐτὸν· καὶ ἐν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς σκηνῆς στήσαντες ὄρθιον, ἦραν φωνὴν εὐφημοῦντες τὸν Τεμὴρ χὰν· καὶ σὺν τῇ εὐφημίᾳ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Παγιαζὴτ ὄνομα ἐπὶ χείλεσιν 'ἰδοὺ' λέγοντες 'καὶ ὁ τῶν Τούρκων ἀρχηγὸς παρειστήκει σοι δέσμιος'. ὁ δὲ Τεμὴρ ἀσχολούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ μελέτῃ τῶν σκάκων, οὐκ ἀνέθορε πρὸς τοὺς εὐφημοῦντας αὐτόν. τότε πάλιν γεγονοτέρᾳ φωνῇ εὐφήμουν οἱ παρεστηκότες καὶ τὸ τοῦ Παγιαζὴτ ὄνομα ἐκ δευτέρου ἀνήγγειλαν. τότε καὶ ὁ Ταμὴρ ἡττηθείς ἐν τῷ τοῦ σκάκῳ παιγνίῳ παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, δοὺς αὐτῷ περσιστὶ σιαχροὺχ ὅ λέγεται παρ' Ἰταλοῖς σκάκω ζογάω, ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἔκτοτε, Σιαχροὺχ· ἤγουν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

and he [=Timur, in Ducas is called Temir-khan], when he heard that Bayezid [:in Ducas is called Payazit] was in [his] hands, ordered a tent to be erected, and sat with his son inside to play chess [=zatrikion]· which the Persians are calling santratz, and the Latins scacon. declaring by this [action] that 'There's no longer concern in me around the capture of Bayezid· cause with my innumerable forces I have him like a little sparrow in a trap.' But it wasn't true; he pretended. Cause even if he had an army double in size, great concern and rancour [=enmity] was troubling him, until he saw the fortune's [things] flowing easily to him. Then he invented [stories] and walked into fictions· and he counted the gifts of fortune as of his bravery. So after driving him away [=Bayezid], and letting him standing at the entrance of the tent, they [=Timur's followers] raised voice acclaiming Temir-khan· and along with the acclamation [they had] the Bayezid's name on lips, saying 'here, and the leader of the Turks has come bound standing by you. And Temir, being busy with the chess study [=scacous, it's possible that the chessmen are meant here], did not look up at those who were acclaiming him. Then the attendants acclaimed him once again with a louder voice and they announced Bayezid’s name for a second time. And at this moment Temir, being defeated in the chess game [=scacos] by his son, who gave him shiah-ruch, as it's said in persian, that it's called scaco-zogao by the Italians, called his name Shiahruch since then, i.e. of his son.

What can be concluded regarding chess:

In greek is called zatrikion, in latin scaco, while it seems that Ducas is confirming the persian use of the later arabic form of shatranj; at least in the 15th c. He's also using at an instance the hellenized italian 'scacous' in plural, where more possibly the term there stands for chessmen rather than the game; something that will be seen again in another text below. However it appears a discrepancy, that has been already noted by Forbes [1960, p. 161] & Murray [1913, p. 167], though not in an accurate way.

Ducas mentions that Timur's son gave his father a shiah-ruch, as said in persian, that Italians called it scaco-zogao. According to Murray [1913, p. 159 & 225], shah-ruch in persian terminology would declare a check, forking a rook, too; while this passed in latin as scac-roc but generally wasn't used in Europe afterwards [1913, p. 401]. He seems considering Ducas' 'scaco-zogao' as 'a curious misrendering of scac-roc'; possibly with the version of the story as written by Ibn Arabsah in mind, that will see.

Panaino [2008, p. 4], after comparison with the early Venetian translation of the text, is totally certain that the term 'scaco-zogao' is derived from scaco-giocando and stands here for check-mate; based also on the meaning of Ducas' version of the story, where Timur's son's victory is implied. This sounds quite rational. Ducas seems to be familiar with the italian terms. He was born and raised in Nea Phokaia, then moved in Lesbos, both under Genovese rule in the early 15th c.; and he actually served as a diplomat representing the ruling Genovese Gattilusi family [Magoulias [1975], p. 27].

Ducas probably borrowed the story of Timur's son naming, though in an alternate way, from ibn Arabsah, an early chronographer of Timur's life; whose work was completed in 1435. Ibn Arabsah is narrating that while Timur was playing chess with one of his attendants, he gave him a shah-ruch. At that moment messengers came to announce the completion of a city's construction and the birth of Timur's son; and so Timur decided to give to both the name Shah-ruch. Sanders [1936, p. 47] specifically translates: "... he attacked his opponent with the Shah Rukh and by this move his opponent was weakened and unnerved". By this it's obvious that the Shah-ruch term was initially used in this story with the meaning as given by Murray. And Ducas borrowed the term, that was probably unknown to him, and used it with a different meaning that was serving his version.

 

Made by bone and ivory - An Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds          up

The Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds [=Παιδιόφραστος διήγησις τῶν ζῴων τῶν τετραπόδων] is a byzantine satirical poem of unknown authorship, describing a fictional meeting of the animals under the presidency of the Lion. The earliest manuscript is dated in 1461 CE [Seraglio ms 35]. The tale itself is mentioning the year 1364 CE. Scholars, taking in account political and other terms of the story, are dating it near the said year of 1364; generally in the 14th c. [Nicholas & Baloglou [2003], p. 60ff].

At an instance the Bull, introducing himself, is saying:

lines 615-618

πρῶτον ἐμέν τὸ κέρας μου χρῶνται καλαμαράδες, ποιοῦν τὰ καλαμάρια, ποιοῦν κονδυλογράφοι, ἀλλά καὶ οἱ τορνάριδες εἰς ἅπασαν τὴν χρείαν, εἰς θρόνους, εἰς σελλίσματα, εἰς σκάκους, εἰς ταβλία

Firstly, scribes use my horn, they make inkwells, they make pens,; but also turners [use it] for every use: in thrones, in seats, in chess sets, in backgammon boards.

In this passage is used the latin term skakous in plural, possibly for metrical purposes. I translate generally as chess sets but maybe more accurate is chess pieces.

Some verses ahead the Elephant is giving the uses of his bones...

lines 920-922

ἀκομη καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ πραγματευτάδες, ἔχουσὶν τα παιγνίδια καὶ αὐτοὶ τορνεμένα, ταβλία καὶ ζατρίκια καὶ ὅσα τὰ τοιαῦτα

Even noblemen and merchants, have, too, the games lathed [by ivory], backgammon boards and chessboards, and all things of the sort

The above passage is mentioning the hellenized word for chess [=zatrikion] in plural. Here more possibly stands for the boards; but it could also mean the chess sets. This last text is given by the BNF gr 2911 manuscript. According to Nicholas & Baloglou [2003, p. 208], there's another version of it in Seraglio ms 35, including the latin term skakous [=σκάκους] along with the zatrikia. On this they are commenting [p. 369]:

"Because the σκάκους are described as 'lathed,' we believe the italian word here refers to chesspieces. (In italian, a single scacco is a chesspiece, whereas the plural scacchi refers to the game) Likewise, because ζατρίκια are conjoined with backgammon boards (ταβλία: the sequence is 'lathed σκάκους, ταβλία, and ζατρίκια'), we believe the persian word refers here to chessboards, although properly both terms presumably refer to chess sets (as in verse 618). Of course, given the propensity of medieval Greek literature to synonymy, there is nothing preventing either σκάκους or ζατρίκια from referring to chesspieces, although the intervening word for backgammon is inconsistent with how such synonyms appear in the Tale".

 

The earliest possibly reference - Achmet's dreambook          up

Maybe the earliest reference of zatrikion in byzantine literature comes from a dreambook, attributed arbitrarily to some known Achmet, son of Seirim, just cause he's mentioned in a passage. However this is the name under which the work is known.

Achmetis Oneirocriticon, Drexl [1925], p. 192 (ch. 239), BNF gr 2538, f. 328 [16th c.]

Ἐκ τῶν Περσῶν καὶ Αἰγυπτίων περὶ ζατρικίου Ἐὰν ἲδη τις, ὃτι παίζει ζατρίκιον [or παίζων συζατρικίζει] μετὰ ἑτέρου γνωρίμου, χάριν κέρδους τροπαιουχοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ὁ νικήσας ἀποκερδήσει καὶ ἀνύσει τὸ σπουδαζόμενον, εἰ δ΄ ἀγνωρίστου, μετὰ ἐχθροῦ ἀναιμάκτως τροπαιουχήσει καὶ τῷ νικήσαντι γενήσεται ἡ ἐξάνυσις τῆς σπουδῆς. ὁ βασιλεύς ἢ μέγιστος ἢ ἂρχων πολέμου ἐάν ἲδῃ, ὃτι ζατρικίζει τρόπον πολέμου, μετ' ἐχθρῶν ἐναντίων διαμαχήσεται· καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐνίκησεν, πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ πληρώσει, εἰ δὲ ἡττήθη παρὰ τοῦ συμπαίζοντος, ἡττηθήσεται παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ. εἰ δὲ ἲδῃ, ὃτι παίζων ἒλαβε πλείονας τῶν τοῦ παιγνίου προσώπων, πλείονας δεσμήσει τῶν πολεμίων, εἰ δὲ μή, τοὐνατίον· οὐ μέντοι ἒσται τῷ πολέμῳ καθολικὴ τροπή. ὁ βασιλεὺς ἢ μέγιστος ἢ ἂρχων πολέμου ἐὰν ἲδῃ, ὃτι τὸ ζατρίκιον αὐτοῦ ἢ ἀπωλέσθη ἢ ἐκλάσθη ἢ ἐκλάπη, ἀπολέσει τὸν στρατὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς θλῖψιν μεγίστην ἣξει.

From Persians and Egyptians on zatrikion If someone sees [in his sleep] that plays zatrikion with a familiar man, will fight/compete each other for money, and the winner will have benefit and will accomplish what he tries for; and if [he sees that plays zatrikion] with a stranger, he will fight/compete against an enemy without bloodshed and the accomplishment of the pains [=what he tries for] will come to the winner. And the king or master or general, if sees that plays zatrikion in the way of war, he will fight against hostile enemies· and if he won, he will accomplish every desire in the war, and if he lost by the co-player, will be defeated by his enemies. And if he sees that playing he captured the most of the figures of the game, the most he will enslave from the enemies, or else, the opposite· and there will not be a complete change in the war. And the king or master or general, if sees that his chess-set was lost or broken or stolen, he will lost his army and he will be led in great sorrow.

The exact dating of this work is a little difficult. Scholars agree to be created from 843 CE, as the end of iconoclasm, to 1075 CE, when the first found manuscript was written, containing at least a part. This dating range was generally narrowed in the 10th c. CE, while Mavroudi [2002, p. 61] suggested that the work was initially written for the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise (866-912 CE) [Oberhelman [1991], p. 12ff, Mavroudi [2001], Mavroudi [2002], p. 2ff & 59ff, Oberhelman [2008], p. 13, Calofonos [2014], 112-3].

One thing that concerned me was if this zatrikion passage was included from the beginning; as the earliest manuscripts of the 11th c. were mostly incomplete. Drexl [1925, p. x] gives as earliest with full text, one of the 13th c. [Cod. Vindob. phil. gr. 111]. However it's known that the Achmet's dreambook was translated from greek in latin by Leo Tuscus in 1176. His work survives in a 12th c. CE manuscript [Digby MS 103] that seems containing this chess part [Pistoja [2014]]. Additionally all scholars are considering the work as complete, at least since the appearance of the first manuscripts of the 11th c.

The work, written in greek, is mentioning generally as sources the persian, indian and egyptian tradition on dream interpretation; while for our passage strangely enough are given only the Persians and the Egyptians. The main influences, that scholars have noted, are firstly the arabic sources & tradition [something that will be seen and below on geomancy treatises]; then the previous greek work of Artemidorus of the 2nd c. CE. However, Artemidorus' dreambook seems to have already been translated in arabic language since 9th c.; thus, the elements of his work in Achmet's dreambook can't have an exact origin.

I haven't read some analysis of our passage, however, I think I've found a trace in Artemidorus, with some differences of course. The relevant subject in Artemidorus' Oneirocritica of the 2nd c. is on dreaming of dice [book 3.1]; while this term couldn't be tracked in Achmet's dreambook.

Quite expected. Dice were prohibited in the Eastern Roman Empire at least since 692 CE; when the Quinisext Council incorporated the Canons of the Apostles. While oneiromancy was considered somehow 'evil' during the early years of Byzantium, though big exceptions have been noted. In any case this seems lasting officially only till the years of Leo VI the Wise, i.e. late 9th c.; meaning on the edge of a possible writing of Achmet [Calofonos [1985], p. 218].

• Artemidorus is considering dreaming of dice or playing with them, a sign of hostility and quarrel over money. Achmet has similar approach when talking about chess for common people; but when zatrikion is treated as a royal game, it means just war. Both Artemidorus & Achmet think that winning is good. Achmet suggests that losing the chessboard would mean losing the war; while Artemidorus on the contrary that losing the dice/pieces would dissolve the quarrel. He then proceeds in playing with pieces and dice; here having the whites is a good sign - distinction that Achmet doesn't try. Artemidorus also is setting out of judgement the dreams, where the dice or pieces are played by kids.

Nevertheless, I think that it's important that the relevant passage in Achmet distinguishes between common people and leaders; it may indicate a spreading of the game. Unless it's just a sign of the different origin of these interpretations. It's also noticeable that in the text they are appearing the words zatrikion [ζατρίκιον], that stands for the game, and zatrikizo [ζατρικιζω], that stands for the relevant verb. The fact, that the words have entered in the greek language as already hellenized and in more than one forms, may indicate that at the time that the work was written [10th c. CE], the game may be already present in these lands for some considerable time.

A similar interpretation of zatrikion in dreams, can be found in another short dreambook attributed to 'Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople'. The intended was possibly Germanus I, patriarch between 715 and 730 CE. However, the facts, that it appears only in one manuscript of the 13th c. [Cod. Vindob. theol. gr. 336], and that some influences by Achmet's book have been tracked, allowed only a vague dating range between 900-1300 CE [Drexl [1923], Oberhelman [2008], p. 13]. There zatrikion is a sing of fight and competition.

 

Assyrians invented the zatrikion [?] - Anna Komnene's Alexiad          up

Anna Komnene [1083-1150s] was a Byzantine princess, daughter of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos. She's remembered for her important historic work Alexiad [Αλεξιάς], a 15 volume narration mainly of the life and deeds of her father, written towards the end of her life and surviving in manuscripts since the 12th c. At an instance, around events of 1100-1101 CE, she's writing:

Anna Komnene's Alexiad. 12.6.1, PG 131, col. 905, BNF Coislin 311, f. 176, Laur. Plut. 70.02, f. 171r

Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ μετὰ τὸ διυπνισθῆναι κατὰ δείλην ἑῴαν τὴν ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν φροντίδων ἐγγινομένην ἅλμην καταγλυκαίνειν ἐθέλων ἐνίοτε συμπαίστορας εἶχε τῶν συγγενέων τινὰς παίζων τὸ ζατρίκιον (παιδιὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς τῶν Ἀσσυρίων τρυφῆς ἐξευρημένον καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐκεῖθεν ἐληλυθός), οἱ τὴν τυραννικὴν ἐξοπλίσαντες χεῖρα διὰ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ κοιτωνίσκου ἔμελλον ὡς εἰς τὸν βασιλέα χωρῆσαι τὸν φόνον ὠδίνοντες.

And as the emperor, after awaking from sleep in the morning, & wanting to sweeten the brine that occurred by the many concerns, had sometimes as playmates some of his kin so to play zatrikion (this is a game invented by the luxuriousness of the Assyrians whence has come to us), the ones that armed the [=their] tyrannical hand would reach the King through the royal [bed]rooms longing for the [=his] murder.

• Two translation notes: I have translated as 'invent' the relevant verb in the zatrikion passage; however its first translation choice is 'discover'. The word for 'luxuriousness' is τρυφή. It has many times a negative hue, and it can be given as softness or/and indolence; something suitable here I think.

The text above describes an unsuccessful try for a conspiracy against Alexios I in 1100/1101 ca., planned by the Anemas brothers. In the end the plotters were caught [Poultidou [2013], p. 70, Publio Dias [2020], p. 161].

The origins of the game obviously are set somewhere in Assyria, but we'll be back on this. After the first reading, I thought that this simple explanatory comment by Komnene for zatrikion, would imply that the game wasn't that known or popular in Constantinople of the 12th c. But this Assyrians' luxuriousness made me wonder if chess was seen here in a positive or negative way by Komnene. In any case, I perceived some irony in Komnene's writings.

When Komnene is talking about Assyrians, there can be no doubt that she's referring to the ancient people; at least with a first look. According to her, Assyrians are a specific ethnicity, distinguished from others, & with typical face characteristics; while at an instance there's a reference to Ninus, the legendary first king of the Assyrian empire, as written in ancient greek sources. Using the term luxuriousness, she probably has in mind a period when Assyrians were ruling. And the last time this occurred was in the 7th c. BCE. It's also worthy of saying that this luxuriousness, was considered by historians as the main reason of the fall of the Assyrians in 609 BCE ca.

In more detail: In Alexiad, Komnene is usually referring to the land of Syria, and not the people. Something expected, as the control of these territories had passed into other hands, since 609 BCE: Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Romans, Persians again, Arabs, Turks. In her 15 volume work [let out the Prologue that will be seen below], I've tracked only three instances where Assyrians are mentioned. One is the aforementioned about zatrikion [Alex. 12.6.1]. Another is when she's talking about her mother, where Assyrian women are appearing in comparison with specific face structure, underlining their identification as an ethnic group [Alex. 3.3.3]. This becomes more intense as other ethnicities are also mentioned in her work: like Scythians, Persians, Saracens, Turks etc. It's noticeable that an instance, Komnene is narrating around some anonymous Saracen, who was a Syrian; not Assyrian [Alex. 11.5.4]. Saracens or Hagarenes were the usual names for Arabs in the middle ages. This following typification as a Syrian, proves I think what Komnene has in mind when she's referring to Assyrians; who are distinguished from Arabs and rest inhabitants of Syria. Finally, Komnene is mentioning Ninus, as the legendary ancient great Assyrian king [Alex. 14.2.4]. This name appears for first time in the ancient greek historiography; more possibly by Ctesias [5th c. BCE], whose work survived in other sources; inter alia in Diodorus of Sicily, an ancient Greek historian of the 1st c BCE [Diod. 2.1-28]. Ninus is a name that still hasn't been identified in other sources, especially the Assyrian ones; though some theories for the name's origins has been expressed. However, it's a proof of Komnene's sources about Assyrians. It's also noticeable that in Diodorus' history the claimed reason of the decline of the ancient Assyrian empire is this luxuriousness; with the exact same word: τρυφή.

So, is Komnene placing the origins of zatrikion/chess in a legendary period of the Near East or the Orient? Murray [1913, p. 166] thinks so; and I recalled the Jacobus de Cessolis' work. In his Liber de ... ludo scacchorum, chess was invented at the time and the territories of the king Evil-Merodach; a name identified as Amel-Marduk, a Babylonian king of the 6th c. BCE. This was the closest I could think of; however, they seem to be unique examples of this kind.

But if we compare these two sources, Komnene's work was historic, not a metaphorical poetic one like Cessolis'. She was really well educated; her original text is considered difficult enough to excuse later simplified versions [Karpozilos [2009], p. 418]. Further, Alexiad, a really significant work in historiography of the time, is giving many information and details; and Komnene is mentioning her intention and try to be objective, evaluating eg. sources. These are making hard to believe that she was actually considering chess invented in the 7th c. BCE in Assyria; and probably brought in Greece at least since the 4th c. BCE, when Assyria was conquered by Alexander the Great. Were Byzantines already playing chess for 1.500 years according to her? Probably not. Even if Komnene was falsely believing that zatrikion was some game of petteia [like the Theocritus' scholiast that we'll see below], she would also think of its ancient greek origin, not orient.

However, the main error which she could be accused for, is some bias in favor of her father, emperor Alexios I. Buckley [2014, eg. p. 285ff] & others are considering this bias an intended main element of her work. This makes the possibility of irony in the zatrikion passage really more intense. But what kind of irony? An other instance that the term Assyrian can be tracked in Alexiad, is around Tancred, the regent of the Principality of Antioch.

Antioch was founded in 300 BCE by Seleucus, and since then was, for something less than 1000 years, in greek-roman hands. In 637 CE it was conquered by the Arabs. The Byzantines reconquered it in 969 CE; and the Seljuks took it in 1084 during the reign of Alexios I. This Seljuk expansion was a main event that triggered the Crusades. In 1097 the Crusaders besieged Antioch successfully and since then the Principality was founded, with Bohemond I first Prince. Nevertheless, Bohemond was defeated by Alexios in 1108 at Dyrrhachium, and in the following treaty it was agreed that he would continue to rule Antioch but on behalf of the Byzantine emperor. However, he never returned in Antioch, where his regent Tancred was in charge since 1105. Bohemond died in Mar 1111.

After Bohemond's death, his regent Tancred started to act like an independent ruler, despite the previous opposite agreement between Bohemond and Alexios. Komnene describes Tancred as an arrogant vain barbarian, especially compared to her father. When Alexios sent embassy to Tancred, demanding Byzantium's rights, he "... boasted that he would place his throne above the stars.. and was affirming confidently that would never transfer [the rule of] Antioch, no matter what happened... and he considered himself being Ninus the great Assyrian [king]" [Alex. 14.2.4]. Just few lines before, Komnene, explaining this emperor's decision, was writing that Tancred "was over-luxuriating [squandering] with his [=emperor's] money and pains"; using the exact same word-root of τρυφή.

Don't know, but these made me think that Komnene had also in mind Tancred the "Assyrian" and the following crusader-princes of Antioch, when she was talking about zatrikion. Her work started being written after her husband's death in 1137. Nikephoros Bryennios died just after returning from a campaign, where, Byzantines under the next Empreror's leadership, reclaimed successfully Antioch from Raymond of Poitiers, a later crusader-prince. This would explain the irony of the luxuriousness of the Assyrians that led to their fall; its negative aspect.

In accordance with this, it comes the tradition of Komnene's introduction; as read at least by Reinsch & Kambylis [2001], the most complete critical edition of this work. This prologue was probably written from the beginning, as its last lines are surviving in the first page of a manuscript of the 12th c. [Laur. Plut. 70.02]. However the full text exists in only two manuscripts [Vat. gr. 981, f.197ff, of the 13th-14th c., & BSB Cod. graec. 355, f.5ff, of the 15th c.], of which the most recent seems to be a copy of the earliest. In the earlier [Vat. gr. 981] manuscript the terms are appearing twice. There Komnene is referring to her husband's deeds, during the aforementioned military campaign of 1137 CE. Firstly, the city of Antioch is mentioned as one of the Assyrians; the city that at the time was a crusader-state. Secondly, the enemies of the lands of Syria are mentioned generally as Syrians; who, according to the narrated history, were Arabs and/or Turks. But I can't be 100% sure that this is binding. The part of the 'Assyrians' in this earlier manuscript is damaged enough, so to be considered at least illegible. To such degree that even the copy of the later manuscript, in this part, is mentioning just 'barbarians' omitting words, while it agrees on the second term of Syrians. According to what I've read, Reinsch & Kambylis [2001] were the first who managed to read 'Assyrians' [and in fact with one s]; a previous critical edition of Leib [1937] was reading just Syrians here, but without any comment or explanation [probably just a convenient choice]. Personally I couldn't read clearly the online copy of this part; seems to be a bad online copy of a damaged ms. However I tend to be convinced by Reinsch & Kambylis that here Assyrians are mentioned; this as the damaged word seems to start with a vowel, not a consonant [: it possibly has a smooth breathing sign]. In any case it seems that either the first manuscript [Vat. gr. 981] is distinguishing in the same way the Assyrians and the Syrians; or that the 2nd manuscript [BSB Cod. graec. 355] is just confirming the fact that Syrians are just the inhabitants of Syria.

But was she thinking of zatrikion negatively? Probably not; her father was playing every morning. I believe it's an implied ironic comparison between westerns and easterns of the former Roman empire. Something like: the western-crusaders-barbarians finally discovered chess in Assyria, while we Byzantines...

A little of arrogance; but signifying that chess has been already imported in Eastern Roman Empire for some time.

And I started thinking that maybe it has also something to do with the relevant depictions in manuscripts of the Siege of Shaizar in the spring of 1138, during this same campaign; when Raymond, Prince of Antioch, and Joscelin II of Edessa avoided to fight along with the Byzantine Emperor, against the arabic Munqidhites emirate, choosing instead to play chess [shown in a previous blog]. A spreading rumor, perhaps.

 

King's activity & a misunderstanding - Theocritus' Idyll VI medieval scholiast          up

Theocritus, a Sicilian poet of the 3rd c. BCE, wrote in greek a series of idylls. His work survives in numerous medieval manuscripts [for a list check Gow [1950], p. xxxff]. In some of them there're some comments by the medieval transcriber, not the same everywhere [for the commented mss check Wendel, 1914]. In a group of five, the earliest of the 13th c., one can read about zatrikion by the scholiast.

Theocritus' Idyll 6, lines 17-19, with the comments of the 13th c. ms

καὶ φεύγει φιλέοντα καὶ οὐ φιλέοντα διώκει, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ γραμμᾶς κινεῖ λίθον*· ἦ γὰρ ἔρωτι πολλάκις, ὦ Πολύφαμε, τὰ μὴ καλὰ καλὰ πέφανται. *ἤγουν καὶ τὰς ἀψύχους στήλας κινεῖ πρὸς τὸν αὐτῆς ἔρωτα. καὶ ὅταν προσποιῇ σὺ μὴ φιλεῖν αὐτήν, πάντα κάλων κινεῖ καθελκύσαι σε πρὸς ἔρωτα. ἡ δὲ λέξις μεταφορικῶς ἀπὸ τῶν παιζόντων τὸ κοινολέκτως λεγόμενον ζατρίκιον. ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ὅταν πολλὰ ποιήσαντες οὐ δύναται ὁ ἕτερος νικῆσαι τὸν ὁμοπαίκτορα, κινεῖ καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ γραμμῆς λίθον, ἤγουν τὸν οὕτω βασιλέα καλούμενον

and [Galateia] flees from the one who loves [her] and chases the one who doesn't, and [she] moves the stone from the line*· cause in love, Polyphemus, often the non-good seem good *that is to say she moves the soul-less stones for her love, too. And when you pretend not liking her, [she] always starts to draw you with a reefing rope towards love. And the word [comes] metaphorically from the ones who play the commonly called zatrikion. For after they have made many [moves], and the other [player] cannot beat the co-player, he moves the stone from the line, that is to say the so-called king.

To have a clue of the story: here the nymph Galateia has feelings for the cyclop Polyphemus, while he pretends rejecting her. It's actually an altered-reversed version of a more ancient story, where Galateia refused the love of ugly Polephemus. In any case, Galateia now in her try to earn Polyphemus' love, moves the stone from the line. It's an expression, taken from a type of an ancient greek game of petteia, the five lines [of backgammon-type]. And it has been interpreted as the last, maybe desperate, move that one can choose; that however could change the outcome of the game.

This expression of the [sacred] line stone that moves, can be found already since Alcaeus of the 7th c. BCE & Plato of the 5th c. BCE. However, the game probably had evolved since then. Almost 1.000 years after, in the 6th c. CE, Agathias is describing a backgammon game, close to the one we know today, but without using the relevant expression. There the lines are just numbered [Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. graec. 23, 9th c., p. 440, epigram ix.482] [and generally for the game & the phrase, check Kidd [2017], Clua Serena [2015], also a previous blog].

The scholiast of Theocritus connects this phrase with zatrikion, chess. He understands it as a last choice of moving your king; reminding king's activity in the endgame. He seems knowing chess, while ignoring the ancient game of petteia: the five lines. Something that underlines the fact that this comment comes from the late middle ages, and not the ancient world. Generally, the commented medieval manuscripts of Theocritus are mentioning the names of the more ancient scholiasts, whose work was used; and here none is mentioned.

Besides the above, the aforementioned misunderstanding reminded me the case of the game-board of ancient Knossos, Crete.

The above game-board along with four ivory gaming pieces were unearthed by Evans in 1900 in the excavation of the palace of Knossos. Evans [1921, p. 472ff & 1901, p. 81] compared it falsely with the possible ancient greek game polis; while Murray [1952, p. 22ff] saw no possible use as a game. Brumbaugh [1975] found similarities with the Royal game of Ur. And Schädler [1996], without rejecting, set some questioning.

Nevertheless, besides our ignorance of the possible rules, this game often is mentioned as zatrikion; eg. in the greek description of the museum, in museum's greek catalogue Karetsou et al. [2000], p. 149, #127. This naming could or have caused some confusion of course. It should be underlined that probably the term here is used falsely. And it should be understood in a more general way, as an intellectual game. Afterall nowadays in greek chess is called skaki. This identification possibly started at the beginnings of the 20th c., when the findings were fresh. I've tracked a mention in some Athens University courses of 1909 by professor Kavvadias [1909, p. 433], where it's described: "some game, as it seems, kind of zatrikion" [=παιγνίδιόν τι, ως φαίνεται, είδος ζατρικίου].

 

Fortune-telling texts in greek of arabic origin          up

Besides Achmet's dreambook, there can be found some other fortune telling essays, written in greek after 12th c. but with almost clear arabic origin. One is on astrology and two on geomancy:

 

• Chess just as a pleasant pastime - Astrology          up

In a unique manuscript of the 14th c. [Vat. gr. 1056] there's some astrological interpretation, where chess is just a pleasant pastime.

Σελήνη ἐν Διδύμοις: ἐπιτηδεία εἰς τὸ κυνηγᾶν καὶ εἰς τὸ παίζειν ταυλίν καὶ ζατριζάν καὶ ἓτερα διάφορα παιγνίδια...

Moon in Gemini: suitable [=useful] in hunting and in playing backgammon and zatrizan [=chess] and various other games...

This manuscript is of 14th c. but seems to be a copy of one of the 12th c., at the time of Manuel I Comnenus [Pingree [1964], p. 138 & [1989], p. 227]. It seems actually to be a compilation of many astrological interpretations, where some repeated sources are Mashallah ibn Athari, a Persian Jewish astrologer of the 8th c., & Abu Ma'shar, an early Persian Muslim astrologer of the 9th c. Our excerpt hasn't a clear origin.

Chess here is just a game. Noticeable is the spelling of the word; it seems to be zatriza or zatrizio instead of zatrikion.

 

• Chess is something useless - Astrampsychus' Geomancy          up

I've read in Murray [1913, p. 165] about a possible mention of zatrikion in Astrampsychus; a name known as a Persian or Ptolemaic-Egyptian oracle surviving in papyri since 3rd c. at least. This fortune-telling method was involving prewritten questions and answers, chosen via numbers. Anyway, Murray was giving nothing but few lines, which seemed somehow interesting, adding that he couldn't find this manuscript. I've managed to track some. In the end probalby it isn't Astrampsychus'; but from an anonymous work on geomancy [a different fortune-telling method probably], attributed later spuriously to him.

The text that follows is directly from the manuscript, as I couldn't find any clear transcription; and it's just the first half of the paragraph.

Astrampsychus' [anonymous] Geomancy, Laur. Plut. 28.22, f. 21r, 15th c., BNF gr 2424, f. 169v, 14th c., BNF gr 2422, f. 63, 16th c.

Πάλιν περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ· μετὰ τίνων ἒχει κοινωνίαν καὶ ὁμοίωσιν· ἒχει κοινωνίαν πρὸς γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας ἀγενείους, πρὸς εὐνούχους καὶ παίγνια, καὶ ζατρίκια, καὶ ταυλία, καὶ ἓτερα ἀνωφελῆ· καὶ πρὸς μεθυστακας καὶ κρασοπότας· καὶ πρὸς ζητοῦντας γυναῖκας, καὶ ἐρωτικά· καὶ πρὀς ἑτέρας πράξεις πονηράς ἀφορώντας· δηλοῖ τὴν ὂψιν ἐρυθραν...

Again around the same [=more possibly same building that in the previous paragraph was called bad]· whom is associating with and with what is resembling· [he or it??] is associating with women and beardless boys, with eunuchs and games, zatrikia and backgammons, and other useless [things]· and with drunks and wine drinkers· and with ones seeking for women, in a love way· and with ones who are involved in other cunning actions· it signifies a red appearance...

The work is on geomancy. It describes situations based on figures of combinations of dots, that are called buildings [=οἵκημα], giving characteristics and connecting them with stars and signs. I haven't understood exactly how. Our case is connected with Libra & Venus, as something bad; while its own mark resembles with cross.

The earliest ms I've tracked is of the 14th c. [BNF gr 2424]. The work was falsely attributed to Astrampsychus. Murray names DuCange for this. I've tracked also the possibly previous Charles Fabrot's lexikographic comments [1647, 'τάβλα']. The work is actually anonymous. This misunderstanding is probably due to Astrampsychus' treatises in the same mss; and to the Pythagoras' name in the title, something that is repeated in the Astrampsychus' writings, too.

The work gives a persian origin in its title. Tannery [1898, p. 97], however, is considering the essay arabic. One of his arguments includes a word from the title: ραβόλιον [=ravolion]; a word connected with the arab ramel [=رمل] that stands for sand.

Now, to what degree are all these meanings-thoughts of arabic or byzantine origin, is something unknown to me. As I already said, I hadn't found some critical edition of it, and surely my knowledge on arabic and geomancy is zero. However, generally geomancy is considered of arabic origins. I don't know if here the disrespectful view of the eunuchs, could indicate a time and place of the origins of the aforementioned text.

In any case here chess is treated as something useless; part of an infamous tavern perhaps. But it can't be ignored that it's a part of a list that might imply immoral sexual behaviors.

 

• Chess isn't a good sign - De Arte Persica          up

One other reference, mentioned by Murray as not possible to find it, was from an anonymous work under the title De Arte Persica. Murray gives DuCange as his source; but it can be seen earlier in Meursius' Glossarium [1614, p. 176]. I've tracked this single manuscript [BNF gr 2419]; it's of 15th c. According to DuCange's description [1688, authors] it's from an anonymous essay under the title De Arte Persica [=ἑρμηνεία τῆς Περσικῆς τέχνης], that is incorporated in another one known as Rhamplium. This rhamplion [=ράμπλιον] is another spelling of ravolion of the previous paragraph; so probably we have again a treatise on geomancy or generally some fortune-telling method.

The manuscript isn't clear and I couldn't find some edition presenting it. Generally I can't be sure if it's an essay within an essay, or the whole is one piece. In any case, I've managed to recognize the phrase, and few words around it, which made me believe that chess here is presented as one not so good sign...

δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ παίγνια βόλγων, καὶ ζατρικίων· καὶ ἀγάπας γυναικῶν, καὶ παιδίων ἀρρένων

it signifies and games of volga [?], and of chess [=zatrikion]· and [signifies] women's loves, and boys' [loves]

Probably some sign combination makes possible this fortune-telling interpretation. Few words ahead, one can read about prostitutes, cunning actions, impudence and stumbling drunks. Comparing it with the previous one of Astrampsychus, things seem really worse here. Or maybe it clarifies the previous text [of Astrampsychus] to what exactly this claimed association was referring.

The title again gives obviously a persian origin. But we could apply here, too, Tannery's approach, who indicated the arabic language [1898, p. 97].

Comparing these two treatises of geomancy with Achmet’s oneirocriticon, chess is treated with a different way. In Achmet is just a war game; in geomantic essays it’s a sign of immorality. This latter can’t be considered here easily of some christian religious origin. Church didn’t approve fortune telling methods in any case. Dream interpretation was somehow an exception; it was treated officially in a different way since the years of Leo VI the wise [Calofonos [1985] & [2014], p. 112]. While astronomy easily was confused with the science of astronomy.

 

Chess ban??          up

Murray [1913, pp. 166-167] is mentioning a possible chess prohibition of chess by the Eastern Orthodox Church during the 12th c.; a prohibition addressing to both clergy and laity. Ioannis Zonaras, a higher judicial officer - then a monk - seems to be the mastermind behind; said that he interpreted this way some basic church rules.

I had already expressed my disbelief on this in a previous blog, mainly due to the lack of textual evidence [in Chess ban in the Eastern Roman Empire or a Murray's misreading?]. Suffice it to repeat here that firstly Murray doesn't give a relevant prime source or/and manuscript. Secondly that in all the available online greek manuscripts I could track, since 13th c., the only prohibition-disapproval I've seen is only on dice [at least regarding the claimed interpretation of the Canons of the Apostles & other church rules]. While the text seems to have an official form.

Additionally how contradictory would be such a prohibition for the laity when at the same time Alexios the emperor was playing chess every day! And Komnene in her detailed history doesn't give a word on this; though she was living as a nun in the Kecharitomene Monastery of Constantinople, when writing.

However, after the aforementioned previous blog, I've tracked the following single religious text of the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Nicholas', Patriarch of Constantinople, Poem to the First of Mount Athos, as rule in verses, v. 116-120, Koder [1970], p. Gedeon [1883], p. 534 & PG 111, col. 391-407

λείπεται οὖν εἰπεῖν λοιπὸν τὶς ἡ πομπή ὑπάρχει· μάντζεφε, τραγῳδήματα καὶ πᾶν ὄργανον ἄλλο, ταυλία καὶ ζατρίκια και αἰ ἱπποδρομίαι: ταύτα ἀπεταξάμεθα ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ τῷ θείῳ, καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς τὸν σατανᾶν, ὡς διδάσκαλον τούτων

So it's left to say what shame there is· mantzefe [=more possibly immoral plays], tragedies and every other tool [=instrument], backgammons and zatrikia and the horseraces: we have done with these in the divine bath, and along with these [we have done with] Satan, as teaching those.

These are some verses under the name of Patriarch Nicholas. The Migne collection [PG 111] had attributed it to Nicholas Mystikos, patriarch of the early 10th c. But later Gedeon [1883, p. 532], using more manuscripts, indicated Nicholas III Grammatikos instead, patriarch of Constantinople of the late 11th - early 12th c. This approach was followed and by later scholars [eg. Koder [1970], Krausmuller [1996], p. 57]. This latter seems more attractive, as then the text comes from a time that could create the aforementioned confusion.

The above text is as given in Koder [1970]; the basic critical edition. The whole poem was addressed to the First of the monks of Mount Athos and was written possibly in 1107-1108 CE. It had seemingly the use of a rule regarding fasting. Koder [1970, p. 238] considers that it reflects a newer opinion on fasting rules by Patriarch Nicholas. However, Troianos [2012, p. 204] doesn't even consider it as a rule, despite its title.

Koder [1970, p. 204-5] gives a list of existing manuscripts. In these there can be found 2 main versions; a long and a short. The short contains almost exclusively the fasting rules. The longer has a part as introduction, which includes the above verses. It generally seemed to me [with doubt] like it was a letter-poem, used afterwards as a rule for fasting; and cause of this just keeping only crucial parts. While the whole survived in fewer manuscripts.

One thing that concerned me in general is the reliability of the source regarding the aforementioned use and part. Firstly writing a rule in verses seemed a little weird; but Gedeon [1883, p. 358] mentions this as Nicholas' habit in letters. Another is that the patriarch has given instructions for fasting to these monks at another instance in the form of questionning-answering [Gedeon [1883], pp. 168-170]; while there's also a text of 29 rules, product of a Synod of 1107, under the same patriarch [Koder [1970], Troianos [2012], p. 171, Pitra [1852], p. 466ff, & generally Krausmuller [1996], p. 58, & Cozma [2017]]. And a third thing is that the text seems changing in manuscript tradition; and not only between short and long versions.

Searching I've managed to track some mss. But one noticeable is the following, not given by Koder. It's of the 14th c. and belongs to the longer version that interests us, though in a different form.

Δεῖ σε λοιπὸν καὶ τὴν πομπὴν καταμαθεῖν ἐκείνου· ὄργανα, λύραι, μουσικαί, κύμβαλα, καὶ κυθάραι· ὀρχήσεις, κῶμαι, γέλωτες, ἄσματα θηλυδρώδη· παισοί τε, και ζατρίκϊα, σὺν ταῖς ἱπποδρομίαις· τούτοις ἀπεταξώμεθα συν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀτάκτοις· ἑλληνικοῖς ποιήμασιν, ἔθεσιν ἀθεμίτοις· πομπήν τελώσιν βδελυράν τοῦ βδελυροῦ Βελίαρ·

So you must learn well and the shame of his· instruments, lyres, musics, cymbals and guitars· dances, feasts, laughters, effeminate songs· pieces [=pessoi] and zatrikia, with the horse races· we have done with these along with all the disorderly [things]· greek poems, lawless customs· they accomplish a disgusting shame of the disgusting Beliar

The text seems differing. However, the meanings of these two textual forms of the long version of the poem are the same, despite these expressive discrepancies.

These two excerpts we're examining here are reflecting an almost identical approach; however they aren't addressing only to monks. It's for everybody, clergy & laity. The poem just before entering into the fasting canons for the monks, mentions a list of sins and unwanted behaviors that everyone should avoid; while monks should do even more as their life is special. But what does this mean? That it was forbidden for the laity at the time to play chess? Probably not.

This list includes sins like hatred, arrogance, envy, sexual crimes, along with astrology and fortune telling activities. The ones in our sentence are the last and probably the lesser of these evils. They are actually called shames. And it's noticeable that here along with the games are mentioned activities that occur in the theatres, like the tragedies of the 1st form or songs, dances, musics of the 2nd; and in the hippodromes, like the horse races. These two can easily remind the speech of John Chrysostom of the 4th c., an early Christian Father, who spoke against them [PG 56, col. 263-270]; but not exactly as individual sins. It was rather as places where sinful activities occur.

I have tracked some general belief that the Church at the time was somehow against the regular use of these places, maybe a little as pagan symbols and under some view of continence; though the hippodrome was used by the church, too, for some feasts. But in any case this alone couldn't mean an excommunication or anything similar. Theaters & hippodrome weren't forbidden; people maybe was just discouraged by the church to use them. Even the emperors frequented there; the Hippodrome of Constantinople was the main place for secular entertainment in the empire.

Thus these two examples of the sentence show that here we have a personal approach [a goal to achieve], rather than a rule for the laity. Unless they were just used as falsified examples, so to allow stricter suggestions to the monks. It's noticeable that some other similar approach hasn't been traced anywhere else. However, it must be said that only the backgammon [=ταυλίζειν] was forbidden for the clergy since the 6th c. in the years of Justinian I [Novel 123, X]; something that was repeated in the 9th c. during the reign of Leo VI the Wise [Basilica 3.1.20].

It's also noticeable an explicit opposition to the earlier greek paganism; policies that occurred since the early byzantine empire. It can be tracked in the word ἐθνικός of the 1st form [in earlier verses of the shown ones], literally meaning national but a word used to express by the church a greek pagan. And in the words ἑλληνικοῖς ποιήμασιν of the 2nd form that stand for greek poems. Besides this, it may indicate that zatrikion was part of the byzantine entairtainment at the time, that some priests connected it with the greek paganism. It's also noteworthy that in this 2nd form the zatrikia are along with pessoi; i.e. the ancient greek name for the game pieces.

 

As an overview          up

According to all the previous sources and finds, zatrikion seems to be in the empire since at least 10th c. It has entered in the imperial court at least since the 11th c., as Anna Komnene is narrating. However, no other emperor, but her father, is described playing. Something that may justify the absence of relevant treatises on chess. Though this also may be based on a possible fact that chess was treated as something more familiar or other accidental events. By the 13th c. if not earlier, it's almost certain that the game has surely gained popularity, as the comment on Theocritus can signify.

One thing that could create some questioning here, is that the famous Suidae Lexikon isn't mentioning zatrikion. Suida is a really important encyclopedic-lexicographic work of the 10th c., and it's giving a great quantity of information using many previous sources. However this can't be binding. It's noticeable for example that in its lemma τάβλα [=tavla] is described a backgammon-type game attributed to legendary Palamedes. Just to add here that even nowadays in greek the game is called tavli. However, in Suida the tavla is described somehow in a different way; eg. the piece-places are 12 and the pieces are 7. Nevertheless, we know that at least since 6th c. there was a backgammon-type game almost identical to what we know today [Zeno's game in Agathias; Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. graec. 23, 9th c., p. 440, epigram ix.482]. Wouldn't be a little awkward to consider that this game was forgotten and then revived?! This case may show that Suida was using certain sources without necessarilly reflecting the current reality.

We can also track some entrance of a negative aspect of zatrikion, signifying perhaps an immoral life, since 13th c. These references can be seen in fortune-telling essays that probably came from Arabs. Eastern Orthodox Church on the contrary seems rejecting these methods. And though some priests were probably thinking of zatrikion in some similar negative way even earlier, this seems that never became corpus in some relevant law and so zatrikion was never considered forbidden.

 

Chess in Byzantium as written in arab & spanish sources          up

The arabic sources [a-c] are given more or less by Murray [1913, pp. 161ff]:

 

a. Greeks had deepened in the game play [?]

Al-Masudi, an Arab historian, geographer and traveler, of the 10th c. CE, wrote an important work under the title Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems [=Kitāb Murūj aḏ-Ḏahab wa-Maʿādin al-Jawhar]. At two instances Greeks, Romans and Byzantines are mentioned as already having written treaties on chess and using their own approach on the gameplay, while as sources for this are mentioned as-Suli & al-Adli [Meynard & Courteille, 1.161 & 8.315].

However, no such treatise has survived. But it should be mentioned some possible suggested byzantine origin of a famous ancient player; though with no solid proof. This is al-Adli, the first known who ever wrote a shatranj treatise; "the MS. RAS gives al-Adli the local epithet of ar-Rumi, which implies that he was a native of some town in the lands of the old Byzantine Empire", [from Murray [1913], p. 170, & Cazaux & Knowlton [2017], p. 359, fn. 6]

 

b. Round chess

Al-Masudi, when writing on the different types of chess, is mentioning the round one, "that is attributed to the Byzantines" [Meynard & Courteille, 8.313]. However, there aren't any relevant archaeological finds; only references in arabic manuscripts.

 

c. The case of Nicephoros I

Nicephoros I was emperor of the Eastern Roman empire between 802-811 CE. Al-Tabari, a synchronous Iranian polymath & historian, wrote in his history that Nicephoros, in 803 ca, tried to free the Byzantine empire from taxes owned to Harun al-Rashid, the caliph of the Abbasids; taxes that were accorded by the previous empress Irene. Al-Tabari mentions a letter by Nicephoros to Rashid, with which he actually was declaring the stop of the taxes, demanding to return what it has already given. Nicephoros used a chess allegory to describe the weakness of the previous empress:

"The queen who was my predecessor set you up in the position of a rook (i.e., in chess), and herself as merely a pawn, and she paid over to you from her treasuries the amount whose equivalent you should by right have handed over to her; but that (arose from) the weakness and deficient sense of women." [Bosworth [xxx], p. 240].

The events that followed led to a Nicephorus' defeat by al-Rashid. In any case this could be a proof that chess [=zatrikion] exists in the Byzantine empire at least since 8th c.

Contemporary and later Byzantine historians, though are narrating these wars, don't mention this specific letter; at least it hasn't been traced. If it was real, it should have remained unknown. Most of the Byzantine historians hadn't treated Nicephorus with the best words; and an arrogant letter followed by a defeat could easily be part of his history, according to this point of view.

The closest that has been found is on the contrary a message sent by Nicephorus to Rashid, that ended the Arab invasion in Asia minor in 806 CE. With this Nicephorus seems reminding to al-Rashid that prophet Muhammad was considering christians as brothers; the truce of course was agreed as Nicephorus offered some generous gifts, too. The incindent is narrated by George Hamartolos of the mid 9th c. [PG 110, col. 973]; and it's repeated in more detail by George Kedrenos of the early 12th c. [PG 121, col. 917]. Theophanes the Confessor, being contemporary of Nicephorus I, though he's narrating these wars, doesn't mention anything [PG 108, col. 965-969].

 

d. At the Battle of Prinitza [1264 CE] - The chronicle of Morea

The chronicle of Morea is a 14th c. historiographic work, describing mainly events around the Principality of Morea in the 13th c.; a crusader-state founded in the greek mainland after the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. It appeared in four versions: French, Greek in verses, Aragonese & Italian.

In the single aragonese manuscript, around the battle of Prinitza [1263 CE], where the Latins prevailed, though the Byzantines outnumbered, is written:

The english translation comes from the french translation of the aragonese text, found in Morel-Fatio [1885], p. 77, § 352

Et tornadas las espias, le dixieron que los Grieguos estauan aqui defarmados he juguauan á taulas & á esquaques & comian & beuian & fazian grane alegria.

And the spies returned and told him that the Greeks were there disarmed and were playing tables & chess & eating & drinking & making great rejoicing.

... and were caught by surprise.

How this is reminding the tables & eschas, mentioned in the french translation of William of Tyre history! This scene can be seen here depicted in fig.10.

The aragonese version was written in 1393 CE. In the rest the scene either doesn't exist, or isn't described this way.

 

e. Gameboards in the palace

Pedro Tafur, a traveller-historian from Castile of the 15th c., wrote a book of his journeys during 1435-1439. This work seems that survived only in a single later manuscript. Anyway, he visited inter alia Constantinople, and describing the libraries of the palace he's writing: "Here are many books and ancient writings and histories, and on one side are gaming boards so that the Emperor's house may always be well supplied" [Letts [1926], p. 145]. I've checked the original spanish version for more possible info, but nothing; the gaming boards are just mentioned as tableros de juegos. The used plural may let us believe that some chessboard should be included.

 

The strange case of Butrint & a short pawn story           up

Butrint is a small region in the southern edge of Albania, inhabited since antiquity. In the early middle ages is part of the Eastern Roman empire. Excavations, that started in 1994, revealed many findings from the Triconch Palace, a major building probably owned by some significant person, and the so-called nearby Merchant's House; both in full function at least since early 5th c. CE.

One that attracted some attention in 2002 is the following...

Since 2002 some spectacular presentation can be found in the press, introducing it as the earliest chess piece in Europe. It could actually change the chess history as we know it, placing even the invention of chess earlier; as this is considered an item of the 5th c. However, general scepticism was expressed convincingly enough since then [check Cazaux's Butrint & Thomsen [2002]]. Suffice it to say here that even the cross of a possible king-piece is problematic; the earlier European chess pieces we know were of the arabic abstract type.

The archaelogists' group of Butrint in later publications didn't change the dating, but they are naming it just as a possible gaming piece. Nevertheless, Bowden et al. [2011, p. 202-fn. 6] were writing: "Speculation that this was the earliest chess piece in the West caught the imagination of the world’s media in the summer of 2002, but is sadly probably unfounded!".

And Mitchell [2020, p. 209] was describing it later in more detail: "The piece was found in an occupation deposit which can be dated from associated ceramics to AD 460-75... The function of this object is uncertain. Possibly it is a gaming-piece from a deluxe set in the possesion of a member of the social elite in the Christianised late-antique city".

For me more interesting finds are the following...

Even if the piece of fig.19 can't be identified as a chess-king, the pieces of fig.20 are resembling quite well with possible chess pawns, reminding in shape the ones in fig.04. But they could also be even earlier gaming pieces. I've found many cylindrical or/and domical medieval chess pawns in web to compare. But I had some doubts, cause this type, as we'll see, can be traced really before chess invention. So I've picked three to compare [fig.21], that are certainly of the early chess pawns, as more pieces of their sets had been found. [indicatively for chess pieces check Cazaux's Earliest European chessmen & Contadini [1995]].

So do we have pawns in Butrint before chess pawns?

Mitchell [2020, p. 216], around the Butrint’s items of fig. 20, is giving four references of similar domed gaming pieces. On three I've tracked some info:

a. In 1989 started an excavation in Palatine-East, Rome. In the area of a domus of late antiquity the following were found...

According to St. Clair [2003, p. 113 & 195] the above pieces were dated based on their context. The middle one [#592 ~ B270:VIII/3135] it's dated in the 2nd half of 5th c. The left & right are dated as medieval to modern. An instant thought was that just few years later, since early 6th c. and for 200 years, the Byzantines were controlling Rome.

b. Ricci [1997, p. 265] is describing some domed gaming pieces excavated in Crypta Balbi, Rome. He's dating them in the late 7th c. [or during the whole century] as found in a relevant context-layer [p. 239]. I couldn't track a photo from some edition. But here's a shot from the museum of Crypta Balbi.

Same thought for Byzantines in Rome

c. Mitchell mentions also some domed gaming pieces found in Sarachane, Istanbul, and described by Gill [1986]. The work contains just diagrams. Gill [1986, p. 260-1] is describing about 10 similar pieces as 'drum-shaped' while he's giving a really vague dating range as "were excavated at Sarachane in most levels from the late Roman period to the early twentieth century" [p. 226]. If the dating could be considered of our interest, an early byzantine origin is possible.

d. Finally Mitchell is referring to some items excavated in Carthage, dated in the 6th c. No further info, only that they are described in Henig [1984]; an edition I couldn't track. However, at the time Carthage was in byzantine hands, too.

 

To these I would like to add the following...

It's noticeable that all the above gaming pieces are dated on the edge of a possible time regarding the entrance of chess in Europe. However, all the cases include only possible pawns. And all are coming from a place and time where Byzantines were active. Was chess imported earlier in the Eastern Roman empire? The following shows that this probably isn't the case...

Thus, domed gaming pieces were used in ancient Corinth since 1st c. ca. These findings made me consider as strongest the possibility that here we have an indication towards the theory of a pawn-game as chess ancestor; expressed by Averbach and Samsin [check a previous blog].

Gaming pieces that were used in board games before chess invention, lent their shape to chess-pawns. Was it cause it was the simplest type? Or cause they were sharing similar attributes in the game play?

 

Going at even more ancient times I've found really fewer cases of domed or cylidrical examples [fig.26-28]. The objects in fig.28 are more evidently gaming pieces. The ones in fig. 26 & 27 are maybe uncertain.

 

In these more ancient times the abstract gaming pieces seem being more conical generally...

 

References:

• Alexios [1967]: Alexios, Stylianos, Late Minoan Tombs of the Port of Knossos (Katsamba) [=Υστερομινωικοί Τάφοι Λιμένος Κνωσού (Κατσαμπά)], 1967
• Angelkou [2019]: Angelkou, Evangelia, Dice and Pawns from the Early Byzantine Episcopal Complex at Louloudies of Kitros in Pieria, in Eν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες: Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, 2019, pp. 249-256
• Babiniotis [2010]: Babiniotis, Georgios, Etymological Lexicon of Modern Greek Language [=Ετυμολογικό λεξικό της νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας], 2010
• Bass et al. [2004]: Bass, G. F., Matthews, Sh. D., Steffy, J. R., van Doorninck, Fr. H. jr, et al., Serce Limani, vol. 1, An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, The Ship and Its Anchorage, Crew, and Passengers, 2004
• Bass et al. [2009]: Bass, G. F., Brill, R. H., Lledo, B., Matthews, Sh. D., et al., Serce Limani, vol. 2, The Glass of an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, 2009
• Bosworth [xxx]: Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (transl.), vol. xxx of History of the Prophets and Kings, 1985-2007; translation of Tarikh al-Tabari
• Bowden, Cerova, Crowson & Vaccaro [2011]: Bowden, W., Cerova Y., Crowson A. & Vaccaro E., The Merchant's House and city wall in the 5th-7th centuries, in William Bowden's & Richard Hodges' (eds.) Butrint 3: Excavations at the Triconch Palace, 2011, pp. 152-202
• Brumbaugh [1975]: Brumbaugh, Robert, The Knossos Game Board, in American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), pp. 135-137
• Buckley [2014]: Buckley, Penelope, The Alexiad of Anna Komnene : artistic strategy in the making of a myth, 2014
• Calofonos [1985]: Calofonos, George, Dream Interpretation: A Byzantinist Superstition?, in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 9/1985, pp. 215-220
• Calofonos [1991]: Calofonos, George, Manuel II Palaiologos: Interpreter of dreams? in Manzikert to Lepanto: The Byzantine World and the Turks 1071-1571, Bryer, A., Ursinus, M. (eds.), 1991, pp. 447-455
• Calofonos [2014]: Calofonos, George, Dream Narratives in the Continuation of Theophanes in, Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond, Angelidi, Christine & Calofonos, George (eds.), 2014, pp. 95-123
• DuCange [1688]: Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange, Glossarium, 2vols, 1688
• Cazaux & Knowlton [2017]: Cazaux, Jean-Louis & Knowlton, Rick, A World of Chess: Its Development and Variations through Centuries and Civilizations, 2017
• Celik & Son [2019]: Çelik, Gülbahar Baran & Son, Emir, İstanbul Kazı Buluntuları ve Bizans’ta Günlük Yaşam, in Toplumsal Tarih, 8/2019, pp. 38-45
• van Doorninck [1989]: van Doorninck, Frederick jr, The Cargo Amphoras on the 7th Century Yassi Ada and 11th Century Serce Limani Shipwrecks, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (Supplément 18) Recherches sur la Céramique Byzantine, 1989, pp. 247-257
• St. Clair [1996]: St. Clair, Archer, Evidence for Late Antique Bone and Ivory Carving on the Northeast Slope of the Palatine: The Palatine East Excavation, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 50 (1996), pp. 369-374
• St. Clair [2003]: St. Clair, Archer, Carving as Craft: Palatine East and the Greco-Roman Bone and Ivory Carving Tradition, 2003
• Clua Serena [2015]: Clua Serena, Josep Antoni, A suggestion about the expression 'τὸν ἀπὸ γραμμᾶς κινεῖ λίθον' (Theocritus, Id. VI 18), in Revue des etudes anciennes, 117/2015, pp. 55-65
• Contadini [1995]: Contadini, Anna, Islamic Ivory Chess pieces, Draughtsmen & Dice, in James Allan's (ed.), Islamic Art in the Ashmolean Museum, 1995, pp. 111-154
• Coxe [1852]: Coxe, Henry, Catalogus codicum mss. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus, vol. 1, 1852
• Cozma [2017]: Cozma, Ioan, A historical and canonical analysis of the answers of Patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos to the Athonite monks, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 83.2/2017, pp. 253-276
• Davidson [1952]: Davidson, Gladys, Corinth XII, The Minor Objects, 1952
• Delougaz & Lloyd [1942]: Delougaz, Pinhas & Lloyd, Seton, Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region (OIP 58), 1942
• Drexl [1925]: Drexl, Franz, Achmetis Oneirocriticon, 1925 (1909)
• Drexl [1923]: Drexl, Franz, Das Traumbuch des Patriarchen Germanos, in Laographia, 7/1923 pp. 428–48
• Eickler [2015]: Eickler, Judith, Der illustrierte Codex Constantinopolitanus Seragliensis 35, 2015
• Emery [1955]: Emery, Walter, Royal tombs at Sakkara, in Archaeology Vol. 8, No. 1 (MARCH 1955), pp. 2-9
• Evans [1901]: Evans, Arthur, The Palace of Knossos, in The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 7 (1900/1901), pp. 1-120
• Evans [1921]: Evans, Arthur, The Palace of Minos: a comparative account of the successive stages of the early Cretan civilization as illustred by the discoveries at Knossos (Band 1): The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, 1921
• Forbes [1860]: Forbes, Duncan, History of Chess; from the time of the early invention of the Game in India, till the period of its establishment in Western and Central Europe, 1860
• Fabrot [1647]: Fabrot, Charles, Glossarium, incorporated in many old editions of Cedrenus' History
• Gedeon [1883]: Gedeon, Manouil, Of the Greco-Roman Rule [=Του Γραικο-Ρωμαϊκου Νομίμου τα Παραλειπόμενα], in Church Truth [=Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια], 3/1882-3, pp. 168ff, 357ff, 532ff
• Gill [1986]: Gill, M. V., The small finds, in Martin Harrison's (ed.), Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul, Vol 1, 1986, pp. 226-277
• Gordon [1948]: Gordon, Loud, Megiddo II, Seasons of 1935-39. (OIP 62), 1948
• Gow [1950]: Gow, Andrew Sydenham Farrar, Theocritus, 2 vols, 1950
• Harrison [1986]: Harrison, R. M., Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul, vol. 1, 1986
• Henig [1984]: Henig, Martin, Objects of Metal, Stone and Bone, in Hurst's & Roskams' (eds.), Excavations at Carthage: the British Mission, vol.1, 1984
• Karetsou et al. [2000]: Karetsou, Alexandra, Andreadakei-Vlazaki, Maria, Papadakeis, Nikos, Crete-Egypt: Cultural ties of three millennia [=Κρήτη-Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών], Herakleion Archaeological Museum catalogue, 2000
• Karpozilos [2009]: Karpozilos, Apostolos, Byzantine historians and chronographers [=Βυζαντινοὶ ἱστορικοὶ καὶ χρονογράφοι], vol. 3, (11th–12th c.), 2009
• Kavvadias [1909]: Kavvadias, Panagiotis, Prehistoric archeology [=Προϊστορική αρχαιολογία: σύνοψις πανεπιστημιακών μαθημάτων περί της προϊστορικής αρχαιολογίας και τέχνης πρός χρήσιν των φοιτητών του Εθνικού Πανεπιστημίου], 1909
• Kidd [2017]: Kidd, Stephen, Pente Grammai and the 'Holy Line', in Board Game Studies Journal 11(1), 2017, pp. 83–99
• Kocabaş [2015], Kocabaş, Ufuk: The Yenikapı Byzantine‐Era Shipwrecks, Istanbul, Turkey: a preliminary report and inventory of the 27 wrecks studied by Istanbul University, in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 44.1/2015, pp. 5-38
• Koder [1970]: Koder, Johannes, Das Fastengedicht des Patriarchen Nikolaos III. Grammatikos, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 19/1970, pp. 203-241
• Korais [1832]: Korais, Adamantios, Atakta, vol. 4.1, 1832
• Krausmuller [1996]: Krausmuller, Dirk, The Athonite monastic tradition during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, in Bryer, Anthony & Cunningham, Mary (eds.), Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, 1994, pp. 57-65
• Leib [1937]: Leib, Bernard, Anne Comnene Alexiade, 3 vols, 1937-1945
• Letts [1926]: Letts, Malcom (transl.), Pero Tafur, Travels & Adventures, 1435-1439, 1926
• Magoulias [1975]: Magoulias, Harry, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks by Doukas, 1975
• Mavroudi [2001]: Mavroudi, Maria, The so-called Oneirocriticon of Achmet [Το λεγόμενο Ονειροκριτικόν του Aχμέτ: Ένα βυζαντινό βιβλίο ονειροκριτικής και οι αραβικές πηγές του], in Archaiologia 79/2001, pp. 34-40
• Mavroudi [2002]: Mavroudi, Maria, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation: The Oneirocriticon of Achmet and Its Arabic Sources, 2002
• Mehl [1995]: Mehl, Jean-Michel (transl.), Jacques de Cessoles, Le livre du jeu d'échecs, 1995
• Meyer [1834]: Meyer, Philipp, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster, 1894
• Meynard & Courteille [1-9]: de Meynard, Barbier & de Courteille, Pavet (transl.), Les Prairies d'or, 1861-1877; french translation of Al-Masudi's Kitāb Murūj aḏ-Ḏahab wa-Maʿādin al-Jawhar, in 9 vols
• Mitchell [2020]: Mitchell, John, The small finds, in William Bowden's (ed.) Butrint 5: Life and Death at a Mediterranean Port: The Non-Ceramic Finds from the Triconch Palace, 2020, pp. 106-217
• Morel-Fatio [1885]: Morel-Fatio, Alfred (transl.), Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea compilado por comandamiento de Don Fray Johan Ferrandez de Heredia, maestro de Hospital de S. Johan de Jerusalem, 1885
• Murray [1913]: Murray, Harold James Ruthven, A History of Chess, 1913
• Murray [1952]: Murray, Harold James Ruthven, A History of Board-games Other Than Chess, 1952
• Musser [2007]: Musser, Sonja, Los libros de acedrex dados e tablas: Historical, Artistic and Metaphysical Dimensions of Alfonso X's Book of Games, Arizona PhD, 2007
• Nicholas & Baloglou [2003]: Nicholas, Nick & Baloglou, George, An Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds: Translation and Commentary, 2003
• Oberhelman [1991]: Oberhelman, Steven, The Oneirocriticon of Achmet: A Medieval Greek and Arabic Treatise on the Interpretation of Dreams, 1991
• Oberhelman [2008]: Oberhelman, Steven, Dreambooks in Byzantium, 2008
• Panaino [2008]: Panaino, Antonio, Gambling with Names and Games. A Curious Episode in the Historia Turcobyzantina by Michael Ducas, in Bizantinistica, 10/2008, pp. 215–224
• Pingree [1964]: Pingree, David, Gregory Chioniades and Palaeologan Astronomy, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), pp. 133+135-160
• Pingree [1989]: Pingree, David, Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 43 (1989), pp. 227-239
• Pistoja [2014]: Pistoja, Ambrogio Camozzi, The Oneirocriticon of Achmet in the West, in Studi medievali 55/2014, pp. 719-758
• Pitra [1852]: Pitra, Jean Baptiste, Spicilegium solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, 1852
• PG: Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, (Migne), vol. 1-161, 1857–1866
• Poultidou [2013]: Poultidou, Vasiliki, Rebel movements against Comnenians (1081-1180) [=Επαναστατικά κινήματα εναντίον των Κομνηνών (1081-1180)], 2013
• Publio Dias [2020]: Publio Dias, João Vicente de Medeiros, The Political Opposition to Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), 2020
• Pulak, Ingram, & Jones [2015]: Pulak, Cemal, Ingram, Rebecca and Jones, Michael, Eight Byzantine Shipwrecks from the Theodosian Harbour Excavations at Yenikapı in Istanbul, Turkey: an introduction, in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 44.1/2015, pp. 39–73
• Reinsch & Kambylis [2001]: Reinsch, Diether & Kambylis, Athanasios, Annae Comnenae Alexias, 2001
• Ricci [1997]: Ricci, Marco, Relazioni culturali e scambi commerciali nell'Italia centrale romano-longobarda alla luce della Crypta Balbi in Roma, in Lidia Paroli's (ed.), L'Italia centro-settentrionale in età longobarda. Ascoli Piceno, 6-7 Ottobre 1995, 1997, pp. 239-273
• Rice [1987]: Rice, Tamara Talbot, Everyday Life in Byzantium, 1987
• Sağlamtimur [2017]: Sağlamtimur, Haluk, Siirt-Başur Höyük Erken Tunç Çağı I Mezarları: Ön rapor [=Early Bronze Age I Cemetery in Siirt-Başur Höyük: Preliminary Report], in Arkeoloji Dergisi XXII/2017, pp. 1-18
• Sanders [1936]: Sanders, J. H. (transl.), Tamerlane or Timur the Great Amir, from the Arabic Life by Ahmad Ibn Arabshah, 1936
• Sathas [1894]: Sathas, Constantine, Medieval Library [=Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη], vol. 7, 1894
• Schädler [1996]: Schädler, Ulrich, Spielen im Labyrinth des Minotaurus?, in Fachdienst Spiel 2, 1996, pp. 6-14
• Sklavounos, Zatrikio and the truth [=Το «ζατρίκιον» και η αλήθεια (από τις έρευνες του Παναγή Σκλαβούνου για το βιβλίο «Οι άγνωστες εποχές του ελληνικού σκακιού»)], reprint as web article in http://www.zinonchess.gr/zatrikio.html
• Tannery [1898]: Tannery, Paul, Astrampsychos, in Revue des Études Grecques, 11/1898, pp. 96-106
• Teeter [2011]: Teeter, Emily (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, 2011
• Thomsen [2002]: Thomsen, Thomas, Chess in Europe in the 5th century?, in Board Game Studies 5/2002, pp. 103-104
• Troianos [2012]: Troianos, Spyros, Byzantine Canon Law from Twelvth to the Fifteenth centuries, in Hartmann & Pennington's (eds.), The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500, pp. 170-214
• Wagner [1874]: Wagner, Wilhelm, Carmina graeca medii aevi, 1874
• Wendel [1914]: Wendel, Carl, Scholia in Theocritum vetera, 1914

 

 

....thanx for reading

---