1. Honigmann, E., (ed.) Le Synekdèmos d'Hiéroklès et l’ opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre, (Bruxelles 1939) p. 37a, col. 702.
2. Sebasteia especially became a commercial centre of the Sultanate of Rum, while the other ports of the Pontus fell into decline, since the roads were no longer safe in the 11th century; the cities connected with Sebasteia however found themselves in an advantageous position, see Belke, K, Mersich, N., (eds) Paphlagonien und Honorias. Tabula Imperii Byzanini 9 (Wien 1996) s.v. ‘Kromna’ p. 241.
3. Omar (Amr) ibn Abdallah ibn Marwan al-Aqta' reached Amisos by crossing Cappadocia. The Byzantines, under the general Petronas, could not reach the city in time. See Theophanis Continuatus, ed. C. De Boor (Bonn 1838), pp. 179, 14-16. See also Bλυσίδου, Β. et al., H Mικρά Aσία των Θεμάτων: έρευνες πάνω στην γεωγραφική φυσιογνωμία και προσωπογραφία των βυζαντινών θεμάτων της Mικράς Aσίας (7ος - 11ος αι.), (ΙΒΕ/EIE, Eρευνητική Bιβλιοθήκη 1, Aθήνα 1998) p. 151, it is most likely that it was Amisos and its outskirts that were sacked, not two homonym cities, one of which would be completely unknown.
4. Mc Geer, Er. – Nesbitt, J. – Oikonomidès, N. (+) (eds.) Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, τ. 4: the East, (Washington D.C. 2001) p. 74.
5. The Armenians were driven out of their homeland Amaseia after 1070, when the city fell to the Seljuk Turks. The Armenians of Amisos spoke the dialect of Dokeia (mod. Tokat). It is possible that they settled in Amisos following the capture of Amaseia by the Seljuk Turks, or after the capture of Sebasteia by the Mongol khan Tamerlane, i.e. after 1400.
6. The circumstances remain uncertain. The available information on the policy of the Seljuks in Amisos forced scholars to suggest that the city was probably ceded, and not captured. It is also suggested that the two communities, Greek and Turkish, coexisted harmoniously.
7. During 1233-1248 a mint operated in the city of Amisos. In the late 13th century, the Seljuk sultan Kaikubad III (1284-1307), tributary vassal to the Mongols, entrusted the administration of Amisos and the income from the imposed taxes to his grandson Masud Beğ. In 1392 or 1394, the city was successfully claimed by the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I (1389-1402). The Mongols reacted effectively in favour of their tributaries. In 1404, Mir Suleyman Çelebi, great-grandson of the Seljuk sultan Kaikubad III, became the city’s governor. After 1400, Armenians from Amaseia, which was captured by the Mongols, may have settled in Amisos.
8. In his “Πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν Ῥωμανὸν” («To his son Romanos»), see Moravcsik, G. – Jenkins, R.J.H.(ed.-transl) Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, (Washington, D.C. 1967) p. 286.
9. The testimony dates to the late 6th century; see Zepos, I., Zepos, P.(eds.), Jus Graeco-Romanum I: Novellae et aurae Bullae post Iustiniam (Aθήνα 1931), pp. 18,19: the novella of Tiberius II Constantine no. 11, of the year 575, «περὶ κουφισμῶν δημοσίων».
10. Zacos, G. - Nesbitt, J. (eds.), Byzantine Lead Seals II (Bern 1984), no. 200: the seal of kommerkiarios Kyrillos, c.860.
11. Mc Geer, Er. – Nesbitt, J. – Oikonomidès, N. (+) (eds), Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art 4: the East (DORLC, Washington D.C. 2001), p. 74. According to Laurent it was the seat of abydikos, Laurent, V., Le Corpus des sceaux de l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1965-1981) p. 284.compare Zacos, G. - Nesbitt, J. (eds), .Byzantine Lead Seals II (Bern 1984), no. 200.
12. Mc Geer, Er. – Nesbitt, J. – Oikonomidès, N. (+) (eds.), Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art 4: the East (DORLC, Washington D.C. 2001), p. 74.
13. Cahen, C., Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A General Survey of Material and Spiritual Culture and History c. 1071-1330, (London 1968) pp. 119, 164.
14. See Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantium Monetary Economy c.300-1450 (Cambridge Mass. 1985), pp. 257ff., 276, 470, regarding the control over the gold coin’s circulation within the empire.
15. The citadel, modern Kara or Eski Samsun, lays at a height of 159m, and covers an area of 2.7km by 1.5km with an N-S orientation. Amisos is generally considered to have been an easily defensible settlement.
16. See Cumont, Fr. – Cumont, Eu., Voyage d’ exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie, Studia Pontica II (Brussels 1906), pp. 111-117.
17. In the 19th century, when the castle was still visible, there was a light construction over the basic fortifications. Was this the Genovese addition or a third building phase? And was the Turkish phase constructed by the Seljuks?
18. Ruy Gonzales Clavijo was an ambassador of Henry III of Castile to the court of the Mongol khan Tamerlane in the early 15th century. He visited and described many sites of the Pontus in the context of his travel to the Ilkhanate. He did not go ashore in Amisos but preferred to remain onboard, because the port belonged to the Turkish city. The description of Amisos brings to mind Smyrna, where the two castles, the Genovese and the Turkish, faced each other.