Amorium Reports 3: The Lower City Enclosure. Finds Reports and Technical Studies 9786055607722

Citation preview

AMORIUM REPORTS 3: The Lower City Enclosure Finds Reports and Technical Studies

OFFPRINT/AYRIBASIM

AMORIUM MONOGRAPH SERIES General Editor: C.S. Lightfoot Vol. 1 M.A.V. Gill (with contributions by C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, and M.T. Wypyski), Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass (1987–1997). BAR International Series 1070, Oxford 2002. Vol. 2 C.S. Lightfoot (ed.), Amorium Reports, II: Research Papers and Technical Reports. BAR International Series 1170, Oxford 2003. Vol. 3 C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison (eds.), Amorium Reports 3: The Lower City Enclosure. Finds Reports and Technical Studies. Vol. 4 C. Katsari and C.S. Lightfoot, with A. Özme, Amorium Reports 4: The Amorium Mint and the Coin Finds. Forthcoming Vol. 5 C.S. Lightfoot and T. Drew-Bear, with O. Karagiorgou, N. Tsivikis, and H. Yaman, Amorium Reports 5: Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions, Seals, and Graffiti. Vol. 6 E.A. Ivison, Amorium Reports 6: The Lower City Church Complex.

Website: www.amoriumexcavations.org Cover illustration: Excavations in the Lower City Enclosure Trench XM-03, 2003

AMORIUM REPORTS 3: The Lower City Enclosure Finds Reports and Technical Studies

Edited by

C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison

2012

AMORIUM MONOGRAPH SERIES General Editor: C.S. Lightfoot Vol. 3: C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison (eds.), Amorium Reports 3: The Lower City Enclosure Finds Reports and Technical Studies ISBN 978-605-5607-72-2 © The Amorium Excavations Project, 2012

Already published: M.A.V. Gill (with contributions by C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, and M.T. Wypyski), Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass (1987–1997). BAR International Series 1070, Oxford 2002. C.S. Lightfoot (ed.), Amorium Reports, II: Research Papers and Technical Reports. BAR International Series 1170, Oxford 2003. Website: www.amoriumexcavations.org

Cover illustration: Excavations in the Lower City Enclosure, Trench XM-03 Title page illustration: SF7501, handle fragment with human mask from a copper alloy bucket or situla (early 9th century, from XE-06 destruction context 260; see Chapter 1, Appendix 2, XE-06, BEM unit 18).

Printed and bounded by MAS Matbaacılık A.Ş. Hamidiye Mah. Soğuksu Cad. No. 3 Kağıthane - İstanbul/Türkiye Tel: +90 (212) 294 10 00 Fax: +90 (212) 294 90 80 [email protected] Certificate No: 12055 Production and Distribution Zero Prodüksiyon Kitap-Yayın-Dağıtım San. Ltd. Şti. Abdullah Sokak, No: 17, Taksim, 34433 İstanbul/Türkiye Tel: +90 (212) 244 7521 Fax: +90 (212) 244 3209 E.mail: [email protected] www.zerobooksonline.com Publisher Certificate No: 14641

In Memoriam

Prof. Angeliki E. Laiou 6.iv.1941 – 11.xii.2008

A great friend and supporter of the Amorium Excavations Project

Contents

Forward ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. xi Check-List of Amorium Publications ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ xiii General Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Archaeological Introduction 1. E.A. Ivison, Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008 ................................................................................................................................. 5-151 Finds Reports 2. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, The Pottery from Destruction Contexts in the Enclosure ................................................................................ 153-179 3. E. Laflı, Roman and Late Roman Terracotta Unguentaria: 1988–2005 .............................................................................................................. 181-192 4. E. Schoolman, Middle Imperial, Late Roman, and Early Byzantine Terracotta Oil Lamps: 2002–2005 ................... 193-215 5. C.S. Lightfoot, Middle Byzantine Terracotta Lamps: 1993–2005 ............................................................................................................................... 217-232 6. C.S. Lightfoot, Hellenistic and Roman Terracotta Figurines and Architectural Fragments ..................................................... 233-241 7. J. Witte, Counters and Stoppers in Terracotta and Stone ..................................................................................................................................................... 243-262 8. C.S. Lightfoot, Small Finds in Bone and Ivory

................................................................................................................................................................................

263-276

9. J. Witte, Toys, Game Pieces, and Boards: 1988–2005 ................................................................................................................................................................ 277-296 10. J. Witte, Roman and Byzantine Bricks and Tiles: 1988–2004 ......................................................................................................................................... 297-377 11. C.S. Lightfoot, Byzantine Weights and Related Material ...................................................................................................................................................... 379-386 Technical and Scientific Studies 12. A. Demirel, Two Weapon-Related Skull Traumas from the Enclosure, 2008 ............................................................................................. 387-394 13. J. Giorgi, The Plant Remains .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 395-418 14. E. Ioannidou, Animal Husbandry .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 419-442 15. D.S. Reese, Inventory of Marine and Freshwater Shells ......................................................................................................................................................... 443-450 16. A.M. Shedrinsky and C.S. Lightfoot, A Byzantine Amber Bead ................................................................................................................................. 451-453 17. M.G. Drahor, Results from the Geophysical Survey conducted in the Lower City Enclosure .............................................. 455-468 Appraisal 18. C.S. Lightfoot, Amorium: Facts, Myths, and Misconceptions ....................................................................................................................................... 469-491 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 493 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 494-520 Errata and Corrigenda to Amorium Reports 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 521-522 Index ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 523-529

Foreword C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison This volume is the third in the Amorium Monograph Series to present the results of the survey and excavations conducted since 1987 at the site of the Byzantine city of Amorium, the modern village of Hisarköy in Afyonkarahisar province, Turkey. The present volume supplements the material that has already been appeared in Amorium 2 in that it publishes categories of excavated and surface finds from all over the site, but with particular emphasis on those from the so-called Lower City Enclosure. The Enclosure is the modern name given to a middle Byzantine fortified area located near the centre of the Lower City of Amorium. The Enclosure site was a major focus of the fieldwork in the years 1996, 1998, 2000–2006, and 2008. The Enclosure has proved to be the most productive excavation area so far at Amorium as regards the volume of finds and the quantity of information they have provided about the architecture, lifestyles, economy, and changing urban landscape of this part of the Lower City. Initially, back in 2003, this volume was conceived as a collection of finds reports and scientific studies much like Amorium 2, but the prominence of the finds from the Enclosure prompted the addition of Chapter 1, which presents a detailed synthesis of the archaeology of the Enclosure to put them in their proper archaeological context. Some information about the history of the site and the excavations was set out in the introduction to Amorium 1. Although reference to some of the results of the work at the Lower City Church in 2002 is made in Amorium 2, the excavations there were only completed in 2009. Work has now begun on a comprehensive study of the archaeology of the Church, to be published in a subsequent volume of the Amorium Monograph Series. However, since 1998 the Enclosure area has been the main focus of the excavations, hence the prominence of the finds from this area in this volume. In addition, in 2005 as part of a survey of the cemeteries and funerary monuments of the Roman city, a tomb, designated MZ94, was excavated on the northern side of the ravine to the west of the site. Some of the finds from this tomb are also published here.

As in Amorium 2, the basic intention is to supply the results of the excavations and the detailed finds reports with some preliminary discussion, in the hope that this new material will be of interest and use to others. Several of the chapters include finds made during recent excavation seasons; others are studies of older material that has taken a good deal of time and effort to process and write up. Notably, too, this volume contains categories of finds that rarely get mentioned in excavation reports. So, for example, the lengthy chapter on the brick and tile found at Amorium is probably the most comprehensive study of such material ever undertaken at a site in Turkey. Nevertheless, the catalogue of nearly four hundred examples published here represents only a small fraction of the entire assemblage of fired brick and tile that has been recovered during the excavations. Whereas in the two previous volumes of the Amorium Monograph Series each chapter had its own bibliography, here it was felt that it would be more economical and useful to list all the references together at the end of the volume. This general bibliography (pages 494-520) includes those Amorium publications that are cited in the footnotes of the various chapters in the volume. However, a complete up-to-date check-list of Amorium publications has also been provided at the beginning of this volume (pages xiii-xvii); this can also be used to find references to earlier reports and background information. As an aid to understanding the archaeological context and inter-relationship of the finds, concordances have been added wherever the material was sufficiently numerous to make such lists desirable. These follow the same style as those used for the first two volumes. Readers are encouraged to use all the published concordances as a group. The publication of any excavation is a long process involving numerous steps and often several different hands. The excavation seasons at Amorium are deliberately kept short; one major factor for this modus operandi is an unwillingness to uncover more material than can possibly be processed, studied, and conserved

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Work on this volume began as soon as Amorium 2 was published in 2003. Many of the chapters were in fact written and submitted as long ago as 2005; and the completion of this publication was delayed by the growing complexity of the project, and by frustrating delays in the preparation of Chapter 1 and the detailed phase plans that accompany it. The editors would therefore like to thank the contributing authors for their remarkable patience and forbearance.

in the available time. Every effort is made to record and present the material in a consistent manner, but there are inevitable changes in personnel, in technology (for example, in the use of digital images and electronic recording), and in methodology. Amorium is fortunate in having a fairly stable group of team members, who by their dedication provide continuity and pass on expertise to new recruits. The present series of monographs for all its blemishes and shortcomings provides a relatively quick and inexpensive publication of new finds.

New York, 5 July 2011

x

Acknowledgements In recent years the Amorium Excavations Project has benefited greatly from an appreciable increase in funding. It is appropriate, therefore, to acknowledge here those institutions and individuals who have contributed generously to this situation. First and foremost, we are grateful for the support of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, which provided annual grants from the time of the Project’s inception in 1987 until 2006. Likewise, it should be acknowledged that without the generous funding provided by Dumbarton Oaks for the decade from the mid-1990s onwards it seems unlikely that the Project would have been able to continue thus far. Thanks should go in particular to Professor Angeliki Laiou, who was the Director at Dumbarton Oaks in 1995 when the first grant was awarded, and to the Director of Byzantine Studies, Dr. Alice-Mary Talbot, who continued to support Amorium right through until her recent retirement. Both showed incredible belief in and appreciation of the Project’s work. Since 2001 the Amorium Excavations Project has also been the grateful recipient of a continuing grant of substantial funds from an anonymous benefactor in the United States. It was this infusion of additional money that allowed the Project to recruit some key team members, to devote more resources to the expensive work of conservation and site preservation, and to provide support for the development of several young Turkish archaeologists. For the past five years The Metropolitan Museum of Art has provided additional resources through the Adelaide and Milton de Groot Fund. The Museum’s contribution is significant, not just in financial terms, but also with respect to the way the institution sees the support of such fieldwork as part of its mission. Additionally, the Museum has provided expertise and resources for the study and analysis of various samples in New York. Finally, the Leon Levy Foundation and the Loeb Classical Library Foundation have awarded substantial grants to the Project in recent years. These prestigious awards have also contributed significantly to the success of the Project during the 2000s. A number of individuals in Turkey, Britain, and America have over

the years given generously to the Amorium Excavations Project. Their donations, however large or small, have been very welcome. We are particularly grateful to His Grace Bishop John of Amorion for his contributions on many levels to the Project, and to Dr. Sami Harawi of Mostly Glass Gallery, who has funded the team T-shirts for several years. In addition, it is fitting to acknowledge the Project’s debt of gratitude to Philippe de Montebello, Dr. Carlos A. Picón, and Dr. Jennifer Chi for their unfailing interest, encouragement, and support. Thanks are owed to Edward Schoolman, who re-photographed much of the material illustrated here, thereby enhancing the quality and professionalism of the publication enormously. We are especially grateful to Marcos Edelcopp for his efficient completion of the phase plans of the Enclosure; to Athanasios (Tassos) Th. Papadogkonas, for the preparation of other detailed plans that accompany Chapter 1, and to Allia Benner for her ever-cheerful assistance. Prof. Mahmut Drahor also deserves special mention since he undertook the geophysical survey of the Enclosure in 1997 regardless of the fact that he was discouraged to do so. Finally, it goes almost without saying that this volume is the product of more than just the authors listed on the Contents page. It is truly a ‘team’ effort in every sense of the word, and everyone who has been involved in the Project over the last ten years or so – government representatives, archaeologists, conservators, architects, volunteers, students, and workmen – can claim a share of the credit. It was with great sadness that we learnt of the untimely death of Prof. Laiou after an earlier draft of these acknowledgements had been prepared for publication. We therefore felt it appropriate to add here a short tribute to a great scholar and Byzantinist. With her death the Amorium Project has undoubtedly lost a staunch friend and supporter. Only in May 2008 at the Dumbarton Oaks Spring Symposium she spoke appreciatively about the discoveries that have been made at Amorium in recent years and urged us enthusiastically to ‘carry on the good work.’ With this inspiration in mind, we respectfully dedicate this volume to her memory.

Check-List of Amorium Publications Final Reports, Guides, and General Publications Arranged by author and year M.A.V. Gill (with contributions by C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, and M.T. Wypyski), Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass (1987-1997), BAR International Series 1070, Oxford 2002. C.S. Lightfoot (ed.), Amorium Reports II: Research Papers and Technical Studies, BAR International Series 1170, Oxford 2003. C. Lightfoot, Amorium. A Brief Guide to a Late Roman and Byzantine City in Central Anatolia, Istanbul 1994 (in English and Turkish). C. and M. Lightfoot, A Byzantine City in Anatolia: Amorium, an Archaeological Guide, Istanbul 2007. C. and M. Lightfoot, Anadolu’da Bir Bizans Kenti: Amorium, Istanbul 2007. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Die Beziehungen zwischen byzantinischer und emiratszeitlicher Keramik,” in Ortaçağ Anadolu. Prof. Dr. Aynur Durukan’a Armağan, Ankara 2002, 135-56, esp. 145-7 and 151-2 nos. 15, 17-19, figs. 6-9. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, Die glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Turkei, 3 vols., Istanbul 2004, esp. 220-5, 424-5 nos. 391-446, and pls. 104-110. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Stratified Byzantine Pottery from the City Wall in the Southwestern Sector of Amorium,” in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, A.O. Uysal, and J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Contexts (Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005), Byzas 7, Istanbul 2007, 273-94. B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Die mittelbyzantinische Keramik aus Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 345-71. H. Buchwald, “Retrofit – Hallmark of Byzantine Architecture?” in Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture, VIII, Aldershot 1999, 9-17, 21. M.G. Drahor, “Application of the Self-potential Method to Archaeological Prospection: Some Case Histories,” Archaeological Prospection 11 (2004), 77-105, esp. 90, 927, figs. 11-15.

Th. Drew-Bear and T. Lochmann, “Grabreliefs aus Amorion, Orkistos und der antiken Siedlung von Bağlıca zeugen verlorengegangener Grabbauten,” Arkeoloji Dergisi (Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir) 4 (1996), 109-34. M. Harrison (ed. W. Young), Mountain and Plain. From the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period, Ann Arbor 2001, 65-75. E.A. Ivison, “Urban Renewal and Imperial Revival in Byzantium (730–1025),” ByzF 26 (2000), esp. 13-18, 27. E.A. Ivison, “Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Ages (Seventh to Ninth Centuries),” in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, Millennium - Studien / Millennium Studies / Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. / Studies in the Culture and History of the First Millennium C.E. 5/2, Berlin 2007, 2560. E.A. Ivison, “Middle Byzantine Sculptors at Work: Evidence from the Lower City Church at Amorium,” in Ch. Pennas and C. Vanderheyde (eds.), La sculpture byzantine, VIIe– XIIe siècles : actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000), BCH Supplément 49, Paris 2008, 489-513. E.A. Ivison, “Kirche und religiöses Leben im byzantinischen Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 309-43. C. Katsari, “The Development of Political Identities in Roman Phrygia from the Second Century BC to the Third Century AD: The Case of Amorium,” Annali 52 (2006), 87-117. R. Kearsley, “Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia,” Epigraphica Anatolica 16 (1990), 69-80. O. Koçyiğit, “Terracotta Spacers from the Bathhouse at Amorium,” AnatSt 56 (2006), 113-25. O. Koçyiğit, “The Role of Terracotta Spacers in the Heating System of the Amorium Bathhouse,” in B. BöhlendorfArslan, A. Osman Uysal, and J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Contexts (Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005), Istanbul 2007, 309-18.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Roodenberg (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia, PIHANS 113, Leiden 2009, 139-53. C.S. Lightfoot, “An Important Group of Late 7th-Century Coins from Amorium,” in O. Tekin (ed.), Ancient History, Numismatics and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean World. Studies in Memory of Clemens E. Bosch and Sabahat Atlan and in Honour of Nezahat Baydur, Istanbul 2009, 223-6. C. Lightfoot, “Ortaçağ’da Aydınlatma Teknikleri ve Amorium’da Ele Geçen Buluntular,” in A.O. Uysal, A. Yavaş, M. Dündar, and O. Koçyiğit (eds.), XII. OrtaçağTürk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, 15-17 Ekim 2008 Çanakkale, Izmir 2010, 41-9. C.S. Lightfoot, “Die byzantinische Stadt Amorium: Grabungsergebnisse der Jahre 1988 bis 2008,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 293-307. C. Lightfoot, “Coinage of the Amorian Dynasty found at Amorium,” Mélanges Cécile Morrisson, Travaux et Mémoires 16 (Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance), Paris 2010, 503-11. C.S. Lightfoot, “Business as Usual? Archaeological Evidence for Byzantine Commercial Enterprise at Amorium in the Seventh to Eleventh Centuries,” in C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia Series 4, Washington, D.C., forthcoming. M. Lightfoot, “Afyon Arkeoloji Müzesi ve Amorium Kazılarında Bulunan Bizans Kemer Tokaları,” Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 3 (2003), 119-34. P. Linscheid, “Middle Byzantine Textiles from Excavations at Amorium, Turkey,” in A. de Moor and C. Fluck (eds.), Methods of Dating Ancient Textiles of the 1st Millennium AD from Egypt and Neighbouring Countries. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the Study Group ‘Textiles from the Nile Valley,’ Antwerp, 16–17 April 2005, Tielt 2007, 88-96. Y. Mergen, “Ortaçağ Kenti Amorium’da açığa çıkarılan bir Konut Kompleksi ve bazı Kap Formları,” in B. Karamağaralı and S. Alpaslan (eds.), V. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı ve Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 19-20 Nisan 2001, Ankara 2001, 325-36. E.M. Schoolman, “Kreuze und kreuzförmige Darstellungen in der Alltagskultur von Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 373-86. M. Şen, “Sepet Tipi Küpelere Bizans Anadolusu’ndan Yeni Bir Yorum: Amorium Sepet Tipi Küpeleri,” in K. Pektaş et al. (eds.), XIII. Ortaçağ Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 14-16 Ekim 2009 / Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium of Medieval and Turkish Period Excavations and Art Historical Researches, Istanbul 2010, 583-92.

O. Koçyiğit, “Amorium Bizans Hamamı’nın Erken İslam Devri Hamamlarıyla Karşılaştırılması,” in H. Karpuz and O. Eravşar (eds.), Uluslararası Türk Sanatı ve Arkeolojisi Sempozyumu, Prof. Dr. Rüçhan Arık, Prof. Dr. Oluş Arık’a Armağan, Konya 2007, 453-63. O. Koçyiğit, “A Terracotta Spacer Pin – Evidence for a Roman Baths at Amorium,” AnatSt 60 (2010), 147-8. O. Koçyiğit and C. Lightfoot, “Şarap ve Felaket,” Aktüel Arkeoloji 11 (April, 2009), 42-3. O. Koçyiğit, “Amorium’da Bulunan Yeni Veriler Işığında Bizans Dünyası’nda Şarap Üretimi,” in K. Pektaş et al. (eds.), XIII. Ortaçağ Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 14-16 Ekim 2009 / Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium of Medieval and Turkish Period Excavations and Art Historical Researches, Istanbul 2010, 393-401. C.S. Lightfoot, “Doukas and Amorium, a Note,” JÖB 46 (1996), 337-40. C.S. Lightfoot, “The Public and Domestic Architecture of a Thematic Capital, the Archaeological Evidence from Amorium,” in Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.), National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research International Symposium 6, Athens 1998, 303-20. C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium-Hisarcık’ın Selçuklu ve Osmanlı Dönemlerine ait Yerleşim ve Arkeolojisi,” Ege Üniversitesi Sanat Tarihi Dergisi IX (1998), 75-84. C.S. Lightfoot, “The Survival of Cities in Byzantine Anatolia, the Case of Amorium,” Byzantion 68, Fasc. 1 (1998), 56-71. C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium and the Afyon Region in Byzantine Times,” in R. Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia. Fifty Years’ Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1998, 301-14. C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium: The History and Archaeology of an Ancient City in the Turkish Period,” in A. Aktaş-Yasa (ed.), Uluslararası Dördüncü Türk Kültürü Kongresi (4-7 Kasım 1997, Ankara), vol. 2, Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını 229, Ankara 2000, 79-89. C.S. Lightfoot, “Bizans Döneminde Afyonkarahisar,” in I. Küçükkurt et al. (eds.), Afyonkarahisar Kütüğü Vol. 1, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Yayını 35, Ankara 2001, 113-124. C.S. Lightfoot, “Byzantine Anatolia: Reassessing the Numismatic Evidence,” RN 158 (2002), 229-39. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium’daki Sikke Buluntuları: Anadolu’da Bizans Para Ekonomisi İçin Yeni Kanıtlar,” Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 3 (2003), 23-8. C.S. Lightfoot, “Glass Finds at Amorium,” DOP 59 (2005), 173-81. C.S. Lightfoot, “Trade and Industry in Byzantine Anatolia – The Evidence from Amorium,” DOP 61 (2007), 269-86. C.S. Lightfoot, “Excavations at Amorium: Results from the Last Ten Years (1998–2008),” in T. Vorderstrasse and J.

xiv

Check-List of Amorium Publications

C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium Kazısı 1993,” KST 16/2, Ankara, 30 Mayıs-3 Haziran 1994, Ankara 1995, 131-51. C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium Kazısı 1994,” KST 17/2, Ankara, 29 Mayıs-2 Haziran 1995, Ankara 1996, 361-73. C.S. Lightfoot, “1995 Yılı Amorium Kazısı,” KST 18/2, Ankara, 27-31 Mayıs 1996, Ankara 1997, 431-47. C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “1996 Yılı Amorium Kazısı,” KST 19/2, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 1997, Ankara 1998, 343-66. C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “1997 Yılı Amorium Çalışmaları,” KST 20/2, Tarsus, 25-29 Mayıs 1998, Ankara 1999, 525-38. C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “Amorium 1998 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları,” KST 21/2, Ankara, 24-28 Mayıs 1999, Ankara 2000, 143-52. C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “Amorium Kazısı 2000,” KST 23/2, Ankara, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2001, Ankara 2002, 243-56. C. Lightfoot and Y. Arbel, “Amorium Kazısı 2001,” KST 24/1, Ankara, 27-31 Mayıs 2002, Ankara 2003, 521-32. C. Lightfoot and Y. Arbel, “Amorium Kazısı 2002,” KST 25/1, Ankara, 26-31 Mayıs 2003, Ankara 2004, 1-12. C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazıları 2003,” KST 26/1, Konya, 24-28 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 249-64. C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazıları 2004,” KST 27/1, Antalya, 30 Mayıs-03 Haziran 2005, Ankara 2006, 77-88. C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2005,” KST 28/1, Çanakkale, 29 Mayıs-02 Haziran 2006, Ankara 2007, 271-94. C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2006,” KST 29/1, Kocaeli, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2007, Ankara 2008, 443-66. C. Lightfoot, E. Ivison, M. Şen, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2007,” KST 30/1, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara 2009, 201-26. C. Lightfoot, E. Ivison, O. Koçyiğit, and M. Şen, “Amorium Kazısı 2008,” KST 31/1, Denizli, 25-29 Mayıs 2009, Ankara 2010, 133-57. C. Lightfoot, N. Tsivikis, and J. Foley, “Amorium Kazıları 2009,” KST 32/1, Istanbul, 24-28 Mayıs 2010, Ankara 2011, 47-68. C.S. Lightfoot et al., “Amorium Excavations 1993, the Sixth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 44 (1994), 105-26. C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “Amorium Excavations 1994, the Seventh Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 45 (1995), 10536. C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “Amorium Excavations 1995, the Eighth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 46 (1996), 91-110. C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “The Amorium Project: The 1995 Excavation Season,” DOP 51 (1997), 291-300. C.S. Lightfoot et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1996 Excavation Season,” DOP 52 (1998), 323-36.

J. Witte, “Freizeitbeschäftigung in Amorium: die Spiele,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 387-94. J. Witte-Orr, “Bricks and Tiles from the Triangular Tower at Amorium,’ in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, A. Osman Uysal, and J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Contexts (Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005), Istanbul 2007, 295-308. M.T. Wypyski, “Technical Analysis of Glass Mosaic Tesserae from Amorium,” DOP 59 (2005), 183-92. H. Yaman, “Door to the Other World: Phrygian Doorstones at Amorium,” in O. Özbek (ed.), Funeral Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies from Prehistory to Antiquity, Istanbul 2008, 59-67. H. Yaman, “2007–2008 Amorium Kazılarında Bulunan Bir Grup Sikke,” in A.O. Uysal, A. Yavaş, M. Dündar, and O. Koçyiğit (eds.), XII. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, 15-17 Ekim 2008 Çanakkale, Izmir 2010, 50-8.

Preliminary Reports Arranged in order of publisher and year R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1987, a Preliminary Survey,” AnatSt 38 (1988), 175-84. R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1988, the First Preliminary Excavation,” AnatSt 39 (1989), 167-74. R.M. Harrison et al., “Amorium Excavations 1989, the Second Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 40 (1990), 205-18. R.M. Harrison et al., “Amorium Excavations 1990, the Third Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 41 (1991), 215-29. R.M. Harrison et al., “Amorium Excavations 1991, the Fourth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 42 (1992), 207-22. R.M. Harrison, N. Christie et al., “Excavations at Amorium: 1992 Interim Report,” AnatSt 43 (1993), 147-62. R.M. Harrison, “Doğu Phrygia’da Amorium (Hisarköy) Yüzey Araştırması,” VI. AST, Ankara, 23-27 Mayıs 1988, Ankara 1989, 191-200. R.M. Harrison, “Emirdağ (Afyon)’da Amorium Birinci Kazı Raporu,” KST 11/2, Antalya, 18-23 Mayıs 1989, Ankara 1990, 155-65. R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1989,” KST 12/2, Ankara, 28 Mayıs-1 Haziran 1990, Ankara 1991, 251-68. R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1991,” KST 14/2, Ankara, 25-29 Mayıs 1992, Ankara 1993, 247-59. C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium Kazıları 1992”, KST 15/1, Ankara, 24-28 Mayıs 1993, Ankara 1994, 503-14.

xv

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

C.S. Lightfoot et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1997 Study Season,” DOP 53 (1999), 333-49. C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1998 Excavation Season,” DOP 55 (2001), 371-99. C.S. Lightfoot, Y. Mergen, B.Y. Olcay, and J. Witte-Orr, “The Amorium Project: Research and Excavation in 2000,” DOP 57 (2003), 279-92. C.S. Lightfoot, Y. Arbel, B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, J.A. Roberts, and J. Witte-Orr, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2001,” DOP 58 (2004), 355-70. C.S. Lightfoot, Y. Arbel, E.A. Ivison, J.A. Roberts, and E. Ioannidou, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2002,” DOP 59 (2005), 231-65. C. S. Lightfoot, O. Karagiorgou, O. Koçyiğit, H. Yaman, P. Linscheid, and J. Foley, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2003,” DOP 61 (2007), 353-85.

C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 1998,” AnatArch 4 (1998), 6-7. C. Lightfoot, “The Amorium Excavation Project (1999),” AnatArch 5 (1999), 10. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2000,” AnatArch 6 (2000), 10-11. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2001,” AnatArch 7 (2001), 9-10. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2002,” AnatArch 8 (2002), 11-12. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2003,” AnatArch 9 (2003), 18-19. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2004,” AnatArch 10 (2004), 13-15. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2005,” AnatArch 11 (2005), 31-3. C. Lightfoot and E. Ivison, “Amorium 2006,” AnatArch 12 (2006), 29-31. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2007,” AnatArch 13 (2007), 25-7. C. Lightfoot and E. Ivison, “Amorium 2008,” AnatArch 14 (2008), 25-7. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2009,” AnatArch 15 (2009), 24-5. C. Lightfoot and O. Karagiorgou, “Byzantine Amorion, a Provincial Capital in Asia Minor,” Aρχαιολογία 69 (December 1998), 92-6. Reprinted with corrections in Aρχαιολογία 70 (March 1999), 87-8. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 1996,” BBBS 23 (1997), 39-49. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium Excavations Project 1998,” BBBS 25 (1999), 43-8. C.S. Lightfoot, “Shedding Light on Dark Age and Middle Byzantine Amorium,” in Abstracts of Papers. ThirtySecond Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, November 10 – 12, 2006, The University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 2006, 48. C. Lightfoot, “Dichroic Glass from Byzantine Central Anatolia,” Instrumentum 18 (December 2003), 15. C. Lightfoot, “Le site d’Amorium,” in Les Échanges au Moyen Age – Les Dossiers d’Archéologie no. 256 (Septembre 2000), 32-3. C.S. Lightfoot, “Unearthing a Byzantine City: Excavations at Amorium, Turkey,” Minerva 5/1 (January/February 1994), 14-16. C.S. Lightfoot, “New Discoveries at Amorium, Turkey,” Minerva 7/4 (July/August 1996), 25-28. C. Lightfoot, “Byzantine Pots in Central Turkey Puzzle Excavators,” Minerva 10/3 (May/June 1999), 7. C. Lightfoot, “Recent Discoveries at the Byzantine City of Amorium,” Minerva 10/5 (September/October 1999), 1619. C. Lightfoot, “Life and Death at Byzantine Amorium”, Minerva 14/2 (2003), 31-3. C. Lightfoot, “The Siege of Amorium: History’s Tragedy; Archaeology’s Triumph,” Minerva 20/5 (September/ October 2009), 27-9. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium Kazısı Sikkeleri 1994,” Moneta 3 (February 1995), 1. C. Lightfoot, “Ünik bir Bizans Sikkesi,” Moneta 6 (May 1996), 2-3. C. Lightfoot, “A New Anonymous Follis from Amorium,” NCirc 103/10 (December 1995), 376.

Short Reports Arranged by publication, author, and date M.-H. Gates, “Archaeology in Turkey,” AJA 98/2 (1994), 2767. M.-H. Gates, “Archaeology in Turkey,” AJA 99/2 (1995), 251, 253. M.-H. Gates, “Archaeology in Turkey,” AJA 100/2 (1996), 3323. M.-H. Gates, “Archaeology in Turkey,” AJA 101/2 (1997), 298300. B. Yıldırım and M.-H. Gates, “Archaeology in Turkey, 2004– 2005,” AJA 111 (2007), 278, 335-6. R.M. Harrison, “Amorium: Answers and Questions,” XI. Türk Tarihi Kongresi. Ankara, 5-9 Eylül 1990. Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler. Vol. 1 (Ankara 1994), 393-6 and pls. 133-8. R.M. Harrison, “Amorium,” in Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi Vol. 1, İstanbul 1997, 87-8. E. Ivison and J. Foley, “Preserving Byzantine Amorium, Turkey,” Minerva 17/3 (2006), 42-4. E.A. Ivison and E. Hendrix, “Reconstructing Polychromy on Middle Byzantine Architectural Sculpture,” AJA 101/2 (1997), 387. P.I. Kuniholm, “Preliminary Dendrochronological Results from Amorium, 1993,” AnatSt 44 (1994), 127-8. C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “Byzantine Amorium, Transformation and Continuity,” AJA 100/2 (1996), 402. C. Lightfoot, “The Numismatic Finds from Amorium: New Evidence for the Byzantine Monetary Economy,” AJA 103 (1999), 267. C. Lightfoot, “Excavations at Amorium,” AnatArch 1 (1995), 5-7. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 1996,” AnatArch 2 (1996), 8-9. C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 1997,” AnatArch 3 (1997), 6-7.

xvi

Check-List of Amorium Publications

A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, “The Execution of the Forty-two Martyrs of Amorion: Proposing an Interpretation,” AlMasāq 14/2 (2002), 141-62. H. Kroll, Tiere im Byzantinische Reich. Archäo-zoologische Forschungen im Überlick, Römische-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Monograph 87, Mainz 2010, esp. 71, 74, and fig. 27, mistakenly citing Amorium Reports 3 as having been published in 2009 (see p. 245). P.I. Kuniholm, “Dendronchronologically Dated Ottoman Monuments,” in U. Baram and L. Carroll (eds.), A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground, New York 2000, 114 no. 23. A. Laiou, «Mεταξύ παραγωγής και κατανάλωσης: Είχαν οικονομία οι βυζαντινές πόλεις;» (Between Production and Consumption: Did the Byzantine Cities have an Economy?), ΠΑΑ 81.2 (2006), 90, 97-9, 105-6, 112-3, 121-4. A.E. Laiou and C. Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge 2007, 48, 56, 75, 77, 78, 87, 118, 119, 123, 130, 131, 137, 153. C.S. Lightfoot, “From East to West: The Early Roman Glass Industry,” in D. Foy and M.-D. Nenna (eds.), Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique, Monographies instrumentum 24, Montagnac 2003, 342 and fig. 1,8. C. Mango (ed.), The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford 2002, 165, 200. R. Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton 1999, 89, fig. 56. Ü. Özgümüş, Anadolu Camcılığı, İstanbul 2000, 53. M.G. Parani, “Representations of Glass Objects as a Source on Byzantine Glass: How Useful Are They?” DOP 59 (2005), 152, 155 fn. 34. E. Parman, Ortaçağda Bizans Döneminde Frigya (Phrygia) ve Bölge Müzelerindeki Bizans Taş Eserleri, Eskişehir 2002, 58-60, 87-8, 157-8 no. A39, 162 no. A40, and 179 no. A50. F.R. Trombley, “War, Society and Popular Religion in Byzantine Anatolia (6th-13th Centuries),” in Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.), Athens 1998 (National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research International Symposium 6), 115-17, 121-2, 131. B. Umar, Phrygia. Bir Tarihsel Coğrafya Araştırması ve Gezi Rehberi, Istanbul 2008, 209-18. M. Whittow, “Early Medieval Byzantium and the End of the Ancient World,” Journal of Agrarian Change 9/1 (2009), 134-53, esp. 139 and 146. L. Zavagno, Cities in Transition: Urbanism in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (AD 500–900), BAR International Series 2030, Oxford 2009, 164-71.

P. Linscheid, “Early Byzantine Textiles from Amorium, Anatolia,” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 32 (2001), 17-18. P. Linscheid, “Middle Byzantine Textiles from Amorium, Anatolia,” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 38 (2004), 25-7. Y. Mergen, “Results of the Working Seasons between 19951998 at the Occupation Area behind the Lower City Walls at Amorium,” AJA 104 (2000), 340. S. Mitchell, “Archaeology in Asia Minor 1985-1989,” Archaeological Reports for 1989-1990, 36 (1990), 127-8. S. Mitchell, “Archaeology in Asia Minor 1990-98,” Archaeological Reports for 1998-1999, 45 (1999), 181-3. M. Vaiou, “The City of Amorion from Late Antiquity to the Late Byzantine Period,” Ορθοδοξος Κηρυξ 188-189 (MayJune 2004), 23-7. J. Witte-Orr, “Pastimes in Amorium: Games and Gameboards,” in Abstracts of Papers. Thirty-Second Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, November 10 – 12, 2006, The University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 2006, 47.

Other Important References to Amorium W. Brandes, “Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries—Different Sources, Different Histories?” in G.P. Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999, 38-41. J. Crow, “Fortifications and Urbanism in Late Antiquity: Thessaloniki and Other Eastern Cities,” in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, JRA Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth, RI 2001, 98-100. F. Dell’Acqua, “Enhancing Luxury through Stained Glass, from Asia Minor to Italy,” DOP 59 (2005), 200-1 and figs. 4-5. O. Eravşar, “Anadolu’da Bizans Hamamları – Byzantine Baths in Anatolia,” in Eski Hamam, Eski Tas, Istanbul 2009, 634, figs. 2-3 and illus. 3. J.F. Haldon, “The Idea of the Town in the Byzantine Empire,” in G.P. Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999, 14-15. K.W. Harl, “From Pagan to Christian in Cities of Roman Anatolia during the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” in T.S. Burns and J.W. Eadie, Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, East Lansing 2001, 307. L. James, “Byzantine Glass Mosaic Tesserae: Some Material Considerations,” BMGS 30/1 (2006), 31, 33, 45. W.E. Kaegi, “The First Arab Expedition against Amorium,” BMGS 3 (1977), 19-22.

xvii

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008 Eric A. Ivison*

1. Introduction

stratified pottery, which will provide a comprehensive guide to the ceramic chronology of the site (see below, especially Chapter 2). The excavations have also been fruitful as regards organic remains. Indeed, the human, faunal and floral remains from the Enclosure area are making a major contribution towards the interpretation of its history and features (see below Chapters 1215). Most importantly, however, the excavations have also revealed significant architectural remains that provide an insight into the layout of this central part of the city and its transformation during the course of the Byzantine period. Fragments of walls datable to the late Roman period (ca. 300-500) were discovered, but the majority of building remains can be assigned to the 6th to 9th centuries and thus predate the construction of the Enclosure complex itself in the later 10th century. The most impressive structures to be uncovered were an early Byzantine baths and an associated building complex that were constructed in the mid 6th century. Around these baths, industrial-cum-commercial and residential buildings of the 7th–9th centuries were excavated, which formed part of a densely built-up urban quarter divided by a street. Of particular significance for the history of Amorium, and for the study of the material culture of Byzantine Anatolia, was the discovery of extensive and datable destruction layers associated with this early mediaeval occupation. Middle Byzantine structures of the later 10th and 11th centuries associated with the Enclosure were also excavated, the most impressive of which are the four massive defensive walls that frame the complex itself. Evidence for limited use of the area during the Seljuk and early Ottoman periods (ca. 1200–1600) was also uncovered.

Excavations within and immediately outside of the area designated the Lower City Enclosure have proven the most successful so far in establishing an outline chronology for the development of Byzantine Amorium. The Enclosure is located near the centre of the so-called Lower City, on gently sloping terrain to the south of the Upper City mound, immediately east of the centre of the village of Hisarköy and the modern asphalt road to Davulga (map grid reference: 39 degrees 01’ 12” N, 31 degrees 17’ 46” E). The closest archaeological landmark to the Enclosure is the Lower City Church complex (Basilica A), located only some 50-70 metres to the southwest (Fig. 1/1). The outline of the Enclosure today is marked by low banks of earth and debris that conceal the remains of a trapezoidal masonry enceinte, enclosing an area of 12,327 square metres (Pl. 1/1). The prominence of the Enclosure at the heart of the site of Amorium prompted archaeological investigation, seeking to identify the function and date of the monument, and by connection, to understand the urban development of this area of the central city through time. Since 1996, eight seasons of excavation (1996, 1998, 2000– 2006, and 2008) concentrated chiefly on the southern sector of the Enclosure. These activities have shown that the archaeology of this area is largely undisturbed by modern activities and is easily accessible, owing to the paucity of occupation after the late 11th century. By the end of the 2008 season some 2,100 square metres or approximately one sixth of the area within the Enclosure had been excavated down to early mediaeval levels and, in some places, even earlier. The depth and quality of the stratigraphy in this area, albeit complex, has provided an overview of the history of this central sector of the city between the 5th and 11th centuries. It has been a rich source of finds of all kinds, particularly in terms of

Preliminary reports on the excavations in the Enclosure area have appeared regularly since 1997 in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, the Turkish Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, and other publications.1 As preliminary reports, these

* Department of History, College of Staten Island, City University of New York (CUNY), and Ph.D. program in History, CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY, USA, [email protected].

1 I would like to thank Chris Lightfoot for his unfailing sup-

port, sound advice, and patience, and other members of the Amorium team who have helped me during the long

5

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

publications presented summaries of the results of the excavation seasons and offered tentative interpretations of the archaeology. These preliminary reports were necessarily selective, in that studies of the excavated materials were not then sufficiently advanced to offer definitive or comprehensive publication. By 2006 it was clear that, given the significance of the findings from the Enclosure area, a much more detailed account of results of the excavations and a unifying chronological framework were sorely needed. This need was regarded as especially pressing in view of the publication of the small finds and other material from the Enclosure area in the present volume, and the ongoing preparation of other publications arising from the Enclosure excavations in other volumes of the Amorium Monograph Series and future publications. This chapter aims to fill this lacuna by offering a detailed synthesis based upon a full review of the available evidence and, as such, its purpose is to supersede and replace previous interpretations of the Enclosure area excavations. Much of the archaeological material presented below was previously unpublished and draws on the most recent research and discoveries. Particular attention is paid to unravelling the phasing and development of the Enclosure area over time and to determining the forms of structures and the uses of architectural space. This chapter also serves as a reference point for other chapters in this volume that discuss material from its trenches, providing an architectural and chronological context for these finds. As such, it is also

hoped that this chapter will serve as a point of departure for readers of forthcoming Amorium publications and future investigations of the Enclosure. It is also the hope of the author that this publication will make a significant contribution towards a more detailed understanding of Byzantine urbanism, not only at Amorium, but also in the Byzantine Empire as a whole. Having introduced the Lower City Enclosure and briefly sketched the rationale of the excavations, the rest of this chapter is devoted to presenting the archaeological evidence and to its interpretation. This chapter next explains the excavation methodology and periodisation adopted, orienting the reader to the excavation methods and recording systems, to the Enclosure trench designations, and to the designations of major buildings and installations and their respective construction periods. This is followed by a history of the excavations, season by season between 1996 and 2008, offering a historiographical overview that traces the evolution of knowledge and interpretations of the Enclosure. The bulk of this chapter is devoted to a detailed presentation and interpretive discussion of the archaeology of the Enclosure, divided into five chronological periods of occupation covering the late Roman through Seljuk and Early Ottoman periods (ca. 300–1600). This proposed chronology is based on the relative dating of archaeological features according to the stratigraphy and associated finds. A concluding section reflects on significance of the archaeology of the Enclosure area for the development of Byzantine Amorium and future directions of study.

gestation of this publication, particularly Daniel Abuhatsira, Yoav Arbel, Benjamin Arubas, Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan, Oğuz Koçyiğit, Athanasios (Tassos) Th. Papadogkonas, Octavian Reicher, Nikos Tsivikis, Yvonne Stolz, and Johanna Witte. The original short report, begun in New York, was greatly expanded and revised while the author was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (RCAC) in Istanbul, Turkey, during the academic year 2007–8. I am grateful for the encouragement of my colleagues at the RCAC and for the comments of then associate Director, Alessandra Ricci. Further expansion, additions, and revisions had to be made following important discoveries during the 2008 season. Following initial planning in the field by Benjamin Arubas, Daniel Abuhatsira, and Octavian Reicher, the trench and phase plans of the Enclosure were first drafted by the author in collaboration with Benjamin Arubas (2007–9), and then were seen through to completion by Marcos Edelcopp (2011), working with the author, and with input by Benjamin Arubas. Other plans and sections were completed by Allia Benner and Tassos Papadogkonas (2010–11) in collaboration with the author. For a full list of the Amorium preliminary reports and other publications, see above pages xiii-xvii.

Throughout this report the reader is referred to the accompanying illustrations, architectural phase plans, section drawings, and stratigraphic matrices of trenches, as well as Appendices 1-5 of this chapter which contain respectively, tables of trenches and contexts, a full description of destruction contexts, coins from destruction contexts, and a concordance of associated finds from destruction contexts, and a scientific analysis of slag samples. Further significant small finds (both published and unpublished) are also referenced in the text, the notes, and Appendices 2 and 4. Given the volume of archaeological material unearthed at the Enclosure, space here does not permit a comprehensive presentation of every single find, but other chapters in this volume constitute the final publication of the most significant finds which are key to the dating and interpretation of the archaeology of the Enclosure. These chapters are cross-referenced in throughout this text. Of particular

6

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

importance here is Chapter 2, prepared by Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan, which serves as an overview of diagnostic pottery from key destruction contexts in the Enclosure. Context pottery from the Enclosure studied by the present author in consultation with Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan is discussed in the text below, and will receive a more detailed presentation in her publication of the mediaeval Byzantine pottery from Amorium in another volume of the Amorium Monograph Series. Further analysis and publication of the vast quantities of pottery from the Enclosure excavations will no doubt continue to flesh out our knowledge of the chronology and uses of the area. Many small finds and other inventoried objects from the Enclosure excavations referred to below and in Appendix 2 are published in Chapters 3-5, 7-11, and 16 in this volume. These finds include unguentaria, lamps, bone and ivory objects, gaming pieces, counters and weights, bricks and roof tiles. Some metal vessels from the Enclosure discussed below have already received preliminary publication; these and other metalwork from the Enclosure such as tools and weapons will receive definitive treatment in a separate Amorium volume. Glassware from the Enclosure, including worked pieces from a glass workshop discussed below, is being studied by Yvonne Stolz. Coins mentioned in the text and listed in Appendix 3 will form part of a definitive catalogue of coin finds soon to be published by Chris Lightfoot.2 Highly significant human remains from the destruction contexts that are discussed below are the subject of detailed examination in Chapter 12 by Arzu Demirel. Archaeobotanical samples from the Enclosure are published by John Giorgi in Chapter 13, and key Enclosure contexts containing animal bones are included in Chapter 14 by Evangelia Ioannidou.

considering a multi-period plan of the Enclosure excavations (Fig. 1/3). Careful stratigraphic excavation and recording at the Enclosure site has also revealed the interactions of site formation processes that must be understood to interpret the archaeology. Earth surfaces were usually raised by the re-deposition of earth fills that often contained finds of earlier periods, whilst earlier strata were routinely cut and even removed by later activities. Byzantine builders also reused the shells of earlier buildings for other purposes, or demolished all or part of building in order to reuse the stone elsewhere. For example, the Enclosure wall itself was probably built largely from materials found close at hand, and so its construction must have caused substantial damage to pre-existing structures in the immediate area. A thorough understanding of these processes, and their relative chronologies was therefore essential, but there were also good indications that some contexts were relatively uncontaminated and contained sealed deposits. The most important of these were those recognised as destruction layers, a full list of which is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this chapter.

(i). Methodology

The Amorium Excavations Project follows the recognised working methods and data recording systems developed for stratigraphical excavations in the United Kingdom.3 Each trench was excavated under the direction of a qualified trench supervisor and a number of assistants, who kept excavation records, drew plans and sections, and retrieved finds. Although digital photography has now superseded the use of colour slides and black-and-white print negatives at Amorium, paper records still remain the most practical form of recording in the field. Following British excavation and recording methods, individual strata, walls, and features, such as pits and small constructions, were assigned context numbers in the field and the full particulars of the context (date of excavation, trench, supervisor, extent, location, description, colour, constituents, stratigraphic relationship, preliminary interpretation, finds, etc.) were recorded on standard context sheet, together with sketches and colour photographic prints. These records were used to generate the Harris matrices that accompany this chapter, thus presenting a succinct record of the stratigraphic relationships of the different contexts found in the trenches (Figs. 1/25-40). Trench notebooks were also kept in the field, updated daily, providing a narrative of the daily history of the excavation, listing

2. Excavation Methodology and Periodisation Amorium is a complex urban site, and strict stratigraphical excavation and recording are essential for its proper documentation and interpretation. This is especially true for the Enclosure site, where excavations uncovered a complex succession of occupation layers, superimposed structures, and more ephemeral features that signify a continuously changing urban landscape. This complexity can be best appreciated  when 2 The catalogue in Amorium 4 will include all the finds up

3 As described, for example, in Rahtz 1979; 1986.

until 2006. For those from 2007 and 2008, see Yaman 2010.

7

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

the day’s excavation activities, contexts, finds, and preliminary interpretations. In the course of ten excavation seasons at the Enclosure some 1,052 individual contexts were allocated. As can be seen from Appendix 1, individual trenches and sondages could be assigned sets of their own context numbers, usually commencing with context 1-, but some series of X-trenches, such as the XC-trenches and XE-trenches, could start that year’s context series from the number where contexts ended in the previous season, or were assigned consecutive batches, one hundred contexts at a time. Not all these batches of context numbers were necessarily used up during an excavation season (see Appendix 1, below). In recent years these records have been scanned to form a digital archive of all paper documents, drawings, and photographs. The context sheets and trench notebooks, together with the photographic record and scale plans drawn in the field, thus form the primary excavation records upon which this chapter was based. The original records of the Enclosure excavations form part of the Amorium Excavations Project Archives, currently housed in New York, USA.

officially as envanterlik (museum ‘inventory’ objects), and so are stored at Afyonkarahisar Museum and registered with the Turkish General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums. All other finds from the Enclosure excavations are stored in the secure depots of the Amorium Excavations Project on site.

Each new context was excavated and recorded in strict stratigraphic succession by the trench supervisors and their assistants, but local Turkish workmen carried out the bulk of the manual work of excavation, including the removal of large quantities of spoil in the form of earth or stone debris.4 Tools employed at the Enclosure excavations varied according to the needs of each context. As on other Mediterranean sites, small pickaxes and shovels were applied to more difficult terrain, with trowels and smaller tools being used for the more sensitive work. Dry and wet sieving was adopted for certain occupation levels, especially for the retrieval of organic remains, such as seeds.5 In the Enclosure particular contexts containing rich ash layers and numerous finds were subject to careful sieving. Context pottery, glass, animal bones, and other bulk finds, were bagged and tagged in the field, before being sent to the excavation Dig House for processing. Small finds, coins, exceptional objects, organic samples, and human bones were bagged and labelled separately, for individual conservation and cataloguing. Some exceptional finds (such as coins or precious, unique artefacts) were classed

An intensive study of the excavated structures and features within the Enclosure area was carried out during the 2005 and 2006 seasons.6 All of the surviving walls and other structures were numbered in a new master database. This series was consecutive, running from 1 onwards, and by the end of the 2006 season 235 walls had been described, phased, and allocated a new number. Large units and structures were also renumbered and attributed to a specific phase or period. This analysis was based upon the stratigraphic relationships of the structures and features concerned, and their construction techniques and materials, combined with an evaluation of the diagnostic finds of coins, pottery, and other objects retrieved from contexts during excavation.

Excavations at Amorium are, of course, also subject to the rules and regulations laid down by the Turkish General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and are supervised in the field by the Turkish government representative or temsilci who is assigned to the excavations each year. Permission must usually be sought to remove later structures in order to excavate fully earlier ones concealed beneath. This rule is subject to individual interpretation, but major surviving structures cannot be removed. Further excavation can thus only take place in areas around such structures or by way of small sondages within these buildings. These rules therefore explain why it has not been possible to excavate to earlier levels in some parts of the Enclosure.

(ii). Periodisation

Although the post-excavation work is still ongoing, it is already clear that the structures excavated in the Enclosure area may be divided into five main chronological periods. These are designated as follows, together with their shorthand abbreviations and the figure numbers of the phase plans used in this publication.

4 This material was dumped on nearby spoil heaps that were

6 The survey was carried out by Eric Ivison, Yoav Arbel,

then removed, as required by Turkish law, mechanically from the site before the end of each season. 5 AnatSt 1995, 124. For methods and tools for Mediterranean archaeology in general, see Bowkett 2002.

Benjamin Arubas, Daniel Abuhatsira, and Oğuz Koçyiğit, in consultation with Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan and Johanna Witte.

8

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Enclosure Periodisation and Phase Plans Phase 1 late Roman (LR), ca. 300–500 (Fig. 1/4) Phase 2 early Byzantine (EB), ca. 500–650 (Fig. 1/5) Phase 3 Byzantine early mediaeval (BEM), ca. 650–838 (Fig. 1/6) Phase 4 middle Byzantine (MB), ca. 963–1100 (Fig. 1/7) Phase 5 Seljuk-early Ottoman (SO), ca. 1200–1600 (Fig. 1/8)

with the results of the Amorium excavations, which are challenging so-called ‘dark age’ associations by uncovering evidence of a formative and surprisingly dynamic period in the city’s history. Although not a perfect solution, the term ‘Byzantine early mediaeval’ proposed here represents an attempt at pragmatic compromise between chronology and cultural designation.

3. Trench Designations (Fig. 1/2)

Most of these period designations are conventional and their dates correspond to the local chronology revealed through excavations at the Enclosure, with some reference to the master chronology proposed for the urban development of Amorium as a whole.7 In this publication, the designation ‘Byzantine early mediaeval’ is applied to a distinctive 200-year period at Amorium that began in the mid-7th century and lasted through the first decades of the 9th century. In terms of events, this period is conveniently bracketed by the first Arab attacks on Amorium and the arrival of the thematic forces of Anatolikon, and the historical watershed provided by the sack of the city in the year 838 by the armies of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mu‘tas.im. The designation ‘Byzantine early mediaeval’ is not a standard chronological term in Byzantine history but is adopted here in preference to the term ‘dark age’ that has appeared in previous Amorium publications (see above pages 1-2). The use of the term ‘dark age’ to describe the period of the 7th–9th centuries in Byzantine history has been questioned in recent years, largely because of negative connotations implying obscurity and decline. At the same time, however, there is no scholarly consensus on what term would be substituted to describe this period of early mediaeval Byzantium. Recent suggestions include the terms ‘transitional’ and ‘early mediaeval,’ although the term ‘dark age’ still appears academic publications as a convenient shorthand label.8 Rather than reinforcing old, stereotypical associations by continuing to use the term ‘dark age,’ the editors of the present volume decided to adopt a more neutral terminology to designate this period. This decision is also in keeping

Excavations in the Enclosure area followed the trench designation system adopted by the first field director, Professor R. Martin Harrison, at the start of the Amorium excavations in 1988. This system allocates letters of the alphabet for trenches, applied in the chronological sequence of their excavation.9 A general letter designation of ‘X’ was applied to the entire area both within and immediately outside the Enclosure. Individual trenches combined X with additional letters, the series starting with ‘XA.’ By the 2006 season, this sequence ran from trenches XA to XO, although not all of the intervening letters have yet been utilised. Here it must be stated that these trench letter designations do not follow a measured grid square system imposed on the Enclosure site. As we shall see, such a trench system was tested but rejected for reasons of practicality, and so the size and designation of the X-trenches were ultimately determined in the field by the excavators and that season’s objectives. These X-letter field designations appear in the records of the excavation seasons and in preliminary reports, often alongside the abbreviation AM for Amorium and the year of the excavation season (for example, AM96 for 1996). For easier identification, this publication combines these field designations by adding the abbreviated year of excavation after the X-letter designation; hence, trench XA-96 refers to trench XA dug in 1996, and so forth. A full list of these revised trench designations, along with their associated contexts in the Amorium archives are listed in Appendix 1, and their locations appear in the trench plan of the excavations (Fig. 1/2).

7 Amorium 1, 3. 8 Haldon 1997, 1-2, argues against its usage, although the

The earliest trenches opened at the Enclosure site were XA-96 and XB-96, lying respectively outside and inside the southern Enclosure wall 40, followed by XC-98 over the site of the early Byzantine baths, here designated EB structure 1. In keeping with this rationale, trench XBC-98 was allocated to bridge an extension between

term still appears with qualifications in Shepard 2009, 225, 469, and 486. For proposed alternatives to ‘dark age,’ see Vanhaverbeke 2009, 178; Cassis 2009, 2 fn. 6; and Crow 2009, 28 and n. 15. On periodic terminology see also Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 453 and n. 2, where the term ‘early Byzantine’ is applied to the period from the 6th/7th to the later 9th century.

9 Amorium 1, 5 and 19-20.

9

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

trenches XB-96 and XC-98. In the case of extensions to existing trenches, the same letter designation was sometimes continued, qualified by the year of excavation. This is true as regards the contiguous trenches laid out around trench XC-98, namely XC-01 (which included the former XC-98), XC-02, XC-03, XC-05, XC-06; XB96, XB-02, and XB-03, and in the case of XE-01, trenches XE-04 (on the site of XE-01), XE-05, XE-06, and XE08 Street. Here some of the XC-trenches are further distinguished for clarity by assigning compass coordinates, such as XC-01 West, XC-02 East, XC-03 East, and XC03-West. Portions of older X-trenches reopened years later are here given date designations to distinguish them, hence XE-08 within and below the former XE06; trench XE-04, which expanded on the site of XE-01; and trenches XB-04 and XC-04, which permitted the excavation of deeper contexts under those dug within former trench XC-01. In number of instances the resumption of excavation in older trenches in later years led to the allocation of context series from X-trenches active in that year. Hence, contexts 906, 921, 956, 957, and 961 from the XC-05 context series were assigned to a deep sounding inside foundations of BEM unit 1 in former XC-98. In some individual cases, subdivisions of these trench extensions received additional designations. Trench XA-01, for example, was reopened in 2002, and so a portion of that trench is designated XA02. The remainder of XA-01 was subsequently subdivided, and are here designated trenches XA1-02, XA202, and XA3-02. In order to achieve consistency and clarity, those finds from the Enclosure area published in other chapters of this volume are given their find spot using the revised trench designations listed in full in Appendix 1.

sondage was assigned the corresponding number of the year of excavation, followed by the number of the sondage in that particular season. Hence, S(ondage)02-3 is the third sondage opened during the 2002 season. Sondages could be allocated their own context series, or could be allocated a series of contexts from active X- trenches, as in the case of S05-1 (south ambulatory of EB structure 3, in trench XC-01), which was assigned trench XC-05 contexts 975-979. A full list of sondages is appended to the list of Enclosure trenches in Appendix 1, and their locations can be found on the accompanying trench and phase plans.

4. Structure Designations When the first structures were uncovered at the Enclosure they were assigned simple building numbers according to their order of discovery. Structures appeared under these preliminary designations in preliminary publications, but by 2008, sheer numbers and the need to differentiate between structures of different occupational phases prompted the creation of a new system for their designation and description. Therefore, in order to distinguish between individual buildings, internal rooms, and exterior spaces dating to differing periods of occupation, the old structure designations have been modified and supplemented in a new system described below. Numbered units appear by period on the accompanying phase plans, and on state plans of the excavated remains. LR units 1-5 refer to rooms (‘units’) in structures datable to the late Roman (LR) period of the 4th–5th centuries (Fig. 1/4). EB (Early Byzantine) structure 1, referred to in preliminary publications as both ‘structure 1’ and the ‘rectilinear bathhouse,’ comprises the bathing suite built in the early Byzantine period. The labelling of rooms in this structure follows the standard designations for the rooms in baths established in scholarly literature (Fig. 1/5).10 EB structure 2 is the early Byzantine core of a multi-period building referred to in preliminary publications as ‘structure 2.’ EB structure 2 is located to the southwest of EB structure 1 and had been much altered during the Byzantine early mediaeval and middle Byzantine

The Harrison trench-letter system is still in use at Amorium, but during the 2002 season an experimental grid of 5 x 5 m. squares oriented to the cardinal compass points was surveyed across the Enclosure site as a possible alternative. Five of these grid squares were excavated in 2002 (E11/i10, E11/j10, and F11/a10 inside the Enclosure, and E11/g10 and E11/f10 outside the Enclosure). This grid square system was abandoned after only one season, however, since the original Xtrench system proved more adaptable to the topography of the area and far less complicated in terms of designation. In this publication the excavated grid squares have been integrated into the X- trench system, and are listed with their X- trench equivalents in Appendix 1. Test sondages have also been opened periodically within existing X- trenches to explore specific features. Each

10 Yegül 1992, ix; DOP 2005, 233 fig. 1; Koçyiğit 2006, 116,

fig. 3 (plan).

10

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

periods. These later additions have been assigned new ‘unit’ or room designations to distinguish them from the early Byzantine structure. Individual rooms and architectural spaces associated with the early Byzantine phase of EB structure 2 have been assigned Roman numerals as EB units I-IV so as to distinguish them from those of later periods (Fig. 1/5). EB structure 3 was previously published as ‘structure 3,’ also termed the ‘polygonal hall’ of the bathhouse complex, attached to the north side of EB structure 1 (Fig. 1/5). EB structure 4 is a new designation which comprises the remains of an early Byzantine structure located in trenches XE-04 and XE-05 (Fig. 1/5). For the occupation of the Byzantine Early Mediaeval (BEM) period a consecutive series of ‘unit’ designations, here identified as BEM units 1-45, has been adopted to designate architectural spaces. These BEM units include architectural spaces interpreted as rooms inside roofed structures, and also those interpreted as enclosed, open-air spaces such as alleyways and courtyards (Fig. 1/6). Industrial installations associated with the Byzantine early mediaeval period have been assigned a series of alphabetical designations as BEM installations A-H (Fig. 1/6) For the occupation of the middle Byzantine (MB) period a fourth series of ‘unit’ numbers, identified here as MB units 1-47, has been adopted. These MB units include architectural spaces interpreted as rooms within roofed structures, and also enclosed, open-air spaces such as alleyways and courtyards (Fig. 1/7). For the occupation of the Seljuk-early Ottoman (SO) periods a series of letter designations (A-C) has been assigned to identify industrial installations identified as ovens (Fig. 1/7).

revealed a more trapezoidal than ‘oblong’ footprint to the Enclosure, but perhaps one can recognise in Hamilton’s ‘gymnasium’ the space enclosed by the Enclosure walls, which, according to some of the older villagers at Hisarköy, still stood to some height in the mid-20th century. Indeed, the Enclosure was noted as a prominent landmark in 1955 when the scholar (and later Amorium team member) Michael Ballance first visited Amorium (see below Chapter 18, page 470). Like Hamilton before him, Ballance described the monument as a large rectangular area located south of the Upper City but likened its shape to that of a military camp.12 By the 1980s all traces of the superstructure of the Enclosure walls seen by earlier visitors had disappeared, but its outline was clearly visible in the form of raised banks of fill and debris that concealed the enceinte (Pl. 1/1). With the arrival of the Harrison expedition in 1987, the Enclosure was planned for the first time at a scale of 1:1,000,13 but ten more years were to pass before the first exploratory excavations in 1996 under the direction of Chris Lightfoot. The Enclosure area was then identified as a site of interest because it lay at the very centre of the entire walled site, situated between the southern slope of the Upper City mound and the Lower City Church (Fig. 1/1). Its configuration had given rise to speculation about its possible use as a Roman military camp, and the 1996 excavation was intended in part to test the validity of this hypothesis.14 Its central position also suggested that the area might conceal the main square or other important features of the Roman or early Byzantine city.15 In addition, it was hoped that excavation would reveal significant material and lead to a better understanding of the nature and date of the area’s use.

(i). The 1996 Excavation Season

Before excavation the Enclosure was a plot of open ground, although within living memory it had been used for cultivation and a village house had once stood near its northern edge where today the remains of a low earthen platform can still be detected. The land had devolved into the hands of four elderly siblings, only one of whom was still resident in the village by the late 1990s; the other three had migrated to Eskişehir with

5. A History of the Excavations, 1996–2008 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3) The first person to describe the structure later designated the Enclosure was probably the British traveller William Hamilton, who visited the site of Amorium in 1836 (see below Chapter 18, page 469). Looking south from the ‘Acropolis’ or Upper City, Hamilton wrote that ‘to the S.S.E. are the ruins of a large oblong building, perhaps a gymnasium…’11 Modern survey has

12 Ballance 1961 (non vidi), cited in Mitchell 1993a, 121 and

fn. 23.

13 AnatSt 1988, 178, fig. 2, and 180; AnatSt 1989, 170, fig. 2. 14 Mitchell 1993a, 121 and fn. 23.

11 Hamilton 1842, 450-51, a description repeated by Texier

15 Lightfoot 1998b, 69; DOP 1998, 327.

1862, 472, who did not visit the site of Amorium.

11

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

their families.16 Other elderly villagers reported that the area had also been the focus of illicit digging, carried out principally in order to obtain building stone either for personal use in the village or for sale to neighbouring communities. Evidence of this activity is still clearly visible, especially on the northern and eastern sides of the Enclosure, where numerous deep pits, spoil heaps, and disturbed stones are found along the line of the earth banks marking the buried outline of the Enclosure. Since dirt track ways run immediately outside these banks on their northern and western sides, which would have obstructed any extensive excavation in those directions, it was decided to investigate the more complete and, hopefully, undisturbed southern bank. A five-metre wide exploratory trench (divided into trenches XA and XB) was laid out over the raised earth bank, running perpendicular to its axis. These trenches are here designated trench XA-96 outside, or to the south of the Enclosure wall 40, and trench XB-96 to the north of wall 40 within the Enclosure (Figs. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/9).17 The excavation confirmed that the earth bank concealed a substantial rubble and mortar wall, faced on both sides with irregular courses of masonry and numerous pieces of spolia, including part of an early Byzantine Ionic impost capital.18 This massive wall, one of four that formed the Enclosure enceinte, later received the designation of Enclosure wall 40. It was immediately apparent that wall 40, and consequently, the buildings of the Enclosure complex itself, was late features that had been imposed on the pre-existing layout of the site. This was confirmed by the discovery in both trenches XA-96 and XB-96, of earlier walls and a line of stone troughs that continued underneath and thus predated the Enclosure wall 40 (Fig. 1/9). The Enclosure walls were assigned a middle Byzantine date (10th–11th century) and the suggestion was made, based upon the scale and plan of the fortification, that the Enclosure

could have served a military purpose as a secure compound for troops and supplies.19

(ii). The 1998 Excavation Season

No further excavations at the Enclosure were carried out until 1998. Instead, it was decided first to investigate the area using remote sensing equipment. During the 1997 season a geophysical survey of the interior of the Enclosure was carried out by a team from Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, under the direction of Mahmut Drahor, and with the assistance of Ali Kaya, then of the Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta. The work included both resistivity and magnetic prospection (see below Chapter 17).20 The results, while interesting, were less revealing than had been hoped, for they failed to produce any clear plan of the buildings and other features that lay within the Enclosure. No formal layout could be detected for the area, as might have been expected for military installations or, indeed, the civic centre of the city. Nevertheless, the geophysical survey did indicate that the Enclosure contained a large number of buried features, implying a dense and complex stratigraphy of multi-period occupation. It was also clear that only excavation would reveal the true nature and date of these remains. In 1998 the excavation team returned to the Enclosure, intent on opening a larger area just within the south wall. The new trench XC, here designated trench XC98, measured 10 by 15 metres, and before the end of the season a smaller trench, here designated XBC-98, was also opened, thereby connecting the new trenches with trench XB-96. These excavations gave some indication of the highly complex nature of the stratigraphy of the Enclosure area.21 Numerous small features of later date were uncovered, but the most important discoveries were parts of two solidly-built structures that were clearly earlier construction. A rectangular building in the northern quarter of trench XC-98 was designated ‘structure 1’ (here EB structure 1), while the second building, then believed to be a square room or tower, became ‘structure 2,’ now re-designated BEM unit 1. A deep sounding within the foundations of BEM unit 1 (XC-98 contexts) uncovered earlier walls that can now be assigned to the late Roman period (Figs. 1/3, 1/4 and 1/9).22 A group of walls in the northwest corner of

16 The owners kindly agreed to sell the land in 1997 in or-

17

18

der to facilitate the archaeological work. Although the land was purchased with funds provided by the Amorium Excavations Project, it was immediately made over to the Turkish government and now constitutes state-owned land. The Amorium Project would like to thank Hasan Çetinkaya for providing much willing and invaluable help during the course of the negotiations with his relations in Eskişehir. For preliminary reports, see KST 1998, 350-2, figs. 3-4, pls. 12-13; DOP 1998, 327-8; see also Amorium 1, 15. The excavations of trenches XA(-96) and XB(-96) were supervised by Mücahide Koçak and Ferüzat Ülker respectively. DOP 2003, 288-9, fig. 14.

19 DOP 1998, 328.

20 DOP 1999, 334-7, figs. A-F; Drahor 2004, 90-7, figs. 11-15. 21 DOP 2001, 381-94, figs. H-J, pls. 13-20. 22 Idem, 384-87, figs. H, J, pls. 15, 17.

12

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

trench XC-98 were initially designated ‘structure 3’ in the 1998 preliminary report, but these walls were later identified as enclosing the service area immediately west of the main praefurnium or furnace room of EB structure 1.23 Subsequently, the designation ‘structure 3’ was transferred to the so-called ‘polygonal hall’ (the present EB structure 3).24 Up to seven ‘strata’ or major phases of development were proposed by the excavators, running chronologically from stratum VII (earliest) to I (latest) and spanning the 5th–11th centuries.25 Trenches XBC-98 and XC-98 together measured only some 194 square metres (compared with the 2,100 sq. m. opened by 2006), and so the observations then published on the later history of the Enclosure were highly speculative. At this stage, it proved difficult to distinguish clearly between structures of the Byzantine early mediaeval and middle Byzantine periods, and so some early mediaeval developments were mistakenly associated with the later period of the Enclosure wall. One early proposal, however, has stood the test of time. On the evidence of fragments of terracotta water pipes and marble revetment covered in lime scale that were found within ‘structure 1,’ it was suggested by Chris Lightfoot that the building could originally have been a bathhouse.26 Excavations conducted in 2001 and 2002 were to confirm this supposition, revealing a bath complex of early Byzantine date in construction, comprising the ‘rectilinear bathhouse’ (EB structure 1) and a ‘polygonal hall’ (EB structure 3).27

to the south by the Enclosure wall 40 and to the north by trench XC-98. The old trench XB-96 was then expanded westward to form trench XB (here designated trench XB-00) which linked up with trench XD-00 (Pl. 1/27 and Fig. 1/9; on Figs. 1/2 and 1/3, trench XB00 is included in trench XD-00 where it corresponds to BEM unit 5 with channel). Excavation in 2000 revealed that the original ‘structure 2’ formed only part of a larger, rectangular structure that was later crossed by the Enclosure wall 40. More recent analysis has revealed that the original core of ‘structure 2’ was an early Byzantine structure (here designated EB structure 2) that had been both partially demolished and added to during the Byzantine early mediaeval and middle Byzantine periods. The portion of ‘structure 2’ discovered in 1998 turned out to be a later addition, and so in the following discussion it has been designated BEM unit 1 to distinguish it from earlier and later constructions (Fig. 1/9, and see below, page 30). These later constructions included a central room divided by small rubble walls (here designated MB unit 10), and walls and a floor lined with hydraulic mortar, (now designated BEM installation A) that was later recognised as the remains of a winepress. Excavation in trench XB-00 next door revealed the remains of a channel or drain immediately to the east of EB structure 2, underneath BEM unit 5 (Pl. 1/38 and Fig. 1/9). More of the inner face of Enclosure wall 40 was uncovered, which ran over and thus post-dated most of the aforementioned constructions.28

(iii). The 2000 Excavation Season

(iv). The 2001 Excavation Season

No excavation work was carried out at Amorium in 1999, but during the 2000 season new trenches were opened in the Enclosure to reveal more of the building then known as ‘structure 2’ (EB structure 2). New trench XD, here designated XD-00, encompassed the central portion of EB structure 2, and was bordered

The 2001 season saw an expansion of excavations in and around the bathhouse, EB structure 1.29 The 2001 trench XC, here designated trench XC-01, incorporated and enlarged on old trench XC-98 (Fig. 1/2). The new trench XC-01 encompassed the entire footprint of EB structure 1 (then described as the ‘rectilinear bathhouse’), as well as the southern half of a monumental structure that was then referred to as the ‘polygonal hall’ and, in later reports, as ‘structure 3,’ but which is here designated EB structure 3 (Figs. 1/3 and 1/5). The excavations in EB structure 1 penetrated down to tiled floors in two rooms, both of which were found to

23 Idem, 386, figs. H and 18. 24 DOP 2004, 356-63, and figs. B-C, and DOP 2005, 233.

25 KST 2000, 144, pls. 6-7; DOP 2001, 381-94. The exca-

26 27

vations of the XC-trenches which included the early Byzantine baths (EB structures 1 and 3) in 1998 and from 2000-03 were supervised by Yoav Arbel, currently a field archaeologist working for the Israel Antiquities Authority. During the 1998 season Arbel was assisted by Sarah Lepinski. In subsequent field seasons, Arbel extended the original XC(-98) trench into adjacent areas to the west, south, and east of the bathhouse (trenches XC-01, XC-01 West, XC-02, XC-02 East, and XC-03 West). DOP 2001, 383; DOP 2004, 356. DOP 2004, 356-63, and figs. B-C.

28 KST 2002, 243-5, figs. 1-2, pls. 1-7; DOP 2003, 288-92, figs.

B and 13, 15-19. Excavations in trench XD(-00) in 2000 were supervised by Yalçın Mergen and Ayşe Çalık Ross. 29 The increased scope of both the excavations and the conservation work was in large part due to generous funding provided by an anonymous sponsor in the United States.

13

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

contain hypocaust pilae. These discoveries confirmed the view expressed in 1998 that EB structure 1 had originally been a bathhouse and allowed the identification of individual rooms within the structure. A praefurnium for heating the bathhouse was also found at the western end of EB structure 1, where a small extension was opened, here designated trench XC-01 West. It was further proposed that the ‘polygonal hall,’ EB structure 3, may have been the apodyterium or entrance hall to EB structure 1. A date in ‘the fifth or, more probably, the sixth century…’ was proposed for the baths complex in preliminary reports.30 In order to protect the bathhouse from exposure to the elements, a steel-framed roof was placed over EB structure 1 at the end of the 2001 season. Another limited excavation was carried out in trench XC-01 between EB structure 1 and BEM unit 1 in order to clarify the relationship between the two buildings. Here, in the architectural space later designated BEM unit 17, a glass workshop was identified (Fig. 1/9). Excavation within XC-01 on its south side also revealed remains of Byzantine structures and spaces flanking the south side of EB structure 1 (here designated MB unit 9). To the east, a small exploratory trench XE, here designated XE-01 was opened at the northern foot of Enclosure wall 40, uncovering the rubble of that wall’s collapse (Fig. 1/2). Finally, it was decided to expand trench XA-96 outside Enclosure wall 40, creating a new trench XA, here designated trench XA-01 (Fig. 1/2). These last excavations confirmed that EB structure 2 continued underneath and outside Enclosure wall 40. Middle Byzantine structures containing a lower room or cellar (here designated MB unit 18), and dated to the 10th–11th centuries, were also uncovered, along with an earlier feature of uncertain function (referred to below as installation H) (Figs. 1/3 and 1/7).31 The 2001 season also saw the completion of a new topographic map of Amorium by Sabri Aydal of the Antalya Museum, who planned the Enclosure site to a scale of 1:10,000.32

XC-01, here designated XC-02, and the grid squares E11/j10 and F11/a10 (here included in XC-02) enlarged the excavations to the west, north, and east, thereby uncovering the northern half of EB structure 3, along with middle Byzantine and earlier structures that had been constructed around it (Fig. 1/2).33 In trench XC02 these structures are now designated BEM units 2122 (later identified as a chapel), 23-26 and 37, and MB units 15-16, 35-40 (Figs. 1/3 and 1/10). Once the whole of the bathhouse had been excavated, extensions were added to the protective metal roof before the end of the 2002 season in order to protect the entire complex during the winter.34 Further excavation was also carried out in the area adjacent to trench XB-96, which was enlarged eastwards as grid square E11/i10, and is now designated trench XB-02, to reveal more of the inner face of the Enclosure wall (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Another channel, running parallel to the one found in 2000 in trench XB-00 in BEM unit 5, was found in this area underneath rooms containing an extensive ash layer and signs of a major conflagration (these rooms excavated in 2002 are now designated BEM units 6, 7 and 8) (Fig. 1/9). A copper alloy flagon (SF4498) was found in the destruction in the small chamber now designated BEM unit 8.35 A new trench, XL, divided into two halves by a central baulk and here designated XL-02, was opened immediately north of EB structure 3 to probe for further buildings (Fig. 1/2). Trench XL-02 was closed after reaching middle Byzantine levels, but before any significant features had been revealed, in order to redeploy the workmen to the Lower City Church complex (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3).36 However, two test sondages (here numbered S02-4, and S02-5) were dug in and around the bathhouse complex to clarify the working of its hydraulic system (Figs. 1/2 and 1/5).37 A third small sondage, S02-3, was opened some distance to the north of trench XC-02 in 33 KST 2004, 1-3, fig. 1, pls. 1-5: in the key to fig. 1 the num-

bers indicating the locations of the caldarium and tepidarium have been transposed in error; the caldarium should be no. 2, not no. 3. Excavation of these grid squares was supervised by Yalçın Mergen. 34 DOP 2007, 357 and fig. 4. 35 Lightfoot 2007, 282, figs. 12-13. Excavations in trench XB in 2002 were supervised by Ali Seçkin and Hüseyin Yaman. 36 As a result, it was possible before the end of the season’s work to excavate fully 8 tombs found in the Church narthex; DOP 2005, 241-52, figs. 9-20. Excavations in trench XL were supervised by the present author. 37 Excavations in sondages S02-4 and S02-5 were supervised by the present author.

(v). The 2002 Excavation Season

In 2002 efforts were made to complete the excavation of the baths complex represented by EB structures 1 and 3. To accomplish these goals, work continued in trench XC-01, removing the last fills inside the bathing suite EB structure 1. However, an extension to old trench 30 KST 2003, 521-3, fig. 1, pls. 1-5; DOP 2004, 356-63, figs.

31 32

B-C and 1-11. Excavations in trenches XC(-01) and XC-01 West were supervised by Yoav Arbel. KST 2003, 523-5, fig. 2, pls. 6-8. DOP 2004, 355 and fig. A.

14

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

connection with geophysical survey that was conducted by Ali Kaya and Mahmut Drahor in the Enclosure (Fig. 1/2 and see below Chapter 17). Excavation in S02-3 uncovered walls and paved surfaces that can be assigned to the middle Byzantine period. Work also continued outside Enclosure wall 40, where excavations in trench XA-01 were resumed (as XA-02, contexts 126-156) and three new trenches were opened around it (here designated trenches XA1-02, XA2-02, and XA3-02; Figs. 1/2 and 1/3).38 Trench XA1-02 extended the excavation area around XA-01/XA-02 westwards along the exterior face of the Enclosure wall 40, thus exposing more of the underlying remains of EB structure 2 (Pl. 1/8). A second trench, then grid square E11/g10, here designated trench XA2-02, was a southward extension of trench XA-01 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Trench XA2-02 was itself extended during the 2002 season and reoriented to form grid square E11/f10, here re-designated as trench XA3-02 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). The excavation of these trenches revealed more of a cluster of buildings of the middle Byzantine period standing immediately outside the Enclosure (now designated MB units 17, 18, 19, and 20; Figs. 1/3 and 1/7). The cellar or basement of a large L-shaped building uncovered in trench XA-01 was also encountered in trench XA1-02 (MB units 17, 18), while a sluice-like installation in XA2-02 (MB unit 19) was subsequently identified as a tannery (see below Chapter 14, pages 422-3, Fig. 1/7 and Pl. 14/1).39 A new initiative to prepare a detailed architectural record of EB structures 1 and 3 was also begun during the 2002 season.40

a group of well preserved middle Byzantine buildings were uncovered (here designated MB units 1-5), overlying and partially concealing earlier Byzantine structures and associated destruction layers that lay beneath (here designated BEM units 14, 28-29, 34-36, and 39) (Figs. 1/3, 1/7 and 1/11). In XC-03 West there were only fragmentary remains of middle Byzantine constructions and so the earlier occupation layers could be more easily excavated, revealing rooms and related spaces (BEM units 23, 27, and 38) (Figs. 1/3 and 1/10). Some significant finds were made there, including an intact terracotta lamp (see below Chapter 4, page 196 no. 22).41 Trench XC-03 East produced an important group of objects associated with destruction contexts in BEM unit 14, including a bronze weight (SF 5757, Appendix 4 no. 22; see below Chapter 11, page 381 no. 6), and a large copper alloy tinned basin (Appendix 2, XC-03 East, in BEM unit 14, SF5707; Appendix 4 no. 20).42 Trench XB-02, where in 2002 rooms containing destruction layers had been found, was enlarged eastwards to form trench XB-03 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). More rooms in the same complex of buildings (here designated BEM units 7, 9-11) and associated destructions were found in trench XB-03, along with a row of three stone troughs (Figs. 1/9 and 1/12).43 At the same time a new trench XM, here designated XM-03, was opened at the south eastern end of Enclosure wall 40 where it forms a corner with Enclosure’s east wall 172, in order to ascertain whether it was fortified with a tower or pierced by a corner gateway (Figs. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/13). Although neither feature was found, four rooms and a courtyard that formed part of the middle Byzantine Enclosure complex were uncovered (now designated MB units 21-26).44

(vi). The 2003 Excavation Season

The 2002 season should have marked the end of the five-year plan of work in the Enclosure area, but since no fieldwork had been carried out in 1999, this plan was extended into 2003. All excavation was then concentrated within the Enclosure, and no further work has been carried out in the XA-trenches outside wall 40 since 2002. Extensions to trenches XC-01 and XC-02, here designated trenches XC-03 East and XC-03 West, were opened to either side of the so-called polygonal hall, EB structure 3 (Fig. 1/2 and 1/3). In XC-03 East

(vii). The 2004 Excavation Season

Limited excavation of the Enclosure area was planned for the 2004 season as the Project devoted more of 41 KST 2005, 249-250, pl. 4, and fig. 2; DOP 2007, 363-6,

42 43

38 Excavations in the XA trenches were supervised by Yalçın

Mergen.

39 DOP 2005, 261-2, fig. 27 and Lightfoot 2007, 275-76,

44

fig. 6.

40 Idem, 233, fig. 1; this survey was conducted by Gary

Tompsett and Caitlin Evans of Glasgow University, Scotland.

15

figs. 3, 15-18. Excavations in the XC trenches in 2003 were again supervised by Yoav Arbel. KST 2005, fig. 1, pls. 2-3 (basin in situ and weight); DOP 2007, 358-62, figs. 10-14. KST 2005, 251-52, plan 2, pl. 6; DOP 2007, 367-72, figs. 19-25. Excavations in trench XB in 2003 were supervised by Oğuz Koçyiğit, Research Assistant at Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale. KST 2005, 252-54, plan 3, pls. 7-8; DOP 2007, 372-76, figs. 26-28. Excavations in trench XM in 2003 were supervised by Hüseyin Yaman, Research Assistant at DTCF, Ankara University.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

its attention and resources to the conservation of the Lower City Church complex. The main focus of work at the Enclosure was in the area of old trench XE-01, where excavation had ceased at an early stage in 2001. This XE trench, reopened and expanded to the north, is here designated trench XE-04 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Fill was removed to a deeper level, revealing rooms and spaces contiguous with those uncovered in trench XB03 (BEM units 9-13, 33-34), and a pair of upright posts in BEM unit 11, indicating the presence of an industrial installation(here designated BEM installation D) like that discovered in trench XD-00 (Fig. 1/14). These structures and spaces also contained destruction layers similar to those already encountered in trenches XB-02 and XB-03. The opening of these trenches meant that a considerable length of the inner face of the Enclosure wall 40 was now exposed, stretching from the west wall of EB structure 2 in trench XD-00, through trenches XB-96, XB-02, and XB-03, as far as the eastern balk of trench XE-04 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). In addition, deeper excavations were carried out within the bounds of old trench XC-01, in new trenches XC-04 and XB-04, located along the south flank of the bathing suite EB structure 1 (Figs. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/9). Work in trench XC04 revealed an area where a secondary praefurnium for the tepidarium had once been located, together with a sunken service area enclosed by a retaining wall and containing a large wellhead (now designated BEM unit 31). This investigation was continued in the adjacent trench XB-04, within the walls of MB unit 9. Important contexts relating to the use of this area and of the bathhouse itself came to light in both trenches. During the 2004–2007 seasons, new plans, elevations, and transverse sections were created of all excavated structures in the Enclosure area, and a detailed study of their walls was conducted in 2005 and 2006.45 This documentation programme has greatly clarified the phasing and dating of the Enclosure excavations.

by now serious doubts about the possibility of finding any sort of entrance or gateway along the south side of the Enclosure. Nevertheless, it seemed prudent to continue excavations along the line of Enclosure wall 40, thereby linking trench XM-03 to the other group of conjoining trenches. Renewed work in old trench XE04 during the 2005 season (assigned XE-05 contexts 40-77) reached early mediaeval and early Byzantine occupation levels, uncovering a structure (here designated BEM unit 13) containing a large mortared tank (BEM installation C) (Figs. 1/3 and 1/14; Pls. 1/13 and 1/16). Remarkably, this tank was found to contain a burnt destruction covering a pile of carbonised grain. Exceptional small finds, including an earring or pendant fragment of gold, emerald and pearls, and a copper alloy incense burner or censer were found in another destruction layer in an adjacent alleyway (BEM unit 33) (Pl. 1/31a-b). A new trench, an extension of the XE trenches, and here designated XE-05 (contexts 78-112), was opened on the east side of trench XE-04 (Figs. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/14). Trench XE-05 also produced impressive results, notably a stretch of street, covered by a burned destruction, and buildings on the eastern side of the street (BEM unit 18).47 The remains of another early Byzantine structure (EB structure 4) were also identified fronting the west side of the street and extending from trench XE-04 northwards into XC-03. A second dig team was allocated the area immediately west of EB structures 1 and 2, here designated trench XC-05 (Figs. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/9; Pl. 1/10). Work in trench XC-05 had two principal aims. One aim was to uncover the area to the west of the main praefurnium of the bathhouse that had been excavated in trenches XC-01 and XC-01 West. The other was to extend the excavation area into the southwest corner of the Enclosure. The complex stratigraphy of this area prevented the successful realisation of all these objectives in 2005, but the remains of more middle Byzantine buildings were uncovered, together with earlier Byzantine structures associated with another industrial installation (here designated MB unit 11, BEM units 2-3, 15-17, and BEM installation B). Limited excavation was also conducted within the foundations of BEM unit 1, enlarging on a deep sounding made in 1998. Important evidence was thus uncovered for the building chronology of structures in this corner of the former trenches XC-98 and XC-01. Select context numbers from trench XC-05 were allocated to the stratigraphy of this probe (Appendix 1, trench

(viii). The 2005 Excavation Season

By the end of the 2004 season thoughts were turning towards directing the next five-year plan to a different part of the site. In 2005, however, it was decided to invest another season in the Enclosure.46 There were 45 Survey and recording was carried out by Benjamin

Arubas, Octavian Reicher and Daniel Abuhatsira. The phasing of the structures at the Enclosure was completed by the author and Benjamin Arubas. 46 Excavations in the XE trenches from 2004–2006 and in 2008 were supervised by Oğuz Koçyiğit.

47 AnatArch 2005, 31-2; KST 2007, 275-9, pls. 4-6; Lightfoot

2007, 272-3, and fig. 2 (installation C).

16

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

XC-05, contexts 906, 921, 956, 957, and 961). Another test sondage, S05-1, was opened in the south ambulatory of EB structure 3 to explore that structure’s foundations (assigned contexts 975-979 from trench XC-05; Figs. 1/4 and 1/6). A pit and fills from below the level of the robbed pavement were excavated, along with a wall of an earlier structure, wall 135.48

(Figs. 1/3 and 1/7). The middle Byzantine occupation in XE-06 comprised of a cluster of small structures, built as semi-detached pairs of units (now designated MB units 27 and 33, 28 and 29, 30 and 32). An Ottoman period oven (here designated Ottoman oven A) was also uncovered, built up against the Enclosure wall 40 and directly over middle Byzantine and earlier walls. By the end of the 2008 season the underlying, earlier occupation layers in trench XE-06 had been reached, but excavation of these undisturbed layers was postponed to a future season.51 The 2006 season also saw the survey team make a careful inspection of the other three sides to the Enclosure. This revealed that each wall was in fact not straight but projected slightly, thus giving the appearance of an ‘axe-shaped’ plan to the Enclosure as a whole (Fig. 1/2). In order to locate an entrance to the Enclosure two more trenches were opened, one on the line of the north Enclosure wall (trench XN-06, wall 171), and the other sited along the west Enclosure wall (now designated trench XO-06 West Gate, wall 170).52 The site of trench XO-06 had been used as a village rubbish dump but an upright stone block – perhaps from a doorjamb – suggested the presence of a gate. Trench XN-06 revealed only an unbroken stretch of wall, but in trench XO-06 a small gateway leading into the Enclosure was uncovered (Fig. 1/15 and Pl. 1/35). This was the first such gateway to be discovered, and it is hoped that future work will locate other gates and road that crossed the interior of the Enclosure.53

(ix). The 2006 Excavation Season

In order to fulfil the objectives set out in the previous year, work in 2006 extended the Enclosure excavation in two directions. To the west, the XC series of trenches were enlarged with trench XC-06 in the south western corner of the Enclosure; and to the east, trench XE-06 opened up the area between trench XE-05 and trench XM-03 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Further excavation was also conducted east of the street in XE-05 (assigned contexts from XE-06), aimed at fully revealing the structures exposed beside the Enclosure wall 40. Thus by the end of the 2006 season the whole of the inner, northern face of the south Enclosure wall 40 had been exposed. Contrary to expectations, no access gate was found in Enclosure 40, confirming that the enceinte was continuous on its south side. Work in trench XC-06 also aimed at uncovering the middle Byzantine occupation in the south-west corner of the Enclosure, but excavation revealed that these structures were poorly preserved (Fig. 1/24 and Pl. 1/39). By the end of the season a long hall-like building had been excavated next to Enclosure wall 40 (MB units 11 and 12), and scrappy fragments of other structures were uncovered elsewhere in the trench (MB units 13 and the well in MB courtyard unit 45).49 Renewed work east of the street in old trench XE-05 fully revealed the buildings there (Fig. 1/14). These comprised a sunken courtyard with a wellhead (here designated BEM unit 18), and the remains of large industrial installations later identified as a grape treading floors (designated BEM installations E and F).50 In next door trench XE-06 work concentrated on the middle Byzantine occupation layers, and by season’s end these buildings had been completely revealed

(x). The 2008 Excavation Season

Excavations at the Enclosure were suspended during the 2007 season, but work was resumed there in 2008. A small 5 x 5 m. trench, designated XE-08 Street, was opened to follow the continuation of the street discovered in adjoining trench XE-05 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Here middle Byzantine walls were excavated that overlay the earlier cobbled street and its associated destruction layers. Trench XB-08 was opened inside the walls of BEM unit 11 (uncovered within trench XB-03). Work here sought to examine the remains of installation D and earlier occupation layers. The main focus of the 2008 season, however, was the completion of excavations within trench XC-06 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). Work in 2006 had

48 KST 2007, 279-81, pl. 7; Koçyiğit 2010, 395, pl. 3.

49

50

Excavations in trench XC in 2005, the sounding in BEM unit 1 and sondage S05-1 were supervised by Yoav Arbel, assisted by undergraduate student Thomas Black of the University of Leicester, England. KST 2008, 447. Excavations in trench XC in 2006 were supervised by undergraduate student Thomas Black of the University of Leicester, England. Idem, 450, pl. 9. Koçyiğit 2010, 395, figs. 1-2. Excavations in trench XE in 2006 were supervised by Oğuz Koçyiğit.

51 KST 2008, 448-50, pl. 8 (Ottoman oven A). 52 Idem, 451. Excavations in trenches XN-06 and XO-06

West Gate were supervised by Paola Pugsley.

53 Additional non-intrusive survey of the Enclosure area

using ground-penetrating radar is planned for future seasons.

17

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

focused on the middle Byzantine occupation, and so trench XE-06 was reopened as trench XE-08 with goal of completing the excavation of the earlier Byzantine levels. In the course of the 2008 season most of the early mediaeval structures and associated destruction layers were fully excavated (here designated BEM units 19, 40, 41, 42, 43). These structures were perhaps the best preserved yet found in the Enclosure, containing an intact winepress (BEM installation G) and artefacts associated with the final use of these buildings.54 A scatter of extremely rare coins of the emperor Theophilus found in these buildings offered important new insights on Byzantine numismatics and the dating of the destruction layers.55 The most spectacular discoveries, however, were two human skeletons found in the destruction layers; one in XE-08 Street, and another in BEM unit 40 within XE-08 (Pls. 1/32 and 12/1-2). A detailed forensic study of these human remains by Arzu Demirel can be found in Chapter 12 of this volume. As we shall see, these finds proved highly significant for the interpretation of the history of the Enclosure and the associated destruction layers.

the archaeology. A case in point is that of trench XD00. In the preliminary report on the 2000 season four phases of construction were proposed for the structures within EB structure 2.56 The re-examination of the trench presented here has narrowed these phases down to three major periods and has reassigned some construction from earlier to later phases. 57 One must also be mindful of the fact that excavation across the whole area has not reached the same levels in all places (see multi-phase Fig. 1/3 and phase plans 1/4-1/6). The middle Byzantine and the latest Byzantine early mediaeval levels are the best known to date, with only limited excavation so far of early Byzantine and late Roman levels. Successive seasons of excavation in the following trenches (or portions of trenches) have removed layers from the 6th–11th centuries, exposing early Byzantine structures, and occasionally late Roman levels beneath them: XC-03 West, XC-02, inside EB structure 3 in XC-01, the northeastern third of XC-03 East, inside EB structure 1 in XC-98, inside EB structure 2 in XD-00, and in the alley in XC-05. The interiors of EB structures 1 and 3 have been fully excavated to the level of the robbed pavements or basement surfaces. Selective sondages were also made inside the baths complex to explore foundation fills, and these occasionally reached earlier remains. However, in the southern portion of trench XC-98 outside EB structure 1, and in trench XB04, excavations in 1998 and 2004 reached no deeper than Byzantine early mediaeval levels of the 8th century. In the surrounding trenches XB-96, XD-00, XB-02 and XB-03, located immediately north of the Enclosure Wall, excavation stopped at early 9th-century destruction layers and pre-existing surfaces. The same is true of the street surface and buildings in trenches XE-05 and XE-06. Excavation in these areas has yet to reach the earlier Byzantine early mediaeval levels found in the adjacent parts of trenches XC-98, XC-01, XD-00, and XE-05. In trenches XL-02 and XC-06 excavation so far has only reached 10th–11th-century levels, pending future seasons. The presence of substantial buildings of the later 10th and 11th centuries has also hindered

Thus, by 2008 some 2,100 square metres (approximately 17%) of the ground inside the walls of the Enclosure had been opened for excavation, opening a window on the history of this central area of Amorium from late Roman through modern times (Figs. 1/2 and 1/3). 2008 marked the final season in the current excavation cycle at the Enclosure, and some 10,227 square metres, or approximately 83% of the massive area enclosed by its walls remains unexcavated. Given the impressive results of 1996–2008, it is hoped that work at the Enclosure will resume in future seasons so that more of its history can be revealed.

6. Chronology: A History of the Enclosure The following discussion is arranged chronologically and provides an outline development for the Enclosure area between the 5th and 15th centuries. It draws in part on details from past preliminary reports, but it also replaces and supersedes earlier interpretations of

56 DOP 2003, 289-92. 57 So, the northern stretch of the blocking wall (W14, here

designated W124) should now be assigned along with W19 (here W120) to Phase 2; the south end of structure 2 (walls W98/14, W98/03, and W98/51, here W113-W115 respectively) also belong to Phase 2, and the remaining wall of Phase 3 (W05, here W68) has now been identified as belonging to the same period as the various rubble walls (W18 of Phase 4) that marked the final phase of use in structure 2; see DOP 2003, 290, with figs. B and 16-17.

54 Excavations in trenches XE-08 and XE-08 Street were

supervised by Oğuz Koçyiğit. For preliminary reports see KST 2010, 137-42, pls. 8-11; AnatArch 2008, 25-6; AnatArch 2009, 24; Lightfoot 2009b, 29, figs. 8-10. 55 Lightfoot 2010c.

18

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

excavation  of  what  lies  beneath in parts of trenches XC-03 East, XD-00, and XM-03. Further excavation beneath the line of the massive Enclosure walls is impossible, but earlier phases of occupation were revealed by trenches dug through the floors of later structures (for example, trench XB-04 in MB unit 9).

walls of LR units 1, 2 and 3 were the deepest features encountered  in the stratigraphic sequence. Under late BEM unit 25, the walls and paving of LR unit 3 were at an approximate absolute height of 928.58 m., buried some 0.72 m. below the early mediaeval ground surface. The late Roman walls were certainly deeper than the circular mortared foundation of the polygonal hall, EB structure 3, and it is likely that the wall of LR unit 3 passed beneath its foundation, although this must remain conjecture at present, since the presence of early mediaeval walls prevented excavation at this location. Finds from dumped earth fill beneath the floor surface of BEM unit 22 provide a terminus ante quem for the destruction of the late Roman buildings in trench XC02 before the 7th century. Future study of the large quantities of pottery recovered from similar dumped earths used to fill the foundations and create floor and ground surfaces in the early mediaeval buildings in trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West will probably provide a firmer terminus ante quem for the earliest structures in this quadrant of the excavations (see section 9. (v). below).58

7. Phase 1: Late Roman, ca. 300–500 The earliest structures discovered in the Enclosure area were those discovered beneath the buildings of the early Byzantine bathhouse complex and further sealed by Byzantine early mediaeval occupation (Fig. 1/4). Too little remained of these early buildings to reconstruct their function, and their exact construction dates have yet to be firmly established. What is certain, however, is that the demolition of these structures was comprehensive and must have occurred in order to clear the site for the construction of the new baths complex (see section 8 below).

Wall fragments of at least two more early rooms, LR units 4 and 5, were discovered in the deep sounding excavated in 1998 and 2005 within the footprint of BEM unit 1, and in adjacent trench XC-05 (Figs. 1/4 and 1/9). The walls of LR units 4 and 5, one of which contained an earlier Roman spolium, were constructed of limestone rubble laid in white mortar. The 1998 excavations inside BEM unit 1 did not uncover any floors that could be associated with these late Roman rooms, but a layer of rubble and crushed mortar overlying one of the ruined walls (trench XC-98 context 84) was initially identified as ‘support for a floor of a more ephemeral nature, perhaps of removable tiles or wooden planks, that was later entirely removed.’59 This interpretation turned out to be doubtful, since renewed excavation in 2005 proved that this ‘feature’ was simply a hardened mound of mortar and rubble, most probably from the demolition of the late Roman structures. A drain or water channel paved with bricks and roof tiles and running between LR units 4 and 5 was also uncovered in 2005.

Sondage S05-1 located in the south ambulatory of EB structure 3 uncovered the foundations of a wall, designated wall 135, oriented northeast by southwest. This wall was constructed of limestone rubble laid in white mortar (Pl. 1/2). Wall 135 had then been buried by earth fill dumped prior to the laying of the early Byzantine pavements. These fills contained a mix of pottery, including ancient and early Byzantine pottery, but also later material due to later disturbance. Nonetheless, Wall 135 clearly predated the construction of the baths complex since it had been levelled and cut by the foundations of EB structure 3, which can be dated to the 6th century (see section 8. (iii) below). To the west of EB structure 3, in trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West, a row of at least three rooms (LR units 1-3) oriented southwest by northeast were discovered (Figs. 1/4 and 1/10). Only the lowest courses and foundations remained of their walls, which were deeply buried beneath later structures, including a row of large limestone blocks that is interpreted as an architectural stylobate (wall 160) associated with the baths complex. Little can be said of these walls save that their construction bears a resemblance to that of wall 135 nearby. LR unit 3 (located beneath the later BEM unit 25) may have served as a courtyard, since it was paved with large stone flagstones. As regards dating these early structures in trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West, there is less evidence to go on at present. In these trenches the

Initially the walls of LR units 4 and 5 were assigned to ‘Stratum VI’ and were ‘regarded as belonging to one of the earliest phases in Trenches XC[-98] and XBC[-

58 Fig. 1/31 XC-02 contexts 383, 385, and 386. 59 DOP 2001, 385, and fig. 15: the wall context 84 is mistak-

enly assigned to ‘Stratum V’ (‘dark age;’ idem, 384).

19

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

98].’60 The 1998 preliminary report also proposed that this ‘Stratum VI’ was preceded by a ‘Stratum VII,’ represented by EB structure 1. Renewed excavation in 2005 inside former trenches XC-98/XC-01, within and below the foundations of BEM unit 1 (individual contexts allocated from the series assigned to trench XC-05), confirmed an early date for LR units 4 and 5, but demonstrated that stratigraphically they must predate rather than postdate EB structures 1 and 2. A review of the stratigraphy here demonstrates that LR units 4 and 5 had been demolished prior to the construction of EB unit III of EB structure 2 (Fig. 1/28). The two very lowest layers excavated inside BEM unit 1 were context 921, located on the east side of the east wall 84 of LR unit 4, and context 961, an ashy fill on the west side of the same wall. Context 921 was a mixed, homogenous fill of earth, ash, and building debris that contained pottery of the 5th–6th century, while context 961 was an ashy earth fill over the channel in LR unit 4. Over contexts 921 and 961 was the brown earth dump fill XC-05 context 906, which also produced a coin of Valentinian II, Arcadius, or Honorius (SF6516, dated 383–392), five unidentified coins of the 5th century, and contemporary pottery.61 In turn, lying over context XC-05 context 906 and stratigraphically higher than context 961, was XC-98 context 97: a fill layer of earth and heavy concentrations of ash, lying over and around the demolished stump of LR wall 84. XC-98 context 97 contained a mix of late Roman/ early Byzantine material, including abraded shards of local orange brown slipped red ware and Grey Coated Ware that can be assigned to the late 5th and first half of the 6th centuries.62 A coin (SF4000) of the 4th–5th century was also found in this mixed layer. All these layers can be interpreted as dumped fills associated with the demolition of the late Roman units 4 and 5 that were introduced during the construction of EB structure 2 in the 6th century (see above). The top of context 97 formed an uneven surface that can perhaps be associated with the period of use of EB unit III. As we shall see, these layers were later cut by the foundations of BEM units 1 and 2 (see below).

by the construction date of the bathhouse complex built over their levelled remains. On this basis, and from the dates of finds from associated post-demolition dump contexts, it is logical to conclude that these buildings were demolished no later than the early 6th century (see below, section 8). An occupation phase and construction date before ca. 500 can therefore be established for these building remains, which are tentatively assigned to the 5th and (possibly) 4th centuries.

8. Phase 2: Early Byzantine, ca. 500–650 The early Byzantine period saw major changes in the area with the clearance of earlier buildings and the construction of a monumental building complex. So far, up to four major structures belonging to this complex have been identified (Fig. 1/5). The most complete of these structures are those designated EB structures 1 and 3, excavated in 1998 and 2001–2002 respectively (trenches XC-98, XC-01, and XC-02). The lower superstructure and basement chambers of these two buildings are relatively well preserved, allowing a detailed floor plan to be reconstructed. On the north side of the complex stands the so-called ‘polygonal hall,’ EB structure 3, which here is identified as an apodyterium or entrance hall/ changing room. This ‘polygonal hall’ communicated directly with EB structure 1 to the south (the ‘rectilinear bathhouse’), which contained the standard rooms of a Roman bathing suite. In addition to these two substantial buildings, at least two more structures and a number of smaller features can be associated with the baths complex. Immediately south of EB structure 1 stood the remains of a structure designated EB structure 2 (Fig. 1/9). EB structure 2 underwent many changes and extensions in its long history, and so its original function in the baths complex remains unclear. A short distance to the west of EB structures 1 and 3 once stood EB structure 4 (Fig. 1/5). Later Byzantine demolition and reconstruction of this structure precluded recovery of its interior plan and purpose. Isolated fragments of walls, paving, and other features between these principal structures can be interpreted as the remains of surrounding courtyards and tanks or ornamental pools within the early Byzantine complex.

To conclude: a terminus ante quem for the demolition of the earliest walls found at the Enclosure site is provided 60 Idem, 383-84, now designated walls 91 and 66. 61 The coins, recorded as SF6513, SF6517, SF6518, SF6519,

(i). EB Structure 3 – The ‘Polygonal Hall’

and SF6534, are all small copper alloy issues, probably of the 5th century. 62 On these wares, see Böhlendorf-Arslan 2007, 275-77, fig. 3.

The foundation of the EB structure 3 was a massive circular base of mortared masonry, upon which rose a polygonal superstructure that was eighteen-sided on

20

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

its exterior (Fig. 1/5). The walls still stand to a height of nearly three metres and were constructed of rubble masonry extensively faced with brick, interspersed with courses of limestone blocks in the masonry style termed opus mixtum (Fig. 17/1a) The interior plan of the hall was articulated by six semi-circular niches or exedras set into the outer walls, each exedra probably being topped by a half dome. The curving walls of the exedras were further enlivened with recessed, rounded niches that were also topped by small half domes. The south western and north eastern exedras contained doorways that led outside the building, probably into open spaces such as streets or courtyards, but it remains uncertain which of the two the principal entrance was (Fig. 1/5). The southern exedra framed an internal doorway communicating with the bathing suite in the adjoining EB structure 1. The remaining three exedrae must have served other purposes; excavations in sondage S02-5 within the south eastern exedra revealed the robbed remains of a semicircular tank or pool (Fig. 1/5 and Pl. 1/3). This feature was probably lined with marble and drained via a opening, later blocked, in the back wall of the exedra. The six exedrae framed an ambulatory that encircled a raised stylobate in the centre of the hall, marked with settings for six column bases. Fragments of the six marble column shafts, together with their associated bases and impost capitals, were found in the hall, along with a set of moulded cornice blocks. The capitals were carved from grey-veined breccia marble. These columns must have supported a barrel vault above the ambulatory and a shallow dome over the centre of the hall, while the moulded cornices probably marked the transition to the vaults above the walls and columns. Fragments of fallen brick vaulting were found amongst the collapsed superstructure inside the building. Mortar impressions, marble plugs, and traces of iron clamps indicate that the walls of the hall were originally covered with marble revetment slabs. One fragment of grey marble doorframe was found still in situ in the north eastern doorway (Pl. 1/4), but virtually all of the marble furnishings, together with the marble paving, had been removed later during the Byzantine period. Very little survived of the mortar beds that had supported the marble pavement, but ledges cut in the circular stylobate to set the slabs show that the ambulatory and centre of the building were once paved (Fig. 17/1a). The sophistication and position of EB structure 3 as a grand entrance hall leading to the bathing suite suggests that the ‘polygonal hall’ should be identified as an apodyterium or ‘social hall,’ akin to those identified in Byzantine Syria and Cilicia, that combined the

function of changing room with that of an internal leisure space.63

(ii). EB Structure 1 – The ‘Rectilinear Bathhouse’

The bathing suite in EB structure 1 was attached to the southern side of EB structure 3, where a doorway communicated between the two buildings (Fig. 1/5). EB structure 1 was rectangular, measuring 15 by 7 metres, and is oriented northeast by southwest. The interior was divided into a series of interconnecting rooms that follows the normal layout of small Roman balnea. From west to east these rooms can be identified as a caldarium (room C) and a tepidarium (room T), both equipped with hypocausts (Fig. 17/1b-c); a frigidarium (rooms F1 and F2); a room that served as a small latrina (room La) at the north eastern corner, and a so-called vestibule or side entrance (room V), which in the early Byzantine period was probably a service room with doorways in the south and east walls.64 The hypocausts in the caldarium and tepidarium were paved with large floor bricks and some original pilae composed of piers of square bricks survived.65 The main praefurnium or furnace room (P) was located at the south western end of the caldarium. This chamber was once barrel vaulted in brick and had small side niches set into its walls. A square ‘firebox’ composed of bricks was found on the floor, which was thickly carpeted with ash deposits from the use of the furnace. The praefurnium opened onto a space to the west that must have served as a service area, presumably for fuel and raked out ashes. A secondary praefurnium (P) also once roofed with a brick barrel vault, gave access to the hypocaust under the tepidarium on the south side of the building (Figs. 1/5, 1/9, and Pl. 1/5). Part of the service area containing raked out ashes was discovered immediately south of this stoke hole. Like EB structure 3, EB structure 1 was constructed of rubble masonry faced with brick on the interior, while the exterior façades were constructed in the opus mixtum 63 DOP 2004, 357-8, figs. 1-4; DOP 2005, 233-5, fig. 1, room

A, and figs. 2-3; Koçyiğit 2006, 115-17, figs. 2-4. For parallels, see Yegül 2000, 150-51; 2003, 59. Polygonal halls also appear in the palatine architecture of 5th-century Constantinople, serving as entrance halls and reception rooms; see Ćurčić 2010, 87-89, figs. 78-80. 64 The letter designations assigned to the rooms in the Amorium baths complex follow the system adopted by Fikret Yegül in his study of baths and bathing; Yegül 1992, ix. 65 DOP 2004, 359-61, fig. 5; DOP 2005, 233, 235-9, figs. 1, 4, 5, 7; KST 2006, 77, fig. 2; Koçyiğit 2006, 118, figs. 5-7.

21

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

technique with courses of limestone blocks interspersed with four or five courses of bricks laid in white mortar. On the exterior a simple limestone cornice with a cavetto moulding decorated the lower façades of the bathing suite. Fragments of rendering preserved in situ on the northern wall of the bathhouse suggest that the exterior walls were once plastered. The basement walls of EB structure 1 were relatively well preserved, but the upper walls of the superstructure had been largely demolished and altered by later interventions. The only substantial portion of the superstructure to survive was that of room La (the latrina or latrine room) at the north eastern corner. By reason of their function, Roman and Byzantine bathhouses tended to be vaulted structures, and the Amorium bathhouse was no exception, as is implied by the thickness of its walls and some surviving vaulting. For example, the remains of a window in the east wall of room La and the springing of a brick vault above it indicate that the ceiling of this chamber stood some 2.50 m. above the pavement.66 Given this evidence, it seems likely that all the rooms of EB structure 1 were vaulted and had some windows. Some of these windows could have been glazed, for large quantities of early Byzantine window panes of greenish glass have been found in the vicinity. Some windows in the hot rooms may have had pierced marble transennae, to judge from a fragment found near the south wall of the tepidarium and caldarium (Pl. 1/6).67

EB structure 1 indicate that the interiors were decorated with white and coloured marbles, probably from local quarries, and that small quantities of precious imported stones, including verde antico and lapis lacedaimonicus from Greece, and Egyptian porphyry, were probably used as intarsia.68 To judge from terracotta cylinders or spacers found amidst the rubble of the collapsed floors, flues existed behind the marble revetment of the walls in the caldarium and tepidarium. The spacers, which permitted hot air to circulate behind marble revetment, are comparable with examples found in other Roman and early Byzantine baths.69 The later stripping and destruction of the interiors of EB structures 1 and 3 hinders a full understanding of the hydraulic systems that supplied fresh water and drained away waste water from the baths complex. The remains of water basins lined with marble were found in the niches in room F2 of the frigidarium, and additional basins must have been set up in the other rooms, such as in the north apsidal bay of the caldarium. Thick calcareous lime deposits from hard water are also very much in evidence on marble slabs that must have lined such tanks and paved the floors. Reference has already been made to at least one semi-circular tank or pool in the south eastern exedra of EB structure 3 (Fig. 1/5, sondage S02-5). Capacious drains for waste water also indicate that large volumes of water were regularly used and discharged in the day-to-day operation of the bath buildings, at least during the early Byzantine period. The remains of channels, probably for waste water, were found beneath the floor of the eastern, double apsidal chamber of the frigidarium.70 Another drainage channel ran along the base of the north wall in the latrina (room La), passed though its east wall, exiting the complex at the north eastern corner of the bathhouse, in the angle between the EB structures 1 and 3.71 At this point the latrina drain converged with a second waste water drain exiting from EB structure 3, forming what appears to have been the main drain leading from the complex. These main drains were investigated in 2002 sondage S02-4, showing them to be well built of mortared rubble masonry and lined with waterproof cement (Fig. 1/5 and Pl. 1/7). Large limestone blocks were mortared

Like EB structure 3, the interior rooms of EB structure 1 were once paved and the walls covered with marble slabs, but a detailed reconstruction of the original scheme may never be possible. Some marble floor tiles and their mortar bedding are preserved in situ in the frigidarium and the latrina, but the suspended floors of the caldarium and tepidarium have largely collapsed. Only meagre scraps of the marble revetment and skirting are preserved in situ on the lower interior walls owing to the later destruction of the building and stripping during the middle Byzantine period. A restoration in the mid-8th century also complicates a reconstruction of the early Byzantine interior decoration. Whatever the original scheme, marble fragments found in the 66 DOP 2004, 361, the ‘vaulted room,’ and fig. 8 (showing

68 DOP 2007, 366-7; see also Koçyiğit 2006, 118, 122-3, and

blocked window). 67 T1262 (from trench XC-98 context 5), a white marble transenna fragment (W. 0.18 m., H. 0.22 m., Th. 0.045 m.), preserves a slot and pinholes on one edge for insertion into a window frame and has a circular, splayed opening measuring 7.5-8.5 cm. in diameter.

fig. 17 (reconstructed revetment panel).

69 DOP 2005, 237, fig. 6; Koçyiğit 2006, 118-21, nos. 1-6, figs.

8-14, with references to other known examples.

70 DOP 2004, 360 and fig. 7. 71 Idem, 2004, 361 and fig. 9; DOP 2005, 235.

22

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

together to cap this drain. This main drain was found to run downhill towards the north, following the natural slope of the terrain in the Enclosure area. The discovery of this drainage system for waste water is suggestive of the large volumes of fresh water supplied to the complex during the early Byzantine period, but how this water was originally supplied to the baths complex is uncertain at present. No cisterns have yet been excavated in the area, but a masonry niche fragment lined with hydraulic mortar of what may have been a water tank or pool was uncovered near EB structure 4 (Fig. 1/5, ‘niche fragment,’ and see below, page 27). A deep, stone-lined manhole located in trench XC-03 West, southwest of EB structure 3, has tentatively been identified as an inspection hole, perhaps leading to a water channel (Fig. 1/5, ‘manhole’). Fragments of early Byzantine terracotta water pipes, their interiors furred by lime scale, were found at the site of bathhouse, but they may have served only to channel water to various areas within the complex. All this evidence makes it highly probable that the bathhouse was originally supplied with piped, running water, but it must be acknowledged that there is as yet no conclusive proof for this hypothesis, or, indeed, for the existence of an aqueduct, although it is inherently unlikely that the Roman city of Amorium was not provided with a supply fresh water.72 On the other hand, a supply of running water was by no means essential for a bathhouse such as the small Byzantine balnea at Amorium.73 Room V (vestibule) of EB structure 1 was found to contain a well, the shaft of which was explored to a depth of some 2.5 m. below the room’s pavement (Fig. 1/17). The circular well shaft, measuring 1.20 m. in diameter, had been bored unto the underlying bedrock but the upper two metres of the shaft were lined with stone blocks. One metre below the pavement the shaft narrowed to a width of approximately 1.00 m. and was capped by a stone wellhead. Smaller blocks had later been placed to narrow this opening. The location of this well in the vestibule and its careful construction may suggest that it was an original feature of the bathhouse, rather than a later addition, but this has yet to be conclusively established. Thus, although this well must have contributed water for bathing during the use of the

baths, water could have come from multiple sources, combining piped water with well-water sources.

(iii). The Date of the Bathhouse Complex

The 1998 season preliminary report associated EB structure 1 with ‘Stratum VII’ and proposed a date for the building ‘in the fifth and sixth centuries.’74 This approximate dating has been confirmed and can now be refined thanks to more recent discoveries. Close examination of EB structures 1 and 3 shows that both buildings were bonded together and had clearly been constructed at the same time as parts of a single complex. A date for this construction is provided by pottery from sondages dug into the earth fill beneath the pavements of EB structure 3 and by comparison of the plan, construction, and fittings from the complex with other early Byzantine structures. Later Byzantine robbing of marble pavements within the EB structure 3 have left only scraps of the mortar under-bedding and the earth fill below that had been deposited during the construction of the structure. Excavation in 2001 within the circular stylobate at the centre of EB structure 3 revealed that its foundation reached well below the level of the original pavement. Sondage S05-1, located within old trench XC-01, was dug in the south ambulatory of EB structure 3 to explore the structure’s foundations (Fig. 1/6). This sondage revealed earth fills (trench XC-05 contexts 975-979) that had been brought in to level up the interior surfaces before the mortar beds and marble pavements were laid. These particular contexts had been disturbed in the late 8th–early 9th-century following the stripping of the pavements and mortar beds and so the associated pottery did not derive from sealed contexts. The majority of the pottery from these disturbed fills can be assigned to the period of the 4th– 6th centuries but it also included some 8th–9th-century material. Similarly, the fills from the north ambulatory (trench XC-02 context 303 = trench XC-01 context 183) contained what has been tentatively identified as 6th– 7th-century pottery, mixed with 11th-century coins that can be associated with late Byzantine activity.75 Given the disturbed state of these particular contexts and the possibility that some fills containing residual material were dumped there at a later date, it would be unwise to base any firm dating conclusions for the baths complex on the associated pottery. Further sondages inside EB structure 3 may yet provide uncontaminated contexts for dating purposes, but the carved furnishings,

72 Springs in the Emirdağ mountains to the south of Amorium

remain to this day the main source of water for the people of the town of the same name. The local spring water is celebrated for its purity and health-giving properties. On aqueducts, cisterns, and wells in the early Byzantine city, see Saradi 2006, 343-49. 73 See Yegül 1992, 390-1.

74 DOP 2001, 382-83, and fn. 30. 75 DOP 2005, 234, and fn. 7.

23

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

construction techniques, bricks, and architectural plan of the baths complex point strongly to a construction date in the 6th century.

site in the early 6th century. A construction date in the 6th century during the reigns of Justin I (518–527) or Justinian I (527–565) would therefore seem appropriate for the bathhouse complex. The size of the Amorium complex is in keeping with that of early Byzantine bathhouses, which were smaller and more compact than earlier Roman public thermae.80 The elaborate apodyterium of EB structure 3 at Amorium finds no exact parallel, but rotundas articulated by niches are regular features in the plans of other baths of the 5th and 6th centuries.81 In terms of its plan, EB structure 1 can be classified as a so-called ‘row type’ of bathhouse, in which the rooms of the bathing suite are arranged in a row, following a linear progression. This bathhouse type may be limited to Constantinople, its hinterland, and Asia Minor since comparable 6th-century bathhouses have been excavated at Istanbul (the so-called Topkapı baths), Küçükçekmece (ancient Rhegion) in Turkish Thrace, and, most recently, Hierapolis (Pamukkale), although none of these examples were associated with a polygonal apodyterium as at Amorium.82

The six column capitals from EB structure 3 may be classified as so-called impost capitals, or kämpfer kapitelle in German scholarship, by reason of their shape. The faces of the capitals have trapezoidal, sunken panels that contain alternately blank medallions and Latin crosses in raised relief.76 This capital type can be dated to the 6th century and probably no earlier than the reign of Justinian I, to judge from similar examples at Kurşunlu and at Hagia Eirene in Istanbul.77 Such a date would also fit well with the masonry style of the bathing suite and apodyterium, which are built in the opus mixtum technique of bands of brickwork alternating with courses of limestone blocks.78 The bathhouse masonry also closely resembles that of the so-called Large Building in the Lower City, which has been assigned provisionally to the 6th century.79 The bricks from the bathhouse also constitute important dating evidence and are discussed in detail by Johanna Witte (see below Chapter 10, pages 298, 304-5). These bricks differ in size and fabric from those used in the first phase of the Lower City Church basilica and the gateway at trench AB on the Lower City walls, both of which can be dated to the late 5th–early 6th century. Distinctive cruciform monograms were inscribed on the large bricks used to construct the suspended floors of the caldarium and tepidarium of the bathhouse. These bricks provide a terminus post quem of 518 for the construction of the baths complex, a date that fits well with the evidence for the clearance of the

(iv). EB Structure 2

Southwest of EB structure 1, a second building complex, designated EB structure 2, was discovered. The original plan and purposes of EB structure 2 have proven difficult to recover, due in part to its history of piecemeal excavation but also because of later Byzantine interventions. The northern and central parts of the building were excavated within trenches XC-98 and XD-00, with some eastern and western fragments being uncovered in trenches XC-05 and XB-00 (Fig. 1/9, BEM unit 5). A portion of EB structure 2 now lies buried and inaccessible beneath the Enclosure wall 40, which was erected

76 DOP 2004, 358, and fn. 14, fig. 4; DOP 2005, 234, where

77

78

79

they are described as ‘basket capitals,’ with references in fn. 5 to capitals in the collections of the Istanbul and Afyonkarahisar Archaeological Museums. For an almost identical parallel at Kurşunlu in Bursa province, see Ötüken 1996, 210, G.18a, pl. 39.4, and 219 and fn. 276 (dated to the 6th century). For similar capitals in structures south of Hagia Eirene in Istanbul, see Zollt 1994, 99100, nos. 247-49, pl. 35, and 337 (blank medallions and crosses set upon a globus, dated shortly after 564). For a revised dating (ca. 535/6) of these structures, based on brick stamps, see Bardill 2004, I, 46f. DOP 2001, 382-3, fn. 30, figs. 13-14; DOP 2004, 357 with fn. 11, and 362; and DOP 2007, 356-57, fig. 6 (elevation). Bearing in mind the possibility of regional variation, the Amorium masonry does closely resemble that of 6th-century bathhouses excavated in Istanbul and at Hierapolis (Pamukkale); see Müller-Wiener 1977, 50, fig. 28; D’Andria 2001, 113, fig. 4-27; Arthur 2006, 145. For this building, see Amorium 1, 11.

80 Berger 1982, 51-6, 85-90 (with examples). For a compa-

rable 6th-century bath at Corinth, see Biers 1985; Sanders 1999. 81 Yegül 1992, 324-5, fig. 413 (the Kalenderhane baths, Istanbul). See also the rotunda identified as part of a bath at the pilgrimage center of St. Thecla at Meriamlık in Cilicia and dated to the 5th–6th century; Herzfeld and Guyer 1930, 82-7, figs. 80-82 (in the absence of hypocausts, the identification of this structure as a bath remains tentative, since it could equally have served as a reception hall or perhaps even as an apodyterium). 82 DOP 2004, 362, with reference to Yegül 1992, 314-25, fig. 412 and fn. 79. On the Topkapı baths, see MüllerWiener 1977, 50, fig. 28 (recently identified as the baths of Alexandros); on Küçükçekmece, see Ogan and Mansel 1942, 26-30, pls. IX-XVIII, XXIII, and XXV (with two phases). On Hierapolis, see D’Andria 2001, 114, fig. 4-27, and Arthur 2006, 145.

24

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

over its remains in the late 10th century. Additional parts of EB structure 2 were also found in trenches XA-01 and XA1-02 immediately outside the Enclosure wall (Pl. 1/8), but its southernmost extremities still remain unexcavated and undefined. EB structure 2 remained in use throughout the Byzantine early mediaeval period, when the complex was much altered and rebuilt, and its northern and eastern wings were partially demolished. Yet, despite these difficulties, the following reconstruction of the early Byzantine building can be proposed (Fig. 1/5). The excavated portions of EB structure 2 resemble an inverted T-shaped plan, oriented northwest by southeast, with a series of interconnecting rooms or halls aligned at right angles to bathhouse EB structure 1.83 Starting at the southern end of the building, one can recognise the rectangular room or hall, EB unit I, oriented southwest by northeast and now represented by only two walls. Only the northern side of EB unit I has been excavated in trench XA-01, the southern portion being partially buried beneath middle Byzantine structures. A doorway was located in the western wall of EB unit I, and at least three more doors pierced its north wall. One of these doorways gave access to EB unit II, another rectangular room or hall, the southern portion of which was later occupied by industrial installation A (Fig. 1/9, and see below, page 32). Some upper portions of the walls of EB unit II were rebuilt in the Byzantine early mediaeval and middle Byzantine periods when the room was restored. The only early Byzantine pavement exposed so far in EB structure 2 is probably a pavement of stone slabs (context 21) found in EB unit II that was later sealed beneath installation A.84 Originally EB unit II was subdivided by attached wall piers and had two doorways in its eastern wall, and a single doorway in its southern wall. Attached to EB unit II on its northern side was yet another room, EB unit III, now reduced to fragmentary walls. Probes within these walls revealed the scanty remains of a tile-lined drain beneath later Byzantine early mediaeval floors. EB unit III was largely obliterated by the construction of BEM unit 1 on the same site (Figs. 1/5, marked ‘mid-7th-century walls,’ 1/6, and 1/9). Doorways in the east wall of EB unit III gave

access to EB unit IV, of which only a stump of the north wall (wall 117) survived. The most conspicuous features of EB unit IV were two water channels or drains that run parallel to EB structure 2. These channels inclined downhill from south to north, where they appear to have passed beneath a relieving arch under the north wall of EB unit IV. The water channels, therefore, appear to be original features of EB unit IV and were certainly in existence before the Byzantine early mediaeval period, when they were filled in and built over (see below, page 36). Later still, the southern ends of these channels were buried beneath Enclosure wall 40. The channels were solidly built of mortared masonry and were edged with slabs of grey marble cut with ledge-like slots for removable lids or covers. Fragments of wood found inside the channels suggested to the excavators that these were made from wooden boards or planks.85 The fragmentary state of EB unit IV may preclude any conclusive interpretation, but the channels certainly indicate that water once flowed under its floor. One suggestion, as yet unproven, is that the channels once flushed a public latrine in EB unit IV – a very necessary facility for a bathing complex.86 A terminus post quem of the early to mid-6th century for the construction of EB structure 2 is provided by pottery associated with the demolished late Roman structures found beneath the northern room of the complex (see section 7 above). The construction technique and building materials of EB structure 2 also resemble that of the adjacent baths complex, EB structures 1 and 3. The walls of EB structure 2 had foundations of limestone rubble with a superstructure of blocks of limestone set in good white lime mortar, with larger blocks used for corners and terminations of walls. Bonding courses of square bricks ran through the thickness of the upper walls at intervals in the opus mixtum technique.87 This construction method is best preserved in the party wall of EB units I and II, but mortar impressions of robbed brick courses were also visible on the surviving east and north walls of EB unit III. These wall bricks have the same dimensions and fabric as those used in EB structures 1 and 3. This evidence suggests that EB structures 1, 3, and 2 were built at approximately the same time in the 6th century. Owing to later interventions, no interior fittings survived to positively identify the original function of EB structure 2. However,

83 DOP 2001, 385-6, figs. H and 15. EB structure 2 straddled

several trench designations. The northern end was first uncovered in trench XC-98, the central portion up to the interior face of the Enclosure wall appeared in trench XD00. Room IV with the channels was found within trenches XB-96 and XB-00, and the southern end of EB structure 2 outside the Enclosure wall was found in trench XA-01. 84 DOP 2003, 289-90, fig. 15, associated with ‘Phase 1.’

85 DOP 2003, 291. 86 I am grateful to Benjamin Arubas for this interpretation. 87 DOP 2003, 289, fig. 17.

25

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

the close proximity of EB structure 2 to EB structures 1 and 3, and their similar dates of construction, certainly imply that these structures can be considered parts of a planned complex of buildings with related or complimentary functions.

an early mediaeval street running on a parallel southnorth alignment to this east wall of EB structure 4 is also suggestive of an earlier, pre-existing property boundary. It is therefore plausible that EB structure 4 formed the eastern boundary of the early Byzantine complex at the Enclosure site, and thus should be interpreted as a building with complimentary or ancillary functions to EB structures 1, 3, and 2.

(v). EB Structure 4

A fourth building, here designated EB structure 4, can also be included in this building complex, the eastern wall of EB structure 4 perhaps marking this complex’s easternmost boundary (Fig. 1/5). Extending across trenches XC-03 East, XE-04, XE-05, and XE-08 Street, only the foundations and lowest courses survive of the walls of EB structure 4, the remains of which were later buried beneath Byzantine early mediaeval occupation (Fig. 1/3). The robbed-out foundations of the northwest corner walls of EB structure 4 have been exposed in trench XC-03 East, along with a large mortared stone drain or water channel (Fig. 1/11). This stone drain lies partially beneath the northwestern corner of EB structure 4, and thus predates the building’s construction (see below).88 A fragment of the south wall of EB structure 4 was also uncovered in a small sondage within trench XE-04 in 2005, where it was partially buried beneath the south wall of BEM unit 13 (Fig. 1/14 and Pl. 1/15). Almost the entire length of the eastern wall of EB structure 4 was uncovered on the boundary of trenches XE-04-XE-05, and in the adjacent trench XE-08 Street. The superstructure of this east wall still stands two to three courses of masonry high, making it the best preserved portion of EB structure 4. Only the limestone facing blocks on the eastern, exterior façade of the east wall of EB structure 4 have been preserved; the wall core and facing blocks of the interior, western face were robbed out in the Byzantine early mediaeval period, when the wall was incorporated into BEM units 13-14 (Pl. 1/16). In plan, EB structure 4 can be reconstructed as a rectangular structure, of approximately the same size as EB structures 1 and 2. Due to later demolition and Byzantine early mediaeval construction nothing survived of the internal walls or features of EB structure 4 to indicate its original identity or function, but its location in relation to the other early Byzantine buildings offers some tantalizing clues. A continuation of the east wall of EB structure 4 continues southwards in the manner of a boundary wall, where it disappears beneath the later Enclosure wall 40. The discovery of

Despite the poor preservation of EB structure 4, a case can be made for dating this building to the 6th century, on the basis of stratigraphy, construction techniques, and associated finds. The foundations of EB structure 4 exposed in trench XC-03 East are certainly stratigraphically deeper than any of the demonstrably later constructions that were built over it and that can be assigned to the Byzantine early mediaeval period of the 7th–9th centuries (see below). The surviving walls of EB structure 4 are comparable with the other early Byzantine structures at the Enclosure, being constructed of limestone blocks facing a rubble core bonded with good white lime mortar. The small sondage in XE-05 (BEM unit 32) exposed the demolished foundations of the south wall of EB structure 4, where it was later partially buried beneath the southern wall of BEM unit 1314. The earth fill used to backfill and conceal the remnants of the south wall of EB structure 4 (trench XE-05, context 73) contained pottery dated no later than the late 6th/early 7th century. This archaeological material not only provides a likely earliest date for the destruction of EB structure 4, it also provides a plausible terminus ante quem for the construction of EB structure 4 earlier in the 6th century (see below, page 40-1).

(vi). Ancillary Structures

Early Byzantine bathhouses are known to have stood in or around courtyards that could be classified as a palaestra or gartenhof and to have been built with adjacent subsidiary structures that served multiple purposes.89 The relative positions of EB structures 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Amorium are suggestive of a frame that would have enclosed such open spaces and subsidiary buildings (Fig. 1/5). Two monumental doorways led out of EB structure 3 on its northeast and southwest sides, implying the existence of connecting spaces that led to other structures in the complex and the surrounding streets. In trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West, located to the west of EB structure 3, Byzantine early mediaeval occupation

88 DOP 2007, 359, fig. 8 (plan), and 365, fig. 18 (the west

wall of EB structure 4 and the drain cross the centre of the photograph).

89 Berger 1982, 100.

26

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

has largely obliterated any early Byzantine remains. A few marble paving slabs were uncovered beside the south-west door, buried by Byzantine early mediaeval constructions. These slabs indicate a paved area in front of the door, perhaps belonging to a passageway or even a courtyard that occupied part of this sector, which was demolished during the Byzantine early mediaeval period. Further to the west, in trench XC-02, a row of massive stylobate blocks (wall 160) was uncovered (Fig. 1/5 and Pl. 24). These blocks predate the Byzantine early mediaeval constructions that enveloped them, but too little remains to reconstruct the original structure of which the stylobate wall 160 formed a part. A fill excavated from below the level of the stylobate wall 160 (trench XC-03 West context 537) produced late Roman and early Byzantine pottery, as well an intact terracotta mould-made lamp (SF5988; see below Chapter 4 page 196 no. 22) that can be provisionally dated to the period of the 6th through early 7th centuries.90 This material appears to have been in fill dumped during the dismantling of the early Byzantine buildings, suggesting that the stylobate wall 160 should be assigned to a period no earlier than the 6th century (see also section 9. (v). below). The area immediately south of EB structure 1, falling within trenches XC-98/XC-01, XC-04 and XB-04, was in part occupied by an open-air service area of the secondary praefurnium, as attested by the latest rakedout ash layers found in trench XC-04 (Fig. 27, XC-04 contexts 705, 708, 714). The south door of room V (the vestibule) in EB structure 1 probably gave access to this service area (Fig. 1/5). The north wall (wall 117) of EB unit IV in EB structure 2 (trench XD-00) can be considered the south-western extremity of this service area. Nothing is known of the early Byzantine use of the area further to the south of EB structure 1, in trenches XB96, XBC-98, XB-02, and XB-03. Excavations in these trenches stopped at floor surfaces of the early 9th century, and so no early Byzantine levels or features were revealed in these trenches. Moving eastwards into the areas of trenches XC-02 East, XC-03 East, and XC-02 grid squares F11/a10 and E11/j10, excavations found that this area had been greatly altered by early mediaeval and middle Byzantine constructions, leaving only fragments of early Byzantine features. The northeast door of EB structure 3 gives access to this area, however, and some kind of open space located between the baths in EB structures 1 and 3 and EB structure 4 does

seem highly likely, based on the surviving evidence. Near the centre of trench XC-03 East a fragment of a small masonry exedra or niche was uncovered, buried partially beneath Byzantine early mediaeval wall 12 and late 10th-century wall 11 (Figs. 1/5 marked ‘niche fragment,’ 1/11, and Pl. 1/9). The northern and western portions of the niche remain buried and its southern edge has been cut away. Its upper surface was later incorporated into a mixed earth and cobbled surface laid in BEM courtyard unit 28 (Fig. 1/6). The niche fragment clearly predated the later constructions and was well constructed of large square bricks and lime mortar that resemble those used in the nearby baths complex. The niche also appears to stand in front of the west façade of EB structure 4 and follows that building’s north-south alignment. One possible interpretation of the niche fragment is that it formed part of a hydraulic feature, perhaps a pool or a fountain tank. A short section of water channel or mortared brickwork, largely destroyed by Byzantine early mediaeval interventions, was found immediately to the west of the niche fragment and may well be related to its function as a water feature. A parallel for such features can be found in the 6th-century Topkapı baths at Istanbul, where a small exedra or niche could well have served as a water feature.91 Another early Byzantine feature in trench XC-03 East appears to be a fragmentary mortar surface located immediately to the south of the aforesaid niche, which extends beneath a pavement of massive stone paving slabs, that were themselves later buried beneath Byzantine early mediaeval structures (Fig. 1/11, BEM units 35 and 39). The top surfaces of these massive slabs are roughly grooved, perhaps indicative of their use as paving in a street or courtyard (Pl. 1/9). Deep soundings some eight metres to the south, beneath the early 9th-century earth floors of BEM unit 11 in trench XB-08 revealed similar mortar surfaces (Fig. 1/26, XB-08 contexts 407 and 409), perhaps of robbed stone pavements, that lay beneath fills containing pottery dated by the excavator to the early Byzantine period (Fig. 1/26, XB-08 contexts 406 and 408). Further study of this pottery is needed to substantiate these preliminary observations however. Another indicator of the presence of such an open space is the major water drain discovered in trench XC-03 East that was laid prior to the construction of EB structure 4. This drain ran downhill towards the north, snaking around the outside of (and sometimes bonded beneath) the foundations of EB structure 4 (Fig. 1/5). Like the main drain exiting the baths in sondage S02-4,

90 KST 2005, 250 and fig. 2; DOP 2007, 363-64, fig. 15.

91 Müller-Wiener 1977, 50, fig. 28.

27

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

this drain was well constructed of mortared rubble masonry, lined with waterproof cement, and was capped by large split blocks and slabs of limestone (Fig. 1/11). At its southern end the drain cannot be followed, since it disappears below MB unit 4, but it appears to be making a curving turn towards the west. Whether this drain once joined with the main drain exiting EB structures 1 and 3 in S02-4 cannot yet be ascertained, but it is suggestive of an extensive network of drains that must have been constructed in the 6th century along with the early Byzantine complex.

city, however, suggest that it was a public rather than a private amenity. The bath buildings EB structures 1 and 3 could imply that the entire complex was devoted to bathing and related activities, an interpretation that could be supported by the interpretations proposed above of other elements of the complex. When EB structure 3 was first discovered, observers commented on its architectural similarities to some early Christian baptisteries and the prominent crosses on its impost capitals. 93 Although EB structure 3 cannot be identified as a baptistery, crosses and baptismal allusions were not out of place in contemporary developments in bathing culture. As Paul Magdalino has shown, small and medium-sized public bathing facilities were being constructed or taken over during the 5th and 6th centuries by the Christian Church as amenities offered by diakonia (medical centres), xenones (hostels), monasteries, and other charitable foundations.94 Given this historical context, it is tempting to speculate that the baths building complex at the Enclosure site could have been managed by the Church as a charitable foundation, perhaps with connections to the Lower City Church complex to the southwest. The discovery at the Enclosure site of a 7th-century lead seal that has been attributed to a xenon of St. Theodore can only fuel these intriguing possibilities.95

A street was uncovered flanking EB structure 4 in trenches XE-05 and XE-08 Street (Fig. 1/6). The cobbled surface of the street dates to the early 9th century and, as yet, no earlier street surfaces have been identified; no test sondages have been dug and stratigraphic evidence revealed by early mediaeval wells cut through the street surface is inconclusive. The alignment of the street with EB structure 4 and its eastern wall is suggestive of earlier use but at present it cannot be confirmed that it formed part of the early Byzantine city plan.92 Excavations east of the street have so far identified only one wall fragment (wall 203) that can be tentatively assigned to the early Byzantine period (Fig. 1/5). Wall 203 in trench XE-06 resembles the walls of EB structure 4 in its use of rubble masonry set in a hard, white lime mortar, and it was incorporated into later mud-brick and stone structures that can be assigned to the Byzantine early mediaeval period (Fig. 1/6, BEM units 41 and 19). No other traces of this structure were uncovered in 2008, and so further excavation is needed to investigate the early Byzantine occupation levels in this area.

The orientation of the building complex on a northwest by southeast axis appears to correspond with that of known early Byzantine structures in the southern quadrant of the Lower City, namely the Lower City Church and its dependencies and, further to the southwest, the so-called Large Building (Fig. 1/1). A modern track, running along the exterior of the Enclosure’s west wall and connecting with the southeast gate on the Lower City walls, probably marks the approximate site of a major street that divided the complex under the Enclosure from the Lower City Church complex to the southwest.96 The complex’s eastern boundary was probably marked by the line of the early mediaeval street discovered in trench XE-05. This urban frame also appears to have played a significant role in

(vii). The Baths Complex and Early Byzantine Amorium

The construction of a building complex with a compact balneum and attached apodyterium near the city centre in the second or even third quarter of the 6th century was a significant addition to the urban fabric of early Byzantine Amorium. Its layout is suggestive of formal planning as a single unit or city block, whilst the surviving architecture and evidence for rich decoration in the apodyterium (EB structure 3) and balneum (EB structure 1) indicate an establishment of some pretension and quality. No inscription was discovered in the complex that could identify its name or patron, or that could further elucidate its function and status. The extent and lavishness of the complex, and its location within the

93 For example, compare with the 6th-century baptisteries

94 95

96

92 AnatArch 2005, 32; KST 2007, 278, pl. 6.

28

on the island of Kos and at Butrint in Albania: see Ćurčić 2010, 246-7, and figs. 264-65. Magdalino 1990; Saradi 2006, 325-43. Ivison 2010, 324-5, fig. 18. For the location of this gateway, first identified during the preliminary survey of the site in 1987, see AnatSt 1988, 178, fig. 2; AnatSt 1989, 170, fig. 2.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

shaping the evolution of the early mediaeval city. The early mediaeval structures in the Enclosure area continued to follow the northwest by southeast axis set by the early Byzantine buildings – a fact indicative of urban continuities – despite the radical transformation of the Enclosure site in succeeding centuries. Study of the urban plan of Amorium is still in its early stages, but the evidence to date indicates that the building complex at the Enclosure site should be viewed within the broader context of urban expansion and renewal attested at Amorium during the early Byzantine period. This period of growth and prosperity, which probably began in the late 5th and continued into the 6th century, furnished the Roman city with new fortifications, basilica churches, public buildings, and bathing facilities.97 The early Byzantine complex discovered at the Enclosure site therefore provides new evidence of this remarkable urban boom and is a significant addition to the corpus of known early Byzantine bath buildings.

Preliminary reports on the Enclosure excavation sought to establish relative chronologies for strata and structures of the mediaeval period, based upon what was then known. However, given the complex nature of the archaeology, it was only in the later years of the excavations that a better picture of the development of the area after ca. 600 emerged. In the preliminary report for the 1998 season, for example, up to four phases (Strata V-II) were associated with the mediaeval period at the Enclosure, but it proved difficult at that stage to distinguish clearly between strata and structures of the Byzantine early mediaeval period (ca. 650–838), and those of the middle Byzantine era (838–ca. 1100).100 The exact relationship of some of these structures to the Enclosure wall 40 was also not clear, leading to some erroneous conclusions about the nature of the Byzantine early mediaeval occupation in other reports. Some developments associated with Strata IV, III, and II that were then assigned to the Byzantine early mediaeval period can now be shown to belong in the middle Byzantine era and vice versa (see below). The following discussion takes account of more recent discoveries and studies and presents a new analysis of the archaeology of the Byzantine early mediaeval period for the entire area. This analysis is subdivided into eleven sub-headings (ixi), discussing the evidence trench by trench, together with a revised relative chronology and a new interpretation of the occupation. This review starts with section (i), a discussion of EB structure 2 (trenches XC-05, XD00, XC-98, XBC-98, and XC-96), examining evidence for its alteration and extension, at some point after the late 6th, but no later than the mid-7th century. Evidence presented from other trenches at the Enclosure shows that this conversion of EB structure 2 formed part of a wholesale redevelopment and rebuilding of the area during the 7th and 8th centuries. Section (ii) discusses the archaeology of trenches to the south and southwest of bath buildings EB structures 1 and 3, located at the centre of the Enclosure excavations (trenches XB-96, XBC-98, XB-02, and XB-03). The next section (iii) then turns to the findings in the trenches east of the bathhouse but west of the street (trenches XC-02 East, XC-03 East, XC-02 grid squares F11/a10 and E11/ j10, and XE-04). This is followed by (iv), a discussion of the street and the sector east of the street (trenches XE05, XE-08 Street, XE-06, XE-08, and XM-03). Moving north and west, this tour concludes with (v) the areas west of the baths (trenches XC-01, XC-02, and XC-03

9. Phase 3: Byzantine Early Mediaeval, ca. 650–838 Clive Foss’s influential article “The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity” argued for a catastrophic break in urban life brought about by the Persian, and later Arab invasions of the 7th century. Foss’s thesis remains an important milestone in the historiography, but since its publication in 1975 a much more complex picture of urban continuity, discontinuity and transformation in Byzantine Asia Minor between the 7th and 9th centuries has emerged, although it is still a poorly documented and much contested subject.98 Basic questions of urban continuity and change, settlement size, density and population, and the very nature and appearance of ‘the city,’ often categorized as civic-urban (and non-civic urban) as well as other so-called urban and non-urban settlements, remain central to the debate.99 The discoveries at the Amorium Enclosure take on heightened importance, therefore, thanks to their excellent state of preservation, and the opportunity to study in detail the evolution of a district near the centre of a major Byzantine city during the so-called Byzantine ‘dark age.’ 97 For discussion of these developments see Ivison 2007,

34-8.

98 Foss 1975; see also the useful historiographical survey in

Zavagno 2009, 8-29.

99 For the most important recent synthesis on the subject,

100 DOP 2001, 381-94.

see Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 531-72.

29

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

West). This is followed by section (vi), an interpretation of the Byzantine early mediaeval structures in these aforementioned trenches, along with their associated industrial installations and features. It is proposed that these structures be recognised as winery buildings, constituting a distinctive industrial quarter around the bathhouse during the 7th and 8th centuries. The next section (vii) addresses the fate of the bathhouse EB structures 1 and 3 and evidence for a restoration project, dated here to the late 8th or early 9th centuries. Section (viii) discusses the significance of the final phase of the early mediaeval occupation in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Here an interpretation is proposed that by the early 9th century the area had changed once more, evolving into a mixed residential-cum-workshop quarter that may also have had commercial functions. Sections (ix) and (x) examine the evidence for the destruction of the Enclosure area at the end of the early mediaeval period. A critical examination of these layers and their contents supports the interpretation that this destruction be identified with the sack of Amorium by Arab forces on August 12, 838. The wider significance of these destructions for the archaeology of Byzantine Amorium is the subject of the concluding section (xi).

dedicated to wine production, clustered around the surviving bathhouse.

(i). The Enclosure Site in Transition: EB Structure 2

Some of the earliest signs of change discovered to date can be found in EB structure 2. Excavations in trenches XC-98, XD-00, and XC-05 indicate that this structure underwent considerable alterations and additions subsequent to its initial construction. A full understanding of these changes, however, was not possible in the early years of the Enclosure excavations. The northern room, now designated BEM unit 1, was first excavated in 1998 (trench XC-98) when knowledge of the Enclosure area was still in its early stages; its interpretation and phasing was then provisional and rather speculative. In the preliminary report for the 1998 season, BEM unit 1 (then described as an integral part of ‘structure 2’) was associated with ‘Stratum IV,’ along with some Byzantine early mediaeval walls enclosing the western praefurnium of EB structure 1. This ‘Stratum IV’ was recognised as ‘the main occupation phase… which has been placed in the period before the construction of the enclosure wall,’ but it was argued that all of these structures, including the Enclosure itself, were built successively during the late 9th and early 10th centuries, following the Arab sack of 838.101 In the 2000 season report discussing trench XD-00, four phases of construction were proposed for ‘structure 2,’ but this account failed to recognise that the northern portion of the building (BEM unit 1) was a later addition.102 Following excavations in 2005 (S051) to clarify this building chronology, only three major phases for EB structure 2 and its later additions can now be identified, spanning the early Byzantine, Byzantine early mediaeval, and middle Byzantine periods. Furthermore, instead of being built with the Enclosure during the middle Byzantine period, the evidence now shows categorically that these buildings not only predate the Enclosure itself but that their principal period of use must be moved back into the Byzantine early mediaeval period (7th–early 9th centuries). New analyses of the archaeology discussed above have shown that the core of the original EB structure 2 was altered and subdivided for new uses during the Byzantine early mediaeval period, with portions of the old structure being

Contrary to expectations, this analysis shows that the Enclosure area gradually became more and more densely occupied in the course of the 7th, 8th, and early 9th centuries as its physical appearance and uses changed. At least three successive sub-phases of new construction have been identified in BEM structures between ca. 600 and 838, although it seems unlikely that these successive additions and reconstructions were synchronous across the whole area. The new structures, here termed BEM units, clustered around the surviving early Byzantine monuments and eventually occupied the entire excavated area. New units were attached to other buildings in a modular fashion by running new walls to enclose adjacent spaces, while earlier units were often later subdivided. In some respects, the Enclosure excavations confirm long-held views of Byzantine urbanism during this period, since the occupation of the Enclosure area was characterised by both continuity in the reuse of some early Byzantine structures and discontinuity in the abandonment and spoliation of others. However, this latter trend was also accompanied by unexpected evidence for radical redevelopment and extensive new construction. During the 7th and 8th centuries these processes saw the Enclosure area transformed from that of a monumental public amenity into an industrial zone

101 DOP 2001, 385-6, 394, figs. 15, 17, and figs. H and J,

which shows an east-west section through the archaeology of BEM unit 1 but without labeled contexts. This section has been redrawn and appears here as Fig. 1/18. 102 DOP 2003, 289-92 and figs. 15-19.

30

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

demolished and others expanded with the addition of new rooms, here designated BEM units 1, 2, and 3 (Figs. 1/6 and 1/9).

1. During excavation in XC-98, the interior of BEM 1 was divided into eastern and western sectors, and hence two contexts often represent the same layer (Figs. 1/18 and 1/28). A narrow baulk section was left against the southern wall, and this was subsequently excavated as part of a deep sounding in 2005 (assigned XC-05 contexts 906, 921, 956, 957, and 961). Mixed earth fills had been dumped inside BEM unit 1 to conceal the remains of earlier structures and to raise interior surfaces (XC-98 contexts 91/73 and possibly context 97, cumulatively 0.82 m. thick). An earth floor surface was then created on top of contexts 73/91 inside BEM unit 1, corresponding in elevation to the upper surface of the foundation sill.104 A fragmentary pithos was found set in this floor. Later still, this surface was buried beneath 40-52 cm. of fill (XC-98 context 87/70) creating a new floor surface at a higher level. By this time the east doorway into BEM unit 1 must have been walled up, perhaps in response to the new floor level, which was built up against the blocking. BEM unit 1 formed only the northern room of a larger extension of EB structure 2 that was erected at the same time. The walls of BEM unit 1 were continued westwards to form a new rectangular room attached to the west side of structure 2 between EB units I and II. This room was, in turn, further subdivided to form BEM units 2 and 3 (Figs. 1/6 and 1/9). Excavations in trench XC-05 showed that the walls of BEM units 2 and 3 had been robbed away in most places almost to the foundations, in contrast to those of BEM unit 1, which were much better preserved. The southern half of BEM unit 2 was inaccessible, since it was later buried beneath Enclosure wall 40. Fallen roof tiles found inside BEM units 2 and 3 attest to the existence of pitched timber roofs covered in roof tiles. A recessed slot in the exterior corner of BEM units 1 and 3 could be interpreted as a setting for a drainpipe for roof guttering. The water from this pipe may have discharged into a drain found in the paved surface of BEM unit 16. An iron lock plate and mechanism found near the south doorway into BEM unit 2 (trench XA102 context 30; SF 4888, SF4890, and SF4891) indicates the existence of a wooden door, at least in the final occupational phase of the complex.

It can now be established that BEM unit 1 was built within the footprint of the old EB unit III, the superstructure of which was completely removed, leaving only the bottoms of the walls and the foundations. BEM unit 1 was then carefully grafted onto EB structure 2, in the process incorporating portions of the southern and eastern foundations of the older structure into its own. The levelled north wall of EB unit III was retained as an external buttress supporting the northern foundation of BEM unit 1. The remains of the western wall of EB unit III were buried beneath dumped fills used to level up the site and subsequently were built over by BEM units 15 and 16 (excavated in trench XC-05). No substantial quantities of fallen or dumped masonry that could be associated with the superstructure of EB unit III were found in or around BEM unit 1. One must conclude that this debris was removed from the site and/or recycled in the new construction. Unlike other Byzantine early mediaeval buildings at the Enclosure, which were built of unmortared stones laid in mud supporting a mudbrick superstructure, BEM unit 1 and the other additions to EB structure 2 were built of roughly dressed limestone blocks with a mortared rubble core, probably so as to bond well with the earlier masonry structure. The foundations of BEM unit 1 were relatively deep and substantial, built roughly of mortared rubble masonry and stone blocks. The exterior walls of the superstructure had been pointed to resemble ashlar masonry and showed signs of later repair (Pl. 1/25); unlike the earlier walls of EB structure 2, there is no evidence for bonding courses of brick in the walls of BEM unit 1.103 In ground plan, BEM unit 1 was roughly square and, when first built, it could be entered by doorways in its western and eastern walls. The southern side of BEM unit 1 communicated directly with EB unit II. The interior wall faces of BEM unit 1 were slightly recessed, forming projections at the corners that conceivably could have supported a vault or upper storey, of which nothing now remains. On this matter, one should note that no traces of fallen roof tiles or burned roof timbers, as found in many other BEM units, were found inside BEM unit

Further alterations were made to the old EB structure 2 at some point before the 9th century. The walls forming the EB unit IV were largely demolished and the early

103 DOP 2001, 385, figs. 15 and 17. Contrary to this report,

the walls of BEM unit 1 do not contain brick courses; this report mistakenly conflates the surviving walls of EB unit III with those of the later building, now designated BEM unit 1.

104 The preliminary report stated that ‘no clear sign of any

earthen or flagged floor was found;’ DOP 2001, 385, with correction on p. 399 and fig. J.

31

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Byzantine channels inside the room were backfilled. From this point on, the framing slabs of the filled channels formed part of the floor surfaces inside the new BEM units 5 and 6 that were erected over their remains (Fig. 1/9; excavated in trenches XB-96, XBC-98, XD-00, and XB-02).105 At the southern end of EB structure 2, traces of an extension to EB unit I (designated BEM unit 4) also came to light, although its exact date of construction remains uncertain. Further additions, abutting and post-dating the construction of BEM units 1 and 2, were made to the northwest corner of the building, leading to the creation of BEM units 16 and later 15 (Figs. 1/6 and 1/9). Unlike BEM units 1, 2, and 3, the walls of these units were not constructed of mortared masonry but were built from stones laid in mud and mud brick, like all of the other Byzantine early mediaeval units excavated at the Enclosure. BEM unit 16 was originally a square, walled space in the corner formed by BEM units 1 and 3 and was entered from outside via a doorway on its western side. BEM unit 16 contained a wellhead and was paved initially with beaten earth and some cobbles (Fig. 1/34, trench XC-05 context 980). A stone drain or channel, running south-north, was set into this surface (Pl. 1/10). Later still, new paving, made of cobbles set in earth (XC-05 context 960), was laid over the old. This later surface was in use at the end of the Byzantine early mediaeval period when it was covered with a destruction layer (Appendix 2, trench XC-05, contexts 939 and 926). Remnants of a brick-lined drain were found in the south-eastern corner of BEM unit 16, possibly to carry away water from the roofs of BEM units 1 and 3. These features indicate that BEM unit 16 functioned as an enclosed open courtyard that served as an entrance to the complex during the Byzantine early mediaeval period. This courtyard once occupied all of BEM unit 16, for its earliest paved surface (trench XC-05 context 980) was found to continue beneath the walls of BEM unit 15, indicating that this unit was a later addition. BEM unit 15 was a small room, built in the northern corner of BEM unit 16, which gave access from the courtyard to BEM unit 1. This layout implies that BEM unit 15 must have served a small porch or vestibule leading from the courtyard into the main building.

Byzantine occupation, an industrial function is indicated by the installations found within it in trenches XD-00 and XC-98. EB room II was divided by the construction of a masonry wall (trench XD-00 wall 120) that formed the southern, back wall of a large tank (here designated installation A) that was built in the middle of the room (Fig. 1/6 and 1/9). This construction definitely postdates the original use of EB unit II since it entailed the blocking of at least one doorway in the east wall.106 The walls and floor of installation A had been thickly rendered with hydraulic mortar, producing a floor that inclined towards the north. This mortar covered the stone paving (trench XC-98 context 21) that can probably be associated with the primary use of EB structure 2 (see above).107 A second wall, now destroyed, must have enclosed the north side of the tank, but this was later buried or destroyed beneath MB unit 10. As we shall see, there is also reason to believe that a smaller, collecting basin was probably once located on this north side. At the centre of wall 120, two tall limestone orthostats or posts framed a narrow slot. Circular dowel holes had been cut into the inner faces of these posts, most likely for a rotating pin that was attached to some kind of mechanism. Identical stone posts were later found in the back walls of tanks excavated in trenches XE-04, XE-05, and XE-08 (installations C, D, G, and H; see below, pages 47-8). The remains of two shallow, mortar-lined trays, discovered below the middle Byzantine earth floor of MB unit 10, can also be associated with installation A. The trays were located either side of the northeast door into room II. Between the trays was an earth floor paved with brick and pithos fragments (XD00 context 27).108 A massive, square limestone block in BEM unit 1 was found to rest directly upon the earlier of the two earth floors of BEM unit 1 (Fig. 1/28, trench XC-98 context 73), but it was later incorporated into the north wall of MB unit 10, indicating that the block remained in or near its original position. The stone is also in alignment with the orthostats in the south wall of installation A, further implying a relationship between these two features. Significantly, this association 106 DOP 2003, fig. 17 (labelled XD context 14). 107 DOP 2003, 289-90, figs. 15 and 17; the paving was associ-

ated with ‘Phase 1’ and the mortar with ‘Phase 2.’

Although the central part of the revamped and extended EB structure 2 was partially obscured by middle

108 DOP 2003, 290 (incorrectly associating the trays with a

later ‘Phase 3’) and fig. 16, showing trays and floor in the top right hand corner of the room. This report incorrectly states that the trays were ‘found sunk’ into the surface of context 25, but the records make clear that the trays were covered by context 26, some 0.24 m. of fill. Context 26 lay below context 25.

105 A follis of Theophilus (SF4027, dated 829–830/1) was

found in a crack between the slabs in association with the burned destruction layers on the floor of BEM unit 5; DOP 2003, 287-8; 290-1 with figs. 18-19.

32

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

of massive stone and slot was repeated at installation C in BEM unit 13 (see below, pages 40 and 47). The upper surface of the limestone block in BEM unit 1 was carved with a round socket and a cross on a stepped base. The sides had cut mortises into which wooden beams must have once slotted. These distinctive features led to the identification of the block as a screw press weight, thus providing a vital clue to the use of these installations.109

of BEM unit 1 cut through all earlier dump contexts that can be associated with 6th century demolition and construction activities, and so BEM unit 1 must post-date EB unit III of EB structure 2 (XC-05 contexts 961, 921, 906, and XC-98 context 97). The critical contexts for dating the construction of BEM units 1 and 2 are XC-98 contexts 73 and 91, which lay over 6th century context 97. XC-98 contexts 73 and 91 were portions of a single fill layer of dark earth mixed with small building debris, pottery, glass and metal fragments, and other rubbish, which had been dumped inside the walls of BEM unit 1 and then levelled up to form its earliest floor surface, which was appropriately at the same height as the top of the foundations of BEM unit 1. The western part of this layer (in XC-98 context 73) produced only a few small and undiagnostic pottery shards, but a fragment of trailed neck from a glass bottle found in this context may be dated tentatively to the 7th or, perhaps more speculatively, to the 8th century.112 The eastern part of this layer (in XC-98 context 91) was richer in finds and contained early Byzantine pottery, bronze objects, and glass vessel fragments. The glass included fragments of a bulbous-stemmed wineglass and the neck of a bottle that can be also dated to the 6th–7th century.113 In addition, there were up to as many as nine mould-made lamp fragments, which can be dated no later than the mid–7th century.114 A fragment of a late Roman unguentarium, probably 6th or early 7th century in date, was also found in this context (see below Chapter 3, page 185 no. 20). The mixture of finds from these contexts certainly points to a date no earlier than the late 6th century/early 7th century, but also can be taken as a terminus post quem to imply that the laying of the first floor surface, and therefore the construction of BEM units 1 and 2 could have occurred in the middle decades of the 7th century, or perhaps even slightly later. Installations A and B inside these buildings could have been added as part of this construction phase, or they could have been installed afterwards in the course of the 7th century.

A second installation (here designated installation B) was excavated in the northwest corner of BEM unit 3 (Fig. 1/9, trench XC-05). Like installation A, the main part of installation B originally consisted of a rectangular tank or vat, once enclosed by masonry walls on all four sides and lined with hydraulic mortar. The superstructure of BEM unit 3 had been destroyed, along with the walls of the upper tank of installation B. Since only the mortared floor surface of the tank remained, no evidence was found for upright stone posts set in its back (western) wall, like those found in installation A. The tank in installation B measured 2.50 m. long by 1.34 m. wide, with a mortared floor that was concave in profile and inclined slightly towards a drain hole at the centre of the east side of the tank, where it fed into a limestone conduit. This conduit terminated in a gutter-like spout that projected over a lower tank or collecting vat, also lined with hydraulic mortar, which is 0.73 m. deep (Pl. 1/10).110 The partially preserved remains of a third installation, designated H, was excavated in EB room I at the northern end of trench XA-01, recalling the arrangement found next door in EB unit II (Fig. 1/6). A pair of dowelled stone posts and part of the mortared floor of a tank was uncovered, but later constructions had largely destroyed the rest of the installation.111 The posts appeared to be in situ, however, and are identical in design to those found in installations A, C, D, and G. A date for the transformation of EB structure 2 entailing the demolition of EB unit III, the addition of BEM units 1, 2, and later 3, and a terminus post quem for the construction of installations A, B, and H, is provided by the reprising the stratigraphy of contexts sectioned and excavated inside BEM unit 1, first in trench XC-98 and again during the 2005 season when it was assigned select contexts from the XC-05 series (Figs. 1/18 and 1/28). First, one must observe that the deep foundations

112 DOP 2001, 395, no. 3, fig. L/3. For a parallel, see Israeli

113

109 Amorium 2, 74-5 no. 5 (T1593), with fn. 19. 110 Lightfoot 2007, 273, and fig. 3.

111 KST 2003, 524, fig. 2 (labelled ‘1. No.lu Mekan’), and

114

fig. 6.

33

2003, 350, no. 462, dated to the 8th century but with the caveat that ‘this bottle continues the Roman-Byzantine tradition.’ DOP 2001, 393 and fn. 45 (lamps and examples), 395 (glass), nos. 1-2, figs. L/1-2 (similar to Amorium 1, 170, fig. 2/4, no. 71: trench XA-96 context 34); compare also Foy 2000, 275, fig. 24, dated to the 6th–7th century. I am grateful to Chris Lightfoot for these references to comparative material for the Amorium glass. Amorium 2, 31-5 nos. 79, 93, 100-101, A23, A29-A31; see also below Chapter 4, page 198 no. 50.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

The archaeological evidence is less abundant for the later occupational history of BEM unit 1 (Figs. 1/18 and 1/28). Earth fill used at a later date to raise the floor surface inside BEM unit 1 (XC-98 contexts 70 and 87), must post-date the earlier floor (XC-98 contexts 73 and 91, deposited in the first half/mid-7th century) – but when this refurbishment took place is still not clear. The eastern part of this later fill, context 87, was a mixed brown earth containing pieces of brick, tile, pottery, metal, glass, slag waste, and carbonised oak fragments. These finds provide clues as to a terminus post quem for the deposition of this dumped material. A radio-carbon C-14 analysis of the carbonised wood produced a date range between ca. 600–660.115 Of course, this radiocarbon date indicates only when the wood was burned, and it is already known from their stratigraphic position that contexts 70/87 must postdate the mid-7th century. Fragments of a burnished Red Ware chaffing dish found in XC-98 context 87 are more helpful, however, suggesting a date in the late 8th or even early 9th century for contexts 70/87 and the new floor surface (Pl. 1/23). Further study of this context pottery may further refine this dating for the second floor layer in BEM unit 1. An approximate confirmation for this occupational history of BEM unit 1 may be provided by XC-05 context 957, a portion of the 1998 south baulk in BEM unit 1 dug in 2005. The excavator combined both XC-98 floor make-up contexts 73 and 70 into context 957, and thus materials from the earlier and later floor make-ups cannot be distinguished, greatly limiting the usefulness of the finds. Context 957 did produce, however, coins of Justin II (565–578), Tiberius III (698–699), and Leo III (735–741), which do not contradict a date for occupation ranging from the 7th to early 9th centuries for BEM unit 1 that is derived from the other archaeological evidence.116

structures and spaces were excavated piecemeal over a number of years, falling within trenches XB-96, XBC98, XB-02, XB-03, and XE-04 (Fig. 1/9). The new buildings, designated BEM units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, were of varying sizes and plans, and were constructed in stages, eventually forming an L-shaped wing of buildings that enclosed the open space between the EB structures 1 and 2 (Fig. 1/6). Seams and abutments between walls indicate that BEM units 7 and 9 were the first to be built, followed by units 10 and 12, which connected the complex to the south eastern corner of EB structure 1. BEM units 5 and 6 were also additions, filling the gap between units 7 and 9 and EB structure 2. BEM unit 8 was added later still, since its walls abutted both BEM units 6 and 7. The eastern façade of units 9, 10, and 11 fronted a narrow alley and yard (BEM units 33 and 32) and stood opposite BEM units 13-14. The rear walls of these units enclosed a large rectangular yard south of bathhouse EB structure 1 (BEM units 30 and 31). The abutment of these new structures against EB structures 1 and 2, and the abutment of comparable structures against EB structure 3 and BEM units 1 and 2, definitely place these new buildings in the Byzantine early mediaeval period, a conclusion supported by the evidence of their construction techniques, associated finds, and stratigraphy. In contrast to the mortared masonry walls of BEM units 1, 2, and 3, the surviving lower walls of BEM units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were constructed of a mix of rubble, spolia, and cobblestones, laid in courses bonded with mud, and levelled with miscellaneous brick and tile fragments. This form of construction is common to all of the other Byzantine early mediaeval walls that are discussed below, with the exception of additions to the bathhouse EB structure 1. Homogenous layers of disintegrated clay found throughout the area indicate that the upper walls of these structures were mostly constructed of unbaked mud brick. This conclusion is actually confirmed by a number of intact mud bricks recovered from the mud-brick layers in the Enclosure trenches.117 An intact mud brick (B1050) from trench XB-02 context 53, BEM unit 6, is square and flat, measuring 0.29 by 0.29 m. and 0.07 m. thick (Pl. 1/11). In contrast, another intact mud brick (B467) from trench XE-06 context 114, BEM unit 13, is rectangular, measuring 0.304 by 0.14 m. and is 0.09 m. thick. These particular examples were found in destructions of the early 9th century and so give a good idea of the forms of mud

(ii). New Constructions South of the Bathhouse

To the south of the bathhouse complex new buildings and open spaces were laid out, presumably over the buried and demolished remains of whatever had been there during the early Byzantine period. These 115 DOP 2001, 399. 116 SF6705, SF6706, and SF6628, together with a fourth,

unidentified coin, SF6919. The latest diagnostic pottery from S05-1 context 957 comprised body and handle fragments of Coarse Ware cooking pots and the trefoil mouth of a Fine Common Ware jug. For similar examples datable no later than the late 8th–early 9th centuries, see below Chapter 2 nos. 17, 33, 34, and Böhlendorf-Arslan 2007, 279, fig. 6, no. 23.

117 DOP 2001, 384, with fn. 31.

34

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

bricks at Amorium during the Byzantine early mediaeval period (Figs. 1/25 and 1/37 Matrices and Appendix 2, XB-02 and XE-06).118 The regular, smoothed shapes of these mud bricks and impressions on their surfaces suggest that they were made in wooden moulds and then dried in the sun, like fired terracotta bricks (see Chapter 10 below). In terms of materials therefore these Byzantine early mediaeval structures are comparable to the traditional houses of the modern village of Hisarköy and were, presumably, built in much the same way. It is also possible that, like the modern houses, the exterior faces of these Byzantine early mediaeval walls were once rendered with mud or even whitewash, but there is no surviving evidence for such treatment on the Byzantine buildings. The plans of BEM units 7, 9, 10, and 11, which lack internal supports, suggest that these buildings lacked upper floors and were only one storey high. As is discussed below, however, a case can be made for reconstructing BEM unit 6 as a two storey building. Thick destruction deposits of ash, charred beams, and fallen roof tiles found throughout BEM units 5-11 indicated that they were covered with pitched, timber-framed roofs covered with fired terracotta roof tiles (tegulae) and cover tiles (imbrices). The outlines of charred wooden beams were still visible in burned destruction context 142 in BEM unit 10 during the excavation of trench XB-03. In trench XB-03, in BEM unit 9, burned destruction contexts 124 and 114 contained not only large quantities of ash from burned wooden roof trusses and fallen terracotta roof tiles, but also quantities of iron nails which could have been used in the wooden roof structure (see Appendix 2 below). As we shall see, all of the Byzantine early mediaeval buildings constructed at the Enclosure were roofed in this manner. A good example of a roof tile from these early mediaeval buildings is B1067, recovered from XE08 Street destruction context 406, where it had probably fallen from adjacent BEM units 13-14, and probably datable to the 7th–9th centuries (Fig. 1/19). B1067 was made from reddish fired clay and was a pan or tegula tile, being rectangular and slightly convex, and measuring ca. 0.57 m. by 0.35 m. and 3.5 cm. thick. The tile had been made in a wooden mould and before firing the tile-maker had drawn parallel lines with his fingers

on the upper face. Exceptionally, this tile was inscribed when wet with two lines of Greek letters: ΤΘ(OY) ΧΡΕΠ[C?](OY)/AΜ.119 Lines of concave cover tiles (imbrices) were used to cover the junctions between the tegulae tiles on the early mediaeval roofs to render the seams water-proof (for further roof tiles of the 7th–9th centuries see below Chapter 10, pages 324-5, nos. 169184, and Pl. 10/43-49). The differing sizes and plans of units 11, 10, 7-9, and 6, and possible variations in wall heights, suggest that each of these units had separate roofing systems constructed at varying heights. This interpretation is depicted in the reconstruction drawing showing the Enclosure site as it may have appeared in the early 9th century (Frontispiece on page 4). BEM units 10 and 11 were excavated in their entirety in trenches XB-03 and XE-04 (Figs. 1/12, and 1/14). In ground plan these units were rectangular rooms or buildings, BEM unit 11 being the narrower and smaller of the two. BEM unit 10 was entered via a single doorway from the alley BEM unit 33, and had no doorway communicating with BEM unit 9 next door. A doorway into BEM unit 11 is not preserved, but it was not accessible from alley BEM unit 33, and this frontage was later hidden by the construction of BEM unit 12. In all likelihood, a doorway into BEM unit 11 was once located in the now largely destroyed south wall of the unit. The east wall of BEM unit 11 was pierced by a narrow slot framed by two upright stone posts. These posts stood on a large spolium (T2015), probably a pilaster or a jamb from a doorframe.120 The carved decoration of crosses on this spolium suggests a date no earlier than the 6th century, thus providing a useful terminus post quem for the construction of this feature. The interior faces of the stone posts were cut with dowel holes and thus resembled in all respects the stone posts found in installation A of EB structure 2. The presence of the stone posts in 119 A coin of Theophilus (SF8315) was found in context

407 below context 406 (see Appendix 2, XE-08 Street, and Appendix 3 no. 18). The reading of this inscription is still unclear. Possible renderings could be: τ(ου?) Θ(εο)υ Χρ(ιστου?) tentatively followed by either επο{ιη} [σε]? or επι(?). The last three letters (OY), A and Μ have a hasta above them for abreviations but their significance is not yet resolved. The sequence of these letters would appear to negate a date in the Byzantine era (Anno Mundi). Another possible reading could be: τ(ου?) Θ(εο)υ Χρ(ιστου? or name? e.g. Χρ(ιστοφορου)?) επι[σ](κοπ)ου(?) [του] ’Aμ(οριου?). I am grateful to Chris Lightfoot for suggesting this possible reading. 120 Lightfoot 2010b, 303-4, fig. 14. T2015 measures 1.955 m. in height, 0.525 m. in width, and 0.395 m. in depth.

118 B1050 from trench XB-02 was found in context 53, a

decomposed mud-brick layer lying over ashy destruction context 76, which contained SF4386, a coin of Leo V (813–820). B467 from trench XE-06 was found in context 114, a decomposed mud-brick layer containing SF7548, a coin of Michael II (820–829).

35

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

BEM unit 11 can therefore be taken to infer the location of another installation (here designated installation D) at the foot of the east wall, of the same or similar design to installation A. In 2008 excavation was resumed within the walls of BEM unit 11 as trench XB-08 in order to investigate the presumed site of installation D (Fig. 1/26). The bottom of a burned destruction layer dug in 2003 (XB-03 contexts 144, XB-08 400, with portions of earth floor beneath) and earth floor surfaces of the early 9th century (XB-08 contexts 401, and 402) were found in the greater part of BEM unit 11. The remains of a whitish mortared surface was found immediately below the earth floor in the central part of the unit (XB-08 context 405), although this could not be associated with the back wall of installation D. The eastern end of BEM unit 11, immediately in front of the stone posts of installation D, had once been partitioned by a small cross-wall of mud and stones, and the area inside was surfaced with fragments of paving set in earth (XB-08 contexts 403 and 404). Two deep soundings below this surface uncovered mortar surfaces that can be assigned to the early Byzantine period (XB-08 contexts 407 and 409) and which have been interpreted above as the bedding for robbed out paving stones. These mortar surfaces had been buried beneath mixed earth fills containing brick and tile fragments, pottery, and metal fragments that must have been dumped to raise ground surfaces with the construction of BEM unit 11. No remains of outer walls or a mortared floor that could be associated with installation D were found, but there was also no reason to suppose that the stone posts (set in a structural east wall of BEM unit 11) were not still in situ. One must therefore conclude that installation D had been completely destroyed and replaced by the small crosswall and the earth floor set with paving (contexts 403 and 404) by the early 9th century.121

north walls of these units, the main entrances of these buildings would have been in their south walls, which logically must have fronted an alleyway, street, or courtyard. The excavated stretch of the eastern wall of BEM unit 9 was not pierced by a doorway, and no communicating door between units 9 and 7 was found. Although the possibility of such entrances cannot be completely excluded, owing to the later intervention of Enclosure wall 40, at least one southern doorway, giving access to unit 7, seems likely. BEM unit 5 was a narrow rectangular space created by a dividing wall built between what became BEM unit 6 and EB structure 2. In order to build these new units the old EB unit IV had been completely razed. The earth floors of BEM units 5 and 6 incorporated the stone slabs framing the two early Byzantine channels formerly inside EB unit IV. These channels had clearly ceased operation and were found backfilled with earth. With no doorways in its eastern and northern walls, BEM unit 5 probably served as corridor or passage between EB room II and a southern entrance. BEM unit 6 was a larger building than its neighbouring unit 5 and was slightly trapezoidal in ground plan, owing to the alignment of the older structures (EB structure 2 and BEM units 7 and 9) between which units 5-6 were built. The interior space of BEM unit 6 was bisected by two spolia blocks and a piece of column shaft that were aligned with a projecting wall. Heavy charring on these stones suggests that these were bases for wooden posts that must have supported a transverse wooden beam of the ceiling and, in all probability, the floor boards of an upstairs room. Such a reconstruction is further suggested by the close similarities in plan between BEM unit 6 and unit 19 in trench XE-08, which definitely had a second storey (Figs. 1/6 and 1/16). Like BEM unit 6, unit 19 had internal stone piers for wooden posts to support a substantial ceiling, but also preserved stone steps attached to the exterior of its west wall that gave access to a second floor.122 No internal staircase foundations or traces of internal wooden stairs have been identified inside any of the early mediaeval structures at the Enclosure, and so it seems reasonable to suppose that stairs attached to exterior walls were the norm. The only possible location of external stairs for BEM unit 6 is on its south wall, which is unexcavated or now lies beneath Enclosure wall 40. Attached to the north wall of BEM unit 6, and thus later in date, was BEM unit 8: a small, rectangular addition with foundations at least 1.00 m. deep, perhaps to take account of the lower level of the neighbouring courtyard, BEM

The northern halves of BEM units 5, 6, 7 and 9 were excavated in trenches XB-96 and XB-02 (units 5 and 6), and trenches XB-03 and XE-04 (units 7 and 9); the southern portions of these buildings now lie below the middle Byzantine Enclosure wall 40 and are unexcavated (Fig. 1/6). Since no doorways were found in the 121 Trench XB-08 in BEM unit 11 produced some interesting

small finds on and below the earth floor surface of the early 9th century: in context 401, SF8307, a bronze weight (see below Chapter 11, page 381 no. 7) and SF8326, an ivory handle or distaff; in context 407, SF8320 and SF8323, terracotta loom weights; in context 403, SF8321, a re-used brick loom weight.

122 Lightfoot 2009a, 140 and fig. 5.

36

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

unit 31. The use of unit 8 is not certain, but its small size and finds found inside may imply its use as a closet or storage area, at least in its final period of use (see section (viii) below).

BEM unit 31 to the north was originally at a lower level. The upper yard BEM unit 30 was accessible from BEM unit 1, and a line of stone blocks (trench XC-98 context 99) running north from the retaining wall 33 to the bathhouse EB structure 1, can be interpreted as a step down to the lower yard of BEM unit 31. The lower yard of BEM unit 31 could also be entered from BEM unit 17, from room V (the Vestibule) of the bathhouse. In BEM unit 31 two successive hard earth surfaces were found, XC-98 contexts 93 and 89. The lower surface, context 93, was surfaced with stone pebbles or cobbles in the central area; the upper earth surface context 89 was surfaced with small fragments of stone, brick, and tile. In BEM unit 30, the lowest earth surface was XC98 context 94 (same as context 111 in XC-01); context 90 above, described as ‘fill’ was a dense earth layer that could have been a second, upper surface in this area. Large quantities of animal bones bearing butchery marks were recovered from the fill make-up of surface context 90, and from XC-01 111 (XC-98 context 94) and fill 116 beneath. The majority of animal bones from XC-98 context 90 were ovicaprid (sheep/goat), pig and cattle; one horse bone and bird bones were also represented.125 These surface contexts were associated by the excavators with ‘Stratum III,’ provisionally dated to ‘somewhere between the middle of the tenth and the early eleventh century.’126 Given the terminus post quem of the late 8th–early 9th century provided by finds from the earlier clay surfaces, a date in the first decades of the 9th century can be proposed for the final layout of BEM units 30 and 31 and the two associated surface layers.

A large, roughly rectangular area on the south side of bathhouse EB structure 1 (designated BEM units 3031) was enclosed by the construction of BEM units 5-11 along its southern and western flanks. Like the surrounding units, BEM units 30-31 were excavated piecemeal over a number of years, coming within trenches XC-98, XC-01, XD-00, XBC-98, XB-02, XB-03, XB-04, and XC-04 (Fig. 1/9). In contrast to the neighbouring units, no significant roof collapses were found in BEM units 30-31, apart from material that had evidently fallen from the adjacent buildings. Consequently, BEM units 30-31 can be interpreted as an open courtyard and work area, a conclusion supported by the hard, cobbled surfaces of these areas and their internal features. Originally, the site of BEM units 30-31 was largely occupied by the service area of the southern praefurnium of the bathhouse. This service area was at a lower elevation than the surrounding area since it was partially enclosed on its west side by a mud and rubble retaining wall (wall context 62). Later, the southern praefurnium ceased operation and was blocked with bricks and rubble. The sunken service area with its ashy waste around the praefurnium was then backfilled and sealed with dumped deposits of reddish-orange and greenish-grey clay. These clay layers formed surfaces excavated in trenches XC-04 and XB-04 that were later cut by and partially buried beneath MB unit 9 (Fig. 1/27).123 These layers of clay contained two coins of Leo III (SF6361, dated 717–741, trench XB-04 context 150, and SF6379, dated 732–ca. 735, trench XC-04 context 704), together with distinctive pottery of the later 8th to early 9th centuries (Pls. 1/28-29). These finds provide a terminus post quem for the final form of this open space, which was then divided diagonally into two open courtyards (BEM units 30 and 31) by the construction of a new mud and stone retaining wall (XC-98 context 33) over the context 701.124 This wall ran eastwards from the corner of BEM unit 1 but was later extended, turning diagonally across the area to abut BEM unit 8, which by then had been added to the north side of BEM unit 6. The yard to the south, BEM unit 30, was apparently higher in elevation, while the greater part of the yard

The focus of lower courtyard BEM unit 31 was a wellhead, which had been raised with massive spolia stones to keep pace with the rising ground levels. The ease of access to this well for the users of the bathhouse makes it a likely source of water for this building. Attached to the north side of wall context 33 was a feature described as an ‘installation’ in the site records and as ‘Wall 88’ in the preliminary report for the 1998 season. The lower part of this feature was constructed from a fragment of 125 DOP 2005, 261, where XC-98 context 90 was dated to the

‘mid-7th century,’ although the above analysis of the stratigraphy now indicates a late 8th-/early 9th-century date for the deposition of context 90 and the associated bones (with residual coin SF3831, 7th-8th century). 126 DOP 2001, 387 (‘Stratum III/SE’), fig. 16 (showing wall 33 crossing trench XC-98). On the other hand, a pit in XC-98 context 42 that was also associated with ‘Stratum III’ in the preliminary report should now be assigned to the middle Byzantine occupation of the Enclosure.

123 For SF6379, see KST 2006, 78, fig. 3. 124 Trench XC-04 contexts 704, 705, 707, 708, 710, 712, 712,

713, and 714; trench XB-04 context 150.

37

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

monolithic stone trough, turned on its side, and lines of stones and brick fragments (Fig. 1/27, XC-98 context 88). The upper part built of stones, brick fragments and mud was designated context 79. The preliminary report for the 1998 season concluded that the upper context ‘wall 88’ had fallen onto the trough, but the records observe that the trough was only a fragment built into the structure. Context 74 above and around feature contexts 88/79 was interpreted in the 1998 season preliminary report as the decomposed remains of a mud brick superstructure. The lower part of this feature (context 88) rested on surface context 93 and the upper part was surrounded by the second surface context 89.127 The function of this feature (short wall or ‘installation’?) remains elusive, but its stratigraphic position indicates that it was a relatively late addition of the early 9th century.128

this open space assumed its final form only in the late 8th or early 9th century. BEM unit 8 can therefore date no later than the late 8th or early 9th century, with the other units 5-6, 10-11, and 7-9 dating logically further back in the 8th or even 7th centuries. A 7th or 8th century date for units 10-11 is certainly suggested by the close resemblance of the dowelled posts set in the wall of BEM unit 11 to those found in installation A in EB structure 2. Evidence for this relative dating is supported by finds associated with the stone troughs found in some of these units. These troughs constitute highly distinctive features of the early mediaeval architecture at the Enclosure. In design the troughs are monolithic, being carved from massive limestone blocks. Single examples or, more commonly, rows of two or more troughs were found standing against the interior walls of BEM units 6, 10, 19, and between BEM units 26 and 27 (Fig. 1/6). A row of four limestone troughs was found beside the west wall of BEM unit 6 (context 88) in trenches XA96, XB-96, and XBC-98.129 This line of troughs continued underneath and thus predated the Enclosure wall 40. A fragment of a fifth stone trough was found BEM unit 31, built into installation XC-98 contexts 88 and 79 of the early 9th century (see above). A sixth, intact trough with a projecting spout was found reused in middle Byzantine levels, where it had been placed at the foot of the south wall of EB structure 1 in trench XC-01 (context 115). A second line of three limestone troughs was later found inside BEM unit 10 in trench XB-03. Two plain troughs remained upright and in situ, but the third (T1741, in XB-03 context 116), a much larger and decorated example, was found fallen over on its side.130 A third line of at least two troughs was discovered in BEM units 26 and 27 (trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West) (Figs. 1/10 and Pl. 24).131 In trench XE/06/ XE-08 a fragment of one, possibly even two more troughs came to light inside BEM unit 19 beside its east wall, and in 2008 a large, intact trough was found set against the south wall (Fig. 1/16 and Pl. 1/19).132 The carved-out interiors of all the troughs were surprisingly shallow (two in BEM unit 10 were only 16-20 cm. deep) with heavy, solid bases and rounded or squared internal corners. On average, the troughs stood only ca. 0.40-0.60  m. high (two in BEM unit 10 were 0.42

In BEM units 5-7 and 9-11, excavation ceased at beaten earth floor surfaces associated with finds of the early 9th century, and only three small sondages (two on the east side of BEM unit 9, and XB-08 in unit 11) were dug through these floors to earlier levels. Evidence gathered so far, however, does indicate that these units were built before the early 9th century, but no earlier than the redevelopment of EB structure 2 (and the demolition of EB Room IV) in the 7th century. Although BEM units 7 and 9 can be recognised as the earliest in the building sequence, only a rough relative chronology can be established for the additions of units 11-10, and units 5-6 and 8. BEM unit 8 abuts and so must post-date units 6 and 7, and thus is also later than contiguous units 9 and 10. BEM unit 8 was also abutted by wall context 33, which subdivided the area into BEM units 30 and 31. The pottery associated with clay surfaces shows that 127 Idem, 384, where the trough fragment is wrongly identi-

fied as context 79, but the site records clearly designate it context 88; context 79 was the upper part of the feature visible in the background on fig. 16, attached to wall 33. 128 Idem, 384, fn. 32, drew attention to an earth surface (XC98 context 89) next to this trough, which produced a follis of Constans II (SF3832, class 11, dated 666–668). Another associated layer of fill (XC-98 context 90) contained yet another coin of Constans II (SF3831, class 1, dated 641/2) and a coin (SF3834) tentatively assigned to the 7th century. The dating of these fills by association with these coins proposed in the 1998 preliminary report cited above can now be discounted, however, since context 89 lies above trench XC-04 contexts 704, 705, 707, 708, 710, 712, 712, 713, and 714. These contexts contained pottery of the later 8th and early 9th centuries, and context 704 also produced a follis of Leo III (SF6379, class 4b, dated 732–ca.735); KST 2006, 78, pl. 3.

129 DOP 1998, 328, figs. C and D, and figs. 12 and 14; DOP

2001, 384, fig.16.

130 See KST 2005, 251-2, pl. 6; DOP 2007, 370, fig. 21. 131 Idem, KST 2005, 249-50, pl. 4.

132 T3153, measuring 2.98 m. in length, 0.685 m. in width,

and 0.54 m. in height.

38

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

(iii). Redevelopment East of the Bathhouse

and 0.56 m. in height) and could be further elevated by low platforms of rubble or reused masonry, as found in BEM units 6 and 27. Such troughs were therefore accessible at waist level, and cuttings around the rims of some of the troughs suggest that a wooden framework or lid had once been attached to the top. Upon discovery, it was assumed that the troughs were used to dispense water or other liquids, as suggested by the drain holes and the existence of a spout on one example. In order to retain water, such drain holes would have had to be plugged. Many of the troughs were positioned so that their floors inclined towards the drain holes, allowing any liquids inside to be more easily drained.133 Only one trough (T1741, mentioned above) of those so far found was decorated, being carved on its side with a panel containing a medallion and rosette. It is, however, not unique; another impressive example, albeit labelled as a lahit (sarcophagus), can be seen in the grounds of the Bolvadin Municipal Museum (6th-7th century?). Carved from a massive rectangular block of greyish basalt, its top has been hollowed out to a depth of only about 15 cm. The front side is decorated with a square, framed panel containing a Christogram and the letters alpha and omega (Pl. 1/12).134 The trough fragment found in XC-98 context 79 was in re-use in the early 9th century and thus must be older than its final archaeological context. The preliminary report on the 1998 season assigned the troughs found in BEM unit 6 and their associated occupation levels to ‘Stratum V,’ datable to 7th and 8th centuries. This dating was based on the ceramic and glass assemblages, as well as carbon-14 dating. Charcoal from a sealed pit associated with the line of troughs in trenches XA-96 and XB-96 produced carbon-14 dates of 395–720 and 735–760.135 On this evidence therefore one must conclude that at least some, if not all, of the troughs found in situ in BEM units 6, 10, 19, and 26 were installed no earlier than the mid-8th century. These troughs remained in place and presumably were in use until the end of the Byzantine early mediaeval period, since they were badly burned and buried in a general conflagration that devastated the Enclosure area in the early 9th century (see section (ix) below).

To the east, in trenches XC-02 East, XC-02 grid squares F11/a10 and E11/j10, XC-03 East, and XE-04, a similar pattern of redevelopment has emerged. Turning first to trench XC-03 East, it was only possible to excavate the early mediaeval levels located within the courtyard enclosed by the wings of middle Byzantine structures designated MB units 1-5 (Figs. 1/6 and 1/11). Despite these restrictions, it became clear that the early Byzantine layout east of EB structure 3 radically changed in the course of the early mediaeval period. Probably the earliest change was the demolition of EB structure 4, the ruins of which were found buried beneath the early mediaeval occupation. The northern, southern, and western walls of EB structure 4 were found to have been demolished right down to their foundations. No debris from these walls was found in the area and so one must conclude that this was a systematic demolition that led to the reuse of these building materials in new structures. The interior face of the eastern wall (wall 38) of EB structure 4 had been robbed away and was probably reconstructed of mud brick. The masonry façade of this wall facing the street was retained, presumably for reasons of utility. Following this demolition, the walls of a new building, here designated BEM units 13 and 14, arose within the footprint of the old EB structure 4 (Fig. 1/14). Part of this building lies below MB unit 5 but the rest was excavated in trenches XC-03 East, XE-04, and XE-05 (Figs. 1/32 and 1/35 Matrices). This new building followed a rectangular plan but was smaller in terms of length and width than the old EB structure 4. A doorway in the north wall gave access to the building, and it is likely that there was a second door in the west wall where MB unit 5 now stands. Like the early mediaeval buildings to the west (BEM units 5-11), the surviving lower parts of the walls were faced with small split limestone, spolia, and cobblestones set in mud, and with a mud and rubble core. The corners of the building utilised larger limestone spolia blocks that served as reinforcing quoins. The upper walls above were probably largely composed of mud brick. BEM unit 13 was the larger of the two units, occupying the central and southern end of the structure. At the southern end of unit 13 were the preserved remains of another industrial installation, here designated installation C (excavated in trench XE04 in 2005, structure context 47). A middle Byzantine wall (XE-04 context 13) had been built over the southern side of installation C and its northern side had been partially demolished, but it is clear that installation C

133 DOP 2001, 384, figs. I and 16: one trough in trench XC-

134

135

98 measured 0.90 m long and 0.10 deep (not 0.10 m wide as stated); see also DOP 1998, 328, figs. C, D, and 14 (troughs in trenches XA-96 and XB-96). I am grateful to Chris Lightfoot for this information and photograph. For a detail of its decoration, see Schoolman 2010, 384, fig. 14. DOP 2001, 384, figs. 1 and 16.

39

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

closely resembles installations A and D. Like installation A, the south wall 35 of installation C was pierced by an opening framed by two stone posts cut with circular dowel holes on their interior faces. This wall formed one long side of a deep rectangular tank, lined with hydraulic mortar, and on the other (north) side was a smaller, lower basin that had been largely destroyed and robbed out (XE-04/05 context 50). The upper tank of installation C measured ca. 3.94 m. long, ca. 2.55 m. wide, and was at least 1.40 m. deep. As with installation B, the tank and basin were once connected by a stone conduit or spout. The spout (T2095) is no longer in situ, having been dismantled and incorporated into an adjacent platform after the installation had ceased to function (Pl. 1/13). This event must have occurred no later than the early 9th century; that is, before the installation and the surrounding structures were destroyed by fire (see sections (ix)-(xi) below). Immediately in front of the lower basin and aligned with the posts was a massive cylindrical limestone block that presumably is still in situ. The stone (T2016) is a tall drum, carved with a Latin cross in relief on one side. Its top surface was cut with a shallow square socket with settings for metal and wood attachments. These features support the identification of this stone as another screw press weight, like that near installation A.136

fragment of the early Byzantine niche or water feature was incorporated into this courtyard, apparently serving as an elevated platform or step at the entrance to BEM unit 28. A doorway on the east side of BEM unit 28 led into an alley (BEM units 33 and 36) that appears to have run along the western flank of BEM units 13 and 14. The southern portion of this alley (BEM unit 33) was exposed in trench XE-04 and contained a well and some rubbish pits. This alley led into a small courtyard to the south (BEM unit 32), which is now bisected by the Enclosure wall 40. The northern end of the alley (BEM unit 36), excavated in trench XC-03 East, probably led to another open courtyard to the north. The demolished remains of EB structure 4, the encircling early Byzantine drain, and a fragment of brick-lined drain were buried beneath dumped earth fill that formed the new ground surfaces (contexts 496 and 461). The courtyard (BEM unit 34) contained a well that had been dug on the north side of the early Byzantine drain. The wellhead and upper structure of the well were roughly constructed from irregular chunks of stone, boulders, and spolia. A fragment of stone and mud wall indicates the existence of a wall immediately south of the well, which was constructed on top of the cover stones of the early Byzantine drain. By the end of the period a large pithos had also been set into the ground surface just east of the well. All of these open areas had earth surfaces, much like those encountered in the courtyards south of the baths (BEM units 30 and 31). At some later stage the alley was blocked by the construction of BEM unit 12, which was inserted between BEM units 11 and 13 (Fig. 1/14). A doorway connecting BEM unit 12 with BEM unit 33 indicates that the alley remained accessible and that BEM unit 12 may have served as a porch or vestibule to BEM units 13 and 14.

In the northern corner of trench XC-03 East, rubble and mud walls were built over massive paving stones of the early Byzantine period (Fig. 1/11 and Pl. 1/14). The construction of later buildings over formerly open and public spaces has been attested at other Byzantine and early Islamic cities between the 6th and 8th centuries.137 A narrow compartment or magazine (BEM unit 35) was thus formed, the purpose of which remains unknown, with two further units to the north (BEM units 28 and 29). BEM unit 29 appears to have been an internal room that, at least in its final phase, had a pithos bedded in its earth floor. BEM unit 28 formed an L-shaped, internal courtyard, similar to BEM unit 16 to the west, that partially surrounded BEM unit 29. The surface of BEM unit 28 reused the surviving early Byzantine paving stones, supplemented with cobbles and fieldstone paving set in earth fill. The mutilated

A date for the demolition of EB structure 4, the erection of the new buildings, and the construction of installation C is provided by pottery and finds in deep soundings in and around the early mediaeval buildings in trench XE-04 and its continuation in 2005 with contexts assigned from XE-05 (Fig. 1/35). A small sondage on the north side of courtyard unit 32 exposed the demolished foundation of the south wall of EB structure 4 (Fig. 1/14 and Pl. 1/15). These remains had been buried beneath dumped earth fills (XE-05 context 73) that had been used to bury the ruins of EB structure 4 and to raise the surrounding ground surfaces. The south wall of BEM unit 13 was constructed on the upper portion of context 73. This fill context 73 contained pottery and terracotta lamp fragments of the late 6th–early 7th

136 KST 2007, 275-6, 291-2, pls. 4-5; Lightfoot 2007, 272-3,

fig. 2; Lightfoot 2009a, fig. 6; Lightfoot 2010b, 299-300, fig. 9; Koçyiğit 2010, 395, pl. 4. 137 See, for example, Kennedy 1985, 3-27; Kennedy 1992, 181-98. For a summary of such developments in Byzantine cities, see Saradi 2006, 186ff.

40

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

centuries, thus providing a probable date in the 7th century for the demolition of EB structure 4 and the erection of BEM units 13 and 14.138 A construction date in the 7th century may also be corroborated by some pottery retrieved from fill (XE-05 context 61) from below the robbed out lower basin (context 50) of installation C. These shards were admittedly small and in poor condition but they probably best fit a date in the 6th and 7th centuries. A 7th-century date for the start of redevelopment in this area is corroborated by finds from XE-05 context 69, located on the west side of BEM unit 32. This layer was slightly higher in elevation than the aforementioned context 73 and may have served as the earliest surfacing for the courtyard BEM unit 32. XE-05 context 69 was a mixed fill of dumped earth that contained late Roman and early Byzantine pottery, together with three coins.139 The latest coin from context 69 has been identified as a follis of Constans II, dated 655/6; another is a copper alloy issue of Heraclius, dated ca. 612/3–615/6, overstruck on a follis of Justin II.140 XE05 context 69 was the first of a succession of dumped fills used to resurface the alley and courtyard BEM units 32-33 during the early mediaeval period. On the east side of yard BEM unit 32 two pits (XE-05 contexts 70 and 71) had been dug in the early 9th century but in the western half the dumped fills formed an uninterrupted stratigraphic succession. Above XE-05 context 69 in BEM unit 32 (west half) were the contiguous contexts 60 and 72 that appear to have been made up of dumped earth containing pottery of the later 6th and first half of the 7th centuries, together with residual coins of Tiberius II (578–582), Maurice Tiberius (582–602), and Phocas (602–610).141 Above contexts 60 and 72 was a disturbed final surface covered with a destruction layer, XE-05 context 54, also equivalent to XE-05 destruction context 44 that extended from BEM 32 into alley BEM 33. Context 54 contained a lead seal (SF6528) datable to the 7th century, bearing on the obverse a standing figure holding a long martyr’s cross and flanked by palm fronds and, on the reverse, a cruciform monogram

naming the seal as ‘of (saint) Theodore.’142 Two comparable seals in the Dumbarton Oaks collections name a xenon (hostel) of St. Theodore and are dated to the 7th–early 8th century.143 The same context 54 also contained two coins, one of which (SF6527) was illegible but may be identified as a copper coin of the 7th or 8th century. The second coin (SF6526) was a copper pentanummium of Tiberius II, dated 579–582. To the east of context 54, in the east half of BEM unit 32, contiguous XE-05 contexts 63 and 64 lay over context 73 and were at the same approximate stratigraphic level as context 54. Contexts 63 and 64 can also be interpreted as dumps of earth with an admixture of earlier pottery and finds brought in to raise the ground surface of BEM unit 32. Context 63 contained five copper alloy coins, while context 64 produced two more coins and a glass weight of the 6th–7th century (SF6536, see below Chapter 11, page 382 no. 11). Of the seven associated coins, the latest was a follis of Leo V (SF6544, class 2, dated 813–820) found in context 63, thus indicating that the latest earth surfaces in BEM units 32-33 (XE-05 contexts 44 = 54, 63, 64) were in use in the early 9th century. The earliest coin found in contexts 63 and 64 belongs to the reign of Heraclius (SF6550, a follis of class 2, dated ca. 613–616), but there was also a decanummium of Constantine IV (SF6539, class 2, dated 674–685) and, possibly, a half follis of Justinian II (SF6545, dated 705–711). A similar pattern to the findings from trench XE-05 can be discerned in areas of XC-03 East, with surfaces apparently made up of dumps of earth containing earlier materials (Fig. 1/32). In BEM unit 29 an earlier earth floor (XC03 East context 478) was found below the latest surface (XC-03 context 466, associated with the early 9th century destruction, see below). Context 478 contained early Byzantine pottery of the 6th–7th century. The fill forming the surface of the courtyard (BEM unit 34, context 496) also produced a coin of Constans II (SF5994, dated 641/2–642/3).

(iv). The Street and the Eastern Sector

Excavations in trenches XE-05, XE-06/XE-08, and its continuation, trench XE-08 Street, revealed the final  phase of the early mediaeval occupation and a

138 See below Chapter 4, page 198-9 nos. 51-53, and 55. 139 Context 69 also contained a late Roman terracotta lamp

140

141

142 Ivison 2010, 324-5, fig. 18. 143 The seal was identified by Olga Karagiorgou, who also

fragment; see below Chapter 4, page 194 no. 6 (SF6570), Pl. 4/1. SF6631 (class 7) and SF6586 respectively. It has not been possible to identify the third coin (SF6548) since it is very worn and corroded. SF6605, SF6525, and SF6532 respectively. All three are half folles from XE-05 context 60.

provided references to parallels in the Dumbarton Oaks collections; see McGeer, Nesbitt, and Oikonomides 2005, 122, no. 64.1. The Byzantine lead seals from Amorium will be published in a volume on inscriptions in the Amorium Monograph Series, now in preparation.

41

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Amorium.145 On the eastern side of the street, beside the entrance to BEM unit 18, a well with a spolia wellhead was discovered that had been cut through the street surface. The size and location of this well installation gives reason to suppose that this was a public amenity.

pattern of redevelopment comparable with that of the other Enclosure trenches. To date, only one fragment of wall (wall 203) found in this area can be assigned to the early Byzantine period, and 6th and 7th century levels were not reached during excavation. Wall fragment 203 survived by being incorporated into BEM unit 19 (Fig. 1/6), which as we shall see was destroyed in the early 9th century, thus implying that early Byzantine structures in this area were demolished and built over in the course of the early mediaeval period. The most prominent feature discovered in trench XE-05 was the street that divides the eastern sector of the excavations (XE-05, XE-06/XE-08, and XM-03) from that to the west (Fig. 1/14 and Pl. 1/16). Although only a stretch of some 18.00 metres has been excavated to date, it is clear that the street continues into unexcavated areas to the north and south. This supposition was supported by the extension of the excavation to the north in trench XE08 Street. The southern end of the excavated street and its associated buildings disappears beneath the middle Byzantine Enclosure wall 40, beyond which it must extend further south into unexcavated areas. This street must have formed a public boundary that divided the block containing the baths complex with its surrounding buildings and alleyways to the east, from the next block to the east. The stretch of street excavated so far tapers slightly, becoming narrower towards the south and slightly broader towards the north. The eastern side of the street had been built on a slightly different alignment to that of the western side which was demarcated by the eastern wall of BEM units 13 and 14. The reason for this irregularity has yet to be determined, but in all likelihood it can be connected with the reconstruction of the area in the early mediaeval period. The street surface that was exposed in XE-05 had been sealed by a destruction layer datable to the early 9th century (see section (ix) below) and so was the surface in use at that time (Fig. 1/36).144 Successive repaving may explain why the street level is considerably higher than that of neighbouring courtyards and alleyways. In this regard, the property walls facing the street served also as retaining walls for the elevated street level. The road surface of the early 9th century was not composed of regular paving stones but was made up of small-sized fragments of stone, brick and tile, mixed with scattered pottery shards, animal bones, and other rubbish, perhaps from domestic refuse. This detritus sheds an interesting light upon the state of thoroughfares in early mediaeval

Beyond the street, in the eastern half of trench XE-05 and trench XE-06/XE-08, excavations revealed more buildings of the early mediaeval period, although some portions still lie concealed beneath middle Byzantine and later constructions. Like neighbouring buildings across the street to the west, these structures formed an irregular plan of buildings and work areas, connected by courtyards and alleyways (Fig. 1/6). The buildings were also constructed in the same fashion as the other early mediaeval structures, with lower walls of coursed stones laid in mud and mud-brick superstructures. BEM unit 18 was a walled space, approximately rectangular in plan, which was separated from the street by a boundary wall pierced by at least two doorways (Fig. 1/14). Entering through the north doorway into unit 18, one stepped down from street level into a small L-shaped porch, reminiscent in plan of those found in BEM units 12 and 15. To judge from burned timbers and fallen roof tiles, this porch was covered with a small roof. The interior of unit 18 was at a lower level than the street and appears to have functioned as a sunken courtyard and work area. The western portion of BEM unit 18 was surfaced with beaten earth and contained a well with a large spolia wellhead. Lesser amounts of burned debris in this western area suggest that this side of BEM 18 was an open-air space, but in the eastern half heavier concentrations of fallen terracotta roof tiles, ash and charcoal layers indicated the presence of a roofed, protective structure over a row of built installations, here designated BEM installations E and F. This protective structure probably took the form of a single-storey, shed-like building, supported by wooden posts and by the side walls of BEM unit 18, with wooden rafters supporting a tiled roof overhead. This structure is visualized in a reconstruction view of the early mediaeval Enclosure area that is the frontispiece to this chapter (see Frontispiece, structure in right foreground). The 145 Another comparable street surface of the early 9th cen-

tury was excavated running through the gateway on the Lower City walls (trench LC). The street had been resurfaced at least three times, the latest surface of the early 9th century being sealed by the collapse of the gate and (later) by structures of the 11th century; see AnatSt 1995, 120, pls. xv(a) and xix(a); DOP 1997, 297, fig. 8.

144 KST 2007, 278, pl. 6; for a picture of the cleared surface of

the street, see AnatArch 2005, 32.

42

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

northern portion of installation F lies buried beneath a middle Byzantine building, MB unit 28, and the southern edge of installation E is crossed by the Enclosure wall 40. The south-eastern portion of unit 18 lays beneath MB unit 27 and the Enclosure wall 40. A third installation located alongside installation E is buried beneath Enclosure wall 40 to the south (Fig. 1/14). The installations in BEM unit 18 are the largest such features excavated so far in the Enclosure area and were constructed with care and skill. Installations E and F had been built together as a single construction and on a slightly different alignment to the enclosing walls of BEM unit 18. In contrast to the unit that housed them, both installations were built of mortared masonry, and the walls and floors were thickly coated with pink hydraulic mortar (Pl. 1/17). The western portions of these installations were shallow tanks or floors subdivided by low walls. The western wall enclosing installations E and F was largely destroyed, but to judge from the partition walls between the installations it was evidently low in height and lacked the characteristic dowelled stone posts found in the rear walls of installations A, C, D, and G. Only a small portion of the floor of installation F could be excavated, but that of installation E was rectangular and measured 2.65 m. by 1.90 m. The floors of E and F incline gently towards the east so as to channel liquids into two stone spouts or conduits set in a taller, eastern retaining wall built of large spolia blocks. Through these stone spouts liquids could be drained into deep collection vats or basins on the other side of the retaining wall (Pl. 1/18). Two basins, waterproofed with pink hydraulic mortar, were excavated. In order to drain by gravity these collection tanks had been built at a lower level than the floors of the installations and were divided from them by the eastern retaining wall.146 This arrangement implies that associated floor surfaces in the eastern, unexcavated part of unit 18 were also at a lower elevation in order to access the collection tanks. Another collection vat that must have served a third, unexcavated installation now below Enclosure wall 40 was found to have been reused as a setting for a pithos before the end of the early mediaeval period. A second pithos was set in an earth surface just to the west of the first, suggesting that the installations later passed out of use and that the area was backfilled to serve as a storage depot (XE-06 pithoi contexts 224 and 245, and see section (viii). below). Later still, these two pithoi were cut in half by the construction of Enclosure wall 40.

Flanking BEM unit 18 on its north side was BEM unit 40, excavated within trenches XE-05 and XE-06/XE-08 (Fig. 1/6). Unit 40 was a spacious rectangular or square space that can be interpreted as an open courtyard enclosed by the walls of surrounding structures. BEM unit 40 was divided from the street by a wall pierced by doorway set with a stone threshold fashioned from a reused Roman cornice block. Passing over this threshold one entered unit 40, the earth surface of which was at a lower level to that of the cobbled street. The northern boundary wall of unit 40 has not been excavated, and the southern side, although buried beneath MB units 28-29, appears to have been enclosed by the north wall of BEM unit 18. A medium-sized pithos was found set into the earth surface of unit 40 at the foot of this wall. The eastern end of BEM unit 40 was formed by the walls of BEM units 41 and 19, with a doorway from unit 40 led into unit 41 (Fig. 1/16). This was located immediately beside the large stone steps of an external staircase that gave access to a second-storey room above unit 19.147 A short dogleg passage formed by the north wall of unit 18 led one to the doorway into unit 19. The plan of unit 40, together with the lesser quantities of fallen roofing materials found there, supports its interpretation as a courtyard that gave access to neighbouring structures from the street. Some upper walls of early mediaeval occupation were found protruding into middle Byzantine levels in trench XC-06, but BEM unit 19, and the adjacent BEM units 20, 41, 42, and 43, were only fully excavated in trench XE-08. Together with connected units 42 and 43, units 41 and 19 should be regarded as forming single complex accessed from courtyard unit 40 (Fig. 1/16). Like the other early mediaeval structures, these units were constructed of stones, mud, and mud brick. The southern wall of unit 19, constructed of coursed stones and mud, survived to a height of over 2.00 m, probably in order to support a second storey, which was accessed by the external staircase attached to its north-western corner in courtyard unit 40. Only the two lowest steps survived of this staircase, which must have led up the exterior of the western wall of unit 19. The upper part of this staircase must have been either of wood or stone that may have been supported by brackets set into the wall. A doorway with a high threshold opened from the dogleg alleyway extending from courtyard unit 40 into the lower room of this building, designated BEM unit 19. Unit 19 was rectangular in plan and probably

146 AnatArch 2005, 31-2; KST 2008, 450, pl. 9; Lightfoot

147 Lightfoot 2009a, fig. 5.

2009a, fig. 10; Koçyiğit 2010, 395, figs. 1-2.

43

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

served  as a semi-basement. A second door, now blocked by Enclosure wall 40, once gave access to unit 19 at its south-eastern corner. Unit 19 was subdivided on a north-south axis by two monolithic stone spolia piers that had once supported wooden posts. These posts must have once supported a central beam for the second floor above, akin to the plan of BEM unit 6. This was evidenced by the discovery in unit 19 of large pieces of charred wooden beams and planks fallen from the second floor, along with timbers and tiles from the roof above.148 At a later date the spaces between the stone pillars had been partially (or completely) walled up, subdividing the room into three compartments. The floor surfaces of unit 19 were of beaten earth and on its northern side a pithos had been set in the latest of these floors. Below the earth floors on the northern side paving made up of large stone slabs was found. It is undetermined whether these slabs predated unit 19 or whether they conceal a covered feature such as a drain. Set against the southern wall of unit 19 was a large limestone trough (T3153), the largest yet unearthed in the early mediaeval buildings at the enclosure (Pl. 1/19). The eastern half of BEM unit 19 was not excavated in 2008, but the top edges of at least two more stone troughs, resembling those found in BEM units 10, 6, and 26, were discovered set against the eastern wall.

serving as supports or steps, are suggestive of a wooden staircase to descend into unit 41. Far less fallen roofing material was found inside unit 41 than in units 19, 42, and 43. The only appreciable concentration of collapsed masonry and roofing was found near the centre of the room, suggesting that portions of the upper storey and roof of unit 19 had collapsed into unit 41. One can therefore propose that unit 41 was an open, sunken courtyard and work area between units 19 and 42-43, an interpretation also supported by the discovery of an industrial installation at the eastern end of unit 41. This feature, designated installation G, is the most complete and well preserved of those discovered so far at the Enclosure, and it closely resembles installation C (Pl. 1/20). A pair of upright stone posts (T2105 and T2106) was set in the eastern wall of unit 41 in a similar fashion to those set in the back walls of installations A, C, D, and H. Like these other installations, the posts in installation G were also cut with dowel holes on their inner faces but, unlike the other installations at the Enclosure, they were also decorated with rectangular relief panels containing crosses. In front of these pivot stones was a large, deep tank with an irregular rectangular shape. The interior of the tank had been lined with hydraulic mortar. The western, front wall of the tank was formed by a single, monolithic stone slab of remarkable size, measuring 3.9 m. long, 0.9 m. high, and 0.25 m. thick. As with installations B, C, E and F, a stone conduit drained the tank into a deep collection vat or basin that was also lined with waterproof mortar. No press weight stone was found in unit 41 in front of the tank and basin but, given the association of these stones with comparable installations A and C, one must originally have formed part of installation G.149

BEM unit 41 was located north and next to unit 19 (Fig. 1/16). One doorway in its western wall gave access from courtyard unit 40, and a door in the northern wall of unit 41 led to adjacent rooms 42 and 43. In these rooms the walls still stood to a height of approximately 1.00 m. The lower sections of the walls in units 41, 42, and 43 were constructed of stones laid in mud around a mud core, but above this level several courses of mud brick were relatively well preserved. The eastern wall of unit 41 was constructed almost entirely of mud brick, which had decomposed to form a bright reddish-orange layer of mud brick covering the eastern portion of the room. Mud brick had also been used extensively in the lower portions of the southern and northern walls of unit 41, which still retained traces of mud plaster on exterior surfaces. The floor surface inside unit 41 was composed of hard, beaten earth also set with rounded stone cobbles and other materials. This floor was at a far lower level than the threshold of the western doorway into unit 41. Extensive charring of the western wall below the door and the presence of stone blocks, perhaps

A door in the north wall of BEM unit 41 led into unit 42, which in turn was linked through a doorway with unit 43 (Fig. 1/16). Units 42 and 43 had contiguous earth floors that had been waterproofed with white plaster (Fig. 1/40, XE-08 contexts 353, 336, plaster, 354, earth floor). Both rooms contained debris from timber and tiled roofs and appear to have been only one storey high. On the eastern edge of trench XE-06/XE-08, BEM units 20 and 44 were discovered. BEM unit 20 was immediately to the east of units 19 and 41, forming an irregularly-walled space later cut on its south side by the middle Byzantine Enclosure wall 40. Large quantities of 149 KST 2010, 137-40, pl. 8; Lightfoot 2010b, 298-9, fig. 8

148 Lightfoot 2010b, 302-3, fig. 12 (showing fallen roof tiles

(showing BEM unit 41 with installation G, and in foreground units 42 and 43).

and mud brick layers in BEM unit 19 during excavation).

44

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

of a low screen or a columned templon were found in the chapel, but the site of such a screen is now occupied by a middle Byzantine wall that divides the apse from the naos. Slight traces of polychrome painted wall plaster were found on the chapel’s south wall, formed by the exterior face of the north wall of EB Structure 1 (Pl. 1/22).152 Sometime after the construction of the chapel unit 21, BEM unit 22 was added to its western end. Unit 22 linked the chapel to its adjacent spaces and thus can be interpreted as a vestibule or even a small narthex. A single door in the north wall of unit 22 led into BEM units 23 and 24, which must have served as a corridor connecting the chapel to EB structure 3, which must then have still been functioning. With the later blocking of the west doorway into EB structure 3, access to these units can only have been made through doorways that no longer survive.

fallen roof tiles and charred timbers found here could have fallen from the roof over unit 19 or may indicate that unit 20 was also covered. These BEM units continued into the east baulk, but the discovery of well preserved MB units 21-26 in adjacent trench XM-03 have prevented any further investigation of early mediaeval levels in this corner of the Enclosure.

(v). Trenches XC-01, XC-02, XC-03 West

Excavations to the west of the polygonal hall (EB structure 3) during the 2001–2003 seasons also uncovered a dense network of rooms and alleyways that had been built over the levelled remains of earlier structures (Figs. 1/6 and 1/10). Probably one of the earliest of these new buildings was BEM unit 21, which was constructed within the triangular space between EB structure 3 to the north and EB structure 1 to the south (excavated in trenches XC-01 and XC-02). The plan and features of unit 21 permit its identification as a small chapel. The chapel was carefully constructed so as not to block the western doorway into EB structure 3, which therefore must have been still in use at that time. The chapel apse (wall 139) was carefully inserted into the angle formed by the junction of the rectilinear bathhouse and polygonal hall or apodyterium, and was oriented towards the east; this apse was later blocked by a middle Byzantine cross-wall (Pl. 1/21). In the centre of the apse an upright column shaft fragment (T1914) was found to support an Ionic impost capital (T1913), generally dated to the 5th–6th century.150 This feature can be interpreted as an altar table since other examples of column shafts, capitals, and bases have been identified as altars in the apses of Byzantine churches elsewhere.151 The naos of the Enclosure chapel was a rectangular room entered via a single door from the west end that was formed by the construction of northern and western walls of unmortared stones and mud. The intersection of these walls was later reinforced with the addition of a buttress. The south wall of the chapel was provided by the north masonry wall of the bathhouse, EB Structure 1, implying that a lean-to or pitched roof was inserted into the bathhouse wall. Burned remains of the timbers and roof tiles of the chapel roof were found fallen over the latest floor of beaten earth (XC-02 context 374). No stone elements

Turning now to the north and west in trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West, one finds that the chapel over time became enclosed by a series of interconnected units, forming a dense cluster of roofed buildings linked by open courtyards and alleyways (BEM units 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, and 38) Figs. 1/6 and 1/10). Like the other early mediaeval structures at the Enclosure, the lower walls of the new units were built from a mixture of split stones, cobblestones, spolia, and some brick fragments, laid in mud. The upper walls were built of mud brick, as was implied by the discovery of a thick, decomposed layer of mud brick that carpeted the area. Burned and fallen roofing materials indicate that roofs were timber framed and covered by terracotta roof tiles. No evidence was found to suggest that any of these early mediaeval units rose to two storeys in height. At the western edge of trench XC-03 West was BEM unit 38. Only the eastern half of BEM unit 38 was excavated, but it can be interpreted as an open-air courtyard or side street. The southern part of unit 38 had hard earth surfaces (XC-03 West context 536), but the northern half was paved with large flagstones of split slabs of schist and limestone (XC-03 West context 535), set in an earth bedding (Fig. 1/33 and Pl. 1/24). An early Byzantine feature, tentatively identified above as a manhole for a water channel was incorporated into this open space. The mouth of this early Byzantine manhole was raised to the level of the early mediaeval courtyard with spolia blocks in the manner of a wellhead. A doorway on the western side of courtyard unit 38 gave access to BEM unit 27. The wall that divided units 38 and 27 was a later

150 For example, Zollt 1994, 30, no. 48, pl. 14.48; 33, no. 56,

pl. 15.56; 35, no. 63, pl. 16.63; 36, no. 65, pl. 17.65; 45-46, nos. 97-99, pl. 23.97-99 (dated by Zollt to the 6th–early 7th century). 151 Butler 1922, 112 and 114, ill. 120 (Church M, early Byzantine).

152 Noted and photographed by Chris Lightfoot in 2007.

45

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

addition  and  so  BEM units 27 and 38 may once have formed a single open space. These spaces were further subdivided at a later date by the construction of a corridor or porch on the north side of BEM unit 38, which was framed by two reused column shafts. The rest of this structure remains unexcavated. BEM unit 27 was a rectangular, walled space with a hard earth floor at a lower level (XC-03 West context 531) that may have served as an internal courtyard for the complex. Arranged around BEM unit 27 were BEM units 37, 26, 25, 24, and 23, with the chapel and its vestibule (BEM units 21 and 22), accessible via BEM unit 23. BEM unit 26 formed an elevated square space attached to BEM unit 27, but divided from it by a row of two limestone troughs of the same design as those found in BEM units 6 and 10. The troughs in BEM units 26-27 had been placed above a terrace wall separating the two levels of BEM units 2627. The line of limestone blocks forming EB stylobate wall 160 had been repaired with stones and earth, and may have originally have formed a step down to BEM unit 27 (Pl. 1/24). The troughs in units 26-27 were badly burned and covered by a destruction layer, implying that a combustible timber and tiled roof covered at least that area of BEM unit 26 (for destruction see section (ix) below). Two earth floor surfaces were identified in courtyard BEM unit 27: the latest, context 531 incorporated the stylobate wall 160 into its surface; the earlier and lower surface was the top of earth fill context 537. From BEM unit 27 a doorway led into BEM unit 23, a rectangular space that gave access to the chapel (BEM units 21 and 22) and BEM unit 24. An early Byzantine pilaster capital (T1916, possibly of the 5th–6th century) was reused in the jamb of the doorway leading into BEM unit 24. The uses of these units 23 and 24 are as yet undetermined. BEM unit 37, located north of unit 26, contained a well, but the early mediaeval wellhead remains buried beneath its middle Byzantine successor. The presence of the well BEM unit 37 is, however, suggestive of a small internal courtyard. This courtyard may have been expanded to include BEM unit 25, since at least one party wall (wall 157) had been demolished by the early 9th century. By this time, unit 25 had been paved with a clay floor (XC-02 context 383). A pithos was found set into this floor surface on the site of wall 157.

LR units 1 and 2, whilst the walls of LR unit 3 passed beneath those of BEM unit 25. Excavation within this grid of walls showed that large volumes of earth fill had been dumped within these walls to level up the floors and surfaces inside. Trench XC-02 floor context 386 in BEM unit 23 was composed of a deep deposit of brown earth fill some 0.47 m. deep that had been dumped within the walls of BEM unit 23 to lay the floor (Fig. 1/31). This fill contained stones and other debris, along with large quantities of bricks, animal bones, and pottery shards, and two copper coins, SF4426 Valentinian I or Valens (366–378) and SF4437 unidentified but possibly late Roman. A copper strap(?), and an iron chisel or knife were also found in this fill. The same can be said for BEM unit 24, where XC-02 context 385, some 0.72 m. of mixed earth fill, was dumped to level up the floor surface, containing large quantities of pottery. In BEM  unit  25, excavation of XC-02 surface context 383 went down to an absolute depth of 928.58m., some 0.72  m. below the floor surface, uncovering the tops of the demolished late Roman structures in this area. Context 383 was clearly dumped material, a mixed fill of earth and pockets of ash, mixed with large quantities of broken pottery and animal bones, and the occasional iron object. Three coins were found in context XC-02 383, the latest of which were a coin of Gratian (SF4455, dated 378–383) and another unidentified late Roman issue (SF4419). Archaeological evidence indicates that the chapel, BEM unit 21, was constructed and in use between the mid7th and early 9th centuries. Excavation inside the naos of BEM unit 21 revealed that the earth floor (context 374) was laid above the foundation course of the chapel’s north wall. Beneath this floor surface the remains of two brick-lined drains or channels were partially exposed. A shallow sounding beneath the level of these drains (context 397) produced early Byzantine pottery of the 6th–7th centuries. In BEM unit 22, the narthex or vestibule to the Chapel, excavation of floor context 387 revealed that it was composed of dumped earth fill containing some pottery and animal bones. In 2005 a follis of Heraclius (SF6511, class 6, dated 640/41) was found at the bottom of XC-02 context 387, some 0.80 m. below the surface of the earth floor of BEM unit 22. The findspot of this coin also indicates that the construction of the chapel can be placed no earlier than the mid-7th century.153 A terminus ante quem for the construction

The walls of the early mediaeval structures excavated in XC-02 and XC-03 West had deep foundations, reaching down as far as the tops of the demolished late Roman structures, and crossing them, as in the case of BEM unit 23, which stood partially on the levelled walls of

153 Coin SF6511 was a stray find found by the author in 2005

in BEM unit 22 and was associated with the bottom level

46

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

of the chapel is provided by its north wall, which must have been built prior to the blocking of the west doorway into EB structure 3. Evidence discussed below now indicates that this blocking took place in the late 8th– early 9th century, before the destruction of the chapel (see sections (vii) and (ix) below).

works, tannery, or fullers’ installation.’154 This preliminary interpretation can now be rejected, following the excavation of better preserved installations (notably installations H and C) elsewhere within the Enclosure. These discoveries, together with comparable installations at other sites, now permit the identification of the BEM installations as wine presses and their associated buildings as wineries, thus confirming the conjecture made in 2003 that EB structure 2 was converted into a winery in the early mediaeval period.155

(vi). Interpretation: A Winemaking Quarter

Having presented the evidence for the development of the Enclosure area around the bathhouse during the 7th and 8th centuries, let us now turn to the interpretation of its occupation and use. The structures uncovered around the bathhouse and east of the street can be reconstructed as a series of interconnected buildings of varying size and shape, linked by narrow passages and courtyards (Fig. 1/6). Central to the interpretation of these structures are the industrial installations found within them, which appear to be the foci and raison d’être for these buildings. Industrial installations A-H occupy entire rooms and buildings, and are consistently associated with screw press weight stones. The installations also appear to be standardised as regards their plan, design, construction, and specialised features. Two types of related installations can be clearly discerned: one represented by installations E and F, and possibly B, with shallow, hydraulic mortared floors that drained liquids through conduits into collection basins (Pls. 17-18), and a second group represented by installations A, C, D, G and H, with deep mortared tanks and collection basins, and with pairs of dowelled stone posts set into their rear walls (Pl. 1/20). Given the similarities as well as the differences between the designs of these two types of installation, one may logically conclude that installations E, F, and B were used for related activities or even specific stages in a common production process that was shared with the other installations (A, C, D, G, and H). These observations therefore imply that the entire quarter around the bathhouse was devoted, at least initially, to some closely-related activities. The concentration of installations in the area and their capacious size also suggest production on a concerted, even industrial, scale. Upon its discovery, installation A was tentatively identified as a water cistern, fed by a ‘conduit’ framed by the stone posts in its southern wall. On this basis, the theory was advanced that ‘structure 2’ (EB structure 2 and its early mediaeval additions, BEM units 1, 2 and 3) ‘could have served as a Byzantine dye

Installations E and F, which lacked the upright posts characteristic of the second group of installations (and possibly B if such posts were never present) can be recognised as grape treading floors in the form of a shallow tank or lenos for the crushing of the grapes, and a collection vat or hypolenion, fed by the stone conduit, to receive the grape must. The winemaking process had changed little since antiquity, and installations comparable with the Byzantine early mediaeval grape treading floors at Amorium are attested at Roman sites of the 1st–4th century in the Rhineland and from the early Byzantine period (5th–7th centuries) in Israel.156 Installations A, C, D, G, and H can now be identified as wine presses that were used during the second stage of the winemaking process.157 This involved the pressing of the pulp and skins of the first treading in the winepress to extract the remaining must. The identification of massive stones associated with installations A and C as screw press weights and the presence of dowelled stone posts in the walls of installations A, C, D, G, and H provide conclusive evidence.158 The massive stones 154 DOP 2001, 289-90, and 291, and DOP 2003, 289. 155 For a brief overview of wine production at the Enclosure,

156

157

reached after excavation of XC-02 floor context 387. The bottom of 387 was at an absolute height of 929.08 m. and the floor surface above was at 929.88 m.

158

47

see now Koçyiğit 2010. For EB structure 2 as a possible winery see Amorium 2, 75. The suggestion in DOP 2003, 290, that EB structure 2 served as a ‘basement storeroom’ can now be discounted; a stone block identified as a stair tread in support of this hypothesis can now be associated with middle Byzantine installations in the later MB unit 10. ODB, 2200; see also Savvonidi 1993; Brun 1993. White 1970, 241, pls. 59-60; Decker 2001, 79-80 (with refs.), esp. for tanks that used roller crushers with circular collecting vats; see also Dayagi-Mendels 1999, 22-3, 26, and 29; Brun 2003, 208-17, with discussion of ancient artistic representations of wine-pressing. For Byzantine ‘wine culture’ in Bithynia, with reference to texts, representations in art, and some archaeology, see Anagnostakis 2008. A screw press weight very similar to T2016 associated with installation C at Amorium was seen by the author

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

served as counterweights for the press machinery, the beam of which must have pivoted on a pin set in the dowel holes on the inner sides of the two posts.159 The installation worked by the lever principal, squeezing the grape pulp under a wooden pressboard that fitted inside the tank, by means of the pressure exerted by the counter weight attached to the wooden beam. A reconstruction sketch of BEM unit 41 gives an impression of the appearance of wine press installation G when it was operational (Fig. 1/20).

above sea level) and its harsh climate preclude the cultivation of the olive, thereby excluding the possibility of the Amorium facilities being olive presses. Moreover, abandoned modern vineyards were noted in 2006 only a few kilometres from Amorium.164 These discoveries demonstrate the suitability of the local soils and climate for viticulture and indicate that it was practised until recent times. A 10th-century Byzantine compilation on ‘Agricultural Pursuits,’ known as the Geoponica, offers advice on the ideal form of a wine press and the preparation of the vintage.165 As such, it forms an interesting commentary to place alongside the archaeological evidence for winemaking at Amorium. According to the Geoponica, the wine press should be large enough to accommodate the expected grape harvest and the workmen needed to process it. The press facility should be lined with fine plaster or mortar and be well lit. To prevent the growing of mould the press should be left uncovered to air for twenty days prior to the harvest, but care should be taken to enable mice to escape from the vat should they fall inside. Before use the installation should also be fumigated against contaminants; the Geoponica recommends the use of hot brine and sponges, and suffumigation with incense. Of particular interest are the recommendations of the Geoponica at Bk. 6.11 for the treading of the vintage in wine presses themselves which, according to Robert Rodgers, is unparalleled in ancient literature.166 If so, then this description may well reflect actual practice in mediaeval Byzantium.167 According to the Geoponica, after removing leaves and spoiled fruit, the grapes would be trodden twice by men in the

Comparable presses and treading floors can be found only some 50–100 km. to the north and west of Amorium in the Phrygian highlands, where rock-cut installations, complete with pivot slots and press weights, have been identified. A lack of precise dating criteria means that a broad date range has been assigned to these rockcut features, stretching from the Phrygian to the early Byzantine period.160 Similar wine presses, dated to the Roman/early Byzantine era, have also been discovered to the southeast, in the modern province of Konya, as well as in ancient Lycia and Cilicia.161 To date, no wine presses dated between the 7th and 9th centuries have been published from Turkey, but a wine press of the 10th or 11th century can be recognised in a farmstead in the middle Byzantine settlement at Boğazköy-Boğazkale.162 Another pressing installation at Hierapolis (Pamukkale) in southern Phrygia and dated to the 11th or 12th century, has a very similar layout to the earlier Amorium wine presses, with a pressing tank, a catchment basin, and a screw press weight, although at Hierapolis this has been interpreted as an olive press.163 The altitude of the Amorium region (approximately 920-1,000 m.

159 160

161

162

163

164 More vine plantings are to be found on the slopes of the

in the garden of the Konya Archaeological Museum in 2007. Like T2016, the Konya weight is cylindrical and has cuttings on its top surface, with iron rings set in lead for lifting. Two sides were carved with medallions containing crosses. Although the Konya example remains unpublished, for another example, recorded at Saracık near Bozüyük in north western Phrygia, see Belke and Mersich 1990, 374, fig. 141. Amorium 2, fig. V/2. Sivas 2003, and esp. figs. 11-15. Mimiroğlu 2006, 154, 171, fig. 33: Kızılören Asar Kalesi, showing lenos and hypolenion; Diler 1994, 508-11; Diler 1995, and esp. figs. 3-7, 13-17, 22, and 24. Neve 1991, 105-107, fig. 7, ‘Komplex 6,’ unit 15, containing a press tank, collection vessel, and stone weight, although Neve does not discuss the installation. I am grateful to Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan for this observation. Arthur 2006, 134-6, figs. 67 and 68a-b.

hill to the north of the ravine that brings the modern road from Emirdağ to Hisarköy (near tomb MZ94, excavated in 2005). Indeed, grape vines have long been charming features of the Amorium dig house and the courtyards of other village houses. 165 Geoponica, 6.1, 10, 11, 12 (Greek text edition); for an English translation, see Agricultural Pursuits 1805-6, 193-13. For an assessment of the usefulness of the text for 10th-century agriculture and the problems posed by the extant editions and commentaries, see Rodgers 2002. 166 Rodgers 2002, 170-1. 167 This implied multi-functionality of mediaeval wine presses bears interesting comparison with those found so far at Amorium. Although comprising an admittedly small sample of eight installations excavated so far, only two large treading floors (installations E and F) were found, compared with six tanks used as wine presses (installations A-D, G-H).

48

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

fermentation tank or lenos of the press. Modern reconstructions of Byzantine winemaking processes indicate that the resulting grape must was left to ferment in the tank for up to five days before being decanted.168 In the Amorium wine presses the grape must in the lenos would have drained through the stone conduit into the collection vat or hypolenion. These well-like hypolenia would then have been emptied with buckets (or skins?) so that the wine could be transferred to casks (barelia). In the Geoponica the residue of pips and skins in the lenos would then be squeezed under a wooden press board – presumably the equivalent of the mechanisms that once existed in the wine presses at Amorium. It has been suggested that the grape pressings at Amorium could have been boiled down to produce a concentrated grape extract equivalent to the modern Turkish pekmez (grape molasses); the Geoponica states that the grape pips could also be crushed to make a form of grog called thamna and that this inferior (and cheaper) wine was popular with the lower classes.169 Newly-made wine at Amorium could have been stored in timber barrels, skins, or large pottery pithoi. Only isolated, smaller pithoi have been uncovered in the buildings, most of which can be associated with the latest occupation of the early 9th century. No large magazines containing storage jars or pithoi for the storage of wine have been discovered in the Enclosure area so far, but such facilities may yet come to light as more levels of the 7th and 8th centuries are excavated. Like elsewhere at Amorium, the wells in the neighbourhood must have provided drinking water, but they would also have been a convenient source of water for the washing out of the winemaking facilities. It remains uncertain whether the stone troughs found in BEM units 6, 10, 19, and 26 were used in the winemaking process, since they were not directly associated with the treading floors or wine presses. The use of such stone troughs in the wineries cannot be entirely excluded, however, as they could have made suitable mortars for the pounding or crushing of grape pulp or must.170 Whatever their uses, the troughs

certainly continued to function in some capacity until the end of the Byzantine early mediaeval period, sometime after the winemaking installations had definitely ceased operations. The discovery of a winemaking industry at Amorium during the 7th and 8th centuries was unexpected, and it raises important implications for the history and economy of both city and region during the Byzantine early mediaeval period. The wineries at Amorium appear to form part of a densely built-up winemaking quarter, with presses and treading floors located in a series of interconnected buildings linked by alleyways and internal courtyards. As a result of careful excavation and the above analysis, the appearance of this quarter of the city can be reconstructed with some degree of certainty and forms the basis for the reconstruction view that serves as the frontispiece to this chapter. The extent of the buildings uncovered so far certainly suggests that large numbers of workers were involved which fluctuated according to the work season, with probably most workers being employed during the pressing of the vintage in the autumn. Questions as to the organisation of the installations – whether they represent several independent operations or one single establishment – remain unanswered at present. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the street marked a property boundary between one winery and another. Of particular interest is the fact that the wineries developed cheek-by-jowl around the bathhouse, the main part of which continued to function through the period. The baths would have been a convenient sanitary amenity for the workers at the wineries. The small chapel built at the same time as the wineries may have served as a small and simply furnished eukterion or oratory for these workers. If so, this would appear to underline the ubiquity of religious life in Byzantine Amorium, a fact underlined by the presence of apotropaic crosses on two of the screw press weights and on the pair of hinge posts in installation G. What is also becoming clearer is that winemaking cannot have been confined to this area of the city alone. Surface survey of Amorium has recorded the presence of several screw press weights of similar design (and presumably function) to those found at the Enclosure.171 The first wine press found outside of the Enclosure area was in fact excavated during the 2009

168 For a practical reconstruction of early Byzantine wine­

169 170

making using original facilities, see Yeshu Dray’s ‘Restoration of Ancient Technology’ webpage: http:// www.yeshuat.com/ (accessed 11/26/07). Amorium 2, 73; Geoponica, 6.12. For other uses of biproducts from winemaking, see Amouretti 1993, 467-73. Sivas 2003, 15, fig. 17, notes the use of stone troughs with spouts in modern Turkish villages in the Melendiz plain southeast of Ankara. The troughs are termed pekmez sokusu and are used for the production of grape molasses.

171 Amorium 2, 73-4 nos. 1-6, and figs. V/1-9. Two other ex-

amples (T1925 and T3363) have also been noted by Chris Lightfoot, the latter lying below the Upper City mound near the modern dirt road to Hamzahacılı.

49

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

season immediately north of the baptistery of the Lower City Church (Basilica A). This large wine press, accompanied by a hexagonal screw press weight, was of the same design as those excavated at the Enclosure and can be dated between the 6th-7th century and the early 9th century. It is of interest that this press and associated winery buildings were located within the Church’s compound, raising the possibility of ecclesiastical ownership.172 Another large screw press stone (T974) stands in the courtyard of a building on the north flank of Basilica D – was this another winery attached to a church complex? (Fig. 1/1).173 A sizeable winemaking industry at Amorium must have involved many groups in the community, including landowners, farmers, and perhaps even clergy, as well as persons working in related trades such as haulers and labourers, merchants, and makers of casks, wineskins, or storage jars. Naturally, therefore, one should see winemaking as a major economic activity in the region, providing employment and income for the inhabitants of Amorium. Although the wineries around the baths were built only in the 7th century, it seems highly likely that winemaking was a major industry at Amorium well before this date, and that earlier installations, perhaps inside as well as outside the city, await discovery. Further work is now needed to explore the history of winemaking at Amorium and to document its archaeological traces in the surrounding landscape. The redevelopment of the former baths complex into a winemaking quarter during the 7th century also raises important questions about urban development within the city during Byzantine early mediaeval period. There is no evidence at the Enclosure for widespread destructions in the early 7th century that could have prompted such a redevelopment, although such events at other sites have been associated with the Persian or Arab invasions (and see below Chapter 18, page 472).174 Indeed, the evidence for the demolition and removal/recycling of earlier building suggests that this was a planned enterprise that saw the gradual transformation of redundant space around an amenity into a productive economic zone. The construction of the wineries in place of earlier buildings represents the transplantation of an established local industry from the countryside to inside the city walls – a process sometimes dubbed ‘ruralisation’ – perhaps in response to the

insecurities of the 7th century.175 But at the same time, the scale and concentration of these activities within the city walls could also point to a rise in demand by the urban population. With this in mind, it might not be coincidental that the arrival of large detachments of imperial troops and the establishment of the command of Anatolikon at Amorium coincides with this period. The archaeology of Amorium thus may enable us to trace the economic impact of the thematic presence on the city, which may also have extended to the production and consumption of wine.

Excavations in trenches XC-98, XC-01, and XC-02 show that EB Structure 3, identified as an apodyterium, as well as the bathing suite in EB structure 1, continued to function during the 7th century (Fig. 1/6). These buildings were spared the fate of the other early Byzantine buildings in the Enclosure that were then demolished and redeveloped. No evidence was found in the hypocausts of EB structure 1 for earth or silt layers that could suggest a period of inactivity or abandonment. Instead, the thick layers of ash dispersed from the furnace suggest regular use and maintenance. A follis of Constans II (SF4462, class 5a, dated 651/2) sandwiched between layers of ash in the western praefurnium shows that the furnace continued to be stoked in the second half of the 7th century.176 The dense concentrations of raked out ash in this praefurnium and the adjoining service area certainly indicate heavy and continuous use, as do the later addition to the service area of low platforms, plaster surfaces, and retaining walls that may be connected with the working of the furnace and industrial activities.177 The service area of the western praefurnium was enclosed by walls during the Byzantine early mediaeval period, presumably to contain the threat of fire that could have easily spread to the buildings around the bathhouse. Appropriately then, these enclosing walls were fire-proof, being solidly built of mortared limestone rubble. The construction of these walls created a narrow space between the praefurnium and BEM unit 1, here designated BEM unit 17 (Fig. 1/9). Finds from this area suggest a date for the addition of these walls sometime in the 7th or 8th century, but before the conversion of BEM unit 17 into a glass workshop during the later

172 AnatArch 2009, 24-5. 173 Amorium 2, no. 2, pl. V/2 (screw press weight). Basilica

175 Laiou and Morrisson 2007, 39-40; see also Lightfoot

(vii). The Baths: EB Structures 3 and 1

2007, 272-4; Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 463.

D, author’s personal observation during field walking, 2007. 174 Foss 1975.

176 From XC-02 context 379. 177 DOP 2001, 388-9, ‘Stratum III/NW.’

50

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

8th and early 9th centuries (see section (viii) below).178 In creating this new space, BEM 17 was dug out to a deeper level, revealing the buried foundation walls of former EB unit III, BEM unit 1, and the enclosing walls of the praefurnium. The ragged wall faces exposed by this activity were then tidied up by being rendered with mortar and stencilled with lines to look like ashlars (Pl. 1/26). The secondary praefurnium that served the tepidarium was located on the south side of EB structure 1, opening onto a service area on the site of BEM unit 31. The stokehole consisted of a vaulted tunnel with a projecting arch that was later destroyed (Pl. 1/5). The open air service area, partially excavated in trenches XC-04 and XB-04, was later enclosed by a fireproof wall (wall 62). Here the furnace fire was stoked, fuel could be stored, and ashes were raked out. A deep accumulation of ash found in this service area bears witness to the long working life of this furnace (Fig. 1/27, XC-04 contexts 705, 708, 714, associated with SF6435, a follis of Tiberius II, dated 581/2).

aqueduct at Amorium is proven by field survey these hypotheses must remain speculative, but such a scenario would parallel the fate of the Aqueduct of Valens at Constantinople. There the aqueduct was cut during the Avar-Persian siege of 626 and remained out of use until the reign of Constantine V (741–775), thus forcing a greater reliance upon cisterns and wells.179 More radical changes to the baths complex were implemented towards the end of the Byzantine early mediaeval period. EB structure 3 was found to have been systematically stripped of its marble revetment and paving slabs, leaving only small scraps in situ. So thorough was this removal that the original revetment plan can only be restored by reference to the mortar impressions left on the walls. The pavements were extracted completely, even to the point of removing most of the mortar bedding in the process. The south-western doorway of EB structure 3 leading into BEM unit 24 was carefully walled up with mortared spolia masonry laid in a distinctive thick, pale brown mortar (Fig. 17/1a). The large portal communicating with EB structure 1 was similarly blocked with a well-built wall of the same mortared masonry. Save for one moulded door jamb still standing in the north-eastern door, all of the blocked entrances were stripped of their original marble door fittings. The north-eastern entrance was not completely blocked, but the doorway was narrowed to half its original width and its threshold was raised (Pl. 1/4). The original marble threshold was buried beneath some 20-30 cm. of earth and debris, over which a new threshold surface of heavily mortared rubble was built. The height of this new threshold indicates how high surfaces outside and inside the building had risen by this time. The south side of the door was then narrowed with a well-mortared rubble wall similar to those found in the other blocked doorways. Upon discovery, these radical changes prompted speculation that EB structure 3 had undergone some kind of structural failure, perhaps even as a result of an earthquake.180 No evidence of physical collapse or seismic damage during this period has come to light however. Rather, it would seem that the fabric of EB structure 3 was still relatively sound and intact when its decorations were stripped out, and that it continued to stand for a considerable time afterwards. No attempt was made to remove and reuse the marble columns and

Drains taking waste water away from the bathhouse and apodyterium tell a different story however. Excavations in sondage S02-4, located in the angle between the apodyterium and the bathhouse, revealed that the main drain there had been sealed up with mortared spolia blocks (Fig. 1/6 and Pl. 1/7). The channel of the drain contained earth fill mixed with pottery and glass dating no later than the first half of the 7th century. This blocking and filling material indicates that that the original hydraulic system was no longer operational and that the water supply to the bathhouse had suffered a reversal after the mid-7th century. For the remainder of its working life the bathing suite must have been supplied with water drawn from wells rather than with piped, running water. The well in the vestibule room V, which may date to the original construction of the baths, must have been used in this period, along with nearby wells located in courtyard BEM unit 31 outside the bathhouse (Figs. 1/9 and 1/17). These changes to the water supply of the bathhouse could imply that any Roman or early Byzantine aqueduct conveying water into the city had also ceased to function. Until the existence of an 178 Idem, 386 (XC-98 wall context 80) and 388, figs. H and

18. In this report, the walls are referred to as ‘Structure 3,’ although this designation was later transferred to the ‘polygonal hall,’ the present EB structure 3. The praefurnium walls were also assigned to ‘Stratum IV’ and mistakenly compared with the Enclosure wall 40, now datable to the late 10th century.

179 Mango 1995, 17. He is, however, sceptical that ‘the entire

[water supply] system remained inoperative for a century and a half.’ 180 DOP 2005, 240; Amorium Guide, 131-2.

51

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

capitals that supported the masonry vaults during these centuries. These elements remained in place and were found toppled, sometimes in their proper order, resting directly on the stripped mortar beds of the pavements and exposed foundation fills. Some column bases were discovered more or less in situ. The fallen architectural elements were in their turn buried beneath masses of rubble from the vaults that fell over them.181 The evidence of the north-eastern doorway shows that the building could still be entered, and this conclusion is corroborated by the discovery of pottery of the late 8th and early 9th centuries in disturbed foundation fills inside the building. In fact, coins of the 11th century found on surfaces inside EB structure 3 prove that the building remained standing and accessible, and only collapsed towards the end of the middle Byzantine period.182 So, during the Byzantine early mediaeval period the former apodyterium had ceased to function as part of the bathhouse, although it remained standing and may even have been turned over to new but unknown uses.

had decayed they were supplemented by additional supports or even replaced altogether. These repairs took the form of ad hoc insertions of spolia stone blocks, redundant terracotta water pipes, and even a marble column shaft fragment, which were placed in irregular clusters to shore up the weakest areas of the pavement (Fig. 17/1b-c).184 Some terracotta spacers in the flues behind the wall revetments were also replaced but not with newly-made spacers; instead, crudely-fashioned brick fragments were pressed into service.185 A new doorway was cut through the wall of the eastern exedra of frigidarium room F2, thus creating a second entrance to the latrine room La (Fig. 1/6). A threshold was installed in this new opening, which also necessitated the destruction of the semicircular water-basin that once occupied the niche. The basin in the western niche still retains its marble lining and appears to have continued in use. At the same time, the westernmost compartment of the caldarium (room L) was converted into a narrow chamber by the construction of a dividing wall (wall 142). The original brick masonry piers were cut back and wall 142 was constructed of spolia blocks laid in the same pale brown coloured mortar found in the blocked doors of EB structure 3. Portions of the northwestern corner of this new room (walls 152 and 153) were also rebuilt in the same manner. Since the principal hot air flue runs beneath chamber L, the excavator suggested that this room could have served as a sudatorium or ‘sweating chamber.’186 The brick arch over the flue had also suffered damage and was replaced with a horizontal architrave formed from a spolium of the 6th7th century carved from yellowish-brown andesite. This block (T1605) had once served as a lintel but it had been turned so that its carved, exterior face was now upright within the thickness of wall 154. Although now coated with mortar, the front of this lintel was carved in shallow, bas-relief with a panel containing a Christogram framed by the letters A (alpha) and W (omega).187

In contrast to the stripping of the interior of EB structure 3, the adjacent EB structure 1 underwent an extensive programme of remodelling and restoration. This early mediaeval restoration of EB structure 1 was not limited to an overhaul of the interior decoration but also extended to the fabric of the building itself, which was probably suffering decay owing to more than a century of use. Excavations in EB structure 1 show that marble floor and revetment slabs stripped from EB structure 3 were reused in the restoration. This can be proven by the fact that marble slabs found in EB structure 1 fitted exactly the surviving mortar impressions left in EB structure 3. In addition, the marble slabs were often reversed for reuse, thus preserving traces of mortar on both sides, along with lime-scale accumulations from their later placement in the bathing suite. Although little of the marble revetment or paving inside EB structure 1 now remains in situ, evidence suggests that the early mediaeval restoration involved patching or replacing dilapidated elements of the original decoration using marbles salvaged from EB structure 3 rather than a complete refurbishment.183 The stability of the suspended pavements was clearly a cause for concern, prompting the strengthening of their supporting pilae. Where some of the original brick pilae in the hypocausts

The archaeological evidence outlined above supports the view that the gutting of EB structure 3 and the restoration of EB structure 1 formed part of a single building project. Practicalities raised by the blocking of the doorway communicating between EB structures 184 DOP 2005, 235-8, figs. 4-5; KST 2004, 2, pl. 5.

185 Koçyiğit 2006, 118-21, nos. 7-8, figs. 11 and 15; DOP

181 DOP 2004, 358; DOP 2005, 233-5, and esp. fig. 2; KST 182 183

2007, 358, fig. 7.

186 DOP 2005, 237-9, figs. 7-8. I am grateful to Yoav Arbel

2004, 2, pl. 3. DOP 2004, 358 and fn. 15; DOP 2005, 234 fn. 7. DOP 2007, 366-7; Amorium Guide, 137-8.

for this observation.

187 Idem, fig. 8; KST 2004, 2, pl. 4.

52

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

3 and  1, which occurred following the removal of its marble frame, strongly suggests that the stripping of the apodyterium and the restoration of the bathhouse took place at the same time. The mortared masonry used to block this doorway and the two others in EB structure 3 also closely resembles that used to repair the exterior and interior walls of EB structure 1. A further indication that these developments should be regarded as part of a unified project is provided by the discovery of marbles clearly stripped from EB structure 3 that were reemployed in EB structure 1. As this chapter will demonstrate, these developments must have occurred in the decades before the terminus ante quem provided by the destruction of the bathhouse, which can now be associated with the sack of Amorium in 838 (see sections (ix)-(xi) below). Evidence for the date of the bathhouse restoration is provided by finds from EB structure 3 and the south side of EB structure 1. Excavations in 2002 in sondage S02-5, located in the south eastern exedra of EB structure 3, produced a small scatter of five copper coins, found resting on the robbed mortar bed and foundation fill of the exedra (Fig. 1/6 and Pl. 1/3). The deposition of these coins can therefore be assigned to the period during or immediately following the stripping of EB structure 3. One coin from the group could be identified as a follis of Leo IV (SF4500, class 2, dated 778–780).188 Further excavation in sondage S05-1 inside EB structure 3, close to the blocked doorway into EB structure 1, uncovered a small pit (context 978) dug into the foundation fills of the building (contexts 975 and 976) after the removal of the pavement and its mortar beds (Fig. 1/6). The pit contained fragments of a large coarse-ware vessel that may belong to the second half of the 8th–early 9th century, but this very tentative identification has yet to be confirmed.189 The pit was presumably dug and filled when EB structure 3 was being stripped out, perhaps even by the workers engaged in this project. Pottery fragments of the late 8th and early 9th century were definitely found mixed with other foundation fills inside the building however (XC-05 contexts 979 and 976). Taken together, these finds indicate a date in the latter part of the 8th or early 9th century for the stripping of EB structure 3 and the restoration of EB structure 1. This date also finds support in discoveries on the south side of the bathhouse. Unlike the main, western praefurnium, which continued to function until the end of the period, the southern praefurnium passed

out of use when its opening was deliberately blocked up with square bricks and rubble. Reference has already been made to the fate of the adjacent service area (BEM unit 31), which, following the closure of the praefurnium, was buried by successive dumps of greenish-grey and reddish-orange clay. Two coins of Leo III (SF6361, dated 717–741, and SF6379, dated 735–741) and pottery covering the later 8th and early 9th centuries found in these clay layers provide a terminus ante quem for the abandonment of the southern praefurnium.190 This context pottery included characteristic pieces of Red Painted Ware, also with inscribed ribbons, Burnished Wares, Coarse Ware jugs, and Common Ware cooking pots (Pl. 1/28-29).191 It is perhaps also significant that the clay surface context 150 in trench XB-04 contained fragments of marble opus sectile that could have been discarded during the refurbishment of the bathhouse. The systematic raising of the ground level in BEM unit 31 could also explain the use of spolia to raise the thresholds of the two exterior doorways of vestibule room V.192 The blocking up of the communicating doorway into EB structure 3 meant that these two doorways became the principal entrances into EB structure 1 from BEM unit 31. A date for this particular construction is not fixed, but it is tempting to view this work as part of the same programme of restoration and resurfacing at the bathhouse around the year 800. Beyond a utilitarian desire to recycle useful, and perhaps hard to find marbles, economic and cultural explanations need to be considered for the stripping and abandonment of EB structure 3. Certainly, the cost of labour, the gathering and reworking of materials, and the consequent investment in the restoration of the bathhouse must be reflective of greater disposable wealth at Amorium. But economic reasons alone do not adequately explain the stripping of the apodyterium and the reduction of the complex to the bathhouse alone. This decision may more accurately reflect a general trend, known from written sources of the period, which saw the contraction of bathing activities into smaller buildings.193 This process of contraction had begun at 190 Fig. 1/27, trench XC-04 contexts 704, 705, 707, 708, 710,

712, 712, 713, and 714; trench XB-04 context 150; see AnatArch 2004, 13 illus.; KST 2006, 78, fig. 3. 191 For examples of these wares, see Chapter 2 below. A detailed presentation of the context pottery from the Enclosure will be the subject of a separate publication. 192 DOP 2007, 371, pl. 25. 193 Berger 1982, 90.

188 DOP 2005, 235 and 263, figs. 28-9. The other four coins

proved to be too corroded to allow identification.

189 Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan, personal communication.

53

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

the Enclosure in the 7th century, with the redevelopment of EB structures 2 and 4. These cultural trends would have made the monumental apodyterium a redundant space by the late 8th–early 9th century. Yet, despite the contraction of operations to EB structure 1, the maintenance and longevity of the bathhouse are important indicators of the nature of urban life at early mediaeval Amorium. For, despite the privations of the so-called ‘dark age,’ the baths as an institution and bathing culture endured.

ante quem for the use of these occupation surfaces is also provided by coins and associated pottery found in the destructions over them (see below Appendices 2-3 and Chapter 2). The dating and significance of these destructions will be discussed in detail below, since this catastrophe marks the end of early mediaeval occupation at the Enclosure. First, however, let us consider the evidence preserved by these destructions for the final phase of the Byzantine early mediaeval occupation at the Enclosure.

(viii). The Final Phase (late 8th and early 9th century)

Evidence for the end of winemaking activities at the Enclosure and the conversion of the installations to new uses can be found in the re-employment, destruction, and abandonment of the wine presses and treading floors. These changes so radically affected the structures and machinery of these installations that a case cannot made for a seasonal change in use being reflected in the archaeology. Precisely when these changes happened remains difficult to pin down precisely from the archaeological evidence, but it must have occurred sometime in the late 8th or early 9th century, perhaps some decades before the final destruction. The fate of installation C, the wine press in BEM unit 13, is a good example of this transformation. The northern, front wall of the lenos was partially dismantled, along with the stone conduit and most of the hypolenion. It seems likely that the remains of the hypolenion were buried by raising the earth floor surfaces in BEM unit 13, for the dismantled stone conduit (T2095) was found placed next to the installation at a higher level. A section dug through the lenos of installation C showed that the tank was then converted into a covered storage tank or silo for processed dry crops (Figs. 1/21-22, 1/35 and Pl. 1/13). The northern wall of the tank must have been partially reconstructed for this purpose, although little of it has survived. A large pile of charred grain was recovered from the floor of the lenos, where it had been burnt in situ (trench XE-04/05 context 45; see also Appendix 2). Over the grain was found further evidence of fiery destruction with charred wood and tiles from the collapse of a roof overhead, mingled with further charred organic remains (trench XE-04/05 context 41, and XE-04 context 11).195 A similar scenario presented itself in nearby BEM unit 18. Here installations E and F, both grape treading floors, had also passed out of use before the destruction. The southernmost hypolenion (and by extension the connected treading floor) was no longer in use since it had been used to install a

In the course of 7th and 8th centuries the Enclosure area had been transformed. The monumental layout of the early Byzantine baths complex had been replaced by a densely built-up network of smaller buildings, installations, and even a small chapel, interconnected by passageways, courtyards, and alleys. Clustered around the surviving bath buildings, in appearance these structures were usually one storey in height and had pitched timber roofs covered with terracotta roof tiles. At least two buildings (BEM units 6 and 19) rose to two storeys. Only BEM unit 1 may have been vaulted, and evidence for a second storey is far from certain. The surviving bath buildings must have towered over this patchwork of tiled roofs, as is depicted in the reconstruction view of the Enclosure area in ca. 800 (Frontispiece to this chapter). Starting in the 7th century, these structures had operated as wineries, forming part of a larger district that seems to have been mainly devoted to such production. EB structure 1 continued to function as a bathhouse throughout the period and was even refurbished in the later 8th or early 9th century. EB structure 3 no longer functioned as a grand apodyterium, but the building still stood as a stripped shell. By the early 9th century, however, significant changes had also taken place in the functions and economy of the surrounding area, evidence for which was preserved by a fiery destruction that devastated the area (see sections (ix)(xi) below). This destruction laid over the latest occupation surfaces in the area, a few of which can be conclusively dated to the first decades of the 9th century by coins embedded in these earth surfaces.194 A terminus 194 SF4441, a follis of Nicephorus I (802–811) was found in

the earth floor surface context 21 of BEM unit 45, trench XC-02 East (F11/a10); SF6544, a follis of Leo V (813– 820), was found embedded in the earth floor surface of BEM unit 32, trench XE-05 context 63 (see Appendix 3 no. 5).

195 KST 2007, 275-6, pls. 4-5. T2095 is visible at left in pl. 5.

54

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

large clay pithos. This discovery, and that of a second large pithos immediately to the east, indicates that BEM unit 18 had been converted into a storage facility (Fig. 1/37, trench XE-06 contexts 249 and 224). Both pithoi had later been cut by the construction of the Enclosure wall 40 in the later 10th century (Fig. 1/14). A large concentration of charred cereal grains was found inside one of the pithoi (XE-06 context 249). More charred grain was found mixed with the burning and collapse layer that covered the pithoi and hypolenia (Appendix 2, XE06 context 248 and Fig. 1/37). An ash layer from the destruction inside the former treading floors E and F also produced quantities of charred grain (Appendix 2, XE-06 context 260 and Fig. 1/37). Preliminary analyses (see below Chapter 13, pages 415-17) of representative samples of these plant remains indicate that, while the lenos of installation C (Appendix 2, XE-05 context 45; Fig. 1/35) contained wheat grains (Triticum spp.), the treading floors of installations E and F (XE-06, unit 13, context 260) produced almost exclusively barley grains (Hordeum spp.). The pithos fill and associated destruction layers (Appendix 2, XE-06, unit 18 contexts 248 and 249) contained only legumes, the better preserved of which were identified as varieties of vetch (Vicia spp.).

combustible materials were found inside the lenos. The absence of a screw press weight necessary for the proper functioning of winepress installation G noted above can also be taken as ex silentio evidence of its decommissioning (Fig. 1/16 and Pl. 1/20). One must assume that this stone weight and the associated beam machinery had already been dismantled and removed from BEM unit 41 before the end of the Byzantine early mediaeval period. Such a hypothesis can be supported by the discovery in adjacent BEM unit 43 of a heap of up to five pieces of large iron fittings (SF8533A-E, context 334; Appendix 4 no. 60), including an iron collar measuring 0.156 m. in diameter. The size of this collar is certainly large enough to fit a press beam of the size needed to fit the pivot stones in installation G. On this basis, a reasonable interpretation can be made that these iron fittings constitute the dismantled remains of the press beam machinery of installation G. With the end of winemaking, the former winery buildings appear to have been converted largely to residential use, with some small-scale industrial and possible commercial activity. This interpretation is based on the diverse range of features and personal belongings inadvertently preserved by the sudden destruction of these buildings. The presence of crop storage facilities in mediaeval Byzantine buildings is usually associated with residential rather than industrial occupation. Certainly, the large volume of grain stored in the former installation C and the two large pithoi discovered in BEM unit 18 are suggestive of longer-term storage for human, if not animal, consumption. Further evidence for the presence of domesticated animals is suggested by the enigmatic troughs found in some of the BEM units. The limestone troughs were certainly in use during the final phase, after the end of winemaking, since they were severely charred and fractured by the fiery destruction (Pls. 1/24, 1/27, and 1/30). Evidence discussed above indicates that some of these troughs could certainly have been used to hold water and that some had drain holes to empty and thus, presumably, to replenish them periodically. Others, such as that found in BEM unit 19, could even have been used to hold grain, since charred grain was found scattered on the floor around it (Appendix 2, XE-08, unit 19 context 332; Fig. 1/38). It has already been noted that a number of troughs also had cut slots for dowels on the tops of their walls, perhaps for the attachment of wooden covers to close them. The existence of such wooden covers may also help to explain the extreme fire damage suffered by some troughs, such as those in BEM units

Elsewhere in the Enclosure other winemaking installations had also fallen out of use. Installation B in BEM unit 3 was demolished and built over (Fig. 1/34). The lenos had been largely leveled, leaving only the mortared floor of the vat. The hypolenion was backfilled (trench XC-05 context 971) and the remains of the lenos were buried beneath earth fills to create new floor surfaces in BEM unit 3 (XC-05 contexts 933, 970, 972-74, 951, and 948). A small pithos was later set in the floor of BEM unit 3 (XE-05 context 950/951), next to a brick-paved platform in the south east corner. Small dividing walls were subsequently built over the site of installation B (XC-05 contexts 934 and 935). A similar fate befell the wine press installation D in BEM unit 11, which was apparently entirely removed with the exception of its rear wall (see section (ii) above). The site of installation D was backfilled with earth and sealed beneath an earth floor that was subsequently burned in the destruction. Our understanding of the fate of installation A is hampered by its partial burial beneath the middle Byzantine unit 10, but installation G in BEM unit 41 was certainly out of commission by the early 9th century. When the complex was destroyed, the lenos tank of installation G was apparently empty since it was found filled with clean red clay from decomposed mud bricks (Appendix 2, XE-08, unit 41, context 329; Fig. 1/36). No ashes from

55

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

6 and 26-27. Even more telling was evidence from the intact stone trough discovered in BEM unit 19. A hole cut through the corner of this trough can be interpreted as a tethering post for securing a rope halter, suggesting that animals were accommodated in BEM unit 19. Like the other troughs, slots on the top edges of this trough suggested the presence of an attached wooden construction, probably a lid. On balance then, the evidence strongly suggests that many of the troughs were used as mangers for watering and/or feeding domesticated animals. The shallow depth and low height of the troughs would certainly have aided animals as they stooped to feed from them. If so, then units 6, 10, 19 and 26, with their multiple rows of troughs, could be interpreted as stables and/or animal stalls. BEM units 6 and 19 have been identified as two-storey buildings, and so one might imagine animals being housed in the lower, ground floor, while their owners lived and slept in more salubrious surroundings on the second floor. At present, once can only speculate on what kinds of domesticated animals could have been accommodated, but one should consider beasts of burden and transport, such as mules, donkeys, and ponies (for associated animal bones see below Chapter 14). Tools for agriculture and other uses could also be stored in the home, as is suggested by a concentration of five iron tools/implements found on the earth floor of BEM 41 (Appendix 2, XE-08, BEM unit 41 context 347: SF8528, a straight iron knife blade with curved tip and sheath; SF8529, an iron knife blade in four joining fragments with bronze handle haft; SF8530, an iron attachment; SF8531, a large iron chisel; and SF8532, an intact iron chopper or scrapper; Appendix 4 nos. 55-59).196 These tools/implements were associated with 16 folles of Theophilus, class 2 (see Appendix 2, XE-08, BEM unit 41 for the finds and Appendix 3 nos. 19-34 for the coins).197

grain processing activity in the area is implied by the discovery of a large, conical stone mortar for pounding immediately south of EB structure 1. Pieces of two circular grinding stones (T1604 and T1624) for domestic use were also found in destruction context 348 in trench XC-02 (Appendix 2, XC-02, BEM unit 25 context 348).198 This context was located along the west wall of EB structure 3 in BEM unit 25, where a large terracotta basin was also found, set in an earth floor laid over the demolished remains of an earlier wall. A basalt mortar (SF8261), probably for grinding foodstuffs, was found in the destruction in XE-08 (BEM unit 19) context 313 (see Appendix 2). Interestingly, no permanent hearths associated with the final phase of occupation were identified in the former winery buildings. All these structures were devastated by intense fires that left deep ash and debris layers in their interiors, and so it is possible that any domestic hearths escaped the notice of the excavators. Large assemblages of domestic pottery were noted in these destruction contexts (see generally Appendix 2). These assemblages offer a good profile of domestic pottery of the early 9th century, with cooking pots, plain wares, and Red Painted Ware jugs forming the bulk of the shapes represented century (see below Chapter 2). A typical assemblage (trench XB-02 context 69) was discovered inside BEM unit 8, a small rectangular addition to BEM unit 6 (see Appendix 2). This unit was found to contain an assemblage of domestic table and cooking wares, comprising at least seven cooking pots, three Red Painted Ware jugs, and at least one plain ware jug. A copper alloy flagon (SF4498) was also found with this assemblage.199 All of the pottery vessels were badly burned, but the broken pieces could be mended to form near complete vessels. The interpretation of BEM unit 6/8 as a two-storey building suggests that these vessels and other finds in fact fell from the upper storey during the building’s destruction and collapse. If so, then perhaps this assemblage was stored on shelves in BEM unit 8, which can perhaps be interpreted as pantry or storeroom on the second floor.

The storage of foods on a smaller, domestic scale is evidenced by the discovery of small and medium-sized pithoi in use during the final occupation phase in the former winery buildings. These ceramic pithoi were discovered set or sunk in the surfaces of the earth floors in BEM units 3, 9, 19, 25, 29, and 41 (Fig. 1/6). Although no bread ovens were identified in the ruins, large-scale

198 Domestic grinding stones at Byzantine Amorium typi-

cally consisted of two circular, flattish stones, usually made of basalt that ground against one another by being pivoted on a central wooden dowel. The top stone was turned by means of a wooden handle inserted into a socket or a projecting stone handle. T1604 and T1624, together with other domestic grinding stones from Amorium were studied in 2002 by Yasemin Bozbey for her undergraduate thesis at the University of Anatolia, Eskişehir. 199 Lightfoot 2007, 282, figs. 12-13.

196 Lightfoot 2009a, 140, fig. 4. 197 Lightfoot 2009a, 142, fig. 8; Yaman 2010, 53-4 nos. 11-

26, pls. 6-9; KST 2010, 140, pl. 9; Koçyiğit 2010, 396, pl. 7. In the last publication Plate 5 has been duplicated as Plate 8; for the correct illustration of the iron chopper, see Lightfoot 2009a, fig. 4.

56

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Similar pottery assemblages were found in destructions inside BEM units 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (see below Chapter 2, page 153-8). The range of vessels recovered infers food preparation and cooking, and so the existence of kitchen areas in some of these rooms. The safest areas to carry out these activities would be on the ground level but, in the case of BEM unit 6, one must also consider whether some food preparation did take place upstairs in the residential quarters. The discovery of expensive copper table vessels associated with the domestic pottery wares in these destructions further indicates some measure of the prosperity enjoyed by residents of the Enclosure district in the early 9th century. Reference has already been made to the copper flagon (SF4498) discovered in the destruction context 69 (XB-02) in BEM unit 8. A large, tinned copper basin (SF5707) with two handles was found in the destruction layers inside BEM unit 14 (Appendix 2, trench XC-03 East, BEM unit 14, contexts 444/448 and 451; Appendix 4 no. 20), and a smaller, fragmentary basin SF8524 was found in XB-03, BEM unit 10 destruction context 142 (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 4 no. 51).200 Mention should also be made of the presence of glass tableware found in the destruction layers. Study of the glass from the Enclosure excavations is ongoing, but of particular interest are fragments of reddish dichroic glass vessels found in destruction contexts on the floor of BEM unit 5 (Appendix 2, XB-00, BEM unit 5 context 30), and in the tepidarium of the bathhouse (XC-02 context 325).201 Also found with the copper tinned basin (SF5707) in XE-03 East BEM unit 14 were two pairs of iron folding legs for stools or tables (SF5696 and 5699; Appendix 4 nos. 18-19), fragments of bone appliqués (SF5650A-B and SF5651A-B, Appendix 4 nos. 14 and 15; see below Chapter 8, page 264 nos. 4-5), an inscribed ivory (?) handle (SF5668; see below Chapter 8, page 266 no. 31), and four bone gaming counters (SF5648 A-D; see below Chapter 9, page 280 no. 16).202 A bronze discoid weight (SF5757, Appendix 4 no. 22; see below Chapter 11, page 381 no. 6) and an iron stylus (SF6249, Appendix 4 no. 24) were also found in the contiguous destruction context 487 in BEM unit 14 (see Appendix 2). These diverse

objects – all from the same room – speak of a wealth of personal possessions for dining, work, and leisure. Also found with the above objects in XC-03 East BEM unit 14, (destruction context 451) were two bone objects, possibly needlework prickers (SF5649A-B, Appendix 4 no. 13; see below Chapter 8, page 265 no. 19). These objects hint at the work and residence of women, as does another bone object, possibly a diz, a tool used in weaving, that was found in XD-00 BEM unit 5 in destruction context 30 on the floor (SF3946; Appendix 2, XD-00; Appendix 4 no. 1, and see below Chapter 8, pages 267-8 no. 48). Another such object was a spindle whorl (SF6529) found in the destruction XE-05 context 54 in alley BEM unit 44 (Appendix 4 no. 30). Exotic imports and objects of personal adornment found in the destructions, such as a Baltic amber pendant fragment (Appendix 2, XE-04, BEM unit 13 context 15, SF6397; Appendix 4 no. 26; and see below Chapter 16, page 451) and a gold, pearl, and emerald pendant or earring fragment (Appendix 2, XE-04 and XE-05, BEM unit 33 context 44, SF6507; Appendix 4 no. 28).203 These finds hint at the presence of wealthier women, and also point to the far-flung connections and long-distance trade routes that brought these objects to Amorium in the early 9th century. Further proof of trade in the early 9th century was found in trenches XC-02 East/XC-02 grid square F11/a-10, where a cut glass bowl or bottle, possibly an import from the Abbasid Caliphate, was found in the destruction context 15 over the floor context 21 of BEM unit 45 (see Appendix 2, below, XC-02 East).204 There is even tantalising evidence for commercial activity in the area, inferred by the discovery of the bronze weight (SF5757, mentioned above) found in the alley BEM unit 36, and the fragment of a steelyard (SF6913, Appendix 4 no. 36, and see below Chapter 11, page 382 no. 12), found in a destruction in XE-05 BEM unit 18 context 95 (see Appendix 2 below). BEM unit 18, which fronted the street, could conceivably have served as a 203 Lightfoot 2009a, 140, fig. 3; for a colour picture of the

earring/pendant fragment, see Lightfoot 2010b, 298, fig. 7. The possible ivory handle (SF5668) is another indication of wealth and trading connections; see Lightfoot 2007, 275, fig. 4. For the Baltic origin of the amber bead, see idem, 275-6, with Chapter 16 below. 204 For the cut glass bottle or bowl, see Lightfoot 2005, 175, and n. 10, figs. 2-3. SF4441, a follis of Nicephorus I (802–811), was found in floor context 21 of BEM unit 45, trench XC-02 East (F11/a-10). Destruction context 15 is probably a continuation of nearby destruction context 10 which contained SF4421, a coin of Leo V (813-820); see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 no. 4.

200 For the tinned copper basin, see DOP 2007, 358-362, figs.

201 202

10-11, 12 (showing the basin and other objects in situ in the destruction context in BEM unit 14). Lightfoot 2005, 178-79, and discussion in Amorium 1, 256-8. KST 2005, 250, fig. 1 and pl. 2; DOP 2007, 358, 360-1, fig. 12 (basin and iron frames in situ) and fig. 13 (gaming counters).

57

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

and thus predates the construction of the Enclosure and its associated structures. Furthermore, BEM unit 17 was created by the construction of BEM unit 1, and so the earliest associated occupation cannot now be dated before the 7th century.

public (or private) granary, stockpiling and perhaps even selling the dry foodstuffs stored in the giant pithoi that had been installed in former installations E and F. The last years of the early mediaeval period at the Enclosure also witnessed small-scale industrial activity. This was concentrated in BEM unit 17, which had been converted into a glass-working area, and possibly in the service area of the baths praefurnium, located immediately to the north (Fig. 1/6).205 BEM unit 17 was excavated in two campaigns; in 1998 in trench XC-98, when the glass workshop was first discovered, and in 2001 in trench XC-01, when the area was fully excavated; later still part of this area fell within trench XC-05 (Fig. 1/9). These remains were designated as ‘Stratum III’ in the preliminary report on the 1998 season, when it was proposed that ‘in Stratum III the public function of the area is replaced with localised industrial, and possibly, domestic activity.’206 This assessment has been confirmed by subsequent discoveries, but it now seems less likely that the early mediaeval occupation can be categorised as having a ‘public function.’ As regards dating, the 1998 season report argued that, ‘since it lies beneath the last stage of the site’s occupation in the late eleventh century, Stratum III can probably be dated somewhere between the middle of the tenth and the early eleventh century.’207 In assuming that the workshop in BEM unit 17 dated to the time of the use of the middle Byzantine Enclosure, the same preliminary report went on to suggest that, ‘[craftsmen] worked under state supervision, using buildings that were still owned by the state but that were now “surplus to requirements” …it is hard to believe that the conversion of the principal structures within the Lower City enclosure was carried out without the permission or acquiescence of the imperial authorities.’208 A reconsideration of the area’s stratigraphy and relative chronology has proved that this dating is a century too late, and so these hypotheses can be regarded as redundant (Fig. 1/29). ‘Stratum III’ can now be re-dated to the late 8th and early 9th centuries

BEM unit 17 occupied the narrow space between the south wall of the service area of the baths praefurnium and the north wall of BEM unit 1 (Pl. 1/25). The surrounding masonry walls would have offered some protection against the spread of fire. Analysis of the stratigraphy revealed destructions in XC-98, BEM unit 17, contexts 76 and 85 sealing the early mediaeval occupation (Appendix 2, XC-98; Fig. 1/29). XC-98 contexts 76 and 85 contained ashes, roof tiles, bricks, and decomposed mud brick, implying some form of superstructure and roofing over BEM unit 17. However, given that BEM unit 17 was little more than an irregular passage between neighbouring buildings, a permanent roof would have proven difficult to install, perhaps suggesting the existence of some kind of makeshift wooden shelter. Likewise, the survival of considerable expanses of mortar rendering on its interior walls suggests that the area was protected from the elements (Pl. 1/26). The XC-01 excavations inside BEM unit 17 revealed a succession of floor surfaces, work areas and dumped industrial waste that had accumulated over an extended period of time. The earliest earth floor (XC-01 context 220) supported a square hearth platform (XC-01 context 178) built of bricks, stones, and mud brick that was set into the north-eastern corner beside the praefurnium. The hearth was some 0.23 m. high and around it was found a succession of overlapping layers of ash, earth, crumbled mortar, and glassy slag. These layers probably accumulated over an extended period of time during, and even after, the hearth was in operation. Some layers may represent work dumps or earth floors that were laid down periodically.209 Over the site of the hearth was found a deep deposit of concentrated ash, glassy slag, and glass fragments, along with the occasional brick and roof tile (XC-01 context 165). It seems likely that this was the fill of a pit dug through the last earth floor laid in BEM unit 17, XC-01 context 167. Context

205 Lightfoot 2007, 283. 206 DOP 2001, 389.

207 Idem, 388-9. The service area of the western praefurnium

209 Fig. 1/29, XC-01 contexts in approximate stratigraphic

was not fully excavated in 1998 and so its true identity was not then recognised. Consequently, the preliminary report refers to the area as ‘Stratum III/NW’ and regards it as part of ‘an area of small-scale workshops.’ 208 Idem, 394; this statement was made when it was assumed that the workshop belonged to the period after the construction of the Enclosure complex.

succession: 220 (earth floor), 180 (ash), 179 (earth), 221 and 222 (gravel, mortar, stones), 174 (ash), 177 (earth floor), 173 (pit fill cut though 177), 176 (dump fill; earth, bricks), 172 (gray-green slag), 171 (ash), 168 (dump fill; pottery, brick, tile), 170 (earth layer), 167 (earth floor; pottery, brick, tile).

58

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

brick, pithos, and stone fragments, mixed with earth, ash, and the occasional slag fragment. Large fragments of vitreous slag were found on top of this pit.214 Further detailed study of the finds from BEM unit 17 should shed valuable light on the Amorium glass industry in the early 9th century.

167, together with its associated features and deposits of industrial waste, were first uncovered in 1998, but their excavation was not completed at that time. In 1998, a semicircular concentration of gray-green glassy slag, bricks, and stones was discovered (XC-98 context 92), measuring some 0.90 m. in diameter, located beside the north wall of BEM unit 1. It was then conjectured that this deposit was a ‘working hearth’ on the surface of the floor. A square stone platform, found near the center of the room, had glassy slag adhering to its surface, probably from glass working. Two more dumps of gray-green glassy slag and production waste were found on the east side of the room in XC-98 contexts 95 and 98.210 Continued excavation in 2001 uncovered further piles of glassy slag, glass waste, and ash, scattered across the earth floor (XC-01 contexts 163, 164, and 169). These finds and installations show that at the close of the period, BEM unit 17 functioned as a glass workshop, and although it probably operated only on a small-scale, it is the first such workshop to be excavated at Amorium, and the first identified from the so-called ‘dark age’ period in Byzantine Anatolia.211

To conclude: by the first decades of the 9th century, therefore, the economic and social profile of the Enclosure area had changed. These changes could have been in train as early as the late 8th century, but they certainly were well established before the final destruction, a terminus ante quem for which can be placed during the reign of the emperor Theophilus (829–842) (see sections (ix)-(xi). below). To judge from the evidence, these developments were probably incremental and were occasioned by the end of winemaking in the neighbourhood. This shift from large-scale wine production to more diversified, smaller-scale activities at the Enclosure was a significant development for the neighbourhood, but one cannot generalize from this sample to argue for the end of winemaking at Amorium altogether. At the moment, there is no reason to believe that wine production ceased at Amorium by the early 9th century, especially since vessels such as ewers and jugs that could be used for wine are found in abundance at the site. Recent analyses of pollen from lake beds in Cappadocia and field survey have indicated a severe decline of olive cultivation (and viticulture) in some regions of central Anatolia during the late 7th and 8th centuries. John Haldon has convincingly linked these developments to the devastations and instability brought by the Arab invasions, and to Byzantine economic responses to these crises.215 In the absence of similar pollen sampling around Amorium, however, it cannot be proven that viticulture was in decline in the region during the 8th and 9th centuries, although logically the frequency of Arab attacks on the city and region must have had an impact on local agriculture. Further survey work is needed to relate these findings at the Enclosure to the city at large and to its region.

The glass objects produced in BEM unit 17 appear to have been made, at least in part, by recycling glass, since a concentration of window pane fragments was found beside the hearth. Study of this material in 2008 demonstrated that some of this window glass was clipped into geometric and zoomorphic shapes, perhaps to be used as inlays in wooden furniture.212 An intact miniature glass flask was found in the rubble of destruction context 76 inside BEM unit 17, as was a ‘wine glass’ base from a dichroic glass vessel (a goblet?), but it is not yet known if these vessels were also products of the workshop (see Appendix 2).213 Finds from the adjacent service area may indicate a working relationship between the workshop in BEM unit 17 and the baths praefurnium itself. The service area was located immediately west of the praefurnium arch and so gave direct access to its furnace. Dense concentrations of ash found here most probably derive from the use of the baths, but the area also produced deposits of vitreous slag. A rubbish pit (XC-98 context 23) had been dug into the beaten earth floor of the service area and had been filled with 210 DOP 2001, 388. 211 Glass production at Amorium had been inferred from

The archaeological evidence indicates that the former winery buildings at the Enclosure site were converted to various new uses before the time of their destruction. The causes of these changes can only be guessed at, but most of the former winery buildings were converted

212

214 DOP 2001, 388-9. 215 England, Eastwood, Roberts, Turner, and Haldon 2008,

213

finds for some time; see Amorium 1, 105, 263-4; Lightfoot 2005. Courtesy of Yvonne Stolz, personal communication. Amorium 1, 254-5; Lightfoot 2005, 174, fig. 1.

1240-43; Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 462 and n. 20.

59

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

into domestic residences that combined accommodation and workspaces. Some of the ground floor units were used for storage, food preparation, and, possibly, even small-scale crop processing. Other units (BEM units 6, 10, 19, 26) probably served as private stables for domesticated animals. In the two-storey units 19 and 6 animals were housed on the lower floor, with people living on the upper floor. Close connections clearly existed between this urban lifestyle and the local agrarian economy, as has been found at other mediaeval Byzantine sites, but there is also evidence for material wealth and imported goods. The existence of the occasional commercial outlet in the area cannot be excluded, and a small glass workshop was established in BEM unit 17 next to the western praefurnium of the bathhouse. Local amenities were maintained and even renewed: the bathhouse had been restored and refurbished recently and continued to function until the very end of the period. At first glance, the restoration of the Amorium bathhouse with recycled building materials could be taken to imply shoddy or poorly-funded work, but this observation needs to be put into perspective. All building projects dated to this period, even those in Constantinople, made extensive use of spolia. The restoration of the bathhouse could, perhaps, better be interpreted as evidence of urban renewal, and signs of investment and economic resurgence.216 There is also no reason to suppose that the chapel had passed out of use. The diversification of the economy of the district may imply a more diverse social profile of inhabitants, pursuing a broader range of economic activities and lifestyles. From the finds, residents included working men and women, presumably living in family households, and thus also possibly raising children, living in close proximity to artisans, agricultural workers, and domesticated animals. This more diverse social profile, combined with the dense groupings of buildings, could suggest a greater density of permanent residents in this final phase. Certainly, the finds caught up in the destruction of the area are suggestive of private wealth, although the ‘snap-shot’ nature of the evidence makes it difficult to argue for a relative increase in private wealth in this period without a basis for prior comparison. To date, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that the city experienced an economic stimulus with the accession of the native Amorian dynasty to power in

820.217 Nonetheless, the impression is one of stability, with capital investment, economic and social diversity, and to judge from the material culture, relative prosperity with access to local and international markets.

216 Laiou and Morrisson 2007, 44-7, propose that economic

217 As asserted by Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 541. 218 See, for example, KST 2007, pl. 6; Lightfoot 2007, fig. 10;

(ix). The End of the Byzantine Early Mediaeval Period

When work at the Enclosure began in 1996, it soon became apparent to the excavators that a major dislocation in the occupational history of the area had occurred between the so-called ‘dark age’ and the middle Byzantine period. The comprehensive scale of this dislocation became clearer as the excavations progressed. In effect, the Enclosure wall and all the middle Byzantine structures had been built over the remains of the early mediaeval city on a completely different layout that reused the ruins of earlier epochs only selectively. Ample evidence for a major upheaval that could have precipitated this break soon came to light. The latest early mediaeval floors and street surfaces throughout the excavations were found to be covered with layers that were evidently the result of fiery destruction, followed by structural collapse and abandonment (see below, Appendix 2). Typically, the lowest layers consisted of substantial quantities of ash, charred wooden beams, and heavy concentrations of terracotta roof tiles, which had collapsed into and around the structures.218 The destruction contexts were undisturbed, lying mingled with and sealed by a thick, homogenous layer of orange-brown clay, which upon excavation proved to be largely sterile. The layer appears to be derived from eroded, unbaked mud bricks from structural walls. This hypothesis was confirmed by the subsequent recovery from these contexts of numerous intact mud bricks (Pl. 1/11). Mixed in with the mud brick were stones fallen from the walls of structures and some terracotta roof tiles. The layer can thus be interpreted as representing the gradual collapse and erosion of ruined structures following their partial destruction by fire. Above these contexts was encountered a series of thin lenses, usually comprising silt-like soil, pebbles, and small detritus, suggestive of washed-in deposits. Their composition indicates that they were deposited gradually over time, probably as a result of natural processes of erosion and deposition by rain and wind. By inference, then, it could be assumed that these lenses represented a period when the area

growth revived in Byzantium in the 8 century; see also Brubaker and Haldon 2011, 561-2. th

DOP 370, fig. 22.

60

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

was left unoccupied. This succession of layers (destruction, collapse, and abandonment) has been encountered throughout the excavations in the Enclosure, constituting a major feature in the archaeology of the area (see Appendix 2).

occupation above. This sequence of destruction horizon and abandonment layers is also visible in the sections at the edges of the trenches, showing that they continue into the surrounding unexcavated areas. Clearly, the full extent of this destruction horizon has yet to be revealed. In 2006, for example, the same stratigraphic sequence of layers of mud brick, roof tile, rubble and ash from burning was discovered immediately below the middle Byzantine occupation in Trench XO-06, thus raising the possibility that the destruction horizon continues unbroken into the northern half of the Enclosure area as well (see Appendix 2, XO-06 contexts 11-12).

The discovery of the destruction contexts prompted inevitable questions as to their date and significance. The first preliminary publications were suitably cautious in identifying the cause of the catastrophe, especially since the excavated area was then relatively small and comprehensive studies of the stratigraphy, architecture, pottery, and small finds had not yet been carried out. Coin finds from the destruction contexts were, however, highly suggestive. As can be seen from Appendix 3 below, the latest coins found in several of the contexts belong to the reigns of the Amorian emperors Michael II and Theophilus, covering the years 820–842. Consequently, the excavators tentatively proposed that the destruction contexts might be identified as ones pertaining to the sack of Amorium as a result of its fall to the Arabs on August 12, 838. This interpretation has proven contentious for some scholars, principally on the grounds that too small a sample had then been excavated and published.219 The following discussion seeks to provide an overview of all the available data gathered between 1996 and 2006 and to weigh the evidence for the date and significance of the destruction contexts. This evidence now constitutes a considerable body of data that relates to an excavation area of over 2,100 square metres within the Enclosure.

On the basis of these facts, one may reasonably conclude that a single, massive destructive event engulfed the entire excavated area and its environs. The sudden, fire-related nature of the event is amply confirmed by the destruction contexts themselves; these thick, ashy layers can only be interpreted as resulting from an intense conflagration that consumed everything in the vicinity. The only areas spared the devastation of the flames were some unroofed open areas, such as passages and courtyards. Courtyard BEM units 30-31 contained relatively few contexts that could be identified as destruction contexts, such as areas of decomposed mud brick (XC-98 contexts 77 and 74) or in the south east corner (contexts 129, 123 and 112). Even the street excavated in trench XE-05 and XE-08 Street was found to be covered with charred debris that had evidently fallen from the roofs of adjacent buildings during the blaze (Appendix 2, XE-05 and XE-08 Street; Fig. 1/36 and Pl. 1/32).220 The same was true of the small courtyards and alleys in trenches XE-04 and XE-05 designated BEM units 32, 33, and 36, where portions of tiled roofs and burned timbers had fallen from the surrounding buildings (Appendix 2; Figs. 1/22 and 1/35; Pl. 1/31a). The intensity of the fires can be appreciated from evidence for the severe scorching of earth floor surfaces and the charring of stonework throughout the Enclosure area. This was dramatically illustrated by the thick layers of ash, charred wood, and fallen roof tiles found on the floors of BEM units 5-11, 12, 13-14, 1820, 21 (the Chapel), 24-26, 28, 29 42 and 43 (see generally Appendix 2; and for illustration see Pls. 1/21, 1/27,

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the extent and nature of the destruction contexts. First, as the excavations progressed, it became clear that these contexts were not isolated, small-scale features that could be attributed to a range of causes, but rather they constituted a single destruction horizon that had enveloped the entire excavated area of the Enclosure. This was evident from contiguous destruction contexts that could be followed from the older into newly excavated areas, from transverse sections; from the fact that these layers were always encountered at the same point in the stratigraphic sequence and that they contained comparable assemblages of finds (see Appendix 2). These observations also held true for the abandonment layers above the destruction contexts, sealing the early mediaeval floor and street levels and marking a definitive break between them and the middle Byzantine

220 KST 2007, 278, pl. 6. Proof is provided by the upper half

of a marble column (T2018) found in collapsed debris in the street (trench XE-05 context 85). The lower, joining half of the column (T2093) was excavated in adjacent BEM unit 13 (trench XE-06 context 114, associated with SF7548, a follis of Michael II, class 2, dated 821–29).

219 Brubaker and Haldon 2001, 148.

61

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

1/30, and 1/33a).221 In BEM units 6, for instance, the stone bases for wooden posts and the limestone troughs were severely calcined and even fractured by the heat of the fire (Pl. 1/27). Calcinations and fractures caused by the fire were also evident on the troughs in BEM unit 26/27 (Pl. 1/24). Few traces of a fire-related destruction were found in some of the rooms of EB structure 1, but this could be partly explained by the existence of fireproof masonry vaulting in the bathhouse. The mortar surfaces and marble pavements in rooms F1, F2, V, and La were found covered with fallen debris and accumulated fills, some of which contained ash.222 In the tepidarium and caldarium, thick ash layers were found in the basements on the floors of the hypocausts, but they must derive from the working of the bathhouse. These dense layers were buried and partly disturbed by the collapse of the suspended pavements above.223 More shallow destruction layers were found in room L (the so-called sudatorium).224 The few finds that can be associated with these destruction layers do point to an abandonment and collapse after the early 9th century however. The most significant is a copper follis of Michael II (SF4182, class 3, dated 821–829), one of a group of coins that was found on a preserved floor surface in the frigidarium (Appendix 3 no. 2, context 213). A small group of intact and semi-intact pottery vessels datable to the late 8th–early 9th century was found in the collapsed hypocaust of the caldarium.225 Some traces of a fiery destruction were found in BEM unit 17, which was buried by layers of decomposed mud brick and fallen masonry mixed with churned up slag from the glass workshop (Fig. 1/29 contexts 76 and 85).

inside the buildings. Representative groups of pottery found in the destructions over the floors of BEM units 9, 10, 11, and in courtyard 31 (trench XB-03) have been the subject of detailed study (see below Chapter 2). As Chapter 2 concludes, the presence of the same types of pottery in these assemblages offers conclusive proof of the contemporaneous nature of the destructions, which even contained joining pieces of the same vessels scattered in different areas (see below Chapter 2, page 157 no. 44).226 The same conclusion can be drawn from a more wide-ranging study of late 8th–early 9th century wares at Amorium.227 The completeness of these assemblages also attests to the abrupt end of the occupation, which saw entire households consumed by the flames, including the grain that had been stored in installations C and E.228 Mention has already been made of an assemblage of intact and broken pottery vessels was also found in destruction context 215 in the bathhouse, mingled with debris from the suspended pavement in the hypocaust of the caldarium.229 One should also recall the discovery of a ‘wine glass’ base of a dichroic glass vessel and an intact miniature glass flask in the rubble of destruction context 76 in BEM unit 17 (see Appendix 2).230 The discovery of valuable objects in the destruction layers is also highly unusual and significant, especially since they were found in groups inside buildings as well as outside in streets and alleys. Some sixty individual small find (SF) objects (and object groups) have been inventoried from the destruction contexts (see Appendix 4), but the number is probably higher, due to the fact that un-inventoried metalwork, such as iron nails, other iron objects, and fragments of copper or iron, regularly appear in the contexts and site records. Those small find objects that have been inventoried are of astonishing variety and richness, with particular BEM units containing groups of artefacts. For example, in trench XC-03 East, BEM unit 14 contained destruction contexts 444/448, 451, and 487 of roof tiles,

Reference has already been made to the large assemblages of domestic pottery found in the destruction layers 221 For example, KST 2005, 251-2, pl. 6 (BEM unit 10 context

142); for destruction contexts in XB-03 see DOP 2007, 370-71, figs. 22 (section), 22-24 (coin SF6412 of Michael II and Theophilus; for destruction contexts in XE-05, see Lightfoot 2007, 280, fig. 10. 222 XC-02 destruction/abandonment contexts 214, 213, 216 (F1); 157 = 158 (F2); 212, 205 (La); 219 (V). No evidence for a fire-related destruction was found in EB structure 3, probably for the same reasons; DOP 2001, 358. 223 XC-02 upper destruction/pavement collapse contexts: 325 (room T), 306 (passage between rooms T and C), 312 (room C); thick ash layers on hypocaust floors: contexts 332 (under 325) and 357 (under 312). 224 XC-02 contexts 375, 366, and 365. 225 DOP 2004, 360, fig. 6; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 364-5, fig. 16.1.

226 For example, trench XB-03 contexts 142 (BEM unit 10,

227 228 229 230

62

associated with SF5702, a follis of either Michael II or Theophilus) and 122 (BEM unit 31) produced two joining pieces of the same unglazed chaffing dish. I am grateful to Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan for this information. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 345-71. KST 2007, 275-6, pl. 4 (charred grain in installation C); KST 2008, 450 (charred barley in installation E). DOP 2004, 360, fig. 6. Amorium 1, 254-5; Lightfoot 2005, 174, fig. 1.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

thick ash and mud brick (Appendix 2 and Fig. 1/32). Amongst the collapsed roof tiles and burned timbers fallen from the roof were found some twelve SF inventoried objects discussed in section (viii) above, including the copper basin, the two folding stools or tables, the gaming counters, the ivory knife handle, the bone prickers, the iron stylus, and the bronze weight (Appendix 4 nos. 12-20 and 22-24). Nearby, in BEM unit 45, a valuable cut glass bottle or bowl, probably imported from the Islamic world, was also lost in the destruction.231 In trench XE-04, reopened in 2005 in the alley designated BEM unit 33, destruction context 44 (same as context 54) contained equally exceptional objects (see section (viii) above and Appendix 2, XE04; Figs. 1/23 and 1/35). These finds were the gold earring or pendant fragment (SF6507) made of gold and set with pearls and an emerald bead, and an undecorated copper alloy incense burner or censer (SF6512) (Appendix 4 nos. 28-29 and Pl. 1/31a-b). The incense burner was circular in shape and lacked its suspension chains but upon discovery it still contained compacted ashes from its last use. It is perhaps worth noting that incense burners or thymiateria were not only used in churches as censers but were also to be found in houses and places of work.232 The Geoponica, for instance, recommended that the air in wineries be freshened with burning incense.233 Across the street, in XE-05 BEM unit 18 destruction context 95, a fragment of a valuable bronze steelyard (SF6913) was found in the destruction (Appendix 4 no. 36). This realisation, and the evident speed and comprehensive nature of the destruction, certainly points to an overwhelming event that gave residents no time to rescue their belongings from the conflagration. Indeed, the discovery of precious objects lying abandoned in alleyways, such as in BEM unit 33, could be suggestive either of attempted evacuation or of systematic looting.

XE-08 BEM unit 19 destruction context 301 (Appendix 2 and Fig. 1/38). Human bones are recorded as being found in in XC-02 BEM unit 21 (the Chapel), destruction context 327 (see Appendix 2). A human leg, comprising a femur, other leg bones, and part of a pelvis, was found in XE-06 BEM unit 20, in destruction context 267 (see Appendix 2 and Fig. 1/37). In trench XB-02 an articulated human skeleton (Fig. 1/25, XB-02 context 80) was found lying on the earth surface of BEM unit 31 just south of the wellhead. Above the skeleton was destruction context 54 of decomposed mud brick and stones. The significance of this find was not recognised at the time and the bones of this skeleton await future study, but its find-spot implies that this individual died in the destruction, and was buried by fallen walls. More recently, two articulated human skeletons were found in situ in the Enclosure in 2008, lying where they had died, buried beneath the burning debris of collapsing buildings. These two skeletons are the subject of a detailed analysis by Arzu Demirel (see below Chapter 12). The first victim, a female aged over 45 was found lying face down in courtyard XE-08, BEM unit 40 in destruction context 351, at the foot of the steps of BEM unit 19 (Appendix 2; Fig. 1/16 and below Pl. 12/1). Only the upper part of the body above the pelvis was preserved due to later disturbance. The woman had apparently been trying to fend off blows when she was dispatched by slashes from a bladed weapon across her forehead and face. The second victim, a male aged between 35 and 45, was completely preserved and undisturbed. The man lay sprawled on his back on the surface of the street in XE08 Street, context 407 (Appendix 2; Pl. 1/32 and below Pl. 12.2). His right hand was extended towards SF8315, a copper follis of Theophilus, class 1, dated 829–830/31 (Appendix 3 no. 18). Death was probably instantaneous; a sharp metal weapon had sliced through the back of the man’s skull all the way to the left side of his jaw.235 As with the female skeleton, the man’s wounds were consistent with a bladed weapon, probably a sword or sabre (see below Chapter 12). It is worth noting that a possible spear point (SF8331), once set on a wooden shaft was found close by the male skeleton in XE-08 Street (Appendix 2, XE-08 Street context 406; Appendix 4 no. 49). Iron knives have been found in the destruction layers, but it is more likely that these represent household tools rather than military weapons. Rather more formidable is the iron axe (SF6254 fragment 1, SF6353

The most dramatic evidence for the violent nature of the event, however, was the human remains found scattered in the destructions at the Enclosure, consisting of articulated arms and legs, and pieces of human skulls. Part of a human cranium was found in the bathhouse amongst collapsed debris of the suspended pavements in southern passage between the caldarium and tepidarium.234 Another human skull fragment was found in 231 Lightfoot 2005, 175, n. 10, figs. 2-3. 232 Katzev 1982, 267.

235 For preliminary reports on these dramatic discoveries,

233 Geoponica, 6.11 (page 207); ODB, 2200, 834 (Geoponika). 234 DOP 2005, 237, context 306.

see Lightfoot 2009b, 29, figs. 8-10; AnatArch 2008, 25-6; AnatArch 2009, 24 illus.

63

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

fragment 2) that was found in trench XB-03 in BEM unit 9. The axe was found in two joining pieces in destruction contexts 132 and 124 – another proof of the contemporaneity of the destruction contexts (Appendix 2 and Pl. 1/33a-b). Once set on a wooden haft, this iron axe head was T-shaped, with a curved, scimitar-like blade on one side and a sharp point on the other, topped by a spike. Similar weapons, dated to the 9th–11th century, have been excavated at Pliska in Bulgaria.236 The discovery of this weapon and the human remains provides conclusive proof of the violence and human tragedy that accompanied the destruction at the Enclosure.

issues of Theophilus (18 or 19 out of the 42).239 In addition, there are the coins found during the last three seasons (2007–2009), of which thirty-two examples have been identified as belonging to the Byzantine early mediaeval period. They include twenty-four coins spanning the reigns of Nicephorus I to Theophilus. To date therefore the relative frequency of coins from the first four decades of the 9th century found at Amorium can be calculated as 1.74 per year (66 ÷ 37), but for the period after 838 until the end of Leo VI’s reign in 912 this frequency drops to 0.21 per year (15 ÷ 71). The prevalence of coin finds at Amorium belonging to the years between 829 and 842 is therefore striking. This numismatic evidence should be taken into consideration as a significant indicator of general underlying trends and causes. The preponderance of issues of Theophilus may be explained in part by the surge in the production of coinage during his reign, but this would not account for the subsequent dip in coin finds that lasted into the 10th century. As we shall see, this decline must surely be related to a period of abandonment after the sack of Amorium in 838. The numbers of coins dating to the first four decades of the 9th century in contexts associated with the destruction layers at the Enclosure can only be seen as strengthening the argument that the layers have been correctly assigned to this period. Therefore, in terms of numismatic evidence, the destruction contexts at the Enclosure cannot be dated any earlier than the 830s and, by the same token, no coins later than the reign of Theophilus have been found in any of them.

(x). The Numismatic Evidence from the Destructions

The dating of the destructions at the Enclosure rests in part on the relative dating offered by the stratigraphy outlined above but also on the associated finds and, in particular, the numismatic evidence (Appendix 3). The dates and distribution of coins in destruction layers in the bathhouse and surrounding buildings can be taken as yet another indication that the Enclosure area was destroyed at a given moment in time (Appendix 2). Excluding much older, clearly residual coins, some thirty-five coins spanning the period ca. 802–842 have been recovered from the destruction layers at the Enclosure, twenty-four or twenty-five of which date to the reign of Theophilus (829–842). Seven of these are folles of class 1, minted between 829–830/1, whereas there is only one half follis of the new-style class 3. In addition, there are the sixteen examples of the otherwise rare class 2, issued to commemorate the coronation of Theophilus’ first son Constantine, who probably died in ca. 834/5.237 The latter group were all found in trench XE-08, scattered over the floor of BEM unit 41 (Fig. 1/39 XE-08 contexts 338, 343, and 347, hard earth floor surface). This data can be put in a broader context by comparison with 737 coins recovered from the entire site between 1987 and 2006, either from the excavations or as surface finds.238 Of these 108 have been identified as belonging to the period beginning with the reign of Constans II and the ending with that of Theophilus. A large proportion of the coins belong to the first four decades of the 9th century (42 out of the 108), and of these almost half are

(xi). Conclusion: The Enclosure Excavations and the Archaeology of Early Mediaeval Amorium

Significantly, the numismatic dating of the Enclosure destruction layers has been corroborated by associated pottery, coins, and small finds from similar destructions across the site. The repeated incidence of the same types of pottery wares in the destructions at the Lower City gateway, the Lower City church complex, and the Enclosure certainly argues for the contemporaneous nature of these contexts. Similarly, the distribution of excavated destructions across the site supports the impression of a city-wide phenomenon. The excavations at the triangular tower (trench AB) flanking the gateway on

236 Henning 2007, 680-1, nos. 105-108, pl. 9; see also Byzanz

2010, 290, no. 346 (found at Pergamum).

237 Lightfoot 2009a, 142, fig. 8; 2009b, 29; Lightfoot 2010c,

239 There are, by contrast, only 13 coins belonging to the pe-

especially 511. 238 A full catalogue, prepared by Chris Lightfoot, will appear in Amorium 4.

riod between the death of Theophilus and that of Leo VI, plus 2 more specimens found since 2006. I am grateful to Chris Lightfoot for these details.

64

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

the Lower City walls revealed it had been overwhelmed by a massive destruction that saw the burning and catastrophic collapse of the entire structure, followed by its abandonment.240 Iron weapons have recently been identified from the destruction, including spear points and arrowheads, perhaps attesting to the violent nature of this event. The latest coin from the triangular tower was SF1612, a follis of Theophilus, class 1 (from trench AB-92 context 150), while carbon-14 analysis of a charcoal sample provided a date of ca. 800. The coin clearly indicates a date no earlier than 829–830/1 for the tower’s destruction and the abandonment of the Lower City walls.241 A recent study of the pottery from the destruction in the triangular tower corroborates this dating since the same types of pottery are represented in both the tower and Enclosure destructions.242 To the rear of the gateway, in trench LC, more destroyed structures were discovered sealed beneath occupation of the 11th century. Here a small room that must have served as a storeroom or pantry was partially excavated. This room had been destroyed by fire and in the ashes a well-preserved assemblage of domestic pottery was found, along with coins of Nicephorus I (SF3775, dated 802–811) and Theophilus (SF3779, dated 829–830/1).243 Like the occupation at the Enclosure, the room in trench LC must therefore have been destroyed no earlier than the reign of Theophilus. Some of the vessel types from this room were also found in the destructions both at the nearby triangular tower and in the buildings at the Enclosure.244 Finally, excavations at the Lower City Church complex to the southwest of the Enclosure have shown that the first basilica on the site (phase 1) was destroyed by a fire that left ample traces on its surviving fabric. Due to later rebuilding efforts, no intact destruction layers were preserved within the building, but the new domed basilica (phase 2) that arose at the site provides a terminus ante quem for the destruction before the late 9th–early 10th century.245 Excavations of buildings on the north, south, and east sides of the church in 2008 and 2009, however, have now revealed extensive fire-related destruction

layers sealed beneath middle Byzantine features. Like at the Enclosure, these destructions lay beneath collapsed roof tiles and a thick layer of decomposed mud brick. Above these layers, and serving as a terminus ante quem for them, was a silver miliaresion (SF8346, trench A20 contexts 722 = 242) of Michael III (842–867), the only coin of Theophilus’s son and successor yet found at Amorium.246 Also found in the destruction layers at the Church complex were Amorium pottery characteristic of the early 9th century, together with a fragment of 9thcentury Constantinopolitan white fabric Petal Ware.247 Given that the destructions at the Lower City gateway and the Enclosure area itself can now be chronologically linked, a much stronger case can now be made for attributing the burning of the phase 1 basilica to the same destructive event. This accumulation of archaeological evidence from the Enclosure, the gateway, and the Lower City church points to a destruction in the reign of Theophilus that was widespread, synchronous, and devastating in effect. Given these facts, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these destruction contexts do indeed constitute archaeological evidence for a major historical event; namely, the destruction of Amorium by Arab forces in the year 838. The Byzantine and Arab textual sources closest in date to the sack of Amorium are the chronicles of Theophanes continuatus, composed between 913 and 959, and The History of Prophets and Kings by alTabari (839–923). The account of al-Tabari is particularly detailed and would appear to reflect his access to archival and even oral sources. It is generally agreed that the Byzantine and Arab chroniclers elaborated their accounts of the sack in order to serve rhetorical and propagandistic purposes, but the sources are in agreement in saying that Amorium was pillaged and burned, and that the surviving population was deported.248 It would thus appear that Amorium constitutes a rare case where archaeology is able to provide unanticipated confirmation of the historical record, highlighting in dramatic fashion the severity of the Arab attack and its aftermath. But what the Arabs destroyed, they also inadvertently preserved; at Amorium there is now an unrivalled opportunity to explore a city frozen in time at the moment of its destruction.

240 See Amorium 1, 11-13.

241 Amorium 1, 12-13; AnatSt 1994, 110-11, pl. XVIII(a). 242 Compare the pottery published in below Chapter 2 with

Böhlendorf 2007, 279-80.

243 Amorium 1, 12-13; DOP 2001, 380; trench LC6-98 con-

246 Yaman 2010, 54 no. 27, pl. 10; KST 2010, 136, fig. 6. 247 Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 368-9, fig. 18. 10.

text 19, follis, class 2, dated 802–811, and trench LC6-98 context 20, follis, class 1. 244 Compare the pottery published in below Chapter 2 with Böhlendorf 2007, 286-92. 245 Amorium 1, 14.

248 Theophanes continuatus, 126, 130-31; for an English

translation of the account of al-Tabari, see Bosworth 1991, 108-17.

65

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

10. Phase 4: Middle Byzantine, ca. 963–1100

the Lower City Church. Greater numbers of coins dating to the reigns of Basil I and Leo VI (dating between 867 and 912) have been found, but these amount to a meagre total of thirteen coins from the entire site. The coin finds only pick up again in the reign of Romanus I Lecapenus; there are 49 coin finds dating between start of Romanus’ reign in 920 and the end of that of John I Tzimiskes in 976, making for an average frequency of 0.875 coins per year.251 A case for the re-founding of the city as early as the 860s, or more likely, the 870s, can also be made from episcopal notitiae and conciliar records which attest the elevation of the bishopric of Amorium to the status of a metropolitan see, and the creation of a new ecclesiastical eparchy under its jurisdiction. Such a major ecclesiastical reorganization can perhaps be best understood as a response to the reconstruction of the city at this time, as attested in the archaeological record.252

Following the 838 destruction there is evidence for a period of abandonment at Amorium, which in the Enclosure area must have lasted for a considerable period. Additional confirmation of the abandonment of the ravaged city may be found in the relocation of the thematic administration, most probably to Polybotus (near modern Bolvadin), some 40 km. to the southwest of Amorium.249 Erosion by the elements gradually denuded and buried the ruined structures in the Enclosure area under layers of decayed mud brick and then up to 30 cm. of washed-in soil and detritus. All the constructions of the middle Byzantine period were built on top of this abandonment layer. In trench XE-05, the post-destruction collapse and abandonment layers (Fig. 1/35, XE-05 contexts 49, 53, and 42) lay over XE-05 context 50. Context 49 contained a follis of Basil I (SF6515, class 5, dated 869–870), confirming that these layers accumulated during the later 9th and early 10th centuries. The same may be said for trench XC-03 East, where the abandonment fill (Fig. 1/32, XC-03 East contexts 446 and 445) contained a follis of Leo VI (SF5638, class 1, dated 886–912). Another follis of Leo VI (SF 7271, class 3, also dated 886–912) was found in trench XE-06, context 219, a layer over the BEM destruction contexts 221 and 228, and under the floor context 207 of MB unit 28 (Fig. 1/37). A class 4 follis of Romanus I Lecapenus (SF 7332, dated 931–944) was found in XE-06 context 250 which formed the eastern portion of the surface of MB unit 41 (Fig. 1/37 and see section (ii) below). Thus, although it can now be shown that the Enclosure area itself was abandoned at this time, these coins also lend support to the hypothesis that the refoundation of Amorium on the old Upper City took place during the early Macedonian dynasty, and support the view that the foundation of the Enclosure complex can certainly be placed later than the first half of the 10th century (see section (viii). below).250 The argument that the site of Amorium was re-occupied and rebuilt in the later 9th and early 10th centuries are supported by tabulations of coin finds at Amorium up to 2007, showing that the quantity of finds dated from the decades after 838/842 is much reduced. As mentioned above, to date only a single coin of Michael III (SF8346) has been found at Amorium in layers post-dating the 838 destruction at

(i). The Construction of the Enclosure Walls

From the outset of the excavations it was clear that the building of the Enclosure walls marked the start of a new phase in the history of the area. The 1998 preliminary report noted that, ‘…the enclosure wall postdates the eighth-century occupation associated with the troughs [Stratum III], and its construction marked a radical departure from the previous urban pattern. No precise date is yet fixed for the fortified complex, but its construction certainly stamped a new identity on this part of the Lower City. The extensive nature of this transformation may even imply that the enclosure was built following the sack of 838…’253 Subsequent excavation has confirmed these early observations and has allowed for more precise dating of the Enclosure complex. The earliest datable structures from the middle Byzantine period are the Enclosure walls themselves, here designated walls 40 (south), 170 (west), 171 (north), and 172 (east) (Fig. 1/2). The lines of the walls forming the Enclosure are not straight, hence its peculiar ‘axe-shaped’ or trapezoidal plan, tapering from north to south and enclosing an area of 12,327 square metres. The northern wall 171 measures 146.70 m. from its outer corners, while the southern wall measures only 101.40 m. Across its central axis the Enclosure’s dimensions are more consistent, measuring 110.40 m. north-south and 111 m. east-west. The southern wall 40 has been fully exposed 251 I am grateful to Chris Lightfoot for these numismatic

statistics.

249 Belke and Mersich 1990, 93; Treadgold 1997, 573. 250 Ivison 2000, 14-18.

252 Ivison 2010, 326-7. 253 DOP 2001, 386.

66

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

and has a pronounced ‘bend’ midway along its length. Recent survey work has shown that the same is true of the other three walls 170, 171, and 172, all of which have angled turns along their courses. Such consistency suggests that either the architects were adjusting the plan to take account of the existing topography or that they were deliberately bending the wall so as to improve visibility from the parapet and thus its defensive capabilities. In terms of size the Enclosure Wall is still a substantial rampart. The south wall 40 measures ca. 2.35 m. thick and still stands at one point to a height of 3.50 m. above its stepped foundation (Pl. 1/34). The north wall 171 measures 2.27 m. thick, while the east wall 172 is on average some 2.37-2.40 m. thick. Exceptionally, the west wall 170 measures ca. 2.60 m. in thickness beside the postern gate excavated in Trench XO-06.

Once the foundation trench was dug, cutting through the ruins beneath, the facing of the foundation was built up against the face of the cut; no additional foundation trenches have been discovered running outside the foundation. The faces of the Enclosure walls were built with stone blocks and architectural spolia that must have been looted from the ruined Lower City. Spolia observed in its fabric include column shafts, laid through the thickness of the wall, limestone, basalt, and marble blocks of all sizes, and fragments of thresholds and column capitals. The larger spolia blocks were used in the foundations and lower courses of the wall face, while smaller blocks were newly prepared for the upper superstructure. These blocks were laid in courses, but their levelling was approximate and was occasionally interrupted by larger-sized blocks. Conservation of a section of the foundations of wall 40 in trench XE-04 in 2009 revealed that its core was not mortared but was filled with broken stones, brick fragments, and other debris mixed in an earth matrix.255 Presumably the massive breadth of the wall foundation and the bracing provided by the foundation trench were considered sufficient to prevent subsidence. The superstructure above ground was constructed in a similar manner but had a mortared rubble core and mortar pointing on the exterior. There is no evidence in the surviving fabric excavated to date for brick courses, although fragments of brick and tile were inserted as packing between stones.

The construction of the Enclosure walls must have entailed the digging of massive foundation trenches across the area. Excavation revealed that the foundations of Enclosure wall 40 ran over the ruins of earlier structures in total disregard for the previous urban layout (Fig. 1/3). Prominent ruins in the path of the Enclosure walls must have been partially demolished and probably provided stones for its construction. The lowest course of these foundations rested upon and cut into the destruction horizons. This effect is particularly striking in trenches XC-05, XA1-2, XD-00, XA-01, XA-96, and XB-96, where buried structures were effectively bisected (Fig. 1/9). In trench XE-05, the Enclosure wall overlies the 9th-century street surface, thus giving the dramatic impression of a dead end (Pl. 1/32). In trench XE-06, the Enclosure wall not only ran over the earlier ruins, but even sliced through early mediaeval pithoi (XE-06 contexts 224 and 245) that were in its path. In terms of design, the Enclosure Wall was built broader at its foundations than in its superstructure, producing a characteristic ‘step,’ which marks the transition to the upper part of the wall (Pl. 1/34). Speculation about whether this feature marked two separate phases of construction can now be definitely excluded.254 Not only is there no observable change in construction between the lower and upper faces of the wall, but it is also clear that the stepped foundation, and a slight inclination in the face of the wall, enables it to bear the tremendous weight of the superstructure. The ‘step’ indicates the approximate level of the ground surface at the time of construction.

The Enclosure walls do not survive to anything like their original height. Indeed, considerable quantities of masonry fallen from the upper portions had to be removed from the various trenches at its foot before an archaeological surface could be reached. An original height of 10-12 metres above the ground would not be an unreasonable conjecture, given the known thicknesses of the Enclosure walls at their base.256 The thickness of the surviving superstructure of the Enclosure could easily accommodate a parapet and walkway, which would be necessary to defend and patrol the wall. Stairs on the interior of the Enclosure wall must have led up to a parapet walk but, to date, no remains of stone staircases attached to the interior of the Enclosure wall have been identified. A logical conjecture would be that wooden staircases, which leave little to no archaeological 255 KST 2011, 55-6. 256 Elderly villagers have variously reported seeing parts of

254 This mistaken view was expressed in an early prelimi-

this wall still standing ‘to a considerable height’ when they were young. Sadly, no early photographs of this part of the site have yet been traced.

nary report; DOP 1998, 327-8. For the new interpretation see DOP 2007, 368-70.

67

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

traces, could have been built against the inner faces of the Enclosure walls. More puzzling still is the absence of any projecting towers along the line of the walls or at their corners (Fig. 1/2), in marked contrast to the middle Byzantine defensive wall of the Upper City.257 Another unusual characteristic is the absence of an access gate in wall 40, which formed the southern side of the Enclosure enceinte (Fig. 1/7). The discovery of contemporary buildings within the Enclosure, however, proved that at least one access gate must have existed. Cleaning and surface survey along the other Enclosure walls 170, 171, and 172 in 2006 sought to locate these gates. Fieldwork along the middle stretch of north wall 171 (trench XN-06) proved the absence of a central gate, suggesting that gates could be located off-centre from a central east-west by north-south axis (Fig. 1/2). This supposition was in part confirmed by the discovery of such a gate in the northern sector of west wall 170 in trench XO-06 (Figs. 1/2 and 1/15; Pl. 1/35). The West Gate excavated in trench XO-06 measured 2.00 m. wide and the outer (western) opening was set with a massive stone threshold block with two pin holes near its centre, perhaps for door-bolts for a double-leaved door. The inner, eastern surface of the gateway was paved with earth and stones, and a compact earth surface, presumably of a road or public space, was found immediately inside the gate to the east. An upended Roman architrave block had been used as the north doorframe of the gate, although it is possible that this was a later addition (see below). A succession of at least three road surfaces of compacted earth fills, mixed with small stone, brick and tile fragments were excavated outside the gate to the west (XO-06 contexts 10, the earliest, followed by 8/9, and then 6). The earliest road surface, context 10, lay over buried destruction contexts 11 and 12 (see Appendix 2, XO-06). The latest road surface, context 6 (late 11th century (?), with residual coin of Theophilus, SF7280, see Appendix 3 no. 34 note), was associated the addition of a raised step or outer threshold that was placed outside the gate alongside the old threshold. Also added with the new step-threshold was a wall of stones and earth (context 7) measuring only some 0.60 m. thick, which was built against the exterior, western face of Enclosure wall 170 on the north side of the gate. In the process, these additions narrowed and extended the gateway. Only a short stretch some 1.50 m. in length of this construction was exposed and so its purpose is difficult to determine. It is possible that this thin wall served to resurface and buttress Enclosure wall 170,

although there  were no apparent signs of structural weakness, and wall contest 7 was limited to the north side of the gate; no such wall was discovered to the south. Only the lower portion of this wall context 7 survived to the height of the new outer step-threshold and so it is also possible that wall 7 served as a bench along the foot of wall 170 on the north side of the West Gate. Since the X0-06 gate was only 2.00 m. wide, it seems unlikely that it formed the principal gate on this side, let alone for the entire Enclosure. More likely is the supposition that this gate was a smaller, postern gate, although its discovery does prove the existence of streets crossing the interior of the Enclosure. A major gate probably still awaits discovery on the northern wall 171, perhaps connecting to the middle Byzantine street found issuing from the city gate in trench L on the Upper City (Fig. 1/1). A third gate in the eastern wall 172 also seems likely, paralleling the West Gate in trench XC-06. Subsequent to the construction of the four Enclosure walls, middle Byzantine structures were built inside, either on top of the layers that buried the early mediaeval occupation, or even reusing some of the surviving ruins. In trenches XC-06, XC-05, XB-03, XE-06, and XM03, some of the new structures were built up against the interior faces of the Enclosure walls, confirming that the middle Byzantine occupation post-dated their construction (Fig. 1/7, MB units 112, 11, 8, 27, 33, and MB units 21-26). The middle Byzantine buildings within the Enclosure survived in greatly varying states of preservation dependant upon their location inside the Enclosure, and the effects of natural patterns of erosion, modern ploughing, and stone robbing. Immediately north of the Enclosure’s south wall 40, in trenches XB-02, XB-03 and XE-04, middle Byzantine building remains lay much closer to the surface - sometimes being found immediately below the topsoil - and thus they were more fragmentary. In these trenches, middle Byzantine structures survived only to a height of one or two courses high and preserved only partial plans (see Fig. 1/7, MB units 46 and 8). The same was true of structures in trench XC-06 (Fig. 1/7, MB units 11, 12, and 13). Further down slope in trenches XC-02 East, and XC-03 East, middle Byzantine strata were much more deeply buried by fills and so complete plans of the buildings (MB units 1-5) were recovered, but nothing of their superstructures above the lower walls survived. The same was true of middle Byzantine structures in trenches XC-02, but in XC-03 West only scattered fragments survived and no plans were recoverable. In trench XM-03 in the corner of Enclosure walls 40 and

257 AnatSt 1991, 216 and fig. 1.

68

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

172 middle Byzantine occupation layers were better protected and much better preserved; here the buildings stand to a height of up to 1.00 metre. The same is true of MB unit 9 in trench XC-01/XC-04, which was probably protected by its proximity to the bulk of EB structure 1. Those buildings buried by the collapse of Enclosure wall 40 also fared somewhat better, such as with MB units 27, 33, 11, and 12. Consequently, some individual building plans can be recovered in their entirety, whereas others are very incomplete. This variability of preservation hampers efforts to reconstruct the interior layout of the Enclosure and to understand its functions.

Byzantine occupation inside the Enclosure, starting with trench XM-03 in the south-eastern corner, which contains some of the best preserved structures within the Enclosure. This analysis then moves westwards from trench XM-03 across the entire excavated area, discussing each trench in turn, and concludes with a discussion of the bathhouse buildings, EB structures 1 and 3, during the middle Byzantine period. Section (viii) considers the date and functions of the middle Byzantine Enclosure with an interpretation of its architecture, archaeology and associated finds. A concluding section (ix) discusses the evidence for the end of the middle Byzantine occupation in the Enclosure and places it in the broader context of the city and region in the late 11th century.

A date for the construction of the Enclosure wall 40 and, by association, the other three walls of the Enclosure enceinte is supplied by a small cache of six coins discovered sealed inside its upper mortar core in 2003. These coins (SF4130-SF4135) were all anonymous folles of class A2, conventionally given a date range of ca. 969–ca. 1030/35. The coins are in near mint condition and can be assigned to early in the series; one is an overstruck follis of Nicephorus II Phocas.258 The find spot of the coins, at a point in the wall’s superstructure several metres above its foundation, offers termini both ante and postquem. Clearly, the upper superstructure of the wall was completed probably no earlier than 969, but construction of the massive foundation and lower part of the wall could have begun prior to this date. The 1998 excavation report recognised that the latest structures inside the Enclosure should be associated with the final phase of the Byzantine occupation. This archaeological horizon was designated ‘Stratum II’ and was further divided into two sub-phases: II(b), being earlier, and II(a), being latter. According to the 1998 report, “Stratum II represents the last phase of Byzantine occupation at Amorium before the abandonment of the site in the late eleventh century.”259 Subsequent excavation has confirmed this approximate dating, placing construction of the internal structures no earlier than the reign of Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969), but after the start of work on Enclosure wall 40, since some MB units abut its lower superstructure. The following sections (ii)-(vii) present the evidence for this middle

(ii). Trenches XM-03, XE-05, and XE-06

A block of five rooms (MB units 21-25), arranged in the form of a Π enclosing a three-sided courtyard (MB unit 26) was uncovered within trenches XM-03 and XE-06 in the south-eastern corner of the Enclosure (Fig. 1/7).260 This corner complex post-dated the construction of the Enclosure itself since it abutted Enclosure walls 40 and 172. Layers of decomposed mud brick (XM-03 contexts 26 and 27) that most likely derive from the collapse of early mediaeval buildings were also found below MB units 22 and 23. The middle Byzantine walls of the complex were relatively well preserved and solidly built, standing to up to more than a metre in height (Pl. 1/36). These walls were faced with courses of squared stones and spolia, laid in mud with the occasional brick or tile fragment, and with a mud and rubble core. Doors were carefully framed with dressed stones. Some of the spolia blocks and slabs were quite large and included marble imposts and large limestone building blocks, some of which were reused as steps and imposts. These stones had no doubt been recovered from the ruins of the early mediaeval city; indeed, some blocks still retained layers of painted plaster from their previous setting. In terms of quality, however, the XM-03 complex is perhaps the best built and designed of the middle Byzantine structures excavated in the Enclosure. In terms of plan, the complex formed a compact, unitary block that was roughly square in outline, with MB units 21-25 laid out like a Π, framing the internal

258 Four (SF4130, SF4131, SF4132, SF4134) are of exactly

the same type, variant 8; one (SF4133) belongs to variant type 3, 5, 20, or 24b, and the other (SF4135), of variant 4, is overstruck on a follis of Nicephorus II, class 1; KST 2003, 525, fig. 9, showing only 5 of the coins (see idem, fn. 9). Details supplied by Chris Lightfoot. 259 DOP 2001, 389-90.

260 For preliminary reports, see KST 2005, 252-4, plan 3 and

pls. 7-8; DOP 2007, 372-6, figs. 26-8. MB units 22-25 are referred to as Rooms I-IV in these preliminary reports. MB unit 21 was excavated later inside trench XE-06.

69

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

courtyard MB unit 26 on its northern, eastern and southern sides (Fig. 1/13). A row of carefully positioned spolia stone blocks (XE-06 context 242) running parallel to the western, exterior wall of the XM-03 complex, could be interpreted as the foundations for a posts of a (wooden?) lean-to portico fronting courtyard MB unit 41 (marked on Fig. 1/7, between MB unit 33 and MB unit 25). The make-up of the earth surface upon which these blocks had been placed (XE-06 context 250) contained a coin of Romanus I Lecapenus (SF7332, dated 931–944, see section (i). above). A concentration of fallen roof tiles in the abandonment/collapse context 237 over these blocks and surface context 250 could infer that this portico had a tiled roof (Fig. 1/37). The only entrance to the XM-03 complex was on the west side, where a wide portal or gate led directly into the threesided courtyard MB unit 26. MB unit 26 was paved with square bricks set in earth (see below Pls. 10/93-95). The presence of this waterproof pavement strongly suggests that MB unit 26 was not roofed but served as an open-air, weather-proofed courtyard. A large circular grinding stone with a central pivot hole had also been reused in this pavement (Pl. 10/93).261 At least two pits had been dug through the brick paved surface in the course of its use. A low, ‘bench-like feature’ (XM-03 context 18), some 1.98 m. long and 0.32 m. wide, and built of stones and mud, flanked the courtyard on its southern side, abutting the north wall of MB unit 25 (Fig. 1/13). This feature could have served as a bench, but it is also possible that it served as a foundation for a wooden staircase to ascend to an upper floor, or even to the parapets of the Enclosure walls 40 and 172.

MB unit 23 was higher than the surrounding units and that the row of slabs presumably served as a retaining wall for an interior platform. An impost block (T1910) had been placed in a central position beside the wall of slabs; it must have served as step to climb up into BEM unit 23 from the courtyard. No corresponding step was found on the other side of the row of slabs inside MB unit 23. The contexts behind these slabs (XM-03, floor context 20, and fill contexts 23 and 24) were removed in the course of excavation and so the current appearance of MB unit 23 gives the misleading impression that the slabs had served as a freestanding upright barrier, which has given rise in the preliminary reports to the interpretation that the unit could have served as a fenced storage facility.263 However, the removal of floor XM-03 context 20, and the fill contexts 23 and 24 below it, revealed that the bottoms of the walls of MB unit 23 correspond to the same approximate level as the earth floor context 20. These wall foundations were clearly higher than the other walls in the complex, no doubt due to the higher floor surface in MB unit 23. The central location of MB unit 23 in relation to the three-sided courtyard, directly facing the gate, and its unusual design may suggest that it was a room of special significance in the XM-03 complex, although its use has yet to be conclusively determined. The open façade of MB unit 23 with its elevated floor platform is reminiscent of an iwan or open veranda, perhaps implying its role as a focal point and meeting place. Two pairs of interconnected rooms formed the north (MB units 21 and 22) and south (MB units 24 and 25) wings of the XM-03 complex (Figs. 1/13). Each of these pairs of rooms was entered via symmetrical doorways leading from the central courtyard of MB unit 26. On the north side, the south wall and doorway into MB unit 21 were largely robbed out, and only fragments of the internal dividing wall with MB unit 22 remained. The remains of earth floors were found in these rooms, but little else was preserved. On the south side, however, the doorway into MB unit 24 was well preserved, with a high threshold step composed of another impost block (T1912) and other spolia (XM-03 context 17). A beaten earth floor (no context number assigned) inside MB unit 24 was some 0.22 m. higher than the paved courtyard outside. Set into this first floor at the centre of the room was a square hearth (XM-03 context 33), carefully built of reused bricks (Pls. 1/36 and 10/96). Bricks had been used to pave the floor of the hearth and were set

The view looking east across courtyard MB unit 26 was filled by MB unit 23, a room which lacked a masonry partition wall or stone doorway (Fig. 1/13). Instead, the division was marked by a low parapet or retaining wall composed of spolia slabs that had been sunk into the ground (XM-03 context 16). One of the spolia was a closure slab (T1908) carved in low relief with a foliate cross framed by side panels containing medallions linked by twisted strap work.262 Inside MB unit 23 a hard earth surface (XM-03 context 20) was found at the same approximate level as the top of the stone slabs (930.11 m. and 930.13 m. respectively). This evidence gives reason to believe that the floor surface of 261 DOP 2007, 374-75, fig. 28. The date of this grinding stone

is uncertain but it represents as yet the only evidence for large-scale crop processing at a mill or bakery. 262 KST 2005, fig. 8; DOP 2007, 374, fig. 27.

263 KST 2005, 252; DOP 2007, 374.

70

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

on edge in the floor to form its perimeter. At a later date a second hard earth floor (XM-03 context 34), some 0.20 m., thick had been laid around the square hearth. Cut into this second floor and its predecessor beneath was a second hearth installation (XM-03 context 37) in the form of a shallow, oval fire pit, partially lined with broken bricks and stones. This fire pit was located immediately beside and to the east of the square hearth (XM-03 context 33). These two installations were probably used together, with the square hearth forming the principal fireplace, and the second hearth with the fire pit (XM-03 context 37) perhaps was used for roundbottomed cooking pots. The presence of the hearths implies that MB unit 24 served as a kitchen-cum-living area and that a smoke hole must have pierced the tiled roof above the installations. A small, semicircular rubbish pit (XM-03 context 43) was also found dug into the first (lower) earth floor in the south-eastern corner of MB unit 24. A copper alloy follis (SF5872, class 5, dated 945–ca. 950) of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, was recovered from the fill of this pit. The smaller MB unit 25 was entered only from MB unit 24 and also had an earth floor (no context number assigned). In the abandonment fill covering this floor (XM-03 context 51) an iron javelin point (SF6172) was found.264

at one end of the main façade. MB unit 33 was located on the south side of the courtyard (MB unit 41) and had been built up against the north face of Enclosure wall 40. MB unit 33 also reused the remains of the south wall of BEM unit 19 as its own south wall. MB unit 33 was a rectangular building with a single room entered from the north side. MB unit 33 had an earth floor (XE-06 context 235) set with a brick-lined hearth located opposite the entrance. A rubbish pit (XE-06 context 236) was later dug through this surface beside Enclosure wall 40. Next door was a second, smaller rectangular room, MB unit 27, which had also been built up against the inner face of Enclosure wall 40, but was set further back from courtyard MB unit 41. The western wall of MB unit 27 had been built over the 838 destruction layers that buried the back of BEM installation E and the associated pithoi. The eastern half of MB 27 was inaccessible beneath an Ottoman oven (XE-06 context 201, oven A, Fig. 1/14) but the western half had a hard earth floor (XE-06 context 218, with ash of hearth context 217) and a hearth lined with brick, much like those found in MB units 33 and 24. The single doorway into MB unit 27 preserved its original threshold and door jamb, the latter cut with settings for the door itself, which was presumably made of wood.

Immediately to the west of the corner complex in XM-03, excavations in XE-06 revealed a large open area devoid of middle Byzantine structures, which probably have served as a courtyard that gave access to the entrance in MB unit 26 (Fig. 1/7, MB unit 41). On the south and west sides of courtyard MB unit 41 three smaller blocks of middle Byzantine buildings were discovered, separated by narrow alleyways (Fig. 1/7, MB units 27-33). These spaces and buildings had been built directly over the decomposed mud-brick layers and washed in silt fills that had accumulated following the 838 destruction. Their construction technique, comprising courses of stones and spolia around a mud and rubble core, was the same as that of the structures found in XM-03, although the buildings in XE-06 were smaller, forming rectangular units containing one or more rooms. The buildings in XE-06 were also oriented more strictly east-west, placing them at an angle to the line of the Enclosure wall 40, which some of them abutted. These buildings were laid out as rectangular blocks, usually combining two units into a semi-detached structure (MB units 27 and 33, 28 and 29, and 30 and 32). Rooms were usually entered via a single doorway, usually located off-centre or

Immediately to the west of MB unit 27 was courtyard MB unit 42, which was linked to the south west corner of MB unit 41 by a narrow passage between MB unit 27 and units 28-29 (Fig. 1/7). MB unit 42 stood over the site of BEM unit 18 in trench XE-05 and can be interpreted as a rectangular courtyard, framed by MB unit 27 to the east, the Enclosure wall 40 to the south, MB unit 46 to the west, and the façade of MB units 28-29 on the north side. A broad passage between MB units 46 and 29 connected with the next courtyard, MB unit 43. MB units 28 and 29 formed a single, rectangular block, divided into two separate rooms (Fig. 1/14). The western half of this building had been exposed in trench XE-05, while the eastern portion was dug within trench XE-06. MB units 28-29 had been built over the destructions and decomposed mud brick layers that concealed the winery BEM unit 18 and installation F (Appendix 2, XE-06, contexts 248, 221 and Fig. 1/37). MB unit 28 was the better preserved of the two units, entered via a single off-centre doorway in its south wall. Near the centre of the room a column shaft fragment was set in the earth floor (XE-06 context 268) to support a wooden post for the timber and tile roof. A narrow slot in the back wall of MB unit 29 could have served as a drain, but its purpose remains unclear. Behind MB units 28

264 DOP 2007, 375.

71

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

and 29 was a narrow alley or passageway (MB unit 34) that led east into the large open courtyard of MB unit 41. On the north side of this alley MB unit 34 was middle Byzantine building, of which only three small rooms, MB units 30-32, have been partially excavated. The south wall of this building had been constructed over the remains of an early mediaeval wall. Only the very lowest courses of the walls of MB units 30-32 were preserved just beneath the modern ground surface, but there was evidence for earth floors within these rooms.

stones led down into the eastern or inner chamber. This chamber had a packed earth floor (Fig. 1/32, XC-03 East context 440) and an elevated platform on its southern side constructed of two courses of stones and mud (XC-03 context 417; Pl. 1/37). These platforms could be interpreted as spaces for gatekeepers watching the entrance to the complex. In terms of its plan, MB unit 1 recalls the gatehouse of a monastery excavated at the site of Hattusa-Boğazköy in central Anatolia that is dated to the 10th-11th centuries.265 No trace of a church, however, has yet been identified in the middle Byzantine Enclosure at Amorium. One, possibly two small rooms (MB unit 7) came to light at the south-eastern corner of trench XC-03 East, enclosing the northern end of a narrow passage between MB units 1-3 and the still standing EB Structure 3 (trenches XC-02 East and XC-02). This narrow passage gave access to MB unit 1 and led out into a square extension of courtyard MB unit 43, where two large storage pithoi were set into the ground surface (see below section (iv), trench XC-02 East and XC-02 grid square F11/a10). The two southern rooms of the west wing, MB units 2 and 3, presented blank walls to the west and south, having entrances only on their east sides facing courtyard MB unit 6. A wall built on top of the remnants of the west wall of BEM unit 29 could have supported a lean-to portico in front of the west wing. MB unit 2 was a narrow, rectangular room, with a beaten earth floor paved with fragments of flat stones, and brick and tile fragments. A semicircular pit or storage bin (XC-03 context 406) was found dug into the floor in the south-western corner of the room. MB unit 3 was larger than its neighbour and was paved with a beaten earth floor, reached by a step down from the doorway. On this floor had been built three flimsy partition walls of broken stones and rubble, little over one course in height, bonded by mud. Originally, these features had been filled with earth (this fill was removed during excavation), giving them the appearance of flat platforms or benches that were set around the walls of the room. In the south-eastern corner of MB unit 3 was a stone-lined installation that produced an intact cooking pot, bones, and some ash (XC-03 East context 489), indicating that it may have served as either a rubbish pit, a storage bin, or even a cooking area.

(iii). XC-02 East, XE-02 grid squares F11/a10 and E11/j10, XC-03 East, and XE-08 Street

The ruins uncovered in these trenches form part of a planned complex that shows close similarities in terms of layout and features with other middle Byzantine structures within the Enclosure. The MB structures found in this quadrant of trenches were the best preserved of those excavated so far in the Enclosure, comprising two rectangular buildings (MB units 1-3 and 4-5) that had been built contiguously as two connected wings (Figs. 1/7 and 1/11). These two wings probably once formed a Π-shaped layout of buildings, with a third, unexcavated wing being located immediately to the north of trench XC-03 East. Framed by these wings was MB unit 6, containing a wall running parallel to the west façade of MB units 1-3. A likely interpretation of MB unit 6 is that it served as an open courtyard, with the aforementioned wall perhaps supporting a lean-to wooden portico. The west wing, MB units 1-3, was oriented northeast by southwest and had been erected immediately in front of the east façade of EB structure 3. The excavated portion of the west wing was divided into at least four units, those being fully excavated being here designated MB units 1-3. MB unit 1 had entrances in both its east and west façades, giving it the appearance of a gatehouse that gave access to the interior courtyard MB unit 6 (Fig. 1/11). If so, then MB unit 1 could have been situated at the centre of the west wing, since at least one, possibly two more rooms like units 2 and 3, lie unexcavated on its northern side. A broad central portal aligned with the exterior entrances divided the interior of MB unit 1 into two chambers. The packed earth floor of the western or outer chamber (Fig. 1/32, XC-03 East context 425) was at a higher elevation and, on its south side, was found the partially preserved remains of a platform or pavement constructed of stones and earth. A semicircular pit was dug into this surface beside the west wall. A step in the central opening constructed of mud and

The south wing (MB units 4-5) was a rectangular building, oriented southwest by northeast, that ran over the buried ruins of BEM units 12, 39, 14 and 13 (Figs. 1/7 and 1/11). MB unit 4 was contiguous with MB unit 265 Neve 1991, 99-100, fig. 4 (marked Südtor, units 3a-b).

72

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

3, showing that both buildings were built at the same time. MB unit 4 was later extended by the addition of a small room (MB unit 5) to its east end over the ruins of BEM units 13-14. The interior arrangements of this building were relatively well preserved. MB unit 4 had a hard earth floor, paved with disparate fragments of brick, tile, pottery, and stone. Built on top of this paved floor were low walls or partitions built of one or two courses of rough-hewn stones and boulders, just like those found in MB unit 3 (see above). These features were filled with earth (which was removed during excavation), forming eight roughly rectangular bench-like ‘installations’ or platforms set along the interior walls. The three ‘installations’ on the north side of MB unit 4 were oriented longitudinally, while the five on the south side projected more into the centre of the building. A narrow, central aisle between these ‘installations’ permitted passage through the building and led to MB unit 5.266 A gap in these features indicated the existence of a doorway in the north wall of MB unit 4, probably leading into a courtyard beyond. MB unit 5 was a small, roughly square room, entered from MB unit 4. MB unit 5 also had four ‘installations’ lining its walls that had been constructed in the same manner as that next door. A short distance to the east, in trench XE-08 Street, fragments of a curving wall came to light, of which only a few bottom courses were preserved. This wall was undoubtedly of middle Byzantine date since it was built directly on top of the destruction layers covering the BEM street. Fortunately for modern archaeology, this wall fragment and associated surfaces did not disturb the destruction layers, nor the male skeleton that lay entombed just below (Pl. 1/32, and see Appendix 2, XE08 Street and below Chapter 12). The poor preservation of this wall precludes any interpretation of its purpose, but it does prove that middle Byzantine features stood between MB units 4-5 and MB units 30-32.

to three middle Byzantine structures were identified: MB units 46, 8, and 9, which were arranged around an open space between these buildings and Enclosure wall 40, here designated courtyard MB unit 43 (Fig. 1/7). Apart from a scrap of wall found above BEM unit 10 (Fig. 1/12), no middle Byzantine structures were encountered in the areas designated MB unit 43. In the northern corner MB unit 43, located between MB units 3 and 4 and the east wall of the old bathhouse, two intact pithoi (contexts 13 and 14) were found in trench XC-02 East and XC-02 grid square F11-a10 (Figs. 1/3 and 1/7).267 These vessels had been sunk into the middle Byzantine earth surface, with one pithos (context 14) being installed on top of the ruins of an early mediaeval wall. This evidence suggests that at least this corner of courtyard MB unit 43 was used as a storage area. Immediately to the south, in the overlapping trenches XC-98 and XC-01, a rectangular building, MB unit 9, was discovered.268 MB unit 9 was built on top of XB-04 context 146 and reused the western wall of BEM units 10-11 as part of its foundation (Figs. 1/7, 1/9, 1/12, and 1/27). On its north side, MB unit 9 abutted the still-standing south wall of room V of the old bathhouse, the doorway into which was now walled up (EB structure 1). MB unit 9 could be entered only via a single doorway in its western wall, accessible from courtyard unit MB 44 to the west and the associated well area in MB unit 47. At least one, possibly two successive earth floors were laid in MB units 9, the earliest being context 145, and the second possibly being context 127, a fill containing large quantities of animal bones (Fig. 1/26). Above context 127 was a low platform comprising a single course of stones (XB-03 context 107), which was constructed on the north side of the room. Although not accessible from EB structure 1, MB unit 9 may have served as a separate wing attached to the former bathhouse, following that building’s reconstruction in the middle Byzantine period (see section (vii). below).

(iv). XE-04/05, XB-03, XC-02 East, XC-01, and XC-98

Like elsewhere inside the Enclosure, the middle Byzantine reoccupation in trenches XE-04/05, XB-03, XC-02 East, XC-01, and XC-98 was built on top of decomposed mud-brick and silt layers that had buried the early mediaeval buildings destroyed in 838. The early mediaeval street had also disappeared beneath these layers and its site was now crossed by the Enclosure wall 40 (Fig. 1/36). To the south of MB units 3, 4, and 5, up

Moving eastwards to trench XE-04, only the lowest course remained from the L-shaped corner wall fragment of MB unit 46 (XE-04 context 13), the full plan of which cannot be recovered (Figs. 1/7 and 1/14). MB unit 46 had been built over the buried remains of installation C and BEM unit 13 (Fig. 1/21), and may have 267 Idem, 277-8, figs. 8-9. 268 DOP 2007, 371, fig. 25.

266 Lightfoot 2007, 277, fig. 7 showing the `installations’

emptied of fill.

73

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

extended far enough southwards to abut Enclosure wall 40.269 A fragment of a stone-lined drain or channel was found immediately to the west of MB unit 46 (Fig. 1/35 XE-04 context 20). This drain was constructed of split stones, laid without mortar, in a cut made in the earth layer covering 838 destruction layers (Figs. 1/23 and Fig. 1/35 XE-04 contexts 19 and 22). The cover slabs must indicate the approximate level of the earth surfaces of the 10th and 11th centuries. The channel must have drained down-slope towards the north and away from the Enclosure wall 40 in the direction of the Upper City. A very similar drain of the same period was uncovered in trench XC-06 (Fig. 1/7 and Pl. 1/39).

with residual materials to level up these surfaces, the discarding of household garbage, such as animal bones, in scatters and fills, the digging of rubbish pits, for garbage and ashes, the lighting of fires, and other smallscale activities. (Fig. 1/27). Up to three major earth surface levels can be identified, with the possibility of further intermediate levels in between. The earliest were contexts 72 and 32 laid over the BEM destructions contexts 77 and 74. Rubbish pits (53 and 55) were dug through these surfaces. In the northern part of MB unit 44 a large rubbish pit (XC-98 context 42) containing animal bones and a complete ox skull, was dug through surface context 44 and destruction context 74, eventually reaching the top surface of the ruined early mediaeval feature XC-98 contexts 79/88.270 The second earth surface was context 44, which was in turn disturbed by pits 45 and 46. Contexts 37 and 38 were the third earth surfaces that were discernable. A small firepit with ash, slag and charcoal, had been dug into the surface of context 37, suggesting some small-scale smelting, although hardly on an industrial scale. Dumped fills, such as contexts 48, and the earth used in resurfacing the area introduced much residual material, such as broken bricks, tiles, pottery shards, metal and glass fragments, as well as some contemporary items; fill context 34 did contain a glass painted bracelet fragment of the 11th century.271 The presence of a courtyard is also implied by the early mediaeval well in trench XC-98, which was put back into service in the middle Byzantine period as MB unit 47 (Figs. 1/7 and 1/9). The wellhead had been raised with massive spolia blocks to take account of accumulations of fill since 838. MB unit 47, a small, F-shaped group of walls built of stones and spolia laid in mud, was then constructed to enclose the wellhead on its western side. MB unit 47 was constructed over the accumulated post-838 layers of mud brick and roof tiles that sealed the early mediaeval occupation (XC-98 contexts 74 and 77). The 1998 season report referred to MB unit 47 as ‘Structure 5’ and associated it with ‘Stratum II(b).’272 The most reasonable interpretation of MB unit 47 is that it served as a shelter or boundary wall around the wellhead.

Further west, in the adjacent trench XB-03, a few wall fragments were all that remained of another middle Byzantine structure, designated MB unit 8 (Figs. 1/7 and 1/12). MB unit 8 was built on top of post-838 abandonment fills (XB-03 context 114) that sealed the destruction layers XB-03 contexts 124 and 132 and reused the ruined top of the north wall of BEM unit 9 as part of its foundation. MB unit 8 abutted the Enclosure Wall 40, further demonstrating that the construction of the Enclosure preceded that of the new structures inside. The remains of low walls inside MB structure 8, comprising one or two courses of rough stones (XB03 contexts 118 and 119), appear to be ‘installations’ or platforms like those found in MB units 3, 4, and 5. Like these middle Byzantine structures, MB unit 8 could have been either square or rectangular in plan, with the platforms lining its interior walls. It is not impossible that MB unit 8 connected with nearby MB unit 46, thus forming parts of a larger building. MB unit 8 must have extended someway further towards the west, but due to its poor preservation, its full extent in this direction remains unknown. The absence of any traces of middle Byzantine buildings along the interior stretch of the Enclosure wall 40 in trenches XB-02, XBC-98, XC-98, and XB-96 suggests the existence of a large open courtyard, here designated MB unit 44, located between MB units 8-10 and enclosed on its northern side by the still-standing south façade of the old bathhouse, EB structure 1 (Fig. 1/7). MB unit 44, particularly the area falling within trench XC-98, proved to be the most complex in the Enclosure as regards its archaeology. This was due to multiple resurfacings, the routine dumping of earth fill mixed

270 DOP 2001, 387, ‘Stratum III/SE’, fig. 19. 271 DOP 2001, 291-92, ‘Stratum IIa’ and ‘Stratum II’, and

page 397, no. 9.

272 KST 2002, 245, fig. 9; DOP 2001, 389, 390 and fn. 40, fig.

20 (‘Stratum II(b)’). The depth from the wellhead to the water surface was then recorded as 8.62 m. In the excavation records MB unit 47 (‘Structure 5’) is referred to as ‘Building VII.’

269 KST 2006, 79, fig. 5.

74

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

(v). XD-00, XC-05, XC-06, and XC-01 West

quem for the construction of MB unit 10.274 There were also traces of reconstruction in the single, eastern doorway into MB unit 10, probably to raise the threshold in accordance with the newly elevated floor and exterior surface levels. Five rectangular compartments or platforms (trench XD-00 context 16) were built on this earth floor against the interior faces of the western and southern walls of MB unit 10. These flimsy structures closely resembled those excavated in MB units 3, 4, 5, and 8, with low walls of stones and spolia laid in mud that were once filled with earth. At the time of their discovery the fills in these features were excavated and removed. Evidence of residential activity inside MB unit 10 is provided by a shallow depression lined with brick and stone fragments beside the north wall that probably served as a pithos setting. A stone and brick-lined feature some 0.27 m. deep, containing ashes and animal bones was also found at the foot of the west wall inside MB unit 10. Although initially identified as a hearth, this deep feature is better interpreted as a rubbish pit.275 The fate of old BEM unit 1 next door to MB unit 10 remains less clear, since there appears to be no evidence for its re-occupation during the middle Byzantine period. XC-98 contexts 41/78 and 6/39 lay over the latest BEM floor 2 in BEM unit 1 (Figs. 1/18 and 1/28). Contexts 41/78 were a mixed layer of earth, stones, brick and tile fragments, and other debris that had accumulated to a height of over 0.60 m. against the eastern wall (XC-98 context 3) of BEM unit 1, and sloped down towards the west wall context 51. Contexts 6/39 lay above contexts 41/78 and continued over the destroyed remains of west wall context 51. The composition and stratigraphy of both these contexts point to them being collapse layers, containing accumulated earth and fallen building materials from the ruined BEM unit 1. Concentrated pockets of ash, perhaps collected from hearths, found in the upper part of context 78 also suggest that the ruins were used as a garbage dump during the middle Byzantine period, an interpretation supported by the associated pottery. Both XC-98 contexts 41/78 and 6/39 contained similar domestic table-wares of the 10th-11th centuries, including a burnished ware cup and burnish ware jug fragments.276

In trenches XD-00 and XC-05, EB Structure 2 and its early mediaeval additions lay in ruins and had been bisected by the construction of the Enclosure wall 40. A group of middle Byzantine buildings (MB units 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) were laid out over the buried remains of this early mediaeval occupation, reusing some of its standing remains (Figs. 1/3 and 1/7).273 The middle Byzantine structures (MB units 10, 11, and 12) along the northern face of the Enclosure wall 40 were better preserved, since fallen masonry from the Enclosure wall had covered and protected their remains. In the northern half of XC-06, however, the middle Byzantine occupation lay relatively close to the modern ground surface, and so here walls had suffered greatly from erosion and stone robbing (MB unit 13). MB unit 14 to the northwest appears to have been a freestanding structure, but the contiguous MB units 10, 11, 12, and possibly the fragmentary unit 13, may have formed another Π-shaped complex of buildings that framed a courtyard, here designated MB 45, centred on the surviving well of the former BEM unit 16. The best preserved middle Byzantine structure in this sector was discovered in trench XD-00. Here the ruin of the northern half of EB unit II in EB structure 2 was rebuilt in the middle Byzantine period as a square building now designated MB unit 10 (Fig. 1/9 and Pl. 1/38). In the preliminary report on the 2000 season, the construction and furnishing of this room were divided into two separate phases, termed ‘Phase 3’ and ‘Phase 4.’ However, since these developments are dependent and closely related, it makes more sense to view them as a single phase of construction. MB unit 10 was created by reusing (and probably rebuilding) portions of the east and west walls of Room II and BEM unit 1, and by closing the north and south sides with two new walls built of reused stones laid in mud. The new north wall crossed the juncture of the former Room II and BEM unit 1, thereby incorporating the massive square screw press weight (T1593) into its fabric. A new south wall (trench XD-00 context 5) was built across the buried remains of the lenos of installation A. A new beaten earth floor (trench XD-00 context 25, floor make-up, some 14 cm. thick) was then laid down in MB unit 10 over post838 fills (trench XD-00 context 26). The beaten surface of this new earth floor (trench XD-00 context 20, some 4 cm. thick) contained a coin (SF4026) of Nicephorus II Phocas, thus providing an approximate terminus post

274 Idem, 290. Another follis (SF4024) of Nicephorus II was

found in context 17, an earth layer immediately above the floor; idem, fig. 12. 275 Idem, 290, figs. B and 16. 276 XC-98 context 41 contained half of a one handled Burnished Ware cup very similar in profile to a twohandled cup of the 11th century excavated in trench LC;

273 DOP 2003, fig. 16-17.

75

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

In trenches XC-05 and XC-06 the only substantive remains of middle Byzantine buildings were found flanking the Enclosure wall 40, where collapse of that wall had protected them. Elsewhere, particularly in trench XC-06, only scraps of middle Byzantine walls had survived due to ploughing, stone-robbing and erosion. The best preserved structure discovered in trench XC06 was a long, rectangular building divided into two rooms, here designated MB units 11 and 12, which had been built beside the Enclosure wall 40. This rectangular building appears to have formed the south wing of another a Π-shaped complex of buildings enclosing courtyard, MB unit 45 with the upper wellhead excavated in trench XC-05 (Figs. 1/7 and 1/24; Pl. 1/39). The eastern end of MB unit 11 reused the western, rear wall of MB unit 10 (part of the old EB structure 2), which formed an attached western wing or room. The western end of MB unit 12 almost touched a wall fragment that perhaps formed part of MB unit 13, suggesting an eastern wing. Apart from the walls of EB structure 2 reused in MB unit 10, all other early mediaeval remains in trench XC-06 still lie buried beneath the middle Byzantine occupation layers. The middle Byzantine structures in trench XC-06 had been built on top of ca. 0.30 m. of accumulated fills that had sealed a thick layer of decomposed mud brick, most probably pertaining to the 838 destruction.

a second clay floor (Fig. 1/34 XC-05 context 916) was laid down inside MB unit 11. Next door, inside MB unit 12 (trench XC-06), a low and irregular earth platform, also edged with stones, was constructed on the earth floor along the south wall. A reused column base was found set in the centre of the earth floor inside MB unit 11, probably to support an upright wooden post, as encountered in MB unit 28. This post must have served as support for the roof of units 11 and 12, which probably took the form of a pitched, timber-framed roof covered with terracotta tiles. Only scanty foundations or platforms of small stones set in mud were found in the area immediately front of the north façade of MB units 11 and 12. The significance of these very fragmentary remains is unclear, but they could have served as footings for less substantial structures of wood such as a portico. Two doorways from MB units 11 and 12 respectively, opened to the north, where there appears to have been an open courtyard designated MB unit 45, extending across the boundaries of trenches XC-05 and XC-06 (Figs. 1/3, 1/7, 1/9, and 1/24). This interpretation is based upon the absence of middle Byzantine structures in this area, and the reuse of the early mediaeval well (formerly in BEM unit 16) that probably formed its focal point. The early mediaeval ruins were deeply buried and so the wellhead in former BEM unit 16 had to be substantially raised with large spolia blocks, in much the same way as the well in nearby MB unit 47 (Pl. 1/10). Framing courtyard MB unit 45 on its east side was MB unit 13. Only some stretches of walls and foundations, one with a north-facing doorway, survived of MB unit 13. A short section of stone-lined drain also survived, akin to that excavated near MB unit 46 in trench XE-04. Like this other drain, that in XC-06 was oriented northsouth. Residential activities are suggested by a large accumulation (or dump) of animal bones excavated west of MB unit 13; another dump containing ash, animal bones, and pottery was excavated in the corner formed by the intersection of Enclosure walls 40 and 170.

The common south wall of MB units 11 and 12 abutted (and so post-dated) the Enclosure wall 40, but only fragments of the north and east walls survived (Fig. 1/24). Like the other middle Byzantine structures inside the Enclosure, the walls of MB units 11-12 were faced with spolia blocks and stones around a mud and rubble core. A projecting buttress of unknown purpose extended from the exterior western wall of MB structure 12. A firm earth floor (Fig. 1/34 XC-05 context 944) was laid inside MB unit 11, on which were constructed earth filled ‘installations’ or platforms, enclosed with low, flimsy walls of rubble and stone like those already noted in MB units 3-5, 8, and 10. Only six of these features survived, but it is clear that they once flanked the north and south walls, leaving a narrow aisle down the centre, much like the internal layout of MB unit 4. Later,

On the north side of courtyard MB unit 45 stood MB unit 14, which was discovered just below the modern topsoil at the intersection of trenches XC-98, XC-01 West, and XC-05 (Figs. 1/7, 1/9 and 1/24). Only the eastern portion of MB unit 14 was excavated in trenches XC-98 and XC-05. In the 1998 season report, MB unit 14 was referred to as ‘Structure 7’ and was associated with ‘Stratum II(b).’ At the time, the excavators suggested that ‘it may have served as a small storage area

see Böhlendorf-Arslan 2007, 287, no. 59, fig. 11 and Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 354, fig. 8. 11. Context 41 and 39 above it also contained large pieces of Burnished Ware jugs of the 10th/11th century - see Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 366-7, fig. 17.4 for similar.

76

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

or animal pen.’277 MB unit 14 was built in part on top of the ruined walls of BEM unit 17 (trench XC-98 context 81) and had at least one, probably two rooms, one of which had a curving west wall. An earth floor was found inside, laid over a layer of accumulated post838 fills (trench XC-05 context 967). A coin (SF6711) of Nicephorus II Phocas was found in fill (trench XC05 context 952) over this middle Byzantine earth floor. The use of MB unit 14 remains uncertain, but since its known, south entrance faces onto the courtyard MB unit 45, and MB units 11, 12, and 13, it can probably be considered as functioning as a part of that building complex.

in this sector, for MB units 36, 37 and 39 appear to have been created later, filling in the space between MB 35 and EB structure 3. MB unit 35 was a single-roomed structure much like MB units 28 and 29, entered via a single doorway from the south (Pl. 1/40). Inside MB unit 35 was a beaten earth floor (Fig. 1/31 XC-02, surface over context 331) but no traces of a permanent hearth were found.279 As later additions, MB units 36, 37 and 39 were smaller and more irregular in plan, with units 36 and 37 being linked by an internal doorway. Earth floors (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 contexts 350 and 351) had been laid in these rooms; an intact cooking pot was found on the surface of floor context 350 in MB unit 36. MB unit 39 was an elongated, irregular space with an earth surface, paved with broken bricks and shards, with a platform for a pithos setting (Pl. 1/42). The cobbling of BEM unit 39 suggests that it was an outdoor space, serving as a narrow courtyard. North of MB unit 35, the early mediaeval well formerly in BEM unit 37 was rehabilitated. As elsewhere in the middle Byzantine Enclosure, the wellhead was raised with spolia blocks; the surrounding open area was paved with earth (XC-02 context 328), creating a small courtyard, designated MB unit 40. The south walls of MB units 35 and 36-37 faced a narrow alleyway, designated MB unit 38. MB unit 38 terminated in a dead-end at the exterior, western wall of EB structure 3. The earth surface of this alley comprised the top of accumulated fills (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 contexts 360 and 364) that covered the buried remains of BEM units 24 and 23. On the south side of the alley MB unit 38 stood the ruins of the early mediaeval chapel and its vestibule (BEM units 21-22). Like other buildings in the area, use of BEM units 21 and 22 had ended with their destruction in 838 followed by abandonment. In the late 10th century, two rooms (MB units 15 and 16) were constructed on the ruins of the early mediaeval structures, divided by a short passage that gave access from the alley MB unit 38 (Fig. 1/7). MB unit 15 was a square room entered via a single door from the west that occupied the site of the old chapel naos. A well-built wall of spolia blocks and architectural elements was constructed on top of (and partially cutting) the abandonment and destruction context 327, running across the cord of the apse (Fig. 1/7; Pl. 1/21). This wall completely walled up the apse and altar, rendering them inaccessible and

(vi). XC-02, XC-03 West, and XL-02

By the middle Byzantine period, the early mediaeval ruins excavated in trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West were largely concealed by destruction layers and later accumulated fills. This conclusion is confirmed by the construction of middle Byzantine buildings on top of these layers, and the fact that most of these new structures followed a very different layout to those of the Byzantine early mediaeval period (Fig. 1/3). The middle Byzantine buildings in this sector lay just below the modern ground surface, and so they were vulnerable to ploughing, stone-robbing and surface erosion. Only the lowest courses of the middle Byzantine structures survived in trench XC-02. No middle Byzantine structures at all were encountered in trench XC-03 West, either because of their complete destruction in more recent times, or because of the existence of an open space in this area in the middle Byzantine period. The best preserved middle Byzantine buildings in this sector were uncovered in trench XC-02, where MB units 15, 16, and 35-40 formed a tight-knit complex of buildings and spaces built beside the western wall of EB structure 3 (Fig. 1/7).278 All of these middle Byzantine structures were constructed of stone and spolia blocks facing a mud and rubble core. MB unit 35 was perhaps amongst the earliest of the middle Byzantine structures 277 DOP 2001, 391. In the excavation records MB unit 14

(‘Structure 7’) is referred to as ‘Building VIII.’

278 In the absence of a detailed, stone-by-stone plan of the

middle Byzantine phase in trench XC-02, the plan of these particular MB units in Fig. 1/7 had to reconstructed based upon excavation photographs, sketch plans, and the relationship of middle Byzantine walls to underlying BEM units. The resulting plan, although approximate, is an accurate representation of the layout of these units and their relative dimensions.

279 The compact earth surface lay over collapsed wall debris,

bricks, and roof tiles that covered the troughs in BEM unit 26. Below context 331 lay 392, a lower collapse/ destruction layer (also of 838) over the earth floor in BEM unit 26.

77

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

(vii). The Bathhouse in the Middle Byzantine Enclosure

creating a rectangular room from the former naos (MB unit 15). This new wall also helped brace the surviving north wall of the old chapel, which was rebuilt on its north, exterior face. The blocking of the apse indicates that MB unit 15 was not reused as a place of worship, but the care taken does suggest a reverential attitude towards this old sacred space. An earth floor (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 context 313), some 0.50 m. thick, was laid inside MB unit 15 over the destruction layer context 327 (see Appendix 2). An intrusive coin (SF4370) found in context 327 was an anonymous follis of class A2. This coin provides a terminus post quem of ca. 976–1030/35 for the construction of MB units 15 and 16.280 The site of BEM unit 22, the old vestibule/narthex, became a second square room, designated MB unit 16 (Figs. 1/7 and 1/10). This room was entered through a single doorway from the east and its new walls used the ruins below as foundations. The north wall of the old bathhouse was refaced with new masonry to buttress the old fabric. This buttress may also have helped to support a new roof over MB unit 16. A compact earth floor (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 context 352) was found inside MB unit 16, along with at least one or, possibly, two brick-paved earth platforms beside the west wall (Pl. 1/41).

Since being stripped of its furnishings and closed up in the late 8th/early 9th century, EB structure 3 had stood as an empty shell next to the bathhouse. Despite this apparent dereliction, excavations inside EB structure 3 in trenches XC-01 and XC-02 have shown that the building remained accessible and standing until nearly the end of the middle Byzantine period (Fig. 1/7). Little evidence was found for middle Byzantine activities inside EB structure 3, but clearance of the surfaces of the robbed pavement fills in the west ambulatory did uncover a circular burned area measuring ca. 2.60 m. in width (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 context 184). Lying in the ashes of context 184 was a follis of Constantine X Ducas (SF4109, dated 1059–1067). Above context 184 were successive layers of earth mixed with masses of collapsed masonry and architectural elements from the upper walls and vaults (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 152, 123, and 122). Context 152 also contained two anonymous folles (SF4083 and SF4119, dated 1042–50). These layers must represent accumulations of debris that gradually buried the fallen columns and the robbed floor surfaces beneath. This pattern of gradual collapse was repeated throughout EB structure 3 (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 contexts 303, 308; Fig. 1/30 XC-01 context 211). Context 308, a lower collapse layer in trench XC-02, produced two more anonymous folles (SF4343 and SF4344, dated ca. 1030/35–1042(?) and 976(?)–ca. 1030/35 respectively), and the collapse layer above (context 303) contained another coin (SF4345) of the same class of anonymous follis as SF4343.281 This evidence suggests that parts of EB structure 3 had collapsed by the later 11th century, but its ruins probably continued to deteriorate well beyond the end of the Byzantine period.

To the west, in trench XC-03 West, the middle Byzantine stratum was very close to the modern surface and had been greatly eroded. Consequently, only disturbed and fragmentary building remains (not marked on Figs. 1/3 and 1/7) were encountered above the deeper, better preserved Byzantine early mediaeval levels. Very limited investigations were carried out north of EB structure 3 in Trench XL-02. (Figs. 1/2 and 1/7) Trench XL-02 was closed down after the removal of modern topsoil, revealing only the tops of middle Byzantine walls constructed of stones and mud. Excavations in the small 3 m. square sondage, S02-3 to the north of trench XC02, uncovered more stone and mud walls of buildings and a paved surface, perhaps a courtyard, of the middle Byzantine period (see below Chapter 17). Although little more can be said of the structures detected in trenches XL-02 and S02-3, these discoveries do prove the existence of more middle Byzantine buildings in the central part of the Enclosure.

Excavations in trenches XC-98, XC-01, and XC-02 have shown that the interior of the former bathhouse suite, EB structure 1, was in a very damaged state after the 838 destruction. EB structure 1 would never again function as a bathhouse, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the core of the structure was repaired and refurbished, transforming it into a residential building (Fig. 1/7). Today most of the bathhouse superstructure has been reduced to only the lower walls, although the walls of rooms F2 and La contiguous with EB structure 3 are preserved to a height of ca. 2.50 m. In the middle Byzantine period, however, the ruined shell of the bathhouse appears to have been standing to a far

280 A second coin (SF4372) must be residual since it has

281 DOP 2004, 358 and fn. 15.

been tentatively identified as a nummus of the 5th century.

78

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

greater height, for efforts were made to patch holes in the walls. The best surviving evidence for these activities is preserved in the east façade. A window in room La was blocked up, and in room V a substantial, if rudimentary, patch of mortared rubble was inserted to fill a large breach, blocking the site of the west doorway.282 The exterior face of this patch is ragged and deformed, probably as a result of being built against a bank of earth – a fact suggestive of rising ground levels on this side of the building. The survival of the bathhouse’s upper walls into the middle Byzantine period is further supported by the addition of MB unit 9 to the exterior of room V (see above). The blocking up of the old entrances into the bathhouse in room V necessitated the opening of new entrance, most likely cut through the western wall of room L above the buried site of the old praefurnium. Little survives of the superstructure of this wall, but the installation of a threshold in the doorway between rooms L and C suggests that the new principal entrance must have been from the western end of the building (see below).

layers were found in rooms F2 (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 146, 144, 143), La (Fig. 1/30 XC-01, layer below context 139), and T and C (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 207 = 147, possibly part of context 235; Pl. 1/43). The stone packing in these rooms may have been a response to potential subsidence, due to the collapsed suspended pavements beneath. In rooms F1 (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 151 and 149) and V (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 context 185) dumped fills of earth, bricks, and stones were used. A layer of broken bricks was then laid over these packing/foundation layers, and beaten earth floors were laid on top throughout the building (Fig. 1/30 earth floors in rooms F1 and F2: XC-01 contexts 131, 132 = 159; room T: XC-01 context 142; room V: XC-01 context 148; and room C: XC-01 context 182). In the former tepidarium, context 235, an earth fill containing rubble from the suspended pavements, was disturbed or even dumped during this process, since it contained a follis of Nicephorus II Phocas.285 Context 147 in trench XC-01, the stone packing layer above context 235, contained two more coins (SF4080 and SF4081) of the same emperor.286 These coins thus provide a good terminus post quem for the rehabilitation of the former bathhouse, placing it either during the reign of Nicephorus II Phocas or shortly afterwards.

Inside the bathhouse, the upper walls between rooms V, F1, T, and C had been destroyed, and their lower, surviving portions were buried beneath debris and new floors. This development transformed the greater part of the bathhouse interior into a single, unimpeded space, while rooms F2 and La remained separate units (Fig. 1/7). The dividing wall between the old caldarium (room C) and sudatorium (room L) was repaired and a new doorway was created with a threshold fashioned from a limestone cornice block.283 This block closely resembles the string course still in situ on the building and so may well have derived from it. Upon excavation, the hypocausts and pavement levels were found to be choked with rubble from the collapsed remains of suspended pavements and some debris from the upper walls. Some upper portions of this pile of rubble appear to have been quarried away since very little in the remaining fills could be identified with the upper superstructure of the bath building. However, no effort was made by the Byzantines to dig down to the original pavement and hypocaust levels, thus inadvertently preserving the 838 destructions. Instead, the remaining rubble and fill was levelled off and supplemented with piles of similarly-sized stones, apparently selected to create a solid platform (Pl. 1/43).284 Stone packing

Upon excavation, the interior walls were found to be have been stripped to the bare brick and mortar; only small scraps of revetment remained in situ at the bottoms of some walls.287 It seems likely therefore that any revetment that survived the destruction had been deliberately removed during the refurbishment of the building. Low stone-edged ‘installations’ or platforms, familiar from other middle Byzantine buildings at the Enclosure, were then constructed on the earth floors along the north and south walls of the former tepidarium and caldarium (Pl. 1/43) These features closely resembled those discovered in MB units 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 12, with low stone walls filled with earth. A narrow walkway in the centre of the room ran between these installations. At the west end of the room a group of three shallow, stone-lined installations was built (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 145, 153, 154). Earth fills from these features, mingled with discarded ash, animal bones, 285 XC-01 context 235 lay above and sealed XC-02 context

306, an intact collapse/destruction layer.

286 A third coin (SF 4124), probably residual and dat-

282 Idem, fig. 8. 283 Idem, fig. 11.

ing to late 7th century, was also found in the same floor make-up. 287 DOP 2004, 359-61, figs. 7-9.

284 Idem, 359-61.

79

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

and pottery fragments, indicate that contexts 153 and 154 served as rubbish pits. Another follis (SF4082) of Nicephorus II Phocas was found in one pit, indicating their use during or after his reign.288 The other pit (XC01 context 145) contained a large assemblage of plain ware pottery, comprising of thirteen different vessels in an intact or semi-intact condition. The discovery of so many intact vessels in context 145 suggests that it may have served as a storage bin rather than a rubbish pit. The archaeological context suggests that these vessels should be dated to the later 10th or 11th century and that they should be associated with the reoccupation of the bathhouse. The pottery assemblage is domestic in the sense that it contains at least four cooking pots, up to six jugs or jars, a bowl, and a Burnished Ware cup.289 As such, it seems probable that the assemblage was used by the new occupants of the bathhouse. A similar development can be traced in room L, the so-called sudatorium, although the remains here were less well preserved. In the 1998 season report these remains were designated ‘Structure 8’ and were associated with ‘Stratum II(b).’ The south wall of room L appears to have been rebuilt, since footings, composed of large spolia blocks, were found just inside the line of the old south wall. These spolia included at least one cornice block, probably taken from the south corner of the bathhouse. If so, then the middle Byzantine room L was slightly smaller than its early Byzantine predecessor. An earth floor (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 context 329) was found in the central part of room L, forming a hard surface extending between the east doorway with its spolium threshold and the new entrance into the building in its western wall. This earth floor was laid over the 838 destruction layer (Fig. 1/31 XC-02 context 366). On the south side of room L, packed stones and the remains of more stone-edged ‘installations’ (trench XC-98 context 18) like those in rooms T and C, were found in 1998, but their true significance was not then understood.290 Fragments of more such ‘installations’ were also found on the north side of earth floor context 141 (trench XC-01). In room V, the old well was not restored to use, but was sealed below the new earth floor (XC-01 context 148) and its packing beneath (XC-01 context 185). A water supply still existed nearby, however, since MB unit 9 gave access to the restored well in MB unit 47. At some later stage, room La, the old latrine, was separated from

adjacent rooms V and F2 by low stone walls built in the doorways, and was transformed into a rubbish pit (Fig. 1/7). Large quantities of animal bones and other domestic refuse were dumped here, presumably by the new inhabitants (see below Chapter 14, pages 423-4, 426).291 An exceptional small find from this rubbish pit was a silver pin (SF4049), which was cylindrical in form and had a worked grip (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 context 139; Pl. 1/44). Other objects of interest from context 139 were the base of glass bottle bearing impressed designs, and a fragment of silver-stained glass bracelet. The discovery in the same context 139 of three anonymous folles of class I (SF4043, SF4044, and SF4045) dated ca. 1075– 1080 suggests a date for these finds and their deposition in the pit in the second half of the 11th century.292

288 Idem, 363-4, fig. 11. 289 Idem, 363-6, figs. D-E, fig. 12; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010,

291 DOP 2004, 361-3, 367-8, fig. 10; DOP 2005, 262. 292 SF4049 silver pin: length 9.1 cm., thickness 0.4 cm. For

The restoration of the bathhouse walls and the new interiors created within show that the old EB structure 1 had been transformed from a rubble-choked ruin into a rectangular, hall-like building (Fig. 1/7). The springing of the original vault still survives in room La, and so it is likely that this room, and perhaps the adjacent room F2, preserved their vaulted ceilings into the middle Byzantine era, but no substantive collapse layers from the original superstructure or vaulting systems were found in middle Byzantine levels elsewhere in the bathhouse. One must therefore conclude that this debris was removed during the reconstruction process. Roof tile fragments were found in the debris covering the ruins of the middle Byzantine phase, however, suggesting that the old bathhouse was re-roofed with a pitched timber frame covered with terracotta roof tiles.

(viii). The Date and Function of the Enclosure

The evidence of coins, issued during the 960s and 970s that were found in the Enclosure wall 40 and in the foundations and floors of the structures inside the enceinte, conclusively point to a date in the later 10th century for the erection of the complex. Construction of the Enclosure walls and its internal structures could have begun no earlier than the reign of Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969), but the process could have continued into the following decade, during the reign of John I Tzimiskes (969–976) and the early years of Basil II (976–1025). The massive ruins of the baths complex appear to have loomed large in the area, and efforts were

366-7, fig. 17.1.

the glass and numismatic dating see Lightfoot 2005, 177, figs. 7-8, and 13.

290 DOP 2001, 390.

80

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

made to utilise at least the linear bathhouse suite and some useful walls of earlier structures. Most of the new structures, however, including the Enclosure walls, followed a completely different layout to that of the preceding period, running over the buried remains of the Byzantine early mediaeval occupation. This new internal layout strikingly illustrates the extent of the urban dislocation caused by the 838 destruction and the subsequent abandonment of the area. One should not underestimate therefore the magnitude of the task of reoccupying this ruined and deserted area. Work must have begun with the digging of an immense trench to take the deep foundations of the walls of the Enclosure. In the process the ruins of early mediaeval buildings came to light; these were built over and may also have furnished some stones for the wall itself. As wall 40 rose above its foundation, a series of building complexes was laid out inside the Enclosure, comprising ranges of rectangular and square rooms, one of which was the rehabilitated bathhouse block, ranged around three-sided courtyards and connected by small streets or alleyways. Some of these structures were built up against the inner face of the Enclosure wall 40. All internal structures thus postdated the construction of the Enclosure walls and, although not all of the buildings may have been erected at exactly the same time, there are surprising consistencies shared by them in terms of plans, construction techniques, and internal features. These common features would suggest that at least the major buildings thus far excavated, such as MB units 1-6, 21-26, 10-12, and the refurbished bathhouse, are roughly contemporary and that they should be regarded as forming part of a single, planned reconstruction within the Lower City.

11, and probably to support external porticoes or verandas, as in front of MB units 21, 26, and 28 (XM-03), MB units 1-3 (XC-03 East) and possibly MB units 11-12 (XC-06). The remains of fallen roof tiles found inside some of the buildings indicate the existence of pitched timber-framed roofs covered with terracotta tiles. The types of materials and building techniques used in the buildings in the Enclosure appear to be common practice at Amorium during the middle Byzantine period. Domestic houses and work spaces excavated in trench L on the Upper City, and structures interpreted as farm buildings excavated at trench AB at the south-west gate used the same methods and materials, albeit with very different plans.293 Thus, one must conclude that the buildings in the Enclosure follow local practice since they do not exhibit anything exceptional in terms of their construction and materials. The same cannot be said as regards the plans of the individual buildings and their layout within the Enclosure however. A striking characteristic of the layout of the buildings inside the Enclosure is the grouping of structures into at least six distinct complexes, grouped around courtyards and connected by narrow alleyways. These courtyard complexes at the Enclosure can be summarized as follows: (i). the XM-03 complex (MB units 21-26), with an internal courtyard; (ii). courtyard 42 fronting the XM-03 complex and associated buildings in trenches XE-06 and XE-05 (MB units 27, 28-33); (iii). the XC-03 East/XC-02 East complex (MB units 1-6); (iv). the buildings grouped around courtyard MB unit 43 (MB units 8 and 46); (v). buildings facing courtyard MB unit 44 (MB units 8, 9, and 10, facing the former bathhouse); (vi). the complex surrounding MB unit courtyard 45 in trench XC-06 (MB units 11-14). The building complex excavated in trench XC-02 between old EB structures 1 and 3 (MB units 15, 16, 36-40), was far more densely built up than elsewhere in the Enclosure and evidence for a grouping around a courtyard is lacking. A feature of these courtyard complexes is the socalled Π-shaped layout of three wings grouped around a courtyard. This is most evident in the XC-03 East/XC02 East complex (MB units 1-6), but is also a feature of the XM-03 complex, and possibly the XC-06 complex (MB units 10-13). This distinctive Π-shaped plan has been recognised in other middle Byzantine residential building complexes, ranging from the Myrelaion palace of Romanus I Lecapenus (920–944) at Constantinople,

In terms of construction techniques, all the middle Byzantine buildings inside the Enclosure were built in a similar fashion. The Enclosure buildings were built of courses of roughly squared stone blocks, cobble stones, and the occasional spolium, laid in mud and interspersed with the occasional brick and tile fragment, around a mud and rubble core. Little survives of the upper walls of these buildings, but few, if any, appear to have risen higher than one storey in height. The only platform that conceivably could have supported a stair was that found in MB unit 26 (XM-03) but here it is equally possible that the said structure was a bench (see section (ii). above). Despite the disappearance of their superstructures it seems likely that their upper walls also employed mud brick construction. Wood was also an important building material, being used for internal posts, set on spolia column bases, as in MB units 28 and

293 Amorium 1, 13, 15-16, figs. G and L; AnatSt 1994, 112-13,

pls. XVIII(b), and XIX.

81

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

domestic pottery assemblages, pithoi, hearths, and rubbish pits as found in other middle Byzantine residential buildings at Amorium.296

to the aristocratic mansions of magnates and the residences of the settlement at Çanlı Kilise in Cappadocia of the 10th and 11th centuries.294 Although the plans of these Cappadocian courtyard complexes are more elaborate than those at the Enclosure, the Amorium examples share the same sense of organization, with a central courtyard, framed on three sides by wings formed by one or more units. The best preserved example of the Π-shaped plan at the Enclosure is that in XC-02 East and XC-03 East (MB units 1-6). The courtyard complex in XM-03 is a more compact variation, forming an inscribed Π within a square plan. Porticoes on the main façades may also have been a feature of the XM-03, XC-03 East, and XC-06 courtyard complexes. There is also evidence at Amorium for centrally positioned gatehouses (MB unit 1), for possible kitchens, such as MB unit 24, and for permanent hearths that could have been used for both heating and cooking (MB units 33, 27). The storage bin containing contemporary tablewares found in the former bathhouse illustrates the types of domestic pottery used in the Enclosure buildings (XC01 context 145). Rubbish pits and garbage dumps containing domestic refuse and pottery were also a feature of the buildings in the Enclosure (in MB units 24, 3, 47, 10, and in the former bathhouse; Fig. 1/30 XC-01 contexts 139, 153 and 154). Large dumps of such refuse were found the corner of Enclosure walls 40 and 170 in trench XC-06. Fills and rubbish pits excavated in courtyard MB unit 44 (XC-98) were also found to contain concentrated dumps of animal bones, ashes, and other domestic refuse (Fig. 1/27 context 35, and pit contexts 53, 55, 42, 45, 46). An analysis by Evangelia Ioannidou of pit XC-98 context 42 concluded that the majority of the animal bones were ovicaprid (sheep/goat), with lesser proportions of cattle and pig, and observed that these bones bore clear butchery marks.295 No animal pens have yet been identified in the Enclosure, but flimsy fences of wood and other ephemeral materials would not have left much trace archaeologically. The presence of animals in the Enclosure cannot be excluded, and the animal bones recovered are suggestive of the meats that formed part of the diet of the human residents. On the basis of the architecture and its archaeology, then, the buildings inside the Enclosure can be identified as decidedly residential in character, with associated wells,

No installations, such as furnaces or kilns, nor concentrations of industrial or artisanal waste, were found inside any of the buildings in the Enclosure, and thus none of these structures can be identified as workshops.297 Ashes and small domestic refuse was found on courtyard surfaces, such as in MB unit 44 (XC-98), but such spreads probably resulted from the sweeping out of hearths and the dumping of domestic refuse from the buildings outside. In MB unit 44 (XC-98) surface context 37 had a shallow fire dug into its surface that was associated with some ash, charcoal and slag (Fig. 1/27 context 37). This small feature cannot be considered ‘industrial’ in scale, and probably can be considered a small and makeshift working area connected with the residential occupation in the Enclosure. This situation is to be contrasted with the middle Byzantine occupation found immediately outside the Enclosure wall in trenches XA-01, XA1-02, XA2-02, and XA3-02, where evidence for some residential occupation mixed with definite industrial activities. Here a number of buildings were excavated (MB units 17-19) that had been built in the course of the later 10th and 11th centuries (Fig. 1/7). MB unit 18 was a large and deep cellar, approached by a ramp inside MB unit 17. Contemporary domestic pottery, two marble grinding mortars (SF4279 and SF4280), and coins of the 10th and 11th centuries were found in this cellar; the base of a ceramic cup, naming its owner as Thomas, a monk (of the monastery) of Spiliotou, was found nearby.298 The inhabitants could afford fine glassware, to judge from the so-called Blue Coil Ware glass vessel fragments, datable to the 11th century, found in the middle Byzantine occupation of the XA-trenches. A number of contemporary silver-stained glass bracelets were also found in the XA trenches, a concentration may be suggestive of a female presence.299 The best attested industrial activity in the XA area was probably the most noxious. MB unit 19

294 For the discussion of middle Byzantine residential ar-

298 KST 2003, 523-5, figs. 2 (‘Building 2’ = MB unit 18) and

296 Amorium 1, 13, 15-16, figs. G and L; AnatSt 1994, 112-13,

115-16, fig. 2 and pls. XVIII(b), and XIXa.

297 Pace Lightfoot 2007, 277, where the structures are inter-

preted as ‘storage areas or workshops.’

chitecture at Çanlı Kilise and elsewhere in Byzantium, see Ousterhout 2005, 141-55, with plans of courtyard complexes in figs. 79, 95, 114, 122, 130, 155, 163, and 170. 295 DOP 2005, 261.

3 (cup base with graffito). The latest coin finds were SF4066 and SF4125, both folles of class 1 of Constantine X Ducas, dated 1059-1067. 299 Lightfoot 2005, 176,-77 figs. 4-5; 179-81, figs. 9-13.

82

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

in trench XA2-02 has been interpreted as a tannery workshop for the preparation of fine Astrakhan leather, since it contained a large deposit of lamb bones, a work bench, and a sluice-like installation for the preparation of skins (Fig. 1/7 MB unit 19).300

basis of this interpretation, MB units 4 and 5 could have accommodated a minimum of twelve individuals, who would have lived and slept in close proximity. Communal living in the Enclosure is certainly implied by the size of the rooms and their clustered layouts around courtyards. The scale and careful planning that went into the construction of the Enclosure, and the layout of its internal buildings, however, imply an organised, if not institutionalised, lifestyle. This lifestyle was segregated from the rest of middle Byzantine Amorium by the huge and highly visible Enclosure walls themselves. From the start of the excavations, this desire for separation and security by the residents of the Enclosure was recognised in the extreme massiveness and solidity of these fortifications. Indeed, in terms of defensive strength, the Enclosure walls are far thicker and more robust than the fortifications of the middle Byzantine city on the Upper City, which measure only ca. 1.20 m. in thickness. The location of the Enclosure near the centre of the old Lower City would also seem to be indicative of the Enclosure’s strategic site in relation to the fortified middle Byzantine city on the Upper City mound (Fig. 1/1). It seems likely that a street that exited the gate excavated in trench L in the Upper City followed a line close to the east wall of the Enclosure, thus giving the Enclosure access to, and control over, a major route into the middle Byzantine city. At the same time, however, the absence of external towers on the Enclosure walls would seem to argue for a passive, security posture rather than a more active, defensive character, as exemplified by the towers on the Upper City walls. This interpretation of the Enclosure as a secure perimeter rather than a strategic fortification is also implied by the dense 11th-century occupation immediately outside its walls in the XA trenches. Given these facts, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Enclosure was a fortification designed, by reason of its massive strength and size, to demarcate and protect a special, secure zone in the former Lower City.

In contrast to these buildings outside the Enclosure in the XA trenches, the most distinctive internal features of the residential structures within the enceinte were the enigmatic earth-filled ‘installations’, perhaps better described as low platforms, that were found lining their walls. These features were often emptied of earth by the excavators on the assumption that they were storage facilities, but only a few small examples (notably XC-01 contexts 145, 153, and 154) were proven to be storage bins and/or rubbish pits. The majority of these ‘installations’ did not produce sufficient materials to merit such an interpretation. It also became clear that the ‘installations’ were built on top of the earth floors as elevated, rectangular features, usually with a passage or aisle running between or alongside them. The walls enclosing the ‘installations’ were always extremely flimsy, consisting of little more than a few courses of rough stones of varying sizes, haphazardly laid in earth. Since these walls range from 20-30 cm. thick and little more than 30-40 cm. in height, it seems highly improbable that they ever supported a masonry superstructure. Such walls would make very fragile storage installations, but they serve perfectly adequately as the enclosing walls of low platforms filled with earth, which is exactly how they appeared when found. What then was the purpose of these platforms? Given the implied residential character of the buildings, the disposition of the platforms around the walls of the buildings such as MB units 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and inside the former caldarium and tepidarium of the bathhouse is strikingly reminiscent of beds in a dormitory. Further research is needed to explore parallels for similar platforms or benches in middle Byzantine residential architecture, but such an interpretation would explain how the residents of the Enclosure buildings were accommodated.301 On the

The presence nearby of the Lower City Church complex, lying outside the walled Enclosure, would seem to argue against the identification of the Enclosure as a fortified monastic or ecclesiastical compound. Indeed,

300 DOP 2005, 261-2, fig. 27; Lightfoot 2007, 275-76, fig. 6;

and see below Chapter 14, pages 422-3.

301 Excavations at Sazpegler in eastern Turkey uncovered

part of a rural settlement of the 10th–11th centuries. Some rooms identified as kitchens/living quarters contained low wall benches constructed of stones and earth (dimensions of one bench: length 2.25 m., height 0.44 m., width 1.20 m). Although not interpreted by the excavators, these features are analogous to those at Amorium in that they could have served as bed platforms, as well

as having other utilitarian uses; see Tekinalp and Ekim 2006, 36, 57-8, and fig. 13. Similar ‘installations’ have also been noted at Phrygian Hierapolis within the shell of the early Byzantine bathhouse; see Lightfoot 2007, 277 and fn. 32.

83

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

no churches of obviously monastic layout have yet been detected within the Enclosure. The only chapel found so far in the Enclosure area, BEM unit 21, was not restored in the middle Byzantine period but was replaced by a secular structure, MB unit 15. Another interpretation of the Enclosure as a giant caravanserai, where merchants could have secure accommodation for themselves and their goods, would appear to be mitigated by the apparent absence of large storage facilities for merchandise, at least in the portion of the Enclosure excavated to date. The preliminary report on the 1998 season speculated that the Enclosure area was ‘privatised’ in the 11th century, but no evidence has since been found to support this early hypothesis.302 Perhaps the most intriguing interpretation to date is that the Amorium Enclosure served as a secure military zone or permanent base for the Byzantine imperial army.303 Such an interpretation would explain both the scale of the massive walls and the planned, communal character of the occupation within. Such a thesis could also interpret buildings containing the so-called bed platforms (MB units 3-5, 8, 10-12, and the reconstructed bathhouse) as barracks for soldiers, with other buildings, such as the smaller XM-03 complex, with MB unit 23 serving as a reception room or tribunal, perhaps being reserved for officers. Other buildings could have served the daily administrative, storage, and logistical needs of a permanent garrison. So far, few finds of a military character have been positively identified, but a number of weapons were recovered from middle Byzantine levels in the Enclosure that could be used to support this proposal. An iron javelin point (SF6172) was found on the floor of MB unit 25, and at least four arrowheads have been recovered from other trenches: SF3438 in trench XB-96 context 5; SF6145 in trench XM-03 context 49; SF7344 in trench XC-06 context 1010; and SF7282 in trench XC-06 context 1011.304 If this interpretation is correct,

the Amorium Enclosure would be the first such military establishment to be archaeologically documented in Byzantine Anatolia. A detailed comparison of the Enclosure with other contemporary Byzantine fortifications lies outside the scope of this report, however, and a fuller evaluation must await future research.

(ix). The End of Byzantine Amorium at the Enclosure

The first Seljuk Turkish raids in 1068, allegedly even reaching Amorium, penetrated deep into Anatolia and caused localised destruction.305 Following the defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert in 1071, the region of Phrygia was further destabilised by the rebellion of the local magnate Nicephorus Melissenus in 1080. By the time of the campaigns of emperor Alexius I Comnenus in 1116, Amorium and its region were no longer subject to Byzantine imperial authority. Instead, it appears to have become part of a depopulated frontier zone between the Empire and the Seljuk Sultanate.306 Tantalising evidence for the end of Byzantine Amorium has been found in trenches both inside and outside the Enclosure. To date, however, no destruction layers datable to the late 11th century have been found to suggest a violent end to the middle Byzantine occupation. Instead, buildings inside the Enclosure show signs of being emptied of their contents before their abandonment and gradual decay – a pattern that is more suggestive of an organised, deliberate evacuation of the inhabitants. The wellhead in XC-98 was carefully closed with a stone lid as if the inhabitants hoped to return; later a packed clay floor (XC-98 context 19, Ottoman?) was laid over its site.307 Most of the earth floors in the middle Byzantine buildings were found to be remarkably clean, as if all useful personal effects had been systematically removed before abandonment. The aforementioned iron javelin point (SF6172) found on the floor of MB unit 25 was one of a very few exceptions. Virtually no intact domestic pottery was found on the floors of the middle Byzantine buildings, with the exception of the storage bin in the bathhouse (XC-01 context 145, see section (vii) above) and the pithoi which were left embedded in the ground. The buildings in the Enclosure then appear to have been left to decay and collapse.

302 DOP 2001, 394. 303 DOP 1998, 328; DOP 2001, 386, 394; DOP 2003, 292.

304 For javelin point SF 6172, see DOP 2007, 375. For arrow-

head SF3438, see DOP 1998, 328 fn. 20, fig. 13. Another arrowhead not cited there but from the same context is SF5495. Writing in 2002, John Haldon suggested that these finds ‘probably belong to the eighth or ninth century;’ Haldon 2002, 75 fn. 44. He also stated that ‘only two iron arrow-heads… have been recovered to date,’ whereas several others had been mentioned and illustrated in an earlier preliminary report; see AnatSt 1993, 160, fig. 2. In the early 1990s Margaret Gill prepared a catalogue of small finds for 1988–1992 that included 12 arrowheads. To date [2009], some 40 iron arrowheads have

305 306 307

84

been recorded from across the site. I owe these references and remarks to Chris Lightfoot. Vryonis 1971, 95; Belke and Mersich 1990, 99. Amorium 1, 8; Vryonis 1971, 117, 144-5, 153. DOP 2001, 392.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Floors were covered by layers of washed-in earth and building debris from collapsed walls and tiled roofs (for example, in trench XE-06, Fig. 1/37 contexts 208, 209, 247, 2207, 210, 223, 237). An approximate date for this abandonment can be fixed by the latest coins found on and in these abandonment and collapse layers over the floors of the middle Byzantine buildings. In MB unit 24 the final earth floor was found to be covered with a fill of washed-in earth and collapsed building debris (XM03 context 31). An anonymous follis of class G (SF5750, dated ca. 1065–1070) was found in this post-abandonment fill. EB structure 3 also appears to have been last entered in the later 11th century, when a signed follis of Constantine X and Eudocia (SF4109, dated 1059–1067) was lost on its earth floor (see section (vii) above). In the renovated bathhouse the latest coins were three anonymous folles (SF4043, SF4044, and SF4045, all of class I, dated ca. 1075–1080), associated with the rubbish pit in room La (XC-01 context 139), and in room V another anonymous follis of class A2 (SF4046, dated 976?–ca. 1030/35) was found in fill over the earth floor (XC-01 context 140). Collectively, these coins suggest that the Enclosure was abandoned in the latter part of the 11th century, a hypothesis that can be extended to the rest of Amorium as well. A small hoard, comprising 22 copper alloy coins (all anonymous folles of class G) and a gold scyphate histamenon of Constantine X Ducas (1059–1067), was concealed in a room of a middle Byzantine house in trench AB at the gateway on the Lower City walls.308 The burial (and lack of recovery) of this hoard is suggestive of the flight of the inhabitants during this period. On the Upper City, in trench L, a house inside the middle Byzantine city wall appears to have been evacuated and left to decay. The last inhabitants left behind very little domestic detritus and even carefully emptied and resealed the large pithoi that were sunken into the floor of one room, perhaps in the hope of their eventual return.309

the large numbers of animal bones recovered from this pit, the disarticulated remains of at least three adult individuals were also found, comprising a female, a male estimated to be 30–40 years of age, and a much older male.310 Some of these human bones bore the gnawing marks of large canines, suggesting that the remains had been left exposed before being dumped in the refuse pit. The younger male had suffered a violent death; the skull showed evidence of fatal trauma from a blunt blade. The three coins from this deposit (SF4043, SF4044, and SF4045, mentioned above) offer an approximate dating for the deposit of ca. 1075–1080.311 The circumstances surrounding the death and disposal of these bodies hardly constitute a formal burial; at the very least they suggest a decline in civic order at Amorium in the late 11th century. If so, then these bones may well constitute some of the city’s last Byzantine inhabitants.

11. Phase 5: Seljuk and Early Ottoman, ca. 1200–1600 Although excavation has shown that other locations at Amorium were resettled in the mid-13th century by the Seljuk Turks, until recently there was scant evidence for their presence at the Enclosure. So nebulous were these remains that in the early years of the excavations it was assumed that the Enclosure area was not occupied after the 11th century.312 To judge from the shallow depth of the middle Byzantine structures in the southern portion of the Enclosure, a combination of factors such as surface erosion, modern stone robbing, and ploughing could explain the obliteration of any later remains. A post-Byzantine occupation at the Enclosure site can now be identified, however, although its exact nature and date remain obscure (Fig. 1/8). In trench XC-98 the remains of a building designated ‘Structure 8’ were discovered over the site of the tepidarium of the bathhouse. ‘Structure 8’ was a small square building measuring only 2.00 m. by 2.00 m., constructed of rubble and mud with an earth floor (XC-98 context 36). A square ‘installation’ of packed stones was built inside ‘Structure 8’ that had two rectangular sunken compartments (XC-98 contexts 8 and 17). At the time, ‘no clear indication was found as to the building’s purpose.’ In the preliminary report on the 1998 season, ‘Structure 8’ was assigned

Given the historical and archaeological context, the most likely time for these events would be in the late 11th century, and certainly no earlier than the Seljuk raid of 1068. There is also, however, some gruesome evidence for the final years of Byzantine Amorium from the Enclosure. In its final phase of use, the former latrine (room La) in the bathhouse had been converted into a refuse pit (Fig. 1/30 XC-01 context 139). In addition to

310 Amorium 2, 171-3; DOP 2004, 361-3, 367-8, fig. 10; see

308 AnatSt 1991, 221-2, fig. 4 (SF 1306a-v and SF1305 respec-

also below Chapter 14, pages 423-4.

311 DOP 2004, 361. 312 DOP 2001, 392, 398.

tively); see also Amorium 1, 14. 309 AnatSt 1994, 115-16, fig. 2; see Amorium 1, 18.

85

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

to ‘Stratum II(a)’ which was associated with the latest middle Byzantine occupation in the 11th century.313 The stratigraphic location of ‘Structure 8’ would seem to argue against such an association, however, since ‘Structure 8’ was located some 2.00 m. above the buried middle Byzantine earth floors of EB structure 1. The make-up of the intervening layers can be interpreted as collapse layers of the converted bathhouse (XC-01 context 141, 0.50 m. deep), followed by a lengthy abandonment (XC-98 context 56, some 1.20 m deep), as well as subsequent activities (XC-98 context 49, an ash layer, 0.15 m. thick, and context 40, a layer of ash, rubble, and slag).314 ‘Structure 8’ must therefore post-date the final abandonment of the bathhouse building by some considerable time, but there is precious little evidence to suggest exactly when. The latest securely datable object from trench XC-98 was a silver para (SF3762, dated 1757), found in earth fill layers that covered the ruin of ‘Structure 8.’315 In trench XC-98 south of the bathhouse ruin, some of the uppermost layers covering the middle Byzantine layers can probably be assigned to the Ottoman period (Fig. 1/27). Context 26, a fill contained animal bones and much residual Byzantine material, but also some fragments of Ottoman pipes, indicating, like coin SF3762, activity in the Enclosure as late as the 17th or 18th century. Other contexts in these layers may also belong in this period, such as a packed clay floor (XC-98 context 19) that was laid over the site of the sealed well in XC-98. This floor was later cut by a rubbish pit (XC-98 context 16). Mention should also be made of an single, isolated grave found on the site of MB unit 44 (Fig. 1/25 XB-02 context 57). No grave cut was discerned, but the grave was lower than XB-02 context 50, the earth surface of MB unit 44, implying that it was cut into its surface, and thus post dates it. The grave was also stratigraphically well above the destroyed BEM unit 6, being inserted immediately beside its ruined east wall. The grave was partially lined and covered with stones and contained an articulated human skeleton. The stratigraphic position of this grave, dug into the middle Byzantine surface, and thus technically

post-dating it, and its location below the first layer of collapsed stones from the Enclosure wall (XB-02 contexts 46 and 47) indicates a late date. No datable object was associated with the burial, but its north-south orientation, with head to the north, may suggest a Muslim rather than a Christian burial. One should also note that no middle Byzantine chapel or church was found nearby or in the entire excavation area at the Enclosure that could be associated with this lone burial. Most of these aforementioned remains were badly damaged by modern activities, but an Ottoman oven (here designated oven A) discovered in trench XE-06 proved to be the best preserved Turkish feature discovered so far (Fig. 1/8). The oven had been partially preserved and protected by rubble from Enclosure wall 40 that had collapsed over its remains, and it rested directly on top of the ruins of MB unit 27.316 It had a single opening and was roughly semicircular in plan, having been built up against the north face of Enclosure wall 40. Oven A was constructed of spolia stones and bricks laid in mud with a cone-shaped roof of reused Byzantine bricks. In the absence of any kiln-firing debris or wasters, it is probable that this structure served as a bread oven or tandir. The remains of two more ovens were revealed in trenches to the west. Oven B (wall 32) was discovered in trench XC-03 East, built against the ruin of MB unit 7, while oven C (later removed) was found in trench XC02 East, abutting the east wall of EB structure 1 room V (Fig. 1/8). Both ovens lay very close to the modern surface, with the result that only their floors and foundations were preserved. Ovens B and C were circular in plan and had a single opening. Like oven A, both were constructed of reused stones, bricks, and mud, and had brick-paved earth floors, baked orange by the heat of the furnace.317 From their stratigraphic location it was evident that these ovens definitely post-dated the end of the middle Byzantine phase. Only a very sparse surface scatter of glazed mediaeval Turkish pottery has been recovered from across the Enclosure area, but glazed pottery fragments recovered in and near oven A suggest a date perhaps as late as the early Ottoman period (15th–16th centuries). If so, then these ovens could have helped to feed the Turkish residents of the settlement of Hisarcık that is mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1530.318

313 DOP 2001, 391 and 392. ‘Structure 8’ is referred to as

314

315

‘Building VI’ in the excavation records. A coin (SF3766) of Constantine X Ducas (1059-1060), found in fill (context 8) inside the ‘installation’ within ‘Structure 8,’ is stratigraphically too high and so must be residual. Below earth floor XC-98 context 36 in stratigraphic succession are contexts 40, 49, 56, and 141, which lay over earth floor context 329. DOP 2001, 392.

316 AnatArch 2006, 30; KST 2008, 448, pl. 8. 317 Compare a ‘late’ bread oven found in Temple A at

Laodiceia ad Lycum; Şimşek 2007, 235, pl. 80a.

318 Lightfoot 1998b, 56 fn. 2; 1998d, 78; 2000, 83.

86

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

12. Concluding Remarks: the significance of the amorium enclosure excavations, 1996–2008

and its relation to the late antique urban plan, and the nature and layout of the middle Byzantine Enclosure. New discoveries and future study should also further clarify issues of dating and interpretation. The definitive publication of the coins of Amorium, including those from the Enclosure, will be published as Amorium 4 by Chris Lightfoot. A detailed monographic study of the bathhouse complex EB structures 1 and 3 will be the subject of a future volume in the Amorium Monograph Series. Pottery from the Enclosure will form the bulk of the materials presented in another volume devoted to the mediaeval Byzantine pottery of Amorium. Final studies of the glassware, glass jewellery, and the metalwork from the Enclosure excavations are also are also underway. Further studies of the human and animal bones will also no doubt expand our knowledge. A better understanding of the area’s urban context is also desirable, and to these ends a long-term goal of the Amorium Excavations Project is to expand and unite the Enclosure and Church excavations. Opening up the area between these zones for excavation should provide a larger sample area for the layout of the Lower City, thereby combining secular and ecclesiastical elements. By adopting such a multi-dimensional approach, it is hoped that broader conclusions can be drawn concerning the urban fabric of the Lower City, particularly during the ‘transitional’ period of the 7th–9th centuries.

The Enclosure excavations conducted between 1996 and 2008 have revealed an invaluable cross-section of the archaeology of Amorium from a prime location close to the city centre. As such, these discoveries have opened up new and often surprising perspectives on the history and development of the city over the span of a thousand years, ranging from the 5th to 16th centuries. The discovery of the early mediaeval wineries and the associated 838 destructions are of truly international archaeological significance, making a major contribution to our understanding of the so-called Byzantine ‘dark age.’ The exceptional pottery assemblages and rich small finds from this destruction contexts provide a much needed fixed point in the chronology of Byzantine material culture in Anatolia. The surprising vitality and relative prosperity of early mediaeval Amorium revealed by the Enclosure excavations does much to temper the traditional associations of this era with urban decline and economic stagnation. The cumulative richness of these discoveries has fully justified ten seasons of concentrated effort and, indeed, calls for more excavation and post-excavation study in future seasons. Many questions raised by the present study still need further archaeological investigation, particularly the full extent of the early Byzantine baths complex

87

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Appendices Appendix 1: Trench Designations* and Context Numbers, 1996–2008 * For locations of trenches see Figs. 1/2 and 1/3.

XA Trenches outside Enclosure Wall 40 XA-96 : contexts 1-36 XA-01 (including cellar MB unit 18) : 1-125 XA-02 (under XA-01) : contexts 126-156 XA1-02 : contexts 1-51 XA2-02 (grid square E11/g10) : contexts 1-56 XA3-02 (grid square E11/f10) : contexts 1-27

XE Trenches XE-01 : contexts 1-8 XE-04 (under XE-01) : contexts 9-31 XE-05 : contexts 40-112 (contexts 40-77 assigned to continued excavation in XE-04) XE-06 : contexts 114, 200-279 (some contexts assigned to continued excavation in XE-04 and XE-05) XE-08 (reopened XE-06) : contexts 300-355 XE-08 Street : contexts 400-409

XB Trenches inside Enclosure Wall 40 XB-96 : contexts 1-29 XB-00 : contexts 30-40 XB-02 (grid square E11/i10) : contexts 40-82 XB-03 : contexts 97-147 XB-04 (inside MB unit 9 and under XC-01) : 148-152 XB-08 : contexts 400-409

Trench designations XF-XK : not allocated XL Trenches XL-02 : contexts 1-3 XM Trenches XM-03 : contexts 1-52

XBC Trenches XBC-98 : contexts 1-7

XN Trenches XN-06 (north Enclosure wall 171) : contexts 1-11

XC Trenches XC-98 : contexts 1-102 (in part over XC-01) XC-01 (in part under XC-98) : contexts 110-235 (contexts 160-180, 220-223 inside BEM unit 17) XC-01 West (extension to XC-01) : contexts 236-246 XC-02 : contexts 301-386 XC-02 East: contexts 1-27  XC-02 (grid square E11/j10) : contexts 1-10 XC-02 (grid square F11/a10) : contexts 26-31 XC-03 East : contexts 361, 394A, 401-499, 601-609 XC-03 West : contexts 500-538 XC-04 (under XC-01 in BEM unit 31) : contexts 701-715 XC-05 : contexts 900-984; contexts 906, 921, 956, 957, 961 assigned to deep sounding inside foundations of BEM unit 1 in former XC-98 (Fig. 1/4); contexts 975-979 assigned to S05-1 in EB structure 3 (Figs. 1/4 and 1/6) XC-06 : contexts 1000-1045

XO Trenches XO-06 West Gate (west Enclosure wall 170, gate) : contexts 1-13 Test Sondages, 2002 S02-3 (3 m. square trench, north of trench XC-03 East) : 1-7, opened in connection with geophysical work conducted by A. Kaya and M.G. Drahor (see Chapter 17 below).319 S02-4 (trench XC-02, drains between EB structures 1 and 3) : contexts 1-9, with context 10 (fill of drain) dug in 2006 (Figs. 1/2, 1/5, and 1/6) S02-5 (trench XC-02, in south east exedra of EB structure 3) : contexts 1 (same as XC-02 context 308), 2 and 3 (Figs. 1/5 and 1/6).320 Test Sondages, 2005 S05-1 (south ambulatory of EB structure 3, old XC-01): assigned trench XC-05 contexts 975-979 (Figs. 1/4 and 1/6)

XD Trenches XD-00 : contexts 1-31

319 Sondages S02-1 and S02-2 were located on the Upper

City mound where further geophysical work was conducted. 320 DOP 2005, 235.

88

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Appendix 2: Enclosure Destruction Contexts by Trench Rationale

used in weaving SF3946; see below Chapter 8, pages 267-8 no. 48, Pl. 8/20) and 32* (channel stones and ash, coin of Theophilus, SF4027, Appendix 3 no. 12). Contexts 30 and 32* are same as contexts 34, 37, and 39, (heavy ash over floor and former channels).

This table is arranged alphabetically by X-trench letter groups (XA, XB, XC, etc.), and then within each trench group, they are listed in chronological order (e.g. XC-01, XC-02, XC-03, etc.). Whenever possible, destruction contexts are presented preceded by their respective unit and structure designations so as to locate them more easily. For the locations of trenches, structures and contexts the reader should refer to Figs 1/2, 1/3 and 1/6. Within each trench and unit the contexts are described in stratigraphic succession in their order of deposition (i.e. lowest, first in order; latest last). Reference should be made between this context list and the Harris matrices of trenches (Figs. 1/25-40). Contexts that contained 9th-century coins are marked with an asterisk (*). These coins are briefly described and reference is made to Appendix 3, a list of all the 9th-century coins found in the destruction contexts. The symbol = indicates contexts that form part of the same stratigraphic layer that was divided during excavation between two or more context numbers, usually to section a room or trench, or to distinguish between upper and lower portions of the same layer. Unit information and brief descriptions of the contexts and important finds (SF numbers) are also supplied.

XB-02: MATRIX FIG. 1/25 • BEM unit 6, over floor context 67: destruction contexts 76* (charcoal, charred wood, and ash; coin of Leo V, SF4386, Appendix 3 no. 3; dichroic glass vessel fragment) and 62 (ash, charcoal, and roof tiles), with contexts 51 = 53 (ash, mud brick - intact mud brick B1050, Pl. 1/11), and 49 (mud brick) over; context 49 with SF5031 iron arrowhead); 56, and 66 (wall collapses, mud brick). • BEM unit 8, over unnumbered earth floor context: destruction contexts 69 (heavy ash, pottery assemblage, SF4498 copper flagon); context 69 = 70 (heavy ash, tile), with contexts 63 (mud brick), 71 (mud brick and stones) over. • BEM unit 30 courtyard, over unnumbered earth surface: context 80 (human skeleton) with destruction context 54 (mud brick, stones) over, and next to context 68 (roof tile, mud brick); context 71 (roof tiles, mud brick, stones) overlapping BEM unit 8. XB-03: MATRIX FIG. 1/26 • BEM unit 7, over earth floor context 134: destruction context 128 (ash, roof tiles, mud brick, with residual coin SF5722, Theodosius I (AD 383-92). • BEM unit 9, over contexts 139 (earth floor) and 140 (pithos setting): destruction contexts 135 (fine ash, 3 cm. thick on floor context 139), 132* (ash and roof tiles; two coins of Theophilus, SF5725 and SF5727, Appendix 3 nos. 14-15, and SF6354 iron axe fragment 1), context 124* (ash mud brick, roof tile, iron nails; one coin of Michael II, SF5702, Appendix 3 no. 10, SF6253 iron axe head, fragment 2, joins SF6354 fragment 1); 124 probably = 125 at same level (ash, mud brick, roof tiles) and 114 above (ash, mud brick, roof tile, iron nails), with 113 (mud brick, roof tile) top most layer of collapse. • BEM unit 10, on context 143 (earth floor) and over troughs (contexts 116, 137, and 138): destruction contexts 142* (heavy ash, charred wooden beams, roof tile; one coin of Michael II, SF6142, Appendix 3 no. 9; SF8524 copper basin fragments, and iron tools), and 136 (upper mud brick, roof tiles, stones) over. XB-03 contexts 143 (and probably 142*) = XE-04 context 28 (ash, roof tiles, mud brick, and stones, with SF6436 iron object). • BEM units 10-11 (upper level, overlapping contexts over ruined walls): destruction contexts 136 (upper mud brick, roof tiles, stones), with context 142* below it in BEM unit 10.

XA TRENCHES

XA-96: • Destruction contexts 13* (coin of Nicephorus I, SF3420: Appendix 3 no. 1), 17, and 36 (mud brick). XA1-02: • Destruction context 30, located between MB cellar wall and south wall of BEM unit 2 (burned layer with pottery, marble fragments, SF4888, SF4890 and SF4891 iron lock mechanism, and iron nails found near doorway into BEM unit 2).

XB TRENCHES

XB-96: • BEM unit 6: destruction contexts 12, (ash), with contexts 22, 25, 27, 11, 19, 21 over (mud brick, roof tiles), and 26 (mud brick, roof tiles), a continuation of XA-96 contexts 17 and 36. XB-00: • BEM unit 5: destruction contexts 30321 (channel stones and ash, with SF3946 bone object, possibly a diz, a tool 321 For a fragment of dichroic glass from this context, see

Amorium 1, 255 no. 7.

89

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

XC-02: MATRIX FIG. 1/31 • EB structure 1, collapsed suspended floor contexts: tepidarium hypocaust context 306 (with human skull fragment) = contexts 312, 325, and XC-01 context 215; tepidarium hypocaust context 325 (with diachroic glass fragment),323 caldarium hypocaust context 312 (with pottery vessels including complete Burnished Ware jug,324 and SF5144 iron arrowhead); sudatorium contexts 365 = 366 = 375; outside bathhouse, western praefurnium context 379. • BEM unit 21 (Chapel): destruction context 327 (ash, fallen roof tiles, intact pottery, human bones; two intrusive coins: SF4373, middle Byzantine follis (?), and SF4370, anonymous follis of class A2 (976?–ca. 1030/35). • BEM unit 22 (narthex to Chapel BEM unit 21) on surface of floor context 387: (layer of ‘brown earth’ – perhaps mud brick? – mixed with ash, stones). • BEM unit 23, lying on surface of context 386 earth floor of BEM unit 23: destruction context 372 (layer of ‘brown earth’ – perhaps mud brick? –mixed with ash, stones). • BEM unit 24, over floor context 385: destruction context 367 (ash, mud brick, tile, 14 coins, latest of which dated 705/6;325 SF5208 bronze belt buckle, SF5066, SF5067 and SF5074 iron objects). • BEM unit 25 on surface of red clay floor context 383: destruction context 368 (ash, mud brick, intact domestic pottery). • Narrow space between east wall of EB structure 3 and rear wall of MB units 1-3, over unnumbered earth surface: destruction context 355 (thick ash, roof tiles), with context 248 (ash layer) over, and context 321* above (mud brick, roof tiles, ash; one coin of Michael II, SF4361, Appendix 3 no. 6). • BEM unit 26-27, over top surface of EB stylobate wall 160 and earth floor (XC-03 West context 531, with top of EB stylobate blocks (wall 160) at same level and forming part of floor with this context): destruction context 392 (mud brick, brick, stones; two residual coins SF4453, Roman provincial (?) and SF4454, Justin II (dated 569/70). XC02 context 392 = XC-03 West destruction context 530* (mud brick, stones, brick, metal objects, and coin SF5721 of Theophilus, Appendix 3 no. 35).

• BEM unit 11, over earth floor contexts XB-08 402, 401 and some floor excavated as part of 400: destruction contexts 144 (mud brick, roof tile, ash) and 136 (upper mud brick, roof tiles, stones) over. • BEM unit 31 courtyard, over unnumbered earth surface and wellhead context 147: destruction contexts 129 (mud brick, roof tile, ash), 123 and 112 (heavy ash, roof tile, mud brick). • Underneath MB unit 9, context 145 (floor): probably context 146 (‘reddish-brown clay’ – perhaps decomposed mud brick?) XB-08: MATRIX FIG. 1/26 • BEM unit 11, over earth floor contexts 401 and 402: destruction context 400 (mud brick, roof tiles and ash, possibly dug with some of floor surface below = lower portion of XB-03, context 144 (see above).

XBC TRENCHES

XBC-98: • See XC-04, which included the former XBC-98 and reached definite early mediaeval levels in BEM unit 6. The tops of the troughs exposed here in XBC-98 were associated with disturbed context 5 (9th–11th century).

XC TRENCHES

XC-98: MATRIX FIGS. 1/27 AND 1/29 • BEM unit 17: destruction contexts 85 = 76 (ash, red-gray decayed mud brick, large quantities of brick and roof tile; ‘wine-glass’ base of a dichroic glass vessel (goblet?) and an intact miniature glass flask).322 • BEM unit 31 courtyard: destruction contexts 74 (mud brick, roof tiles, and debris) and 77 (mud brick, roof tile, and debris). XC-01: MATRIX FIG. 1/30 • EB structure 1, room F2: destruction context 157 = context 158. • EB structure 1, room La: fill in drain context 212. • EB structure 1, on pavement of room F1: destruction context 213* (coin of Michael II, SF4182, Appendix 3 no. 8) = 214, and context 216. • EB structure 1, caldarium north apse basement: destruction context 215 (suspended floor collapse, same as XC-02 context 306). • EB structure 1: destruction context 241* (coin of Nicephorus I, SF4199, Appendix 3 no. 2).

323 For Byzantine dichroic glass at Amorium, see Amorium

1, 253-8, and Lightfoot 2005, 178-9.

324 Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010, 364-65, fig. 16.1. 325 They are SF4380, SF4382 (Justinian II, second reign,

dated 705/6), SF4383, SF4384, SF4392, SF4393, SF4401, SF4402, SF4418, SF4420 (Tiberius II, dated 579–582), SF4422, SF4427 (Constantine IV, dated 674–685), SF5232, SF6535.

322 Amorium 1, 254-5 no. 6; Lightfoot 2005, 174, fig. 1.

90

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

XC-02 EAST/grid square F11/a-10: • BEM unit 45: destruction context 17 (large amounts of black and grey ash, burned animal bones), with context 10* over (coin of Leo V, SF4421, Appendix 3 no. 4; reddish mud brick, roof tiles, debris). Context 10* also over hard earth surface context 16. Context 10* = XC02 context 321*. Context 15 (‘reddish-black’ mud brick, ash; cut glass bottle or bowl, perhaps import from Islamic world).326 Context 15 also perhaps = context 10.*

• BEM unit 16: destruction context 939 (ashy earth, bricks, roof tiles, large quantities of pottery, and cowry shell SF6610) over latest cobbled surface, context 960, and context 926 above (ashy fill with thick ash at bottom of context, large quantities of roof tile, brick, and 8th–9th-century pottery).

XD TRENCHES

XD-00: • Context 12 (mud-brick layer between Enclosure wall 40 and the south wall of installation A).

XC-03 EAST: MATRIX FIG. 1/32 • Outside N wall of BEM unit 11: destruction context 428* (coin of Theophilus, SF5594, Appendix 3 no. 13; mud brick, roof tile), with 438 (ash and roof tile) over. • BEM unit 14, over context 461 floor: destruction context 444/448 (roof tile, thick ash, mud brick, with SF5707 copper basin, SF5696 and SF5699 two iron folding stools or tables, SF5648A-D four gaming counters, SF5695 iron knife blade with tang for handle), = context 451 (SF5668 ivory (?) handle; see below Chapter 8, page 266 no. 31, Fig. 8/2; Pl. 8/12), SF5651A-B fragments of bone appliqués (perhaps from furniture such as the iron folding stools or tables, SF5650A-B; see below Chapter 8, page 264 nos. 4-5, Fig. 8/1; Pl. 8/1), SF5649A-B two bone objects, possibly needlework prickers (see below Chapter 8, page 265 no. 19, Fig. 8/1; Pl. 8/5), = context 487 (ash, roof tile, mud brick, SF5757 bronze weight, SF6249 iron stylus). • BEM unit 28, over floor context 475: destruction contexts 450 and 460 (mud brick, tiles, ash), 468 (mud brick). • BEM unit 29, over floor context 466: destruction context 447 (mud brick). • BEM unit 45, over surface: destruction context 459 (mud brick, roof tiles, ash).

XE TRENCHES

XE-04 (contexts 9-31) and XE-05 (contexts 40-112): MATRIX FIGS. 1/35 and 1/36 • BEM unit 12, over unnumbered earth floor: destruction contexts 51 (roof tiles, stones, mud brick), 26 (mud brick, roof tiles, stones) over (under 22, covering BEM units 12 and 33). • BEM unit 13, in and over installation C lenos (see Figs. 1/21 and 1/22): destruction contexts 45 (charred grain in press tank), 41 = context 98 (ash, charred wood, roof tile collapse), 40 (ash, brick, tile, mud brick), 29 (mud brick), and 25 over (eroded mud brick, silt). • BEM unit 13, over site of hypolenion and mixed fill context 50 (destruction layer?): context 49, (combined post destruction collapse fill with mud brick, tile, stones, and abandonment layers with coin of Basil I, SF6515, class 5, dated 869–870), 42 (similar mud brick, roof tiles, stones), with contexts 40, 29, and 25 over. • BEM unit 32: all contexts being overlapping concentrations of mud brick, debris and ash, forming a single, continuous destruction that extended into south end of BEM unit 33. BEM unit 32 west side (at south end of alley BEM unit 33) (see Fig. 1/23): over fills 60 = 72: destruction contexts 54 = 44 in BEM unit 33 (disturbed earth surface with destruction layer of thick ash, roof tile, and stones, extends between BEM units 33 and 32), 19 (mud brick, roof tile, with ash below, possibly continuation of = 27), 17 (ash and roof tile), 15 (possibly continuation of 27, roof tile and mud brick, with SF6397 amber bead or pendant; see below Chapter 16 below. BEM unit 32 east side, over earth surfaces 63* = 64 (in 63* SF6544, coin of Leo V, Appendix 3 no. 5, and on surface of context 63* SF6546 iron scrapper): destruction contexts 66 (mud brick in hollow), 14 = 16 = 18 (mud brick, roof tile, ash below; 14 with SF7797 iron ploughshare). • BEM unit 33: all contexts being overlapping concentrations of mud brick, debris and ash, forming a single, continuous destruction extending into BEM unit 32.

XC-03 WEST: MATRIX FIG. 1/33 • BEM units 23, 27, and 38: destruction context 530* (mud brick, brick, stones; coin of Theophilus, SF5721, Appendix 3 no. 35), same layer as XC-02 context 392 in BEM unit 26-27. XC-05: MATRIX FIG. 1/34 • BEM unit 2: destruction context 949 (mud brick, ash, roof tiles) with 947 above (orange-red mud brick). • BEM unit 3: destruction context 924 (mud brick, ash, large quantities of pottery); BEM unit 17 west context 954 (ash-covered earth floor, intact pot, five copper hooks, residual coin SF6707, follis of Anastasius I), sealed by context 931 (collapsed walls).

326 Lightfoot 2005, 175, n. 10, and figs. 2-3.

91

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

XE-08: MATRIX FIGS. 1/38-40 • Entire trench: context 300 (weathered 2006 surface, decomposed mud brick). • BEM unit 19 (Fig. 1/38), upper destruction layers over both north and south room: destruction contexts 307, 318, 332: context 313 (black ash, roof tile, pottery, animal bone, SF8251 basalt mortar, SF8261 terracotta button or spindle whorl), 303 (mud brick, roof tiles), 301 (mud brick, roof tiles, human skull fragment), with 300 (weathered 2006 top of mud brick layers) above. • BEM unit 19 north room (Fig. 1/38), over floor context 355 (earth/stone slab floor): destruction context 350 (0.33 m. thick layer of black ash, roof tiles, pithos fragments, large quantities of pottery, animal bone), 307 (ashy, mud brick, pithos upper body), 313, 303, 301, with 300 above. • BEM unit 19 south room ((Fig. 1/38), over context 348 = 355 (hard earth floor): destruction context 345 (black ash, pottery, animal bone, roof tile, SF8280 finger ring with bezel, SF8284 basalt mortar) contexts 318 = same as XB-03 contexts 116, 137, 138 (burned stone trough fill, comprising ash, mud brick, roof tiles), 332* (SF8262, coin of Theophilus, Appendix 3 no. 17; charred grain around trough, black ash, roof tiles, animal bone, pottery, metal fragments), 313, 303, 301, with 300 above. • BEM unit 40 courtyard (Fig. 1/39), over earth surface (no context number assigned): destruction context 351 (fragmentary human skeleton, female, lying on earth surface), 349 (mud brick, roof tile, stones, SF8279 book pin), 330 (mud brick, roof tile, large quantities of animal bone, metal objects, glass fragments, copper hoop SF8281, and iron ploughshare SF8397), 322 (mud brick, roof tile, many glass fragments; SF8256, late Roman residual coin and SF8257, terracotta loomweight), 317 (mud brick, roof tile), 311 (mud brick, intact mud brick, roof tile), with 300 above. The combined destruction layers here measure 0.66 m. thick. • BEM unit 41 (Fig. 1/39), press room with installation G, over contexts 343* = 347* = 342, a continuous hard earth surface not excavated away: lying on earth surface context 343* were three coins of Theophilus SF8272, SF8273, and SF8274 (Appendix 3 nos. 21-23), and on the adjacent area of floor context 347* were found an additional eleven coins of Theophilus SF8275, SF8276, SF8277, SF8278, SF8285, SF8288, SF8289, SF8290, SF8291, SF8292, SF8316 (Appendix 3 nos. 24-34). Also on floor contexts 343* = 347* = 342 were six iron tools/ implements: SF8527 a two-pronged iron fork with oxidized wood handle, SF8528 a straight iron knife blade with curved tip and sheath, SF8529 an iron knife blade in four joining fragments with bronze handle haft, SF8530 an iron attachment, SF8531 a large iron chisel, and SF8532 an intact iron chopper or scrapper).

BEM unit 33: destruction contexts over unnumbered earth surface: 55 (mud brick, roof tile, bricks, stones), 52 = portion of 44 (ash, roof tile, mud brick), context 44 = 54 in BEM unit 32 (disturbed earth surface with destruction layer of thick ash, roof tile, and stones, extends between BEM units 33 and 32; with SF6512 copper alloy incense burner, and SF6507 gold, pearl, and emerald earring or pendant fragment), context 27 (mud brick), and 22 over (decomposed mud brick, stones, tile of upper collapse and abandonment layer) with MB drain (context 20) dug into surface. • XE-05 street contexts (Fig. 1/36), over cobbled surface context 86: destruction contexts 87 (thick ash, roof tiles, column fragment T2108), 81 and 85 (ash and mud brick), 88 (mud brick) = 95 (mud brick, east of street). • BEM unit 40, courtyard, over earth surface context 107: destruction contexts 96 (ash, tiles), 104 (mud brick) and 108 (mud brick, over sealed pithos context 109 set in earth surface context 107). XE-06: MATRIX FIG. 1/37 • BEM unit 13, area of unit north of installation C (in old XE-04): destruction context 114* (coin of Michael II, SF7548, Appendix 3 no. 7; mud brick, roof tile), 221 (area east of street), 225* (a coin of Theophilus, SF7294, Appendix 3 no. 16), 248, 258. • BEM unit 18, over treading floors of installations E and F (contexts 263 and 265) (in old XE-05): destruction context 260 (with SF7501 handle fragment decorated with human mask from a copper alloy situla or bucket,327 and burned organic seed sample). • BEM unit 18, installation E, pithos context 249 (later cut by Enclosure wall 40): destruction context 248 (ash, charcoal, mud brick, roof tile, glass fragments, and SF7325 copper alloy loop handle of a situla or bucket, decorated with engraved hatching), with context 221 over (mud brick, roof tiles, stones). Also over pithos context 224 (later cut by Enclosure wall 40): context 222, same as XE-08 context 300 (ash, mud brick, roof tiles). • BEM unit 19, beneath unit MB 33: destruction context 261 (with SF7503 copper alloy spoon fragment), with 258 over (mud brick, roof tiles, stones, brick). • BEM units 20-44: destruction context 267 (on earth floor of BEM unit 20: ash, tile, charcoal and roof tiles, associated with human bones, including femur, other leg bones, and part of pelvis), 264 (ash, stones, roof tiles).

327 SF7501 is illustrated on the title page of this volume: hu-

man mask and loop height 8.05 cm. and width 4.2 cm; handle preserved height 9.7 cm, width 1.1 cm; external diameter of loop 2.1 cm.

92

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Also found lying on floor context 347* were five pieces of (unpublished) iron fittings, collars and straps, SF8533A-E, possibly from the dismantled press-beam equipment? (two iron collars measure diam. 35 cm.. A third collar measures diam. 15.6 X 19.3 cm.). Over press room floor 343* = 347* = 342 and hypolenion of installation G were destruction contexts 338* (two coins of Theophilus, SF8269 and SF8270, Appendix 3 nos. 1920; brown-grey mud brick, stones, roof tiles), 333 = 323, = 321 (mud brick of red clay), 310 (mud brick layer 0.35 m. thick), with 300 above; over floor of lenos context 340, context 329 (mud brick of red clay, many roof tiles, inside lenos of installation G), 323 = 333 = 321 (mud brick of red clay), 310, with 300 above. • BEM unit 42 (Fig. 1/40), over floor surface context 353 (white plaster on context 354, earth floor make-up) = floor surface 336 (white plaster, MB unit 43): destruction contexts 334 (31 cm. of ash, mud brick, roof tiles) = 331 (MB unit 43), 337 (mud brick), 327 (ash, earth, roof tiles, stones, iron objects) = 319 (MB unit 43), 320 (reddish brown earth, roof tiles, stones, iron objects) = 314*? (coin of Michael II, SF 8250, Appendix 3 no. 11; reddish brown earth – perhaps mud brick, roof tiles, stones, SF8525 large iron ring), 305 (reddish brown earth), with 300 above.

• BEM unit 43 ((Fig. 1/40), over floor surface context 336 (white plaster) = 343 (MB unit 42): destruction contexts 331 (29 cm. thick, ash, roof tiles, mud brick, stones with SF8526 intact iron lock mechanism and attached rectangular plate) = 334 (MB unit 42), 319 (46 cm. thick, grey brown mud brick, roof tiles, stones, metal objects) = 327 (MB unit 42), 315 (mud brick, grey brown, roof tiles), 310 (orange brown mud brick, 25 cm thick), with 300 above. XE-08 Street: MATRIX FIG. 1/36 • On cobbled surface: destruction context 407* (coin of Theophilus, SF 8315, Appendix 3 no. 18; human skeleton, male, with coin of Theophilus SF8315), with 406 over (ash and roof tiles – roof tile B1067, Fig. 1/19, SF8331, iron spearhead (?) on wooden shaft, L. 14.5 cm., and SF8325 copper alloy bell.

XO TRENCHES

XO-06 West Gate: • Contexts 11 and 12 (mud brick, roof tiles, ash, stones, and debris), found below earliest middle Byzantine road surface (context 10) outside the West Gate in Enclosure wall 170.

Appendix 3: Coins of the 9th Century from Destruction Contexts at the Enclosure (with C.S. Lightfoot) Rationale

Nicephorus I (ad 802–811) Æ folles, class 2. 1. SF3420. XA-96 context 13 [cat. no. 195].2 2. SF4199. XC-01 context 241 (EB structure 1) [cat. no. 198]. Note also SF4441. XC-02 East (F11/a10) context 21 (below destruction ?) [cat. no. 199].

Coins of the 9 century from the destruction contexts at the Enclosure are here organised chronologically by emperor and class, and for the purposes of this publication are numbered nos. 1-35. The S(mall) F(ind) inventory number of each coin is included, together with details of the trench, context, and unit or structure in which the coin was found. The catalogue numbers appended in square brackets refer to the full catalogue entries for these coins that appear in Amorium 4. The most important coins found in the destructions are the sixteen examples of the rare class 2 Æ folles of Theophilus, issued to commemorate the coronation of his first son Constantine, who probably died in ca. 834/5. All sixteen of these coins were found scattered on the floor of BEM unit 41, a former wine press room.1 th

Leo V (AD 813–820) Æ folles, class 2. 3. SF4386. XB-02 (E11/i10) context 76 (BEM unit 6) [cat. no. 203]. 4. SF4421. XC-02 East (F11/a10) context 10 (BEM unit 45) [cat. no. 204]. 5. SF6544. XE-05 context 63 (embedded in occupation surface, BEM unit 32) [cat. no. 205].

1 Lightfoot 2009a, 142, fig. 8; 2009b, 29; Lightfoot 2010c.

2 DOP 1998, 328, 331 no. 1, fig. 15.

93

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Michael II (ad 820–829) Æ follis, class 1, dated 821. 6. SF4361. XC-02 context 321 (context found in narrow space between east wall of EB structure 3 and rear, west wall of MB units 1-3) [cat. no. 207].

Æ folles, class 2, conventionally dated 829–830/1, but possibly minted ca. 833–835.7 19. SF8269. XE-08 context 338 (destruction layer over floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 20. SF 8270. XE-08 context 338 (destruction layer over floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 21. SF8272. XE-08 context 343 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 22. SF8273. XE-08 context 343 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 23. SF8274. XE-08 context 343 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 24. SF8275. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 25. SF8276. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 26. SF8277. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 27. SF8278. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 28. SF8285. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 29. SF8288. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 30. SF8289. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 31. SF8290. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 32. SF8291. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 33. SF8292. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41). 34. SF8316. XE-08 context 347 (lying on floor of press room, BEM unit 41).

Æ follis, class 2, dated 821–829. 7. SF7548. XE-06 context 114 = XE-05 context 50 (BEM unit 13) [cat. no. 210]. Note also SF6319, XC-04 West unstratified [cat. no. 209]. Æ folles, class 3, dated 821–829. 8. SF4182. XC-01 context 213 (on pavement of the frigidarium in EB structure 1) [cat. no. 213].3 9. SF6142. XB-03 context 142 (BEM unit 10) [cat. no. 215]. 10. SF5702. XB-03 context 124 (BEM unit 9) [cat. no. 218].4 11. SF8250. XE-08 context 314 (BEM unit 42). Theophilus (ad 829–842) Æ folles, class 1, dated 829–830/1.5 12. SF4027. XB-00 context 32 (BEM unit 5 in trench XD00) [cat. no. 227].6 13. SF5594. XC-03 East context 428 (outside north wall of BEM unit 11) [cat. no. 229]. 14. SF5725. XB-03 context 132 (BEM unit 9) [cat. no. 230]. 15. SF5727. XB-03 context 132 (BEM unit 9) [cat. no. 231]. 16. SF7294. XE-06 context 225 (BEM unit 13) [cat. no. 232]. 17. SF8262. XE-08 context 332 (BEM unit 19, south room, around trough). 18. SF8315. XE-08 Street, context 407 (BEM street). Note also (residual) SF3764, from XC-98 context 10 (middle Byzantine or post-Byzantine layer) [cat. no. 226].

Æ half follis, class 3, dated 830/1–842. 35. SF5721. XC-03 West context 530 (= context 392, XC02, BEM units 23, 26, 27, 38) [cat. no. 236]. Note also a (residual) follis of class 3, SF7280, from XO-06 context 6, a late 11th-century road surface [cat. no. 226].

3 DOP 2004, 360 and fn. 27. 4 The obverse of this coin is much corroded and completely

5 6

illegible. It could therefore equally be a follis of Theophilus, class 1, as nos. 12-18. Another possible example is no. 10, above. DOP 2003, 288 and fn. 37, 291.

7 Yaman 2010, 53-4 nos. 11-26, pls. 6-9; Lightfoot 2010c, es-

pecially 511, Table 1.

94

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Appendix 4: Concordance of Inventoried Small Finds (SF) from the Enclosure Destruction Contexts* 1. SF3946 bone object, possibly a diz XB-00 context 30 BEM unit 5. 2. SF4498 copper flagon XB-02 context 69 BEM unit 8. 3. SF4888 iron lock mechanism XA1-02 context 30 BEM unit 2. 4. SF4890 iron lock mechanism XA1-02 context 30 BEM unit 2. 5. SF4891 iron lock mechanism XA1-02 context 30 BEM unit 2. 6. SF5031 iron arrowhead XB-02 context 49 BEM unit 6. 7. SF5066, iron object XC-02 context 367 BEM unit 24. 8. SF5067 iron object XC-02 context 367 BEM unit 24. 9. SF5074 iron object XC-02 context 367 BEM unit 24. 10. SF5144 iron arrowhead XC-02 context 312 EB structure 1 caldarium hypocaust. 11. SF5208 bronze belt buckle XC-02 context 367 BEM unit 24. 12. SF5648A-D four gaming counters XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 13. SF5649A-B two bone objects, needlework prickers(?) XC-03 East context 451 BEM unit 14. 14. SF5650A-B worked bone strip XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 15. SF5651A-B bone appliqués XC-03 East context 451 BEM unit 14. 16. SF5668 ivory (?) handle XC-03 East context 451 BEM unit 14. 17. SF5695 iron knife blade XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 18. SF5696 iron folding stool or table XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 19. SF5699 iron folding stool or table XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 20. SF5707 tinned copper basin XC-03 East context 444/448 BEM unit 14. 21. SF5708 bone handle XC-03 East context 459 BEM unit 28. 22. SF5757 bronze weight XC-03 East context 487 BEM unit 14.

23. SF6245 bone appliqué XC-03 East context 487 BEM unit 14. 24. SF6249 iron stylus XC-03 East context 487 BEM unit 14. 25. SF6253, SF6354 iron axe head XB-03 context 124* BEM unit 9. 26. SF6397 amber bead or pendant XE-04 context 15 BEM unit 32. 27. SF6436 iron object XE-04 context 28. 28. SF6507 gold, pearl, emerald earring or pendant fragment XE-05 context 44 BEM unit 33. 29. SF6512 copper alloy incense burner XE-05 context 44 BEM unit 33 30. SF6529 spindle whorl XE-05 context 54 BEM unit 33 31. SF6530 bone appliqué XE-05 context 54 BEM unit 33 32. SF6546 iron scrapper XE-04 context 63* BEM unit 32. 33. SF6593 bone appliqué XE-05 context 44 BEM unit 32 34. SF6594 bone implement XE-05 context 44 BEM unit 32 35. SF6610 cowry shell XC-05 context 939 BEM unit 16. 36. SF6913 bronze steelyard fragment XE-05 context 95 BEM unit 18 37. SF7325 copper alloy loop handle of a situla or bucket XE-06 context 248 BEM unit 18. 38. SF7501 copper alloy handle of a situla or bucket XE-06 context 260 BEM unit 18. 39. SF7503 copper alloy spoon fragment XE-06 context 261 BEM unit 19. 40. SF7797 iron ploughshare XE-04 context 14 BEM unit 32. 41. SF8251 basalt mortar XE-08 context 313 BEM unit 19. 42. SF8257 terracotta loom weight XE-08 context 322 BEM unit 40. 43. SF8261 terracotta button or spindle whorl XE-08 context 313 BEM unit 19. 44. SF8279 book pin XE-08 context 349, BEM unit 40. 45. SF8280 finger ring with bezel XE-08 context 345 BEM unit 19.

* Contexts that contained 9th century coins are marked with an asterisk (*).

95

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

46. SF8281 copper hoop XE-08 context 330 BEM unit 40. 47. SF8284 basalt mortar XE-08 context 345 BEM unit 19. 48. SF8325 copper alloy bell XE-08 Street context 406 street. 49. SF8331 iron spearhead (?) on wooden shaft XE-08 Street context 406. 50. SF8397 iron ploughshare XE-08 context 330 BEM unit 40. 51. SF8524 copper basin fragments XB-03 context 142* BEM unit 10. 52. SF8525 large iron ring XE-08 context 314* BEM unit 42. 53. SF8526 iron lock mechanism and plate XE-08 context 331 BEM unit 43.

54. SF8527 two-pronged iron fork oxidized wood handle XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 55. SF8528 iron knife blade and sheath XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 56. SF8529 iron knife blade with bronze handle haft XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 57. SF8530 iron attachment XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 58. SF8531 iron chisel XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 59. SF8532 iron chopper or scrapper XE-08 context 347* BEM unit 41. 60. SF8533A-E iron fittings, collars and straps XE-08 context 334 BEM unit 43.

96

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Appendix 5 : Report on the Scientific Analysis of Slag from the Enclosure (with C.S. Lightfoot) During the excavations in the Enclosure quantities of slag were recovered from several different trenches and contexts, indicating the presence of installations (i.e. furnaces) where manufacturing processes had taken place. The deposits were largely random and scattered, as befits material that would have been discarded and dumped haphazardly during the clearing out or dismantling of such installations. A sizeable number of samples from these deposits have been kept and are presently stored in the excavation depots.

and silicon. Weak lines for barium and titanium also were present. No evidence of copper, tin, lead, silver or other heavy metal was observed in any of the spectra. The XRF data suggest that the materials are silicate glasses based on an alkali-metal/alkaline-earth chemistry that would be consistent with waste products from a pre-industrial glass or ceramic fabrication process. At least one of the samples (from trench XE-05 context 68) has sufficient iron content as to suggest possible association with a smelting operation for that metal. However, all of the samples are conspicuously free of any non-ferrous heavy metals and, on that basis alone, would not seem to be associated with a metallurgical operation.

Four small samples were selected for analysis, which was carried out during the first half of 2006 in the Department of Scientific Research at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.1 The slag samples (i-iv) came from the following contexts: (i). trench XE-04 context 10, a middle Byzantine or post-Byzantine layer, lying below modern topsoil context 9 (see Fig. 1/23 for location and Fig. 1/35 for matrix). (ii). trench XE-05 context 67, modern top soil excavated next to the Enclosure wall 40 (see Fig. 1/2 for location). (iii). XE05 context 68 located in courtyard BEM unit 32, a greyblack ash layer of the 8th–early 9th centuries containing glass fragments, pottery, and animal bones, and sealed by dump context 63 containing coin SF6544, a follis of Leo V dated 813–820 (see Fig. 1/6 for location and Fig. 1/35 for matrix). (iv). XC-05 context 952 a mixed fill (middle Byzantine or post-Byzantine) containing coin SF6711 of Nicephorus II Phocas found over an earth floor in MB unit 14 (see Fig. 1/7 for location and Fig. 1/34 for matrix).

Given these results, it is highly probable that the above slag samples were waste products of glass or ceramic production at Byzantine Amorium. Glass and pottery manufacturing was well attested at Amorium before the excavations in the Enclosure began in 1996. A pottery kiln of the early 9th century was excavated in trench TT on the Upper City in 1995 and local Amorium wares have been identified.2 Glass waste and cakes have been published from a number of trenches in the Lower City, but no actual glass workshop was discovered until the excavation of BEM unit 17 in trench XC-01 in 2001 (see above).3 Although most of the slag samples derive from middle Byzantine or even post-Byzantine contexts, the results of the analysis of the slag samples do provide indirect corroboration for glassworking activity in the area of the Enclosure. The discovery of a glass working facility in BEM unit 17 next to the bathhouse praefurnium now provides tangible proof of these activities at the Enclosure site in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. The slag sample from trench XE-05 context 68 is thus perhaps the most interesting of the slag samples in that it can be dated to the same period as the glass workshop.

Examination and surface analysis were carried out by openarchitecture x-ray fluorescence (XRF). The samples are fragments of light and gray vitreous materials, having a high vesicular porosity that is appropriate for slag and other fabrication products. Analysis of several areas on each of the surfaces yielded closely similar spectra characterised by lines for iron, calcium, potassium, rubidium, strontium,

1 Permission to export the samples was kindly given by the

Afyonkarahisar Museum and its director, Mevlüt Üyümez. The analyses were carried out in New York by James H. (a.k.a. Tony) Frantz, Research Scientist. Both are here thanked most warmly for their co-operation, efficiency, and assistance.

2 Amorium 1, 17; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010. 3 Amorium 1, 105, 263-4; Lightfoot 2005.

97

Fig. 1/1 Topographical plan of the site of Amorium showing the location of the Lower City Enclosure and the excavations of 1996-2008.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

98

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/2 Plan of the Enclosure showing the locations of excavation trenches opened 1996-2008 (footprints of bathhouse buildings, EB structures 1 and 3, and Enclosure walls are shaded).

99

Fig. 1/3 Multi-period plan of the Enclosure excavations showing all building phases superimposed and excavation trenches.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

100

Fig. 1/4 Late Roman (LR), ca. 300-500, phase plan of building remains.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

101

Fig. 1/5 Early Byzantine (EB), ca. 500-650, phase plan of building remains.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

102

Fig. 1/6 Byzantine early mediaeval (BEM), ca. 650-838, phase plan of building remains.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

103

Fig. 1/7 Middle Byzantine (MB), ca. 963-1100, phase plan of building remains.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

104

Fig. 1/8 Seljuk-early Ottoman (SO), ca. 1200-1600, phase plan of building remains.

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

105

Fig. 1/9 State plan of trenches XB-96, XC-98, XBC-98, XB-00, XD-00, XC-01, XB-02, XB-03, XB-04, XC-04, and XC-05.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

106

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/10 Trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West: state plan of Byzantine early mediaeval and late Roman structures.

107

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Fig. 1/11 Trench XC-03 East and XC-02 East: state plan of building remains of all periods, with additions (after DOP 2007, fig. 8).

108

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/12 Trench XB-03, state plan of excavated structures of the Byzantine early mediaeval and middle Byzantine periods (after DOP 2007, fig. 20).

109

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Fig. 1/13 Trench XM-03, state plan of MB units 23, 24, 25, and 26 (after DOP 2007, fig. 26).

110

East

Fig. 1/14 Trenches XE-04 and XE-05, state plan of excavated remains.

XE-06 (XE-08)

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

111

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Fig. 1/15 Trench XO-06 West Gate, state plan of the gateway.

112

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/16 Trenches XE-06/XE-08, state plan of early mediaeval structures, BEM units 19, 41, 42, and 43.

113

Fig. 1/17 Trench XC-01, EB structure 1 (bathhouse), room V (Vestibule): north-south transverse section showing well and architectural features.

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

114

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/18 Trench XC-98: section drawing through strata in BEM 1 (redrawn after DOP 2001, fig. J, with additions and corrections).

Fig. 1/19 Roof pan tile B1067, from XE-08 Street, destruction context 406, with a Greek inscription.

115

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Fig. 1/20 Reconstruction sketch of wine press BEM installation G in BEM unit 41.

Fig. 1/21 Trench XE-04/XE-05: east-west section through contexts in BEM installation C, BEM unit 13, looking south.

116

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Fig. 1/22 Trench XE-04/XE-05: north-south section through contexts in BEM unit 13 looking east.

Fig. 1/23 Trench XE-04 and XE-05: east-west section through destruction layers in alleyway BEM unit 33 looking south.

117

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Fig. 1/24 Trenches XC-05 and XC-06, state plan of middle Byzantine remains.

118

119 68 fill layer

67 earth floor

66 wall collapse 53 mud brick 76 ash/charred wood

BEM UNIT 6

56 stones 57 Grave lined with stones - oriented NS cuts 50 ?

51 ash/mud brick 62 ash/tile

49 mud brick

50 layer - surface of MB unit 44 ?

Fig. 1/25 Trench XB-02 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 8

70 ash/tile = 69 ash

63 mud brick

BEM UNIT 30

71 mud brick/stones

unnumbered earth floor

80 skeleton

54 mud brick/stones

unnumbered earth surface

68 tile/mud brick ?

59 fill layer ? over ruined wall

52 mortary spread

46=47 - lower collapse of Enclosure wall 40, which here is context 45

48 pit

44 - upper collapse of Enclosure wall 40

43 top soil

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

111 layer

XB-04 MATRIX

120

123 ash/tile mud brick

BEM UNIT 7

143 floor

137 trough

142 ash/tiles

BEM UNIT 10

not excavated

116 trough

125 ash/tiles

138 trough

Fig. 1/26 Trenches XB-03 and XB-08 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 9

141 fill

not excavated

BEM UNIT 31

139 floor

134 floor

unnumbered earth surface

140 pithos setting

128 ash/tiles/mud brick

133 ash (3 cm.)

132 ash/tiles

124 ash/mud brick/tiles/nails

114 ash/mud brick/tiles/nails

113 = upper mud brick/tile/earth layer

109 wall

147 well head

129 mud brick/tile/ash

118 wall

MB UNIT 8

119 wall

110 upper earth/mud brick/tiles

126 wall

112 mud brick/tile/ash

112 layer

146 reddish brown clay (from mud brick ?)

MB UNIT 9

145 floor

127 fill layer animal bones - floor ?

107 feature (platform?)

106 layer

104=105 Enclosure wall 40 collapse

101=102 upper Enclosure wall 40 collapse

97 top soil

405 white mortar

144 (XB-03) mud brick

402 fill/floor?

BEM UNIT 11

401 fill/floor? 404 floor - earth/marble/roof tile

409 mortar surface = 407

408 fill = 406

403 partition wall

XB-08:400 = 144 (XB-03) mud brick, ash, roof tile

136 upper mud brick/tile

115 layer

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

34 (XC-94) fill layer/ash/pot

121

52 (XC-98) surface

711 (XC-04) earth fill

South Praefurnium service area

705=708=714 ashy layer

707 (XC-04) reddish orange clay layer

706 (XC-04) gray clay layer

701 (XC-04) mixed fill

713 (XC-04) grey clay layer

712 (XC-04) grey clay layer

710 (XC-04) grey clay layer

93 (XC-98) surface - ashy, brown

BEM UNIT 31

88 (XC-98) lower installation/trough

79 (XC-98) upper installation

89 (XC-01) surface - ashy, brown

74 (XC-98) mud brick/tile/stones

42 (XC-98) pit/ox skull

Fig. 1/27 Trenches XC-98, XC-01, XB-04 and XC-04 Harris matrix.

704 (XC-04) reddish orange clay layer

116 (XC-01) reddish mixed fill/bricks/mud brick/animal bones

32 (XC-98) dump fill = 26

38 (XC-98) surface

33 (XC-98) terrace wall between BEM units 30 and 31

94 (XC-98) = 111 (XC-01) surface - reddish mixed fill/bricks/mud brick/animal bones

90 (XC-98) fill/animal bones

77 (XC-98) mud brick/pot/ash

72 (XC-98) surface - mixed fill

55 (XC-98) pit

46 (XC-98) pit

44 (XC-98) surface

45 (XC-98) pit

53 (XC-98) pit

35 (XC-98) fill layer - animal bones/ash/glass bracelet

37 (XC-98) surface, firepit, slag, charcoal

48 (XC-98) fill layer

BEM UNIT 30

12 (XC-98) fill layer like 26, many animal bones

6 (XC-98) layer

26 (XC-98) fill layer - animal bones/metal/pot/pipe fragments

19 (XC-98) clay surface

27 (XC-98) wall fragment

10 (XC-98) ashy fill/dump

5 (XC-98) layer

2 (XBC-98) disturbed layer

1 (XBC-98) top soil

150 (XB-04) grey clay layer

149 (XB-04) layer/tile/brick

148 (XB-04) mixed fill

146 (XB-03) reddish brown clay (mud brick ? or BEM surface ?)

145 (XB-03) floor

XB-03 MATRIX

MB UNIT 9

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

1 (XC-98) top soil

6 = 39 (XC-98) earth

78 = 41 (XC-98) collapse/earth

87 = 70 (XC-98) floor 2 make-up

7 (XC-98)

957 (XC-05) = combined 87)70, 91/73 (XC-98)

91 (XC-05) = 73 (XC-98) floor 1 make-up

XC-98 no number = 97 (XC-98) ashy fill

906 (XC-05) mixed fill, ashy

961 (XC-05) ashy fill/brick channel

921 (XC-05) mixed fill, ashy

84 (XC-98) LR wall

Fig. 1/28 Trenches XC-98 and XC-05, select contexts in BEM unit 1 Harris matrix.

122

76

123

95 vitreous slag

179 earth layer

173 pit

176 layer/brick/charcoal

166 mortared top of EB wall

92 vitreous slag

no number/square platform with vitreous slag

174 edging stones of 165

180 ash

223 floor 1 make-up/fill

220 earth floor 1 surface

222 gravel/mortar

177 earth layer - floor ?

172 vitreous slag

Fig. 1/29 Trenches XC-98 and XC-01 BEM unit 17 Harris matrix.

221 gravel/mortar

171 ash

170 clay floor

167 clay floor 2

163 vitreous slag

165 hearth of brick/mud brick/stone

165 vitreous slag/ash/brick/pithos

168 mixed fill/brick/pot

98 vitreous slag = 163 ?

161=162 mixed fill brick/earth/debris

160 mixed fill

68 mixed fill

85 mixed fill brick/pithos fragments

TRENCH XC-01

61 wall

43 layer

39 layer

1 top soil

TRENCH XC-98

164 vitreous slag

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

213 fill/collapse

213 rubble/fill

149 fill

124

BEM UNIT 21 CHAPEL

397 fill layer

brick lined channels

374 clay layer

327 ash and floor below

131 brick paved floor

316 fill

BEM UNIT 22

387 floor and fill below

322 fill

391 earth/silt layer

BEM UNIT 23

386 floor and fill below

372 mud brick/ash

360 earth layer/silt

319 surface

210

123 152 rubble/collapse

V Vestibule

219 pavement

130 floor fill

EB STRUCTURE 3

183, 209, 211 contemporary with XC-02 303, 308, 384 2

127 layer

186 floor

234

141 layer

Praefurnium

brick pavement

pavement

XC-98 54

heating channel

pavement

385 floor and fill below BEM UNIT 24

350 surface/pot

314 mixed fill

MB UNIT 36

378 mixed fill

XC-03 West 531 floor

no number troughs

XC-03 West 537 fill

BEM UNIT 26 & 27

XC-03 West 538 EB stylobate

XC-01 MATRIX 211 (XC-01) vault collapse

308 vault collapse

EB3 SOUTH AMBULATORY

384 fill under robbed EB floors

357 thick ash Caldarium hypocaust

EAST SIDE EB3

unnumbered earth surface

355 thick ash layer

348 ash layer

unexcavated

326 fill under Ottoman Oven B

Ottoman OVEN B

215 ash/collapse/pottery 312 ash/collapse/pot

321 mud brick/tiles/ash

235 collapse

306 ash/collapse

‘Sudatorium’ room L

332 thick ash

325 collapse

EB STRUCTURE 3

182 earth floor

124 mixed layer

145 pottery bin

147 stones/fill

303 collapse/rubble

301 mixed fill layer

392 mud brick = 530 (XC-03 West)

331 fill

unnumbered floor

315 fill over floor

Fig. 1/31 Trench XC-02 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 25

383 floor red clay

unnumbered pithos

328 fill

376 fill/debris and surface

unexcavated

MB UNIT 35

320 pit over wall

307 mixed fill

wellhead MB unit 40

MB UNIT 40

381 mud brick/ash/brick/stone

349 surface

323 fill

MB UNIT 39

368 ash/mud brick/pot

364 earth layer/silt

363 pit

305 layer

367 ash, mud brick, iron obj.

351 floor

324 fill

MB UNIT 37

302 top soil-mixed layer

300 top soil

207 stones/fill

EB STRUCTURE 1 BATHHOUSE

‘Sudatorium’ room L

154 platform/fill

126 mixed layer

142=132 floor fill/brick 3 XC-02 311 fill=142 3

153 pit

318 (XC-02) rubble/fill

366 collapse/ash 365 collapse/ash

356 fill

375 ash/collapse

377 mixed earth

329 (XC-02) earth floor

117 platform/fill 150 fill

379 ash/fill

unnumbered platform

128 layer

185 mixed fil 184 ash/brick 2 183 collapse 2 209 collapse 2 211 collapse 2

148 earth floor

140 layer

122 mixed layer/collapse = 123

114 mixed layer

Fig. 1/30 Trench XC-01, EB structures 1 (bathhouse) and 3 (‘polygonal hall’) Harris matrix.

La Latrine

unnumbered pavement

212 fill in drain

MB UNIT 38

319 fill

139 pit fill

205 fill/ash/rubble

EB STRUCTURE 1 BATHHOUSE

MB UNIT 16

352 floor

181 clay fill

158

F2 Frigidarium

unnumbered pavement

157 collapse

156 layer/debris

144

125 mixed layer/collapse

143 stones/bricks fill

115 mixed fill

358 platform

unnumbered surface and fill below

313 floor and fill below

304 mixed fill layer

MB UNIT 15

XC-01 186 earth surface

XC-01 MATRIX

F1 Frigidarium

184 pavement

214 fill/rubble

151 brick/earth fill

132 floor fill bricks/stones = 142

110 top soil

113 mixed layer

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

427 fill

435 fill

423 layer

430 fill

449 fill

428

608

north of BEM UNIT 11

438 ash/tiles/rubble

429 fill

MB UNIT 4 platforms

437 fill

422 fill

413 layer

492 fill

498 fill

603 fill

125

BEM UNIT 36 alley

465 EB drain

496 surface

486 pit

609 fill

518 layer

511 layer/fill

507 layer

501 topsoil

BEM UNIT 38

unnumbered fill

535 slab pavement

536 surface/fill

BEM UNIT 14

461 floor

451 ash

Fig. 1/33 Trench XC-03 West Harris matrix.

534 fill

530 mud brick/stones = XC-02 392

BEM UNIT 27

531 floor fill

515 fill

436 layer

414 surface ?

412 layer

BEM UNIT 28

475 floor/ash

460 ash/tile/mud brick

473 fill

469 surface/paving

479 tile/mud brick? 487 mud brick = 444/448 tile/mud brick/ash 450 mud brick/tile 468 mud brick

474 layer

Fig. 1/32 Trench XC-03 East Harris matrix.

538 EB stylobate wall 160

537 fill

484 well

605 fill

BEM UNIT 34 courtyard

MB UNIT 5 platforms

495 fill

491 layer

409 topsoil

453

BEM UNIT 29

478 surface

466 surface

unnumbered pithos

447 fill

445 fill

446 fill

MB UNIT 1 425 platform/floor

440 floor

417

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

126

911 platform wall

BEM UNIT 3

963 mixed fill

962 fill layer

unexcavated

BEM UNIT 2

932 floor

953 layer - floor ?

949 tile/red mud brick/ash

950 pithos

908 mixed fill

954 floor with ash/pot

INST.B

unnumbered hypolenion structure

971 fill

931 wall stones/fill

923 mixed fill and debris

Fig. 1/34 Trench XC-05 Harris matrix.

984 lenos structure

973 = 974 = 933 = 970 = 972 lenos fill

935 partition wall

924 mud brick/ashes/pot

914 MB Unit 11 wall

934 partition wall

916 clay floor

951 fill

948 mixed fill-floor ?

944 floor

918 platform wall

MB UNIT 11

917 platform wall

947 red clay - mud brick ?

913 platform wall

907 layer

900 top soil

942

960 cobbled surface 980 surface/stones/charcoal

BEM UNITS 16-15

959 fill

941

939 heavy ash/brick/tile/pot

926 ash/brick/tile/pot

903 layer

952 mixed fill

983

967 fill layer

unnumbered earth floor

920

MB UNIT 14

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

127

BEM UNIT 13

BEM INSTALLATION C

30-31 BEM UNIT 13 south walls

61 fill

BEM UNIT 12

unnumbered floor

45 lenos C charred grain

47 lenos C mortared structure

50 earth/mortar/brick

49 (=XE-06 114) mud brick/tile/stones 48 rubbish pit and contents

19 mud brick/tile/ash below

17 ash/tile

15 tile/mud brick

12 layer

BEM UNIT 32 courtyard (west)

69 fill layer

60 = 72 fill layer

14 = 16 = 18 mud brick/tile/ash below

BEM UNIT 33 courtyard (east)

73 fill layer EB STRUCTURE 4 south wall

30-31 BEM UNIT 33 south wall

71 pit and contents 63 = 64 surface and fill layer below

70 pit and contents

66 mud brick in hollow of 63 = 64

44 = 54 lower portion: disturbed surface connecting BEM UNIT 32-33

Fig. 1/35 Trenches XE-04 and XE-05 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 13 aley

unnumbered surface in BEM UNIT 33

46 well head

20 MB drain

44 = 54 upper portion: ash/tile/stones over surface connecting BEM UNITS 33-32 52 ash/tile/mud brick = portion of 44

27 mud brick/tile/ash

55 mud brick/tile/brick/stones

51 tile/stones/mud brick

40 mud brick/tile/stones

41 lenos C -ash/wood/tile/mud brick = 98

43 mud brick/tile

29 mud brick/tile/ash

unnumbered: hypolenion structure

57 - pit

53 = 49 ?

42 mud brick/tile/stones

26 mud brick ?/tile/stones

22 layer

11 layer over BEM UNIT 12, 13 and 33

25 mud brick/tile/stones

13 - MB unit 46 wall above BEM UNIT 13 installation C

10 layer

9 topsoil

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

128

404 pit - well (?)

XE-08 STREET

80 layer

81 mud brick

79 layer

108 mud brick

106 layer

78 = 400 topsoil

XE-05 BEM UNIT 40

102 layer over floor

109 sealed pithos

84 layer

96 ash/tile

XE-05 BEM UNIT 18

90 well head

95 mud brick

88 mud brick

107 earth surface

91 = 92 MB earth floor, tile/pithos over

104 mud brick

MB UNITS 29-28

BEM earth surface

99 MB wall

99 layer

Fig. 1/36 Trenches XE-05 (street contexts) and XE-08 Street Harris matrix.

87 heavy ash/charred wood/tile/marble column

85 mud brick/debris/wood/ash

409 = 86 street, cobbled surface

407 male human skeleton

406 ash/tile/stones/mud brick

405 MB wall

403 layer/stones

402 layer

401 layer

400 = 78 top soil

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

129

260 E floor

BEM UNIT 18

265 F floor

257 hypolenion E

253 hypolenion F

MB UNIT 28

BEM UNITS 43 and 41

BEM UNIT 19

267 ash/tile/charcoal

261 mud brick/ash/tile

BEM UNIT 20

unnumbered/earth surface

264 stones/roof tile/ash

259 layer

250 layer

242 line of stone blocks

258 mud brick/tile/stones

244 layer

MB UNIT 33

Fig. 1/37 Trench XE-06 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 40

249 pithos

XC-08 300 mud brick

239 layer

MB UNIT 41

235 floor

237 collapse layer/tiles

236 pit

202 ash oven A stokehole

225 collapse layer

220 layer

223 collapse layer stones/tiles

272 layer

238 earth surface

270 layer

268 layer-floor ?

ENCLOSURE WALL 40

248 mud brick/tile/ash

MB UNIT 42

263 ash/tiles/stones

MB UNIT 34/41

219 layer/surface ?

262 collapse layer

221 mud brick/tile/ash

MB UNIT 32

MB UNIT 30

250 earth surface

207 layer

203 layer

XE-05 MATRIX

no number floor

247 collapse layer

no number/floor

208 collapse layer

209 layer

205 layer

200 = 211 topsoil

XE-08 300 BEM UNITS 41 and 43

213 ash in oven A

BEM UNITS 41 and 43

224 pithos

222 mud brick/tiles/ash

ENCLOSURE WALL 40

MB UNIT 27

218 floor

217 ash by hearth

210 layer

206 layer

201 oven A structure

206 layer

204 ash in oven A

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

130

355 floor

348 floor

318 stone trough & contents ash/tile/mudbrick

XE-06 261

Fig. 1/38 Trench XE-08, BEM unit 19 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 19

345 ash/tile

350 ash/tile/pithos fragments

313 ash/tile 332 ash/tile/grain

325 cross wall

303 mud brick/tile

301 mud brick/tile

300 mud brick

XE-06 215 north wall MB UNIT 33

307 ash/tile/pithos fragments

XE-06 270 layer

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

131

BEM UNIT 40

surface

341 hypolenion

XE-06 261

325 lenos west wall

BEM UNIT 44

340 lenos floor

XE-08 305 BEM UNIT 42

unnumbered: east wall with pivot post

323 red mud brick 329 red mud brick

XE-08 301 BEM UNIT 19

Fig. 1/39 Trench XE-08, BEM units 40-41and 44 Harris matrix.

BEM UNIT 41

347=343=342 floor

338 mud brick/tile/stones/ash

349 mud brick/tile

351 female human skeleton

333 red mud brick

330 mud brick/tile

321 red mud brick

XE-08 315 BEM UNIT 43

XE-08 300 mud brick

XE-06 270

322 mud brick/tile

XE-06 266

310 mud brick

352 pit

XE-06 268

317 mud brick/tile

311 mud brick/tile

XE-06 250

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

315 mud brick/tile

310 mud brick

132

300 mud brick

BEM UNIT 42

320 red mud brick

314 red mud brick

305 layer

316 wall

Fig. 1/40 Trench XE-08, BEM units 42-43 Harris matrix.

354 earth floor

336=353 plastered floor surface

331=334 ash/tile/stones/mud brick

319=327 mud brick/tile/stones

BEM UNIT 43

XE-06 266

BEM UNIT 41

347=343=342 floor BEM UNIT 41

337 mud brick

XE-06 261

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/1 General view of the Lower City Enclosure looking south from the Upper City mound prior to the start of excavations in 1996 (Fig. 1/1.).

Pl. 1/2 EB structure 3 (apodyterium), sondage S05-1 (Fig. 1/4): fills below early Byzantine pavement level showing late Roman wall 135 that predates the baths complex.

Pl. 1/3 Trench XC-01, EB structure 3 (apodyterium), sondage S02-5 (Figs. 1/5 and 1/6): southeastern exedra showing robbed mortar setting (context 3) for water basin and blocked opening (top left) for drain in back wall.

133

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/4 EB structure 3 (apodyterium), trench XC-02 (Fig. 1/6): north east doorway with moulded marble door jamb in situ (right) standing on early Byzantine threshold, and early mediaeval rubble blocking (context 359) used to raise threshold and narrow doorway.

Pl. 1/5 EB structure 1 (trench XC-04, Fig. 1/6 room T): arched south praefurnium opening with early mediaeval blocking, viewed from inside the tepidarium.

Pl. 1/6 T1262 (from trench XC-98 context 5), a fragment of marble window transenna with pierced openings, possibly from a window of the bathhouse EB structure 1 (6th century).

134

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/7 Sondage S02-4, trench XC-01 (Figs. 1/5 and 1/6): early Byzantine drainage system exiting between EB structures 1 and 3; on left, main drain from the latrina (room La); on right, drain from south eastern exedra of EB structure 3 with remains of early mediaeval blocking.

Pl. 1/8 Trenches XA1-02 and XA01/02 looking east (Fig. 1/3): on left, Enclosure wall 40 crossing walls of EB structure 2, EB unit 1 (centre); on right, (with board XA02) foundation walls of MB units 17-18.

135

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/9 Trench XC-03 East (Fig. 1/11): BEM units 29 (foreground) and 28 (background) with early Byzantine niche fragment and paving stone (top right) in BEM unit 28.

136

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/10 Trench XC-05, general view (Fig. 1/9): showing from front to back, MB unit 11, BEM unit 3 installation B, and BEM units 15 and 16 with drain and wellhead.

137

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/11 Trench XB-02, BEM unit 6 context 53 (Fig. 1/6): intact mud brick B1050, 7th–9th centuries.

Pl. 1/12. Byzantine stone trough, 6th–7th century (?), Bolvadin Municipal Museum.

Pl. 1/13 Trench XE-05, Installation C in BEM unit 13 (Fig. 1/14): part of the pressing tank (top left), the largely destroyed collecting vat (centre left), the circular screw press weight (T2016), and (centre right) the upturned drainage spout (T2095).

138

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/14 Trench XC-03 East looking south (Fig. 1/11): in background (left to right) MB units 4, 3, 2 and 1; at centre, BEM units 35, 28 and 29 with early Byzantine paving slabs; at bottom right, BEM courtyard 34; and in right foreground, early Byzantine drain and BEM unit 14.

Pl. 1/15 Trench XE-04/05, courtyard BEM unit 32 looking north (Fig. 1/14): lower right, pit context 71 with pit context 70 behind; in background, south wall of BEM unit 13 and XE sondage context 70 with south wall of EB structure 4 below; surface is contexts 63-64.

139

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/16 Trench XE-05 looking north (Fig. 1/14): street with BEM unit 13 and Installation C (left), and BEM unit 18 and wellhead (right).

Pl. 1/17 Trench XE-05, BEM unit 18 (Fig. 1/14): installations E (centre) and F (left) with, in background, an early mediaeval pithos set in hypolenion cut by Enclosure wall 40 (right), and west wall of MB unit 27 standing above section with destruction contexts.

Pl. 1/18 Trench XE-05, BEM unit 18 (Fig. 1/14): wall with projecting stone conduit spouts above two collection basins (hypolenia) of installations E and F.

140

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/19 Trench XE-08, BEM unit 19 looking west (Fig. 1/16): unexcavated destruction (foreground), stone trough (right), and doorway to BEM unit 40 beyond.

Pl. 1/20 Trench XE-08, BEM unit 41 (press room) looking east (Fig. 1/16): installation G with pivot stones and hypolenion.

Pl. 1/21 Trenches XC-02 and XC-03 West, BEM units 21-22 Chapel, looking east (Fig. 1/10): middle Byzantine blocking wall across apse and destruction context 327 in naos.

141

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

0

Pl. 1/22 Trench XC-01/XC-02, BEM unit 21 Chapel: fragments of painted wall plaster preserved on south wall behind middle Byzantine blocking wall in apse, 7th–early 9th century (?).

5 cm

Pl. 1/23 Trench XC-98 context 87, BEM unit 1 (Fig. 1/28): fragments of burnished red ware chaffing dish, late 8th–early 9th century.

Pl. 1/24 Trench XC-03 West looking east (Fig. 1/10): BEM units 38 (foreground with manhole), 23 (right), 27 (with scale and early Byzantine stylobate and troughs), and BEM unit 26 beyond.

142

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/25 Trench XC-98, BEM unit 17 looking south (Fig. 1/9): the upper fills under excavation, from praefurnium towards north wall of BEM unit 1 (board), showing pointing and repair at right.

Pl. 1/26 Trench XC-01, BEM unit 17 (Fig. 1/9): early mediaeval wall enclosing praefurnium, showing mortar rendering and stenciling to resemble ashlar masonry, 7th or 8th century.

Pl. 1/27 Trenches XD-00, XB-96, XBC 95, and XB-02 looking north (Fig. 1/9): on left, BEM unit 5 and early Byzantine drainage channel; right of wall, BEM unit 6, with burned destruction layer over troughs, second channel, post supports, and earth floor.

143

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

0

5 cm

Pl. 1/28 Trench XC-04 context 712 (Fig. 1/27), pottery of the late 8th–early 9th century: 1-6. Red painted ware jugs and body fragments. 7. Common ware cooking pot handle. 8-10. Plain ware jug or jar rims.

0

5 cm

Pl. 1/29 Trench XC-04 context 714 (Fig. 1/27), pottery of the late 8th–early 9th century: 1-3. Common ware cooking pots, rim, wall and handle fragments. 4-5. Plain ware jug or jar rims. 6. Red painted ware vessel, body fragment.

144

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/30 Trench XB-03 context 136, BEM unit 10 looking south (Fig. 1/12): upper destruction with ashes, fallen roof tiles, decomposed mud-brick, and line of troughs

0

3

Pl. 1/31a-b Trench XE-04/05 context 44, alley BEM unit 33 (Fig. 1/14): destruction context 44 showing copper alloy incense burner (SF6512, max. diameter 9.6 cm.) in situ (left) and after conservation (right).

145

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/32 Trench XE-08 Street looking south (Fig. 1/36): destruction contexts 406 and context 407 with male human skeleton in situ and middle Byzantine wall.

0

146

5

Pl. 1/33a-b Trench XB-03, BEM unit 9, destruction context 132 (Fig. 1/12): iron axe head (SF6354) in situ (left) and after conservation (right).

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/34. Trench XE-05 looking west (Fig. 1/14): stepped foundation and inner face of Enclosure wall 40 crossing the early mediaeval street and related structures at centre.

Pl. 1/35. Trench XO-06 West Gate looking south (Fig. 1/15): gateway (centre) in Enclosure wall 170, with Roman architrave block and later elevated step (centre right). Excavated road surfaces lie inside (to left) and outside the gate (to right).

147

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/36 XM-03, MB unit 24 looking west (Fig. 1/13): earth floor with square hearth and adjacent fire pit/hearth (context 37), and doorway into MB unit 25.

Pl. 1/37 Trench XC-03 East, MB unit 1 looking south (Fig. 1/11): interior with steps and platform on south side.

148

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/38 Trench XD-00 looking north (Fig. 1/9): on left, MB unit 10 (with scale on floor) and internal ‘installations;’ in left foreground, floor of BEM installation A (wine press); and on right, passageway BEM unit 5 with early Byzantine channel.

Pl. 1/39 Trench XC-06, general view looking east (Fig. 1/24): at right, Enclosure wall 40, MB units 11 and 12; at centre, drain and well in courtyard MB unit 45; in foreground, remains of MB unit 13; and in background, EB structure 2 and baths covered by modern protective roofing.

149

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Pl. 1/40. Trench XC-02, MB unit 35 looking north (Fig. 1/7): general view.

Pl. 1/41. Trench XC-02, MB units 16 (over site of BEM unit 22) looking east (Fig. 1/7): general view.

150

Pl. 1/44 SF 4049 silver pin from trench XC-01 context 139, fill of rubbish pit in EB structure 1 room La (second half of 11th century).

0

Pl. 1/42 Trench XC-02, MB unit 39 looking east (Fig. 1/7): context 349 (surface) with platform and possible pithos setting at right; in background, EB structure 3.

5

1. Excavations at the Lower City Enclosure, 1996–2008

Pl. 1/43 Trench XC-01, EB structure 1, bathhouse, looking east at middle Byzantine features: in foreground, room C (caldarium) with earth floor and excavated platform ‘installations;’ in background, room T (tepidarium) with stone packing of ruined hypocaust below earth and brick surfaces; in wall at right, blocked arch of south praefurnium.

151

Abbreviations AA

Archäologischer Anzeiger

GRBS

AASOR

The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

IAA

Israel Antiquities Authority

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

AJNum

American Journal of Numismatics

INA

Institute of Nautical Archaeology

AnatArch

Anatolian Archaeology: Reports on Research Conducted in Turkey, BIAA, ed. G. Coulthard, London

IstForsch

Istanbuler Forschungen

IstMitt

Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul

AnatSt

Anatolian Studies

JbAC

Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

ANSMN

American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes

JGS

Journal of Glass Studies

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies

ArchRep

Archaeological Reports, supplement to JHS

JÖB

Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

JPOS

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

AST

Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

BABesch

Bulletin antieke beschaving

KST

Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

BAR

British Archaeological Reports

LRCW

See LRCW 2005 in Bibliography

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental research in Jerusalem

MAMA

Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiquae

MélRome

BBBS

Bulletin of British Byzantine Studies

Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, Ecole française de Rome

BCH

Bulletin de correspondence hellénique

NCirc

The Numismatic Circular

BIAA

The British Institute at Ankara

ODB

BMGS

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

BSA

The Annual of the British School at Athens

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan et al., 3 vols., Oxford/New York 1991

OpRom

Opuscula Romana

ByzF

Byzantinische Forschungen

ΠΑΑ

Πρακτικά της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών

CPh

Classical Philology

PLRE II

J.R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II. A.D. 395-527, Cambridge 1980.

RArch

Revue archéologique

RBK

Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, ed. K. Wessel, Stuttgart 1963-

RE

Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterumswissenschaft

RN

Revue Numismatique

TürkArkDerg

Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi

ZPapEpig

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Δελτ.Χριστ.Αρχ.Ετ. Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας DOP

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

EHB

The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, 3 vols., ed. A.E. Laiou, Washington, D.C., 2002

EHR

English Historical Review

GOTR

Greek Orthodox Theological Review

493

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

Bibliography Altan 2001 E. Altan, “Haçlı Ordularının Anadolu’da Geçtiği Yollar,” Belleten 65 (2001), 571-82. Amorium 1 M.A.V. Gill (with contributions by C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, and M.T. Wypyski), Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass (1987-1997). BAR International Series 1070, Oxford 2002. Amorium 2 C.S. Lightfoot (ed.), Amorium Reports II: Research Papers and Technical Studies. BAR International Series 1170, Oxford 2003. Amorium 4 C. Katsari and C.S. Lightfoot, with a contribution by A. Özme, Amorium Reports 4: The Amorium Mint and the Coin Finds. Forthcoming. Amorium Guide C. and M. Lightfoot, A Byzantine City in Anatolia: Amorium, an Archaeological Guide. Istanbul 2007. Amouretti 1993 M.-C. Amouretti, “Les sous-produits de la fabrication de l’huile et du vin dans l’Antiquité,” in Amouretti and Brun 1993, 463-76. Amouretti and Brun 1993 M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun (eds.), La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée, BCH Supplément 26, Paris 1993. Anagnostakis 2008 Ηλίας Αναγνωστάκης, Ο βυζαντινός οινικός πολιτισμός. Το παράδειγμα της Βιθυνίας (Wine Culture in Byzantium. The Example of Bithynia), Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών (National Research Foundation), Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών (Institute for Byzantine Studies), Athens 2008. AnatArch 2004 C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2004,” AnatArch 10 (2004), 13-15. AnatArch 2005 C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2005,” AnatArch 11 (2005), 31-33. AnatArch 2006 C. Lightfoot and E. Ivison, “Amorium 2006,” AnatArch 12 (2006), 29-31. AnatArch 2008 C. Lightfoot and E. Ivison, “Amorium 2008,” AnatArch 14 (2008), 25-7. AnatArch 2009 C. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2009,” AnatArch 15 (2009), 24-5. Anatolian Civilisations 1983a The Anatolian Civilisations: Vol. 2. Greek/Roman/ Byzantine, Istanbul 1983.

Abadie-Reynal 2003 C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les céramiques en Anatolie aux époques hellénistiques et romaines. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 23-24 mai 1996. Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil – Istanbul, Varia Anatolica 15, Istanbul/Paris 2003. Acara Eser 2005 M. Acara Eser, “Ankara Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müze­ si’ndeki Bizans Maden Eserleri: Ağırlıklar ve Haçlar,” 22. AST 22/1, Ankara 2005, 51-58. Acara and Olcay 1997 M. Acara and B.Y. Olcay, “Bizans Döneminde Aydınlatma Düzeni ve Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi’nde Kullanılan Aydınlatma Gereçleri,” Adalya 2 (1997), 249-66. Adam 1989 J.-P. Adam, La construction romaine. Materiaux et Techniques, 2nd ed., Paris 1989. Adams 1996 W.Y. Adams, Qasr Ibrîm. The Late Mediaeval Period, London 1996. Afyon 1998 Afyon Arkeoloji Müzesi, Ankara 1998. Agricultural Pursuits 1805-6 Γεωπονικά. Agricultural Pursuits, translated from the Greek by T. Owen, 2 vols., London 1805-6. Åkerström 1966 Å. Åkerström, Die architektonischen Terrakotten Klein­ asiens, Lund 1966. Albarella, Beech, and Mulville 1997 U. Albarella, M. Beech, and J. Mulville, The Saxon, Medieval and Post-Medieval Mammal and Bird Bones Excavated 1989-1991 from Castle Mall, Norwich, Norfolk, Ancient Monuments Laboratory Reports Series 72/97, London 1997. Alekseeva 1999 E.M. Алексеева, Aнтичныe бусы Северного Причерноморбя (Ancient Beads from the North Pontic Area), Moscow 1978. Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1971 E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, “The Finger Calculus in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Studies on Roman Game Counters,” Frühmittelalteriche Studien 5 (1971), 1-9. Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1976 E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, “Alexandriaca. Studies on Roman Game Counters III,” Chiron 6 (1976), 205-39. Al-Sarraf 2002 S. Al-Sarraf, “Close Combat Weapons in the Early Abbasid Period: Maces, Axes, and Swords,” in D. Nicolle (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armours, Woodbridge 2002, 149-78.

494

Bibliography

Anatolian Civilisations 1983b The Anatolian Civilisations: Vol. 3. Seljuk/Ottoman, Istanbul 1983. AnatSt 1988 R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1987, a Preliminary Survey,” AnatSt 38 (1988), 175-84. AnatSt 1989 R.M. Harrison, “Amorium 1988, the First Preliminary Excavation,” AnatSt 39 (1989), 167-74. AnatSt 1990 R.M. Harrison et al., “Amorium Excavations 1989, the Second Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 40 (1990), 205-18. AnatSt 1992 R.M. Harrison et al., “Amorium Excavations 1991, the Fourth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 42 (1992), 207-22. AnatSt 1993 R.M. Harrison, N. Christie et al., “Excavations at Amorium: 1992 Interim Report,” AnatSt 43 (1993), 147-62. AnatSt 1994 C.S. Lightfoot et al., “Amorium Excavations 1993, the Sixth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 44 (1994), 105-26. AnatSt 1995 C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “Amorium Excavations 1994, the Seventh Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 45 (1995), 105-36. AnatSt 1996 C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “Amorium Excavations 1995, the Eighth Preliminary Report,” AnatSt 46 (1996), 91-110. Anderson 1996 T. Anderson, “Cranial Weapon Injuries from AngloSaxon Dover,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6 (1996), 10–14. Anderson-Stojanović 1987 V.R. Anderson-Stojanović, “The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria,” AJA 91 (1987), 105-22. André-Salvini 2008 B. André-Salvini (ed.), Babylone. À Babylone, d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, Paris 2008. Anochin and Rolle 1998 V.A. Anochin and R. Rolle, “Griechische Schleuderbleie bei den Mauern von Olbia,” in R. Rolle and K. Schmidt (eds.), Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, Göttingen 1998, 837-48. Antiquities 1990 Antiquities, Hesperia Arts sale catalogue (Part I), 27 November, New York 1990. Antiquities 2005 Antiquities, Bonhams sale catalogue, 20 October, London 2005. Antonova, Tolstikov, and Treister 1996 I. Antonova, V. Tolstikov, and M. Treister, The Gold of Troy. Searching for Homer’s Fabled City, London 1996. Aran 1981 B. Aran, A New Evaluation of Byzantine Brickwork based on the Method of Discriminant Analysis, JÖB Beiheft 31, Vienna 1981, 1-4.

Arthur 2006 P. Arthur, Byzantine and Turkish Hierapolis (Pamukkale): An Archaeological Guide, Istanbul 2006. Asbridge 2004 T. Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History, Oxford 2004. Ash 1995 J. Ash, A Byzantine Journey, New York 1995. Atasoy 1974 S. Atasoy, “The Kozakızlar Tumulus in Eskişehir, Turkey,” AJA 78 (1974), 255-63. Atasoy 2005 S. Atasoy, Bronze Lamps in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. An Illustrated Catalogue, BAR International Series 1436, Oxford 2005. Atik 1995 N. Atik, Die Keramik aus den Südthermen von Perge, IstMitt Beiheft 40, Tübingen 1995. Atik and Işın 2006 N. Atik and M.A. Işın, “Tekirdağ/Karaevlialtı 2000, 2002 ve 2004 Yılları Kazı Çalışmaları,” KST 27/1, Antalya, 30 Mayıs-03 Haziran 2005, Ankara 2006, 47-58. Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998 A.C. Aufderheide and C. Rodriguez-Martin, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology, Cambridge 1998. Austin 1940 R.G. Austin, “Greek Board Games,” Antiquity 14 (1940), 257-71. Auzépy 2008 M.-F. Auzépy, “State of Emergency (700–800),” in Shepard 2008, 251-91. Aybek, Meriç, and Öz 2009 S. Aybek, A.E. Meriç, and A.K. Öz, Metropolis. A Mother Goddess City in Ionia, Istanbul 2009. Baatz 1990 D. Baatz, “Schleudergeschosse aus Blei. Eine waffentechnische Untersuchung,” Saalburg-Jahrbuch 45 (1990), 59-67. Bailey 1988 D.M. Bailey, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum III: Roman Provincial Lamps, London 1988. Bailey 1994 D. Bailey, “Byzantine Lamps,” in D. Buckton (ed.), Byzantium. Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture, London 1994, 18. Bakirtzis 1989a C. Bakirtzis, “Byzantine Amphorae” in Déroche and Spieser 1989, 73-7. Bakirtzis 1989b Ch. Bakirtzis, Byzantine Tsoukalolagena, Athens 1989. Baldoni 1999 D. Baldoni, “Unguentaria tardo-antichi da Iasos: adden­ dum,” Quaderni friulani di archeologia 9 (1999), 131-7. Baldoni and Franco 1995 D. Baldoni and C. Franco, “Unguentaria tardo-antichi da Iasos,” RArch 19 (1995), 121-8.

495

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Baydur and Karakaya 2001 N. Baydur and M. Karakaya, “Kandiller,” in Baydur and Seçkin 2001, 69-100. Baydur and Seçkin 2001 N. Baydur and N. Seçkin (eds.), Tarsus Donuktaş Kazı Raporu, Tarih Arkeoloji Sanat ve Kültür Mirasını Koruma Vakfı Yayınları 6/Kazı ve Araştırma Raporları Serisi 3, Istanbul 2001. Baylan 2001 E. Baylan, “Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları,” in Baydur and Seçkin 2001, 57-67. Belke 1984 K. Belke, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4. Galatien und Lykaonien, Vienna 1984. Belke 2004 K. Belke, “Gâvur Hisarı, eine byzantinische Burg in der Troas,” in W. Hörandner, J. Koder, and M.A. Stassinopoulou (eds.), Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik. Beiträge zum Symposion Vierzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität Wien im Gedenken an Herbert Hunger (Wien, 4.-7. Dezember 2002), Vienna 2004, 74-82. Belke 2008 K. Belke, “Communications: Roads and Bridges,” in Jeffreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008, 295-308. Belke and Mersich 1990 K. Belke and N. Mersich, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7. Phrygien und Pisidien, Vienna 1990. Bell 1960 R.C. Bell, Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations, Oxford 1960. Bell 2007 R.C. Bell, “Notes on Pavement Games of Greece and Rome,” in Finkel 2007, 98-9. Bell and Cornelius 1988 R. Bell and M. Cornelius, Board Games Round the World, Cambridge 1988. Bell and Roueché 2007 R.C. Bell and C.M. Roueché, “Graeco-Roman Pavement Signs and Game Boards,” in Finkel 2007, 106-9. Bendall 1996 S. Bendall, Byzantine Weights. An Introduction, London 1996. Berger 1982 A. Berger, Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 27, Munich 1982. Berndt 2001 M. Berndt, Funde aus dem Survey auf der Halbinsel von Milet (1992-1999). Kaiserzeitliche und frühbyzantinische Keramik, Internationale Archäologie 79, Bochum 2001. Berti 1991 F. Berti, “Les fouilles à Iasos en 1989,” KST 12/2, Ankara, 28 Mayıs-1 Haziran 1990, Ankara 1991, 235-46. Berti 1993 F. Berti, “Iasos di Caria,” in G. Pugliese Carratelli et al., Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme: Scavi archeologici italiani in Turchia, Venice 1993, 188-247.

Ballance 1961 M.H. Ballance, A Reassessment of the Archaeology of Central Asia Minor from Alexander the Great to the Turkish Conquest, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1961. Balog 1970 P. Balog, “Islamic Bronze Weights from Egypt,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13 (1970), 233-56. Balog 1973 P. Balog, “Poids et estampilles en verre et poids en bronze musulman du Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève,” Genava n.s. 21 (1973), 297-311. Bammer 1990 A. Bammer, “A Peripteros of the Geometric Period in the Artemision of Epheus,” AnatSt 40 (1990), 137-60. Barag 1972 D. Barag, “Two Roman Glass Bottles with Remnants of Oil,” IEJ 22 (1972), 24-6. Bardill 2004 J. Bardill, Byzantine Brickstamps of Constantinople, 2 vols., Oxford 2004. Bardill 2008a J. Bardill, “Brickstamps,” in Jeffreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008, 193-201. Bardill 2008b J. Bardill, “Building Materials and Techniques,” in Jeffreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008, 335-54. Barry 1996 W.D. Barry, “Roof Tiles and Urban Violence in the Ancient World,” GRBS 37 (1996), 55-74. Basch 1972 A. Basch, “Analyses of Oil from Two Roman Glass Bottles,” IEJ 22 (1972), 27-32. Bass 2005 G.F. Bass, “Solving a Million-Piece Jigsaw Puzzle: Serçe Limanı, Turkey,” in G.F. Bass (ed.), Beneath the Seven Seas. Adventures with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, London 2005, 106-117. Bass and van Doorninck 1982 G. F. Bass, F.H. van Doorninck Jr., et al., Yassı Ada. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, vol. 1, College Station, TX 1982. Bass, Matthews, Steffy, and van Doorninck 2004 G.F. Bass, S.D. Matthews, J.R. Steffy, and F.H. van Doorninck Jr. (eds.), Serçe Limanı. An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, vol. I, College Station, TX 2004. Başaran et al. 1998 C. Başaran, A.Y. Tavukçu, and M. Tombul, “1995 Yılı Skepsis Aşağı Kent ve Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazısı,” VIII. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 7-9 Nisan 1997, Kuşadası, Ankara 1998, 551-83. Başgelen 1993 N. Başgelen, The Wall in Anatolia through the Ages, 1993 Baydur 2001 N. Baydur, “Diğer Buluntular,” in Baydur and Seçkin 2001, 117-22.

496

Bibliography

Boessneck 1969 J. Boessneck, “Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and Goat (Capra hircus Linne),” in D.R. Brothwell and E. Higgs (eds.), Science in Archaeology, second ed., London 1969, 331-58. Boessneck and von den Driesch 1975 J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch, “Tierknochenfude vom Korucutepe bei Elâzığ in Ostanatolien (Fundmaterial der Grabungen 1968 und 1969),” in M. N. van Loon (ed.), Korucutepe 1, Amsterdam/Oxford 1975, 9-207. Boessneck and von den Driesch 1985 J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch, Knochenfunde aus Zisternen in Pergamon, Munich 1985. Bonanno 2005 A. Bonanno, Malta: Phoenician, Punic, and Roman, [Malta] 2005. Bosworth 1991 C.E. Bosworth, The History of al-Tabarī, vol. xxxiii. Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the ‘Abbāsid Caliphate, Albany, NY 1991. Boucheron et al. 2000 P. Boucheron, H. Broise, and Y. Thébert (eds.), La Brique antique et médiévale. Production et commercialisation d’un matériau. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre d’histoire urbaine de l’École normale supérieure de Fontenay/Saint Cloud et l’École française de Rome (SaintCloud, 16-18 novembre 1995), Collection de l’École française de Rome 272, Rome 2000. Bouras 2002 C. Bouras, “Aspects of the Byzantine City,” in EHB, 497-528. Bowkett 2002 L. Bowkett, Classical Archaeology in the Field, Bristol 2002. Brandes 1999 W. Brandes, “Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries—Different Sources, Different Histories,” in G.P. Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and the Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999, 25-57. Briese and Pedersen 2003 M.B. Briese and P. Pedersen, “Report of the TurkishDanish Investigations in Ancient Halikarnassos (Bodrum) in 2000 and 2001,” AST 20, Ankara 2003, 257-72. Brodribb 1987 G. Brodribb, Roman Brick and Tile, Gloucester 1987. Broneer 1930 O. Broneer, Corinth IV,2. Terracotta Lamps, Cambridge, MA 1930. Brothwell 1972 D. Brothwell, Digging up Bones, second edition, London 1972. Brownworth 2009 L. Brownworth, Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that rescued Western Civilization, New York 2009. Brubaker and Haldon 2001 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources, an Annotated Survey, Aldershot 2001.

Besques 1972 S. Besques, Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre-cuite grecs, étrusques et romains, vol. 3: Époques hellénistique et romaine, Grèce et Asie Mineure, Paris 1972. Bhattacharya and Roy 1981 B.B. Bhattacharya and N. Roy, “A Note on the Use of a Nomogram for Self-Potential Anomalies,” Geophysical Prospecting 29 (1981), 102-7. Biers 1985 J.C. Biers, Corinth XVII. The Great Bath on the Lechaion Road, Princeton, NJ 1985. Bikić 1994 V. Bikić, Medieval Pottery from Belgrade, Belgrade 1994. Bilgin 1996 N. Bilgin, “A Contribution to the New Anonymous Follis from Amorium,” NCirc 104/3 (1996), 83. Binding 1980 G. Binding, “Backsteine, Backsteinbau,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 1, Munich 1980, 1329-30. Bingöl 1999 F.R.I. Bingöl, Ancient Jewellery, Ankara 1999. Bjelajac 1990 Lj. Bjelajac, “La céramique et les lamps,” in B. Bavant et al. (eds.), Caričin Grad II. Le quartier sud-ouest de la ville haute, Belgrade/Rome 1990, 161-90. Boardman 1989 J. Boardman, “The Pottery,” in M. Ballance et al. (eds.), Byzantine Emporio. Excavations in Chios 1952-1955, Oxford 1989, 88-121. Böhlendorf 1994 B. Böhlendorf, Die byzantinische Besiedlung des Beşiktepe (Troas), unpublished Masters thesis, Tübingen 1994. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2002 B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Die Beziehungen zwischen byzantinischer und emiratszeitlicher Keramik,” in Ortaçağ Anadolu. Prof. Dr. Aynur Durukan’a Armağan, Ankara 2002, 135-56. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004 B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, Die glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Turkei, 3 vols., Istanbul 2004. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2007 B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Stratified Byzantine Pottery from the City Wall in the Southwestern Sector of Amorium,” in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, A.O. Uysal, and J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Contexts (Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005), Byzas 7, Istanbul 2007, 273-94. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2010 B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, “Die mittelbyzantinische Keramik aus Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 345-71.

497

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Brubaker and Haldon 2011 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–850: A History, Cambridge 2011. Brun 1993 J.-P. Brun, “L’oléiculture et la viticulture antiques en Gaule d’après les vestiges d’installations de production,” in Amouretti and Brun 1993, 307-41. Brun 2003 J.-P. Brun, Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Viticulture, oléiculture et procédés de fabrication, Paris 2003. Buchwald 2006 H. Buchwald, “Directions in Byzantine Architectural Research,” JÖB 56 (2006), 261-5. Buckton 1994 D. Buckton, Byzantium. Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture, London 1994. Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994 J.E. Buikstra and D. Ubelaker (eds.), Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville, Ark. 1994. Bull and Payne 1982 G. Bull and S. Payne, “Tooth Eruption and Epiphyseal Fusion in Pigs and Wild Boar,” in B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR British Series 109, Oxford 1982, 55-71. Burn and Higgins 2001 L. Burn and R. Higgins, Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in The British Museum, vol. 3, London 2001. Butler 1922 H.C. Butler, Sardis I: The Excavations. Part 1: 1910-1914, Leyden 1922. Butler 1996 A. Butler, “Trifolieae and Related Seeds from Archaeological Contexts: Problems in Identification,” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany5 (1996), 157-67. Büyükkolancı 2002 P. Büyükkolancı, “Kleinfunde mit Gladiatorendarstellungen im Ephesos Museum,” in Gladiatoren in Ephesos. Tod am Nachmittag, Vienna 2002, 93-5. Byzantium 2002 Byzantium: An Oecumenical Empire, Byzantine Hours exhibition catalogue, Athens 2002. Byzanz 2001 Byzanz – Das Licht aus dem Osten. Kult und Alltag im Byzantinischen Reich vom 4. bis 15. Jahrhundert, Mainz 2001. Byzanz 2010 Byzanz. Pracht und Alltag. Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn, 26. Februar bis 13. Juni 2010. Munich 2010. Cahn-Kleiber 1977 E.M. Cahn-Kleiber, Die antiken Tonlampen des Archäologischen Institut der Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 1977.

Calder 1911 W.M. Calder, “Corpus Inscriptionum Neo-Phrygiarum,” JHS 31 (1911), 161-215. Calder 1956 W.M. Calder, MAMA VII. Monuments from Eastern Phrygia, Manchester 1956. Calder and Bean 1958 W.M. Calder and G.E. Bean, A Classical Map of Asia Minor, London/Ankara 1958. Cameron 2006 A. Cameron, The Byzantines, Malden, Mass. 2006. Camilli 1999 A. Camilli, Ampullae. Balsamari ceramici di età ellenistica e romana, Rome 1999. Cassavoy 2004 K. Cassavoy, “The Gaming Pieces,” in Bass, Matthews, Steffy, and van Doorninck 2004, 329-44. Cassis 2009 M. Cassis, “Cadır Höyük: A Rural Settlement in Byzantine Anatolia,” in T. Vorderstrasse and J. Roodenberg (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia, PIHANS 113, Leiden 2009, 1-24. Chavane 1975 M. Chavane, Salamine de Chypre 6, Les petits objects, Paris 1975. Clark 1990 A. Clark, Seeing beneath the Soil. Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, London 1990. Comstock and Vermeule 1971 M. Comstock and C. Vermeule, Greek, Etruscan & Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Meriden 1971. Comşa 1967 M. Comşa, “Ceramica folosită de locuitorii aşezării feudale timpurii”, in G. Ştefan et al. (eds.), Dinogetia, Bucharest 1967, 134-276. Contadini 1995 A. Contadini, “Islamic Ivory Chess Pieces, Draughtsmen and Dice,” in J. Allan (ed.), Islamic Art in the Ashmolean Museum, vol. I, Oxford 1995, 111-54. Cormack and Vassilaki 2008 R. Cormack and M. Vassilaki, Byzantium 330–1453, London 2008. Corwin 1990 R.F. Corwin, “The Self-Potential for Environmental and Engineering Applications,” in S.H. Ward (ed.), Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, SEG Investigations in Geophysics 5, 1990, 127-45. Cottica 1998 D. Cottica, “Ceramiche bizantine dipinte ed unguentari tardo antichi dalla ‘Casa dei Capitelli Ionici’ a Hierapolis,” RArch 22 (1998), 81-90. Cottica 2000 D. Cottica, “Unguentari tardo antichi dal Martyrion di Hierapolis, Turchia,” MélRome 112/2 (2000), 999-1021. Cottica 2007 D. Cottica, “Micaceous White Painted Ware from Insula 104 at Hierapolis/Pamukkale, Turkey,” in B. Böhlendorf-

498

Bibliography

Arslan, A.O. Uysal, J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Çanak. Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts, Byzas 7, Istanbul 2007, 255-72. Crawford 1990 J.S. Crawford, The Byzantine Shops at Sardis, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 9, Cambridge, MA 1990. Crisafulli and Nesbitt 1997 V.S. Crisafulli and J.W. Nesbitt, The Miracles of St. Artemios: A Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anonymous Author of Seventh-Century Byzantium, Leiden 1997. Crow 2008 J. Crow, “Archaeology,” in Jeffreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008, 47-58. Crow 2009 J. Crow, “Byzantine Castles or Fortified Places in Paphlagonia and Pontus,” in T. Vorderstrasse and J. Roodenberg (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia, PIHANS 113, Leiden 2009, 25-43. Cueppers 1983 H. Cueppers et al. (ed.), Die Römer an Mosel und Saar, Mainz 1983. Curtis and Finkel 1999 J. Curtis and I. Finkel, “Game Boards and Other Incised Graffiti at Persepolis,” Iran. Journal of the British In­stitute of Persian Studies 37 (1999), 54-8. Ćurčić 2010 S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to  Süleyman the Magnificent, New Haven and London 2010. Çakıcı 2007 M. Çakıcı, “Milas İsmetpaşa Mahallesi 284 Ada 23-3 Parsellerde Kurtarma Kazısı,” 15. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2006, Alanya, Ankara 2007, 83-94. Çaylak Türker 2001 (see also below, Türker) A. Çaylak Türker, “Unguentariumlar,” in Ötüken 2001b, 370-1. Çaylak Türker 2005 A. Çaylak Türker, “Myra’da Aziz Nikolaos Yağ Kültüyşe İlişkili Seramik Kaplar,” Adalya 8 (2005), 311-28. da Costa 2001 K. da Costa, “Byzantine and Early Islamic Lamps: Typology and Distribution” in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Wilson (eds.) La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie, Beirut 2001, 241-57. da Costa 2004 K. da Costa, Byzantine and Early Umayyad Ceramic Lamps from Palaestina/Arabia (ca. 300-700 AD), (unpublished Ph.D., University of Sydney), Sydney 2004. Dagron 2002 G. Dagron, “The Urban Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries,” in EHB, 393-461. D’Andria 2001 Francesco D’Andria, “Hierapolis of Phrygia. Its Evolution in Hellenistic and Roman times,” in D. Parrish (ed.). Urbanism in Western Asia Minor. New Studies on

Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge, and Xanthos, JRA Supplementary Series 45, Portsmouth RI 2001, 96-115. Danziger 2007 D. Danziger, Museum: Behind the Scenes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 2007. Dark 2001 K. Dark, Byzantine Pottery, Stroud 2001. Dark 2005 K. Dark, “Archaeology,” in J. Harris (ed.), Palgrave Advances in Byzantine History, Basingstoke 2005, 166-84. David 2001 A. David, “Swords and Sabers during the Early Islamic Period,” Gladius 21 (2001), 193-220. Davidov 2004 D. Davidov, D. Pesic, and M. Jocic, Arheološko blago Niša od neolita do srednjeg veka. Archaeological Treasure of Niš from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Belgrade 2004. Davidson 1952 G.R. Davidson, Corinth XII. The Minor Objects, Princeton, NJ 1952. Davis 1965–1985 P.H. Davis (ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, 10 vols., Edinburgh 1965–1985. Decker 2007 M. Decker, “Frontier Settlement and Economy in the Byzantine East,” DOP 61 (2007), 217-67. De Cupere 2001 B. De Cupere, Animals at Ancient Sagalassos: Evidence of the Faunal Remains, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 4, Turnhout 2001. Degeest 1993 R. Degeest, “Some Late Roman Unguentaria in Sagalassos,” in M. Waelkens and J. Poblome (eds.), Sagalassos II. Report on the Third Excavation Campaign of 1992, Leuven 1993, 183-90. Degeest 2000 R. Degeest, The Common Wares of Sagalassos, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 3, Turnhout 2000. Degeest et al. 1999 R. Degeest et al., “The Late Roman Unguentaria of Sagalassos,” BABesch 74 (1999), 247-62. Deichmann 1958 F.W. Deichmann, Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna, Baden-Baden 1958. Deichmann 1976 F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna, Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes II. Kommentar 2. Teil. Wiesbaden 1976. Deichmann 1982 F.W. Deichmann, Rom, Ravenna, Konstantinopel, Naher Osten. Gesammelte Studien zur spätantiken Architektur, Kunst und Geschichte, Wiesbaden 1982. Deichmann 1989 F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna, Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes II. Kommentar 3. Teil, Stuttgart 1989.

499

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Demirsöy 2000 A. Demirsöy, Memeliler: Türkiye Omurgalıları, Ankara 2000. Deniz et al. 1964 E. Deniz, T. Çalışlar, T. Özgüden, et al., “Osteological Investigations of the Animal Remains from Excavations of Ancient Sardis,” Anatolia / Anadolu 8 (1964), 49-64 (in English and Turkish). Dereli 2001 F. Dereli, “Sinop Gelincik Mezar Odası,” 11. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2000, Denizli, Ankara 2001, 235-48. Déroche and Spieser 1989 V. Déroche and J.M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine, BCH Suppl. 16, Paris 1989. des Courtils et al. 2000 J. des Courtils, D. Laroche et al., “Xanthos et le Letoon. Rapport sur la campagne de 1999,” Anatolia Antiqua 8 (2000), 339-83. des Courtils et al. 2001 J. des Courtils, et al., “Xanthos et le Letoon. Rapport sur la campagne de 2000,” Anatolia Antiqua 9 (2001), 227-41. Devreker and Waelkens 1984 J. Devreker and M. Waelkens (eds.), Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent à Pessinonte 1967-1973, Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses XXII, Bruges 1984. Devreker et al. 2003 J. Devreker, H. Thoen, F. Vermeulen, et al., Excavations in Pessinus: the So-Called Acropolis. From Hellenistic and Roman Cemetery to Byzantine Castle, Archaeological Reports Ghent University 1, Ghent 2003. Devreker 2005 J. Devreker, L. Bauters, W. De Clerq, H. Dhaeze, K. Braeckman, and P. Monsieur, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: La campagne de 2003,” KST 26/1, Konya, 2428 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 81-96. Diler 1994 A. Diler, “Akdeniz Bölgesi Antik Çağ Zeytinyağı ve Şarap İşlikleri,” AST 11, Ankara 1994, 505-20. Diler 1995 A. Diler, “The Most Common Wine-Press Type Found in the Vicinity of Cilicia and Lycia,” Lykia. Anadolu-Akdeniz Arkeolojisi 2 (1995), 83-98. Djuric 1995 S. Djuric, The Anawati Collection, Catalog I. Ancient Lamps from the Mediterranean, Toronto 1995. Dobbins 1977 J.J. Dobbins, Terracotta Lamps of the Roman Province of Syria, 2 vols., unpublished PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Michigan 1977. Dobney and Rielly 1988 K Dobney and K. Rielly, “A Method for Recording Archaeological Animal Bones: the Use of Diagnostic Zones,” Circaea 5/2 (1988), 79-96. Dolunay 1968 N. Dolunay, “Çankırıkapı Höyüğü Hafriyatı,” III. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1968, 212-18.

DOP 1997 C.S. Lightfoot and E.A. Ivison, “The Amorium Project: The 1995 Excavation Season,” DOP 51 (1997), 291-300. DOP 1998 C.S. Lightfoot et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1996 Excavation Season,” DOP 52 (1998), 323-36. DOP 1999 C.S. Lightfoot et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1997 Study Season,” DOP 53 (1999), 333-49. DOP 2001 C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, et al., “The Amorium Project: The 1998 Excavation Season,” DOP 55 (2001), 371-99. DOP 2004 C.S. Lightfoot, Y. Arbel, B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, J.A. Roberts, and J. Witte-Orr, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2001,” DOP 58 (2004), 355-70. DOP 2005 C.S. Lightfoot, Y. Arbel, E.A. Ivison, J.A. Roberts, and E. Ioannidou, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2002,” DOP 59 (2005), 231-65. DOP 2007 C.S. Lightfoot, O. Karagiorgou, O. Koçyiğit, H. Yaman, P. Linscheid, and J. Foley, “The Amorium Project: Excavation and Research in 2003,” DOP 61 (2007), 353-85. Dorn 1997 W. Dorn, Zentralanatolien: von Ankara durch das anatolische Hochland: Kulturlandschaften zwischen Orient und Okzident, Cologne 1997. Drahor 1993 M.G. Drahor, The Determination of Archaeological Areas with Resistivity and Self-potential Methods, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, DEÜ Institute of Science, Department of Geophysics, İzmir 1993. (In Turkish). Drahor 1994 M.G. Drahor, “Acemhöyük Özdirenç ve Doğal Uçlaşma Çalışmaları 1992 : Resistivity and Self Potential Study on the Acemhöyük in 1992,” 9. Arkeometri Toplantısı, 24-28 Mayıs 1993, Ankara, Ankara 1993, 1-11. Drahor 1995 M. G. Drahor, “Arkeolojik Araştırmalarda Doğal Gerilimin İşleyişi (Mechanism),” 10. Arkeometri Toplantısı, 30 Mayıs-3 Haziran 1994, Ankara, Ankara 1995, 229-43. Drahor 2004 M. G. Drahor, “The Application of Self-potential Method to Archaeological Prospection: Some Case Histories,” Archaeological Prospection 11 (2004), 77-105. Drahor, Akyol, and Dilaver 1996 M.G. Drahor, A.L. Akyol, and N. Dilaver, “An Application of the Self-potential (SP) Method in Archaeogeophysical Prospection,” Archaeological Prospection 3 (1996), 141-58. Drca 2004 S. Drca, “Naissus,” in Davidov 2004, 89-98. Drew-Bear 1999 T. Drew-Bear, “Trois villages de Phrygie,” in N. Başgelen, G. Çelgin, and A.V. Çelgin (eds.), Anatolian and Thracian Studies in Honour of Zafer Taşlıklıoğlu, vol. 1, Istanbul 1999, 65-80.

500

Bibliography

Drew-Bear 2005 T. Drew-Bear, “Phrygia ve Pisidia’da Yeni Epigrafik Yüzey Araştırmaları,” AST 22/2, Ankara 2005, 213-18. Driesch 1976 A. von den Driesch, A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Cambridge, MA 1976. Dunbabin 1962 T.J. Dunbabin (ed.), Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930-1933, vol. 2, Ox­ford 1962. Dündar 2008 E. Dündar, Patara Unguentariumları, Patara IV.1, Istanbul 2008. eALA Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, revised second edition, London 2004. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/eala/index.html Eisenmenger 2003 U. Eisenmenger, “Late Roman Pottery in Limyra,” in Abadie-Reynal 2003, 193-6. Eisenmenger and Zäh 1999 U. Eisenmenger and A. Zäh, “Ampullae tardoantiche dell’Asia Minore. Nuovi esempi da Cnido e Limyra,” Quaderni friulani di archeologia 9 (1999), 113-30. Ekinci, Işık, and İşkan 2008 H.A. Ekinci, F. Işık, and H. İşkan, “Kibyra 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları,” 16. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2007, Marmaris, Ankara 2008, 1-11. Elton 2002 H. Elton, “Review of Mountain and Plain: From the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period,” Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.03.07. Engemann 1987 J. Engemann, “Elfenbeinfunde aus Abu Mena/ Ägypten,” JbAC 30 (1987), 172-86. England, Eastwood, Roberts, Turner, and Haldon 2008 A. England, W.J. Eastwood, C.N. Roberts, R. Turner, and J.F. Haldon, “Historical Landscape Change in Cappadocia (central Turkey): A Palaeoecological Investigation of Annually Laminated Sediments from Nar Lake,” The Holocene 18 (2008), 1229-45. Ennabli 1976 A. Ennabli, Lampes chrétiennes de Tunisie (Musées du Bardo et de Carthage), Paris 1976. Entwistle 2002 C. Entwistle, “Byzantine Weights,” in EHB, vol. 2, 611-14. Eparchikon Biblion 1970 To Eparchikon Biblion. The Book of the Prefect (with an introduction by I. Dujčev), London 1970. Equini Schneider 1999 E. Equini Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste I: Campagne di scavo 1995-1997, Rome 1999. Equini Schneider 2003 E. Equini Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste II. Un porto tra oriente e occidente, Rome 2003.

Erarslan 2001 F. Erarslan, “Adıyaman Turuş Kaya Mezarları Kazı ve Temizlik Çalışması,” 11. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2000, Denizli, Ankara 2001, 263-72. Erarslan 2003a F. Erarslan, “Adıyaman / Besni Sofraz Küçük Tümülüs Kurtarma Kazısı,” 13. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 22-26 Nisan 2002, Denizli, Ankara 2003, 121-8. Erarslan 2003b F. Erarslan, “Perre Antik Kenti Nekropol Alanı Kaya Mezarları Kurtarma Kazısı,” 13. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 22-26 Nisan 2002, Denizli, Ankara 2003, 129-36. Ercan, Drahor, and Atasoy 1986 A. Ercan, M. Drahor, and E. Atasoy, “Natural Polarization Studies at Balçova Geothermal Field,” Geophysical Prospecting 34 (1986), 475-91. Erdal 2004 Y.S. Erdal, “Kovuklukaya (Boyabat, Sinop) İnsanlarının Sağlık Yapısı ve Yaşam Biçimleriyle İlişkisi,” Anadolu Araştırmaları 17 (2004), 169-96. Erdal 2009 Ö.D. Erdal, “Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Topluluğundaki Travmaların Paleoepidemiyolojik Analizi,” Hacettepe Üni­ versitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 26 (2009), 97-113. Ertuğ 2000 F. Ertuğ, “Linseed Oil and Oil Mills in Central Turkey. Flax/Linum and Eruca, Important Oil Plants of Anatolia,” AnatSt 50 (2000), 171-85. Ervynck, Van Neer, and De Cupere 1993 A. Ervynck, W. Van Neer, and B. De Cupere, “Consumption Refuse from the Byzantine Castle at Pessinus, Central Anatolia, Turkey,” in H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South­ western Asia and Adjacent Areas, Leiden 1993, 119-27. Ervynck et al. 2003 A. Ervynck, W. Van Neer, and B. De Cupere, “Animal Remains from the Byzantine Castle,” in J. Devreker, H. Thoen, and F. Vermeulen (eds.), Excavations in Pessinus: the so-called Acropolis. From Hellenistic and Roman Cemetery to Byzantine Castle, Archaeological Reports Ghent University 1, Ghent 2003, 375-82. Fabiš 1996 M. Fabiš, “Archaeozoological Remains from the Lower Sanctuary. A Preliminary report on the 1994 Excavations,” Studia Troica 6 (1996), 217-27. Felten 1975 F. Felten, “Die christliche Siedlung,” in W.W. Wurster and F. Felten (eds.), Ägina. Die spätrömische Akropolismauer, Mainz 1975, 15-73. Fenet 2000 A. Fenet, “L’apport des fours à bricques traditionnels de la région d’Apollonia (Albanie) à la compréhensions des techniques antiques,” in Boucheron et al. 2000, 103-111.

501

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Ferembach et al. 1980 D.I. Ferembach, I. Schwidetzky, and M. Stloukal, “Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons,” Journal of Human Evolution 9 (1980), 517-49. Ferrazzoli 2003 A.F. Ferrazzoli, “Tipologia dei reperti ceramici e aspetti delle produzioni e della circolazione dei materiali,” in E. Equini Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste II. Un porto tra oriente e occidente, vol. 2, Rome 2003, 649-707. Ferrazzoli 2003 A.F. Ferrazzoli, “Tipologia dei reperti ceramici e aspetti delle produzioni e della circolazione dei materiali,” in E. Equini Schneider (ed.), Elaiussa Sebaste II. Un porto tra oriente e occidente, vol. 2, Rome 2003, 649-707. Festugière 1970 A.J. Festugière, La Vie de Théodore de Sykéôn, Subsidia Hagiographica 48, Brussels 1970. Finkel 2007 I.L. Finkel (ed.), Ancient Board Games in Perspective. Papers from the 1990 British Museum Colloquium, with Additional Contributions, London 2007. Fittà 1998 M. Fittà, Spiele und Spielzeug in der Antike. Unterhaltung und Vergnügen im Altertum, Stuttgart 1998. Fırat 2003 N. Fırat, “Perge Konut Alanı Kullanım Seramiği,” in Abadie-Reynal 2003, 91-5. Fıratlı 1970 N. Fıratlı, “Uşak – Selçikler Kazısı ve Çevre Araştırmaları,” TürkArkDerg 19/2 (1970), 109-60. Forstenpointner et al. 2007 G. Forstenpointner, U. Quatember, A. Galik, G. Weissengruber, and A. Konecny, “Purple-Dye Production in Lycia – Results of an Archaeozoological Field Survey in Andriake (South-West Turkey),” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26/2 (2007), 201-14. Foss 1974-75 C. Foss, “Greek Sling Bullets in Oxford,” ArchRep 21 (1974-75), 40-44. Foss 1975 C. Foss, “The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity,” EHR 90 (1975), 721-47. Foss 1977 C. Foss, “Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara,” DOP 31 (1977), 27-87. Foss 1987 C. Foss, “Sites and Strongholds of Northern Lycia,” AnatSt 37 (1987), 81-101. Foss 2002 C. Foss, “Pilgrimage in Medieval Asia Minor,” DOP 56 (1994), 129-51. Foss and Scott 2002 C. Foss and J.A. Scott, “Sardis,” in EHB, vol. 2, 616-22. Fouquet 1998 G. Fouquet, “Ziegelei, Ziegler,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 9, Munich 1998, col. 602-3.

Foy 2000 D. Foy, “Un atelier de verrier à Beyrouth au début de la conquête islamique,” Syria 77 (2000), 239-90. France 1994 J. France, Victory in the East. A Military History of the First Crusade, Cambridge 1994. François and Spieser 2002 V. François and J.-M. Spieser, “Pottery and Glass in Byzantium,” in EHB, 594-609. Frantz 1991 A. Frantz, The Church of the Holy Apostles, The Athenian Agora XX, Princeton, NJ 1971. Franz 1840 J. Franz, Fünf Inschriften und Fünf Städten, Berlin 1840. French 1988 D.H. French, Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones, BAR International Series 392, Oxford 1988. French 1998 D. French, “Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor. The Persian Royal Road,” Iran. Journal of the British In­stitute of Persian Studies 36 (1998), 15-43. Fulghum and F. Heintz 1998 M.M. Fulghum and F. Heintz, “A Hoard of Early Byzantine Glass Weights from Sardis,” AJNum 2nd ser. 10 (1998), 105-20. Gassner 1997 V. Gassner, Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora: Keramik und Kleinfunde, Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut in Wien, Forschungen in Ephesos 13/1/1, Vienna 1997. Gaube 1998 H. Gaube, “Ziegelbau. II. Arabischer Bereich,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 9, Munich 1998, cols. 601-02. Gelin 2000 M. Gelin, “De l’Euphrate à l’Oxus. Exemples de l’utilisation de la brique cuite à Doura-Europos et à Termez,” in Boucheron et al. 2000, 53-69. Geoponica H. Beckh (ed.), Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici De re rustica ecologae, Leipzig 1895. Gerstel and Munn 2003 S.E.J. Gerstel, M. Munn, et al., “A Late Medieval Settlement at Panakton,” Hesperia 72 (2003), 147-234. Ginouvès and Martin 1985 R. Ginouvès and R. Martin, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine. I. Matériaux, techniques de construction, techniques et formes du décor. Collection de l’École française de Rome 84/I, Rome 1985. Goldman and Jones 1950 H. Goldman and F.F. Jones, “The Lamps,” in H. Goldman (ed.) Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus Vol 1: The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Princeton, NJ 1950, 84134. Goll 1998 J. Goll, “Ziegel,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 9, Munich 1998, col. 599.

502

Bibliography

Gökalp 2005 Z. Demirel Gökalp, “Some Examples of Byzantine Bronze Lamps in Turkish Museums,” in L. Chrzanovski (ed.), Acts of the 1st International Congress on Ancient Lighting Devices (Nyon-Genève, 29.IX – 4.X.2003, Montagnac 2005, 69-71. Gökçay 2010 M. Gökçay, “Yenikapı Ahşap Buluntularından Seçmeler / Selected Wooden Finds from Yenikapı,” in U. Kocabaşi (ed.), İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 1. Marmaray–Metro Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı 5–6 Mayıs 2008 / Istanbul Archaeological Museums: Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray–Metro Salvage Excavations, 5th–6th May 2008, Istanbul 2010, 135-52. Grach 1999 N.L. Grach, Nekropol Nimpheia, St. Petersburg 1999. Grant 1982 A. Grant, “The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates,” in B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR British Series 109, Oxford 1982, 91-108. Greenewalt 1978 C.H. Greenewalt, Jr., “The Sardis Campaign of 1976,” BASOR 229 (1978), 57-74. Greenwalt and Rautman 2000 C.H. Greenwalt, Jr. and M.L. Rautman, “The Sardis Campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998,” AJA 104 (2000), 643-81. Gregory 2005 T.E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Oxford 2005. Griffiths 1989 W.B. Griffiths, “The Sling and its Place in the Roman Imperial Army,” in Roman Mil­ itary Equipment. The Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference, Nijmegen 1987, Oxford 1989, 255-79. Grimaldi 1996 D.A. Grimaldi, Amber. Window to the Past, New York 1996. Gusmani 1975 R. Gusmani, Neue epichorische Schriftzeugnisse aus Sardis (1958-1971), Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, MA 1975. Gün Işığında 2007 Gün Işığında, İstanbul’un 8000 Yılı: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet Kazıları, Istanbul 2007. Güngör, Köroğlu, and Laflı 2010 E. Güngör, G. Köroğlu, and E. Laflı, “Yumuktepe Pişmiş Toprak Kandilleri,” in K. Pektaş et al. (eds.), XIII. Ortaçağ Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 14-16 Ekim 2009 / Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium of Medieval and Turkish Period Excavations and Art Historical Researches, Istanbul 2010, 333-41. Günsenin 1989 N. Günsenin, “Recherches sur les amphores byzantines dans les musées turcs,” in V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Actes

du colloque organisé par l’École française d’Athènes et l’Université de Strasbourg II, Centre de recherches sur l’Europe centrale et sud-orientale, Athènes, 8-10 avril 1987, BCH Suppl. 18, Athens/Paris 1989, 269-76. Hadad 1997 S. Hadad, “Oil Lamps from the Third to Eighth Century C.E. at Scythopolis-Bet Shean” DOP 51 (1997), 147-188. Haldon 1997 J.F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture, rev. ed., Cambridge 1997. Haldon 1999 J.F. Haldon, “The Idea of the Town in the Byzantine Empire,” in G.P. Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999, 1-23. Haldon 2000 J.F. Haldon, “Production, Distribution, and Demand in the Byzantine World, c. 660–880,” in I.L. Hansen and C. Wickham (eds.), The Long Eighth Century, Leiden 2000, 225-64. Haldon 2001a J. Haldon, The Byzantine Wars. Battles and Campaigns of the Byzantine Era, Stroud 2001. Haldon 2001b J. Haldon, “Byzantium in the Dark Centuries: Some Concluding Remarks,” in E. Kountoura-Galake (ed.), Οι Σκοτεινοί Αιώνες του Βυζαντίου (7ος - 9ος αι.), Athens 2001, 455-62. Haldon 2002 J. Haldon, “Some Aspects of Early Byzantine Arms and Armour,” in D. Nicolle (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, Woodbridge 2002, 65-79. Halstead, Collins, and Isaakidou 2002 P. Halstead, P. Collins, and V. Isaakidou, “Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra,” Journal of Archaeological Science 29 (2002), 543-53. Hamilton 1842 W.J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, vol. 1, London 1842. Hanfmann and J.C. Waldbaum 1975 G.M.A. Hanfmann and J.C. Waldbaum, A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments outside the City Walls, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Report 1, Cambridge, MA 1975. Harl 2001 K.W. Harl, “From Pagan to Christian in Cities of Roman Anatolia during the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” in T.S. Burns and J.W. Eadie (eds.), Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, East Lansing, Mich. 2001, 301-22. Harrison 1986 R.M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Volume I. The Excavations, Structures, Architectural Decoration, Small Finds, Coins, Bones and Molluscs, Princeton, NJ 1986.

503

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Herzfeld and Guyer 1930 E. Herzfeld and S. Guyer, MAMA IV: Meriamlık und Korykos, Manchester 1930. Hicks and Hicks 1992 A.J. Hicks and M.J. Hicks, “The Small Objects,” in F. D’Andria and D. Whitehouse (eds.), Excavations at Otranto, Vol. 2: The Finds, Lecce 1992, 279-313. Hillson 1986 S. Hillson, Teeth, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge 1986. Hinz 1986 H. Hinz, “Dach, röm.,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 3, Munich 1986, 410-11. Hirschfeld 1997 Y. Hirschfeld et al., The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader, Jerusalem 1997. Hirschfeld 2004 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, IAA Reports 22, Jerusalem 2004. Hocker 1998 F.M. Hocker, “Bozburun Byzantine shipwreck excavation: The Final Campaign, 1998,” INA Quarterly 25.4 (1998), 3-13. Hodges and Whitehouse 1983 R. Hodges and D. Whitehouse, Mohammed, Charlemagne & the Origins of Europe, London 1983. Hohlfelder and Vann 1998 R.L. Hohlfelder and R.L. Vann, “Uncovering the Maritime Secrets of Aperlae,” Near Eastern Archaeology 61/1 (1998), 26-37. Hörmann 1951 H. Hörmann, “II. Die Johanneskirche Justinians,” in J. Keil, G.A. Sotiriou, and H. Hörmann, Die Johanneskirche, Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut in Wien, Forschungen in Ephesos IV.3, Vienna 1951, 17-178. Hongo 1993 H. Hongo, Patterns of Animal Husbandry in Central Anatolia from the Second Millennium BC through the Middle Ages: Faunal Remains from Kaman – Kalehöyük, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1996. Hongo 1996 H. Hongo, “Faunal Remains from Kaman-Kalehöyük, Turkey: A Preliminary Analysis,” in H. Buitenhuis and A.T. Clason (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, Leiden 1993, 67-76. Hoti 2003 A. Hoti, “Some Feature of the Early Medieval Pottery in Albania (7th–11th Centuries),” in Ch. Bakirtzis, VII. Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11–16 Octobre 1999, Athens 2003, 237-40. Howard-Johnston and Ryan 1992 J. Howard-Johnston and N. Ryan, The Scholar and the Gypsy. Two Journeys to Turkey, Past and Present, London 1992.

Harrison 2001 M. Harrison (ed. W. Young), Mountain and Plain. From the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period, Ann Arbor 2001. Harrison and Fıratlı 1967 R.M. Harrison and N. Fıratlı, “Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Fourth Preliminary Report,” DOP 21 (1967), 273-8. Harvey 1989 A. Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900-1200, Cambridge 1989. Haspels 1951 C.H.E. Haspels, Phrygie. Exploration archéologique. Tome III. La cité de Midas. Céramique et trouvailles diverses, Paris 1951. Haspels 2009 E. Haspels, I am the Last of the Travelers. Midas City Excavation and Surveys in the Highlands of Phrygia, ed. D. Berndt, with contributions by H. Çambel, Istanbul 2009. Hayes 1971 J.W. Hayes, “A New Type of Early Christian Ampulla,” BSA 66 (1971), 243-8. Hayes 1980 J. W. Hayes, Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum 1: Greek and Roman Clay Lamps, Toronto 1980. Hayes 1992 J.W. Hayes, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 2. The Pottery, Princeton, NJ 1992. Hayes 2008 J.W. Hayes, The Athenian Agora, Vol. xxxii. Roman Pottery Fine-Ware Imports, Princeton, NJ 2008. Henderson and Mango 1995 J. Henderson and M.M. Mango, “Glass at Medieval Constantinople: Preliminary Scientific Evidence,” in C. Mango and G. Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, Aldershot 1995, 333-56. Hendin 2007 D. Hendin, Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency of the Near East, Nyack, NY 2007. Hendy 1985 M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300–1450, Cambridge 1985. Henning 2007 J. Henning, “Katalog archäologischer Funde aus Pliska,” in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska and the Balkans, Millennium-Studien vol. 5/2, Berlin-New York 2007, 663-700. Herrin 2002 J. Herrin, Women in Purple, London 2002. Herrin and Toydemir 2007 J. Herrin and A. Toydemir, “Byzantine Pottery,” in C.L. Striker and Y.D. Kuban (eds.), Kalenderhane in Istanbul. The Excavations, Mainz 2007, 69-122.

504

Bibliography

Ignatiadou 1999 D. Ignatiadou, “A Hellenistic Board Game with Glass Counters,” in VI. International Symposium on Ancient Macedonia, 1996, Thessaloniki 1999, 508-22. Ignatiadou 2002 D. Ignatiadou, “Colorless Glass in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Macedonia,” JGS 44 (2002), 11-24. Isler 1994 H.P. Isler, “Glandes. Schleudergeschosse aus den Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato,” AA (1994), 239-54. Israeli 2003 Y. Israeli, Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2003. Ivison 2000 E.A. Ivison, “Urban Renewal and Imperial Revivial in Byzantium (730-1025),” ByzF 26 (2000), 1-46. Ivison 2007 E.A. Ivison, “Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Ages,” in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium: Volume 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans. Millennium-Studien/Millennium Studies 5.2, Berlin 2007, 25-60. Ivison 2008 E.A. Ivison, “Middle Byzantine Sculptors at Work: Evidence from the Lower City Church at Amorium,” in Ch. Pennas and C. Vanderheyde (eds.), La sculpture byzantine, VIIe– XIIe siècles : actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000), BCH Supplément 49, Paris 2008, 489-513. Ivison 2010 E.A. Ivison, “Kirche und religiöses Leben im byzantinischen Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 309-43. İdil and Kadıoğlu 2009 V. İdil and M. Kadıoğlu, “2007 Yılı Nysa Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları,” KST 30/3, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara 2009, 499-520. İlaslı and Üyümez 2002 A. İlaslı and M. Üyümez, “Anıtkaya Adak Kabartmaları ve Helkelcikleri,” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 85-98. İlaslı and Üyümez 2008 A. İlaslı and M. Üyümez, Afyonkarahisar Müzesi ve Ören Yerleri (Afyonkarahisar Museums and Sites), Istanbul 2008. Jagannadha Rao et al. 1993 S. Jagannadha Rao, P. Rama Rao, and I.V. Radhakrishna Murty, “Automatic Inversion of Self-potential Anomalies of Sheet-like Bodies,” Computer and Geosciences 19 (1993), 61-73. James 2006 L. James, “Byzantine Glass Mosaic Tesserae: Some Material Considerations,” BMGS 30/1 (2006), 29-47.

James 2010 L. James, “Byzantine Mosaics and Glass: A Problematic Relationship,” in J. Drauscke and D. Keller (eds.), Glass in Byzantium – Production, Usage, Analyses (Glas in Byzanz – Produktion, Verwendung, Analysen), RömischeGermanischen Zentralmuseum Conferences 8, Mainz 2010, 237-43. Japp 2009 S. Japp, “The Local Pottery Production of Kibyra,” AnatSt 59 (2009), 95-128. Jeffreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008 E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon, and R. Cormack (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 2008. Jones 1950 F.F. Jones, “The Pottery,” in H. Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Volume I. Text. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Princeton, NJ 1950, 149-296. Kadıoğlu 2007 M. Kadıoğlu, “Menderes Nyası’nda bir Kantar,” in E. Öztepe and M. Kadıoğlu (eds.), Patronus. Coşkun Özgünel’e 65. Yaş Armağanı / Festschrift für Coşkun Özgünel zum 65. Geburtstag, Istanbul 2007, 223-9. Kaegi 2008 W.E. Kaegi, “Confronting Islam: emperors versus caliphs (641–c. 850),” in Shepard 2008, 365-94. Karagöz 2007 Ş. Karagöz, “Marmaray Projesi Üsküdar Meydanı AçKapa İstasyonu Arkeolojik Kurtarma Kazısı,” 15. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2006, Alanya, Ankara 2007, 137-66. Karaosmanoğlu et al. 2005 M. Karaosmanoğlu, H. Özkan, N. Öztürk, B. Can, and H. Korucu, “Altıntepe Kazısı 2003,” KST 26/1 Konya, 2428 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 127-38. Karlsson 2009 L. Karlsson, “Labraunda 2007,” KST 30/1, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara 2009, 107-18. Karpozilos 1991 A. Karpozilos, “Games, Board,” in ODB 2, Washington, D.C. 1991, 820-1. Katsumata 1995 T. Katsumata, “Catalogue of Pottery Sherds from the 1991 and 1992 Expeditions,” in Sh. Tsuji (ed.), The Survey of Early Byzantine Sites in Ölüdeniz Area (Lycia, Turkey). The First Preliminary Report, Memories of the Faculty of Letters, Osaka University, Vol. XXXV/March, 1995, Osaka 1995, 135-58. Katzev 1982 S.W. Katzev, “Miscellaneous Finds,” in Bass and van Doornick 1982, 266-95. Keller 2010 D. Keller, “Byzantine Glass: Past, Present, and Future – A Short History of Research on Byzantine Glass,” in J. Drauscke and D. Keller (eds.), Glass in Byzantium – Production, Usage, Analyses (Glas in Byzanz – Produktion, Verwendung, Analysen), Römische-Germanischen Zentral­­museum Conferences 8, Mainz 2010, 1-24.

505

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Excavations and Art Historical Researches, Istanbul 2010, 393-401. Kondoleon 2000 C. Kondoleon, Antioch. The Lost Ancient City, Princeton, NJ 1999. Kongaz and Arapoğlu 2001 G. Kongaz and S. Arapoğlu, “1968-1994 Yılları Arasında Klasik Eserler Pişmiş Toprak Bölümüne Giren Eserler,” İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı (Annual of the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul) 17 (2001), 321-8. Koşay 1966 H.Z. Koşay, “Kuşsaray (Çorum) Sondajı,” TürkArkDerg 15/1 (1966), 89-97. Koukoules 1948 Ph.I. Koukoules, Βυζαντινών βίος και πολιτισμός, vol. I.1, Athens 1948. Köhne and Ewigleben 2000 E. Köhne and C. Ewigleben (eds., English version ed. by R. Jackson), Gladiators and Caesars: The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome, Berkeley 2000. Köroğlu 2004 G. Köroğlu, “Yumuktepe in the Middle Ages,” in I. Caneva and V. Sevin (eds.), Mersin-Yumuktepe. A Reappraisal, Lecce 2004, 103-32. Kratochvil 1969 Z. Kratochvil, “Species Criteria on the Distal Section of the Tibia in Ovis ammon F. aries L. and Capra aegagrus F. hircus L.,” Acta Veterinaria (Brno) 38 (1969), 483-90. Kroll 2010 H. Kroll, Tiere im Byzantinische Reich. Archäozoologische Forschungen im Überlick, Römische-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Monograph 87, Mainz 2010. KST 1996 C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium Kazısı 1994,” KST 17/2, Ankara, 29 Mayıs-2 Haziran 1995, Ankara 1996, 361-73. KST 1997 C.S. Lightfoot, “1995 Yılı Amorium Kazısı,” KST 18/2, Ankara, 27-31 Mayıs 1996, Ankara 1997, 431-47. KST 1998 C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “1996 Yılı Amorium Kazısı,” KST 19/2, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 1997, Ankara 1998, 34366. KST 1999 C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “1997 Yılı Amorium Çalışmaları,” KST 20/2, Tarsus, 25-29 Mayıs 1998, Ankara 1999, 525-38. KST 2000 C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “Amorium 1998 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları,” KST 21/2, Ankara, 24-28 Mayıs 1999, Ankara 2000, 143-52. KST 2002 C. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “Amorium Kazısı 2000,” KST 23/2, Ankara, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2001, Ankara 2002, 243-56. KST 2003 C. Lightfoot and Y. Arbel, “Amorium Kazısı 2001,” KST 24/1, Ankara, 27-31 Mayıs 2002, Ankara 2003, 521-32.

Kendall 1978 T. Kendall, Passing through the Netherworld: The Meaning and Play of Senet, an Ancient Egyptian Funerary Game, Belmont, MA 1978. Kennedy 1985 H. Kennedy, “From Polis to Madina: Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria,” Past and Present 106 (1985), 3-27. Kennedy 1992 Hugh Kennedy, “Antioch: from Byzantium to Island and Back Again,” in J. Rich (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, London 1992, 181-98. Kennedy 2005 H. Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World, Cambridge, MA 2005. Kimpe, Jacobs, and Waelkens 2001 K. Kimpe, P.A. Jacobs, and M. Waelkens, “Analysis of Oil Used in Late Roman Oil Lamps with Different Mass Spectrometric Techniques Revealed the Presence of Predominantly Olive Oil together with Traces of Animal Fat,” Journal of Chromatography A 937 (2001), 87-95. Kimpe, Jacobs, and M. Waelkens 2002 K. Kimpe, P.A. Jacobs, and Waelkens, “Mass Spectrometric Method Prove the Use of Beeswax and Ruminant Fat in Late Roman Cooking Pots,” Journal of Chromatography A 968 (2002), 151-60. Kimpe, Jacobs, and Waelkens 2005 K. Kimpe, P.A. Jacobs and M. Waelkens “Identification of Animal Fats in Late Roman Cooking Pots of Sagalassos (Southwestern Turkey),” in J. Mulville and A. Outram (eds.), The Zooarchaeology of Milk and Fats, Durham 2005, 183-92. Kinzelbach 1989 R. Kinzelbach, “Freshwater mussels (genus Anodonta) from Anatolia and adjacent areas (Bivalvia, Unionidae),” Zoology in the Middle East 3 (1989), 59-72. Kirk 1938 G.E. Kirk, “Nine Men’s Morris-Morelles-Mühlespiel in Palestine,” JPOS 18 (1938), 229-32. Kisch 1965 B. Kisch, Scales and Weights. A Historical Outline, New Haven 1965. Kızıl 2007 A. Kızıl, “Milas Müzesi’ndeki, 2004-2005 Yıllarında yapılan Hayıtlı Mahallesi Kurtarma Kazısı Buluntuları,” AST 24/2, Ankara 2007, 419-32. Koch 1985 G. Koch (ed.), Albanien. Kulturdenkmäler eines unbekannten Landes aus 2200 Jahren, Marburg 1985. Koçyiğit 2006 O. Koçyiğit, “Terracotta Spacers from the Bathhouse at Amorium,” AnatSt 56 (2006), 113-25. Koçyiğit 2010 O. Koçyiğit, “Amorium’da Bulunan Yeni Veriler Işığında Bizans Dünyası’nda Şarap Üretimi,” in K. Pektaş et al. (eds.), XIII. Ortaçağ Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 14-16 Ekim 2009 / Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium of Medieval and Turkish Period

506

Bibliography

KST 2004 C. Lightfoot and Y. Arbel, “Amorium Kazısı 2002,” KST 25/1, Ankara, 26-31 Mayıs 2003, Ankara 2004, 1-12. KST 2005 C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazıları 2003,” KST 26/1, Konya, 24-28 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 249-64. KST 2006 C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazıları 2004,” KST 27/1, Antalya, 30 Mayıs-03 Haziran 2005, Ankara 2006, 77-88. KST 2007 C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2005,” KST 28/1, Çanakkale, 29 Mayıs-02 Haziran 2006, Ankara 2007, 271-94. KST 2008 C. Lightfoot, O. Koçyiğit, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2006,” KST 29/1, Kocaeli, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2007, Ankara 2008, 443-66. KST 2009 C. Lightfoot, E. Ivison, M. Şen, and H. Yaman, “Amorium Kazısı 2007,” KST 30/1, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara 2009, 201-26. KST 2010 C. Lightfoot, E. Ivison, O. Koçyiğit, and M. Şen, “Amorium Kazıları, 2008,” KST 31/1, Denizli, 25-29 Mayıs 2009, Ankara 2010, 133-57. KST 2011 C. Lightfoot, N. Tsivikis, and J. Foley, “Amorium Kazıları 2009,” KST 32/1, Istanbul, 24-28 Mayıs 2010, Ankara 2011, 47-68. Kubiak 1970 W.B. Kubiak, “Medieval Ceramic Oil Lamps from Fustāt,” Ars Orientalis 8 (1970), 1-18. Kühne 1969 H. Kühne, “Die Bestattungen der hellenistischen bis spätkaiserzeitlichen Periode,” Boğazköy IV, Berlin 1969, 35-45. Kurke 1999a L. Kurke, Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold. The Politic of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton, NJ 2000. Kurke 1999b L. Kurke, “Ancient Greek Board Games and How to Play Them,” CPh 94.3 (1999), 247-67. Kussinger 1988 S. Kussinger, Tierknochenfunde vom Lidar Höyük in Südostanatolien (Grabungen 1979-86), unpublished PhD thesis, Lüdwig-Maximilians–Universität, Munich 1988. Küçükçoban 2002 F. Küçükçoban, “2000 Yılı Akdağ Kurtarma Kazısı,” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 2527 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 251-62. Kürkman 2003 G. Kürkman, Anatolian Weights and Measures, Istanbul 2003. Laflı 2002a E. Laflı, “A Brief Note about the Studies of Late AntiqueEarly Byzantine Terracotta Unguentaria from Cilicia and

Pisidia (southwestern Turkey),” Orient Express. Notes et nouvelles d’archéologie oriéntale 2002/1, 21-5. Laflı 2002b E. Laflı, “Erweiterung unserer Erkenntnisse zu TerrakottaUnguentaria durch regionale Studien: Zu den Studien eines antiken und spätantiken Gefäßtypus in Kilikien und Pisidien in der Südtürkei,” Instrumentum. Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l´artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l´Antiquité 15 (June 2002), 14-8. Laflı 2002c E. Laflı, “Güney Anadolu Müzeleri Antik Dönem Sera­ mikleri. 2001 Çalışma Raporu - İlk Sonuçlar,” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 24/108 (2002), 33-44. Laflı 2003a E. Laflı, “Unguentari romani d’argilla dalla Pisidia (Turchia occidentale),” Quaderni friulani di archeologia 13 (2003), 235-52. Laflı 2003b E. Laflı, Studien zu hellenistischen, römisch-kaiserzeitlichen und spätantik-frühbyzantinischen Tonunguentarien aus Kilikien und Pisidien (Südtürkei), unpublished PhD thesis, Archäologisches Institut, Universität Köln) Cologne 2003. Laflı 2003c E. Laflı, “Hellenistische, römisch-kaiserzeitliche und spätantik-frühbyzantinische Tonunguentarien aus dem Museum von Gaziantep (Südosttürkei),” Instrumentum. Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l’artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l’Antiquité 18 (December 2003), 31-4. Laflı 2005a E. Laflı, “Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die römischkaiserzeitlichen und spätantiken Keramikfunde aus Antiocheia in Pisidien: Spätantik-frühbyzantinische Tonunguentarien,” AST 22, Ankara 2005, 175-88. Laflı 2005b E. Laflı, “Spätantik-frühbyzantinischen Tonunguentarien aus Seleukeia Sidera in Pisidien (Südwesttürkei),” in LRCW 2005, 667-79. Laiou 2006 A. Laiou, “Mεταξύ παραγωγής και κατανάλωσης: Είχαν οικονομία οι βυζαντινές πόλεις;” (Between Production and Consumption: Did the Byzantine Cities have an Economy?), ΠΑΑ 81.2 (2006), 85-126. Laiou and Morrisson 2007 A.E. Laiou and C. Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge 2007. Lamer 1927 H. Lamer, “Lusoria tabula,” RE 13.2: 1900-2029. Lang 2003 G. Lang, Klassische antike Stätten Anatoliens, 2 vols., St. Peter am Hart 2003. Lang-Auinger 2002 C. Lang-Auinger, “Galdiatoren aus Ton,” in Gladiatoren in Ephesos. Tod am Nachmittag, Vienna 2002, 103-5. Larsen 1997 C.S. Larsen, Bioarchaeology: Interpretation Behaviour from the Human Skeleton, Cambridge 1997.

507

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Lauwers, Degryse, and Waelkens 2010 V. Lauwers, P. Degryse, and M. Waelkens, “Middle Byzantine (10th–13th Century A.D.) Glass Bracelets at Sagalassos (SW Turkey),” in J. Drauscke and D. Keller (eds.), Glass in Byzantium – Production, Usage, Analyses (Glas in Byzanz – Produktion, Verwendung, Analysen), Römische-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Conferences 8, Mainz 2010, 145-52. Lavan 2003 L. Lavan, “Christianity, the City, and the End of Antiquity,” JRA 16 (2003), 705-10. Leake 1824 W.M. Leake, Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, London 1824. Leake 1854 W.M. Leake, Numismata Hellenica: Catalogue of Greek Coins, London 1854. Lecuyot and Rapin 2000 G. Lecuyot and C. Rapin, “Samarkand et Aï Khanoum. Les briques marquées en Asie centrale,” in Boucheron et al. 2000, 31-52. Lefort 2002 J. Lefort, “The Rural Economy, Seventh–Twelfth Centuries,” in Laiou 2002, 231-310. Leriche 2000 P. Leriche, “La brique crue en Mésopotamie et en Asie centrale hellénisées (IVe siècle av. n. è. – IIIe siècle de n. è.),” in Boucheron et al. 2000, 11-30. Lewis 2008 J.E. Lewis, “Identifying Sword Marks on Bone: Criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008), 2001-8 (DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2008.01.016). Liebeschuetz 2001 J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001. Lightfoot 1989 C.S. Lightfoot, Catalogue of Glass Vessels in Afyon Museum/Afyon Müzesindeki Cam Eserler Kataloğu, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 10/BAR International Series 530, Oxford 1989. Lightfoot 1991 C. Lightfoot, “A Group of Roman Perfume Bottles from  Asia Minor,” Erol Atalay Memorial, Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Dergisi 1, İzmir 1991, 107-112. Lightfoot 1993 C.S. Lightfoot, “A Catalogue of the Glass Finds: Sagalassos 1990,” in M. Waelkens (ed.), Sagalassos I. First General Report on the Survey (1986-1989) and Excavations (19901991), Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 5, Leuven 1993, 173-96. Lightfoot 1995 C. Lightfoot, “A New Anonymous Follis from Amorium,” NCirc 103/10 (December 1995), 376. Lightfoot 1996a C. Lightfoot, “Ünik bir Bizans Sikkesi,” Moneta 6 (May 1996), 2-3.

508

Lightfoot 1996b C.S. Lightfoot, “Doukas and Amorium, a Note,” JÖB 46 (1996), 337-40. Lightfoot 1998a C.S. Lightfoot, “The Public and Domestic Architecture of a Thematic Capital, the Archaeological Evidence from Amorium,” in Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.), National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research International Symposium 6, Athens 1998, 303-20. Lightfoot 1998b C.S. Lightfoot, “The Survival of Cities in Byzantine Anatolia, the Case of Amorium,” Byzantion 68, Fasc. 1 (1998), 56-71. Lightfoot 1998c C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium and the Afyon Region in Byzantine Times,” in R. Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia. Fifty Years’ Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1998, 301-14. Lightfoot 1998d C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium-Hisarcık’ın Selçuklu ve Osmanlı Dönemlerine ait Yerleşim ve Arkeolojisi,” Ege Üniversitesi Sanat Tarihi Dergisi IX (1998), 75-84. Lightfoot 1999 C. Lightfoot, “Byzantine Pots in Central Turkey Puzzle Excavators,” Minerva 10/3 (May/June 1999), 7. Lightfoot 2000 C.S. Lightfoot, “Amorium: The History and Archaeology of an Ancient City in the Turkish Period,” in A. AktaşYasa (ed.), Uluslararası Dördüncü Türk Kültürü Kongresi (4-7 Kasım 1997, Ankara), vol. 2, Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını 229, Ankara 2000, 79-89. Lightfoot 2002 C.S. Lightfoot, “Byzantine Anatolia: Reassessing the Numismatic Evidence,” RN 158 (2002), 229-39 Lightfoot 2005 C.S. Lightfoot, “Glass Finds at Amorium,” DOP 59 (2005), 173-81. Lightfoot 2007 C.S. Lightfoot, “Trade and Industry in Byzantine Anatolia – The Evidence from Amorium,” DOP 61 (2007), 269-86. Lightfoot 2009a C.S. Lightfoot, “Excavations at Amorium: Results from the Last Ten Years (1998–2008),” in T. Vorderstrasse and J. Roodenberg (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia, PIHANS 113, Leiden 2009, 139-53. Lightfoot 2009b C. Lightfoot, “The Siege of Amorium: History’s Tragedy; Archaeology’s Triumph,” Minerva 20/5 (September/ October 2009), 27-9. Lightfoot 2010a C. Lightfoot, “Ortaçağ’da Aydınlatma Teknikleri ve Amorium’da Ele Geçen Buluntular,” in A.O. Uysal, A. Yavaş, M. Dündar and O. Koçyiğit (eds.), XII. Ortaçağ Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, 15-17 Ekim 2008 Çanakkale, Izmir, 41-9.

Bibliography

Luttwak 2009 E.N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge, MA 2009. Macalister 1912 R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavations at Gezer, 3 vols, London 1912. Macaulay 2003 D. Macaulay, Mosque, Boston 2003. MacGregor, Mainman, and Rogers 1999 A. MacGregor, A.J. Mainman, and N.S.H. Rogers, Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York, The Archaeology of York vol. 17, fasc. 12, Bradford 1999. Magdalino 1990 P. Magdalino, “Church, Bath, and Diakonia in Medieval Constantinople,” in R. Morris (ed.), Church and People in Byzantium, Birmingham 1990, 165-88. Magdalino 2004 P. Magdalino, “The Byzantine Empire, 1118–1204,” in D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith (eds.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 part 2. c.1024–c.1198, Cambridge 2004, 611-43. Maier 1979 R.A. Maier, “Tönerne Schleudergeschosse vom Kastell Pförring an der oberen Donau,” Germania 57 (1979), 166-8. Malamut 1993 E. Malamut, Sur la route des saints byzantins. Paris 1993. Manacorda 2000 D. Manacorda, “I diversi signicati dei bolli laterizi. Appunti e riflessioni,” in Boucheron et al. 2000, 127-60. Mango 1950 C.A. Mango, “Byzantine Brick Stamps,” AJA 54 (1950), 19-27. Mango 1980 C. Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, London 1980. Mango 1995 C. Mango, “The Water Supply of Constantinople,” in C. Mango and G. Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and its Hinterland, Aldershot 1995, 9-18. Mango 2002 C. Mango (ed.), The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford 2002. Mango and Ševčenko 1973 C. Mango and I. Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries on the Southern Shore of the Sea of Marmara,” DOP 27 (1973), 235-77. Mays 1999 S. Mays, The Archaeology of Human Bones, London 1999. McDonagh 2001 B. McDonagh, Blue Guide Turkey, 3rd ed., London 2001. McGeer, Nesbitt, and Oikonomides 2005 E. McGeer, J. Nesbitt, and N. Oikonomides (eds.), Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, vol. 5, Washington, D.C. 2005.

Lightfoot 2010b C.S. Lightfoot, “Die byzantinische Stadt Amorium: Grabungsergebnisse der Jahre 1988 bis 2008,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 293-307. Lightfoot 2010c C.S. Lightfoot, “Coinage of the Amorian Dynasty found at Amorium,” in Mélanges Cécile Morrisson, Travaux et Mémoires 16 (2010), 503-11. Lister 1996 A. Lister, “The Morphological Distinction between Bones and Teeth of Fallow Deer (Dama dama) and Red Deer (Cervus elaphus),” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6.2 (1996), 119-43. Lochner 2002 S. Lochner, “Late Roman Unguentaria”. Eine Studie zur frühbyzantinischen Keramik anhand des Fundmaterials in Ephesos, unpublished BA thesis, Archäologisches Institut der Universität Wien, Vienna 2002. Lochner et al. 2005 S. Lochner, R. Sauer, and R. Linke, “Late Roman Unguentaria? - A Contribution to Early Byzantine Wares from the View of Ephesus,” in LRCW 2005, 647-54. Loffreda 2008 S. Loffreda, Cafarnao VIII. Documentazione fotographca degli oggetti (1968–2003), Jerusalem 2008. Loots et al. 2000 L. Loots, M. Waelkens, W. Clarysse, J. Poblome, and G. Hübner, “A Catalogue of the Tile Stamps found at Sagalassos,” in Waelkens and Loots 2000, 685-96. Lopez 1959 R.S. Lopez, “Trade in Seventh-Century Byzantium,” DOP 13 (1959), 69-85. Lovell 1997 N.C. Lovell, “Trauma Analysis in Paleopathology,” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40 (1997), 139-70. Lovell 2008 N.C. Lovell, “Analysis and Interpretation of Skeletal Trauma,” in M.A. Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders (eds.), Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, second edition, Hoboken, NJ 2008, 341-86. LRCW 2005 J.Ma. Gurt i Esparraguera, J. Buxeda i Garrigós, and M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry (Barcelona, 14-16 March 2002)/1r congrés international sobre ceràmiques comunes, de cuina i àmfores de l´Antiguitat tardana a la Mediterrània: Arqueologia i arqueometria (Barcelona, 14-16 de Març de 2002), BAR International Series 1340, Oxford 2005. Lubsen-Admiraal 2004 S.M. Lubsen-Admiraal, Ancient Cypriote Art. The Thanos N. Zintilis Collection, Athens 2004.

509

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Hellenistic Periods, December 12-15, 1991, Hesperia Supplement 27, Princeton, NJ 1994, 269-73. Mimaroğlu 2006 İ.M. Mimaroğlu, “Konya’da Bizans Mimarisi,” Konya Kitabı IX (2006), 139-70. Mitchell 1993a S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. I: The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule, Oxford 1993. Mitchell 1993b S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. II: The Rise of the Church, Oxford 1993. Mitchell 1999 S. Mitchell, “Archaeology in Asia Minor 1990-98,” Archaeological Reports for 1998-1999 45 (1999), 125-91. Mitchell 2006 P.D. Mitchell, “Trauma in the Crusader Period City of Caesarea: A Major Port in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16 (2006), 493-505 (DOI: 10.1002/oa.853). Mitchell 2007 S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire, ad 284– 641, Oxford 2007. Mitchell and McKeown 2008 S. Mitchell and S. McKeown, “Archaeology in Anatolia. Sixty Years of British Research Remembered,” Current World Archaeology 32, Vol. 3, No. 8 (December 2008/ January 2009), 42-7. Mitford 1971 T.B. Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion, Philadelphia 1971. Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991 V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Kleinfunde. 1. Teil: Keramik hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Forschungen in Ephesos IX 2/2, Vienna 1991. Möllers 1994 S. Möllers, Die Hagia Sophia in Iznik / Nikaia, Alfter 1994. Moore 1993 J. Moore, Tille Höyük 1. The Medieval Period, BIAA Monograph 14, Oxford 1993. Morçöl 2002 Ç. Morçöl, “2000 Yılı Muğla-Marmaris Merkez İyilik Kayası Nekropol Kazısı Ön Raporu,” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 157-72. Morgan 1942 C.H. Morgan II, The Byzantine Pottery. Corinth XI, Cambridge, MA 1942. Morganstern 1983 J. Morganstern, The Byzantine Church at Dereağzı and its Decoration, IstMitt Beiheft 29, Tübingen 1983. Morganstern 1993 J. Morganstern (ed.), The Fort at Dereağzı and Other Material Remains in its Vicinity: from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, IstForsch 40, Tübingen 1993.

McNicoll 1983 A. McNicoll, Taşkun Kale. Keban Rescue Excavations Eastern Anatolia, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph No. 6/BAR International Series 168, Oxford 1983. Measuring and Weighing 2001 Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times, exhibition catalogue of the Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, Haifa 2001. Mellink 1961 M.J. Mellink, “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 65/1 (1961), 37-52. Mellink 1991 M.J. Mellink, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 95/1 (1991), 123-53. Mellink 1992 M.J. Mellink, “Archaeology in Anatolia,” AJA 96/1 (1992), 119-50. Menzel 1969 H. Menzel, Antike Lampen im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum zu Mainz. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz Kataloge 15, Mainz 1969. Meriç 2002 R. Meriç, Späthellenistisch-römische Keramik und Kleinfunde aus einem Schachtbrunnen am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos. Forschungen in Ephesos IX/3, Vienna 2002. Meriç 2004 R. Meriç, Metropolis. City of the Mother Goddess, Izmir 2004. Merkelbach 1978 R. Merkelbach, “Ephe­ sische Parerga 12: Eine Tabula lusoria für den ‘ludus latrunculorum’,” ZPapEpig 28 (1978), 48-50. Metaxas 2005 S. Metaxas, “Frühbyzantinische Ampullen und Amphoriskoi aus Ephesos,” in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäologische Forschungen 13, Vienna 2005, 67-123. Metin 1977 M. Metin, “Ulus Kazısı 1995,” in VII. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 1996, Ankara1997, 199-220. Metzger 1972 H. Metzger, Fouilles de Xanthos, tome IV: Les céramiques archaïques et classiques de l’acropole lycienne, Paris 1972. Meyers 1976 E.M. Meyers et al., Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema’, Upper Galilee, Israel, AASOR 42, 1976. Mikler 1997 H. Mikler, Die römischen Funde aus Bein im Landesmuseum Mainz, Montagnac 1997. Miles 1939 G.C. Miles, A Byzantine Weight Validated by al-Walīd, ANSMN 87, New York 1939. Miller 1994 S.G. Miller, “Architectural Terracottas from Ilion,” in N.A. Winter (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Greek Architectural Terracottas of the Classical and

510

Bibliography

Morrisson 2001 C. Morrisson, “Survivance de l’économie monétaire à Byzance (viie–ixe siècle),” in E. Kountoura-Galake (ed.), Οι Σκοτεινοί Αιώνες του Βυζαντίου (7ος - 9ος αι.), Athens 2001, 377-97. Morrisson 2002 C. Morrisson, “Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation,” in Laiou 2002, 909-66. Morrisson and Sodini 2002 C. Morrisson and J.-P. Sodini, “The Sixth-Century Economy,” in Laiou 2002, 171-220. Morton 1985 A.H. Morton, A Catalogue of Early Islamic Glass Stamps in the British Museum, London 1985. Motsianos 2005 I. Motsianos, “Some Comments on Byzantine WheelMade Lamps,” in L. Chrzanovski (ed.), Lychnological Acts 1. Actes du 1er Congrès International d’études sur le luminaire antique (Nyon – Genève, 29.IX – 4.X.2003), Monographies instrumentum 31, Montagnac 2005, 247-51. Müller-Wiener 1977 W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon von KonstantinopelsIstanbuls, Tübingen 1977. Mundell Mango 2001 M. Mundell Mango, “Beyond the Amphora: Non-Ceramic Evidence for Late Antique Industry and Trade,” in S. Kingsley and M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity. Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford, 29th May, 1999, Oxford 2001, 87-106. Mundell Mango 2006 M. Mundell Mango, “Action in the Trenches: A Call for a More Dynamic Archaeology of Early Byzantium,” in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies. London, 21–26 August 2006, vol. 1, Plenary Papers, Aldershot 2006, 83-106. Murray 1952 H.J.R. Murray, A History of Board Games Other Than Chess, London 1952. Mystras 2001 The City of Mystras. Mystras, August 2001–January 2002 (Byzantine Hours: Works and Days in Byzantium exhibition catalogue), Athens 2001. Nagaoka et al. 2009 T. Nagaoka, K. Uzawa, and K. Hirata, “Weapon-Related Traumas of Human Skeletons from Yuigahama Chusei Shudan Bochi, Japan,” Anatomical Science International 84 (2009), 170-81 (DOI 10.1007/s12565-008-0008-8). Naumann 1984 F. Naumann, “Die Kleinfunde der Grabung am dorischen Säulenhof,” in “Aizanoi-Bericht 1981 und 1982,” AA 1984, 499-530. Nesbitt and Summers 1988 M. Nesbitt and G.D. Summers, “Some Recent Discoveries of Millet (Panicum miliaceum L. and Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv.) at Excavations in Turkey and Iran,” AnatSt 38 (1988), 85-97.

Netz 2002 R. Netz, “Counter Culture: Towards a History of Greek Numeracy,” in History of Science 40.129 (2002), 321-52. Neve 1991 P.J. Neve, “Boğazköy-Hattusa in byzantinischer Zeit,” in V. Kravari, J. Lefort, and C. Morrisson (eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, II, VIIIe–XVe siècle, Paris 1991, 91-111. Newell 1932 E.T. Newell, in H.H. von der Osten, and E.F. Schmid, (eds.), The Alishar-Hüyük Season of 1927, Oriental Institute Papers 7/Researches in Anatolia vol. 3, Chicago 1932, 51-74. Northedge 1992 A. Northedge, Studies on Roman and Islamic Amman, vol. 1, History, Site, and Architecture, Oxford 1992. Northedge 1994 A. Northedge, “Archaeology and New Urban Settlement in Early Islamic Syria and Iraq,” in G.R.D. King and A. Cameron (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, vol. 2, Land Use and Settlement patterns, Princeton, NJ 1994, 231-65. Norwich 1988 J.J. Norwich, Byzantium. The Early Centuries, London 1988. Ogan and Mansel 1942 A.A. Ogan and A.M. Mansel, “Fouilles de Rhegion – Küçük Çekmece. Rapport preliminaire sur les travaux de 1940–1941,” Belleten 6 (1942), 1-36. Olcay 2001 B.Y. Olcay, “Lighting Methods in the Byzantine Period and Findings of Glass Lamps in Anatolia,” JGS 43 (2001), 77-87. Onurkan 1999 S. Onurkan, “Perge Tuğla Damgaları: Satır ve Monogram,” XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 12-16 Eylül 1994, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. 1, Ankara 1999, 161-91, pls. 45-62. Orlandos 1966 A. Orlandos, Les matériaux de construction et la technique architecturale des anciens Grecs I. École française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires 16, 1966. Ortner 2003 D.J. Ortner, Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains, second edition, London 2003. Ostrogorsky 1959a G. Ostrogorsky, “The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century,” DOP 13 (1959), 3-21. Ostrogorsky 1959b G. Ostrogorsky, “Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages,” DOP 13 (1959), 45-66. Ousterhout 1999 R. Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton, NJ 1999. Ousterhout et al. 2000 R. Ousterhout, Z. Ahunbay, and M. Ahunbay, “Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: First Report, 1997-1998,” DOP 54 (2000), 265-70.

511

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Ousterhout 2005 R. Ousterhout, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 42, Washington, D.C. 2005. Owens 2007 L.S.Owens, “Craniofacial Trauma in the Prehispanic Canary Islands,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17 (2007), 465-78 (DOI: 10.1002/oa.898). Oziol 1977 Th.-J. Oziol, Salamine de Chypre, VII: Les Lampes du Musée de Chypre, Université Lyon II – Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen ancien. Institut F. Courby (CRA-URA 15), Paris 1977. Oziol 1993 Th.-J. Oziol, Les lampes au Musée de la Fondation Piérides. Larnaca 1993. Ötüken 1996 Y. Ötüken, Forschungen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien. Antike und byzantinischer Denkmäler in der Provinz Bursa, IstMitt Beiheft 41, Tübingen 1996. Ötüken 1997 S.Y. Ötüken, “1995 Yılı Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı,” KST 18/2, Ankara, 27-31 Mayıs 1996, Ankara 1997, 471-87. Ötüken 2001a S.Y. Ötüken, “1999 Yılı Demre-Myra Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı,” KST 22/2, Izmir, 22-26 Mayıs 2000, Ankara 2001, 345-58. Ötüken 2001b S.Y. Ötüken, “Demre-Myra Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazı­ sından Seçme Küçük Buluntular,” in B. Karamağaralı and S. Alpaslan (eds.), V. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazı ve Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 19-20 Nisan 2001, Ankara 2001, 361-84. Ötüken et al. 2005 S.Y. Ötüken et al., “2003 Yılı Demre-Myra Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı ve Duvar Resimlerini Koruma-OnarımBelgeleme Çalışmaları,” KST 26/1, Konya, 24-28 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 111-2. Özbek 2000 M. Özbek, Dünden Bugüne İnsan, Ankara 2000. Özçatal 2001 M.F. Özçatal, “Öğlenarası Vadisi Kurtarma Kazısı 1999,” 11. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2000, Denizli, Ankara 2001, 119-32. Özdaş 2009 H. Özdaş, “Akdeniz Bölgesi Sualtı Araştırması 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları,” AST 26/3, Ankara 2009, 259-72. Özet 2002 A. Özet, “Torba Manastırı Kazısı,” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 33-50. Özhanlı and Şen 2007 M. Özhanlı and Z. Şen, Side’den “Geç Roma” Unguen­ tariumları, Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi 10 (2007/2), 141-55. Özkan et al. 2001 M.K. Özkan, M. Atıcı, F. Ölmez, and B. Okuducu, “Aydın Merkez Kalfaköy Sulucadere Mevkii 12 Pafta, 421 Parselde

Helenistik Mezar Kurtarma Kazısı,” 11. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2000, Denizli, Ankara 2001, 17-26. Öztan 2005 A. Öztan, “2003 Yılı Acemhöyük Kazıları,” KST 26/2, Konya, 24-28 Mayıs 2004, Ankara 2005, 91-102. Öztürk 2001 N.Ö. Öztürk, “Marmara Ereğlisi Batı Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazısı,” 14. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 30 Nisan - 2 Mayıs 2004, Ürgüp/Nevşehir, Ankara 2005, 83-92. Özüdoğru and Dündar 2007 Ş. Özüdoğru and E. Dündar, “Kibyra Geç Roma-Erken Doğu Roma Dönemi Mühürlü Unguentariumları,” Olba 15 (2007), 145-77. Papalexandrou 2001 A. Papalexandrou, “Conversing Hellenism: The Multiple Voices of a Byzantine Monument in Greece,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 19.2 (2001), 237-54. Papanikola-Bakirtzi 2002 D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi (ed.), Everyday Life in Byzantium, Athens 2002. Parker 1992 A.J. Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, Oxford 1992. Parlett 1999 D.S. Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games, Oxford 1999. Parman 1989 E. Parman, “The Pottery from St. John’s Basilica at Ephesos”, in V. Deroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine: Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française d’Athènes et l’Université de Strasbourg II, Centre du recherches sur l’Europe centrale et sud-orientale, Athènes 8-10 avril 1987, BCH Supplément 18, Athens 1989, 277-89. Parman 2002 E. Parman, Ortaçağda Bizans Döneminde Frigya (Phrygia) ve Bölge Müzelerindeki Bizans Taş Eserleri, Eskişehir 2002. Pasinli 1997 A. Pasinli, T. Gökyıldırım, F. Dügüner, and F. Güven, “Çatalca-İneceğiz Köyü Maltepe Nekropolü 1995 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı,” VII. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 8-10 Nisan 1996, Kuşadası, Ankara 1997, 77-88. Pasinli 2001 A. Pasinli, “‘Pittakia’ ve ‘Magnum Palatium-Büyük Saray’ Bölgesinde 1999 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları (Eski Sultanahmet Cezaevi Bahçesi),” 11. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2000, Denizli, Ankara 2001, 41-64. Pasinli 2002 A. Pasinli, “‘Pittakia’ ve ‘Magnum Palatium-Büyük Saray’ Bölgesinde 2000 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları (Sultanahmet Eski Cezaevi Bahçesi),” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 1-22.

512

Bibliography

Pasinli 2003 A. Pasinli, “‘Pittakia’ ve ‘Magnum Palatium-Büyük Saray’ Bölgesinde 2001 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları (Sultanahmet Eski Cezaevi Bahçesi),” 13. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 22-26 Nisan 2002, Denizli, Ankara 2003, 1-16. Patrick 2006 P. Patrick, “Approaches to Violent Death: A Case Study from Early Medieval Cambridge. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16/4 (2006), 347-54 (DOI: 10.1002/ oa.830). Payne 1969 S. Payne, “A Metrical Distinction between Sheep and Goat Metacarpals,” in P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, London 1969, 295-305. Payne 1973 S. Payne, “Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: the Mandibles from Aşvan Kale,” AnatSt 23 (1973), 281-303. Payne 1985 S. Payne, “Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Cheek Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis and Goats, Capra,” Journal of Archaeological Science 12 (1985), 139-47. Payne 1987 S. Payne, “Reference Codes for Wear Stages in the Mandibular Cheek Teeth of Sheep and Goats,” Journal of Archaeological Science 14 (1987), 609-14. Pehlivaner 2004 M. Pehlivaner, “Antalya Müzesi Çalışmaları 2003 (The Work Carried Out by the Antalya Museum in 2003),” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 2 (2004), 121-5. Perlzweig 1961 J. Perlzweig, Lamps of the Roman Period. First to Seventh Century after Christ. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. VII, Princeton, NJ 1961. Perrot 1862 G. Perrot, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, Paris 1862. Peschlow 1977/78 U. Peschlow et al., “Byzantinische Keramik aus Istanbul. Ein Fundkomplex bei der Irenenkirche,” IstMitt 27/28 (1977/1978), 363-414. Peters and von den Driesch 1991 J. Peters and A. von den Driesch, “Siedlungsabfall versus Opferreste: Essgewohnheiten im archaischen Milet,” in V. von Graeve (ed.), “Milet 1991, Vorbericht über die Arbeiten des Jahres 1991,” IstMitt 42 (1992), 117-25. Poblome et al. 2000 J. Poblome, H.A. Ekinci, I. Öztürk, P. Degryse, W. Viaene, and M. Waelkens, “An Early Byzantine Tile and Lime Kiln in the Territory of Sagalassos,” in Waelkens and Loots 2000, 669-683. Pococke 1745 Richard Pococke, A Description of the East and Some Other Countries, vol. 2, pt. 2, London 1745.

Prummel 1987 W. Prummel, “Atlas for Identification of Foetal Skeletal Elements of Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Pig, Part. 2,” Archaeozoologia 1/2 (1987), 11-42. Pülz and Ruggendorfer 1995 A. Pülz and P. Ruggendorfer, “Forchungen zum Strassennetz in der byzantinischen Oststadt von Limyra,” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie 1 (1995), 66-70. Pulak 1988 C. Pulak, “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign,” AJA 92 (1986), 1-37. Rabinovitz and Sedikova 2004 A. Rabinovitz and L. Sedikova, “Excavations in the South Region of Chersonesos,” in The Study of Ancient Territories: Chersonesos and Metaponto: 2004 Annual Report, Austin, TX 2004, 5-12. Raeck 2009 W. Raeck, “2007 Yılı Priene Çalışmaları,” KST 30/1, Ankara, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara 2009, 33-52. Rafael 2009 K. Rafael, “The Metal Objects,” in J. Patrich, Archaeological Excavations at Caesarea Maritima. Areas CC, KK and NN. Final Reports, vol. 1: The Objects, Jerusalem 2008, 437-69. Rahtz 1979 P. Rahtz, Techniques of Archaeological Excavation, London 1979. Rahtz 1986 P. Rahtz, Understanding Archaeological Excavation, London 1986. Ramage 1978 A. Ramage, Lydian Houses and Architectural Terracottas, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 5, Cambridge MA 1978. Ram Babu and Atchuta Rao 1988 H.V. Ram Babu, and D. Atchuta Rao, “Inversion of Selfpotential Anomalies in Mineral Exploration,” Computer and Geosciences 14 (1988), 377-87. Ramsay 1890 W.M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. Vol. IV, Supplementary Papers, London 1890. Ramsay 1895 and 1897 W.M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, parts 1 and 2, Oxford 1895 and 1897. Ramsay 1906 W.M. Ramsay (ed.), Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire, Aberdeen 1906. Rauh and Slane 2000 N.K. Rauh and K.W. Slane, “Possible Amphora Kiln Sites in W Rough Cilicia,” JRA 13 (2000), 319-30. Rautman 1996 M.L. Rautman, “Two Late Roman Wells at Sardis,” in W.G. Dever (ed.), Preliminary Excavation Reports— Sardis, Idalion, and Tell el-Handaquq North, AASOR 53, Cambridge, MA 1996, 37-84. Rautman 2006 M. Rautman, Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire, Wesport, Conn. 2006.

513

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Reeder 1999 E.D. Reeder, Scythian Gold. Treasures from Ancient Ukraine, New York 1999. Reese 1986 D.S. Reese, “Shells at Aphrodisias,” in M.S. Joukowsky, Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies, vol. 1, Providence, R.I. and Lovain-laNeuve 1986, 191-6. Reese 1991 D.S. Reese, “The Trade of Indo-Pacific Shells into the Mediterranean Basin and Europe,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 10/2 (1991), 159-96. Reese 2000 D.S. Reese, “Worked Astragali,” in J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos IV The Greek Sanctuary, Princeton, NJ 2000, 398-401. Reese 2005 D.S. Reese, “The Çatalhöyük Shells,” in I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons, Cambridge 2005, 123-7. Reese, Mienis, and Woodward 1986 D.S. Reese, H.K. Mienis, and F.R. Woodward “On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River,” BASOR 264 (1986), 79-84. Rheidt 1991 K. Rheidt, Die Stadtgrabung 2: Die byzantinische Wohnstadt. Altertümer von Pergamon XV.2, Berlin 1991. Riant 1865 P. Riant, Expéditions et Pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, Paris 1865. Rice 1958 D.T. Rice, “The Byzantine Pottery,” in R.B.K. Stevenson (ed.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. Second Report, Oxford 1958. Rieche 1984 A. Rieche, Römische Kinder- und Gesellschaftsspiele, Stuttgart 1984. Riley 1859 H.T. Riley (ed.), Liber Albus, Rolls series no. 12, vol. 1, London 1859. Ristovska 2009 N. Ristovska, “Distribution patterns of middle Byzantine painted glass,” in M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional, and International Exchange, Farnham 2009, 199220. Ristow 1998 S. Ristow, “Ziegelbau. I. Westlicher und byzantinischer Bereich,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 9, Munich 1998, cols. 599-600. Roberts and Manchester 1995 C.A. Roberts and K. Manchester, The Archaeology of Disease, second edition, Ithaca, NY 1995. Roche 2004 J.T. Roche, “Anatolia and the Second Crusade 1147/8,” AnatArch 10 (2004), 32-3.

Rodgers 2002 R. Rodgers, “Κηποποιϊα: Garden Making and Garden Culture in the Geoponika,” in A. Littlewood, H. Maguire, and J. Wolschke-Bulmahn (eds.), Byzantine Garden Culture, Washington, D.C. 2002, 159-75. Roller 2004 D.W. Roller, “Review of Mountain and Plain: From the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period,” AJA 108 (2004), 125-6. Roovers 1993 I. Roovers, “The Lamps”, in M. Waelkens (ed.), Sagalassos I: First General Report on the Survey (1986-1989) and Excavations (1990-1991), Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 5, Leuven 1993, 153-62. Roueché 1989 C.M. Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, London 1989 (for revised second edition, see above, eALA). Roueché 2004 C. Roueché, “Gameboards and Pavement Markings at Aphrodisias,” in I. Finkel (ed.), Board Games in Perspective, London 2004. Runciman 1978 S. Runicman, A History of the Crusades. Vol. I, The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Harmondsworth 1978. Russell 2000 J. Russell, “Household Furnishings,” in Kondoleon 2000, 79-89. Ryder 1983 M.L. Ryder, Sheep and Man, London 1983. Rye 1981 O.S. Rye, Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction, Manuals on Archeology 4, Washington, D.C. 1981. Sadberk 1995 Sadberk Hanım Müzesi, Istanbul 1995. Saliou 1996 C. Saliou, Le traité d’urbanisme de Julien d’Ascalon : droit et architecture en Palestine au VIe siècle, Paris 1996. Sams 1982 G.K. Sams, “The Weighing Implements,” in Bass and van Doornick 1982, 202-30. Sams and Temizsoy n.d. K. Sams and İ. Temizsoy, Gordion Museum, Ankara n.d. Sanders 1999 G.D.R. Sanders, “A Late Roman Bath at Corinth: Excavations in the Panayia Field, 1995-1996,” Hesperia 68 (1999), 441-80. Sanders 2003 G.D.R. Sanders, “An Overview of the New Chronology for 9th to 13th-century Pottery at Corinth,” in Ch. Bakirtzis (ed.), VII. Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki, 11-16 Octobre 1999, Athens 2003, 35-44. Saradi 2006 H. Saradi, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century: Literary Images and Historical Reality, Monographs of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens 2006.

514

Bibliography

Sauer and Ladstätter 2005 R. Sauer and S. Ladstätter, “Mineralogisch-petrographische Analysen von frühbyzantinischen Ampullen und Amphoriskoi aus Ephesos,” in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäologische Forschungen 13, Vienna 2005, 125-35. Savvonidi 1993 N. Savvonidi, “Wine-Making on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea in Antiquity,” in Amouretti and Brun 1993, 227-35. Schädler 1994 U. Schädler, “Latrunculi – ein verlorenes strategisches Brettspiel der Römer,” Homo Ludens. Der spielende Mensch 4 (1994), 47-67. Schädler 1995 U. Schädler, “XII Scripta, Alea, Tabula – New Evidence for the Ro­man History of ‘Backgammon’,” in A. J. de Voogt (ed.), New Approaches to Board Games Research, Leiden 1995, 73-98. Schädler 1998 U. Schädler, “Mancala in Roman Asia Minor?” Board Games Studies 1 (1998), 10-25. Schädler 2001 U. Schädler, “Latrunculi – a Forgotten Roman Game of Strategy Reconstructed,” Abstract Games 7 (2001), 10-11. Schärlig 2003a A. Schärlig, Compter avec des cailloux: le calcul élémentaire sur l’abaque chez les anciens Grecs, Lausanne 2003. Schärlig 2003b A. Schärlig, Compter avec des jetons: tables à calculer et tables de compte du Moyen Age à la Révolution, Lausanne 2003. Scheltens 1993 E. Scheltens, “Some Wheelmade Lamps of Sagalassos,” in M. Waelkens (ed.), Sagalassos II: Report on the Third Excavation Campaign of 1992. Leuven 1993 (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 6), 191-207. Schiavone and Quarto 1984 D. Schiavone and R. Quarto, “Self-potential Prospecting in the Study of Water Movements,” Geoexploration 22 (1984), 47-58. Schmidt 1932 E.F. Schmidt, The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929, Part I, Researches in Anatolia 4, Chicago 1932. Schmidt 1933 E.F. Schmidt, The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929, Part II, Researches in Anatolia 5, Chicago 1933. Schmidt 1902 H. Schmidt, Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer, Berlin 1902. Schoolman 2010 E.M. Schoolman, “Kreuze und kreuzförmige Darstellungen in der Alltagskultur von Amorium,” in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 84/2, 1, Mainz 2010, 373-86.

Scranton 1957 R.L. Scranton, Corinth XVI: Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth, Princeton, NJ 1957. Sebbane 2000 M. Sebbane, “Two Game Boards,” in Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984-1998 Excavations, Jerusalem 2000, 226-31. Sharma 1997 P.V. Sharma, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Cambridge 1997. Shedrinsky, Grimaldi, Wampler, and Baer 1989-91 A.M Shedrinsky, D. Grimaldi, T.P. Wampler, and N.S. Baer, “Amber and Copal: Pyrolysis Gas Chromatographic (PyGC) Studies of Provenance,” Wiener Berichte über Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 6-8 (1989-91), 37-62. Shepard 2008 J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492, Cambridge 2008. Shedrinsky, Wampler, and Chugunov 2004. A.M Shedrinsky, T.P. Wampler, and K.V. Chugunov, “The Examination of Amber Beads from the Collection of the State Hermitage Museum found at Arzhan-2 Burial Memorial Site,” Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 71 (2004), 69-81. Shtereva et al. n.d. I. Shtereva et al., Bulgarian Medieval Town. Technologies, [Sofia] n.d. Sintès and Moutashar C. Sintès (ed.), Musée de l’Arles antique, Arles 1996. Sivas 2003 T.T. Sivas, “Wine Presses of Western Phrygia,” Ancient West and East 2 (2003), 1-18. Sotheby’s 1995 Sotheby’s, Antiquities and Islamic Arts, sale catalogue, December 8, New York 1995. Stahl 1989 U. Stahl, Tierknochenfunde vom Hassek Höyük (Südostanatolien), unpublished dissertation, Munich 1989. St. Clair 2003 A. St. Clair, Carving as Craft. Palatine East and the GrecoRoman Bone and Ivory Carving Tradition, Baltimore 2003. Stern 1999 E.M. Stern, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” AJA 103 (1999), 441-84. Striker and Kuban 1975 C.L. Striker and Y.D. Kuban, “Work at Kalendarhane Camii in Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report (1970-74),” DOP 29 (1975), 306-18. Strobel and Gerber 2003 K. Strobel and C. Gerber (eds.), “Tavium (Büyüknefes, Provinz Yozgat)-Bericht über die Kampagnen 2000-2002,” IstMitt 53 (2003), 131-95. Strong 1999 D.E. Strong, Catalogue of the Carved Amber in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London 1966.

515

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Summers 2004 G. and F. Summers, “The Kerkenes Project,” AnatArch 10 (2004), 18-20. Şimşek 1994 C. Şimşek, “Denizli, Buldan, Kayran Mevkii Toplu Konut Alanı Kurtarma Kazısı,” IV. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 26-29 Nisan 1993, Marmaris, Ankara 1994, 457-65. Şimşek 2007 C. Şimşek, Laodikeia (Laodikeia ad Lycum), Istanbul 2007. Şimşek and Duman 2007 C. Şimşek and B. Duman, “Laodikeia’da bulunan Geç Antik Çağ Unguentariumlar,” Adalya 10 (2007), 285-307 (with English summary). Taylor 2003 R. Taylor, Roman Builders. A Study in Architectural Process, Cambridge, MA 2003. Tchangova 1992 J. Tchangova, Pernik, vol. 3, Sofia 1992. Tekin 2007 O. Tekin, “Bizans Ağırlıkları, Harput Kalesi bir Örnek,” Toplumsal Tarihi 168 (Aralık 2007), 32-5. Tekinalp and Ekim 2006 V. M. Tekinalp and Y. Ekim, Sazpegler. Kuzeydoğu Anadolu’da bir Ortaçağ Yerleşimi (Sazpegler. A Medieval Settlement in North-Eastern Anatolia), Ankara, 2006. Telford, Geldart, Sheriff, and Keys 1976 W.M. Telford, L.P. Geldart, R.E. Sheriff, and D.A. Keys, Applied Geophysics, Cambridge 1976. Temizsoy et al. 1995 İ. Temizsoy, M. Arslan, M. Akalin, and M. Metin, “Ulus Kazısı 1995,” Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1995 Yıllığı, Ankara 1995, 7-36. Temizsoy et al. 2003 İ. Temizsoy, İ. Esen, and S. Ateşoğulları, “Ankara Roma Hamamı 2001 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı,” 13. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 22-26 Nisan 2002, Denizli, Ankara 2003, 145-58. Texier 1862 C. Texier, Asie Mineure. Description géographique, historique et archéologique des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnèse d’Asie. Paris 1862. Theocharidou 1988 K. Theocharidou, “Συμβολή στη μελέτη της παραγωγής οικοδομικών κεραμικών προϊόντων στα βυζαντινά και μεταβυζαντινά χρόνια” Δελτ.Χριστ.Αρχ.Ετ. 13 (1988), 97-112. Thoen 2002 H. Thoen, “Pessinus 2000. Dating the Temple Area: the Evidence of the Finds. A Preliminary Report,” Anatolica Antiqua 10 (2002), 145-54. Theophanes continuatus Theophanes continuatus: Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius monachus, ed. I. Bekker, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 33, Bonn, 1838. Tite and Mullins 1971 M.S. Tite and C. Mullins, “Enhancement of the Magnetic Susceptibility of Soils on Archaeological Sites,” Archaeometry 13 (1971), 209-19.

Treadgold 1997 W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford 1997. Treadgold 2004 W. Treadgold, Review of EHB, American Historical Review 109/1 (2004), 235-6. Trombley 1985 F.R. Trombley, “The Decline of the Seventh-Century Town: The Exception of Euchaita,” in S. Vryonis (ed.), Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, Malibu 1985, 65-90. Trombley 1998 F.R. Trombley, “War, Society and Popular Religion in Byzantine Anatolia (6th-13th Centuries),” in Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.), Athens 1998 (National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research International Symposium 6), 97-139. Trombley 2001 F.R. Trombley, “Town and territorium in Late Roman Anatolia,” in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in LateAntique Urbanism, JRA Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth, RI 2001, 217-32. Trost and Hellmann 1996 C. Trost and M.-C. Hellmann, Lampes antiques du départment des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques III. Fonds général, lampes chrétiennes, Paris 1996. Tuluk 1999 G.G. Tuluk, “Die Unguentarien im Museum von Izmir,” Anatolica Antiqua 7 (1999), 127-66. Tuluk 2003 G.G. Tuluk, “Ionia Bölgesi’nde Hellenistik Döneme ait Kandiller,” in Abadie-Reynal 2003, 17-25. Tülay 1992 A.S. Tülay, “Aphrodisias Müzesi Bahçesi Kurtarma Kazısı-1990,” II. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 29-30 Nisan 1991, Ankara, Ankara 1992, 147-66. Türker 2009 (see also above, Çaylak Türker) A.C. Türker, Demre – Myra Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Bizans Dönemi Sırsız Seramikleri ~ Byzantine Unglazed Pottery of Saint Nicholas Church at Demre – Myra, Adalya Supplementary Series 8, Istanbul 2009. Türkmen and Gaffaroğlu 2005 S. Türkmen and A. Gaffaroğlu, “Antiokheia ad Cragum Mozaikli Alan Kazısı,” 14. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 30 Nisan - 2 Mayıs 2004, Ürgüp/ Nevşehir, Ankara 2005, 7-14. Uçankuş 2002 H.T. Uçankuş, Ana Tanrıça Kybele’nin ve Kral Midas’ın Ülkesi Phrygia, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları 2977, Ankara 2002. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1999 H-P. Uerpmann and M. Uerpmann, “The Camel Burial of al – Buhais 12 (Sharjah, U.A.E.),” in C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters and J. Schibler (eds.) Historia Animalium ex Ossibus. Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie, und Geschichte der Tiermedizin. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden 1999, 455-62.

516

Bibliography

Vikan 1980 G. Vikan, Security in Byzantium: Locking, Sealing and Weighing, Washington, D.C. 1980. Vionis, Poblome, and Waelkens 2009 A.K. Vionis, J. Poblome, and M. Waelkens, “The Hidden Material Culture of the Dark Ages. Early Medieval Ceramics at Sagalassos (Turkey): New Evidence (ca AD 650–800),” AnatSt 59 (2009), 147-65. Vitelli 1982 K.D. Vitelli, “The Lamps,” in G.F. Bass and F.H. van Doorninck, Jr., Yassı Ada. Vol. I. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, College Station, Texas 1982, 189201. Völling 1990 T. Völling, “Schleudergeschosse aus Krefeld-Gellep,” Archäologie im Rheinland 1989, Köln 1990, 129-30. von Saldern 1980 A. von Saldern, Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis, Sardis Monograph 6, Cambridge, MA 1980. Vriezen 1995 K.J.H. Vriezen, “A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (‘tegulae’ and ‘imbrices’) from Areas I and III in Umm Qeis (Jordan),” Newsletter Pottery Technology 13 (Rijksuniversitie Leiden 1995) 26-40. Vroom 1999a J. Vroom, “The Late Roman-Early Byzantine Finds from the Excavations at the Eastern City of Limyra (Turkey),” in J. Borchardt, “Bericht der Grabungs-kampagne in Limyra 1997,” KST 20/2, Tarsus, 25-29 Mayıs 1998, Ankara 1999, 143-45 and 149, figs. 5-6. Vroom 1999b J. Vroom, “Playing Games in the Valley of the Muses. A Medieval Board Game found in Boeotia, Greece,” Pharos 7 (1999), 93-110. Vroom 2003 J. Vroom, After Antiquity. Ceramics and Society in the Aegean from the 7th to the 20th century A.C. A Case Study from Boeotia, Central Greece, Leiden 2003. Vroom 2005a J. Vroom, Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean. An Introduction and Field Guide, Utrecht 2005. Vroom 2005b J. Vroom, “Medieval Pottery from the Artemision in Ephesus: Imports and Locally Produced Wares,” in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäologische Forschungen 13, Vienna 2005, 17-49. Vryonis 1971 S. Vryonis Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 4, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1971. Waagé 1941 F.O. Waagé, “Lamps,” in R. Stillwell (ed.), Antioch-on-theOrontes III: The Excavations of 1937–1939, Princeton, NJ 1941, 55-82.

Umar 2008 B. Umar, Phrygia. Bir Tarihsel Coğrafya Araştırması ve Gezi Rehberi, Istanbul 2008. Uscatescu 2001 A. Uscatescu, “Rapport des fouilles du macellum (Jérash, Jordanie) à la connaissance des céramiques byzantines tardives de Gérasa,” in E. Villeneuve and P.M. Watson (eds.), La céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en SyrieJordanie (IVe-VIIe siècles apr. J.-C., Beirut 2001, 59-76. van der Veen 1991 M. van der Veen, “Consumption or Production? Agriculture in the Cambridgeshire Fens,” in J. Renfrew (ed.), New Light on Early Farming. Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany, Edinburgh 1991, 349-61. van Doorninck 2002 F.H. van Doorninck Jr., “Byzantine Shipwrecks,” in Laiou 2002, 899-905. van Doorninck 2005 F. van Doorninck, “The Ship of Georgios, Priest and Sea Captain: Yassıada, Turkey,” in G.F. Bass (ed.), Beneath the Seven Seas. Adventures with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, London 2005, 92-7. Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003 H. Vanhaverbeke and M. Waelkens, The Chora of Sagalassos. The Evolution of the Settlement Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 5, Turnhout 2003. Vanhaverbeke 2009 H. Vanhaverbeke et al., “What Happened after the 7th Century AD? A Different Perspective on Post-Roman Rural Anatolia,” in in T. Vorderstrasse and J. Roodenberg (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia, PIHANS 113, Leiden 2009, 177-90. van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982 W. van Zeist and J.A.H. Bakker-Heeres, “Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant, 1. Archaeobotanical Studies in the Damascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad,” Palaeohistoria 24 (1982), 165-256. van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1986a W. van Zeist and J.A.H. Bakker-Heeres, “Archaeological Studies in the Levant, 2. Neolithic and Halaf Levels at Ras Shamra,” Palaeohistoria 26 (1986), 151-70. van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1986b W. van Zeist and J.A.H. Bakker-Heeres, “Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant, 3. Late-Palaeolithic Mureybit,” Palaeohistoria 26 (1986), 171-200. van Zeist and de Roller 1991-2 W. van Zeist and G.J de Roller, “The Plant Husbandry of Aceramic Çayönü, SE Turkey,” Palaeohistoria 33/4 (19912), 65-96. Vermaseren 1987 M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque, vol. 2. Graecia atque Insulae, Leiden 1977. Vessberg 1953 O. Vessberg, “Hellenistic and Roman Lamps in Cyprus,” Opuscula Atheniensia 1 (1953), 115-29.

517

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Wace 2008 R. Wace, Ancient Art, sale catalogue, London 2008 (http://www.rupertwace.co.uk/mar2008/rwaa_cataloguemarch-2008.html). Waelkens 1980 M. Waelkens, Die kleinasiatischen Türsteine. Typologie und epigraphische Untersuchungen der kleiasiatischen Grabreliefs mit Scheintür, 2 vols., Mainz 1986. Waelkens and Loots 2000 M. Waelkens and L. Loots (eds), Sagalassos V: Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, vol. 2. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 11/B, Leuven 2000. Waldbaum 1983 J.C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sardis, the Finds through 1974, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 8, Cambridge, MA 1983. Ward-Perkins 2005 B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005. Warry 2006 P. Warry, “A Dated Typology for Roman Roof-Tiles (tegulae),” JRA 19 (2006), 246-65. Waywell and Wilkes 1994 G.B. Waywell and J.J. Wilkes, “Excavations at Sparta: the Roman Stoa, 1988-91. Part 2,” BSA 89 (1994), 376-432. Weinberg 1988 G. Davidson Weinberg (ed.), Excavations at Jalame. Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, Columbia, Miss. 1988. Werner and Anderson 2003 L. Werner and Th. Anderson, “Shepherd’s Best Friend,” Saudi Aramco World (July-August 2003) Houston 2003, 39-43. Westphalen 2000 S. Westphalen, “The Byzantine Basilica at Priene,” DOP 54 (2000), 275-80. Whitehouse 2003 D. Whitehouse, Roman Glass in The Corning Museum of Glass, vol. 3, Corning, NY 2003. Whitehouse, Pilosi, and Wypyski 2000 D. Whitehouse, L. Pilosi, and M.T. Wypyski, “Byzantine Silver Stain,” JGS 42 (2000), 85-96. Whittow 2003 M. Whittow, “Decline and Fall? Studying Long-Term Change in the East,” in L. Lavan and W. Bowden (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden 2003, 404-23. Whittow 2008 M. Whittow, “The Middle Byzantine Economy (600– 1204),” in Shepard 2008, 465-92. Whittow 2009 M. Whittow, “Early Medieval Byzantium and the End of the Ancient World,” Journal of Agrarian Change 9/1 (2009), 134-53. Wickham 2005 C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800, Oxford 2005.

Wiegand 1913 T. Wiegand, Der Latmos. Milet - Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen III.1, Berlin 1913. Wikander 1989 Ö. Wikander, “Roman and Mediaeval Tile-Roofs. Evidence from Representations,” OpRom 17 (1989), 191-203. Williams 1977 C. Williams, “A Byzantine Well-Deposit from Anemurium (Rough Cilicia),” AnatSt 27 (1977), 175-90. Williams 1985 C. Williams, “The Pottery and Glass at Alahan,” in M. Gough (ed.), Alahan. An Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey. Based on the Work of Michael Gough, Pontificial Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 73, Toronto 1985, 35-61. Williams 1989 C. Williams, Anemurium: The Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery, Subsidia Mediaevalia 16, Toronto 1989. Williams 1998 C.K. Williams, et al., “Frankish Corinth: 1997,” Hesperia 67 (1998), 223-81. Williams 1981 H. Williams, Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth V. The Lamps, Leiden 1981. Williams and Taylor 1975 H. Williams and P. Taylor, “A Byzantine Lamp Hoard from Anamur (Cilicia),” AnatSt 25 (1975), 77-84. Winfield 2000 D. Winfield, “The British Contribution to Fieldwork in Byzantine Studies in the Twentieth Century: An Introductory Survey,” in R. Cormack and E. Jeffreys (eds.), Through the Looking Glass: Byzantium through British Eyes: Papers from the Twenty-Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, March 1995, Aldershot 2000, 57-65. Witcomb 2001 D. Witcomb, “Ceramic Production at Aqaba in the Early Islamic Period” in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Wilson (eds.) La Céramique Byzantine et Proto-Islamique en Syrie-Jordanie, Beirut 2001, 297-303. Witte-Orr 2006 J. Witte-Orr, “Pastimes in Amorium: Games and Gameboards,” in Abstracts of Papers. Thirty-Second Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, November 10 – 12, 2006, The University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 2006, 47. Witte-Orr 2007 J. Witte-Orr, “Bricks and Tiles from the Triangular Tower at Amorium,” in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan, A. Osman Uysal, and J. Witte-Orr (eds.), Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological contexts. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Contexts (Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005), Istanbul, 295-308. Wunderlich 2003 C.-H. Wunderlich, “Light and Economy. An Essay about the Economy of Prehistoric and Ancient Lamps,” in L.

518

Bibliography

Chrzanovski (ed.), Nouveautés Lynologiques / Lychnological News, Hautrive 2003, 251-63. Wynn and Sherwood 1984 J.C. Wynn and S.I. Sherwood, “The Self-potential (SP) Method: An Inexpensive Reconnaissance and Archaeological Mapping Tool,” Journal of Field Archaeology 11 (1984), 195-204. Yaman 2010 H. Yaman, “2007–2008 Amorium Kazılarında Bulunan Bir Grup Sikke,” in A.O. Uysal, A. Yavaş, M. Dündar, and O. Koçyiğit (eds.), XII. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu, 15-17 Ekim 2008 Çanakkale, Izmir 2010, 50-8. Yangaki 2005 A.G. Yangaki, La céramique des IVe-VIIIe siècles ap. J.-C. d’Eleutherna, Athens 2005. Yegül 1992 F. Yegül, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, MA 1992. Yegül 2000 F. Yegül, “Baths and Bathing in Roman Antioch”, in C. Kondoleon (ed.), Antioch: The Lost Ancient City, Princeton, NJ 2000, 146-51. Yegül 2003 F. Yegül, “Cilicia at the Crossroads of Transformations of Baths and Bathing Culture in the Roman East,” Olba 8 (2003), 55-72. Yener and Malkoç 2005 A. Yener and N. Malkoç, “Kaleiçi, 148 Ada, 15 Parselde yapılan Sondaj Kazısı,” 14. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 30 Nisan - 2 Mayıs 2004, Ürgüp/ Nevşehir, Ankara 2005, 101-8.

Yener 2002 E. Yener, “Alabanda Antik Kenti Kazı, Temizlik ve Çevre Düzenleme Çalışmaları,” 12. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Nisan 2002, Kuşadası, Ankara 2002, 179-90. Yener et al. 2007 E. Yener et al., “Haydere Geç Roma Mezarı Kurtarma Kazısı 2005,” 15. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 24-26 Nisan 2006, Alanya, Ankara 2007, 193-206. Yılmaz 2005 M. Yılmaz, “Kurtuluş Beldesi (Briula Nekropolü) Kurtarma Kazısı,” 14. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, 30 Nisan - 2 Mayıs 2004, Ürgüp/ Nevşehir, Ankara 2005, 55-62. Yüce and Özdemir 2000 A. Yüce and C. Özdemir, “Amasya İli Merkez İlçe Uygur Beldesi Kurtarma Kazısı,” 10. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 26-28 Nisan 1999, Kuşadası, Ankara 2000, 49-58. Zavagno 2009 L. Zavagno, Cities in Transition: Urbanism in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (AD 500–900), BAR International Series 2030, Oxford 2009. Zohary and Hopf 2000 D. Zohary and M. Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World : The Origin and Spread of Culitvated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. 3rd ed., Oxford 2000. Zollt 1994 T. Zollt, Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: mit einem Beitrag zur Untersuchung des ionischen Kämpferkapitells, Asia Minor Studien 14, Bonn 1994.

519

Errata and Corrigenda Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass P. v, fn. 2 : For pages ‘19-20’ read ‘29-30.’ P. 11, paragraph 1 : In ‘the excavation thus included Trenches H, J, K…’ delete ‘H.’ P. 14, paragraph 1 : For ‘trenches A1-A6’ read ‘trenches A1-A8.’ P. 19 : For ‘Trench Ha-b 1989 Large Building’ read Trench Ha-b 1989 Between Lower City Walls and Large Building.’ See below.

P. 124 : Delete the following (not glass finds) A5/19 SF1821 No. 293 nail SF1828 No. 118 button P. 254, fn. 7 : For ‘See above, 000.’ read ‘See above, 15-16.’ P. 262, fn. 26 : For ‘Stiegemann, Mainz 2001’ read ‘Stiegemann 2001.’ P. 264, fn. 53 :

For ‘intinerant mosaicists’ read ‘itinerant mosaicists.’

P. 19 : For ‘LC5 1996’ read ‘LC5 1998.’

Amorium Reports II: Research Papers and Technical Reports P. i, last line : For ‘1977 – 1999’ read ‘1977 – 1994.’ P. x : For ‘Mainz 1980’ read ‘Mainz 1986.’ P. 4, footnotes 30-31 : Transpose texts. P. 68 : For ‘Mango… Everday Life’ read ‘Mango… Everyday Life.’ P. 69 : For ‘Trench Ha and Hb Large Building’ read ‘Trench Ha-b 1989 Between Lower City Walls and Large Building.’ See below. P. 74 : Add M.H. Sayar, “Kilikya Yüzey Araştırması,” 22. AST, vol. 2, Ankara 2005, 222 and pl. 12: octagonal press stone with cross in relief in circle, found near the village of Bulduklu. P. 75, footnote 18, third line : For ‘(pers. comm.. Peter Kuniholm)’ read ‘(pers. comm. Peter Kuniholm).’ P. 81, footnote 5, second line : For ‘fn. 37’ read ‘fn. 39.’

P. 82 no. 4, and 84 : Add a reference to a very similar buckle found at Otranto, Italy; F. D’Andria and D. Whitehouse (eds.), Excavations at Otranto, Vol. 2: The Finds, Lecce 1992, 283, 294 no. 48, fig. 10:6. P. 84, footnote 24, and 89 : For ‘Kadıoğlu 2000’ read ‘Kadıoğlu 2002.’ P. 87 Group 3 : Nos. 21-23 have now been identified as book clasps, not belt buckles. An example (SF8271) was found at Amorium in 2008; see KST 2010, 146-7, fig. 2. P. 89 : With Kalavasos-Kopetra: McClellan and Rautman 1994, 293 no. 15, add M. Rautman et al., A Cypriot Village of Late Antiquity. Kalavasos-Kopetra in the Vasilikos Valley, JRA Supplement 52, Portsmouth, RI 2003, 108 no. II-191, fig. 3.41. P. 93 : For ‘unpublished PhD dissertation, Albert-LudwigsUniversität Freiburg, 2000’ read ‘PhD dissertation (www. freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/ 531), Albert-LudwigsUniversität Freiburg, 2002.’

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

P. 123 : For ‘These include those that of the Dormition at Skripou, Greece’ read ‘These include sculptures of the Dormition at Skripou, Greece.’

P. 182 : For ‘Roberts and Manchester 1997’ read ‘Roberts and Manchester 1995’ (and refs. in text). P. 190 : For ‘Archaeological textiles Newsletter’ read ‘Archaeological Textiles Newsletter.’

P. 124 : For ‘(Pls. VIII/1-2)’ read ‘(Pl. VIII/1).’ P. 181 : For ‘M.Y. Iscan’ read ‘M.Y. İşcan.’

P. 193, footnote 1, first line : For ‘AHRB Centre for th Evolutionary Analysis…’ read ‘AHRB Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis…’

P. 181-2 : For ‘K.A.R. Kennedy… New York, Liss 1989, 000-000’ read ‘K.A.R. Kennedy, “Skeletal Markers of Occupational Stress,” in M.Y. İşcan and K.A.R. Kennedy (eds.), Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton, New York, Liss 1989, 129-60.’

P. 199 : For ‘GOTR 19.1 (1974), 000-000’ read ‘37-72.’ P. 216 : For ‘Pl. VIII/9’ read ‘Pl. IX/9.’

Amorium Reports 1 and 2: Corrigendum AnatSt 1990, fig. 1. As reported in 1989, it produced ‘several coarse pottery lamps,’ which were subsequently identified as middle Byzantine wheel-made lamps; see AnatSt 1992, 221 nos. 12 and 16, fig. 6; Amorium 2, 66 nos. 7, 10, and 15, and 69.

Both volumes give the mistaken impression that trench H is located at the Large Building in the Lower City.1 In fact the trench, excavated in 1988 and apparently back-filled, is to be found in the open, unused area between the Large Building and the Lower City Walls. Its position is indicated on contemporary site plans; see AnatSt 1989, 173, with fig. 2 (on p. 170);

1 I thank Nikos Tzivikis for bringing this mistake to my attention

[CSL].

522

General Index A

49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 75, 80, 87, 97, 224, 387, 425, 429, 446, 452, 477, 482, 483 Drains 22, 25, 28, 46, 88 EB structure 4 11, 16, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 39, 40, 41, 139 Enclosure fortification ix, 5-11, 66-8, 80-1, 83-4, 476 Excavation history ix, 6 Furnaces 82, 97 Glass workshop 7, 14, 50, 58, 59, 60, 62, 97 Hypolenia (Hypolenion) 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 91, 93, 126, 127, 129, 131, 140, 141 Periodisation 6 Structure designations 10-11 Tanneries 477 Tannery 15, 47, 83, 422, 423, 433, 441, 476 Treading floors 17, 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 92 Trench designations (X-series) 6, 9, 10, 25 Troughs 12, 15, 38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 55, 56, 62, 66, 77, 89, 90, 124, 142, 143, 145, 406 Wine press 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 93, 116, 149 Winery 30, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 71, 87, 431 Lower City Excavation Trenches (excluding Enclosure): Trench AB 24, 64, 65, 81, 85, 162, 183, 185, 218, 221, 245, 246, 247, 251, 264, 268, 278, 280, 281, 284, 285, 288, 298, 299, 303, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323, 324, 326, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 339, 340, 381, 395, 396, 400, 418, 421, 422, 443, 444 Trench LC 228 Lower City Large Building 189, 203, 245, 254, 255, 289, 311, 341, 350 Lower City Walls (fortifications) xvii, 2, 24, 28, 42, 65, 85, 154, 185, 189, 217, 221, 227, 228, 245, 246, 251, 254, 264, 268, 269, 278, 280, 281, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290, 298, 299, 300, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323, 324, 326, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339, 340, 345, 349, 383, 421, 443, 444, 447, 474, 475, 521, 522 Upper City Excavation Trenches: Trench L 68, 81, 83, 85, 183, 184, 197, 203, 218, 219, 221, 222, 228, 234, 235, 236, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 257, 264, 265, 267, 269, 277, 280, 281, 285, 288, 289, 290, 314, 316, 320, 323, 329, 332, 333, 335, 339, 382, 444, 447, 474 Trench TT 97, 160, 185, 189, 234, 235, 236, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 258, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 280, 289, 301, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317,

Abbasid, caliphate; period 57, 391, 475 Acemhöyük 445 Acrocorinth, Corinth 268 Aelianos, brick stamp of 284, 305, 306 Aezani 181, 188, 281 Aezanitis survey 484 African Red Slip Ware (ARS) 156 Afyonkarahisar ix, xiv, 181, 225, 226, 399, 455, 469, 471, 478, 479 Afyonkarahisar Archaeological Museum 8, 24, 97, 194, 195, 196, 227, 234, 235, 250, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 280, 281, 381, 383, 415, 451, 475, 482 Akroinon (Afyonkarahisar) 478 Alahan 188 Albania 28, 162, 301, 307, 483 al-Buhais 12, dromedary 426 Alexander, the Great, Macedonian king 478 Alexius I Comnenus, emperor 84 Alfonso X, king of Castile 280, 282 al-Harawi, Persian traveller 473 Alişar Höyük 445 al-Muqaddasi, Arab geographer 225 al-Mu‘tas.im, Abbasid caliph 9, 388, 391, 470, 479 Alquerque 282 al-Sarī, emir, Abbasid governor 380, 383 al-Tabari, The History of Prophets and Kings 65 Altars 45 Altıntepe 303 al-Walīd I, Umayyad caliph 380 Amik, lake 446 Amisos (Samsun) 183 Amman (Philadelphia), Jordan 475 Amorian dynasty 60, 226, 427 Amorium monuments and excavation areas: Lower City Basilica D 50 Lower City Church complex (Basilica A) 5, 50 Lower City Enclosure: Archaeological methodology 7-8 Bathhouse complex (EB structures 1 and 3) 11, 14, 19, 20, 24, 34, 87 Chapel 14, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 60, 77, 78, 84, 86 Courtyards 11, 20, 21, 26, 37, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 54, 61, 81, 83 Destruction layers 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 55, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 73, 74, 77, 84, 92, 117, 153, 154, 156, 162, 226, 263, 284, 299, 310, 344, 388, 422, 484 Discovery 2, 5, 10, 12, 23, 26, 28, 39, 44, 45, 47,

523

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Bayat, Afyon province 469, 478, 479, 486 Belt buckle 90, 95, 263, 276, 521 Beyşehir, lake 475 Biblioteca de El Escorial, Madrid 282 Bibliothèque national de France, Paris 195 Black Sea 183, 225 Blue Coil Ware (glass) 82 Boğazköy-Boğazkale 48 Bolvadin 66, 478 Bolvadin Municipal Museum 39, 138 Book of the Eparch 424 Bozburun shipwreck 244, 297 Brick stamps 24, 284, 299, 304, 305, 306, 480 Britain, Roman 300 British Academy 486 British Museum, London 243, 277, 285, 381 Buldan, Phrygia 182, 188 Burma 451 Buttons 266, 267, 268 Byzantine imperial army 84, 455

319, 322, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 341, 342, 352, 353, 477 Trench ST 234, 236, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 258, 278, 280, 285, 289, 290, 316, 328, 331, 332, 333, 334, 352, 381, 444, 445, 447 Trench UU 234, 235, 236, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 258, 265, 267, 268, 270, 280, 289, 314, 315, 317, 319, 326, 331, 334, 336, 339, 342, 353, 445, 447 Anastasius I, emperor 91 Anatolics, theme, see Anatolikon Anatolikon, theme of 1 Ancyra (Ankara) 473, 474, 478 Andriake 446 Anemurium 157, 186, 188, 486 Ankara, castle (kale) 472 Anna Comnena 281 Anonymous follis (folles) 69, 78, 80, 85, 90, 201, 225, 423, 425, 484 Antalya 188, 390 Antalya Museum 14 Antioch, Pisidian 184, 188, 469 Antioch-on-the-Orontes (Antakya) 188, 281 Apameia (Dinar) 478 Aperlae 443 Aphrodisias 184, 188, 281, 283, 306, 446 Aphrodisias, Baths of Hadrian 283 Aphrodite 234 Apodyteria (Apodyterium) 14, 20, 21, 24, 28, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 133, 134, 298 Apuleius 426 Aqueduct, aqueduct of Valens 51 Arab invasions 29, 50, 59, 186, 380, 419, 474 Arabs 1, 2, 61, 65, 226, 380, 473, 474, 475, 476 Arcadius, emperor 20 Artemios, saint 379 Askri, Boeotia 285 Assos 233, 425 Assyrian Trading Colony Period 445 Astragali 278, 289, 423 Astrakhan leather 83 Athenian Agora 186 Athenian Agora, Church of the Holy Apostles 307 Athinganoi 419 Attis 234 Augustopolis, Phrygia 305

C Caesarea Maritima 381 Cairo, Geniza documents 380 Caldaria (Caldarium) 14, 21, 22, 24, 52, 62, 63, 79, 83, 90, 95, 151, 309, 392, 460, 461, 468 Calder, William 469, 470, 489 Carthage-Dermech 302 Caunus 188 Charioteer 234 Cherson, Crimea 280, 476 Chersonesos Museum 279 Christogram 39, 52 Cilician Gates 478, 479 Cnidus 188 Coin(s) ii, 46, 61 Columella (De Re Rustica) 398 Comb 263, 268 Conrad III, Holy Roman emperor 479 Constans II 38, 41, 50, 64, 202 Constanta, Roumania 244 Constantine, son of Theophilus 18, 32, 35, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 154, 388, 389, 392, 427, 484 Constantine IV, emperor 41, 90 Constantine V, emperor 51 Constantine VII, emperor 71 Constantine X Ducas, emperor 78, 82, 85, 86 Constantine X Ducas and Eudocia 85, 226 Constantinople, see Istanbul Constantinopolitan Glazed White Ware 156, 165 Corinth 24, 222, 224, 243, 267, 277, 279, 280, 308, 310, 379, 381, 476 Corinth, Panayia baths 308 Corning Museum of Glass 483 Cotiaeum (Kotyaion, Kütahya) 478

B Babylon 233 Balkans xiii, 159, 200 Ballance, Michael 11, 470, 491 Balnea (Balneum) 21, 23, 28, 460 Barley 55, 62, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 410, 411, 413, 415, 416, 417 Basil I, emperor 66, 91, 201 Basil II, emperor 80

524

General Index

Gayrettepe, Mersin 182 Gaziantep Museum 188 Gemiler Adası (Karacaören) 188 Geoponica 48, 49, 63 George Pachymeres 474 Gladiator 233, 234 Glass, dichroic xvi, 57, 59, 62, 89, 90, 483 Glass, tesserae xv, xvii, 483 Glass working 58, 59, 97, 476 Godwinsson, Swein 452 Gordion 181, 233, 234, 264, 478 Gökova Nergis Burnu shipwreck 297 Gözeli 478 Gözlükule, Tarsus 182, 188 Gratian, emperor 46 Greece 2, 22, 154, 162, 233, 267, 434, 484, 522

Council, Sixth Oecumenical 1 Croesus, king of Lydia 425 Crusades, Crusaders 390, 479 Cybele 233, 234 Cyprus 265, 267, 379, 472, 483 Cyrus, the Great King of Persia 425 Çanlı Kilise, Cappadocia 82 Çatalhöyük 182, 390, 445, 446, 487 Çifteler, Sakaryabaşı (Eskişehir) 479

D Davulga 5, 182, 183, 184, 479 Delos 265 Dereağzı 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309 Didyma 443 Dodona 305 Donuktaş, Tarsus 182, 188, 234 Doorstones, Phrygian xv, 470, 474

H Hacimuharrem, Kastamonu 482 Hacimusalar 425 Hadrianoupolis, Paphlagonia 188 Halicarnassus 182, 186, 188 Hamilton, William John 11, 469, 470, 471, 478, 479, 488 Hammat Gader, Israel 266 Harput, Kale Camii (Elazığ) 381 Harrison, Richard Martin xiii, xv, xvi, 9, 10, 11, 243, 264, 265, 268, 277, 278, 279, 280, 307, 311, 445, 470, 471, 473, 474, 475, 481, 484, 485, 491 Hassek Höyük 425 Hebraike (Hanköy) 479 Heraclius, emperor 41, 46, 202, 226 Heraion Teichos (Karaevlialtı), Tekirdağ 446 Herakles 186 Heraklion, Crete 267 Hergan Kaléh (Ergankale, Herjan = Amorium) 469 Herodotus, historian 425 Hierapolis 24, 48, 83, 162, 186, 188 Hisarcık (Amorium) xiv, 86, 469 Hisarköy, village ix, xv, 5, 11, 35, 48, 455, 469, 471, 478, 479 Hittites 455, 470, 472 Honorius, emperor 20 Hunting 391, 429, 430, 431 Hypocaust 14, 21, 62, 79, 90, 95, 124, 151, 308, 325, 338, 460, 468

Dorylaeum (Dorylaion) 452, 478, 479 Doukas xiv, 474 Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. xi, xiv, 5, 41, 382, 470, 471, 486, 487, 493 Dura Europos, Artemis temple 308

E Eastern Sigillata Ware 166 Egypt xiv, 1, 225, 380, 381, 383 Elaiussa-Sebaste 183, 188 Emirdağ, Afyon province xv, 23, 48, 455, 478, 479, 486 Ephesus 186, 188, 200, 234, 303, 306, 307, 452, 472, 480, 486, 517 Ephesus, Artemision 452 Ephesus, Ayasoluk (St. John’s Basilica) 188, 472 Ephesus, Church of St. Mary 303 Erenköy 188 Eros 234 Eskişehir, see Dorylaeum Eugenios, brick stamp of 284, 305, 306

F Firmalampe 225 Fıratlı, Nezih, archaeologist 470 Flavius Photius 281 Foss, Clive, historian 29, 50, 277, 301, 309, 473, 474 Frankish period 285 Frigidaria (Frigidarium) 21, 22, 52, 62, 94, 124, 460 Furüssiyya literature 391

I Iasos 188, 481 Ibn-Hawqal, geographer 423 Iconium (Ikonion, Konya) 48, 469, 472, 478 Imbrices (roof tiles) (imbrex) 35, 298, 299, 301, 302, 308, 309, 310, 311, 316, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 341, 346, 371, 372 Iraq 391, 473, 475

G Galatia 181, 470 Gambling 281

525

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

Kovuklukaya, Sinop 390 Kurşunlu 24 Kussaray Kale, Çorum 183

Israel 13, 47, 201, 234, 282, 493 Istanbul (Constantinople): 21, 24, 51, 60, 81, 154, 162, 186, 299, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 379, 388, 424, 430, 431, 452, 455, 473, 475, 478, 480, 487 Istanbul Archaeological Museums 226, 233, 482 Great Palace 188 Hagia Eirene 24 Hagia Sophia 298 Kâlenderhane Camii and baths 188 Myrelaion Palace 81 Palace of Antiochus 308 Saraçhane (St. Polyeuktos) 154, 186, 188, 243, 264, 277, 278, 279, 280, 305, 445 Topkapı baths 24, 27 Yenikapı (harbour excavations) 265, 267, 268, 280 Zeyrek Camii (Pantokrator) 297 Italy xvii, 1, 188, 233, 521 Iwan 70 Izmir Archaeological Museum 183 İkiztepe, Samsun 390 İleği, Pisidia 188

L Labova e Kryqit, Albania 307 Labraunda 277 Lamps, ‘Amorium’-type 193, 200, 201, 203, 213, 214 Lamps, ‘Aqaba’-style 201 Lamps, ‘Asia Minor’-type 193 Lamps, Cypriot 201 Lamps, Egyptian 201 Lamps, glass 226, 227 Lamps, Islamic 201, 217 Lamps, ‘saucer’ 197, 201, 217, 224, 225, 226, 480, 481 Laodiceia, Phrygia 86, 182, 186, 187, 188, 382 Late Roman C ware (LRC) 156, 163, 165, 166, 168, 169, 186, 482 Latmos 300 Latrinae (Latrina) 21, 22, 135, 423, 460, 461 Latrunculi 282 Lebanon 451 Leo, bishop of Synada 225, 431 Leo III, emperor 34, 37, 38, 53 Leo IV, emperor 53 Leo V, emperor 35, 41, 54, 57, 89, 91, 93, 97 Leo VI, emperor 64, 66 Letoon 188 Lidar Höyük 188, 425 Limyra 182, 188 Livy, Roman historian 479

J Jalame 243 Jerash, Jordan 187 Jewellery 87, 452 John, illustris of Amorium 429 John I Tzimiskes, emperor 66, 80 Jordan river 187 Julian of Ascalon, author 476 Justin I, emperor 24 Justin II, emperor 34, 41, 90, 202 Justinian I, emperor 24 Justinian II, emperor 41, 90

M Macedonia 281 Maeander valley 300 Malagina 478 Mālik b. Dalham 383 Maltepe Necropolis, İneceğiz, Thrace 234 Mancala, board game 283 Manlius Vulso, Cn. 479 Mansura 278 Manzikert, battle of 84, 473 Marbles, toy 253, 277, 283, 289 Maroneia, Greece 267 Martyria 187 Martyrs, forty-two of Amorium xvii, 470, 473 Maurice Tiberius, emperor 41, 202 Maximianus, emperor 226 Megara, Greece 234 Meriamlık (St. Thecla), Cilicia 24 Metropolis (city) 188, 235, 268 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York xi, 1, 97, 217, 227, 233, 278, 379, 382, 383, 469, 483, 486 Michael II, emperor 35, 61, 62, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 154, 156, 473

K Kalabaktepe, Miletus 425 Kaman-Kalehöyük 425, 426 Karanis, Egypt 278 Kastamonu Museum 482 Kastoria 307 Kastron 472, 475, 481 Kayseri 472 Kedrea 479 Kemerli Kilise, Trilye 406 Kerch 279 Kibyra 187, 188, 233 Kilns, pottery 82, 301, 303, 481 Kitchens 82, 83 Kocakızlar Tumulus, Eskişehir (Dorylaeum) 452 Konya, see Iconium Konya Archaeological Museum 48 Korucutepe 425 Kourion, Cyprus 379

526

General Index

Michael III, emperor 65, 66, 474 Michael, the Syrian, chronicler 479 Midas City, Phrygia 233 Milestones 478 Miletus, survey 300 Monasteries: Hattusa-Boğazköy 72 Spiliotou 82 Mother Goddess 233 Museo Nazionale Romano alla Terme di Diocleziano, Rome 234 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 233, 425 Mylasa 382 Myra (Demre), Church of St. Nicholas 188, 390, 481

Paul, brick stamp of 304 Perachora 283 Pergamon 282, 284, 300, 309, 425, 472, 486 Perge 182, 186, 188, 305 Persepolis 283 Persian Royal Road 478 Pessinus (Ballıhisar) 181, 188, 200, 233, 267, 268, 421, 422, 429, 430, 431, 432, 446, 469, 478, 484 Philomelium (Akşehir) 469, 477, 478 Phocaea 187 Phocaean Red Slip Ware 163, 166, 168, 169 Phocas, emperor 41, 202, 305 Phrygia xiii, xv, xvii, 48, 84, 181, 182, 188, 200, 233, 234, 305, 470, 479, 487, 489 Pilgrimage, pilgrims (Varangian) 24, 186, 451, 452, 478, 482 Pisidia 181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 446 Pliny the Elder (Natural History) 398 Pococke, Richard 469, 478, 479 Polis, board game 282 Polybotus (see also Bolvadin) 66, 303 Pottery (Amorium): Amorium Glazed Ware (AGM) 153, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Beige Fine Ware 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Black-Coated Grey Ware 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 Brown Fine Ware 158, 161, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169 Burnished Red Ware 34 Burnished Ware 53, 75, 76, 80, 90, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 167 Coarse Ware 34, 53, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Common Ware 34, 53, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169 Fine Red Ware 153, 155, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 Grey Ware 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Micaceous Common Ware 166 Piecrust Rim Ware 156, 157, 165 Red Painted Ware 53, 56, 144, 159 Praefurnia (Praefurnium) 13, 14, 16, 21, 27, 30, 37, 50, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 79, 90, 97, 134, 143, 151 Preslav, Bulgaria 476 Press weight 33, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 55, 75, 138 Priene 235, 300 Princeton University Art Museum 281

N Naissus 279 Nakoleia (Seyitgazi) 479 Nicaea (Iznik) 306, 390, 472, 476 Nicaea, St. Sophia 306 Nicephorus I, emperor 54, 57, 64, 65, 89, 90, 93, 484 Nicephorus II, emperor 69, 75 Nicephorus II Phocas, emperor 69, 75, 77, 79, 80, 97 Nicephorus Melissenus 84 Nine Men’s Morris 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287 North Africa 301 Norwich, Castle Mall 434, 472, 477, 478 Nummus, coin 78, 226 Nymphaion, Crimea 452 Nysa 188, 382

O Olive cultivation, production 48, 59, 225 Opus mixtum 21, 24, 25, 298 Opus reticulatum 308 Opus sectile 53, 310 Orkistos xiii, 479 Orontes River (Antakya) 446 Ostrogorsky, George, historian 1, 2 Otranto, Italy 267, 521 Ottoman, period 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 84, 85, 86, 105, 263, 455 Ovid, Roman poet 282

P Palaestrae (Palaestra) 26 Palestine 186, 493 Palma di Majorca, archaeological museum 265 Pamphylia 186 Panakton, Greece 309 Parion 233 Patara 182, 188 Patnos 452

Q Quarries 22 Quinisext (or Trullan) Council 1 Quseir al-Qadim 244

527

Amorium Reports 3 / The Lower City Enclosure

R

Tegula (Tegulae) (roof tiles) 35, 297, 299, 302, 308, 309, 310, 330, 331, 332, 333, 341, 342, 346, 372, 373 Tekirdağ Museum 446 Tepidaria (Tepidarium) 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 51, 57, 62, 63, 79, 83, 85, 90, 134, 151, 309, 392, 460, 461, 468 Thebes, Greece 279, 280 Theodora, empress 305 Theodore of Sykeon, saint 429 Theodosius I, emperor 89 Theophanes continuatus, Byzantine chronicle 65 Theophilus, emperor 18, 32, 35, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 154, 388, 389, 392, 427, 484 Thermae, public 24 Thessalonica (Thessaloniki) xvii, 280, 388, 472, 473, 476, 481 Thomas, “monk (of the monastery) of Spiliotou” 82 Thymiateria (Thymiaterion) 63 Tiberius II, emperor 41, 51, 90, 202 Tiberius III, emperor 34 Toggle 264, 265, 274, 276 Trapezus (Trabzon) 472 Trilye, Kemerli Kilise 406 Troy 233, 425, 452 Turkish General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums 8 Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria 476 Twelve Men’s Morris 282, 285, 287

Rabat, Malta 265 Ramsay, Sir William M. 469, 478, 479, 487 Red Sea 445, 446 Rhodes 186, 267, 281 Ring weights 380 Romanus I Lecapenus, emperor 66, 70, 81 Rome, city of 1 Ruralisation, in Byzantine cities 2, 50 Rus, envoys, merchants 452 Rye 397, 398, 403, 404, 405, 410, 411, 413

S Sagalassos 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188, 225, 244, 297, 301, 425, 446, 481, 482, 483 Salamis, Cyprus 243 Samarra, Iraq 473 Sandıklı 478 Sangarius (Sakarya), river 446, 479 San Giovanni Evangelista in San Cesario di Lecce, church of 282 Saracık near Bozüyük (Phrygia) 48 Saraçhane, see Istanbul Sardis 188, 233, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305, 379, 382, 425, 443, 446, 472, 486 Sardis, Temple of Artemis 233 Scythian tombs (kurghans) 452 Seals, lead 41, 473 Seleuceia Sidera 184, 188 Seljuk, period; Seljuks 5, 6, 9, 11, 85, 105, 263, 395, 403, 427, 474 Senet, Egyptian board game 283 Serçe Limanı, shipwreck 278 Serres, Greece 434 Side 188 Sivrihisar 469, 478 Skepsis, Troad 233 Skripou, Greece 307, 522 Spindle whorls 57, 92, 95, 250 Steelyard 57, 63, 95, 380, 382 Strabo 470 Stylus 57, 63, 91, 95, 265, 269, 274 Sudatoria (Sudatorium) 52, 62, 79, 80, 90 Syedra 188 Syria 1, 21, 382, 446, 455 Şahan Kaya 309

U Uluburun, shipwreck 452 Umayyad, period 380 Unguentarium (unguentaria) vii, 7, 33, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 244, 482 Ümraniye 479

V Valens, emperor 46, 51 Valentinian I, emperor 46 Valentinian II, emperor 20 Vasiliev, A.A. 470 Veliko Turnovo, Bulgaria 268 Virgin Mary 184

W West Necropolis, Amorium 194, 195, 200, 203, 223, 224, 228, 267, 270 Wheat 55, 397, 398, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 410, 411, 413, 415, 416, 417

T Tabula, a version of backgammon 279, 283 Tarsus xv, 188, 234, 267 Taşkapı, kiln 301, 302 Taşkun Kale 188

528

General Index

X Xanthus 186, 188, 267 Xenones (Xenon) 28, 41

Y Yalıncak 188 Yalvaç Museum 183 Yassı Ada, shipwreck 196, 200, 202, 244, 299, 309, 310, 332, 346, 380, 381, 382 Yenice, Afyonkarahisar 226 Yenikapı, see Istanbul York, England 268 Yumuktepe, Mersin 217, 222, 227, 267, 480

Z Zeno, emperor 305, 474

529